."iu IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V / :/ O v*jt3 ! I.I 1.25 .5 1.0 .fi^ Hi Iff lis ill 2.2 " lis 110 1.8 111 1116 V] <^ /}. 7 '^^1 c^: e^ ^-, . *# ''^ /^ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTEK.N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ iV iV \\ % V 6^ '^^f^ a^ a^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical end Bibliographic Notes/i^otes techniques et biblicgraphiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n n n n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue cu noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with oth:;r material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de ia marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont pot^- dtre uniques du point de vue bibiiographiquc , qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D D D D a n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou peliiculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire fllrn^ fut reproduit grfice A la g6n6rciit6 de: L& bibliothdque des Archives pubiique» cu Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other origmal copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to light and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, comptct tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filrn^, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commandant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s i des taux d» reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6. il est film6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 i ; : SIR CHARLES METCALFE DEFENDED u AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF I 4 HIS LATE COUNSELLORS: BY EGERTON RYERSON. TORONTO: P1?INTED AT THE BRITISH COLONIST OFFICE, 137 King Street. 1844. .Xt. ■i-.- ./ INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. . Tub Rev. Eorrton Rtbrson takes this method of informing the Public, that he proposes to offer some remarks in defence of Sir CuARLRS Metcalfe, against the attacks of his late Advisers, and to prove hy their own testimony, given on different occasions, that His Excellency is entitled to the verdict of the country, on every count of the indictment got up against him. Sir Charles Metcalfe may say to the People of Canada, as Themistocles said to the Athenians, who were incensed against him— . " Strike but hear mk." And if the Public have heard six or seven hundred pages of accusations against Sir Charles, in the form ofspeechesi addresses, editorials and commucications— -it is believed they will do His Excellency the justice of hearing one hundred and fifty pages of calm reasoning in his defence. Mr. Ryerson (unsolicited by any human being) has been prompted to this course by the recent " Address of the Toronto Reform Association to the People of Cavada." If that address (sound in general principles) be true in /act and in insinuation, then is Sir Charles Metcalfe all that is tyrannical and base, and the British Government is a compound of despotism and treachery ; Sir Charles should be dethroned, and the Imperial Government should be hated and despised : and no general declarations of respect for the one or the other, can prevent such feelings from possessing the mind of every reader who imbibes the spirit of that most insidious and calumnious addresa. The legal and constitutional connexion between the people of Canada and their Government may remain ; but the moral connexion — the connexion of confidence and affection, tlie only connexion of strength and happiness — must cease to Mr. Ryerson'p reply to the accusers of His Excellency, will be contained in ten or twelve numbers — to be first published in the British Colonist, afterwards in pamphlet form, occupying from 100 to 150 pages. The first number will appear in the Colonist of Friday next, the SIst instant, preceded by a prefaratory address to the inhabitants of Canada West, on the present crisis, and stating the circumstances and considera- tions under which the author comes before the public on this momentouB occasion. Mr. Ryerson avails himself of this occasion to eay, that the distin- guished title which was conferred upon him some time since, has never -- .M? - IV been adopted by him, nor used in his household — that he thinks the old name is bettor known and more appropriate than the new one — that he likes new names no better than he likos novel docrincs. Mr. Ryerson has not thought proper, under present circumstances, to accept the oi!ice of Superintendent of Education ; nor has any political office ever been offered to him. And he is ready to relinquish any situation which he now fills rather than not accomplish this imperative undertaking. For if a Leonidas and three hundred Spartans could throw themselves into the Thermopote of death for the salvation of their country, it would ill become one humble Canadian to hesitate at any sacrifice, or shrink from any responsibility, or even danger, in order to prevent his own countrymen from rushing into a vortex, which he is most certainly persuaded, will involve many of them in calamities more serious than those which followed the events of 1837. Those editors of Canada West, who wish both sides of the differences between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Advisers, to be fully understood by the Canadian public, are respectfully requested to insert this notice. Should any editors honour Mr. Ryerson or his productions with notices, he requests as a favour, that they will have the goodness to forward, at his expense, to his address at Cobourg, the papers in which those notices may be inserted, as he may have occasion to refer to them. Cobourg, May 27, 1844. s»-«. PREFATORY ADDRESS. FELLOW-CHRISTIANS AND FELLOW-SUBJECTS OF WESTERN CANADA : Permit one, tlio study of whoso life has been the welfare of his native country, to address you a few words at this portentous crisis of oar provincial history. By the events of 1837, and the safety and welfare of your families, I warn you to pause before you tie yourselves any closer to that knot of a certain class of lawyers, who, with the decoy of two or three honest stool pigeons, figure in the Toronto Reform Association. In 1834, 1 gave a similar warning shortly after the then called "Con- stitutional Reform Association" was established in Toronto. In 18S7, my warning predictions were realized to the ruin of many and the misery of thousands. What took place in 1837 was but a preface of what may be witnessed in 1847. The principles of the Association of 1844 are constitutional ; so were the principles of the Association of 1834. The present Association includes names of the highest respectability ; 60 did the former Association include the most respectable as well as the most learned names of that day. The former Association, with the profession of sound principles, dis-\ tilled and l>reathed out a subtle poison against all that constituted the' health ard stability of Colonial Government, which developed itself in the convulsions of 1837. The present Association, with the avowal of constitutional principles and the assertion of sound maxims, breathes, in its recent "Address to the People of Canada," the deadliest hatred against the Representative of Sovereignty, and the darkest insinuations against all the exercises and ramifications of Imperial and Colonial Government — engendering and exasperating a spirit which may be neither under self- control nor legal control before 1847. In 1834, I stated that I did not believe there was one out of one hundred of the members and disciples of that Association who contem- plated any thing beyond what was lawful and constitutional, but there were active and leavening elements in their proceedings, which, like the use of spirituous liquors, or the indulgence of the sensual appetites^ would urge them to deeds and to projects at which they then shuddered. I say the same in regard to the supporters of the present Association. , \ 6 But the spirit of the foniier Association was only a shade of the virus which circulates throu;e — who, two years ago, spoke against accepting the Solicit,or-(ienerul,ship of Canada West (should it bo offered to him) because ho would not bo in a government with such men as Messrs. Sullivan and Ilincks, can now not only organize with such men, but hold up Sir Charles Metcalfe under the character of Warren Hastings, and exhibit the King and Government, nnd even People of Great Britain, in colours of the deepest depravity and barbarism ; what may not he and others like him bo found doing against the British Sove- reign's Representative in Canada two years hence 1 I therefore solemnly warn all who have the safety and best interests of themselves and families at heart, to pause before thoy enlist under the banners of the "Toronto Reform Association." And I warn those who have been drawn into it, to disentangle themselves before they become inveigled to their ruin. There is a political as well as physical intoxication, and an enthusiasm 'of political as well as religious millekism ; and there is as much danger of the world of nations coming to an end in 1844, as there is of the prin- ciple of Responsible Government coming to an end unless perpetuated by the Toronto Association. I have hitherto been a silent but deeply attentive spectator of passing events. I accorded with the general measures of the late administration. I entertained for some members of it the esteem and regard of personal friendship. Their resignation introduced questions which I had not investigated in the pages of history. I viewed it with regret and concern. From their explicit and earnest explanations I believed they were right. I felt that on the question placed by them before the House of Assembly, it came to the only constitutional decision. I believed Sir Charles Metcalfe had mistaken his way, or been advised into error; yet the peculiar character of his written statement, and the conscious integrity it evinced, excited a belief that something still remained unexplained, and my curiosity was awakened. Statements of certain members of the Assembly, who voted with the majority and whom I saw after the proro- gation, satisfied mo that all had not been told. I at length observed in Mr. Sullivan's explanatory speech — evidently written out by himself, and first published in the Montreal press, statements omitted by Mr. Baldwin, and equivalent to what the Governor General had asserted as the real ground of difference between him and his Council. I subsequently saw a more explicit statement to the same effect by Mr. Hincks. I was convinced that the fundamental f|uestion at isfluo between the Oovernor General and his late Counsellors liud not been brourrht boloro the House ; that he was a misrepresented and an injured imiri. Hut I HU|)posed the ordinary means of public discussion woidd elicit the truth ; and I trusted that a mutual understanding and reconciliation would follow. I wdh at one time inclined to suggest that remedy, and what ap|)eared to mo an honorable and feasible means of a])plying it. I desired to remain on terms of amity with both, parties. The organization of the Toronto Association by one of the parties concerned, dumped iny hopes of such a consummation; its subsequent proceedings have extinguished them; its lost address has put neutrality out of the (piestion. While God gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to write, I will not passively see honorable integrity murdered by grasping faction, and spotless cha- racter and generous humanity hewn down by party combination. I would not do so in 1838, when an attempt was made to degrade and proscribe and drive out of the country all naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all reformers with the brand of rebellion, — ^is much as I have olways disliked the pf culiar institutions of the United States, and as much as I had then been recently maligned by many Reformers, — although there were then no Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks who could or dared speak for theui, and no Mr. Sullivan who would speak for them. I relieved the name of an injured James S. Howard from the obloquy that hung over it, and rescued the character and rights of exiled Bidwell from ruthless invasion, and the still further eftbrt to cover him with perpetual infamy by expelling him from the Law Society. In behalf of these classes and individuals, every member of the Toronto Association was as silent as the grave and as powerless as he was silent. I will not see — to say the least — an equally noble character in the person of Sir Charles Metcalfe branded with all that is base and infamous by a kindred spirit and a kindred combination. His exalted Btption does not strip him of the rights of justice ; nor does his being the representative of royalty deprive him of the allegiance of humanity. I have surveyed every step of the ground involved. I have weighed every argument and examined every fact. I know the country whom I address. I know the men with whom I have to do; and formidable though they be, I fear them not. Justice has more power over the human conscience than party combinations ; and one smooth pebble of truth possesses more virtue than a thousand Goliath spears of political Philistinism. : .. i.i I was about entering upon the peaceful work — a work extensive and varied beyond the powers of the most untiring and vigorous intellect — a work down to this time almost entirely neglected — of devising and constructing (by the concurrence of the people, through their District •'* \ B^' Councils) a fabric of Provincial Common Bchool Educutiun—- of endett" youriag to stud the land with appropriate school housoH— of supplying thsm with appropriate bookit nnd teachers— of raising a wretched en)pIo7> ment to an honourable profcHuion — of giving uniformity, eitnplicily and efficiency to a general ayHtem of elenicntary educational instruction— of bringing appropriate books for the iniprovoment of hid profession within the reach of every schoolmaster, and increased facilities for the atiaininent of his stipulated remuneration — of establishing a library in every district, and extending branches of it into every township— of striving to developO) by writing and discourses in towns, villages and neighbourhoods, the latent intellect, the most precious golden wealth of the country — and of leaving no ei&rt unemployed within the limited range of my humblo abilities, to make Western Canada what she is capable of being made, the brightest gem in the crown of her Britannic Majesty. Such was the work about to be assigned to me; and such v/os the work I was resolving, in humble dependence upon the divine aid, to undertuke ; and no heart bounds more than mine with desire, and hope, ahd joy, at the prospect of seeing, at no distant day, every child of my native land in the school going way--and every intellect provided with the appropriate elements of sustetiance and enjoyment — and of witnessing one comprehensive and unique system of education, from the a.b.c. of the child up to the matricu- lation of the youth into the Provincial University, which, like Iho vaulted arch of heaven, would exhibit an identity of character throughout, and present an aspect of equal benignity to every sect and every party upon the broad basis of our common Christianity. But I arrest myself from such a work — leave it perhaps to other hands, and the glory of its accomplishment to deck another's brow, and if need be to resign every other official situation ; and unsolicited, unadvised by any human being — inwardly impelled by a conviction of what is due to my Sovereign, to my country, to a fellow man, I take up the pen of vindication, of reasoning, of warning and appeal, against criminations and proceedings and impending evils, which, if they be not checked and arrested, will accomplish more than the infamous Oatraciem of an Aristidea, render every other effort to improve and elevate Canada abortive, and strew in wide-spread desolation over the land the ruins of the throne and ita government. In this momentous matter, I ask you not to take my word for one particle of what may be asserted. My appeal throughout will be to unchallenged documents and indisputable published facts, which cannot be successfully denied by numbers or resisted by combinations. I know of old what party assassination of motives and character is. I hare met it. I can do so again. I have lived it down. I heed it not. Long before W1 9 any one of the Toronto Associi.tion had a political oxitttcnce as a pubhc man in the rankH of civil rightii, 1 battled the cause of equal privilegesi from the right to a bit of ground to bury our dead, to the full recognition of religious equality ; nnd if nce idresses, to deny the chargesi reiterate the assertion of his views, and complain of the injustice done him. Nor do I in this pu'jlication pretend to write a defence of his Excellency — though I do profess to defend him, as far as an examination of the evidence adduced again him will authorize me to do so. His dcfencei properly speaking, must b^ left ta other hands, and for another place. 17 In the following pages I propose to shew — 1. That the proceedings of the late Counsellors in their resignation, and against Sir C. Metcalfe, are informal in every respect. 2. That they have failed to establish tho allegations which they have made against his E^xcellency. 3. That the statements of his Excellency are fully sustained by tho testimony of his accusers and adversaries, especially that of Messrs. Sullivan, Hincks, Boulton, and Brown, — Editor of the Clobe newspaper. 4. That the question at issue between the late Counsellors and SirC. Metcalfe, according to the statement of several of themselves and others on different occasions, is not that which Mr. Baldwin stated to the House of Assembly, and on w^hich the vote of the Assembly was predicated. 5. That Sir C. Metcalfe's statements of his views of Responsible Government involve all that is contained in the Resolutions of the House of Assembly, September 3, 1841, and that the criticisms of Messrs. Baldwin, Hincks, Brown, and others, on certain of his Excellency's replies, are unfair and unjust. 6. That his Excellency's avowed practical policy in tho administration of the government is precisely that which was professed by the late Counsellors twelve months ago, and which has been demanded by all shades of Reformers during many years. 7. That the policy of government now advocated by the late Counsel- lors is that which they have heretofore repudiated, and which must prove injurious to the intellectual and moral improvement, the happiness and best interests of the people of Canada. 8. That the proceedings of several late Counsellors, since the proroga- tion, have been unprecedented', — enervating, if not destructive of legal government — calculated, though not intended, to weaken and sever the connexion between Canada and Great Britain. 9. That in at least seven dift'erent instances have tho late Counsellors departed from British constitutional usage — that the present course of hostility against the Governor General and her Majesty's government, by some of them, must be attended with injurious if not fu,tal consequences— that it is the duty and the interest of the people of Canada to maintain those views which they have always professed, and which Sir Charles Metcalfe has most explicitly and fully avowed. ,,. ,... . ,, , • ( "' 18 CONTENTS— No. 2. Proposition stated — Importance of adhering to established usages in such cases — Ministerial Responsibility stated — Just — Nature of it ex- plained by De Lolme— Illustrated in the case of Orford and Somersi who were held responsible for acts which they did not actually advise ^Other examples — Resignation of Ministers — Different grounds of it distinguished — Sworn to secrecy — fflty — Crown's consent neces- sary to a ministerial explanation — Why — Case of late resignations examined on the broadest ground — JVo proof of their permission to explain as they did — JVo proof against Sir Charles — A precedent — Mode of official communication — Sir Robert PeeVs mode of nego- tiating with the Q^uetn and of explaining to Parliament — Late Counsellors^ made of proceeding un-British, unfair, unjust — Proved and illustrated^ — Mr. Hincks evasions exposed — fVhole course of proceedings unprecedented — Principles involved in this proceeding unconstitutional—Consequences alarming— Fatal to Sir Charles, if not averted — Illustrated in the proceedings and address of the Toronto Association — Why the late Counsellors did not pursue a constitutional course — Contemptuous and despotic treatment of Sir Charles Metcalfe — Possible results. The first proposition tliat I propose to establish in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe is, that the proceedings of the late Counsellors, in their resigna- tions and against his Excellency, are informal, or technically unconstitu- tional, in every respect. The importance of adhering to established forms and usages (however arbitrary in themselves) will be readily appreciated by every jurist and man of experience in civil or ecclesiastical courts. It will be equally appreciated in affairs of state by every man acquainted with parliamentary usages, though it may not be so strongly felt by one who has little know- ledge of the science of government and legislation. In such a proceeding as that of the resignation of Ministers, and their accountability to Parlia- ment, an adherence to established usage is of the very last importance^ as it is an essential security of the crowns of Sovereigns, and involves the characters of kings and statesmen and the peace of nations. The respon- sibility of ministers for executive acts is peculiar to the British constitu- tion ; and the correctness of procedure in case of their resignation muBt| th-jreforo, be determined by Britisa practice. Had that practice been observed in the late resignations, the perplexity in which the matters of difference are now involved would have been prevented, and the founda- tions of oy^^overnment would not have been thus shaken. 19 That every reader may fully understand this question, let it be observed that the power of the Cabinet Council, as distinct from that of tho Sove- reign, is unknown in the British constitution, which consists of King, Lords, and Commons only— that the Sovercif^n, not possessing the inhe- rent attribute of ubiquity, acts through instruments, the chief of whom, constituting a cabinet, are called ministers, and are responsible to Parlia- ment for the acts and measures of the Executive. And they are justly responsible ; because they are incumbents of office by their own consent, and are consenting parties at least to the acts and measures in the execu- tion or adoption of which they are voluntary instruments or advisers. " It is \rue," says De Lolme, " the King cannot be arraigned before judges ; because if there were any that could pass sentence upon him, it would be they, and not he, who must finally possess tho executive power; but, on the other hand, the King cannot act without Ministers ; it is therefore those ministers, — that is, those Indispensable instruments,— whom the Commons attack. If, for example, the public »noney has been employed in a manner contrary to the declared intention of those who granted it, an impeachment may be brought against those who have the management of it. If any abuse of power is committed, or in general any thing done contrary to the public weal, they prosecute those who have been either the instruments or the advisers of the measure.* <'It was upon these principles," (adds De Lolme, in a note) "that the Commons, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, impeached the Earl of Orford, who had advised the Treaty of Partition, and the Lord Chancellor Somers, who had affixed the great seal to it." By referring either to Smollet^s History of England, or to Burnet'' t HLtory of His Own Times for 1701, the reader will find that the Earl of Orford did not advise the treaty at all, but consented to certain parts of it — that Chancellor Somers, as Privy Councillor, had advised against it, but as Chancellor he obeyed the Royal command in affixing the great seal to it. Yet the Commons iicld both Orford and Somers responsible, and declared that, " by advising his Majesty to conclude the Treaty of Parti- tion, whereby large Territories of the Spanish Monarchy were delivered up to France, they were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor." Now, though in point of fact, neither Orford nor Somers knew any thing of the treaty until after it had been determined upon by the King — though both of them objected to it as a whole — yet they were held responsible even as advisers, upon the constitutional evidence that they both remained in office, and one of them affixed the great seal to a blank, which was afterwards filled up by others at the command of the King,. * Constitution of England, chap. viii. pp.8I-82, Hughes' Edition. r 20 with the articles of the Partition Treaty. And such has been the doc- trine of ministerial responsibility in England from that time to this. It will bo seen in this case, that the Commons did not inquire or care (and has not done so for 150 years) whether the King determined upon the measure before or after takinjj advice of his ministers ; whether they had or hud not an opportunity of tendering him advice before he decided on the measure ; with the conduct of the King, or his mode of intercourse with his ministers, the Commons had nothing to do ; it was enough that the ministers assented to an act or measure by voluntarily remaining in office. George the Third would scarcely allow of any ministerial inter- ference with his exercise of ecclesiartical patronage — especially the appointment of Bishops — though ministers remaining in office were responsible. George the Fourth made two military appointments while the Duke of Wellington was Cabinet Minister and at the head of that department, and of which the Duke knew nothing until he saw them announced in the papers. Yet neither the Duke nor Mr. Pitt ever came down to the Lords or Commons with an impeachment against his Sove- reign, that he entertained views which led to acts " inconsistent itnth the •principle which had been introduced into the administration of affiiirs" eince 1688 ; and therefore that the Parliament must either sacrifice that principle or support them. Neither house of Parliament would have Buffered such an impeachment of the Sovereign to be made within its walls; and such a manoeuvre on the part of any minister to excite Byrapathy and strengthen himself, by damaging his Sovereign, who might not take or ask his advice, would cause him to bo spurned from every hustings in England, whatever might be his raeritakjn other respects. But more on this subject hereafter. Having stated the responsibility of ministers, let us now consider the grounds of their resignation, and mode of justification before Parliament. They may resign on various grounds. For example, they may fall in a minority in one or both houses of Parliament ; then the ground of their resignation can *3 explained without divulging any secret. Sometimes one or more ministers may resign on account of adiffijrence 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 statements and opinions. Again, ministers may resign because of a difference with their Sovereign. That difference may be evinced by the Sovereign's disregarding their advice, either by rejecting it or by deciding without it. This ground of resignation involves matters of more delicacy than either of the former ; and, accordingly, British usage requires the use of more form and precaution in explaining it. 21 Every Minister ia sworn to secrecy, except in as fur as lie may bo released by hia Sovereign. Any minister who sliould divulge the councils of his Sovereign without his permission, would bo liable to a prosecution for perjury. One of tho many reasons for this obligation to secrecy, is, the security of the reputation, if not the very Crown, of tho Sovereign. If incenseil or disajjpoinled ministers could tell what they please about tho opinions and acts of their Sovereign, then might thoy exc.to 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 nnd infamy. The Sovereign's character, as well as his Crown, should therefore be sacred. An oath is essential to its safety, especially in bo many hands. No Minister, then, can lawfully divulge any thing that has transpired in tho councils of his Sovereign, without the permission of the Crown. Should the Crown refuse to permit a resigning minister to explain the grounds of his resignation, then is that minister presumed to be blameless upon the fundamental maxim of British jurisprudence, that every man ia judged innocent until he is proved guilty. The Crown's refusal, therefore, to a retiring minister of the privilege of explaining the cause or causes of his withdrawal from the Government, would be tantamount to a justifi- cation of him, and would be so received by Parliament ; and if with such a permission, a minister should refuse to answer for his conduct, parlia- mentary judgment would go against him by default. Why, then, it may be asked, connot a minister state his case without the permissiAi of the Crown 1 I answer, not only on account of the safety of the Crown, but in order that Parliament may form a judgment on the case, the nature of which is such, from the facts involved in it being secret, that no witnesses can be admitted or produced on either side. Every case of ministerial resignation, when brought before Parliament, must therefore be, what in common courts of law is called " a case of facts" — that is, a case the facts of which the litigant or differing parties admit— drawing them up and stating them in order by mutual consent — leaving the court to pronounce judgment in the case according to the facts thus mutually agreed upon- When a minister resigns, the official connexion which had existed between him and his Sovereign, is dissolved by mutual consent, and the cause or causes of it are to be stated by the same consent. As the Crown is not responsible, and as the minister is responsible, the latter must appear in the position or capacity of defendant, answering for his conduct in the shape of what is called an explanation — that explanation consisting* of facts agreed upon between his Sovereign and himself, and stated by him under the sanction of his Sovereign — leaving the high court of Parliament to judge of his conduct according to the facts thus stated. 22 Theao o»6onliaI preliminary romarka bring ni to the proctiedingfi of Sir Chorle* Melcalfo'j late CouDHellors in their pariiamontary oxplanationt of the causoa of their rosignation. That I may do thorn tho fullcit jiiatice, and ffivo thom ovory possiblo advantage, I will oxaniino tho caao on tho broadest groiindu — say nothing about tho real or alleged differenco between ReaponHiblo Government in a colony and in a sovereign state ; but assume Sir Charles Metcalfe to bo Sovereign of tho British Empire, and Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lafontaine to bo Sir Robert Peel and the Duko of Wel- lington, and the Canadian Legislature to be tho British Parliament. They are now British Ministers, in a British Parliament — and their proceedings must be judged according to the law of British ininistorial and parliamentary practice since tho revolution of 1688. Judged by that law, I shall show that they have committed errors — errors which involve not only the viola- tion of the principles of Responsible Government, but, if successful, the political ruin of one of the noblest characters in tho British Empire. Did, then, our Canadian Sir Robert Peel and Duke of Wellington come before Parliament with what has been above dcfjued to be a case or coses offsets, and with the royal permission to state those facts ? If so, whore is the proof? Tho answer is, their assertion. But no man, or company of men, can be witnesses in their own case. Their asseriiun, therefore, IB no proof ; and the reiteration of it a million times leaves it assertion still — does not transmute it into proof. In all cases of dispute or differ- ence, the plaintiff and defendant, whether they respectively consist of one or many individuals, are assumed to be on an equal footing. Their mutual statements are eqv.al, and therefore balance each other — amoiAit to nothing — are not taken into the account. It will be admitted that the Crown is at least equal to its advisers. Where then is the proof of the ministerial allegations against the Crown ? And where is tho proof that they had the Crown's permission to make those allegations ? Without enumerating particulars, I will notice, as an example, two of those explanatory allega- tions. The late Counsellor^ assert that the Crown holds views incom- patible with the constitution, as established by the resolutions of September, 1841, and that in its acts, it has deviated from that constitution as thus established. The Crown protests against the sentiments and acts thus ascribed to it. Assuming then for the moment, contrary to all precedent, that the Crown, instead of being incapable of doing vrong, is capable of violating the established constitution, both theoretically and practically, and can be arraigned for it before a Canadian Legislature, where is tho . proof of its guilt ? If a horse-thief or murderer is entitled to be adjudged innocent until he is proved guilty, is not the Crown entitled to at least on equal privilege 1 Would a jury convict an alleged thief or murderer upon the assertion of the Crotcnf who is the prosecutor in such cases 1 And is. tho woi of mir Btafl .UvJi 23 tho Crown to bo convicted upon tha nsgertion Ci' rt<: vfoieculort / And would tho Crown give pormiision to bccu'o Itsoll— o^nd to accuse itself of opinions and acts against which it proteats ? Whore, then, is the ministerial "case or cases of facts ?" And whore ts their pormission to state thoso facts 1 But this is only the eommeheethent of what I have to nhj on this extrao Jinary busincfls. To niako the caso more plain, and perfectly intelligible to every reader, I will select a Dritiah precedent — tho sry last which has occurred in Englnnd, of a minister resigning on account o'* difference of opinion with his Sovereign. I allude to the resignation of Sir Robert Peel in 1830, (for Lord John Russell and his colleagues refilgned in 1041 on account of their difference with a parliamentary majority, and not on account of any difference between tliom and their Sovereign.) And here, to remove every obscurity from the queution, I beg to make a preliminary remark on tho mode of official communication between tho Crown and its servants, or between public officers and individuals. In all Buch cases — in all enlightened governments — no communication is con- sidered official which is not in writing. Cabinet consultations, ordinarily, may be verbal, for the Cabinet is a body not known in law. It is with the acts of tho Government, and not with the modes of intercourse among its members, that the Parliament has to do. And of those acts, written documents are the only legitimate proof. If the reader, for example, were to have even interviews with the Sovereign or his ministers, on any sub- ject, all this would bo only preparatory and preliminary to official corres- pondence and action. It would still be necessary for him to commit the material parts of his verbal statements to writing, and get a written answer; and nothing more than what was written woull ever be recog- nised as official or binding. If private conversations were admitted as official, endless misunderstandings and confusion would ensue. When Lord Ashburton came to America to negotiate on the boundary question, his Lordship and Mr. Webster had several "ays' private conversations, and learned each other's views, and agreed on e> material point, before they even commenced their official correspondence on the subject. Their private conversations were for themselves alone ; their written corres- pondence was for the public as well as themselves. The conversations of official men are often reported through the press, and are sometimes referred to in official correspondence ; but they are of no authority any further than the parties to whom they are attributed choose to admit. This mode of official intercourse is the dictate of prudence as well as usage, and especially in any matter which may by possibility become th« subject of public discussion and official proceeding. iii m 24 How then did Sir Robert Peel proceed on a similar occasion, only oiie more simple, and therefore requiring less precision and explicitness 1 He does not ask his Sovereign to come to any understanding with him as to whether she woul " i future make or " not make appointments prejudicial ♦ ) his influence" — he leaves each case to stand upon its own merits and to be decided as it might occur; but he advises her Majesty to remove certain ladies of her bedchamber. She declines, and asserts her right to retain them — a right which Sir Robert does not question. He then respectfully declines accepting a seat in her Majesty's councils. But does he stop there ? No. British practice and common sense required him to do much more. He then reduced his verbal advioe to writing, with the reasons for it, and transmitted the whole to her Majesty, so that she might examine and weigh every word and reason, and that there might be no misconception on any point, though the whole case was a very simple one. Then her Majesty replies in writing, as xillows : ''Buckingham Palace, JWay 10, 1839. "The Queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday by Sir Robert Peel, to remove the ladies of her bed-chamber, cannot consent to adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is repugnant to her feelings." Sir Robert Peel then applied in writing for permission to explain his conduct to Parliament. Lord Melbourne was commanded by her Majesty to convey her compliance with Sir Robert' .j request. His Lordship wrote a note to Sir Robert to that efl^ect. Here then was the whole negotia- tion between her Majesty and Sir Robert Peel in ivriting — consisting of four papers — all of which were read in the parliamentary explanation, stating Sir Robert's proposal and the reasons for it on the one side, and her Majesty's refusal and the two reasons for it on the other, and the permission of i.er Majesty to have the whole laid before Parliament. And be it observed, that Sir Robert communicated his Sovereign's senti- ments in her own words, by reading her own note. And after Sir Robert Peel had completed his explanation. Lord John Russell, who had been taken back into her Majesty's counsels, concluded his reply by saying, that he " had not the slightest ground to complain of the statement made by Sir Robert Peel." Such then is the British practice of Responsible Government— a prac tice which the lati Counsellors have said was the ultimatum of their demand for Canada. Have ihey adhered to it ? Have they respected it in any one particular? They had a long personal interview with the Governor General on Friday, in which they stated their views and heard his Excellency's objections. They propot;ed another interview the fol- 25 lowing clay, on the same subject. Now, would it not have been not only according to British uaagc, but courteous and fair towards his Excellency, for them, in the mean time, to have committed to paper their remon- strances and proposals, and transmitted them to him, so that ho might not misunderstand any one of the various points at issue — that he might weigh them, and make up his judgment deliberately upon them ? Apart from usage, apart from his posilion as the roprescntat vo of Royalty, was it giving his Excellency any more than fair pl.iy for them to have done so ? They then had a second long interview with his Excellency on Satur- day, in which all the points of difference were again discussed at great length, and which concluded with a determination on their part to resign. Now, would it have beon any thing more than respectful, or decent, or fair, for them to have done on Saturday evening what they ought to have done on Friday evening — to have embodied in writing the substance of what they wished his Excellency to understand as the re|)rcsentations and proposals which they had made in the long conversations which they had had with him, and on which they had desired his decision ? But neglecting again to perform this act of courtesy and justice towards his Excellency on Saturday evening, ought they not, in common fairness, when tliey resolved to tender their resignations on Sunday, to have accompanied those resignations with a full and explicit statement of the grounds of them, and which they desired pcrmitssion to state to Parlia- ment ? Why throughout the whole of this protracted and extraordinary ministerial negotiation, did they not furnish the Crown with a single scratch of a pen, that would tangibl}'^, and permanently, and truly indicate their views and intentions? For such a proceeding they can plead neither British usage nor common justice — though party manoeuvering may be pleaded for it, as I will hereafter prove. Should it be alleged that they have had little or no experience of British practice and usage in such cases, I admit the plea. I admit that all public men in Canada are entitled to indulgence in their mode of working the new system. I admit that the late Counsellors appear to dii'^dvantage when compared with Sir Cliarles Metcalfe, in affairs of government ; — that they have not, like l.im, been born and educated under the British system of Responsible Government ; — that they have not, like him, mingled with British statesmen of all shades for nearly half a century ; — that they have ^ot, like him, worked different systems of colonial government in both hemispheres; — and that their acts are, there- fore, entitled to an indulg-ent interpretation. But do they ask it ? Will they allow it ? Nay — they ask, they demand approbation — they claim support and reward. They even refuse to come before the country upon the merits of their |Jo/tcy — they claim exclusive identity with the principle D lilt ^ 26 of Responsible Government itself, the same as some parties claim exclusive idontity with loyalty and apostolicity — they declare that Responsible Government has been assailed and stabbed in their persons, and that that eystcm lives or dies with their victory or defeat ; for, as Mr. Baldwin expressed it at a public dinner in Toronto, December 28, 1843, " he well knew that no victory could be obtained, on the present occasion over himself and his late colleagues, as public men, that would not in effect, both by friends and enemies, be treated as a victory over the principle of Responsible Government itself." r^ow, who can believe this ? Who does not know that whatever per- sons may be in the councils of the Crown, the principle of Responsible Government must and will be acted upon ? It requires but little reflection and foresight to perceive, that whatever passions Mr. Baldwin and his colleagues may Insh into a tempest for a moment, the illusive and fabulous pretensions on which they have made war upon the Crown, in the perton of Sir C. Metcalfe, will and must issue in their own ci> fusion, if not in the misfortune of incautious hundreds exasperated by them, as in the dismal transactions of 1837 and 1838. But of the obvious and legitimate consequences of present proceedings, I will treat hereafter. As the late Counsellors, then, take their stand upon the British practice of Responsible Government, why have they disregarded if. in every preli- minary step of their resignation and explanation ? As one erroneous step, if unretraced, leads to a course of error ; so the late Counsellors com- mencing wrong, have fallen into a succession of errors, each eiMuing one more serious than its predecessor. I have shown that they provided not the necessary materials ; that they took not the necessary measures to pr'^nare " a case of facts " for their explanation ; that their mode of proceeding was the reverse, in every respect, of the proceeding of Sir Robert Peel in a much more simple case of "antagonism" with his Sovereign, I will now proceed to prove that their explanation was unauthorised in every respect, and is fraught with dangerous consequences. In the course of his explanation (Nov. 29,) Mr. Baldwin stated, in reply to Mr. Viger, that " he had the permission of his Excellency to make the explanation which lie had offered to the house ; and if he huJ not, he should have come down to the house and told them that he had been refused, and called upon them to construe every thing in hio favour, and nothing against him." That Mr. Baldwin was sincere in making this assertion, I have not a shadow of doubt. But the very liability of his statement to be challenged (as it was by Mr. Viger,) shows the culpable impropriety of hii not having reduced to writing the whole of the negotiation with his Excellency. The present question, however, is not what Mr. Baldwin thought, but what is ih&fact ? 27 Mr. Baldwin's verbal application, and the Governor-Genorare verbal reply, must of course have been intended and ought to be interpreted in the ministerial or official sense of such communications — as preliminary to their being committe'l to writing. That such was his Excellency's under- standing, is obvious from the fact, that he directed the substance of the intended explanation to be laid before him in writing. Why did he require this, if it were not that he might express his approval or disapproval of it 1 Upon any other supposition, his Excellency might, with equal propriety, have demanded before hand the substance of any speech or speeches that Mr. Baldwin and his colleagues intended to deliver on any subject. The written explanation which they laid before his Excellency, was, of course, their intended " case or cases of facts." Did his Excellency consent to it ? Nay ; he more than prohibits it — to use his own words, " the Governor-General protests against THE explanation which those gen- tlemen propose to offer to Parliament," &;c. Now, Mr. Baldwin gave in his speech the substance, almost verbatim, of the explanation which he and his colleagues had laid before his Excellency. Mr. B. says he had been authorised by his Excellency to make that explanation ; his Excellency protests against that explanation ; and, according to Mr. Hincks, his Excellency's protest had been received at least an hour before Mr. Baldwin made his explanatory speech. To make the case, if possible, more plain, I will suppose that you, Mr. Reader, are Governor of a town, city, or province, and that I come to you as the representative of a portion of the people whom you govern, to procure your assent to certain measures relating to their roads, schools, or chr'-'^hes ; that you do not accede to any of the proposals or applications laid before you ; that I request your permission to explain to my constitu- ents what has taken place betwt.. 's on these subjects ; that you say, yes, but desire me to furnish you, in writing, with the substance of what I intend to state in explanation to my constituents ; that I do so ; that you, on reading it, perceive that I have given a very different version of several points from what you think is correct ; that I attribute sentiments and acts to you which I declare to be inconsistent with the rights and interests of my constituents ; and that I omit what you conceive to be the very grounds of your dissent from several requests made to you ; that you forthwith send me a written protest against my intended explanation, generally, and point out several particulars which you think are essen- tially inaccurate; yet I, with year protest and statement in my pocket, give that identical explanation against which you protest to my constituents, and then inform them, in conclusion, that I have your authority for the explanation which I had made — would you, Mr. Reader say that I had treated you justly ? — that my statement was authorised by you ?— that it ih h£. w 28 was true ? The exact parallel between this ima^nnary case and the real case of the Governor-General and his late Counsellors, can be readily per- ceived by every reader. I infer, therefore, that the explanation given by the late Counsellors, was, both technically and morally, unauthorised, and was therefore unpar- liamentary and unconstitutional. The only proof that Mr. Baldwin has ever appealed to that he had authority to make his explanation, is this " protest" of his Excellency. How far this proves his authority, the reader can judge. But in this reference Mr. Baldwin blinks the real question, which is not whether his Excellency intended that Mr. B. should give an explanation ; (this his Excellency desired as much as his late Counsellors;) but whether he authorised the explanation which Mr. Baldwin gave. Against that explanation his Excellency protests ; and therefore he could not have authorised it. Mr. Ilincks, in his reply to Mr. Viger's pamphlet, argues in the follow- ing words and italics : " It is true that no disclosures can be made with- out permission; but whenever a difference arises between the head of the government and his ministers, parliament and the public have a right to the fullest information. What is the object of making explanations at all ? That the public may be able to judge whether the retiring ministry have acted right or wrong. They are the parties upon trial ; and they have a right to expect permission to state every thing necessary for their complete justification It would be as unprecedented as it would be use- less for the Sovereign or his Representative to limit the explanations of Ministers, because any attempt to do so would be invariably met, as Mr. Baldwin declared in the Jiouse he would have met it, viz., " by a refusal to say one word until the required permission should be granted." (See pp. 7-8.) Now, with this reasoning I entirely agree as far as 'it goes ; but it omits the very points at issue. We are not inquiring what ought to be in the abstract, but what was the fact in this case 1 To prove what ought to be and what was, are tv.'o different things. It is with facts, not with expediency, that we have now to do. This fallacy of shifting the ground argues badly for the cause in w.iich it is employed. But there is still another fallacy in this attempt at reasoning — another shifting of the ground — another shirking of the question. It is not whether ministers ought " to state every t!)ing necessary for their complete juistification ;" but whether the Crown has not a voice in deciding that point as well as the retiring ministers ? It is admitted by Mr. Hincks that ministers can- not explain at all without the permission of the Crown ; can they then 29 explain any more than they arc permitted ? Certainly not. Have not the late Counsellors given explanations which have not only not been permitted, but against which the Crown has ])r()testcd ? I am not now inquiring, whellier they gave any explanations not necessary to their justification — that will bo considered in another place ; all such evasions of the question argue the untenablenesa of the proceeding of the late Counsellors. I am now inquiring, — Did the Crotvn consent to the expla- nation which they gave ? The protest of the Crown is proof demonstra- tive that it did not ; and a hundred columns of epeeches and us many evasions, cannot prove it otherv j. When they found that the Crown dissented from their intended expla- nation, what was their duty ? Undoubtedly to defer their explanation, until the Crown and they should agree upon the facts to be explained. But suppose that no such agreement could have been come tr ? I answer, in the first place, ministers should have tried whether such an agreement could not have been come to. Secondly, if the Crown and they could not have agreed upon the facts to be explained, they would have refused to explain ; and the Parliament would have applied for the correspondence which had taken place between the Crown and its late advisers. Thus the whole alTair would have been fairly brought before Parliament. . Thus the House of Commons, not satisfied with the state- ments made, applied to the Crown and obtained all the letters which had passed between the King and his Ministers, the Earl of Orford and Lord Chancellor Somers. Had the late ministers furnished the Crown, in writing, with their advice and negotiation (as did Sir Robert Peel), then there could not by any possibility have been a difference between the Crown and them as to the grounds of their resignation, and consequently no difference as to their intended explanation. This they carefully avoided doing. When they determined to resign, instead of preparing the "cahu of facts," they thought it " necessary for their complete justification," to give such a version of the affair as would tell best upon the Parliament and the country ; (how far it was correct I shall inquire in the sequel ;) and they bring it before Parliame it, not with the sanction of the Crown, but in the face of the Governor Ccuurui's solemn protest against its fairness and truth ! Such a proceeding cannot be paralleled in the history of Respon- sible Government throughout the world. So much as to the facts of this proceeding. Now, as to the ^mcip/es and consequences involved. Was it not a practical wresting from the Crown the sceptre of its pre- rogative, and the essential shield of its character and safety ? :!il liC 30 ■i If the late CounBcllors denied the Crown even a consenting voice to their "case of tucts" — their parliamentary explanation— can they allege that they regarded its prerogative much in any thing else ? If they claimed to use the authority of the Crown as a " tool" to sanc- tion a party, as well as on exparte explanation, can they prove that they did not seek to use it as a " tool" for the promotion of other party purposes ? If they practically asserted their right to do as they pleased in regard to their " explanation," regardless of the protest of the Crown, is it improbable that they asserted the right c;' equal discretion in regard to all other acts, whether the Crown consented or protested ? If they practically asserted the right to deal with the character of the Crown as they pleased — to attribute to it what sentii^ents or acts they pleased in the teeth of its own solemn protests — is it unlikely that they sought to dispose of the patronage of the Crown ? The greater includes the less — and who will not say that character is greater than patronage 1 I state these questions not as facts ; but as legitimate inferences, and as subjects of serious reflection. The facts at which they point will be hereafter examined. And what are the consequences involved in such a precedent and pro- ceedings ? Does it not remove from the Crown the only safeguard of its honour, and strip it of the last v eapon for the defence of its character ? Suppose the Governor to be the reader, and the reader to be one of an association of seven or eight employed in deliberations on public matters; that differences arose, and the reader stood alone ; that a dissolution of their association followed ; that the other seven should draw up a state- ment for publication of those differences, and in it ascribe various execrable sentiments and acts to the reader, which he wholly disclaimed ; yet they persisv and publish, and reiterate. The reader might thus be beaten down by numbers, and party exertions ; but would such a proceeding be just before God, or before man ? In that case an individual would be ruined ; but in the present case, more than the life of a Governor — his character — ^is involved. !f his confidential advisers can become his accusers — against his own solemn protests — then is the oath of secrecy a mockery, and the prerogative a bauble ; then in point of fact (and no forms of phraseology can make it otherwise) is the Governor subordinate, and the Council supreme, and may his character at any time be made a foot ball for their gratification. He may come to Canada with an almost angelic reputation of forty years growing brilliancy ; and in twelve months, it may be, invested with the attributes of the worst Asiatic despot, and at length, assailed by its own confidents, sink down pierced with more wounds than those undei which Ceesar fell. 31 And what havo we witnessed in Canada d'iring the last few months, and what do we now see but a practical illustration of the truth of these remarks ? The voluminous speeches of the " Toronto Reform Associa- tion," are so many witnesses of the melancholy reality which I have imagined. Within the last few days, I have read an " Address to the People of Canada, by the Reform Association, adopted at a general mooting, held at Toronto, the IGth day of May, 1844," and said to have been written by one of the late Counsellors. After reading this most calumnio'is address, I asked myself, if this address be true, what is the real character of Sir Charles Melcalfe — the man in all past life Ir jded more for sincerity, love of liberty, and justice, than any other Governor in the British Empire ? If this address be true, the world has been deceived in Sir Charles; for he has, after all, proved to be an enemy to the British Constitution — a tyrant —a hypocrite — a deceiver — a liar — a more outrageous invader of consti- tutional rights than Charles the First, and a more daring despot than James the Second— and were he a Sovereign, instead of a Governor, would forfeit his Crown, if not his head ! And whence the authority for these awful charges and denunciations ? We answer, his Excellency's late confidential and constitutional advisers. And this address and the kindred speeches of members of the same Asso- ciation, are the early results of disclosures which those advisers declared they made under the authority of the Governor-General ! Disclosures against every part of which, affecting his own sentiments and conduct, he with a martyr-like firmness and Aristidean integrity, most earnestly protests. And those disclosures, or rather, accusations, and these speeches, and this address, are the first fruits of //leiV workin^r of the system of Responsible Government — those who claim to be the onlj/ workers of it. What may not the laM fruits be ? And this, too, in the face of the facts that the British principle of Responsible Government requires the sanction of but one minister to render any act of the Crown valid ; that the Resolutions of the House of Assembly of September, 1841, on Responsible Government, have recog- nised no more than ^plurality of advisers of the Crown^ and not a govern- ment by heads of departments; that Sir Charles Metcalfe has half as many advisers as British Sovereigns have had for the whole of the Empire ; that those advisers are responsible for all his acts; that the late Counsellors have declared so ; yet the Sovereign is thus treated in the person of his Excel- lency ! And why 1 The advisers of the Crown are too small game — ^to advise the Crown is too small a prize. The patronage of the Crown is the magnum honum sought. It cannot be obtained until the Crown is made a "tool." The Crown cannot be made a tool until it becomes 'I If 1 \i '■ II f- fVi U| w 32 powerless. It canno* become powerless until it is rendered hateful. Hence this address of the Toronto Association — sound in the assertion of general principles, but fallacious in its application of them, and false and abominable iu the statement of facts, as I shall by and by show. Now, had the late Counsellors adopted the fair and conslilutional course cither before or at the time of their resignation, this state of things could not have existed. Had they submitted their statements and recommend- ations to Sir Charles Metcalfe, in writing, no misunderstanding or discre- pancy of representation could have occurred respecting them, and no misinterpretation in the explanation of ministers— no protest from the Governor-General against it. But, then, their ulterior policy would have been defeated. What we have defined as "a case of facts," would have confined them to their own sentiments, and advices, and demands ; and upon them the issue would have boon taken. The prerogative of the Crown would have remained unquestioned and inviolate. They could not have impeached it as they pleased — they could not have turned attention from themselves to the Crown — they could not have done, cs Diogenes Laerlius said that Aristotle sometimes did, act the part of a cuttle-fish, which darkens the water around, that it may escape the danger ; they could not have made Sir Charles the virtual defendant in the case, instead of themselves ; they could not have transferred themselves from the policy to the principle of Responsible Government ; they could not have omitted (as I shall prove in the next number, by two of themselves, they did) the cardinal point of difference bet veen the Crown and them. Hence they avoided " the case of facts," as at that juncture, an inconvenient element of Responsible Government, and made out a case both for themselves and the Governor- General, and affixed his authority to it, and put his case, as stated by him- self, into their pocket — never hinted that such a thing was in existence, but claimed the patronage of the prerogative for the very impeachment of the Crown itself, as well as for party government. The prerogative in the hands of Sir Charles Metcalfe, was only fit to be put into their pockets ; but the prerogative in their own hands must sanction (to use Mr. Hincks's words) " everylhing necessary for the'>' co?n;7?<;^e justification" — whatever it might be, whether truth or not — whether impeachment of Sir Charles or praise of themselves ; — as advisers of the Crown, they were entitled to the whole of its patronage — not even Sir Charles him?elf had a right to a crumb, as he was no longer of their party! Such is the source of their unprecedented proceedings ; and such is the stream which has already issued from it — a stream which, if not turned into the legitimate channel of British responsibility, may undermine the very pillars of the throne and sweep away the best bulwarks of our con- hi ni d< a 33 stitution ; and, what is still more affecting to a humane mind, overwhelm in its darkest waters of disgraceful obloquy, nay of perpetual infamy, the hard-earned and hitherto unsullied reputation of one of the most upright, motft generous, and most universally admired characters in the lirilish dominions. A comparison of the present and former longunge of the late Counsel- lors towards Sir Charles Metcalfe affords a melancholy illustration of Tacitus' remark — Proprium humoni ingenii est, od'iste quern laaaerh. (ii belongs to human nature to hate the man whom you have injured.) Thus much then on the single point relating to the mode of proceeding on the part of the lute Counsellors in their resignation, and tiie conse- quences of it. I shall next examine the still more important subjects of their explanatory statements and omissions. contents—No. 3. Proposition stated — Who meant by " late Counsellors^^ — Retirement from office expected to be short — Four ancmalies in their proceedings, which disprove their charges — Erroneous proceeding of the House of Jissembly — Should be retraced — Fifth anomaly disproving the charges of late Counsellors — Charges examined in detail and refuted, and the nature and effects of them exposed — Claim of the Toronto Association compared with the avowal of Lord John Russell — Contrast — Rema rks. Having proved, I trust to the satisfaction of the candid reader, that the proceedings of the late Counsellors, in their resignation, and against Sir Charles Metcalfe, were informal in every respect, and unconstitutional in several respects; I now proceed to shew, that those gentlemen have failed to establish the allegations tvhich they have made against his Excellency. When I use the term "late Counsellors," I do not mean to include each of them individually. Several of them are known to have been reluctantly acquiescing parties in the proceedings of the leaders ; the circumstances in which they were placed were perfectly novel ; they had not examined British precedents ; ihe whole complex affair transpired in less than three days, so that they had not time for cool, minute, thorough, independent examination ; they felt themselves bound in party hands ; E 84 i they lubmitted tliemselves into the hands of their captains ; since that prorojjation they have acted with the silent dignity of retired ministers of the Crown ; they have neither been party organizers, nor political disor- ganizers ; some of them, I believe, have viewed the steps into which a temporary pressure led them with concern, if not with misgiving and regret, and would be happy of on honorable and safe escape from their present dilemma. To such parties I do not refer ; their assent waa general ; and their conduct has since been unexceptionable. I refer especially to those Counsellors who made allegations against the Gover- nor General in the Legislature ; who hove repeated them with sundry additions ond exaggerations at public meetings — to Messrs. Baldwin, Sullivan, and Hincks. It may be also remarked, that the retirement of the late Counsellors was expected to be of short duration — some of them intimated that they thought it would be only a few days. Had such an expectation been realized, a feat would li;ve been performed worthy of the doys of chivalry —a resignation — a restoration — a victory of the Crown itself — and all this in less time than the sixteen days required by Cincinnatus to subdue the iEquid Volsci and re-establish the safety of Rome. However, the former only has been as yet accomplished. The first anomaly that strikes the mind of an attentive observer of their proceedings is, the position in which they place themselves before the Legislature and the country. Their constitutional position is that of defendants ; their real position is that of plaintiffs. They come before the jury of the Canadian public to answer for their own views and conduct; they answer, by arraigning the views and conduct of the Governor General. Now, a Canadian jury cannot constitutionally sit in judgment on the views and conduct of tiie Governor General ; for the Resolutions of September, 1841, declare "that the Head of the Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of iiis government the Represent- ative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone." No man can be justly or constitutionally arraigned before a tribunal to which he is not amenable. Cromwell had a shadow of constitutional pretension for arraigning Charles the First before even his Rump Parlia- ment ; but the late Counsellors have the constitutional Resolutions of 1841, positively against their arraigning the views and conduct of the Governor General before any other tribunal than that of " the Imperial authority alone." Whatever therefore may be their intentions (with which I have nothing to do), their proceeding involves a direct blow against a fundamental principle of the Resolutions of 1841, and an indirect blow against the colonial connection of Canada v/ith Great Britain. If the Governor General can be arraigned before the Canadian Legislature 36 for hii viewi and conduct, he cannot be " reiponaible to the tmporial authority" at all ; for " no man can serve two manteri." The very arraignment, therefore, of the views and conduct of the Governor General before the Colonial Legislature, assumet independence of the mother country. Nor is that all. It ossumes the power of the Assembly over the Monarchy, and involves tho destruction of monarchical government itself. For, as Do Lolmo soys— in the pousago quoted in the preceding number^" the king himself cannot be arraigned before judges; because if there were any that could pass sentence upon him, it would be thfj/, and not he, who mutt finally pofseas the executive potoer,^* Tha arraign- ment of the views and conduct of the Governor General before the House of Assembly aaaumei that they ore his "judges;" or, in the words of De Lolme, that "/Afy, and not /le, possess the executive power." If, there- fore, the late Counsellors did not desire to be supreme themselves, and make the Governor P-ibordit)atc, their proceeding involves his subordina- tion to the House of Assembly. Such are the inferences which flow irresistibly from their anomalous proceeding. Such is the first anomaly it presents. Another is, the nature of their defence. It consists, as the House of Assembly seems to have understood from the resolution introduced by Mr. Price, which was adopted in their behalf, of a charge against tho Governor-General that he had denied " their right to be consulted on what the house unhesitatingly avows tc be tho prerogative of the Crown — appointments to office." They place themselves before the house and the country, not upon their policy of government, (which Sir Charles declares to have been the point of difference,) but upon « their right to be consulted," which his Excellency denies to have been the question at issue, and of which he says in his reply to them, that he '*is astonished at finding that the resignation is not^ ascribed to an alleged diflerence of opinion on the theory of Responsible Government." They keep out of sight of the house the new po//cy of government which they had been urging upon the Governor General, and claim its vote in their behalf, by alleging that his Excellency had invaded its rights. A new mode, indeed, for a defendant to claim an acquittal and even approval of a jury, upon the ground of a general charge against the plaintiff, supported by the evidence of the defendants own aeaertion. Who would not prefer the position of the defendant to that of the plaintifl^ according to this mode of proceeding ? But what appears more anomalous still, is the nature of the charges which they prefer against his Excellency. They are general. They contain no specifications which can be met. They throw upon his Excel- lency the onus of not only proving a negative, but of proving a general negative. Mr. Baldwin, in his " explanation,^^ ascribes to the Governor- :'|:i 36 General certain anti-Reipon«iblo Government doctfinetf and ftlle|f«i against his Kxccllcncy certain nnti-Responhib'o Government acli n« proof that ht held llicHO doctrines ; but Mr. Unldwin tprofifn no nctii — not even Iho names of the pnriies to wlioiri they refer. Assinninjr that his Excellency, insti ad of Mr. 'luldwin, wiis on hia trial bcforo the House of Assembly, und that Mr. Hjhiwin wuN II It'^rjliinute witnnH!j in his own case, nnd thnt hii Excellency was permitted to come to the bar and answer for himself, how could he disprove the charyoH preferred ogainst him, when the apecijicationa included in those general charges, wore not slated ? If the reader wcro arraigned as an inlidcl und a robber— iin infidel not in the doctrine of Res- ponsible Government, but in that of the Divine Govornmert, nnd a robber, not of another's property, but what is more vnlunble, another's rights— the rights of many others ; and aupposo iho only tcstimdny ogainst him was the assertion of his accuser ; and suppose that nothing was etntod cither in the indictment or in the evidence as lo the t^pecific nature of hii scepticism, or the time, place, or even parties in relation to wliich his rob- beries were alleged to have been con.tniitod ; but that it was stated in generul terms that ho had committed robberie?', and that on certnin occa- sions he had expressed sceptical seniiincnis ; how could the reader rebut such charges ? How could he prove an alibi .' How could ho piove that the facts alleged as robberies, wore legal transactions, and not wrongs ogainst any man ? All this he might do, were specifications on each count of the indictment stated. But according to the procedure supposed, he could no more save himself from condemnation, however innocent he might be, than the selected victim could escape the Inquisition. How then could the Governor-General defend himself, or bo defended, agoinst the general charges alleged by Mr. Baldwin ? He could only do as he has done, deny them in general terms, by declaring that he " subscribes entirely to the resolutions of 1841," and that he has never deviated from them. And upf't r such circumstances, how could the Court of Parliament decide against, liiio } If a man can be arraigned and condemned on general charges, and on tiiw evidence of his accuser's assertion, what man's character, or liberty, or even life, is safe ? And is the high Court of Parliament to condemn the Governor-General on an indictn:ent which would not be entertained by any mogistratcs' Quarter Sessions against the humblest individual in the land ? The resolution of the Assembly expressing « the deep regret felt by the House at the retirement of certain members of the Provincial Administration, on the question of their right to he consulted on What the House unhesitatingly avows to be the prerogative of the Crown —appointments to office ; and further, that their advocacy of this principle entitles them to the confidence of the House," involves raosL unequivocally, 37 that hb Excellency had invaded that '* ri^ht" ond denied this <^ principle," ■Ifoinst hi.H own inoHt positive and solemn declaration — ond repeated declarntion!) — to the contrary. Ilnd Mr. Unldwin ronio down U) llie liotise with what I hovo licrctofore ■hown ho should hiive done, "a ciiko of luct''," and had any one or more of those fucts involved tho fnct or tuctH on which th*? rcHoliition of the House of Asscrnhly wnM prndicalod, then upon thot ovidonce— tlie mulu- ally admitted stutcmf'nt t)f tho difVorinjr pnrtios^^onld tho resolution have been fairly nnd jnutly adoplod. Hut an it was, tho honso had before them nothing hut tho oanerlion of one of tlie (lifTi'rinfj ptirtios nfjoinst tho asser- tion of the other ; and for them to have dccidod in favour of the one or the other upon such evidence, or rather, such nhsorico of oil ovidenco, wag as unprecedented as it was unjust, and was such a decision as no inferior court in the land would have been disposed or dared to make. It has boon stated that one of tho movers of tho resolution in question, has said, that he saw the house wuverin^r, and tliat he pressed it to a vot9 before the members had time to dravv back. It is not surprising that a thorough " porty man " — a man who prefers party to justice — should pur- sue such a course, and exult in its success. Nor is it surprising that the house was "wavering" under such circumstances ; it would have been surprising had it been otherwise. As the case was a new or)p, and os the members of the Assembly could not possibly have acfjuointed themselves with the minutim of British Parliamentary practice in such cases, it is not surprising thut thoy were led on by party to adopt such a course. But it will be eurpiismg if, ofter a calm revioAr of the whole aflTair, and a minute investigation of all the facts of the question, they do not waver back to the position of doing justice between man and man — of doing to the Governor-General as they would bo done by in similar circumstances— of acting in harmony with the practice of British Responsible Gove'*nment. It has been said, "to err is human, to forgive divine." Those members of the Assembly who have in this case flone what is "humar " are not asked to do what is " divine." No crime hos been committed ; i forgive- ness is sought or needed. But they are asked — and I have no ooubt but n just and honest country will ultimately require it to be done — to retrace what is •' human" so far back to what is " divine," as to do justice to an upricrht, a generoup, and an unjustly implicated man. Pope has said, for a man to acknowledge his error is only to confess that he is wiser to-day than he was yesterday. What is true of individu- als, is true of collections of individuals ; and I am much mistaken, if the members of the House of Assembly — after the lapse of so many days- will not be wiser next session than they were the last. I am also inclined to believe that several, if not all, of the late Counsellors— after their ^ '/'% ■%'.■ j,- >;^Wf',,-"i^| w 38 unexpectedly long retirement from the cares and perplexities of office — iiill be found more judicious, more experienced, better qualified, and more disposed in reciate and adhere to tho British principles and practice of Responsible Government, than they were last session. ^ But thiie is iMiothor anomaly still in this proceeding — another ^rima facie evidence that the late Counsellors have failed to establish the allega- tions which they have made agraiiist the Governor-Paneral. It is the perplexity — tho cuttle-fish nuuldiness — in which they have involved the whole afiair. Who in Canada, for weeks after their resignation, could comprehond their real differences with the Governor-General i And not a few ure Jtill unable to define them. The " Toronto Reform Associa- tion" hr .>. joled its pupils tolerably well into the mystery — at least so fur as ranging the cliang-js on certain words and phrases, and vociferous denunciations, evince proficiency ; but even with such a school of public instruction on the subject, many are unable to perceive any thing more than confi' .ed and undefined imairos of Last India nabobism and West India negroism — thp staple eloquence of the Association. Nowr, such obscurity — s\\r\ contusion — is never witnessed in any question of defined and proved facts. The inference, therefore, is inevitable, that their facta were neither specific nor proved. That such was the light in which they were viewed, not only by unex- perienced Canadian minds, but by the most acute and experienced states- men, is obvious from a recent letter written by the Hon. Joseph Howe, of Nova Scotia, and published in several of tho Canadian ,;apers. Mr. Howe was reported to have said in one of hip speeches in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, that " tho difficulties in Canada had arisen from a bungling administration." Mr. Howe, in a letter addressed to Mr. Hincks, and dated Halifax April 29, 1844, explains as follows: — "The conflicting statements put forth by the Governor-General and his ex-Coun- sellors', rendered it difficult for so"ie timo to judge what the real points at issue were — the facts of the case, upon which alone an opiuion could be formed, not being admitfpd on both sides. It was in reference to this contrariety of statemci.t that I said in answer to some speaker who sought to slkow that the Cunadinn pnd Nova Scc^tia cases were strictly analogous, that the matter had been so "bunglud" in Canada, that it wa«, difficrlt to say whether such an inference could be fairly drawn. This is a'll that was said or intended ; and the observation was only meant to apply to the then involved state of the controversy, and used without any desire to w'harge blame upon either of the parties whose opposing statements ren- dered it difficult at tlie moment, to form a correct decision, and most desirable to keep the simple fact upon which the retirements were based, free from any theoretical dispute about general principles which it did not necessarily iuvoive." 39 Now, if the acute mind and practised eye of the father of Responsiblo Gcvemment in British North America, could only discover in the Canadian "case of facts," ''conflicting statements'' — "opposing statements" — a "matter so bungled" — " tiirorelical disputes abi)ut general principles," Cv.uld even he have discoveied any proof of the allegations against his Excellency ? Yet upon this case of "conflicting statements," and a "matter so bungled," do the iate Counsellors demand a verdict of the country against Sir Charles Metcalfe as an enemy of Responsible Govern- ment ! Would the reader, as a juryman, convict a known pick| ocket upon such "bungled" and " opposing istalements ?" much less the Represent- ative of his Sovereign against his own declarullons. From the foregoing reasoning I infer, therefore, that not only is the proceeding of the Irte Counsellors anomalous — as I have heretofore shewn it was uncoUvStitutional — but that upon every principle and legal and equi- table practice, they have failed to establish their allegations against Sir Charles Metcalfe. So much for their charges in general. Let us now ^ vnmine them in detail. This is rather difficult, as they are so "bungled" together. I will, however, attempt to separate two or three from the mass. The first appears to be — as stated by Mr. Baldwin in his explanatory speech— "that his Excellency entertained a widely different view of the position, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Council, from that under which they accepted office"— that ia the View expressed in the Resolutions of September, 1841. Such is the first charge. Let us now examine its import, and th' principle assumed and involved in the mode of its presenlaiion. Mr. Baldwin does not condescend to inform the high court of Parliament to what extent Sir Charles's "view" is difl!erent from that of the late Council; nor what meaning he attaches to tiie relative terms " widely diflTerent." Days have been when the different modes of cutting men's hair were held to indicate religious views as " widely different" as orthodoxy and heresy. And who is assured thai Mr. Baldwin's "view" of more than one ques^!on is not so squared and nicely adjusted that a hair's- br'^adth deviation from it is "widely different" — so " widely different" as to prevent co-operation at all ? There are as many diff'erent ideas attached to the terms "wide'y different'' as there are diflTerent intellectual constitutions. Some reli- gionists now-a-days regard a diflference in the form of ecclesiastical polity to involve a "view" and a fact as " widely different" as that which exists between a church and no church ; and who is certain that Mr. Baldwin does not hold that the least deviation from his opinion constitutes the " wide UiflTerence" between Responsible Government and no Reoponsibie Government ? Then again , Mr. Baldwin docs not inform the court in I''. i WW 40 frhat respects Sir Charles is heretical in his view of the " position, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Council." Suppose that the reader were arraigned before the assizes for holding a treasonable " view" of the doctrine of a subject's ullcgiancc, and in consequence inculcating treason- able doctrinco and praciiccs, and that Mr. Baldwin were Alt(lrn^'y General or Queen's Counsel in the case; and that Mr. B. had stated in the first count of the indictment that the reader "entertained a widely different view of the position, duties and rceponsibilitics" of n subject's duty, from that which was involved in the oalli of allegiance and required by the laws of the land ; and suppose the Judge or the Jury, or both, were to ask the counsel for the Crown to tihat extetit the prisoner at the bar held and taught a view of civil duty different from that enjoined by tne laws of the land ? and that Mr. B. should reply, " My Lord and gentlemen, his view is widely differ (^nf^ — and the court were to rejoin, in what respects is it different? And the Crown Counsel were to reply again, '^widely different, my Lord and gentlemen" — what would be thought of such an indictment? And what would be thought c? su a counsel for the Crown ? And what would be thought of a v du <. ui guilty on such a charge? Yet such is the charge on which the verdict of the Pravince is demanded against the Representative of the Sovereign— a verdict which involves (to use the words of Captain Irving, for which he received the "loud cheers" of the Toronto Association, to whom he addressed them) "his Excellency's retirement in dear oid Englund, where tyrants have nopower.^^ (Loud cheers.) But what is the principle assumed and involved in this charge ? It assumes and implies, that ar>y view which Mr. Baldwin may please in general terms to declare "widely different" from his view of the "posi- tion, duties, and responsibilities of tiie Executive Council" is to be adjudged heretical and uncorrUitutional. Although the real •! import of his prescriptive dechiration may, like the secret doctrines « .'i Cireeh philosophers or Egyptian priests, be confined to his own brjb. i/. o com- municated to none but the initiated. I think the Canadian peopN are hardly prepared for such political vassallage as this, and that Mr. Baldwin is too modest a man to assume the prerogative of political Pope of Canada ; and that after due consideration, therefore, he will abandon this mode of dealing with the character and rights of the Represeniative of his Sovereign. Had Mr. Baldwin confined himself io facts, "free (as ;\' *, Howe says) from any theoretical dispute about general principles, ' \ would have avoided this burlesque upon all constitutional legislation, and this great injastice against Sir Charles Metcalfe. 41 A second charge is, that " that difference of opinion has led not merely to appointments to office against their advice, but to appointments, and proposals to make appointments', of which they were not informed in any manner, until ail opportunity of ottering advice respecting them had passed by." This charge, like the former, bo it remembered, is only the assertion of one puriy, and denied in all its essent als by the other. In the first plocp, how could t'le late Counsellors know, and therefore with justice or reason state, that an alleged opinion of Sir Charles Metcalfe on the abstract theory of Responsible Government led him to make appoint- ments against their advice? Mr. Baldwin says, that "he had never asserted or held that the Governor General had not the right to appoint whom he pleased against that advice, and he appealed to the past for the ccrrectnf ss of what he now asserted." Might not this admitted and undoubted right have been exercised by his Excellency from a simple judgment of the case involved, and not from any heretical opinion on the system of Responsible Government ? They could not know it unless the Governor General had informed them. He denies the opinion attributed! to him; he could not therefore have informed them of the fact embodied iii their charge. Mr. Baldwin, in his Toronto dinner speech, supposed that the Governor General had a phrenologist to enable him to judge of the quali- fications of candidates for office. Perhaps the late Counsellors had some- thing more than a phrenologist amongst them — perhaps there was among them a discerner of spirits, who could judge the heart, as well as the head and acts of the Governor General himself ! Their charge is a groundless inference at best; is condemned by the counter assertion of the Governor General; and shows the desperate means they were driven to employ in order to implicate his Excellency. How would the reader like to be judged and condemned on such evidence ? , Then to notice the other parts of this charge. Why has it been charged against the Governor General again and again, that he made appointments against the advice of the late Council, when, as Mr. Baldwin asserts, it is his undoubted right to do so ? The reason is obvious — to damage the Governor General as much as possible, right or wrong. Again, another part of the charge is, that his Excellency made offers of appointments without the advice of the Council. Allow the truth of thisj does it authorise their conclusion or charge, that the Governor General has, therefore, violafed the principle of Responsible Government ? Are offers of appointments, appointments ? And is it not with the latter that the Parliament has to Ao ? What has the Parliament to do with offers. of appointment?, any more than it has to do with the dinner or counsel hours of his Excellency and his advisers. It is with the acts of the Executive, tnd not conversations of any kmd — be they offers or refusals^ w 48 en tbo ptrt pf tho Governor or bia ftdviBers-— that Parliament is concerned. Who ever beard before of Parliament being called upon to determine tbn manner and the topict of conversation between the Sovereign and indivi- dualal Will any one deny that one or more of the Counsellora have talked with individuals about their appointment to office— have proposed it| b've oncerted it, have promised it as far as they were c rcerned; and «11 this before the Governor General had ever been spoken to on the 8ub< ject ? And is not tbe prerogative of tiie Sovereign equal to that of one ^ hi9 advuera ? Or in this respect also are the Counsellors to bo aupreme and the Governor General subordinate ? Such is the theory involved in their pretensions and charges. TAej/ cr o talk and bargain with individuals for their appointment to office ; but if the Governor General makes even a verbal offer, he violates tbe constitution ! And why would they deny the Crown a privilege which they exercise them- •elves, if it were not to make it a " tool V I have heretofore shewn that Sritish Sovereigns have done more than make offers of appointments «rtthout consulting any minister ; yet no one ever questioned the rig^h4t whatever he might think of the policy or the expediency of such a course. QSen of office either by tbe Crown or its advisers involve, of course, tbo condition of a compliance with constitutional forms^-in the former cast) tbe instrumentality of at least one responsible minister-- in the latteri the sanction of the Crown. But suppose, contrary to all precedent and to common sense, that Parliament could interfere with the conversations of the Sovereign with individuals, what, in parliamentary law, would be deemed an offer of office^ and what would be regarded as proof of an offer of office having been n)ade ? Would a private conversation be deemed either an q/Heial acti or official proof? Is ony thing short of written correspondence deemed official in such cases ? How utterly destitute then of the very shadow of proof, as well as propriety, is this charge of the late Counsel- lors against the Governor General ? Another item of it is, that his Excellency made appointments without giving his late advisers nn opportunity of tendering tiieir advice. This likewise be it recollected, is the mere assertion of one of the parties against the denial of the other — unproved, therefore, and such as no judge would suffer even to go to a jury. But the charge is as vague, and there- fore as senseless as it is proofless. They do not state what they mean by **a»» opportunity of tendering their advice" — whether it should include ten days, or ten hours, or ten minutes — whether it should imply their meeting his Excellency in council, or meeting themselves in committee of eoonci), or one of them advising with his Excellency, nor do they state h»w many appointments— wAa( kind of appointments— (M«;i they were 4» tt M i » > «w ho were appointed ; nay, *ho lat« adrkitm ttatc not one tingle coreamtUnee which would render it poieible for man or anfel to rebdl their chargfe. How would the reader like to have hie character and right* thus dealt with 1 I venture to say, that any court, or even election com- mittee of the Assembly, would dismiss such a charge with costs, ae frivoious and vexatious. Bat there may have been important political reasons for this yttj vagueness, which, in the eye of reason and law, would vitiate the whole charge, ft seems to have been presumed that the house would not observe the irregularity and unfairness of the proceeding itself, although there might have been ground to apprehend that minute specification in regard to the charge would be too well understood by the house. For example, had it appeared that there was but a plurality of appointment* made in the manner stated, out of the scores of appointments which had taken place; *' at one or mi>re of them had transpired months before, without the Counsellors either leaving office or remonstrating respecting tiMm; that the salary attached to each but little exceeded the sum which the Governor General has given in a single subscription out of his own private purse; the late advisers might have found it difficult, upon any one or more of these cases, to have justified their proceeding. They, there- fore, kept them out of sight. Had the specification of them been favour^ able to their objects, we should doubtless have had them in ample detail. But the indefinite and imposing term "app oiNTMfiNTs'* served the purposo •f party better than the specification of case% and the general and start- ling phrase, « without an opportunity of tendering advice,'' would be more •flwctive than aa unsophisticated statement of facte* On the former, a party vote could be carried; on the latter, only an honest verdict could be expected ; and thus the character of the Governor General, no leas than bis (tferogative, most be secondary io party. I have not, however, done with this charge. I have shewn ice indefl' ntteaess, its unfairness, its injustice, its descrtufion of proof, its suspieiotii character; yet it has been the rallying cry and the watchword of the party that invented it. I will, therefore, proceed to prove the impossibility of its truth. Mr. Hincks, in his pamphlet in reply to Mr. Viger, p. 18, saye — >" Every member of the late council was as well aware as the Governor can be, that it is < physically impossible to make formal references to the couQcil of every matter that comes up for decision:' [quoting Sir Cliarles' reply to the Gore District CouncilJ" nor did any of them desire that any such system should be practised. Every act of the Governor, hovvever^ must be communicated by his Secretaryy and that Secretary should be a rs^onsible ministei-f thoroughly acquainted with the policy of the admi* OMtratJioa <^ which he is a member, and capable of advising the Governor *li ■^ ■ ~1 44 on every subject not of sufficient importance to be referred to the Council. If the Secretory recommends any step prejudicinl to the adminidtrntioni which, for his own snke he would not do, his colleagues of course hold him responsible to them." Such then is the exposition of the practicul working in detail of Re5pon- sible Government by the party of tiie l;ite Counsellors themselves. Now, can an appointment bo officially made by the Governor-General except through the Secretary of the Province — a member of the Legislature, a responsible adviser of the Crown ? Tliey know it cannot — any more than the Governor-General can talk without a tongue, or see without eyes. The Provincial Secretary is the keeper of the Provincial Seat, with which every commission must be stamped— the same as the Lord Chan- cellor is the keeper of the Great Seal of State in I']ngland. The Secre- tary's office is the medium through which every official appointment must be made ; and the Secretary is (to use De Lolme'a words) " the necessary instrument" by whom it must be made. > • ;< , f u f-*. f^f Now, suppose the Governor-General were to send an order to the Secretary directing him to affix the Provincial Seal to a commission for an appointment respecting which the Council had never been consulted, and on which they had had no opportunity of tendering their advice, the Secretary would have four courses before him. He could not positively disobey orders ; but he could tender his own resignation, and request the Governor to appoint some other person to perform that act ; or he could go to his Excellency and advise and remonstrate against it ; or he could affix the official seal to it forthwith, for which he would be responsible to his colleagues ; or he could inform them, and they could either consent to it, or go in a body, or send one or niore of their number to the Gover- nor, and tender their advice against it. Taking, therefore, the extremest and least favourable view of the Governor-General's mode of making an appointment, it is impossible for him to do it without giving his Council an opportunity of tendering their advice according to the very working of the system of Responsible Government, as above explained by one of the late Counsellors. What is impossible cannot be true. Their charge, therefore, agamst the Governor-General— rtheir great charge — their charge repeated ten thousand times — is shown to be not only undefined and unproved, but utterly groundless and false. > * , But it has been alleged by Mr. Hincks and others, that his Excellency has carried on correspondence with individuals in the Colony, even on public affiiirs, through his Private Secretary, and not through his respon- sible official Provincial Secretary. To give the adversaries every advan- tage they can ask, let this charge be admitted in its full extent ; and will the legitimuie conclusion from their charge be but a proof of what Sir 45 Charles has complained of, that the late advisers made demands incom- patible with the inviolnbleness of the prerogative, and calculated to reduce it to the office of u party tool. Had not each of the late advisers uprivate as well as on ojjicinl correspondence ? Did tlicy not carry on their private correspondence, either in tlieir own handwriiing or by means of a private ■ecretaryl Did not that piivatecorrespondcnco often relate to public afTuirs —to offices, colleijes, &tc. ? Did not that private correspondence some- times contain declarations, or, in common parlance, pledges, of what they would do in relation to particular appointments or measures, to the utmost of their power ? Hud ihey not a right to this private corresf tndence — and that on any subject, public or private, they choose to write about 1 They might exercise that right indiscreetly — as a mti,.i might eat and drink indiscreetly— but the right was there, and the exercise of it was a matter of their own concern, nllhough it might sometimes prove inconvenient both to the writer and his colleagues. And has not the Governor-General a right equal to one of his advisers 'J Is he the only member of the government who has no right to express his personal views and feelings on any subject ? If any member of the Council can even pledge himself to a particular act or measure to the utmost of his power, cannot the Governor-General do the same — although the power of the latter, as veil ns the foruDer, ma/ be limited by constitutional restrictions Can ary Counsellor write to whom and through whom he pleases, without the sanction or knowledge of the Governor-General ? and has his Excellency no right to correspond with any body on any matter relating to the country, e;Kcept through them ? If so, then in this respect also, as well as in others that I have stated, they claim to be supreme, and make his Excellency subordinate. And this is not all. They thereby deprive every man in Canada of all epistolary communication with the Governor -General, except through themselves. If even a stray letter should happen to find its way to the government house, without stopping for examination as to its orthodoxy, at the Secretary's office, it would have to go there for acknowledgment, and consequent'y tor censorship. Here again their supremacy would appear, both over the Governor and over every man — and every man's business in the country. And this usurpation on the one hand and degra- dation on the other of every man in Canada as wel' as the Governor- General, is digniPed with the absurd name of " Responsible Government," and vice-regal non-acknowledgment of it is called an invasion of constitu- tional liberty ! \^ t^i ' . Nor even is this all. The chairman of the Toronto Association (See Qlohe Extra, pp. 12, 13,) at a meeting held 25th March, exclaimed against persons not supporters of the administration having interviews with the f ! J- 46 Goveraor-Gwanl, and againit any but the " tht iMding membera of Um majority of the Legislature" advising with hia Excellency ; and concluded by declaring that ^ he maintained ihAt no pertoti had a right to b« codn ■ultod by the Crown but the administration." It has been aeen that th« right of epittolary communication between the Governor-General and any inhabitant of Canada, except through the Counsellor*, has been denied ; The right o( pergonal intercourse between them U now interdicted except through the same channel. Thus the Governor-General, like the Grand Lama of India, may be worshipped, but he must be approached by the permianorj of the priests who have him in custody, and give forth amwoM of their dictation ; or, like an inmate of the Kingston Penitentiary, com- DMinicate neither Tcrbally nor by writing with any person, except by the permission and through the medium of his keepers. If this does not imply an oligarchy — and an oligarchy of tho worst kind, over both the Cruwn and the people — ^I know not what an oligarchy means. Mr. Black— an able constitutional Inwyer of Quebec, and representative of that city — argued in favour of the Governor's receiving the advice of the Council upon the same ground that a judge should hear both sides oft case. Mr. Black said that the Governor would receive abundant informa- tion from various quarters on one side of a cose— especially one involving an appointment — his Council could give him the necessary information on the other side. Bat the doctrine of the late Counsellors would preclude and prohibit his Excellency from receiving any infurniatior, either verbally or written, except what they might please to lay before him. He would thus of necessity, and therefore in fact, be a " tool " in the hands of his advisers. But even all this does not reach the full demands of the Toronto Asso- ciation statesmen. They require that the Governor-General shall conflalt his advisers only after a certain mode. The chairman of that Association aay«, "He maintained that the mode of consultation ought to b^ by the heads of departments going to the Governor, and saymg what the country wanted, and what they recommended to be done. Not by the Governor going to the heads of departments, and telling them what he wanted to be done. (Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Boulton) had been a hundred times in Downing-strect, during the reign of several Sovereigns, but he had never known an instance of a King going there and giving directions as to what he wanted done. (Laughter.) No, the Minister goes to the Sovereign and says, I propose to appoint such a person to office, and then the ques- tion is, shall he be appointed by the Crown or not." [ Globe Extra, p. 13.} Now, I have also been in Downing-street during th« reign of successive StavBreigns, and although I have never seen the Sovereign come there and give directiona as to what he wanted to be done, I have known soara- 47 thing ttill more •hocking to the non-prerogative men of the Torobio AMOCJation. I have frequently known the King to eend to Downing- ■treet, and command heads of department* to go to the Palace, in order that he might tell them what he wanted. I once had an appointment to meet a head of department in Downing-street^ and when I arrived at the appointed time, I was told that ilie King hail commanded his Lordship down to Brighton— «ix/y milet from London ! I recollect of hearing it as a public rumour in Kingston last autumn, that the Governor-General very seldom came down to the Council Chamber— in our Canadian Downing^ •treat— but that the heads of departments were under the disagreeable necessity of going all the way to the Government House — upwards of a mile— whenever they wished to '< tell him what they wanted to be done." But had the Governor-General commanded them to go sixty miles, to learn what he wanted them to do, what a death-blow would have been given to Responsible Government, and what an address would have come forth from the Toronto Association ! • Why, Lord Johk Rvssbli. himself-— the practical and profound states- man, the i^uriarch of civil liberty— is but a novice compared with these giant exp<«itors of the Toronto Association— he is a more hopeless heretic in their political creed than Sir Charles Metcalfe himself. In the late debate on the state of Ireland, Lord John Russell referred to her Majesty and her inttruction$ in the following words :— «The Sovereign I have served— and a Sovereign more anxious for the benefit and happiness of the Irish people, it would be impossible to serve. Never did I RECEIVE, when I was in the ofiice of Secretary of State for the Home Department, any INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SOVEREIGN, but such as bespoke an equal regard for all her Irish subjects — for Protestant, for Catholic, and for Presbyterian." Here Lord John Russell speaks of receiving advice from his Sovereign — as well as of giving advice to her — nay, even of " receiving instructions from the Sovereign," and of receiving instructions not merely in respect to an appointment to office, but ir respect to the principles and spirit of the government of all Ireland I The truth is, that in England statesmen of all parties, and the ent'ft nation, cherish some regard for the opinions and wishes and feelings of the Sovereign, and a universal determination to maintain unimpaired t!]« safeguards of the throne. But while in England the Sovereign can ev en be the guest of the political opponents of the cabinet; in Canada he masl not bear opinions from any but the " leaders of the majority," even at the Government House. In England, the Sovereign can send for a minister even at the distance of sixty miles ; in Canado, he must not even go to a minister at his department. In England, the Sovereign can even giv« insUwcUons to a minister ; in Canada, he must not even express a wa^» ms^J m 48 (*. Nay, he must know no wants but those which his adviser* see fit to express, and the length and breadth of their wants will be the interests of themnelves ond their party. And this we are ttiUI is BriMsh Responsible Govorntnont ! And bciaiitc Sir Charles Metcnlfo will rtot bow down to this, he is to bo impeached and ostracised as an enemy to the constitution and people of* Ciinuda, and driven back (to uho the cxprcysivo words of Captain Irving, Rmid the cheers of iho Toronto Association) "into retire- ment in dear old liJngland, whore ti/ranta have no power,'* and whore "A« will writhe under the reproach and remorse that is ever inflicted by a. secret monitor on all those who disregard, or wantonly sport with the happineia of their fellow creatures, or trample on the rights and liberties of thoat they were unfortunately doomed to govern." [Loud cheers.] y*^ There are several minor circnmstanoes referred to in the statements of the late Counsellor!), which will be noticed when I come, in the next number, to discuss the converse of the proposition discisscd in this article, namely, "That the statements of his Excellency are fully sustained by the testimony of his accusers and adversaries—especially those of Uessrs. Sullivan, Hincks, Boulton, and Brown (Editor of the Globe newspaper.)" I will conclude this number with three general remarks. The reader will have seen, that I have judged the accusers of Sir Charles Metcalfe out of their own mouths. I have given their statements and doctrines in their own wordn, and examined the imp^^rt, truth, application, and ten- dency of them, upon the most obvious anu universally received principles of true interpretation and sound evidence; and that on every ground they are shewn to be improved, unjust and unfounded. The second remark is, that if the Governor General be placed under the confineriient of all the bands and bolts and bars which (he Toronto Asso- ciationists have forged and insisted upon fastening around him, it can no longer be boasted that no slave lives under the British flag— -that the moment he plants his foot on British soil his manacles fall off, and be is a free man. Canada will be an exception. There will be at least one slave in Canada — and that slave will be the nominal Representative of the British Sovereign. The last remark relates to the duty of members of the House of Assembly. I think it has been mude apparent in this and the preceding number, that the whole proceedings of the late Counsellors, in their resig- nation and charges ogninst the Governor General, were at utter variance with British practice, and that the proceedinor of the house therefore was irregular and unprecedented. I submit therefore to every honest and patriotic member of the hause, whether it is. not his duty to employ his best endeavours to have this whole aSuir thoroughly investigated ; whe- ther a select committee ought not to be appointed to examine the prece- 49 denti ofBriliiih parliamentary practice in luch cases; whether, if the mode of proceeding bo found to havo been unparliamentary and dangerous, what has been done ought not to bo rescinded, and the late CounsellorH be requiied to prepare "a caso of facts" on which the hoiieo might safely and justly decide ; or whether a select committee ought not to bo appointed, with power to send for portions and papers, to inquire into the real causes and circumstances of the late ministerial resignations, and report thcreon- Tiie stability of the throne, the privileges of parliament, the rights of the subject, tho peace and welfare of the country, demand the most searching investigation of this whole offair. Justice and truth love the light of noon day; party dreads any other light than the blaze of its own organization. In a calm, determined, impartial legislative inquiry into this whole ques- tion, I doubt not but misunderstandings would be corrected, explanations given, and concessions made, which would eminently conduce to promote honourable reconciliations, establish " unity, peace and concord," and heal the wounds of our bleeding country. Johnson has well said, << Discord begins in mutual frailty, and ought to end in mutual forbearance." contents—No. 4. Third propo&iti(m stated — Anomaly'— Teatimony of Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks to the accuracy of the Governor GeneraPs statement of facts — Their absurd distinctions — fVhat proved — iStV Charles Metcalfe's statements quoted — Late Counsellors guilty of four fallacies in their explanation — Sir CharM statement of their most plausible demand and his resistance of it examined and justified-— The facts stated by Sir Charles and admitted by the late Counsellors, but entirely omitted in their explanation — The great disputed fact stated, and the evidence on each side examined— Condutive in favour of Sir Charles Metcalfe. The last proposition which I discussed was, « that the late Counsellors have failed to establish the allegations which they had made against his Excellency." The proposition to which I now invite the attention of the reader is, " That the statements of his Excellency are fully sustained by his accusers and adversaries — especially those of Messrs. Sullivan, XKtickSf Bovlton, and Brown (Editor of the Globe newspaper)." G T 50 The very diacuiaion of two such proposition! \n an anomaly in the hiatory of Reaponaible Govornment. I know not of .n instance In the biatory of England, ainco the revolution of 1088, of tho Crown and Ita ex-adviscra being at isauc before tho nation on a Bttttetnont of facta. It is incompatible with the firnt ptinciplcH of ResponMible Government. The exhibition of such n Kcpno in Canuda Bhoiild, iherrfore, apenk with a thunder-like voice to tho entire population, that something is radically and essentially wrong in Ihe procccdingj uf the late Counsellors— that whatever may have been the merits or donierifB of their administration in other respcctii, they have in tlieir proceedings with tho Representative of the Sovereign, inflicted a inoro serious v/ound upon the charactT of tm ayatem of Responbihio Clovernincnt in u colony than has ever yet beer experienced in the history of Canada — not even excepting the stopping of tho supplies by the U. C. House of Assembly in 1830. And had not the conclusion, authoriiicd by tho unconstitutional proceedings of the la^e Counsellors, been parolyzed by the British and constitutional mode in which Mr. Howe and two of his colleagues proceeded in their resignations in Nova Scotia, it is difBcult to foretel what might have been the fate of the very system of Responsible Government itself in Canada. To place that unrivalled system upon a safe Brili.«h foundation is one primary object with me in this discussion. To writ r or against any party in the Province is alien to my feelings, as s unworthy of my character. I have never written for or against the appointment of any man or party to office. It is of no consequence to me what man or party is in power. All I have to do is with tho fundamental principles and constitutional apJrit of our government. And when those principles and that spirit are viola'ed by ony party, or even any Governor, I will not hesitate to do, as I have done throughout my public life, -emonstrate against what ia con- stitutionally wrong, politically dangerous, and morally unjust. • The anomaly to which I have referred has been strongly felt by tho late Counsellors. Hence they have manifested no small degree of inge- nuity and 7-cal to conceal and suppress it — to represent that the difference between the statement of the Governor General and their own was trivial —that tho two statements harmonized in every essential purlicular. And their own attestation on this ground to the " Protest" of Sir Charles Metcalfe, is my first proof of the correctness of his stt.ements. Sir Charles Metcalfe denies the correctness of their statements ; they acknowledge the correctness of his. The two parlies do not assent to the statements of the late Counsellors ; the two parties do assent to the atatements of the Governor General. His statements, therefore, are the only real constitutional " case of facts" before the country. What I thus aaeert, I will now prove. 61 Mr. Baldwin, in hia ipflecli Iwfore the Toronto ABtociaiion, u&th March, uttered the following words, as jjivon in the official report : «* Again, it had b»(on Haid timt there had boon a diacropancy between the STATKMKnrs of Mr. I^ufontaino'H nolo, and that of the Iletid of the Govoriiment ; but u careful poniHul of ihoKC docuinentB will show, that no diacrepanci/ oxiMtM as to the kai rs ullcgod in that note." Mr. IIiNCKB, in bin roply to Mr. Vigor's pamphlet, referring to the statements of the Uovornor General and hiii late CouiiHellors, says— "there is no difference with regard to kacts ;" and adds afterwards— "there is an apparent, although no real difl'orenco between the Governor General and tho late Ministry with regard to the 'stipulation,' which never could have existed had there been a re8pon!»iblo minister in Parlia- ment during tho ditcutBion, as was fully expected when Iho eiptanationa were made. As to otiikh pointh therk is no oisruTR." (pp. lo, 11.) These admissions of McHsrs, Baldwin and ''^i'i;'"j aro proof demonstra- tive of the correctness of Sir Charles ftJ it<.'''tc'a i- ..ilAmont of FACTS. Indeed, Mr. Hincks admits that thcro is no real (lltc.cMa between the Governor General ond his late Counsellors as to the ** tlipulation^' which has been so lustily denied by tho Toronto Associationists and their organs; and that ''as to the other points thcro is no dispute.*' Messrs. 1> ildwin and Ilinckb' alleged harmony between the statement of facta by the Governor Goncrul and hit) late advisers, is not the 'piestion now under consideration. Of that every reader can judge, who has perused the preceuing (third) number of my present argument. In their statement of facts, they made several allegations against tho Governor General which I have shewn were not only denied by his Excellency, but were unproved and unfounded. They now tell ns very gravely that there was no difference between their facts and those of Sir Charles Metcalfe! It it thus that they not only contradict thcmstlves, but become tho unin- tentional and conclusive witnesses of the integrity ot Ins Excellency' $ facts. Thoir very attempt to claim company with his Excellency in their statement of facts, is not only a refutation of their charges against him — not only a testimony to his statement of facts — but argues their own conviction of the fatal consequences to the constitutionality of their whole explanatory proceedings did any discrepancy exist between their facts and those of the Governor General. The existence of that discrepancy I have shewn in a variety of particulars — and those particulars, too, of fundamental importance. The late Counsellors, therefore, stand con- demned, themselves being judges. Both Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks have attempted to make a distinction between the " facts alleged" in the statements of Sir Charles Metcalfe III ;]■ ■!.. i- 1. ', n ] • \\ h ' ! Jl'.' I ]f 52 aiic? hia late advisers and their respective " views" and " explanations!* and ^^ arguments.'* Mr. Baldwin says — "There is, indeed, much diflTe- rence in the views of the respectiv :/ parties, but that was what led to the disrnptio.-i — the Head of the Government protesting against < the expla- nation,' not against the existence of any fact stated by Mr. Lafontaine,— we also protest c gainst his Excellency's explanation." Mr. Hincks says, that the answer of his Excellency to the ex-Counsellors, " is not a protest against explanations being made, but against the arguments made use of by Mr. Lafontaine and his colleagues." < Now, I would ask any man of common sense— nay, any boy that can read English — what the '"explanation" and "arguments" of the late advisers consisted of but a statement of facts , and what a " protesi" against that " nxplanation" and those " arguments" was, but a denial of that statement of facts ? The late advisers tiove asserted long and loud, that they resigned "pon certain facts, and yet they tell us that a proiest against their explanation is not a protest against any fact stated by them! From the seise in which Mr. Hincks appears to use the word 'argu- ments," we are left to infer that ihe explanation of the lute advisers con- sisted of a string of syllogisms (curious materials for an explanation of lacts !), ana that Sir Charles Metcalfe protested against the materials employed in the explanation, but not against an explanation being made. It is by such solecisms — they do not rise to the rank of sophisms — that the accusers of Sir Charles attempt to e'ilist thd public against him. Mr. Baldwin says, the "difiarence in iheviews of the re>i^ective parties led to the disruption." No one doubts this. Of course no disruption would have taken place had no difference of views existed. But that is not the question. The Ihree-fold question is, first, what statement of views did his Excellency consent that his late advisers should make ? I have shewn in the second number of these articles, that he did not authorise them to make the statement which they made, and that their doing so without such authority is fraught with dangerous consequences. The second question is, was their statement of allegations proved ? I have shewn in the third number, that it was neither proved, nor true. The third question is, is his Excellency's statement correct 1 I have adduced Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks as witnesses as to the unexception- able accuracy of its facts. Wpre I addressing a jury of twelve men in a court of justice, I might confidently rest the whole case here ; but addressing, as J am, the jury of the country through the press, I will proceed further, and notice Sir Charles Metcalfe's statements in detail, as I have those of his late advisers. ilis Excellency's general statement is contained in the f<^llowing words : gpnl and veyl whiJ 53 "The Governor-General protests against the explanation which thoae gAQtIemen propose to ofTer to Parliament, as omitting entirely the actual and prominent circumstances which led to their resignation, and as con- veying to Parliament a misapprehension of his scntiiuints and intentions which have no foundation in any part of his conduct, unless his refusal to make a virtual surrender o? the Prerogative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes, and his anxiety to do justice to those who were injured by the arrangements attending the Union, can be regarded as warranting Buch a representation, and which is calculated to injure hmi withont just cause, in the opinion of the Parliament and people, on whose confidence he places his sole reliance for the successful administration of the Govern- meLt." I have already examined the late advisers' representction of hia Excel- lency's "sentiments and intentions" in several , jpects. His Excellency's statement that they had " omitted the actual and prominent circumstances which led to their resignation," has never, as far as I have read their speeches and writings, been denied by any one of them. On this most important point they have been profoundly silent ; and well they might be, a<) will soon appear. Let us now consider " the actual and prominent circumstances \s hich led to their resignation," as stated by the Governor-General. His Excel- lency says — « On Friday, Mr. Lafontaine aad Mr. Baldwin came to tht Government House, and after some other matters of business, and some preliminary remarks as to the course of their proceeding, demanded of the Governor-General that he should agree to make no appointment, and no offer of an appointment, without previously taking the advice of the Council ; that the lists of candidates should in every instance be Izi'd before the Council ; that they should recommend any others at discretion ; and that the Governor-General, in deciding, after taking their advice, should not make any appointment prejudicial to their influence." This demand, as a whole, the Governor-General interpreted as implying " that the patronage of the Crown should be surrendered to the Council for the purchase of parliamentary support." To this demand, " The Governor- General replied, that •- ., would not make any such stipulation, and could not degrade the character of his office, nor violate his duty, by such a surrender of the Prerogative of the Crown." His Exce.iency's/acte are admitted by Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks — though they do not like his interpretation of those facts, namely, that they involve "the surrender of the patronage of the Crown to the Council for the purchase of parlia- mentary support." But how many of those facts did the late Counsellors •tate in their parliamentary " explanation ? " They stated only one, and omitted the others, which his Excellency declares were "the^ircum 54 stances which led to their resignation." That ihoy stated but one of these facts in their explanation., is clear, not only from an examination of it, but from the resolution of the House of Assembly founded upon it, which expressed " the deep regret felt by this House at the retirement of certain members of the Provincial Administration, on the question of their right to be consulted on what this House unhesitatingly avows to be the Prerogative of the Crown, — appointments to office ; and further to assure his Exce'.lepcy that their udvocacj, of this principle entitles them to the confidence of this House, being in strict accordance with the principles embraced in the Resolutions adopted by this House on the 3rd September, 1841." ' ■ i It will thus be seen that the late advisers presented their claim to the confidence of the House, not upon the recommendations which they had made of certain pe.sons to office, but upon the "question of their right to be consulted :" not upon their advocacy of a certain kind or line of policy, but upon their alleged advocacy of a certain principle, which his Excel- lency (the other party in the "case of facts," avers was never a subject of dispute. Now, before examining minutely the several facts embraced in bis Excellency's statement, I must make a remark or two on the fallacy of the kind of omissions which the Governor-General alleges against the explanation of his late advisers. A good writer on historical investigation remarks, that " a statement of facts is fallacious when any of the alleged facta are not true — when it includes facts not relating to the subject— and when important facts are omitted. This last error is most frequently exemplified in those cases in which facts are collected on one side of a question, or in support of a particular doctrine. To the same class we may likewise add those instances in which statements are received as facts, which are not y*ac/», but opinions.^* Into every one of these four kinds of fallacies have the late Counsellors fallen in their " explanation." They drag in certain alleged " opinions " of the Governor-General, which he denies, and which, did they exist, have DO more to do with the working ol' the system of Responsible Government than the colour of his Excellency's hair. The system of Responsible Government requires that every appointment to office should be made through a responsible minister. While there is a responsible minister who keeps the seal of state, — while every commission must be stamped by that seal, and consequently endorsed by that minister — there is Respon- sible Government, whatever may be the opinions of the Sovereign or Governor as to its excellence or folly. The system of Responsible Government is no more depending upon the opinion or will of the Sove- mgn than it is upon the light of the mocr,, or the opinion of any other 55 jnaividual In the realm. Sir F. Head denied that ony other individual but fiimself was responsible for any act of his government, and affirmed that he vvas responsible lo the Imperial authority alone. Here was the denial of local Responsible Government. Sir Charles Metcalfe affirms through- out that his advisers are responsible to the representatives of the people of Canada for every act of his government, relitiiig to the internal affiiirs of the Province, and thai these advisers should possess the confidence of Parliament. Here is the essence of Responsible Government, whatever may bo the Governor-General's or any other man's opinion as to its virtues or vices. In thus lugging in certain alleged opinions of the Governor General (but disclaimed by bin),) in a professed statement of facts relative to their own proceedings, and in making irrelevant statements about those opinions, ''public rumors," fcc, the late Counsellors fell into the second and fourth of the above mentioned fallacies. In resting their case upon a state- ment denied by the other party, and therefore unsupported as a fact by any evidence, they are guilty of the first mentioned fallacy. In "omitting important facts," they are chargeable with the third kind of fallacy. To the two last mentioned fallacies I now invite the reader's attention. I have heretofore proved, that it was impossible for the Governor- General to make appointments in violation of the principle of Responsible Government, as long as he had a responsible Provincial Secretary, and as long as that Secretary was the keeper of the Public Seal of the Province. I have also adduced His Excellency's denial that he had ever deviated from that principle ; and now, (considering each part of his statement separately,) in reference to that particular of his statement in which he says, that the If Counsellors "demanded of the Governor-General, that he should agrc ■ make no appointment, and no oflTer of appointment, without previously taking the advice of the r> ." " The Governor- General replied that he " nild make nosuch hiipuiation." They allege to the House of Assembly, thnt the Govi rnor-General has denied them the right of consultation ; and the house, on that statement, (denied, be it remembered, by His Excellency,) adopts a i solution of confidence in them, " on the question of their righuo be consulted on appointment* to office." This is their whole case. Let the fallaciousness of it now be exposed,— the statement of His Excellency established, and his conduct justified. In the first place, their demand exce* what is required in the practice of Responsible Government. They demand that no step shall be taken in regard to an appointment, without Hit Excellency agreeing first to consult his "Council;" whereas, Responsible Government, (according to the interpretation of Mr. Hincks, which I quoted in the last nua>ber, and according to other authorities, which I shall give in another place,) requires, that he shall consult a Re^omible Minister. . i 56 In the second place, they demanded what no Ministers, oi Minister of the Crown have ever demanded of the Sovereign, since the establisnment of Responsible Government in England, in 1688. They cannot adduce an instance of a Minister ever having asked the Sovereign to give such a pledge or assurance, as they demanded of the Governor-General. Indeed, in all their statements and speeches, and declamation on this subject, they have not, to my knowledge, adduced a single j?rccfrfen^ in justification of such a procedure. They assert many things, but they prove nothing. In the third place, their demand implied the confession of what the Governor-General denied as a fact, and what involved the degradation of his character and office. Suppose, Mr. Reader, that you were living on terms of friendly and confidential intercourse with a neighbour, and had been so living for a long time ; and that that neighbour should come to you, and ask you to enter into an agreement or explicit understanding with him, that you would neither slander nor defraud him ; what would you think of his proposal or demand ? Would you accede to it ? or would you tell him that if your past conduct did not afford him sufficient assurance of your integrity and honesty, you had no security to give : and, because you would not agree to such an insulting and degrading proposal, would he be justified in representing you as a calumniator and a rogue ? So, the late Counsellors go to the Governor-General, and make a demand or proposal that he would agree to what he declares " he has hitherto pursued without deviation," and because he refuses to comply with their (^emand or proposal, they represent him as adverse to the system of ^ responsible Government, and ask a vote of the house and of the country to support them, for such an " advocacy of that principle." But, let the reader take a well-known fact, instead of a supposition, as an illustration. There is, perhaps, not an old resident in Canada who does not well remember the celebrated Alien Bill ; — a bill which required all persons who had settled in Canada since 1783, to take the oath of allegiance within twelve months, on pain of forfeiting their privileges British subjects. What was the people's interpretation of the demand or proposal contained in that bill ? Would they accede to it? TLsy were told that no good subject would object to taking the oath of allegiance to his Sovereign as often as it might be required :— that it was necessary on several accounts. Did they believe such reasoning ? Did they not declare, with an ardour and an enthusiastic determination which defies description, that they would never take an oath which implied, that they were all aliens to a s:overnment to which they had alreat ^ sworn and ioBg professed allegianv,e — that they would never submit to such a degradation of their choracter and rights ? Did they not make their voice heard across the Atlantic, to the disallowance of the bill 1 And is Sir 57 Charles Metcalfe to be denounced or honoured for acting upon the same principle 1 He is called upon to express, in a peculiar and unprecedented form, his allegiance to a system which he avows he " has hitherto pursued without deviatioUj and to which it is fully his intention to adhere ;" and his refusal thus to degrade his character and office, is interpreted as practical hostility to that system of Government. How did the opponents of the alien bill like such an interpretation of their refusal to Comply with the " stipulations " of that measure ? It is by such a fallacy and such a proceeding that the late Counsellors have sought to persuade, the people of Canada that the Governor-General is an enbt, H if^ .j'-P 68 "called upon the Head of the Government to enter into asti^kttiMM %o the teroM upon which a provincial miniatry may deem it prudent eitiMtf to accept or continue in office " — a demand which the Houm 4ieoJainMd In a ne^tive form, in the words just «j[uotQd. This demand also pelnta to Mm assumption on which I dwelt in the pr«cediiig number,— that the iatoCoM- sellors wifibod to cut oflfall communication between the Goveinof>QtliM9l and any individual in the Province, except through themselvea ;<««llwui mailing the Crown a ^ tooV' «nd infringing on iadividHal rigbt«t Afl tlMB statement of such a demand did not answer their purpose^ they omUtd It in their " explanation." Again, His Excellency says that "He appealed to the number of appointments made by him on the recommendation of the Councfl, or tho members ef it in their departmental capacity, and to instances in which be had abstained from conferring appointments on their opponents, a« fiirnishing proofs of the consideration which he had evinced towards die Council in the distribution of the patronage of the Crown." Here the Governor-General states several important facts. Messrs. Baldwin und Hincks admit his statement offacti. Yet not one of these facta is 9Vf|i alluded to in their " explanation." No ; such facts were rather incoQV9- nient, as well as stubborn things, in their explanation. They di4 W\f therefore, consider them (to use Mr. Hincks' words) << necessary for tbfir complete justification." From these facts it appears >—l£t. Tb«t tb^ principle on which the patronage of the Crown ought to be distributc^i was a prominent topic of discussion between His Excellency and bis l^tp Advisers ; whether it should be confined to one party, (tho old exclvmivp doctrine of high Canadian ultraism, and now adopted by the lalQ covmii fU lors ;) or whether, as Mr. Howe, of Nova Scotia, declares, — *• TAlO Sovereign is bound to bestow all offices for the general good, vvitbovVt reference to party." But this vitally important question — the very essence of the first '< antagonism " between the Governor-General «b4 his late Counsellors, as I shall hereafter prove out of their own moutbfrr' this question, on which they now dwell with the strongest enaphwis — ^tbP question so largely debated between the Governor-General and them— - they did not even mention it in their explanation — they kept it eninp\j out—" it was not necessary for their complete justification "-—it might have caused their complete condemnation, a. It also appears fro© W» Excellency's statement, that he had evinced the utmost regard to thO recommendations of the council in making, and in abstaining frotu makiUT appointments ; the instances in which his own judgn>ent coippelled buo to dissent from their advice appear to have been " few and f^r b«iw«ei»4" —yet all this did not satisfy the demands of party ambition, so lo^ m • Mordecai, not paying the desired homage, ppuW vow and tbe« M 5» to Mine luliordiiiKte cUrkahip*— tiie wholo h«teil mce of oppo- ate sod (ivab muit be «xoomted from all hope of a morsel at tke haa4i of tW BocMiitivc^ not onl j by the coDatitutontl ebtoks of advice atkl raaif - MiiM, but bf the uneonstitutional boa^age of the throne, — in the form of a *< lAilpalaiioa " or understanding, that the influence of one party (and tb«t party tion of their own suggestions." It appears from these words of Mr. Hincks, that the late advisers bad the amazing liberality to propose three distinct propositions, and even in diflferent ter.T^::, provided they could accomplish the self-same purpose, of obtaining " a virtual surrender into the bands of the Council of the prerogative of the Crown." I next solicit the reader's attention to the /acfx contained in the follow- ing paragraph of the Governor General's answer to his late Counsellora : " In the course of the conversations, which both on Friday and Saturday foHowed the explicit demand by the Council regarding the patronage of the Crown, that demand being based on the construction put by some of the gentlemen on the meaning of Responsible Government, different opinions were elicited on the abstract theory of that still undefined ques> tion, as applicable to a colony,— a subject on \diich considerable difference of opinion is known every where to prevail ; but the Governor Generd, during those conversations, protested against its being supposed that he is practically adverse to the working of the system of Responsible Government which has been here established, which he has hitherto pursued without deviation, and to which it is fully his intention to adhere." I beg the reader to mark distinctly the facts stated in the paragraph thus quoted— /ae«», be it recollected, which have been admitted by Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks. The first /ocf referred to by the Governor-Generai for the third time, (and which he says in another place " became the prin- XiipaZ topic of discussion " on Saturday,) is "the explicit demand made by the Council regarding the patronage of the Crown." The second /act is, that that demand was « based on tho construction put by some of the gen- tlemen on the meaning of Responsible Government." I shall hereafter show, that in this last mentioned fact is involved all the mystery which jfor a long time hung, and to some extent still hangs, over the questions at issue between the Governor-General and his late Councillors. Partly .from a " pressure from without," explained in Mr. Parke's letter to one of his constituents, and partly from other conjectural causes, they have introduced a ne^D element into the system of Responsible Government— an element which I \yill prove they did not pretend twelve months ago formed any part or parcel of it — an element which invests it with all the danger which its opponents have plways ascribed to it— an element wbici) 61 clothes it with the character of old high party exchision and domination, initmd of the attribute of (to ose Lord Durham'tj words) "equal and impartial justice to all clasoes of her Majesty's subjects " — an element against the introduction and surges of which Sir Charles Metcalfe has set his face with tho firmness of the wave-beaten rocks of his native isle, while he retains all that was ever ncknowlodged by Sir Charles Bagot, all that was contemplated in the resolution» of September, 1841, all that is compatibJe with the safety of the Crown in England, or its supremacy in Canada— -an element which plucks from the Crown its prerogative of patronage without its own consent ; which makes it a "tool" instead of an umpire— an instrument instead of an agent — a slave instead of a Sove- reign. Before I shall have completed the present discussion, I purpose to make the all-important fact here alleged, as plain and as unquestionable as that two and two make four. It will then be seen that it was this new element, and not Responsible Government proper which formed the point of " antagonism " between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late advisers — this new wheel in the old and long worked machinery. It is not surprising, therefore, when an unheard of " demand, based by some of the gentlemen on the meaning of Responsible Government,'* was made, that the Governor-General should speak of "the abstract theory of that still undefined question, as applicable to a colony" — a remark which though guarded by his Excellency in a way that cannot by any decent criticism be tortured into a suspicion that " he is practically adverse to the working of the system of Responsible Government which has been here established, which he has hitherto pursued without deviation, and to which it is fully his intention to adhere " — has nevertheless been seized upon by the speechifying portion of the late advisers and the Toronto Associationists, and interwoven with the entire texture of their " still undefined " vocabulary — though Mr. William Hume Blake, Pro- fessor of Law, and champion of the Toronto Association, declared in his memorable Warren Hastings speech, that Responsible Government itself is not only an undefined, but an undefinable question. Yet the unqualified declaration of Mr. Blake is perfect orthodoxy, because he is of the party ; but the qualified remark of Sir Charles Metcalfe, made in a particular connexion and in reference to a peculiar interpretation, i& absolute heresy, because he is not of the party! Such is the spirit of party — a creature too multitudinous in its members to admit of the moral iniiuunce of indi- vidual responsibility, and too hetv rogeneous in its materials to warrant the hope of consistency. vu: Such then are the facts of Sir Charles Metcalfe's statement, which are admitted by Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks, and denied by none of their colleagues. I will now examine the most important, and the only disputed 62 Ikct alleged by his Excellency. Hu sajfl that the Ul* OoubmUoN "demanded that the Govei-nor- General $hould agree, that in dmidi^gf afUr tmking their advice, he would not make any appointment prtjmdieml |» their injlueiue." The Governor-General considered thii aa equtvalMil toagreeingr ''that the patronage of the Crown thomld be eurrendered to ike Council for the purchase of parliamentary rupport" tad replied, ^*Aat he would not make any auch stipulation, and could not degrade the eharmt* Ur of his qffice, nor violate his duly by auch a surrender of the prerogatint of the Crown:' ' It should be remarked that Sir Charles Metcalfe does not call thii demand a « stipulal' :.n " in the legal, or if you please, parliamentary wdm of that term, but in a moral sense, as an understanding between man and man-^D a sense which he had defined by the preceding statement. He ■ays « suo/i stipulation," " such a surrender of the prerogative of tht Crown." ^ On the contrary, the late Counsellors say, that they <' disthiCtiy ex- plained to bis Excellency, that they considered him free to act contrary to their advice." They therefore say that they did not require any "ati- palaiioa " as to the mode in which he should distribute the patronage «f tlis Crown. This is a simple statement of the question. Many of the warmest iupporters of the late Counsellors have declared, that if it could be shown that they required any such "stipulation," or understanding with hia Excellency as to his future course of proceeding, they violated their duty, they infringed the prerogative, and ought not to be sustained. Let ui now see whether it is not as clear as day that they did demand such on understanding, or what is equivalent between man and man to a stipula- tion. In discussing this question, I shall first examine the evidence which the late Counsellors adduce in proof of their assertion. I shall then adduce the evidence which has been furnished in support of the Governor-General'a statement. Here let it be observed that the naked conflicting statements of the two parties decide nothing on either side. As no man can be a witness in his own case, the assertions of the parties are not testimony. There $a therefore from such statements no proof fcr or against either party. Bhich a case, without the shadow of proof either for the plaintiff or defend- ant, no judge would submit to a jury; and if he did, no jury could cotne to aey legal dedsion in favour of either party, a« they would be bouail by mlh to give a verdict according to evidence, 9jnd as there would be ne jMrMmoe in the case. 63 To wkat erideoce, tb«n, have the late Counsellors appealed in proof of their ■tatoment ? I answer, a resohition of (ho Houie of AeaAoablyy leconded by Mr. Lafontaine, and voted for by hiH coIIeagueB ! That ify they adduce their own assertion on one Saturday to prove the truth of their own assertion of the previous Saturday ! ! ! Was their assertion any stronger evidence on Saturday the 2nd of December, than it was on Saturday the £5th of November ? If it was not evidence on the latter day, how came it evidence on the former day 1 Such is the evidence ( !!) by which the lata Counsellors propose to annihilate the statement of th« OoTernor-(3eneral. Mr. Hincks says, « The votes of the ex-DUBisteni for Mr. Boulton's resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Lafontaia*, ailbrd the best evidence that can be oiibrod, that they did not require a *Btipu{ation,' in the ordinary acceptation of that torm." — (Reply to Mr* V{gtr,p, 11.) The last part of this sentence is significant on anotlMr peiat->— it implies that the late Counsellors did require a ** stipulation " ii mime acceptation of that term. But more on this point presently. Mt. Baldwin says, << Again, an attempt had been made to mislead the puUn into (he belief that the disruption turned wholly on a demand by thf ministry for a stipulatiwp-r-oa it is called— of an unconstitutioaal obarao- ter, (Heari hear.) But he (Mr. Baldwin) thought that his learned friend, Mr. Lafontaine, having seconded Mr. Boulton's addition to the address, was a sufficient proof that ail they asked was that mutual upder- standiRg which Mr. Boulton's resolution not only recognised, but indeed dcQlar$d to be absolutely necessary. (Cheers.) " — ( Tarouto AaBodaiion Speech, Sl^th March.) Here then is the assertion of the late Counseilom M evidence in proof of their assertion ! What a curious institution the administration of justice would be, were it conducted on such a principle ! What admirable logicians ! How profoundly learned in the law of evi- dence ! It is by the same sort of logic that Mr. Hincks proposes to sweep the Governor-Generai's whole protest by the board. In his reply to Mr. Viger, Mr. Hincks says, (p. 10,) "We assert with perfect confidence, that the present Governor-General considers Responsible Government, of '■nderstood by the majority of the House of Assembly, by Mr. Viger him- self, by Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Wakefield, his own great champions, to b$ iiunimutible, as requiring < a virtual surrender of the Prerogative of th^ Crown to the Council for party purposes.' What then becomes of the- protest 1 " Sure enough, after Mr. Hincks's " assert with perfect copQ' dence," what becomes of the protest?" Is it annihilated ? No, it stilt survives. Is it in the nether world ? No, it still exists in this. Where is it then ? Why, after looking for it a moment or two, I find it just where it has been from the beginning ; and I suppose it will require some- thiw more than the blast of Mr. Hincks to extioguish it, as little as Ii» 64 may think of tho protest of tho Ropresenttttive of hi« Sovereign in com- pariaon of hla own «* aiiBcrt with perfect confidence." But what (loeH the resoUition appooled to contain ? Let tho reader ponder ita import, especially that of its concluding sentences. It ia aa follows : " That this House, in dutiful submission to their gracious Severe ,ni and with the utmost respect for the exalted stotion and high character of his Excellency, is most anxious to guord against any misconstruction which possibly might bo placed upon the affirmative declaration of their opinion upon this delicate and vitally important constitutional question, and therefore most humbly beg leave to disclaim, in a negative form, any desire that tho Head of tho Government should bo called upon to enter into any stipulation as to the terms upon which a provincial adminiatrs- tion may deem it prudent, cither to accept or continue in office ; that mutual confidence, which is essential to the wr 'f being of any government, necessarily presumes that they are understood, while a due respect for the prerogative of the Crown, and proper constitutional delicacy towards her Majesty's Representative, forbid their being expressed." Such is the evidence to which Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks appeal in support of the assertion that tho lbd- ingly to bo consulted on matters of 'adequate importance' (loud cheers); but he is the life, the moving power of every wheel in the whole machinery of government — he is the very Government itself. Still the minister does not one single act in his own name, or for his own benefit — all le in the name of the Sovereign. The Cabinet Council, as a party or as a power in the state, is perfectly unknown — it is the executive of the Crown — the mouth-piece of the Sovereign. Though the ministers alone are responsible, they appear in no shape as a party. The Sovereign and the Cabinet together form one power in the State — ^Royalty is practically embodied in the British Constitution." (Chcots.) It appears, then, that the British world has been sadly astray in saying, "King, Lords and Commons." Mr. Gborge Brown will teach them better. They should say, " King and Cabinet together, Lords and Com- mons." In this partnership of power between the " Sovereign and the Cabinet," Mr. George Brown will teach them how little is permitted to the former, and how much is the property of the latter. The Cabinet Minister is not only the " mouth-piece" of the Executive, but the " moving power," the " life," " the very Government itself," and the Sovereign ia less than "tool" — a mere name to be used by the Cabinet Minister to endorse and give prompt to his acts. Such is the "loud cheers" doc- trine of the Toronto Associationists. And no wonder, then, that Mr. Georoe Brown's newly imported patriotic ire burst forth against Sir Charles Metcalfe, for "trying to strike a deadly blow at the jpou^er and efficiency of the Provincial Executive Council," because he resisted their pretensions to be not only the "mouth-piece," but the "life," the "moving power," the "very government itself," and himself to be a name in form, and a nullity in practice. The words of Junius— oddly enough quoted by one of the Toronto Association orators — were never so appropriate in Cabinet encroaching days in which they were written, as on the pre- sent occasion : — " We have nothing to fear f^om prerogative, but every thing from undue influence." Before the completion of this discussion, I trust the People of Canada will more fully appreciate the sentiment of Junius, and the conduct of Sir Charles Metcalfe, as the equal-justice protector of their coastitu- tional rights and public liberties. 73 No. 6. Dr. Paloy's refutation of Humo'a celcbrnted sophism ngainst miracles is the shortest argument in that moat admirable work — The Evidences of Christianity. Dr. Paloy's exposition of it does not occupy three pages ; and his malhematical demonstration of its falsity occupies less than one page. The most important argument, therefore, in that unrivalled work is the shortest. So, if my argument in this paper should bo much shorter than that which I have advanced in each of the preceding papers, its importance will not be in proportion to its length, but in proportion to its brevity. The fourth proposition which I propose now to demonstrate is — ^^That the question at issue between the late Counsellors and Sir Charles Metcalfk, according to the statement of certain of themselves and others of their own party, on different occasions, is not that which Mr. Baldwin stated to the House of Assembly, and on which the vote of the Assembly was predicated. The subject of discussion involved in this proposition, is as novel as that which was embraced in each of the three preceding propositions. It is without example in the hundred and fifty years history of Responsible Government. It is so, simply because the proceeding of the late Coun- sellors is without precedent. This proposition is confessedly a bold, as well as a startling one. But it is no more bold than true, and no less true than important. In the discussion of this proposition, the first thing necessary is, to ascertain precisely what the question was which Mr. Baldwin stated to the House of Assembly, and on which the vote of the Assembly was predicated. The reservation of the Secret Societies Bill was a circum- stance: but it was not the question. And of that circumstance — explained by his Excellency in a manner which has only been attempted to be cavilled at, but never answered — it may be sufficient to say in the lan- guage of the Hon. Joseph Howe, of Nova Scotia, in his letter to Mr. Hincks — " As regards the bill for suppressing Orange Lodges, it appears to me that circumstances may arise, after a government measure has been introduced, to render its postponement desirable." The Governor General has stated those circumstances— one of which was, that after understand- ing its provisions in all their bearings (by a full parliamentary discussion), to an extent that he could not have done from a bare perusal of them, he felt himself prohibited from affixing her Majesty's approbation to a bill (without submitting it to her Majesty) which went not only to remove and proscribe from office, but to erase from the list of jurors, a class of persona whom her Majesty had not thus reduced very nearly to the state K *-,' ,1 i\ i w m 74 of aliens and BlavOB— though still nubjectsof taxation— in any other colony or portion of the empire. Sir Charles Metcalfe has expressed his unqua- lified disapprobation of Orongc Lodges ; and the object — the entire and sole object, as I can state by permission upon the beat authority— of tho only private interview that his Excellency ever had with the Grand Master of Orange Lodges in (jaiiadti, vvhii^h took place a few days before tho twelfth of last July (as the date of the surreptitiously published letter will shew), was to prevent any Orange display on that day, that there might bo no blood shed, or riot, or renewed cause of religious and political gtrife a work of clmrity ond humanity, which, by the betrayal of private confidence, and the pillering of private property, and upon authority that ought not to excite suspicion against any body, has been represented by the Toronto Associationist organs as a plot too silly for idiotism, and too base for Mackenzie himself. It was the characteristic practice of Mackenzie to publish every private letter he could obtain, and from the most worthless sources, in order to implicate and degrade the most upright and respectable men in the land ; and how exactly do the Globe and the other Asaociationist organs follow in his wake in respect to even the Representative of the Sovereign. A man who will, in violation of the conventional law of civilized nations, pilfer a letter from thespcred drawer of confidential privacy, in order to injure and destroy character, is not above taking his neighbours purse— and tho receiver is as bad as the thief. These Mackenzie attempts to destroy even the moral integrity of the Governor General, will meet with a Mackenzie reward; and time will ehow that Sir Charles is no more a supporter of the Orange Association than he is of the Toronto Association; but he will take other than meane unknown to British legislation and government for the discountenance of both. The time may come when it may be the felt and bounden duty of the government not to appoint to office, or continue in office, a member of either association. But the "important discloaure" of the private letter itself "discloses" nothing but the writer's opinion of his own recom- mendations; it attributes nothing to his Excellency which could not have been attributed to him, had a copy of the Toronto Association addresa been enclosed to him for his perusal. But to return fiom the notice of this circumstance to the consideration of the question. This can at once be ascertained from tho resolution of the house voted for by the late Counsellors themselves. It is as follows : " That an humble address be presented to his Excellency the Governor General, humbly representing to his Excellency the deep regret felt by this house at the retirement of certain members of the Provincial admi- nistration, 0?» THE QUES riON OF TFTEIR RIGHT TO BR CONSULTED On what the hcnise unhesitatingly avows to be the prerogative of the Crown,— 76 appointments to office ; and further, to assure his Excellency that their ADvocACT or THIS piiiNcii'LE cntitlcs tijcm to tlieconfidonco of this housOt being in strict nccordance with the ])rinci|)Io3 embraced in the resolutioof adopted by this house on the 3rd Septcuiber, 1841." The subject of inquiry now is, was this the question of " antagonism" between Sir Charles Mcfcalfo and tho late Counsellors; or was tiie partt distribution of the jnitronage of the Crown, — or what is usually called party government, tlic r?al question of "antagonism" between them? The late Counsellors allege the former ; Sir Charles Metcalfe asserts the latter. In the preceding paper, I have examined the evidence on both sides of this question, and have, I trust, ostabtislicd tho truth of hia Excellency's statement beyond reasonable contradiction. The present proposition is a corollary, or obvious consequence of the preceding^ one ; and on this ground I might rest it upon every just principle of reasoning. But in a question of bo great importance, I will adduce additional evidence. Let it then be recollected, in the first placn, that in the passage of Mr. Sullivan's explanatory speech, which I quoted in the last paper, he con- tended for a party government — that is, not the being governed by tho party of the majority, but the governing for the benefit of the ruling, to the exclusion of the ruled party. He said that ho " had watched tho course of different administrations in Canada for twenty years, and during the whole of that time, he did not remember to have seen any of tho different parties in power patronizing their enemies ; in fact, if the propo- aition were made, he had no doubt it would have been laughed at as a piece of childish folly." I shall in another place consider the spirit of the doctrine, that the advisers of the Crown for the benefit of a wholo country are to view and treat as " enemies" all who are not of their own party. I have now to do merely with the fact, that such was the doc- trine of the late Counsellors ; that such was what they insisted upon as the advisers of the Governor General ; and that they regard the very proposal of a different policy os "a piece of childish folly." Mr. Baldwin explained his views theoretically in more guarded and qualified language, but practically to the same effect. He admitted that ho would confer aa ofiice even on an opponent, if he were obviously the best qualified of rival candidates ; but that iu case of the qualifications of two candidates being equal, he would always give the office to the candidate of his own party. Now, in ninety-nine cases out of an hundred, there would be more than one candidate of equal qualifications belonging to opposite parties ; in all which cases partyism would decide. The perniciousness of this old exclusive and anti-reform doctrine is increased from Mr. Baldwin's recom- meodatioQ at tho Toronto dinner, and on other occasions, that " Uj^er \h 70 m Canada mu$t give a more dittinclively partt cnARACTER to the Repre- ientation which the returru." The government is to reflect the character of the repreaontation ; and the " diBtinctively party character" of the policy of tho former must harmonize witii that of the spirit of the latter. Thia is the first time that i over recollect of reading of a minister or ex- minister of tho Crown urging tho increase of political party di tinctions in a country iis a theory with a view to promote good govornmonl — dis- tinctions, which in exact proportion to their axtent and violence, have bo( ) considered by all writers on political science as tho most serious obstacles to just government, and only adapted to promote tho selfishness of party at the expense of tho general good. Party distinctions and party spirit have always been viewed as an ovil both to civil and religious society. Accordmg to Mr. Baldwin's recommendation, the greatest party man is tho best public man ! Mr. Hincks and the Toronto Association avow as a fact what Mr. Baldwin individually urges as a recommendation. Mr. Hincks' address to the " Reformers of Frontenac" wos not only republished in the Toronto Association organs, but ordered by a special resolution of that association to be printed and circulated in the tract form. In that fract we have tho following words : « Great fault has been found with late ministry, because they were parly men, and bocaugo they desired mat the vacant offices should beJUled up by men of their own party^ that is, men desirous of preserving British connexion and securing the peace of the country, instead of those who, in their opinion, are taking a course calculated to produce the contrary eflects." « Attempts have been made, gentleman, to induce you to believe that Responsible Govern- ment is fully admitted by the distinguished individual at the head of the government. It is true, indeed, that the term Responsible Government has been used, but that is not what we want. Wo must have the sub- stance, not the shadow. Tlie very object of Responsible Government is to controul the prerogative, by providing tho Governor with advifccra possessed of public confidence. If, however, the Governor is to make appointments to office, either without or against the advice of his respon- sible advisers, it must be obvious to every man of common understanding, that all the advantages of Responsible Government are lodt. Can you imagine for a moment, gentlemen, that any set of men will remain in office if appointments are to be made prejudicial to their influence ? The very idea is absurd. A government acting in such a manner as to destroy itself! And yet the Governor declares, in almost every one of his answers to addresses, that the appointments are to be made without reference to party considerations." The facts and doctrine propounded in the above quoted passages are, be it recollected, put forth by one of the late Counsellors, and subse- k 77 quently adopted and reprinted for wido cjculalion by the Toronto Amo- ^'iation. The lato Counsellors have complained much that certain Editors in Canada claimod for themHelvos and party to bo exclusively the frienda of British Connexion. In the firut part of the above quotation, it will be Boen that the Toronto Asrociationists do precisely the same thing^they represent the men of their own party, as exclusively "desirous of preserv- ing Briliah connection." In addition to this party inconsistency, it moy bo remarked that this boasted (exclusively felt) "desire" was very oddly oxprestied by Mr. Ilincks and the Asisociatiunists during the rebellion of 1837. I can state upon unquestionable authority that a leading member of the Toronto Association, lately remarked to a friend in Toronto (referring to the rebellion of 1837), "Ifwc had only turned out, tee could now do any thing ." But they did not talk then of being "desirous of preserving British connection"— they would not " turn out" to preserve it : and yet they now profess to be the only " men desirous of preserving British connection ! ! I" In the above quototion, three things should be observed: Ist. The late Counsellors and the Assuciationists admit and declare as a fact, that they had sought to fill up the vacant offices with men of their own party. 2ndly. They avow as a doctrine that the Governor General is not to make appointments against, any more than he is without, " the advice of his responsible advisers"— that otherwise, "all the advu.itages of Responsible Government would be lost." This of course makes the Governor General the " tool" of the Council ; and this is declared to be essential to the existence of Responsible Government ! 3rdly. They therefore represent, in the third place, Sir Charles Metcalfe as an enemy to Responsible Government because he " declares, in almost every one of his answers to addresses, that the appointments are to be made without reference to party considerations." Such, be it recollected, is the late Counsellors own account of what they mean by party government. It is not merely the selection of the advisers of the Crown from the party of the majority in Lhr Legislature. To this kind of party government Sir Charli Metcalfe has not even hinted an objection in any of the various documents which he has put forth. It is not pretended that he ever expressed the slightest objection to the composition of the late Council ; or that he ever so much as sug- gested or entertained the idea of dismissing some of them and filling up their places with persons from the ranks of the opposite party. To the administration of the government through a party he has cssented as practically and as thoroughly as her Majesty herself. But there is another — a new — and very different element, which the Upper Canada section of the late Counsellors has introduced into their system of the * ^r. n goternmcnt of party— that li, froverning for a party, to the exchuion q/* a party. It in tins now olcmont which iu the doctrino of tho abovo (|iiotod pasHa^cH from Mr. HinckH* addroHK, which has boon adopted and ropub- liihcd by the Toronto Reform AsHocintion ; it iH this new olomont which is tho doctrino of Mr. Sullivan, in pronouncing as "childish fully" the idea of bestowing an olliou upon any other than the siipportors of the rulinj,' party; it is this now eloincnt which Iwih forinod tho point of "anta- gonism" bctwocn Sir Clinrlcs Motcalfo and hid lute Counsellors, from an early period of his administrution ; it was this now olomont which origi- nated tho demand fur the patronage of the Crown for party purposes, and under tho false but plauoiblo pretext that it formed tho osHonco of Respon- sible Government, as intimated in the above (jiiotod passages from the address adapted by tho Toronto Association, and as stated by Sir Charles Metcalfe, when ho says that tho " demand which was made by tho Council regarding tho patronage of tho Crown was based on the constntC' tion put by some of the gentlemen on the meaning of lietponsihle Government." This is the only solution of the conflicting statements between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late advisers which can be given without an absolute impeachment of their integritj-. By Responsible Government they really mean this sort of party pal ronnge government — a bastard Responsible Government — whilst his j!]7.oellency means by mo phrase, the legitimate Responsible GoTcrnment, which recognizes ministerial respon- eibility, and at tiie same time the purest and noblest attribute of the pre- rogative, to be equally just to all classes ; or, as Mr. Howe of Nova Scotia expresses it, " to bestow all oJjUces for the general gocd, toithout reference to party." Now, the question of this kind of party gorcrnment, and tho question of the right of the Counsellors to be coneultcd on appointments to office, are as different as night is from day. Which of these questions, then, was the subject of " antagonism " between Sir C. Metcalfe and his lato advisers ? Mr. Baldwin, in his ezphination, represented the latter, and on the latter the house voted. Sir C. Metcalfe asserts the former ; ond I think I have above given sufficient reasons to evince the truth of his Excellency's assertion. But I will appeal again to the direct and equivo- cal testimony of his accusers, not only as to their construction of Respon- sible Government, as meaning party government, but that that party government implies the exercise of the prerogative of patronage for the exclusive benefit of one party, and that this was the primary and real sub- ject of antagonism between the Governor-General and his late Counsel- lors. I appeal to the letters of Mr. Hincks to the London Morning CKronicZe— Jetters repulished and endorecd by the organs of the Torooto 79 Reform Aflflociation. Mr. Ilincks givoN tho following fnlcrprctatlon of RcHponBiblo Oovcrnmont, and tijo following account of tliu antagmi$m referred to : — " I havo OHtablJHhnd that tho fact that tho parties to whoa* I have referred in a former part of thin letter, are ull plodged to Reupon- Biblc Government as practiaed in Kiiglaiid ; llmt in, to a jmrty frovernment, Pir CiiAHM's Mktcai.kh, on tlio other hiiiid, i.s a dott;rniiiied opi.onent of tuck a governniLMit — uy a reference ta faets will prove. It Ih admitted on all handw that appointinontw to office wore in Bcvural inKtoncos mode by hii Excellency, without any consultation with hid Council, and tlieso appointments wero, in their oi/jiiun, prejudicial to their influence. I put it to you, Mr. Editor, in it in accordance with Jiritish practice, which, according to Lord Diirimm, should ho our guide, that the patronage of the Croivn should be distributed so as to destroy the political mfluence of the existing ministry? It is truly absurd to put such a case. It could never be tolerated a moment by any ministry. And yet tho present diflS- culties in Canada, as well as in Nova Scotia, have been caused by an attempt to administer colonial government on principles entirely incon- liatent with representative institutions. Nothing would induce me to misrepresent the views of Sir Charles Metcalfe on this subject. I believe that Hjs Excellency conscientiouslt uisapi»roves of PARTY GO- VERNMENT, and that from tho time of his first arrival in Canada, he was determined to overthrow it. Hence his own expression, that 'he had observed *an ANTAGONISM' between his Council and himself from the time of his arrival in tho country." (Copied from the Kingston Chronicle, January HI.) Here then it is expressly stated that the subject of antagonism between Sir Charles Metcall'o and his late udviners was the question of party government in respect to the distribution of the patronage of thj Croton j whilst Mr. Baldwin described that subject of antagonism to be "the ques- tion of the right of the Council to be conatdted in respect to appointrr mti to ojfice.'" It is therefore as clear as that two and two make four, that the question at issue between the late Counsellors and Sir Charles Metcalfe toaa not that which Mr. Baldwin stated to the House of Assembly, and on which the vote of the Assembly was predicated ; v/hich is the proposition that I was to prove — a proposition tho facts of whicli are without a prece- dent or a parallel in the history of Rccjponsiblo Government. Comment obacurefii and enfeebles when the naked text itself is luminous as a sun- beam, and speaks with the voice of thunder. Yet there is a peal still louder in the recent debate of the British House of Commons — a debate wliich stamps with the highest authority ihe truth of every material fact, the correctness of every view, and the justness of the wurninga which I have given in my introductory addresa and preceding numbers of this argument. i^:!llU I i ■ li 'j ^p / 80 p. S.— Just before the completion of the foregoing ////i number of my defence of Sir C. Metcalfe, for the people of Canada, against attacks and encroachments as dangerous to their constitutional rights as they are to his character, I received the intelligence of the " great debate," or rather Imperial exposition of Canadian nffuiry, and of the determination of the British Government respecting them. Had I been aware that so early, so full, so unanimous, so authoritative a vindication of Sir C. Metcalfe, and ^0 comprehensive and unquestionable an exposition and decision of the questjl^is at issue between his Excellency and his late Counsellors, would have been given by her Majesty's Government, I might not have thus voluntarily incurred the labour and exposure of the present discussion. And the same consideration will induce mo to abridge the subsequent part of the discussion as much as possible. When the authorities of the Empire speak on the question of their own constitutional rights, it is superfluous and presumptuous for me to reason and remonstrate. What I have argued was unprecedented and unconstitutional, the unanimous deci- sion of the Home Government, — supported by Lord John Russell and Mr. BuLLER, the adviser and supposed writer of much of Lord Durham's Report, only opposed by Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Hume, — declared to be unheard of and inconsistent with even monarchical institutions, anH utterly incompatible with the existing connexion between Canada and Great Britain. The liberal, the enlightened, the cautious Premier of the British Empire, has given all cjncerned clearly to understand, that the "power Oi patronage" defended by Sir Charles Metcalfs, as the inviolate property of the Crown, ** was believed to be essential to the good government of Canada, and necessary, if the time should arrive, to maintain the connexion between the two countrief. It now remains for every man in Canada to take heed to his ways. In this crisis he is about to stamp his character for future life and posterity^ The Home Government assent entirely and unreservedly to the Respon- sible Goveinment Resolutions of September, 1841, but not to the anti- Responsible Government demands of the late Counsellors. A resistauoe to the latter. Lord John Russell regards as " necessary for the mainte- nance of the connexion between this country (Great Britain) and the colony." The question can now no longer be blinked or evaded. Who in for the <' maintenance of that connexion," and who is against it ? Who is determined to lift up the weapons of resistance against the authorities of the Empire, for the salro of spontaneous, causeless, unconstitutional, avaricious demand of party patronage, or respect those authoriiies whose utmost efforts have been of late years employed for the benefit of Canada, and whose utmost demand is a constitutional government of equal justice for all classes of her Majesty 3 Canadian subjects, and not a virtual repub- 81 lican government of party favouritism and party exclusion 1 Reader, I beaeeiih you to examine the critical ground on which you are treading. Ona step too far ruinod many a poor well-meaning man in 1837. How many wish they had tnkeu more heed to their ways before that period ! How many would gladly retrace the steps into which they were uncon- flciausly led I But it is too late. It is not yet too late for even a Toronto Associationist to escape the gathering storm, and hide himself from the overhanging calamities. I doubt not but Sir Charles Metcalfe will, with his characteristift for- bearance and liberality, allow time and opportunity for these conciliations and faithful warnings of the Imperial authorities to be fully understood by every man in the Province ; that when the time arrives for drawing the line of demarcation — if it must At length be drawn — by placing all admi- nistrative, a '^ judicial, and militia offices of the country in the hands of those only wi.o will maintain the constituted authorities of the Empire, no man may be taken by surprise — that no man may be dismissed from any official situation, without the clearest evidence of his having arrayed him- self against the supreme tribunals of the Empire — of his having done so deliberately and wilfully — that there may be no dupes, a ' no room for the plea of ignorance which many made who were implicated in the move- ments of 1837. But I hope the religion, the good sense, the patriotism of the people will duly appreciate the liberal and admonitory counsels of the British Government — that no military provisions, nor Royal proclama- tions, nor removals from official situations, may be required to sustain the constitution as mamtained by the sovereign authority ; but that the great majority of all classes will unite to maintain a constitutional and affec- tionate connexion with the mother country, and a legitimate Responsible Government, upon the principles of equal justice to all classes of her Maies^v's Canadian subjects. H It ■ if I No. 6. i I f Thejifth proposition, which I am now to prove, is, "' Tkat Sir Charles Metcalfe^ $ statements of his views of Responsible Government involve all that is contained in the Resolutions of the House of Assembly, September 5, IB 4 1, and that the criticisms of Messrs. Baldwin, Hincks, Bromi, and others, on certain of his Excellency's Replies, are unfair and unjust." ^ 82 Thero is not an cxnniplo in the history of England, BJnco tho commenco- nient of the Bystcm of llcspoiieiblo Govorniiicnt in lUiili, of any British monarch ever havinf,^ been called upon to explain his views of that system; of hia reverence for it ; of his adherence to it. I have never yet met with an instance in which the monarch attempted to state hia views of that eystem. I have not even found in any History of England, a definilion of that system, any more than I have met with a difmilion of life, or jna//er, or man himself. I have met with discriptions of each from their proper- tics, powers, and operations ; but have never learned the essential nature of thrm. So I have read descriptions of Responsible Government, but no difinitioii of its essence. I iind British Responsible Government where I find the British Constitution, and the Common Law of England, not in any report, any act of Parliament, any plans of agreement adopted at a particular time between the sovereign and the people ; but in tho pages of British history, and in the practice of the British Government. Tho definition of any part of a mixedi'oTm of governmont, must necessarily be vague and general. Tiic different parts of such a Ibrm of government^ mix with each other, ar..l cannot be distinguished or defined with mathe- matical nicety any morf than you can distinguish or define tho limits of the different colours in a rainbow. Responsible Government is the prac- tice of that mixed form of government after a certain mode; s. practice which incorporates itself with every part of that government, and therefore less capable of an accurate definition than the constituent parts of tho government of which it is the operatmg vitality. Mr. Blakk, Professor of Law, did, theefore, make one sensible remark in his f-^'r.. 'US Tor into Association speech, when he uttered the following words : — " But, Sir, it is said thut the question of Responsible Governirient i:i luidifned ; and knowing, as we do, that it is to operate on the evtsr varying combination of human affairs, wo admit that it is incapable of d'fniflon, — ive seek not to define it. But we whol!/ deny that this principle, becaiiso incapable of accurate definition, is therefore of little practical importaucc, or interest, to the people of this Province. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)" Yet thia very Association, through its orators and organs, has denounced Sir Charle^ Metcalfe, and sought to excite hostility against him throughout the kngtl) and breadih of the land, as an enemy of Responsible Govern- infrnt, l>< cause he has not accurately defined that which they themselves here admit, by ihe lips of Professor Blake, to be " incapable of accurate 4^H' itiui'," ffod Sir C. Metcalfe, therefore, never attempted to define what he meant by Responsible Government, he would have followed the ex!irii|)le of ev> ry monarch which has filled the throne of England from ^yillliiii and Mary to Queen Victoria, and would have acted in accord- ance Willi lh<» aentimeiit of Mr. Blakk, when ho says, "tve seek not to 83 define ;V But his Excellency has been nsRailerl for months in this Pro- vince — and recently by Mr, Roebuck in the IIou.se of Commons in Eng- land — because ho hns not given an "accnralc definition of the question of Responsible Govcrnmcni." Such is another example of the consistency of party! Whatever Sir Char es Metcalfe has said in explaining his views of Responsible Government, he has gone beyond the example of any British Sovereign — beyond what his constitutional duty required him to do, in order to gratify the wishes and feelings of the people of Canada. The present subject of inquiry is, are his Excellency's expressed views in har- mony with the Resolutions of September, 1811 1 I affirm that they are, for the following reasons : 1. They are declared to be so by the great statesmen in England, all of whom recognize those resolutions as the practical basis of Canadian government — all of whom declare the views of Sir Charles Metcalfe to be in harmony with those resolutions, and with the practice of British Responsible Government ; that his Excellency, in the qunrrcl commenced by the late Counsellors, has done what a British Sovereign should and would have done in similar circumstances ; that the proposal or demand made to Sir Charles Metcalfe was such as no minister had ever made to his Sovereign. Now, one of the resolutions of September, 1841, declares, "That the head of the Executive Government of the Province, being ivithin the limits of his Government, the Representative of the Sovereign, IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE IMPERIAL AUTHORITY ALONE." The authority tO which Sir Charles Metcalfe is "alone responsible," has declared that both his views and practice are constitutional according to the resolutions of 1841. The high court of appeals, then, by which alone the views and practice of his Excellency can be constitutionally judged, has decided that he is constitutionally right. To continue to resist him, therefore, upon the ground of those condemned allegations, is a practical denial of the authority of that court ; in other words, is a virtual declaration of inde- pendence. Let the reader well pouder this all-important fact, and the proceedings of the Toronto Association and its organs. 2. The viewt expressed by his Excellency on the system of Responsible Government, are regarded by the Houses of Assembly of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — including the Reformers of both Provinces — as con- sistent with the resolutions of ia41, and as perfectly satisfactory. Mr. Howe — the father of Responsible Government in British North America — moved for the adoption and placing on the journals of the Nova Scotia House of Aasembly, the rcoolutions of 1841, and Sir Charles's reply to the address of the Gore District Council, as the basis of the system of Respon- sible Government in that Province, and as containing all that ho desired. ii.! I 1 84 The Toro;ito Associationists demand wliat tho Reformers in the other Provinces of British North America do not aek for, and what the Imperial authorities declare is incompatible with nioniirchicai institutions, and with the existing connexion between Great Britain and Canada. This is another trumpet-voice fact, which I entreat the reader to consider deeply before he follows the Toronto Associationists another step. S. But a careful examination of what Sir Charles Metcalfe has stated, will demonstrate the agreement of his views with tho resolutions of 1841, First, then, let those resolutions be stated and understood. They ure as follows, as quoted by the late Counsellors in their communication to tho Governor-General : "That the Head of the Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of his Government the Representative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone ; but that, nevertheless, tho management of our local affairs can only be conducted by him, by and with the assistance, counsel, and information of subordinate officers in the Pro- vince ;" and " that in order to preserve between the different branches of the Provincial Parliament that harmony which is essential to the peace, welfare, and good government of the Province, the chief advisers of the Representative of the Sovereign, constituting a Provincial Administration under him, ought to be men possessed of tho confidence of the Represent- atives of the people, thus affording a guarantee that the well-understood wishes and interests of the people, which our frracious Sovereign has declared shall be the rule of the Provincial Gove iLuent, will, on all occa- sions, be faithfully represented and advocated. Such are the resolutions which are called the " Magna Charta " of Canada, and which Sir Charles Metcalfe is charged with having violated in practice and in theory. Let the reader consider their import. Do they involve any thing like the demands which I have shown in the preceding part of this discussion, the late Counsellors and the Toronto Associationists have made of the Governor-General ? Do they imply that the Repre- sentative of the Sovereign must state beforehand his views as to his future policy in regard to appointments to office, or any thin else 1 Do they imply that he must come to some previous understanding with his advisers as to the principle upon which the government is to be conducted ? That he is to engage to make only one kind of appointments ? That he is to consult only with the leaders of the majority * That he is to have no correspondence with persons on any of the affairs of the Province, except through his " chief advisers ? " That he is to make no offer of an appoint- ment without consulting his Council ? That he is not even to have a list of the names of applicants for office, except in the hands of the Secretary ; 'a 85 of the Province? That ho shall agree to make the influence of his advisers the rule of distributing the patronage ol" the Crown ? Again, do the above resolutions require or imply that the "chief ad- viaers'* of the Representative of the Sovereign should be Heads of Departments ? I know that Lord Durham's Report recommends it, and that Sir Charles Metcalfe has expressed his opinion to the same cfiect. But do the above resolutions — our Magna Charta — the only authority recognized by the Crown or House of Assembly — require it ? Do those resolutions require that the "chief advisers" of the Crown shall consist of three, or six, or nine individuals ? Do tliose resolutions require any thing as to the mode of intercourse between the Crown and its advisers 1 Furthermore, do those resolutions, interpreted by the practice of men in various and less important positions in society, imply that no act what- ever — how ordinary soever — can be performed by the head of the Execu- tive without the formally expressed opinion of the Council ? Is not the fundamental principle — the public "guarantee" — in those resolutions this: That the advisers of the Crown shall consist of men who possess the confidence of Parliament, — having a right to retire from office whenever, in their judgment, the acts of the Executive are not in accordance with the wishes of Parliament, and the Parliament having a right to influence their removal whenever they countenance a policy adverse to the public interests? From this it is, 1 think, obvioi'.'^, that the advisers of the Crown should be competent and have the righf. of offering advice on every act for which they are responsible — a right which the Governor General has as explicitly avowed as any of the late Counsellors. But it does not therefore follow — taking usage as an interpreter — that any act performed by the Crown without consulting its advisers, is, therefore, unconstitu- tional. A merchant has an agent or clerk ; and strictly speaking, that agant or clerk has no right to perform any act wiihi/ut the sanction of his employer ; yet he may perform many acts of which that employer is ignorant until after they are performed; but he is nevertheless responsible for those acts, and in most cases voluntarily adopts them after they are thus performed. And if an agent or a clerk can do so as a matter of common usage and necessary convenience, may not a Governor do so without the actual advice of his own subordinate officers? Those officers could assume the acts of the Governor in either of two waya — by recom- mending them, or by adopting them, after they were performed. Thoy would act alike voluntarily in both cases ; and therefore there would be no more hardship in the one case than in the other. It has been repre- sented as a hardship for a man to be held responsible for an act that he did not advise. It would be so if his responsibility were compulsory. But M AH l^viaor of the Crown, nc luaii need \n\ responsible for au Executive 'If. 'I ^'» m .! ■i 80 net, — either before or after nccotnplisliment — unless he chooset. He can retire from odicc nny liour Iio pleases. What is done from spon- taneous choice cannot bo a hardship. Hut suppose those officors wore to experience inconvenience ns well as mortification from their royal master doing nets without their advice, and were to apprise him of it and inform him that on the occurrnnoc of .similar acts they should feel it their duty to retire from his counsels, and thou await the dcvelopement of his future policy by his acts — this would he right nnd constitutional ; but for them in addition to demand of him an engagement or understanding that he would do nothing without their advice, and even nothing contrary to it when given, would be becoming dictato-s or stipulators to, instead of adoisers of, the Crown — would be going out of their own province and invading that of the Crown — would be insulting its dignity, invading its freedom, and reducing it to a " tool." In these remarks I have supposed a case as strong as that which the late Counsellors have alleged against Sir Charles Metcalfe ; and even in Buch o case, it will be seen that they have not acted constitutionally. But be it recollected that his Excellency denies ever having made an appointment without the knowledge of one or more of his advisers. In a despatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated December 26, 1843, his Excellency says, ^^that he did not recollect of a single instance in tchich he had made an appoiiitment without being previously made acquainted with their sentiments on the subject." But let us now consider his Excellency's own tvords on the subject of Responsible Government — words most explicit, yet most shamefully per- verted and misrepresented by his accusers. Not seeking to shield him- self under the reserve of prerogative, his Excellency has unequivocally stated his sentiments from the first day of the dispute. In his protest against the late Counsellors' intended explanation, he says — "The Governor General subscribes entirely to the Resolutions of the Legislative Assembly of the drd September, 1841, and considers any other system of Government but that which recognizes responsibility to the people, and to the Representative Assembly, as impracticable in this Province." This was as much as Lord Sydenham, who wrote those resolutions, ever said —as much as Sir Charles Bagot ever said. Such a declaration from the Crown is all it could say to any nation or people on such a subject. The late Counsellors themselvcc!, in their intended explanation, admit that " His Excellency disavoicid any intention of altering the course of admi- nistration of public affairs tvhich he found on his arrival in Canada.^* Yet have they, notwithstanding, held him up to the public as an enemy of Responsible Government, and ns seeking to subvert the constitutional liberties of the people of Canada ! Sir C, Metcalfe has in some instances g'1 I 87 given even a detailed exposition of his views of RcHponsiblo Government. I will select and examine the paper wliicli !ia,j been the aiibjoct of tho most unfair and unjust criliciriin. I refer to his reply to the address of tho Gore District. One phrase of a lonir paragraph of this reply has been tho subject of columns of criticism in tlio li, inner, and Clobr, and Exa- miner newspapers, and by IMr. IJaldwii. and others, whilst they have not 80 much as alluded to a word of all tho rest of tlic entire paragraph. Tho whole paragraph {every word of which I bog the reader to weigh) is as follows : "But if you mean that the government should bo administered according to the well understood wishe-i and interests of the people ; that tho resolutions of September, 1841, should bo faithfully adhered to ; that it should be competent to the council to oflbr advice on all occasions, whether as to patronage or otherwise ; and that the Governor should receive it with tho attention due to his constiUitional advisers ; and con- sult with them on all cases of adequate importance ; that there should bo a cordial co-operation and sympathy between him and them ; that tho Council should be responsible to the Provincial Parliament and the people; and that when the acts of the Governor arc such as they do not choose to be responsible for, they shall be at liberty to resign ; then I entirely agree with you, and see no impracticability in carrying on Responsible Government in a colony on that footing, provided that the respective par- ties engaged in the undertaking be guided by moderation, honest purposci common sense, and equitable minds devoid of party spirit." Now, after much reflection and careful examination, it is my firm belief that the above paragraph contains not only the essentials of responsible government, but a more full, more explicit, more detailed, more practical recognition of thr.l system than is contained either in the naked Resolu- tions of September, I84lj or in Lord Durham's Report, or even in both dccuments taken together. Nothing but the most downright party inte- rest, and party feeling, and party criticism, could give it a diHerent inter- pretation. Well therefore have the Toronto Associationists and their city organs kept out of sight every part of that paragraph except a single phrase ; well have they snatched that phrase from its natural connection, and perverted it from its legitimate meaning. The fir&i. article of their creed is party ; and therefore truth, and reason, and justice must suc- cumb to party. J3ut suppose the system of interpretation adopted in this instance by Messrs. Baldwin, Hiu'^ks, Brown and others, were adopted in interpreting even the inspired Scriptures themselves, what might not those sacred writings be made to say ? Suppose even a verse — much more a phrase — were torn from the context, and interpreted irrespectively of that context, — nay, interpreted so as to contradict that context, what sort of a Bible would we have ? What sort of doctrines would it teach, u es 88 or rathor would it not teach 1 Yet such is tho principle of interpretation practised by tho accuscra of his Excellency in respect to this reply— and others of his replies on which it may not bo necessary in this argument for mo to dwell. Let tho reader candidly consider what the Governor General does say and does not say in the above quoted paragraph. It will be observed that ho refers throughout to his council or adviBers, in their collective capacity. It will also bo observed, that ho carefully and clearly distinguishes between their competency or riglit, and his obligation ; that the former extends to "advice on all occasions, whctlicr aa to patronage or other' wise ,*" that the latter extends to " all cases of adequate importance." Yet has tho Governor General been charged throughout with having denied the right of advice to his late Counsellors. It is the phrase " cases of adequate importance," which has been per- verted and made so much capital of by the Associationists. Let ua examine it, before we proceed to the other parts of his Excellency's reply. The accusers of his Excellency represent that he is to be the judge of the "cases of adequate importance," and therefore that in the exercise of the undefined discretion which ho thus reserves to himself, he can swamp the whole system of responsible government. This I entirely deny. I deny it not merely "upon authority ;" but I affirm that his Excellency can be the judge of the " cases of adequate" only in the initiatory part of an Executive act, but that ultiniately and essentially the Council themselves, either in their collective or individual capacity, are the judge of "all cases of adequate importance" in which their advice shall or shall not be given. In the preceding (fourth) number of this argument, I adverted to the fact that two methods had been adopted in the distribution of patronage, intimated in tho following words of his Excellency's protest: "He appealed to the number of appointments made by him on tho recommend' ation of the Coui.Al, or members of it in their departmental capacity." Here then, in "cases of adequate importance," the "recommendation of the Council" was given ; in "cases not of adequate importance," the recommendation of individual " members of the Council in their depart- mental capacity" was acted upon : a distinction understood and acted upon by the late Counsellors themselves. Now, this distinction the Governor General expressly states in the former part of tiiis same reply to the address of the Gore District Council, and to which he of course refers in the phrase under consideration. He says, "If you mean that every word and deed of the Governor is to be previously submitted for the advice of the Council, then you purpose what, besides being nnnecea- 89 wary and useless, [or not of '< a(lo(iuato importance"] Is utterly impossiblo consistently with the duo ilcsputch of budincHs." Hero then is tho very doctrine of tho hcrclicnl and iiwl'ul phrase ''cases of adocpiato importance.*' Now, what does Mr. llincks, in behalf of hiuisolf and colloaifuo.-i, say in regard to this very ductrinu ? In his review of Mr. Viper's paniphlct, page 13, ho says— i" Every uioinber of tho lato Council wiis as well -tware as the Governor can be, that it is 'physically impossible to make formal reference to Uio Cuuncil of every matter that comes up for decision ;' nar did any of them desire suck a system to be practised. Every act [not conversalionj of the Governor, however, nuist bo coiniiiimicatcd by his secretary, and that secretary should bo a responsible ininislcr, thoroughly acquainted with tho policy of the administrati(m of which ho is a member, and capable of advising the Governor on every subject not of suljkient importance [or not of " adi.'(piate importance"] to be referred to iho Council. If tho secretary recommends any step, whicli for his own sakoi he will not do, his colleagues will of course hold him responsible to them." This then is the identical doctrine, expressed in almost the idontical words, which tho Governor General stated in his reply to the address of the Gore District Council; and the piirase, "cases of adequate itrpor- tance," in tho latter part of that reply, is a mere recognition of that doctrine in hisExcellency's avowed course of proceeding wit.' his Council. Neither tho Governor General, nor any other person that I have heard of, has ever otherwise than professed that "every act of tiic Governor must be communicated by tho secretary, and that secretary a respond ble minister;" and I can further state upon the unquestionable authority of that secretary (as he will doubtless state in Parliament), that no act of the Governor has been communicated except by him, since the resignation of Mr. Harrison. I have heretofore shewn that it was impossible that any act of tho Governor General could otherwise than be communicated by the responsible [uovincial secretary, as he alone kept the seal of tho Province, the stamp of which was necessary to lender any decision of the Governor General an act. That gentleujan can, and doulitless will, state that such has boen the invariable practice without exception. But I am not yet done with this abused phrase, "cases of adequate importance." In a preceding number I have shewn that admitting — contrary to fact, contrary to the declaration of his Excellency — the very worst construction that his accusers have sought to put upon his mode of making appointments ; supposing him to have decided upon making an appointment without knowing the sentiments of any member of the Council (the reverse of which his Excellency states to Lord Stanley) respecting it, his purpose could not become an act except through his M It 00 reqfonaiblc Bocrotary, nccordin/j to tho doctrine of tho lato Counsollore themselves, as stated by Mr. Ilincks in the passage above quoted. On receiving inforniation, or direction as to that purpose or dotornjinatioD, the responsible secretary could, if ho thought it not a "case of aderesentatives— that they IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V ^ p. ^ /. ^/ &?/ * ;A 1.0 I.I 12.8 25 2.2 t'- IliilM III 1-8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" — ► % % A- 5> %J O f M Photographic Sciences Corporation i3 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.y 14580 •7'-:) 97i-4503 92 should be strictly responsible for all the acts of the Executive Government while they continue to hold office." Such is the professed object of the Toronto Association. Now, has the Governor-General denied this ? lias he not asserted it in most explicit terms ? Why then arc the Toronto Associationists at war with him ?. I answer, because their real object is as diftereut from their professed object as night is from day. They dare not state their real object in icords. Their professed object before the people, is Responsible Govern- raen in as moderate terms as Sir Charles Metcalfe himself has employed. Their real object — as interpreted by their stipulating demands upon the Governor-General — is Responsible Government in a sense that would make the Crown a " tool ' in the hands of a party ; or in a sense, as the Imperial Government emphatically declare, would make "Canada an inde- pendent republic." Hence ihe moderation of their words in the passage aboi'e quoted ; and hence the immoderation of their acts, as at war with the Governor-General and her Majesty's Government. Actions speak louder than words. The loords of the Associationists prove what I have stated, that the Governor-General avers and maintains all that the people of Canada understand by Responsible Government : the past and present actions of the late Counsellors prove all that the Governo. -General has alleged respecting them. If they have no other object in view than what they have above explained, they have no cause for war with the British Government. Thoir being at war with the British Government, proves that they have p'ime ulterior object in view. A few words in reply to objections. It has been objected that his Excellency had observed, shortly after his arrival in Canada, an " antago- nism" between him and his lale advisers on the principle upon which the patronage of the Crown should be distributed, and that he never disclosed it until the interviews which took place on Friday and Saturday the 24th and £5th of November. This is most honourable to his Excellency, and is one of the circumstances of his public life that will enhance his reputa- tion in the estimation of the future historian. Few British monarchs have been so considerate of the feelings and influence of their advisers as not to let it be known when their feelings were hostile to the policy recom- mended by those advisers. Even "good Queen Anne" did not hesitale to let it be known that she regarded the advisers whom she disliked, as her "enemies ;" nor did the Georges, First, Second, Third, and Fourth, conceal their "antagonism" with certain advisers and ministries, to whom personally, or to whose policy they were opposed. It was notorious throughout the nation that there was an " antagonism " between William IV. and his advisers, from 1832 to 1837 ; that he availed himself of the only opportunity that presented itself, in 1834, to get rid of them ; that 93 t'< •>ugh they were restored, and continued in ofTlco until hin death, yet that during the last three years of his Hfo especially, his "antagonism " with them was inveterate, and the papers teemed with " public rumours," and even examples of it. In England, such an "antiigonism" or even the « public rumours" of it, has never been consi'Tered a sufTicient ground of ministerial resignation, or even of public comi .aint. As long as a minis- ter's advice, as to acts, is so far assented to by the down as to enable him to retain the confidence of Pnrlinniout, ho continues in office and counsels the alliiirs of the nation, wluitevor tnay be the personal feelings of the Sovereign, or the "public run-.ours" of his feelings. But did Sir Charles Metcalfe subject his late advisers to such a disadvantage ? Sup- pose he had avowed this "antagonism" ags'inst conducting the govern- ment upon party principles, as to the distribution of patronage, shortly after he arrived iti Canada, would it not have damaged their influence and measures ? Would it not have given a great advantage to their oppo- nents ? Did not ti)e late Counsellors make use of his Excellency's name in every form to strengthen themselves and weaken their adversaries ? When then did his Excellency acknowledge a.id avow this "antagonism?" Only when the late Counsellors, not content with advising him on acts and measures, announced to him formally the principle of party govern- ment in the distribution of patronage, and demanded of him to enter into a "stipulation," or, as Mr. Ilmcks expresses it, ^' come to an uyidersland- ing on certain points," that he would not in future make "appointments prejudicial to their influence." His Excellency refused to "come to such an understanding ; " and then, and not till then, did he express his "antagonism" to the principle of party patronage, which he had observed governing their recommendations to office, from his first arrival in the Province, but to which his formal assent was then for the first time demanded. Hitherto, without discussing or alluding to the party princi- ple which he had noticed influencing their advice as to patronage, he had considered each case on its own merits, and sought to meet the wishes and support the influence of his advisers, as far as possible, both in abstain- ing from and in making appointments. But when the principle — the newly-avowed, the false and unchristian principle — was brought before him for his sanction, that the prerogative might be bound to the car of party, he avowed his " antagonism " to the principle, and asserted, on behalf of his Sovereign and her Canadian subjects, the prerogative of jus- tice and impartiality to all classes and parties. W!th what commanding dignity and authority to the conscience and soul of uncorrupted man, does this parental and divine principle — this principle avowed and con- tended for by Reformers in Canada during the lost twenty years— contrast with the selfish, the ignoble and ignobling principle laid down by Mr. Hincks as the fundamental principle of (hh) representative government, .1: m^ 94 when in reference to this very antagonism, he Bays, in his third letter to the London Morning Chronicle^ " I admit the good intentions of the Governor, but I am firmly persuaded that no representative government can be conducted unless on party principles.^^ Where the pkinciples of a government are party, there party must be the first interests in the state ; and where party is the first interest in the state, the Lord have mercy upon all who are not of the dominant party, and away with the prerogative. This doctrine is the very antipodes of constitutional mo- narchy^-does not even attain to the virtue of republicanism — is the very essence of oligarchy and of democracy — the democracy of Athens when oetracism was in the ascendant — the democracy of England when Crom- wjcW seized the Crown — the oligarchy of Athens when the Thirty Tyrants ruled — the oligarchy of England when the Earl of Leicester and twenty- three others got the prerogative in their own hands, by exacting a " stipu- lation " to that efifect from the feeble Henry III. It is the doctrine that " might gives right." But of this government " on party principles," more in another number. It has also been objected, that his Excellency did not act courteously towards his late Counsellors, and that he sought to undermine ^.nd destroy their influence. The last part of this objection has received a partial answer in the remarks just made, but shall presently receive a more full answer. As to the courtesy of Sir Charles Metcalfe's conduct towards his late advisers, their own testimony at the time of their resignation, is an ample refutation of the insinuations which some of themselves have subsequently made for " party purposes." Mr. Hincks concluded his first letter in reply to Mr. Buchanan, in the following words : " The only feeling that /, or any of my late colleagues can entertain towards his Excellency, is one of gratitude for the uniform courtesy toith which we were treated by him, up to the last moment that we held office." And if the courtesy of Sir Charles Metcalfe was such towards Mr. Hincks as to command his gratitude, to the exclusion of every other feel- ing, no one will believe that his Excellency ever treated any other member of his Council with discourtesy. Then, as to His Excellency's having sought to undermine and destroy the influence of his late advisers, let the following facts be considered :— 1. His Excellency suffered no man in Canada to know that he had any " antagonism " whatever with them on any subject, down to the very eve of their resignation. 2. When they were reflected upon in an address from some part of the Home District, His Excellency repelled the reflection, to the great annoyance of the then opposition press in Canada,— threw over them the shield of his protection as " eminent individuals " posessiog 95 his confidence and that of the country — ^in return for which, Bome of thoso "eminent individuals" have smitten His Excellency with the charge, not only of despotism and tyranny, but even of wilful falsehood. The Governor-General had said, that the late Council sought to reduce the Governor to the condition of a cypher ; to which Mr. Hincks has replied, that " No one knows better than Sir Cnartea Metcalfe, himself, that the late Ministry neither attempted nor desired to reduce the Governor to the condition of a mere cypher J" 6. The Governor-General has exercised the patronage of the Crown to an amazing extent, in favour of the influence of his late advisers. They desired to strengthen their power in the Legis- lative Council : as a direct public compliment and favour to Mr. Baldwin, His Excellency recommended the elevation of Mr. Baldwin's venerable and venerated father to the Legislative Council. His E.:t;cllency also recommended the elevation of several others of the party of the late Counsellors, and amongst others, the famous Captain ^milius Irving, who has characteristically returned this act of His Excellency, by not merely opposing his measures, (which he has an undoubted right to do,) but by becoming the most violent and abusive of His Excellency's assailants. Further, as a general rule, His Excellency has distributed the patronage of the Crown so as to favour the influence of his late advisers. The instances in which he has dissented from their advice, have been the exceptions to the general rule, and of minor importance. My proof of this assertion is as follows: — His Excellency asserts it in his protest ; his late advisers did not deny it. In some of the addresses presented to His Excellency, the partial distribution of patronage in favour of the party of the late Council, was strongly complained of, which called forth the following remarks from His Excellency, in his reply to an address from Scarborough : — " Your complaint of the distribution of the patronage of the Crown for party purposes, during the time when the gentlemen of the late Executive Council were in office, bears testimony to the extreme attention which, whether I was right or wrong in so doing, I paid to their recommendations ; and yet, strange to say, while I have been accused of subserviency to their party exclusiveness, the alleged ground of their resignation was, that I presumed to use my own discretion, in the exercise of that branch of the Royal Prerogative ; and on that pretence alone, they and their partizans have since endeavoured to excite the people to personal hostility against me, by unfounded assertions of my denial of that system of responsible government, to which I have wpeatedly declared my adherence." And, as to the character of the appointments not of the party of the late Council, great efforts have been made to magnify their importance. But to these a hundred-times- reiterated statements I will oppose the testimony of the Honourable R. B, Sullivan, President of the late Council, who, in hia explanatory speech 9tJ in the Legislative Council, Novoiubcr t)(), expressed himself thus :— "THE AFl'OlNTMEi\TS CEIITAINLY WERE TIJFLING."— These five words, from tiie ox-Ccansellors thcinselves, by the mouth of their President, more tliari nullify tiieir five and twenty columns of their subsequent declnnitujus uyainiit !Sir Charles iMotcalfo, for luivinj'' i)refe.*red their opponents to very iin[)ortant situations. From their own confession, it is clear that the important appt)intmentd were given to their friends, and the only uppijintments of which they could complain "certainly were trilling." Had the Governor-General sought to damage the jnHuence of the late Council, he would have certainly conferred upon their opponents other than '• trilling appointments." This acknowledged fact, proves *o a demonstration that ll's Excellency paid the greatest resj)oct to the advice of his late Counsellors that lie gave the bread of the Crown patronage to their friends, and only bestowed upon their opponents a few "trifling" crumbs. Yet, with more than a Jewish selfishness and exclusion, they cannot suffer a Gentile dog not of their party, to receive a crumb from their royal master's tabic. Nay, " to make assurance doubly sure," that royal master must " come to some understanding " with them, that he will herereafler not even bestow a crumb, except by tukir consent. It has, however, been alleged, that the Governor-General offered the important office of Speaker of the Legislative Council to an opponent of the late Counsellors. This is not true, though it has often been stated. The Governor-General offered that office to a friend and defender of the late Counsellors ; but not to an opponent. The gentleman with whom the Governor-General first conversed respecting that office, having declined bein■ and heartless selfishncHs of party, than to defend hia Excellency in such a case — to exccrato a syHtom of policy that extin- guishes every feeling of individual generosity, rather than vindicate an act which ought to cu i down n country's spontaneous blessings upon the head of its author. M" IIFJ uIioho example is not, beneath the imita- tion of parties, any more 'lan of Governors, wept with orplian si.sters at Bethany, and raised the son of the widow of Nain, that he might support and comfort his rnothor, is L 'r Cuaulks Mbtcalfk to be pilloried and ostracised as the enemy of Cai vdj. for iicling against the advice of party, in order to confer upon a wido ''s son a <' trifling appointment," that ha might minister both to his mothi - and his sisters ? I believe there is a HKART as well as a head in Canada, and I mistake the sympathies of that heart if they do not embrace that ma i as the friend of the country and the just guardian of constitutional n -hts, who prefers exercising the prerogative of the crown for the relief v f the widow and the fatherlese, rather than prostitute it at the demon sliri e of party patronage. Reader, was your mother that widow, and you her nly son and support, and was you qualified for that situation, what would j ^u think of the Govcror who would exercise the lawful prerogative to ena. 'e you to support her, and what would you think of the system of govern, icnt that would proscribe you because you were not of the dominant party Upon the appointment therefore even of Mr. Po\ 'ell — the case of the late Counsellors — I fearlessly appeal to the justice, the patriotism, the humanity of honest men of all parties in Canada, to su]. lort his Excellency and her Majesty's government against the crusade of th - late Counsellors, and against the unprincipled principle of exc'usive party patronage. Thus much, then upon the views of the Governor-Genei I — professedly and practically — on the system of Responsible Government, \s enunciated in the House of Assembly's resolutions of September, 1841. I might here dismiss the subject, confident of an hones country's decision upon it. But I will add an illustration from British practice -»all the late Counsellors say that they desire. I will give then instead of the alleged unconstitutional practice of Sir Chari.ks Mktca. fe, the acknowledged constitutional practice of the venerated George the Third of blessed memory. The reader may easily judge, as he atten ively peruses and weighs the following facts, whether there would not have een a revolution in England, had the late Counsellors been Ministers, and ad they had George the Third as the head of the Government, instead of, 'ir Charles Metcalfe. I give these facts not as to what ought to be, but t shew what has been Briti^ pro (ice ; and with these facts, and th elucidation of the principle, as suggested by them, I will conclude the 'ft 100 persent number, feeling that tho Importanco of tho subject is an ample apology for tho length uf the following extract from Lord Brououam's Historical Srktcuks ok Statksmen, — Article, Georue III. : "George III. was impressed with a lofty feeling of bis prerogative, and a firm dcterminutiun to maintain, perhaps extend it. At all events, he was resolved not to be a mere name, or a cipher in public affairs ; and, whether from a sense of tho obligations imposed upon him by his station, or from a desire to enjoy all its powers and privileges, he certainly, while his reason remained entire, but CKpccially during the early period of his reign, interfered in the affairs of government more than any prince who ever sat upon the throne of this country since our monarchy wos distinctly admitted to be a limited one, and itfi executive functions were distributed among responsible ministers. The correspondence which he carried on with his confidential servants during tho ten most critical years of his life lies before us, and it proves that his attention was ever awake to all the occurrences of tho government. Not a step was taken in foreign, colonial, or domestic affairs, that he did not form his opinion upon it, and exercise his influence over it. The instructions to ambassadors, the orders to governors, the movements of forces down to the marching of a single battalion in the districts of this country, the appointments to all offices in church and state, not only tho giving away of judgeships, bishop- rics, regiments, buuthe subordinate promotions, lay and clerical; all these form the topics of his letters ; on all his opinion is pronounced decisively ; on all his will is declared peremptorily. In one leti-er he decides the appointment of a Scotch puisne judge ; in another the march of a troop from Buckinghamshire into Yorkshire ; in a third the nomination to the Peanery of Worcester ; in a fourth he says that, ' if Adam, the architect Bucceeds Worsley at the Board of Works, he shall think Chambers ill used.' " For the great affairs of state it is well known how substantially ho insisted upon being the King de facto as well as dejure. "That such a sovereign was, for the servants he confided in, the Jjest possible master, may well be supposed. He gave them his entire and hearty support. If he kept a watchful eye over ail the proceedings both of parliament and the country ; if we find him one day commenting pn^the line taken in debate as 'dangerous,' at another as 'timid and vacillating,' or discussing the composition of the majority or its numbers upon the division, or suggesting that the journey of Mr. Fox to Paris should 'make the different departments bring on all their business before he comes back, as we shall have much less noise for the next three weeks;' or expressing his conviction that 'the Speaker's illness is feigned, and all ^0 let the opposition have their pleasure at Newmarket ;' he also asks, 101 * Who dcierted you Inut night tlmt you thought yon Imd a right to count upon? Give nio Ihcir names, that I iiiiiy innrk my sense of their behaviour at the drawing room to-morrow ;' and ngnin, *if the utmost ohscquioua- ness on my part, at the levee to-ilay, can gain over Mr. Holicitor-Cencral to your views, it shall not bo wanting.' This was indeed edlciently supporting a favourite ministry ; and when he hud one forced upon him, his whole conduct waa the reverse; nil his countenance being given to their antagonists, until the moment arrived when ho could safely throw them out. "The first impression which such conduct makes is unfavourable to the monarch, and may at first sight even give rise to un opinion that it was unconstitutional. But further reflection makes this somewhat moro than doubtful. The question is, ** Does the king of this country hold a real or only a nominal office? Is ho merely a form, or is he a substantive power in our mixed and balanced constitution ?'' Some maintain, nay, it is a prevaiimg opinion among certain aullioritiesof no mean rank, that the sovereign having chosen his ministers, assigns over to them the whole executive power. They treat him as a kind of trut^tee for a temporary usOi to preserve, as it were, some contingent estate ; or a provisional assignee, to hold the property of an insolvent for a day, and then divest hinaself of the estate by assigning it over. They regard the only power really vested in the crown to be the choice of ministers, and even the exercise of this to be controlled by the parliament. They reduce the king more completely to the condition of a stato pageant or cipher than one of Abbe Sieyes'a constitutions did, when he proposed to have a Grand Functionary with no power except to give away offices ; upon which Napoleon, then first consul, to whom the proposition was tendered, asked if it well became him to be made a "Cochon a I'engrais a la somme de trois millions par an V (A hog to be fatted at the rate of £120,000 a year.) The English animal, according to the above doctrine, much more nearly answers this somewhat coarse description ; for the Abbe's plan was to give his royal beast a substantial voice in the distribution of all patronage ; while our lion is only to have the sad prerogative of naming whomsoever the parliament chooses, and eating his own mess in quiet. Now, with all the disposition in the world to desire that Royal preroga- tive should be restricted, and the will of tho nation govern the national afiairs, we cannot comprehend this theory of a monarchy. It assigns to the crown either far too much revenue; or far too little power. To pay a million a year, or more, for a name, seems absurdly extravagant. To afiect living under a kingly government, and yet suffer no kind of kingly power, seems extravagantly absurd. Surely the meaning of having a sovereign is, that his voice should be heard, and liis influence felt, in the 1 I ^T" 102 administration of public atfairu. The ditluront ordoru uf the utate have a right to look towards that hi^rh <|iiartcrull in Ihoir turn tbi- uupport, when their rights iiro invaded by one unolhcr's oncroachnients, or to cluim the Royal umpirage when their uuituat cuntlictd cunnut be ticltlod by mutual conccHsiutiH ; and unless the wholo notion of a fixed monarchy, and a balance of three powers is a more fiction and u dreum, the ruyul portion of the com|iusilion niudt l)c ullosved to hiivo some power to produce Home effect upon the (piulily of tliu whole. It is not denied tiiut George III. sought to rule too uuich ; it is not muiut'iinud that ho hiid a right to be perpetually sacrificing all other considenitions to the preservation and extension of his prerogative. IJut that ho only discharged the duty of his station by thinking for himscH'octing according to hisconscientioua opinion, and using his influence for giving these opinions effect, cannot be denied, unless by those who, being averse to monarchy, and yet dreading a commonwealth, would incu'* all the cos*, and all the fur worse evils, of a form of government which they think the worst, rather than seek for a better, and would purchase the continuance of the greatest evils ot the highest price, rather than encounier the risk of a change. ''George III. sot one example which is worthy of imitation in all times. He refused to bo mudo a state puppet in his ministers' hands, and to let his name be used either by men whom he despised, or for purposes which he disapproved. Nor could any one ever accuse him of ruling by favourites ; still less could any one, by pretending to be the people's choice, impose himself on his vigorous understanding." No. 7. The sixth and seventh propositions are so intimately connected (the first part of the latter being a corollary, or the converse of the former)) that I purpose to discuss them both in this number. They are ab follows: " That his Excellency's avowed practical policy in the administration of the government f is precisely that ivhich was professed by the late Coun- sellors twelve months ago, and which has been demanded by alt shades of ^Reformers during many years, " That the policy of government now advocated by the late Counsellor$ is that which they have heretofore repudiated, and which must prove inju- rious to the intellectual and moral improvement, the happiness and best interests of the people of Canada." As to the nature of his Excellency's avowed practical policy in the tidministration of t government, his accusers, — in the tract published by the Toronto Association, quoted in the fifth number, — ^represent it thus: 103 "The Governor dcclarcfl, in nlu.oat ovory ouo ofhia aiLswors 'o addrossotf, Ihnl the ajtpointmmta are to he. maiU: withnnl reference to parly con$ider' ationg." Tho HUtn ol" n!l his Kxcelloncy'n (Icclarntions is, that tha govornmont Hhall bo udministorod iiiiiKiriitilly, without roferonco to reli- gious creed or politicul party, for tho i cf representative institutions, because he maintains what they did in 1842 advise Sir Charles Bagot to avow as the principles of his administration ; and which he declared also, as Sir C. Metcalfe has done, the command of hia Sovereign ! ! ! Such again is the consistency and the patriotism of party, whatever may be the personal worthiness of the individuals who become chained by its serpent wiles. And such is the demonstration that Sir C. Metcalfe's avowed practical policy in the administration of the government, is pre- cisely the same with that which was professed by the late CounseliorB themselves under his Excellency's distinguished and lamented predecessor. I will yet add another illustration, which will present, if possible, in a still more vivid light the downright inconsistency of the late Counsellors and their organs, and the claims of the Governor General upon the support of the people of Canada. Just a twelvemonth before I commenced this discussion, 1 wrote a short essay on «Sir Charlbs Bagot and his Canadian Government." That essay was originally published in the Kingston Chronicle and Gazette ; was applauded in the strongest terms by the organs of the late Counselors, and by THEMSBLVEa in various ways, and, in accordance with the suggestion of some of them, was printed in pamphlet form at the government press, and widely circulated. Now the whole object, and spirit and doctrine of that essay throughout was, to illustrate the evils of a government administered on party prin- ciples, and to show the importance of an impartial non-party administra- tion of the government ; for such I supposed was the government of Sir Charles Bagot, from his reply to the address of the Johnstown District Council, and many other replies identical with that in sentiment. In enforcing this doctrine, I selected my illustrations from Greek, Roman and English history. My first example was that of Lycurqds, who for- gave and appointed to office in his own household, and thus '^ converted into a faitliful friend and useful servant" a man who had carried hie oppo- sition to Lycurgus' system of government so far as to attempt the life of the Spartan legislator. My second example was that of Thrastbulus, who abolished party distinctions in Attica (which had been convulsed by party dissensions), by requiring the " citizens to engage upon oath that all past transactions should be buried in oblivion." On which I remarked — " Thrasybulus required by oath, what Sir Charles Bagot has often recommended as a duty; and those who admire the conduct of the former, ought to respect that of the latter." From Greece I turaed to Rome, and then to England ; and I solicit the reader's particular attention to rw 112 \'\ the following pasaagcs from my pamphlet, as they contain the policy of gorenmient which was professed and applauded by the late Couneellora^ and their newspaper supporters throughout the Province, at the time of Sir Charles Metcalfe's arrival in Canada. *' Julius C-Esar's celebrity as a general and a conqueror over armies and provinces, is surpassed by his conquest over his own personal resentments and party feelings (after having grown up and lived amidst all the aspe- rities of both) — when he ^pardoned all who had carried arms against him, made no distinctions with regard to parties,* and avowed in one of his speeches, < I will not renew the massacres of Sylla and Marius, the very remembrance of which is shocking to me. Now that my enemies are subdued, I will lay aside the sword, and endeavour by my good fluential and appropriate advisers of th6 Crown in behalf of the people of Great Britain, suggested to Sir Charles Bagot certain individuals Whom he has selected as the most influential and appropriate advisers of the Crown in behalf of the French people of Canada; a measure so just, so' tvise, so expedient, as to induce the Hon. Mr. Drai'er, not only to mdvise It, but to regard his own retirement from the power and emokmenis of ol^ce as not too great a sacrifice for its accomplishment— thereby furnish* ing a noble example of genuine patriotism and the highest possible eneo biiuDi on Sir Charloe Bagot's policy.'' ■?▼ 114 t " If any one circumstance, in addition to the consciuuaness of having done his duty, and tiie expressions of gratitude and sympathy which greet him from every part of the Province, can alleviate the sufferings of Sir Charles Bugot, and the disappointment of su premature a retirement from office, it must be the inapectful and ufTuctionatc references which are daily made to him by his distinguished successor, Sir Ciiarlrs MBTCAie late Council I entertained the respect and esteem of personal friendship. I referred to two of the gentlemen on whose recent proceedings I am about to animadvert. I confess i had hoped much from their legislation and administration in the government. The only idea I entertained of ever writing any thing which would involve a reference to their proceedings, was a (ii:s&rtation or two on the connexion between the laws oi a country and the happiness of its inhabi- tants, and the adaptation of the culonial relations of Canada and the laws enacted since the union of the two Provinces, to the condition and inte- rests of the people, and the spirit which should be cultivated by the people and their rulers tt» render the operation of those laws and relations bene- ficial. The deep felt conviction of duty which has impelled me to con- demn where I had hoped to approve, to expose, censure, remonstrate and warn, instead of elucidating, applauding, encouraging and congratulatingi involves one of the most painful events of my public life. But whatever others might think of men or parties, I have always professed to love truth and justice more than men — to regulate my own conduct by principles 119 and not by parties. Long before Mr. Baldwin had a party, and both before and since the union of the Cnnadas, I have disclaimed being a party man, and protested against being judged by the rule of party. I did so explicitly, either in explanation or in reply to attacks, in the Chrittian Guardian of May 16, July 11, August 15, September 13, 1838; June 5, October 23, 1839; January 8 and 22, February 5, and April 15, 1840. In reference to scores of attacks which have been made upon me on this ground, and in justification of the remarks which I am about to make, I will quote the following pRsaajre from the Christian (inardian e gained it" So the leaders of the Toronto Association claim for themselves and theirs all the spoils of office which may be found in the country, to the exclu- sion of even a poor widow's son not of their fraternity, and they found and support the association as a lever to elevate themselves to power in order to make the Crown a " tool" for she attainment of such an end. The spirit of such a dominion is lahmaelitish, and the principle of such a policy is that of Uhmaeliam ; and the heading of such an organization by an ex- minister of the Crown is an anomaly of the nineteenth century. The enlightened and eloquent Gisborne, in his admirable work on the Duties of Men, after explaining the Duties of the Executive Officers of Govern- ment, thus remarks upon the duties of an ex-minister of the Crown : " When divested of his employment, whether he withdraws from the busy world into the shade of privacy, or continues to serve his country as a member of Parliament, he will arm his breast against the stings of unsuccessful ambition, and purify it from every emotion of bitterness and resentment against those who have profited by his fall. If he continues to act his part on the political stage, he will be on his guard against the l?^Ht«l 125 secret hankering after emolument and power, usually predominant in those who have onco been in possession of iiigh ofHcial situations. Fie will not frame his parliamentary conduct with an insidious view to regain the eminence from which he has been cast down ; ho will not seek popu- larity by disingenuous artifices; he will not hoist a standard to collect the discontented, nor present himself as the leader of the factious. He will support, from his heart, every measure of his successors which promises to promote the general welfare ; however evidently it may contribute to raise them in public estimation, and consequently to obstruct the return of himself and his friends to the helm of government." With how much more dignity and propriety would the late Counsellors have concluded, and how much more benefit would they have conferred upon the country, had they adopted such a course, instead of getting up an organized agitation against the Representative of their Sovereign ? The late Counsellors for Lower Canada have pursued the dignified course of retired British ministers ; so did Messrs. Howe, Uniacke, and McNab, of Nova Scotia. They did not even attend a public meeting assembled in their behalf in the metropolis of that Province. The resolutions were communicated to them at their own residences. But the SENTiHKNTS inculcated at the Toronto Association, and by its principal organs, are as anti-colonial as the proceedings of their ex-minis- ter founders are unministerial. They have scouted the phrase, " Respon- sible Government as applicable to a colony ;" and the Governor-General's remark, that, as applicable to a colony, it was " still an undefined ques- tion," they have denied as a fact, and reprobated as a covert attempt to subvert the constitutional liberties of the people of Canada. They have supposed that they would obtain a decisive advantage over his Excellency by representing his absence of precise definitions as hostility to the sys- tem of Responsible Government, contrary to his own assertions. Now, such a proceeding was as disingenuous in itself as it was unjust to the Governor-General. They knew that a precise definition of Res'ponsible Government itself was impossible. Their own Mr. Blake has declared it absolutely undefinahle, and said, " we seek not to define it." Tliey also knew that Responsibh Government, ao applicable to a colony, was to a still greater extent not only an "undefined," but an undefinable question. They also knew that Responsible Government in a colony and in the parent stale, is not one and the same thing, as they and their organs have sought to impress upon the public mind. I say advisedly they knew it, because they had avowed it. The first part of the resolutions of Septem- ber, 1841, quoted by the late Counsellors in their written communication to the Governor-General, is as follows : " That the Head of the Executive Cfovemment of the Province, being loithin the limits of his GovernmeAt the .fjCr'-l^ m' 126 Repreaentative of the Sovereign, i» retpon$ihle to the ttnpi.yial authority alone.** Now, the length and breadth of the import of thia resolution, 1b (in addition to direct Imperial interests and foreign commerce,) the length and breadth of the difference between Responsible Government in Great Britain and in Canada ; and when the late Counsellors shall have given a precise definition of this resolution in all the workings of our government, then ina> they charge the Governor-General with something a good deal worse than ignorance, for speaking of the theory of Responsible Govern- ment, as applied to a colony, as a still undefined question. In England the Sovereign is not responsible to any body for any act of the government; in Canada the " Head of the Executive Government is responsible to the Im- perial authority" for every act of his government; and he it the oifLT member of the Canadian Executive that can be impeached and punithedfor the acta of hit government. Now, if the Governor of Canada is involved in a responsibility in which bis Sovereign is not— -a responsibility equal in magnitude to the sum total of the acts of his government— ^then must he, within the range of his additional responsibility, be invested with some additional power ; for responsibility without power is a contradiction and absurdity. In the sixth number of these papers, I have shown that the Governor-General has recognised Responsible Government in Canada to the full extent of the resolutions of September, 1841 ; but those resolu- tions themselves recognize a difference between Responsible Government in England and Responsible Government as applicable to a colony. What that difference is, it is needless for me to undertake to say, until the Association'sts shall have defined the nature nnd extent of the above quoted resolution. While that resolution remains, the maxim that « the King can do no wrong," cannot be applied to the head of the Canadian Executive ; that is, as long as Canada remains a Province of the British Empire. How then do they evade the force of that resolution 1 Why, by not only avoidmg oU attempts to explain it, and even all reference to it, but by practically and positively denying its application, — nay, by denouncing the very principle uf it. This office they appear to have assigned to Mr. Blake. In the execution of it, they repeatedly and enthusiastically cheered him ; and fur having performed it, Mr. Sfllivan most warmly eulogised him. The following passages fVom Mr. Blake's Toronto Asso- ciation speech, with the accompanying cheers, are my witnesses :— ** But it is said that the head of the Executive Government here, is responsible to the people of England. Now, laying out of view for a moment the practical effect of this responsibility, which we shall consider by and by, we do now unhesitatingly assert, that however well fitted such responsi- hility may be to deprive us of all shadow of liberty, it can never raise us 127 to the rank of freemen. (Cheers.)*' "We have heard one to whom this Province certainly owea much, [I mean Lord Diirhnm] declare, hat he did not pretend to decide upon the policy of granting to Canada reyreaent- ative inttitutionB—Uingue^e this, *hich siinuid never huve escafpd the ljp« of an Englishman. I must confess myself, therefore, indisposed to fix upon the wording of a despatch, or a reaolution, for the purpose of for- tifying our rights. Such a course may be highly proper in settling mere questions of form ; but those essential rights which we now demand, rest on the basis of eternal justice, upon which no resolution, however consti- tutional, can more firmly establish them— 'from which no despatch, however •rtfuUy worded, can ever remove them." "But, sir, it is said that the responsibility of the head of the Executive to the people of England, is the surest guarantee of our liberties ; nay, the only guarantee which we can have consistently with our position as colonists. That such language should fall from the lips of noble Secretaries of State ; that they should consider a simple declaration of ministerial approval as a snilicient sanction for any violation of our rights, however flagrant ; nay, that auch passing notice of our humble condition should be regarded as the proper object of our gratitude, would not much surprise us. And we should not feel disconcerted, even though we should find such language faintly echoed by the people of Eng-land. But that there should be found in this country any man degraded so low as to pander to this lust of despotic power— (cheers)— that there should be found any man base enough to barter his own, his children's dearest right for some paltry present advantage. How can such things be, and not fill us with wonder ? (Loud cheers.) Respon- sibility to the people of England, forsooth ! What ! does not the Crown constitute here the third branch of the Legislature, as in England ? Is not the Legislative Council, our second branch, nominated by the Crown, as in England ? Are not the prerogatives of the Crown as inviolate here W in England ? And am I to be told that all those strong, those natural ties to the parent state, must be regarded as nothing, unless we are also to consent that the government of this country be conducted by ministers 4>ver whom the people of the country have no control ? I sav; Sir, this light must not be conceded by the people of Canada ; nay, it must not be conceded even though the Commons of England were disposed to exercise it with the utmost impartiality and vigor — ^it is a concession no less repug- nant to the libcty of Canada to grant, than unworthy the greatness of England to demand. We desire, indeed we earnestly desire, to be united lo Gngland ; btU it must be by ties of vfhich freemen need not be ashamed* England cannot wish, and we must not consent to be bound as slavei;* (Cheers. ) But, Sir, we utterly deny that the right of control, if conceded, would even be exercised by the people of England with impartiality ai)d f igor ^ ud history shall have rai»@4 her vvarmag voice for us tp little pu|i[' frjrf ■ 128 pose, ifshe has failed to co;ivincc uti that such control, however well fitted to secure the aggrandizement of the parent state, has never yet operatedi and never will operate as a shield to the liberties of the colonist. We have, Jn'leed, seen iho people of Finirland demond of a noble Lord lome account of a rapacity almost unparalleled in the ago of Roman despotism —rapacity which unAnir a fcvV brief years had amassed wealth sufficient to arouse the envy of thn anc'ent and privileged nobility of England. But with what result ? Wliy, at the very hour— the very moment when the Commons of Kiiglnnd were engaged in the investigation of that hei- nous otiencc — at that very hour and moment, the King of England was desecrating the venerable temple of Westminster, by bestowing upon that Governor the highest honour the Crown of England could confer. But it may be said that the circumstance's of our country, nay, its very poverty, ([ have heard less tenable arguments urged,) sufficiently protect us from the iron grasp of rapacity, and that such instances as I have adduced, are therefore uninstructive. Lot us then contemplate the enormities of the immediate successor of that Governor of the Indian Empire of England, for the purpose of satisfying ourselves whether the reupoi^.sibility of the head of the Executive Government to the people of England, on which we are asked to rely, can be justly regarded as any guarantee of our rights. Look then at Warren Hastings," inc. << Let us then hear oo more of our insignificance in this our struggle for freedom. No man, no body of men, contending for liberty can ever be regarded as insignificant. Such a spectacle is insignificant only to the coward slave, who knows not wherein the true dignity of man consists. (Hear, hear.) It will be hailed by every true-hearted Englishman as a spectacle the most signifi- cant. He will rejoice to see the budding forth of those seeds of liberty, which it is the glory of England to have ^ lanted over the globe. (Cheers. )" Every word of these quotations (as long as they are) is emphatic and full of meaning. Let the reader ponder them carefully. Apart from mere military occupation, (a great expense to England, and a correspond- ing source of gain to Canada,) apart from feelings of affection and friend- ship—these sentiments of the Toronto Associationists cut asunder the only political i\Q which unites Canada to England. If the head of th') Canadian Executive is not responsible to England, then is he an independ- ent potentate, and Canada is an independent sovereignty. The resolution of the House of Assembly of September, 1841, which says, "That the head of the Executive Government of the Province, being, within the limits of his Government, the Representative of the Sovereign, is respon- sible to the Imperial authority alone," is declared by the Toronto Associ- ationists to be incompatible with liberty, to be fit only for slaves ; and they repudiate the desire,— nay, they refuse to submit to any other than 129 this independent connexion with England — tho friendly connexion which the "freemen" of the [Jnitod States liinrlily vali.e and earnestly maintain with the people of Enjrland, and by virtue of which they have obtained large (oana from British capilulistH. I ihali not stop to arf^ue tho doctrine of tlie abf)vo (piotations ; I merely adduce them as proof domonotrativo that the doctrine of independence, (as I stated in my introductory address to tho people of Western Canada) is involved in the proco(>(]iii(,'S, ami has been incuh.-ated under the auspices ofsomeof the lite ('ouiisollcirs. Noithor will I reply to thpi>e imputa- tions upon the Sovereiffn and people of l']ii|;land ; they arc the mere repe- tition of what Patrick flRNiiv used to t>ay, from whom Mr. Blake seems to have borrowed a considerable portion of his sjiecch, and the animus of the whole of it. The Toronto Gtoui; — the orfrnn of the Aasociation— breathes out the same denunciationd against the Miiiiater.^, Parliamenti and people of EnjEfland, and the same denial of the Intporial authority to judge of those very resolutions whicli rccogniz.-) the responsibility of the head of the Canadian Executive to that authority. In the Globe of the 4th of June, (it should have been dated 4th July,) the Editor quotes tho paraj^raph of my introductory address in which I have stated the Imperial authority to be the legitiniiite tiibunul of appeal on a ques- tion of the constitutional prerogalive of the Crown, which, beyond all doubt, involves an Imperial interest of the highest and moat sacred charac- ter, as well as acta for which the Governor-General is responsible to the Imperial authority nlone according to the resolutions of Igll ; that the Imperial authority had virtually decided in favour of the )e a member of a party, can never be the leader. That post will ever Vv riled by the bold deciaimer whose influence commands the House of Paiijy^uenl. All that is permitted to the Sovereign, no longer a Sove- reign but in name, is to co-operate in forging his own fetters, and to endeavoor to persuade himself that he is fxB^ ; to be flattered bjrJU«. v«HFr In . i 136 potent associates, when they are at leisure and in humour; to be menaced by them, when he dares to intimate disapprobation of their Bchemefl ; to be overawed by one part of his tiubjects, whom he denominates his friends; and despised by the other, wliom he liis forced to be his enemies. "But when a Monarch (or Governor) considers himself as the common father of his people ; when, rejecting ■ 'I distinctions not originating in personal merit, he is ready to employ in the service of the state any of his subjects possessed of virtues and talents capable of furthering its welfare; it is difficult to say whether ho ensures, as far as human conduct can ensure, more substantial advantages to his country, or more satisfaction, honour and authority to himself. Roused by his impartial call, public spirit revives in the remotest extremities of his dominions, prompting all classes of citizens to wliatever exertions the general good may require. No individual is deterred from stepping forward in the common cause, by fear that, in consequence "O'lspicious party connexions, his most strenuous efforts will be coldr )ted, his most important services for- gotten. Political discussions n. .jnger make one part of the family an enemy to the other. Harmony and confidence reign throughout the community, and afford the most stable security against attacks from abroad." Such is the kind of chief-ruler enjoined by the institutes of the inspired Jewish Legislator ; such is the kind ol" chief-ruler that the people of Canada have already desired. That any considerable number of them should have been induced to band themselves together under the banners ot' the Toronto Association as enemies of Sir Charles Metcalfe for his insisting upon such an exercise of the vice-regal office, can only be accounted for from the fact — as remarked by the historian de TAou— .that " nations, like individuals, are subjected to paroxysms of frenzy." The President of a Board of Police in a village performs the duties of his office " without reference to party considerations," and he is honoured for it, as is the Mayor of a city, or the Warden of a district ; but the reprecont- ative of the Sovereign — the fountain of honor and the supreme arbiter of justice in the country — avows the same principle of executing the func- tions of his high and responsible office " without reference to party con- siderations," and he is proclaimed an enemy to the liberties of that country ! He discountenances party exclusion, and he is set down as a nmpleton ox B. wolf ! But how does the hungry prowling w^o// of party cupidity slink away before the solar majesty of equal justice and parental impartiality ; and how does the faithless simpleton of party advocacy ftand in its native worthlessness and degradation in the presence of a government harmonizing with that wisdom which is " without partiality wd.wW»Qut hypocrisy !" It has been justly observed by Dr. Cooke I* 137 Taylor, in his JVatural History of Civilization, that " Exdusiveneas is the principle of falsehood in most of the opinions that have predominated over mankind ;" the principle of falsehood ap^ainst which the people of Canada have ever protested and prayed, and against which the represent- ative of their Sovereign hag solemly objected, declaring, as he does in his protest, that "all government exists soldy for the benefil of the people," and not for »,ha " exclusiveness" of party patronage. Every just man is con- cerned that " the throne sh- dinate officer to a diligen* and faithful discharge of his duty ; but will tend to revive and invigorate public spirit in every part of the Kingdom ; to call forth emulation in virtue ; to diffuse an ardour of patriotism, which spreading through every class of the community, every department of the State, every branch of the public service, will produce effects truly great and glorious. There are likewise other advantages resulting from a steady adherence to this principle, of which he will himself reap the peculiar and immediate comfort. He will thus preclude his supporters from every ostensible plea for taking offence when their requests, improper in themselves, or unfit to be granted under existing circum- stances, are refused ; and deter them from preferring numberless claims, the rejection of which would have drawn upon him the resentment, and perhaps the active opposition, of disappointed pride.— In filling up inferior official situations, and in recommending persons to his Sovereign, when the post which he occupies authorises such a step, to be placed at the head of high executive departments, he will scrupulously nif^e choice of men, whose abilities and attainments are suited to the functions which they will have to discharge. He will seek, he will encourage, k* mil reward merit, in whatever line it may be found, and in whatever siluation ft it employed ."' 141 The operation of such principles and Buch a policy in the administration of the Government, would he like a well- spring of life to the country— to the virtuous principles and aspirations of its rising youth, and to the enterprize, harmony and happiness of all classes of its population ; whilst a government propnlled hy the unhallowed stimulus of exclusive pariyism, is like the burninij Liva of sterili ;y and Joatn, upon the best intellectual energies and moral feeliuors and socia- happiness of a community, emitting its volcanic eruptions in ali the diversified f urmb of pnrty association, party passion, party violence, puny prose liption, party pettecution, — and not unfrequenily party rioting, bloodshed and murder. When the life pulse of the government is pariyism, it will beat to ihe extrpmities of the body politic, and partyism in every variety of secret and public combinati m, will spread throughout the whole population, and ttatutea themselves will be as cob-webs against its existence and even prevalence. When gov- ernment announces pnrty favouritism and party exclusion as the principle of its administration, it is itself no br-tter than a political party confederacy armed with dreadful power ; its oaths of secrecy are but the counterpart of the secret oaths of other political confederacies ; its own policy would be serving the seed broad-cast, of which all party confederacies would be the legitimate fruit ; it might even legislate agi inst some of them, but itself would be the fostering parent of them all; party-pohcy being the rule of its action, party-. "spirit would be the life-blood of its existence, and with the death of that spirit would be its own dissolution ; its moral power — the most essential means of good in a government — ^would be no more than (he moral power of any other selfish party combination ; the law in its hands would be felt as a tyranny, and the executive power an instru- ment of party despotism, only more regarded than any ether party despotism, not because it was more just or virtuous, but because it was more powerful ; under its sway not only would party combinations and societies, secret and public, increase and multiply, but the noisy worthless partizan would be the great man, and the intelligent worthy man would be the obscure man ; party cunning would be the high way to executive employment, and virtuous industry the sure path of obscurity ; and the teacher must apprize his pupils, that under the existing system of govern- ment they would not be encouraged, patronized, and rewarded, according to theip virtues, their attainments, their abilities, their industry, their love of justice and law, — but accordmg to their party confederacy, their party- zeal, party skill, and all the arts and qualifications of the party gamester. In illustration of the truth of three remarks, I appeal to the growth of party associations, secret and public, in Canada, since the hour when it was fully understood and acknowledged by the late counsellors, that party policy was their rule of Government. I appeal to the revival and the mf ^ H Mr 142 cb irtctcr of party-ipint in the country, which ii as the zephyr before the gtle, in comparison of what will be, if inch an unprincipled policy be •ubstituted for the principle of Provincial policy in the administration of the government. I appeal tu the party combinations and party manoeuvres in those sections of the United States, where the executive power is only the breath of party, and where party is the mainspring in the whole machinery of government, where Lynch law triumphs over statute law, and mob power is stronger than executive power. I appeal to the late riots in Philadelphia — the natural spawn of an exclusive-party-policy- administralion of the government advocated — to the moral weakness of the executive authorities there — the powcrlessncss of the law— the necessity and even inefficiency of military interference. I appeal to the sentiments and warnings of the late President of the United States, as quoted in the last number. I appeal to the denunciations of the above-quoted Dr. Wayland— to the testimony and the lamentations of the most able states- men and writers, and most estimable characters in the American Republic. I appeal, finally, the unwitting testimony of the Toronto Associationists themselves. In the address of Mr. Hincks to the electors of Frontenac, which the associationists ordered to be re-printed and circulated by their agents, in illustration of .he doctrine earnestly advocated, that "the vacant offices should be filled by men of their own party," (p. 2,) a quota- tion is introduced, to show that the " distribution of patronage should be 80 wielded as to secure the active support of the friends of the govern- ment, and weaken the party of their opponents." — (p. 4.) That quotation conclndea thus :— « A man of ability in Prussia, without connexions, has a much better chance of getting on, if he devote himself to the public service, than in England ; but at the same time, the chances of such a person being advanced are infinitely greater hero, [England,] than in the United States. In the latter, every thing is sacriAced to party cotuidera- tioHM ; and the moat splendid talents and capacity to render great public services would never advance their possessor one step on the ladder of promotion if he happened to he of a different party from that in favour at the time, or to want party support. The reason is, that in England Parliamentary influence predominates merely, whereas, in America it is everything f and everything must, in consequence, be made subservient to its support," Now, as to England, I shall presently adduce fact against assertion. But the operations of the party-patronage system must be vastly more marked and more baneful in Canada, than it is here exhibited to be in the United States as our examplers. The population is much smaller here than there ; and the number of offices much larger in proportion to the entire population; and they were greatly multiplied by the late GounseUors, and U3 proposed to be multiplied to a much greater extent. The violence tfid perionality of party are incroased in proportion to the smallneaa of ths population, and the amount of patronage to bo distributed for party purpoHGS. Thia system, then, the rule of Qovernment in Canada, and all hope is extinguished that the Janus temple of social war will ever be shut« or social peace eter be enjoyed. Dotween the rising youth nf Canada and all promotion there is an impassable gulf, however ''splemMd their talents," or shining their virtues, or high their attainments, unless they caD provide, and prove the possession of the additional requisite bridge of poiitieal partitaiukip activity and partizanihip interest. And this apple of discord— this premium for partizanship—this oflehoot of the worst ■peciea of democracy— 'this extinguisher of unobtrusive virtue and intelli' gence— this system of political and moral corruptiou'-^this blood-sucker of tbe religions and moral feeling of the country, is dignified as the "enenee of retpontible government ; and all who do not fall down and worship this golden image of party idolatry, are to be cast into the furnace of party proscription and execration, heated seven times hotter than it waa wont in former Jays ! Such a system will prove Curran — the gem of Irish intellect— «n idiot. He said «I have known tumult and disorder to make many a rich man poor ; but I never knew it to ma!:e a poor man licb." This newly advocated system of responsible government will indeed make a rich country poor, but it is the patent though unprincipled way to make poor political partizans rich. Under its operation cunning will be the desideratum for the public man, and moral principle will die, and with it will crumble the whole constitution of government ; for, aa the learned Schlbobl, in his admirable lectures on the Philosophy of History, remarks— << At no time has a poUticii constitution or mode of government been devised, which could permanently supply the place of principle." May the Ruler of Nations avert such a calamity from Canada ! For Sir Charles Metcalfe to be a party to soch a system— much the stipulated tool of it — would not only be violating the commands of Mi^ Sovereign, and the still higher commands of the King of Kings, and withering every verdant germ of Canadian excellence and hope, with the rimoon blast of the evils above deprecated ; but would be setting the sea) of condemnation to his own appointment as Governor-General of Britiab North America. In the late debate on Canadian affairs in the British House of Commons, Mr. Buller said that Sir Charles Metcalfe belonged to " the ranks of the opponents of Her Majesty's present government ;" Lord Stanley said Sir Charles « was not a supporter of the present Ministry ;" Sir Robert Peel said that Sir Charles waa not even peraenat^f known to a angle member of the present Govej'nment, mitri ^hur MM TIR 144 H Ifi! recommendation to her Majcoty aa GoTernor-(f onoral of Canada. Th« amoluirenti of that ofliue are larger than (hoao of Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Miniatry in F^ngland have many noody and office- seeking dt>pen(lentH and friendM— nohin and othcrwi^o— to whom aucli an office would bo iin invaluablo hoon, and who, no doiiht rc;,'urd''d tlirm- ■elves as having strong puluicul claims " for sorvicpH rendered." And, had Her M(lj^:flly'8 Adviacrs acted upon tho new and detcstablo article incorporuted into tht! poiiiicul creed of the late AdvisorHol'tho Governor- General, to regard their opponents ns "enemies," and fill up ''all vacant offices with men of their own party," then would Sir Charles Metcalfe not have been (as Mr. Duller expressed it) taken from the ranks of their opponents." He desired not the office ; he desired and needed not its emoluments ; the office needed him ; Her Majesty's Ministers resolving (as Sir Robert Peel has more than once avowed, and as Lord John Ruspell declared, after the passing of the Municipal Corporation bill,) to recommend persons to office according to their fitness and merits, advised the appointment of one of their '* opponents" in the person of Sir Charles Metcalfe. Thi:i is Briiish responsible government, as practised by Her Majesty's Ministers in the very appointment of the present Head of the Canadian Executive, and this is the true responsible government for Canada. Sir Charle. Metcalfe's peculiar fitness for the situation of Governor-General of Canada, was asserted even by Mr. Hume, and eulogized in the strongest terms by the late Counsellors themselves, at the commencement of the late session of the legislature, after they had had scfveral months' coofideiitial intercourse with His Excellency. But Having changed their doctrine of Government, they have in a corres- ponding ratio, amazingly changed their language in regard to Sir Charles Metcalfe, and have done but little else in their 8))eeche(i for months past, th'^n attempt to falsify the words, which they themselves had employed in parliament, during the discussion of the answer to the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session. This is only another addition to the catalogue of their inconsistencies and self-contradictions which 1 have heretofore pointed out; whilst Sir Charles Metcalfe, true to the principles sanctioned by Her Majesty and her advisers in his own appointment — true to the equal rights and privileges of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Canada/— continues to maintain what tho late counsellors adrised Sir Charles Bagot to declare to the Johnstown District Council, that " the ditirihution of the patronage of the Executive Government ahall he confined to no particular section or party, religious or political" That the patronage of government in England has been advised and Qsed for party purposes— especially before tho era of administrative and pvliMiMntary reform— there is no doubt. Those were days of ezecotire 145 Comption, and not of *< equal justice" in llioadmiiiihtration of the goverrt-' nient. Tlioy arc beacons of warninjr, not oxanipleu for imitation. Tha principle \. as always condcinnoJ by both Btatcsmon and moraliBta — the ■amo as profane swoarinjf — ovon by iIjoho who were ^uihy of it ; and the fact itself of such abiiso of patronage wus doniod, except in cases where it was too shar.iolossly notorious to admit uf denial. One uiinister of the British crown did indeed unblii8hin;.'ly avow the doctrine itself; but hit name, in connexion with his cole'jrutod maxim (the *.'suunce of the dric-> trine of luo late Counsellors), that "every man has his price," is only remomborod to bo dutubted. Dr. I'alkv, in his Alorat and Pulilicat Philosophy, even ranks appointinontH to ofHco according to <|ualifictttion« amongst the rights f the s.'hject. (Cliap. X.) He says, " rights are per- fect or imperfect. P crfect rights may be asserted by force, or, what in civil society comes in tho place of private force, by course of law." In giving examples of •< imp'- *ect rights," he says — "appointments to officesj where the qualifications arc prescribed, the beat qualified candidate has a right to success ; yet if ho be rejected, he has no remedy. lie cannot seii^o the office by force, or obtain rcdioss at law ; his right is therefore imperfect. Wherever the rif^ht is imperfect, the corresponding obliga- tion is so too. / am obliged to prefer the best candidate, to relieve the poor, be grateful to my benefactors, take care of my chiliren, and reve- rence my parents ; but in all these cases, my obligation, like their right) is imperfect. I call these obligations ' imperfect,' in conformity to the established language of writers upon the subject. The term, iioweverj seems ill chosen on this account, that it leads many to imagine, that there is less guilt in the violation of an imperfect obligation^ than of a perfect one ; which is a groundless notion. For an obligation being perfect or imperfect, determines only whether violence may or may not be employed to enforce it." Palcy adds that a man who by partiality, "disappoints a worthy candidate of a station in life, upon which his hopes, possibly, or livelihood, depended, and who thereby grievously discourages merit and emulation in others, commits, I am persuaded, a much greater crime, than if he who filched a book out of a library, or picked a pocket of a handker- chief ; though in the one case he violates an imperfect right, in the other a perfect one." In this reas ■>ning, it will be seen that candidates for offices have aright in proportion to their qualifications and merits, and that a corresponding obligation rests upon those who have the disposal of offices to make appointments upon that principle, similar to the obligation which exists between parents and children ; and that to make appointments upan any other principle involves a species of dishonesty and injustice. I may also observe, that it involves dishonesty and injustice against the public «ts 146 4 well as ag'ainot iodividuals^ O^ces are created, not for flie purposes of party patronage, but, for the public good. The public therefore have a light to the employmer^t ot the best qualifications an^ talents (regardless of parties or party interests) in those offices. To use the patronage of those offices therefore for any party purposes is not only a perversion of them from the very design of their creation, but a wrong against that mxfolic. The late Counsellors have been compelled to admit this principle in respect to the office of magistrates. They have been compelled to declare that magistrates ought to be appointed without regard to party distinctions. And are not all other offices created fur the good of the public at large as well as that of magistrates ? And are not the other offices for the most part more burthensonte upon *he public than that of magistrates ? And are not the public at large as much entitled to the full and impartial benefit of one public office as they are to that of another ? In all probability, there cannot be more than one office holler to one hundred of the population. There are then the interests of ninety -nine to one in favour of having public offices filled accordin^j to qualifications and merit, " irrespective of party considerations." Neither the Sovereign nor the public have any interest in parties or party appointments* Parti- sans only are interested in party appointments ; the public at large are interested in appointments according to qualifications and merits. Offices are created for the public at, large^ and not for partizans or parties. The whole theory, therefore, of party appointments and party patronage, i» rotten at the very foundation. It is alike at variance with the funda- mental priticiples of pi 'il government and the first principles of morals. It is the original fuuntam of political corruption, and the death-knel! of equal civil rights and privileges amongst all the members of a community* It is both the effi^ct and the source of public corruption. It assu.nes that a people cannot be governeu without this partial and therefore corrupt exercise of the patronage of the crovvii ; an^'i it maktj them more corrupt. The emulations and pretensions of party to public favour, should, tSere- fore, rest upon other grounds than that of party patronage. The sphere of their operations is beneath the throne — not above it. The exercise of their functions should not taint the fountain of honour, and justice, and law. That should bo held sacred by all parties, and flow unpolluted by party to the humblest inhabitant in the land. T he emulations of parties in regard to patronage itself Biiruld be, who shall advise its exercise most disinterestedly and most efficiently for the encouragement of virtue and intelligence — for the interest of the public service — for the discourage- ment of party contentions and divisions — for the promotion of peace and good will. Their emulations in regard to measures should ^ *>» who will devise and carry into effect the ivast numerous, most compreheni^ive, jaraost simple, and most efficient measures for the good governr.ie.nt of th« 147 pOBCB years ago. He spoke, not like a partizan of one i)articular member of our constitution, but as a person strongly and on principle, attached to them all. He thought these great and essential members ought to be preserved, and preserved each in its place ; and that the monarchy ought not only to be secured in its peculiar existence, but in its pre-eminence too, as the presiding and cor.necting principle of the whole. In every instance wherein an attempt has been made to subvert the monarchical part of the constitution, it has invariably been founded upon the pretext that the prerogatives of the crown had been unconstitutionally exercised ; nothing is more easy than to get up a charge of the kmd in relation to matters which have gone along in the ordina way, and which have not been transacted with a view to so insidious and e indai )us a proceeding as that which has been instituted against the Govenmr General. In the same way one half of the farmers end mechanics and dealers throughout the province might be proved to be rogues, because they had net in every instance rendered an account, and given a receipt, &vC., &.3., according to the technicalities of law. But in this case, I think I have shewn, that admitting even the extreme application of law which is known to be the worst species of tyranny. Sir Charles Metcalfe stands exonerated, and his accusers stand condemned. And never have the rights of tho Canadian people been so fully recognized by their governor as m the replies of Sir Charles Metcnlle to addresses which have been presented to iiini ; and never has the imperial govern- ment conceded so much and so cordially to the people of (!^anada, as in ^he late debate in the British House of Commons on Canadian afFairs. Nothing but a deliberate and settled determination to pull the " key- stone" out of the arch of our monarchical government can justify the 'W 150 \ ;: i i present Toronto Asaociation hostility against the Governor General and the supreme government of the empire. The other point of legislative duty to which I beg to refer, relates to political parties. Days of political revolution, and days of political cor- ruption and days of iron rule, are ♦he days of plighted party organization. It ia so with a neighbourhood; it is so with a town or city; it is so with a coun'iry. But as with n town or neighbourhood, so with a country, the days of mechanical, agricultural, commercial, and intellectual industry — the days of improvement, protperitj, and happiness, are the days in which the clangour of party faction is not heanl — in which the eocial energies are in union instead of collision — in which individual indepen- derze is not impaired by party bondage — in which individual emulation, merit, intelligence and enterprise has free and unrestrained encourage- ment and scope of exertion. It is so in a family ; it is so in a church ; it is so in a province. In unity ther e is strength and in division there ia weakness in a country, as well as in a church ; and with as much reason inight Mr,. Baldwin talk about advancing the interests of a church by |riving " a distinctively party character" to its annual assemblies and its local meetings, as to talk of advancing the interests of the country by giving " a more distinctively party character" to its legislative represen- tation. Such doctrine may do very well for a party man who expects to be the head of a party, or a gainer by party — .the same as some men advocate lotteries ; but the sentiment is as unpatriotic as it is absurd. Never was a more gross political solecism uttered. And the party asso- ciations which certain ex-ministers have formed to elevate themselves against the Crown are of the same character. Never were the remarks of that powerful advocate of popular rights — the late Rev. Robert Hall — on political associations, more applicable than in this instanrg ; <* Associations in this light may be considered as the finesses and tricks of the ministry. At present they are playing into each other's hands, and no doubt find great entertainment in deceiving the nation. But let them beware lest it should be found, after all that none are so much duped as themselves. Wisdom and truth, the offspring of the sky, are immortal ; but cunning and deception, the meteors of the ear'li, after glittering for a moment, must pass away." Can it then be the duty of a legislator to be the bond-man of party 1 Is it not his duty to be an independent representative of his constituents, And of his country, and judge of every act and every measure on its merits, and not be the horns, or the lungs, or the neck, or the belly, or the leg, or the tail, or the lap-dog, of any man, or party, to bo at the option of his head, or the bidding of his master, as " party purposes" may require ? In an old and extensive country — where all the institutions of \ 151 •ociety are laid in the depth of ages and the adminigtration of them irt the usages and paramount authority of generations, and where every prerogative, and interest, and privilege, in the church and in the state^ from the cottager to the Sovereign, is defined and settled by the common law of centuries, the collisions ot party shake not the foundations of the empire-^the sphere of their emulation lies by the avowal and interests of all parties within the fundamental institutions of the government ; — so that in some instances their different forces result in the increased velocity of administrative machinery, though in most cases in clogging its wheels, and on not a few occasions stopping its movements altogether. But the resistance and collision that would scarcely cause a jar or friction in the vastly pov« erful governmental machin'3ry of an old and a great country, would rend to pieces that of a young and a feeble country. The differ- ences or partizanship that would scarcely disturb a large congregation or church would scatter a small one to the four winds of heaven. But in Great Britain herself, parties are admitted to be evils in themselves, and are not, as far as I know, justified in the abstract by any authoritative writer on political science. The immensely varying majorities and minorities in both Houses of Parliament, show how much individual judgment and independence are exercised, even where the existence of parties is acknowledged, where the great princi^.. 3 of government and public policy are thoroughly understood, an d where the great majority of the House of Commons have avowed their preference for Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues as more competent and safe advisers of the government than Lord John Russell and his late colleague s« And at this moment in England (as stated by the last arrival) it is avowed as a doctrine by the advocates of free trade on the one hand and by a large portion of the Conservatives on the other, and illustrated by tho example of the press- that they will act simply with a view to fnnciples and measures without regard to men. When the Minister of the Crown is aware that he holds his place upon the ground of his general ability and integrity, and that his measures will be judged of according to their merits and adaptation to the country, he will be more vigilant, more circumspect, more just, and liberal, than when he grounds his strength and expectations of success upon the confederacy of party. The history of Canada proves that party policy and party legislation have been the sources of gross and numerous extravagancies, oppressions, and evils. In any country, and more especially in a new one, for a man to lay down party policy and party legislation as a theory of government, is to 'r.y the axe at the root of the tree of public ^'osperity and happiness. Such a theory is alike dangerous to the stability of the Throne and the liberty of the Subject. Nor is it less favourable to the morals of public men. No legislator can long preserve h|s Christian feelings and principles unimpaired while be abaodoDtf 152 If himself to the tortuoiia mantruveringa of party. The following remark* of the Rev. T. Gisbor.nb should bo treasured up by every legiahtor in Canada. " In order to preserve this principle of a resolute and stubborn sense of duty at once pure in it^elf and efficacious in governing his con" duct, let him resolve from the momcU of his outset in public life to shun the snares of party. Let hiuj learn to detect the hackneyed sophism, by whicii he will l-jar the sacrifioe of every upright motive palliated and recommended ; that a concurrence of many is necessary to the success of every plan ; and that no man can expect Lhr; aid of others without being ready to make reciprocal concessions and compliances. Let him toll those who urge it, that to co-operate, is not to be a partisan ; thfit co-operation asks no concessions but such as are consistent with morality and religion ^ that party requires her votary to violate, cithsr expressly or impliedly, the dictates of both } to affirm what he believes to be false ; to deny what he knows to be true ; to praise wh"t he deems reprehensible ; to cofuntenance what he judges unwise. Let him explicitly make known to those with whom be co-operates in nolitical undertakings, that he is an independent friend, who will support them in every measure which he shall think equitable in itself, and conducive to the national welfare ; not an articled confederate, pledged to concur in proceedings which his judgment and his conscience disapproves." In connexion with this theory of parties in the legislature and in the' country, and party policy and party legislation, preparation is made for an organized opposition to the government, with a view to its embarrass- ment and overthrow, if possible, whatever may be its intentions and measures. And this is called " patriotism" and " love of liberty !"^ Rather should it be called partyism and the grave of liberty. On this point I would address every legislator — nay, every honest man in Canada, not in my own feeble words, but in the resistless language of onfe of the most ardent and eloquent advocates of civil and religious liberty to whom England ever gave birth— the late Rev. Robkrt Hall, who, so far from regarding such a doctrine and such a proceeding as patriolie and favour- able to liberty, regarded it as a necessary measure of partiamentary reform, as the enemy of good government, and the death blow of liberty. In his great Essay " On a Reform of Parliament," Mr. Hall says — " Freedom is supposed by some to derive great security from the exis- tence of a regular opposition ; an expedient whirh is in my opinion both the offspring and the cherisher of faction. That a minister should be opposed when his measures are destructive to hia country, can admit of no doubt ; that a systematic opposition should be maintained against any man merely as a minister, without regard to the principles he may profess, or the measures he may propose, — which is intended by a regular oppo-' ' 153 sition, — appears to me a most corrupt and unprincipled maxim. When a Legislative Assembly is thua thrown into parties, distinguished by no leading principle, however warm and animnted their debates, it is plain they display only a struggle for the emoluments of office. This the people discern, and in consequence listen with very littlo attention to the representations of the minister on the one hand, or the minority on tho other ; being persuaded the only real difference between them is, that the one is anxious to gain what the other is anxious to keep. If a measure be good, it is of no importance to the nation from whom it proceeds ; yet will it be esteemed by tho opposition a point of honour not to lot it pass without throwing every obstruction in its way. If we listen to the minister for tho time being, the nation is always flourishing and happy ; \fwe hearken to the opposition, it is a chance if it be not on the brink of destruction. In an assembly convened to deliberate on the affairs of a nation, how disgustins^ to hear members perpetually talk of their connec- tions, and their resohition to act with a particular set of men ; when, if they have happened by chance to vote according to their convictions rather than their party, half their speeches are made up of apologies for a conduct so new and unexpected ! When they see men united who agree in nothing but their hostility to the minister, the people fall at first into enragement and irresolution ; till perceiving political debate is a mere scramble for profit and power, they endeavour to become at, corrupt as their betters. It is not in that roar of faction which deafens the ear and sickens the heart, the still voice of liberty is heard. Sue tuuns from the DISGUSTmO SCENB, AND REGARDS THRSE STRUGGLES AS THE PANGS AND CONVUIiSlONS IN WHICH SHE IS DOOMED TO EXPIRE." IV. The Duty of the People. — A few remarks on this subject and I have done. The interests of the people, and their duty, arc, of course, identical. What their real interest are, may, I trust, be easily inferred from the previous discussion. 1. In the first place, it is not the interest of the people to resist her Majesty or her Majesty's Representative in Canada. The interests an d happiness of man require government ; there can be no government with- out authority ; that authority must be lodged somewhere; that authority involves a tribunal of ultimate appeal in all questions of dispute between any parties in the state. In regard to allegations against the head of the Canadian executive, the Imperial authority is the supreme and ultimate tribunal of appeal, as stated in the House of Assembly's Resolutions of September, 1841, which declare, '' That the head of the executive govern- ment of the Province, being within the limits of his government the repre- sentative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone.^' In all cases of litigation the unsuccessful as well as successful party nmst u L*fT 154 H f ■) iy J ! 1 1P ii-;.| abide by tho decision of the lejraily constituted tribunal of judgment io such cases. To resist such a decision is to renounce the authority of tho tribunal which made it. Is it the interest of tho people of Canada to resist the decision which the Imperial authority has pronounced in favour of Sir Charles Metcalfe, and condemnatory of tho allo|?ations of hia accusers '? Arc tho i)coplo of Canada i)roparod to sustain a resistance if commenced ? If not, ought thoy to comnicncc it ? This is the alterna- tive — to resist or submit. And this is the point at which the question has now arrived. Tl j chairman of the Toronto Association himself (in a printed letter) thus fcx])luin3 the responsibility of the Governor General, and thus anticipates the present position of the question at issue : "The Governor General lills a two fold capacity ; first, that of representative or deputy to the Sovereig-n, for tho exercise of those prerogatives of Royalt}', with which he may be entrusted, and wiiich by reason of the personal absence of the Sovereign, can only be performed by deputy; and secondly and emphatically, that of Ihc minister of the crown in the colony, personally to watch over and control the local administration of public affairs, and see that tlio colonial authorities do not infringe upon Imperial rights or interests. In both these capacities he is responsible to the crown, and obnoxious to impeachment in Purliamcnt, should he fail in the important functions thus confided to hiin." " In an independent state, the Sovereign is under greater restraint than the Governor of a Colony, but the dift'orence is one of degree ; not of character. In either case, where a difterence arises, it becomes at once a question whether the difterence be of suflicieiit importance to enter upon the conflict which must necessarily arise, where two parties firmly adhere to their respective determinations. In an independent state, such pertinacity may bring about a revolution and the dethronement of the Sovereign. In a colony it may lead to a state of perpetual and continual irritation, which may end in the ultima ratio of all human affairs." That is, a resort to arms. This is strictly constitutional doctrine. It admits all that is involved in my argument on this point in the preceding number. It admits that the Governor has more power in the colony than the Sovereign has in England, because of his greater responsibility, and because he combines in himself the power of the minister with the prerogative of the Sove- reign. But how has the practice of the author of this quotation and of his fellow Associationists of Toronto contradicted his theory ? In theory they here admit — though two months afterwards they and Mr. Blake contradict it — that the Governor General is responsible to the Imperial authority alone ; they prefer certain charges against him for maladminis- tration ; but instead of bringing those charges with the alleged proofs of them before the Imperial authority for adjudication, they bring them 155 before the Canadian public. Their theory beforo tlie formation of the Toronto Aisociation adniilted colonial cmntrion with England ; their practice, and theory also through Mr. Uluke, since the formation of that association, asserts independence of England. And, as stated by the chairman of the Toronto Assofiation himself, " it now becomes at once a question whether the difference be of avjjicient importance to enter upon the conjiict ivhich vmst nccefvirilij arise /" 'J'ht- Imperial autliority haa sub- stantially decided ; the only oilier tribunal of appeal is the Clod oflattlca — the chances nf war. Do the people of Canada rc^^ard the •'dilfercnco of siiflicient importitnce'' to iwake this apped ? To enter upon this "conflict ]" If not, ought they to countenance or become committed to the agitations and aasociations which are the essential preliminaries to Buch a conflict '? I believe th jy ought not, and eipcnially for two amongst many reasons. First, the Imperial authorities have done no more than they have a constitutional right to do. They pass no stamp act ; they invade no Canadian right ; they decide upon facts, of which the respon- sible government resolutions of 1811, make them the judge. To resist them, therefore, cannot bo justified in the sight of God or before the world. One of the late Counse'Iors, and those who admitted him as their organ. have heretofore acknowledged submission to an inferior tribunal in regard to even the theory of responsible government itself — the prating of Mr. Bloke about "eternal justice" and the shouts of the Toronto Asso- ciationists to the contrary notwithstanding. In the first number of Thk Examiner, July, 18i^8, Mr. IIincks, after stating that the object of his paper was to lay before the Earl of Durham the views of Reformers on the question of Responsible Government, said — "If after their views have been submitted, and duly considered, it should appear to his Excellency, the High Commissioner, inexpedient to recommend their adoption, tve trust all agitation on the subject tvill be dropped, and that those who cannot ivith comfort to themselves live happily under the institutions which shall be established, will peaceably leave the Province and settle where they can enjoy institutions more congenial to their tvishes" If the decision of a High Commissioner was in 18.'3S, to be final as to the theory of responsible government itself, ought not the decision of the aiithority that appointed that Commissioner to be final in 1844, in regard to certain facts relative to the working of that system — facts which the very document that embodies it refers to the decision of the Imperial authority ? There would not have been a moment's hesitation on the subject — not a voice raised against it — nay it would have been received with acclamation — had not rapid strides beon made on the road to independence, since 1838. But since the Imperial authority has decided the question, I may per- haps be permitted to say in the language of Mr. IIincks, "iw trust all agitation on the subject will be dropped, and that those who cannot with n mr^ 150 comfort to Ikemsetves live happily under the inflitutiom which ahall be e$la- blinhfil, will jtfdceaUi/ leave the Province and settle where they can enjoy inatilutions more congenial to their wiahev.'* Secondly — I bolicvo tho docision of the Imperial authority ought not to be resisted by tho people of Canada, because it jrr'inlsall that they have asked tor. They have asked for reapDnsihlo govnrntnent, according to tho rcdohjtions of 1» U. Tho imperial authority grants it without reserve. With those resolutions, however, tho Toronto Associatioiiisls seem not to be satisfied. To thoso resolutions they have added Lord Durham's Report. In their proceedings, they have insisted upon tho resolutions of 1841 ami Lord Dnilim's Report. Why did thoy not think of -his in in 1841 ? Are they 1 > change their ground and claims as often aa they please ? Up to the time of the late resignations, they asked for nothing more than tho resolutions of 1841 ; but since then it has been found that those resolutions did not by any means cover the demands made by the lato counsellors ; and to make any tolerable excuse for some of those demands, they must go beyond the Magna Charta resolutions, and isolate some passages from Lord Durham's Report. But it should not be forgotten that whilst the Imperial Goverinnent unhesitatingly assent to the resolutions of 1841, they have assented to Lord Durham's Report only in connex ion with the limitations laid down in Lord John Russell's Despatch of October 14, 18i39. Lord Durham explained the theory; Lord John Russell added the securities required in its safe practical working. What the supreme authority has joined together, is not without authority to be put asunder. Under that despatch Mr. Baldwin took office in 1840; to that despatch Mr. Sullivan unequivocally subscribed, as I can prove to demonstration if required ; and with that despatch the present newspaper organs of the Toronto Association expressed themselves satisfied at the time of its publication. The following is an editoiial paragraph which I inserted in the Christian Guardian, April 8, 1840 : — " The Editors of the following papers have already expressed themselves satisfied with the recommendations of Lord John Russell's Despatch ; namely, the Britith Colonist, the Patriot, the Examiner, the Mirror, the Commercial Herald, the Hamilton Express, the JViagara Chronicle, and the Montreal Gazette. The Examiner (Mr. Ilincks') pronounces the despatch Uhefull concession of responsible government, as he has always understood and advocated it J This is an extraordinary statempnt ; but we are pleased that our contem- porary is satisfied. We have been told that Mr. Attorney-General Draper is also satisfied ; and we have heard it stated that Mr. Baldwin read the despatch before he was appointed Solicitor-General. Thus are all parties at last agreed as to our future system of government. Thea may * past differences be forgotten' on all sides." 157 Such was the decision of Rtformers as wp'I ab ConBervativoa in 1840, roajMJcling the expoHitions of Lord John IIiishoH's IJosfMitdj. In the Ouardianof the 8lli and l.'*th of A|)ril, inio, 1 jravo longthoiiod articica on that deBpatch, Hiatinfr the ecvorul point h of ugreoment and difTeronce between it and Lord Durhanra Report— whiit was granted and whnt was not granted. I wn.s not so much charniod with it as was Mr. Ilincka ; nor could I express niytiolf in so joyoua lunguagc as did he and his Reform contemporaries. I did, however, bow to it in tho folhnving terms, und am not prepared, like tho Ai^sociationists, to deny my own woid.s, though I reserved tho right of future freedom of remark on the subject : *' For the sake of peace, from dutiful respect, and undtM* pledge of good govern- ment, we bow to the Ruyal decision ; wo do so frankly, openly, unequivocal- ly, ond calmly await the experiment of the Government remedy. We shall exercise our pleasure as to our opinion on the theory itself, and as to what we may say or do respecting it in future years ; but for tho present, we yield obedience to the mandate from tho Throne ; and will render the Governor-General's administration all the support in our power." It is all-important that every man in Canada should not bo mistaken as to the decision of Her Majesty's Government. That was staled by Lord Stanley, '^ in every word of whose statement (Sir Robert Peel said)/ and I am sure I speak their sentiments — and the rest of the Government entirely concur. Lord Stanley said that Her Majesty's Government concurred in Lord Durham's Report, as explained and applied in the despatch of Lord John Russell. Then Lord Stanley expressed the senti- ments (sanctioned by the cheers of the house) of Her Majesty's Govern- ment thus, in reply to Mr. Roebuck : — " Now the hon. and learned gentleman had asked him (Lord Stanley) whether he entirely concurred in the views which had been taken by Sir Charles Bagot ou the subiect of Responsible Government, whether he would state explicitly to the House what his own sense of responsible government was ? (Hear.) He would do so. (Hear.) By responsible government, he understood that the administration of Canada was to be carried on by tho heads of depart- ments enjoying the confidence of the people and of the legislature of Canada ; and responsible to the legislature of tho colony for the due exercise of the functions of each of their dejcirtments. (Hear.) Na)', more, \:e also understood by it that the Governor, in introducing and expounding measures for the consideration of the Parliament of Canada, should be guided by the advice of those whom he might have called to his council. But if the honourable gentleman asked him whether, by responsible government, he meant that tho Governor was to be the mere machine, or passive instrument of any set of men or party in the colony, his answer was, that he could understand very well to what it nught lead, but that 158 1 -. i •>. such a lyatem was not consistent with confltitiitional g;overnninent fn « Britiiih colony, under (ho mitiiority of a Hrilish Governor. (Choeri.) Ho thereforo npprovod of tho conduct of Sir CharloH Motcnlfo — (cheers) —in not agreeing to tho tornm which hin council wished to impose upon him. Sir Charles Mstcalfe, however, had laid down in express terms, his adherence to tho reHuliitiouH of tiio lliird of S('pt(,'iiibor, 11(41, to which the honourable and learned jfciitlomnn Imd "d verted, — that the Head of the Evccutivo Ooveri tncnt wua responsiole to tho Imperial authority alone, but thut tho iiiiinugomuiit of tho local affairs of the colony were only to bo carried on by hinij by and with tho assistance of subordinuto officers of the ^'overnmcnt. Sir Charles Motcallb hnd, in the most express and explicit terms, adhered to tho principle ot' the resolutions to which ho had jii.st adverted, and had said, in doing so, that ho considered any other system of government, as impracticable in tho Province of Canada.— (Hear, hear.) lie (Lord Stanley) was not disposed to enter into the question whether responsible government was or was not the one most likely to conduce to good government, to conciliate the opinions of the people of Canada, or to enlist in tho public service men of honesty, character, integrity and faith ; but Ike principle had been conceded, both here and in Canada, and to it Sir Charles Metcalfe had agreed. The resolutions in question said that tiio Governor-General was to be respon- sible ; but the hon. and learned gentleman would leave him without responsibility at Ilixne, but an instrument in the hands of the Executive Council, and responsible to them. The two rcaponsibilitea might, by possibility, be exercised by mutual forbearance and good sense, on tho part of the Governor and the other body; but let the principle of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Roebuck) bo adopted, and the Governor could be nothing more than a more agent in the handd of the Executive Council — (hear, hear)— and yet, at the same time, responsible at Home. This was practically absurd, for without power there could be no respon- sibility." I submit, therefore, that the Imperial authority has fully sanctioned responsible government, as desired by tho people of C&nada ; and that every man and association should be rejected and avoided that persists in resistance against Iler Majesty and her Representative in Canada. 2. — I would remark, in the next place, that the people can have no interest in perpetuating strife and contention. Party editors, and office- seeking partizans may gain by it ; but the people will be as a picked goose, or a pillaged householder. The value of property is not increased by agitation ; nor tho transactions of commerce advanced by strife ; nor the influx of immigration, or the investment of capital, promoted by •ommotion; nor are the interests of Religion extended by calumny, or its 159 office- picked creased ; nor ted by or its •pirit diffused by clamour; nor are the reiourrrn of the country, improved by colliHion, nor itu InvvH bcHt admmistorHd by c(»nfmlcracy, nor its ener- gies atrenjf tboiiod l)y division. In every rospoct niUHt tbo people be a loser, and the country u butU-ror from strife and funtLiition. 9. — Nor can the poopio advanoo ilioir iiilorcsts by ranging themaelvea under llio banners of party leadorji, and (iJHputinp about niiMi. To contend for principica is patriotic; but tlio Homo Government luivc avowed all the principloH ever coutcndod for ; and to dispute about men — the only remaining topic of contention — is factious. Tt^ie late Rev. Robert Hall huH forcibly remarked that "/ac//V>/n» are founded on men ;" and that ia contending for tiicm, *^tlie people ore caiididalen for servitude, nx\{\ are ony debating whose livery thoy sliiill wear." The same writer, after noticing that in the early times of the Roman tiovcrnment, there were disputes relative to the principles of the govornmont between the patri- clanp and plebeians, remarks — " in the progress of corruption, things took a turn ; tho permanent parties which sprung from fixed prin- ciples of Government wore lost, and tlio citizens ranged themselvea under tho standard of particular loaders, being bandied into factions, under Marius or Sylla, Cmsar or I'ompey; while the Republic stood by without any interest in the dispute, a passive and heljdc^s victim.^* 4. Nor can the interests of the people bo advanced by countenancing party ^combinations, by advocating extreme measures, or by supporting oxi ^mr men. By extreme men I mean, those who arc violent and reckless in their conduct, or who push good principles to extreme lengths. Of two men one may be violent in his manner, but moderate in his measures ; the other may be very gentle in his munner, but extreme in his application of good principles. Neither is desirable, but the latter is by far the more impracticable and dangerous of the two. He is in politics what tho bigot is in religion — a man of one idea, and that idea is all the world to him ; and all tho world is not too much to be sacrificed for it. Opinions with him are fundamental principles ; and his principles are infallibilities — always equal in magnitude and alike inviolable.— By extreme measures I mean, measures or proceedings that destroy the equipoise of our balanced constitution ; or that infringe constitutional rights ; or i,hat involve hazardous if not dangerous experiments ; or that savour more of change than stability ; or are founded upon party rather general principles, or are promotive of party more than general objects ; or that alter the land marks or loosen the foundations of society. What I mean by party combinations cannot be mistaken. In looking over the statute book of Upper Canada, and in contemplating its history duringthe last twenty years, I cannot find or recollect a single measure that has been carried into effect or a single principle that has been secured by ; J 160 party combinaUon or by extreme proceedings of any kiml. It in an instructive, though iiitherto unnoticed fact, that every advantage which has been acquired, every concession which has been obtained, and every considerable step which hn • been made in the science of constitutional government in Canada has been eifected by moderate measures, by mode- rate men, and in opposition or in the way of no thanlcs to extreme theorists or partizans ; and that extreme parties and extreme party pro- ceedings have formed th'' inojit serious obstacles to the progreya of just and liberal government. From 1833 to 1840, the only liberalizing measure got through the legislature was the amended King's College Charter iiiW — and that was accomplished by moderate men in the spirit of conces- sion between contending parties. The political association that sprung up i.) Toronto in 183 1, and its township branches, with the extreme men directly or indirectly connected with them, were as inimical to civil reform as they were to public morals and constitutional principles, and sowed and nourished a seed which produced a fearful harvest of rebellion in 1837. Opposite party extremes and violence were nearly as baneful during the next three years. Lord Sydenham owf^d all his success, and Upper Canada is indebted for all the benefit, to moderate Counsels and the support of moderate men against tl.o opposition of extreme men— especially Mr. Hincks and his followers. In June 1841, the responsibility of ministers of the cro'vn to the legislature was, for the first time in the history of Canada, announced first by Mr. Draper and then by Mr. Har- rison, when both Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks were in opposition, antl when Lord Sydenham's administration was supported by the moderate reformers in Upper Canada. It was w^ .e they thus evinced a candid and conciliatory feeling, and a nianif st desire to co-operate with the Governor General and the Imperial Government as far as possible, that the British Parliament was induced i.o guarantee a loan at a reduced rate of interest which secure::; to the people of Canada many thousand pounds every year. And the Home Government have since been passing fiscal measures highly beneficial to the agricultural and commercial interests of Canada. When Mr. Baldwin during the third month of the session of 1840, not content with the declaration of ministers (all that had ever been made in England) introduced certain resolutions on the subject of responsible government, the result was rather to secure the power of the monarchy than to advance the influence of the popular principle, as was evidently intended. For while in the amended resolutions (written by Lord Sydenham) the responsibility of ministers to the legisIaUire was notmoro explicitly stated than it had been months before by Messrs. Draper and Harrison, another resolution explicitly provides for the Governor's res- ponsibility to the imperial authority alone, had it not been for which, it is clear from the spirit of Mr, Bluke and oiher Toronto Associationists, the 161 Responsibility of the govornor to the itnperial authority would have beer* scoi'ted in toto, a.id we would have been further towards the verge of independence than we are now. IJad not the new idol of party patronage and party policy been enshrined as the presiding deity of responsible government ; and had the late counsellors conducted themselves towards Sir Charles Metcalfe in the same spirit of liberality and justice that cha- racterised their prolesato 3 under Sir Charles Bagot, and marked the spirit nnd proceedings of Upper Canada reformers in regard to Lord Sydenham^ SirCharles Metcalfe would soon have proved as great a benefactor to Upper Canada as ever L /rd Sydenham was, and as efficient a friend to Lower Canada as Sir Churlcs Bagot ever was, and we would now be in a happy and prosperous atate instead of beinj,^ convulsed by agitations and torn to pieces by parties. Canada owes all iie evils to immoderate counsels and extreme men, and all its improvements to moderate counsels and moderate meri, and by moderate men, 1 mean practical men — men firm in principle — just in counsel — provident and safe in execution. This subject affords materials for an elaborate essay ; but I can proceed no further than these few references. It is not possible that the Home Government can feel encouraged or authorised to recommend investment or incur responsibility on account of Canada, when they see the chief persons in its government employing every means to render the connextion between it and England as nominal as may be ; nor can they regard themselves as very decently treated when they are never referred to by Canadian Executive Councillors except lit some such insidious terms as those contained in Mr< Baldwin^s favourite phrase — " dusty shelves of the colonial office" — a phrase that indicates distrust 8 and interests of the wliole Wealeyan body, iu it surpriaing that one Wesloyaii should think that thoir services for that body were not of such ^'adequate importance" as to enrtrtfe them to> any "peculiar support from it, or to |rag him on the subject of their public policy. (6.)' Nor M this all. A more important fact remains to bo stated. A question of great pecu- niary importance has for several years been litigatod between the Wes- teyan Committee in London and tht^ Wosloyan Conference in Canada. The advocate of tho Wesleyan Coiiferonce received intimation as early us December, 184^ that Sir Clmrles Bngol's illness disabled him at that time from investigatini,' the papers which had been submitted to him. At that time it was intimated by ono of liie late Counsellors, that if the advocate of the Wesleyan Conference would obtain the Governor Gene- ral's consent to refer the papers on both sides of the question to bis council, they would examine them and report their opinion and recom- mendations thereon for the consideration of the Inyperial governn>ent. The consent of the Governor General was obtained, and tho papers remained in the possession of the council until after his death ; but after all, they never thought the question of " adequate importance*' to engage their attention or call for their advice. An order from home at length directed the withdrawal of the papers ; and thus the matter dropped* Had "party purposes'^ been involved, ihey woufd doubtless have con- ©idered the matter of "adequate importance" to demand the right of giving advice ; but as it was only a question of law and equity effecting a large non-political religious bcidy, they did not consider it of "adequate Importance" to exercise their right of giving advice upon it, when, it was referred to them 1 And in the University Bill itself, the Wesleyan Methodist Church was made tue sacrifice — the ass of burden — for others. The bill added to the educational resources of the Wesileyan Methodist Church not one farthing, but took away its university charter. This the" Victoria College Board stated at longth ; but instead of offering opposi- tion to ihe bill whose general cbjects were important, submitted the circumstances and claims of the church on the subject to tho just and honorable consideration of the government. Whether the late Counsel- lors ever thought those circumstances or claims of "adequate importance" to engage their attention, I have, of course, no means of knowing. It is" perfectly clear, however, in addition to the six facts I have mentioned, that whilst three religious bodies in Western Canada have for mtiny years received upwards oi fifteen thousand pounds a year from public sources, the late Counsellors did not regard the Wesleyan Methodist Clnirch of " adequate importance" to deserve a recommendation to continub even a temporary assistance for four years of more than five hundred pounds a year. I may therefore well soy, in the language of a letter addressed to me many months ago by a leading member of our church, that " It is c«r- 109 lat one of such from it, this all. it peca- e Ww- [Janada. as early h at that m. At t if the r Gene- 1 to bis I recom- iTnn>ent« ) papers jut after ) enj^a^e t length dropped, ave con- right of lecting a udoqiiate R it was /"esleyan r others, fethodist This the opposi- ittod the just and Counsel- lor tanco" Itis- ntioned, iny years sources, hurch of fUB even pounds a ressed to It is cer- g- tain thoro nevnr was an adininistrnlion in Canada which his done lew for the Wesleyan Mothudiat Church tlian the Baldwin adminislrulion." These facts were frequently and oarnngtiy conversed upon hy prominent ministers and members of the Wosleynn Church long before the late resignation took place ; but wo determined not to brino- them before the public, to rojr'Td tho udministratiua in respect to its general measures, and to make private comiuunications rcsj)ccting our own rights and inte- rests ; and tliut such comiuiuiicalion.s wore uuule ngain and again, in tho strongest lauguao-^^, llie late Cuuiucllors well know, liut as strong and as astoniahing as these iacto arc, 1 have not so much as hinted nt them from tiie begmning to tlio end oi' the l^ortgoing discussion. Nor did I intend to do so. But the organs of the late Counsellors have sought to convert the Wesleyan Methodist Church into a political party for their support. They have tiirown down the gauntlet ; and I hesitate not to take up ; and let the entire responsibility and consequence be with them selves. They seem to regard the Wesleyan Methodists as very good political <* tools" at the time of a general election — very good hewers of woodland drawers of water in such an emergency — but of very in- " adequate importance" when the claims of "eqiial justice to all classes" come to be balanced in the administration and policy of the government. The Wesleyan Methodists and christian men generally are not constituted or qualified to make very good parly men ; hence they generally come out minus in regard to the patronage of a party policy government. They are first to be merely corporals or privates in the "Legion" o^ party; to the leaders belong the "spoils of the enemy. ''^ The Wesleyans may indeed receive the patronage of office as captains or sergeants of election bands ; but then the emoluments of those offices are, the acquisition of a party master, and their honour is, the privilege of " wearing his livery,'* if in No. 2. — 3Ir. Myerson's alleged " inconsistency defending the different Members of the Constitution, The constitution of Canada may be considered as consisting of four members. The Crown — the Legislative Council — the House of Assem- bly — the colonial connexion with the mother country. Each branch of it I have always regarded as inviolable, while every British subject in Canada was entitled to the equal benefits of its administration. Each branch has been successively attacked in Canada ; each branch I have in turn defended. I will not now enter into a detail of particulars; I merely state the general fact. I could not argue upon each of these subjects upon the same grounds ; I have therefore been charged ad nauseam with X 170 if incontJBtency. All I Hhali aay in self-defence is contained in the follovir' ing extract from Mr. Burkk's " Jlppeal from the new to the old fVhigif" in reply to similar charges preferred ngninat htm. In reference to myself I might stylo this extract an <* Appeal from the now to the old Reformatio" Mr. Burke says— "In the case of any man who had vrritten somethingr, and spokeVf a great deal, upon very multifarious matter, during upwards of twenty- five years public service, and in as great a variety of important events a«, perhaps, havoever happened in the same number of years, it would appear a little hard, in order to charge nuch a man with inconsistency, to see collected a sort of digest of his sayings, even to such as were merely sportive and jocuhir. This digest, however, has been made, with equal pains and partiality, and without bringing out those passages of his writ- rngs which might tend to shew with what restrictions any expression*, quoted from him, ought to have been understood. "He who thinks that the British constitution ought to consist of the three members, of three very different natures, of which it docs actually consist, and thinks it his duty to preserve each of those members in it« proper place, and with its proportion of power, must (as each shall happen to be attacked) vindicate the several parts on the three sc^ \[ principles peculiarly belonging to them. lie cannot support the deni> atic part on the principles on whicn the monarchy is supported, nor can he support the monarchy on the principles of den^ocracy ; nor can he maintain aristo- cracy on the grounds of the one or the other, or both. All these he must support on grounds that are totally different, though practically they may be, and happily with us they are, brought into one harmonious body. A man could not be consistent in defending such various, and, at first view, discordant parts of a mixed constitution, without that sort of incooaii- tency with which Mr. Burke stands charged. " As any one of the great members of this constitution happens to be endangered, he that is a friend to all of them chooses and presses the topics necessary for the support of the part attacked, with all the strength, the earnestness, the vehemence, with all the power of stating, of argu- ment, and of colouring, which he happens to possess, and which the case demands. He is not to embarrass the minds of his hearers [or readers], or to encumber or overlay his speech [or essay], by bringing into view at once, as if he were reading an academic lect«ire, all that may and ought, when a just occasion presents itself, to be said in favour of the other members. At that time they are out of court ; there is no question con- cerning them. Whilst he opposes his defence to the part where the attack is made, he presumes, that for the just rights of all the rest, he has credit in every candid mrnd. He ought not to apprehend, that his i ■ f M 171 railing fencei about popular privileges thia day, will infer that ha ought, on the next, to concur with those who would pull down the throne ; because on the next he defends the throne, it ought not to be supposed that he has abandoned the rights of the people. If the principles of a mixed constitution bo admitted, Mr. Burko wants no more to justify to consistrncy every tiling he has auid and done during the course of a political life Just touching to its close." No. 3. — Mr. Ryerson^s alleged inconsistency in respect to the Constitutiori, Party, Party Spirit, and Party Poli«tiibli8hed conwtitution of the couiilry, as cxpoundod by royal dospaichnN, and illustrated by the usage of tho British I'arliauioiit, Uritish courts of justice, and the common law of England. Nothing more is wanted to render this Provmce happy and prosperous, than iho practical and effir'wnt application to every department of our government, and to our whole ai/ateni of legislation, of the princi- ples and instructions laid down in tlic despatch of the Karl of Ripon, addressed to Sir John Culbornc, dated itth November, lUtH, and tho despatch of Lord CJIonelg, addressed to Sir F. Head, dated 15th December, 1835. In the application of these great and admitted principles to the government of this Province, / repudiate party spirit-^party intereitt'^ party pretensions. Parly spirit has licen the bane- and curse of this country for many years. U has neither eyes, nor ears— nor principle, nor reason. Its patriotism is pestilence, and both its loyalty and liberality are alike a ^baneful domination.' In illustration, I advert to two circum- stances, which will likewise aflbrd me the opportunity of reminding the public of some instructive facts. A few years ago, becoming convinced that a certain member of tho British Parliament [Mr. Hume] (who had been much looked up to in this Province, by myself as well as others) entertained views incompatible with our colonial relations to the mother country, and also that certain individuals among us were beginning to put forth sentiments and to excite a spirit of a revolutionary character — I gave intimation first of tho former, afterwards of the latter. What did party spirit do 1 It combined cloven presses for my overthrow in a single week* — the rest I need not repeat. It was in vain that I distinguished between principles and vien — in vain that I adduced the advocacy and asisociations of my public life — in vain tiiat I contemporaneously laid before the public my then recent correspondence with the Colonial office, on presenting a petition there to be laid at the fool of the throne, signed by some 20,000 inhabitants of this Province, in favour of the appropriation of the Clergy Reserves to the purposes of education — in vain that that correspondence contained what was deemed by all who read it the most satisfactory exposition of that great question that I had ever written — in vain that in that very correspondence the evils of what I termed in my letter to Mr. Under Secretary Hay, dated fiOth July, 1833, "a family * Five out of tbe cloven Edilora hero referred to were iinplicutixl iti the rebellion and invasions of 1837-8. 173 compact" in the Executive of tfu.s Provinco, wero pointed out— iill this WM blown awRy uy tlio wliirlwintl of piirty Hf.irit, nn iJii«l boforo tlin hlnHt of tha hurricano, and I wa.s ported from Sandwich to tlm Ottawa as a « traitor,' a ' hirelinjr,' as ' hnbnd' nnd noil-sold to the hi«h churdi, &tc. kc. &to. Thiit party Hlandor hns diod a natural death— its ori^inalora and its most aciivo ahctiorH aro fupitivcs (I for^ivo thnm with all my heart), and many otherw have porsonnlly and othorwiso ackiiowlndged mo •8 thoir benefactor, in thuH tiinoly warning them to avoid a ruin into which others have plunged. " Such was the liberality and patriotiuir,, and justice of party spirit on the one side ! Well, a few monthn ogo, I become convinced that an indiTidual [Mr. Bidwell] (with whom I was known to ditfor on some gravo questions of local governmont) had been removed from this Province under circumstances involving the honour of the British crown and tho aacrod rights of British subjects. I privately conuntinicatcd the facts to the proper (pmrter for consideration. A few weeks after, a totally falso (in my judgment) version of tho afliiir made its appearance in the public prints. I then determined publicly to reply, by publishing what I believed to be 8 true statement of the case. What was tho result ? Parti/ spirit appeared agoin in its true character. It was in vain that I pointed to the difference between fads and principles — between the rights n»id opiniona of an individual — in vain that I disapproved of tho tatter, while I hold the former ns the dearest earthly birthright of every British subject. I would not view with party eyes certain facts and circumstances. I was there- fore proscribed at once as only fit for imprisonment and exile ! In vain that I could refer to the example and instructions of a venerable father, who fought seven years and bled, to preserve the old colonic'', now the United States, to Great Britain ; who has faithfully discharged the duties of different offices under tho British government from that time to this, who with his sons and nephews, as the heart of one man, rallied to tho defence of this Province against foreign invasion and domestic traitors, during the late war with the United States — in vain that I could appeal to the testimonies of Mr. Attorney General Ilagerman himself, and other persons high in office, as to tho influence which they themselves have affirmed my publications (published and circulated in thousands by the Constitutional Society) exerted, in 183C, in returning a constitutional assembly — in vain that a very dear brother and myself had been selected as victims of bloody revenge by the rebels in the event of success — in vain that I could appeal to nil the intercourse of my public and private life— this was all nothing in the eyes nnd judgment of party spirit, which has denounced me in every form of phraseology as a 'hypocrite,' a ' rebel,' a ' troitor ;' yes, as having been J deeply died in the late infamous conspiracy.' IIUIUU..IU-11I h mi 174 <'*Such is the liberality and patriotiam and justice of party spirit on the other side ! How destitute of honour, of justice, of truth, of consistency y is party spirit ! Iloio worthless is party popularity ! Hoto dangerous is party association ! How many pious members of the church has it unsettled, and prejudiced, and ruined of late years ! And it may do thb 8AMB AGAIN. How unprincipled and unjust has a party government ever been, whenever and wherever it luis existed ! .And how unprincipled and v.- xjust mutt it ever be .'" No. 4. — Mr. Ryerson^s alleged Inconsistency, in formerly Opposiny, and afterwards Supporting Responsible Government. Mr. HiNCKS, in his Pilot newspaper, has selected certain isolated passages trom my London letters on Canadian affairs, written 1836, to prove that I have always been an enemy of responsible government. Were I disposed, I could adduce demonstrative evidence to prove that Mr. Hincks knew that hia ctalement was unfounded when he made it. 1 will, however, adduce a kind cf proof, more practical, and more interesting and instructive to the publiC; although not less agreeable to Mr. Hincks and some of his party. I will shew ivhat sort of responsible government they formerly advocated, which I opposetl. x\nd here I will observe, that ever since Mackenzie returned from England, in 1833, there have been growing up in Canada, two sections or classes of Reformers — the one Consiitutinal, the other Democratic Reformers; but the line of distinction was never drawn between them until the rebellion of 1837 — yet the eentimenta were put forth and advocated long before that period. After the Union of the Canadas, these two sections or classes of Reformers became blended into one body ; but still the animus of the two sections or classes remains. Ir, 1837, the Constitutional Reformers were loyal ; the Democratic Reformers rebelled. In 1840 — 1, the Democratic Reformers in Upper Canada, excited by Mr. Hincks, opposed Lord Sydenham ; the Constitutional Reformers suj)ported him. During the early part of the Baldwin administration, I believe Mr. Baldwin listened to the opinions, and actt.il according to the counsels of Constitutional Reformers ; afterwards^ I believe he veered to the councils of the Demo- cratic Reformers, a^id at length fully adopted them. The Constitutional Refcimers alvvayu advocated conciUatloii, and a government of equal justice, in patronage and measures ; the Democratic Reformers have been th»! sticklers for party patronage, party measures, party vengeance on their opponents. The former have always respected the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the right of the subjec* ; the latter have always been 175 seeking to weaken, and virtually to annihilate the prerogative. The former are what I have defined in the latter part of the 9th number to be moderate men — the latter, extreme men. I could adduce proofs and illus- trations by dozens in support of these remarks. I will adduce but one, and that is the extract which follows — which was originally written in reply to the Quebec Gazette, who thought it not consistent for the Editor of the Guardian and other Consiitutional Reformers, lo approve of Lord Durham's Report on Responsible Government : From the Christian Guardian, June 5, 1839. "The question arises, what kind of responsible government was advo- cated in both the Canadas in 1835 — 6, and what kind of responsible government does Lord Durham recommend ? Every man the least acquainted with science, theology, or general history, knows how many errors and disputes have arisen from the ambiguous use ->i words ; every man the least acquainted with language, knows that the seme words are used in very different senses, in different ages and countries, and by differ- ent sects and parties in the same age and country, and often by the same individual on different occasions. It is true a party in both the Canadas advocated 'responsible government' in 1835 and 1836; it is also true that Lord Durham has recommended * responsible government' in 1839 ; but it is likewise equally true, that there is as much difference between the * responsible government ' advocated by Mackenzie and his associates in 18?"^ —6, and Lord Durham's 'responsible government,' as there is between an fndependent democratic Republic, and a subordinate Limited Monarchy. If the (Quebec Gazette will turn to the third letter on the affairs of the Canadas, published by 'A Canadian,' in London, in 1836, he will find the objects of the parties whose designs he opposes, stated— and stated in their own ivords. We will quote a passage or two. The following are some of the articles of the cons*'*i tion of the Canadian Alliance Association, established in the City \ji Toronto, December 9, 1834, the principles and objects of which were never disavowed by Mackenzie and his supporters, although they modified their mode of proceeding : "' 1. A responsible representative system of government, and the abolition of the Legislative Council, the members of which are nominated for life by the Colonial Governors. " '2. A written Constitution for Upper Canada, embodying and decla- ring the original principles of the Government. " ' 3. The abolition of the law of primogeniture. « * 4. The control of the whole Public Revenue by the repreeentatives of the people. 170 " ' 5. To oppose all undue mterforenco by the Colonial Office, Treasury, or Horse-Guards, in the domestic alliiirs of the colonists. " ' G. The extinction of all monopolizing Land Companies. " < 7. The vote by ballot in the election of representatives, aldermen, justices of the peace, Sic. " * Mr. W. L, Mackenzie, M. I'. P., Corresponding Secretary for the society and all its branches. "'Mr. Joseph Ilurne, M. P., and Mr. John Aiiljur Roebuck, M. P., Agents in London. " < Mr. E. B. Cnllnghan, M. P. P., (Editor of the Montreal Vindicator newspaper,) in Movitreai. " ' Clerk of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, Agent in Quebec.'* "Mr. Roebuck, one of the agents of the association from whose consti- tution wo have extracted the above articles, wrote a letter to Mr. Papineau, late Speaker of the Lower Canada House of Assembly, in May, 1835, from which we quote the following words : " * The object you have in view, is to frame a government in accordance with the feelings and wants of the people. In America, no government can unite the^io conditions but one that 13 purely Democratic.'' "On November 14, 1835, Mr. Papineau made a speech in the House of Assembly, in the report of wliich we find the following words : " 'The people of this Province were now preparing themselves for a future state of existence, which he (Mr. P.) trusted wouW be neither a From the Christian Guardian, June ^t, 1839. * " In the letters of ' A Canadian/ it was stated that siich were not the sentiments of the people, nor of the majority of the ' Reformers ' of Upper Canada ; but they were the avowed and unretf««ted sentiments of an impor- tant section of the Ppformers, and, iinfortunutoly, not disowned by the others. Mackenzie was admitted not merely as a pa»sp«srf;r, but as an officer on board the ship of Reform, which was left in a grtat dtyjac to his control. The consequence of which was, that, undertaking to run down the noble sliip of Methodism, as well as the ' Vixen ' of high uitraisin, the ' Reform ' vessel was met by a gale of Public Opinion, and stranded up/zfi tliu reef of Presumption and Extravagance, and about sixteen months afterwurds, was wreck "d upon the rocks of Conspiracy, Lawlessness and Madnii«ii, |« thft " Hell-Gate " of Rebellion, to the destruction of the crew, the ruin of many innocent passen- gers, and to the great reproach and injury of all who had, in any way, been drawn to embark their character and interests on board of wlich ft craft, and under such management." 177 Motuircki/ nor an Ariatocracy . He hoped Providence had not in view fot his country a feature ao dark, as that it should be the means of planting Royalty in Anierica, near a country so grand as the United States. He hoped, for the future, America would give Republics to Euiope.' « ' Such was the * responsible government ' advocated by certain parties in the Canadas in 1334-5-6. The abolition of one branch of the legisla- ture — the entire control of all Crown revenues and Crown Lands — the power invested in the local legislature of judging how far, or if at all, either the ' Colonial Office,' the ' Treasury,' or Board of Trade, or ' Horse Guards ' or Commander of the Forces, should have anything to say or do in respect to the Canadas; and sundry other things making up a 'govern- ment purely democratic' Now, such a ' responsible government ' we opposed ; and no other ' responsible government ' was ever proposed in Upper Canada, avowedly disentangled from the c^ove objects, except ike present one of the Earl of Durham. Now, does Lord Durham propose < a government purely democratic V No ! Does he propose to abolish one branch of the Governuient? No ! Does he propose that our relations with foreign countries, or our military aifsurs, or the Crown lands, or Crown revenues be placed under the control of the provincial legislature 1 No !— he proposes to place them exclusively in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. What does His Lordship propose, then ? Lord Durham, except in the case of the Union of the Canadas, proposes not the alteration of a single letter of the established constitution ; he proposes nothing more or less, than that the people of Upper Canada, within the definod and secured limits of local legislation and government, should be governed, as in England, by the men as well as institutions of their choice. " Hence th« ^u^ec Gazette, and all other? whom it may concern, will not find it difficu-I*^ to understand, how the Editor of the Ouardian and thousands of the staunchest constitutionalists, could oppose the ^respoB" sible government' of Messrs. Mackenzie, Papineau and their associates, in 1835 and 1836, and can, without any change of political principles, advocate Lord Durham's < responsible government' ;n 1839.'' " On our own account, we should not have thought it worth while to occupy half the space we have devoted to this subject ; but as we believe the preponderating portion of t.'.cs people of Upper Canada, like ourselves, have supported the constitution — are still supporters of it— yet believ» the vital principle of responsibility to be essential to our poiitical, commer- cial, and social recsuscitation, and future healthfulnese, we have thought the foregoing exposition necessary, and believe it will be highly acceptabift to the mass of our readers. For the lurtber elucidation of this important Y w 178 subject, we refer the reader to Mr. Merritt's s speech, on the last page of this (lay' 8 Guardian. " We view '' responsible government " as no question of party, but as an essential corner-stone of a future stable and well-proportioned civil structure in this Province. We formed no ' new asssociatoa ' in the advocacy of this principle : we published copious extracts from, and expressed our opinion of the aerits of Lord Durham's Report, four days earlier than any other editor in Upper Canada, and without the knowledge of what would be the expressed sentiments on it of any public man in the Province." Remarks on the above Extracts.— Thus did I write in June, 1839. The public can judge how much reliance ought to be placed on Mr. Hincka' statements, when with the knowledge of these, and many similar facts, he declares in his paper that I have always been an enemy to responsible government. Mr. Hincks himself borrowed my London paper containing Lord Durham's Report, in order to make extracts for his own paper, and knew what I wrote from time to time on the subject as long as I was connected with the press. I envy not the feelings of the man who can thus violate the first principle of moral obligation to accom- plish a party purpose. It is thus that partyism soon shakes the very foundation of Christian morals. From the above extracts, it is clear as the light, that there has been for many years a large democratic party in the Canadas. They could not get, as Mr. Roebuck called it, " a government purely democratic ;" and they now seek to administer a monarchical government on purely democratic principles. Hence the present " antagonism ;" the old antagonism under a new form — Democracy against Monarchy. They are dissatisfied with responsible government itself, unless they can have it on principles " purely democratic." Constitutional Reformers should be cautious how they become again merged into the ranks of the Democratic Reformers — those whom Mr. Roebuck t?»rm8 "Democrats" — ^the class whom he used to represent, the class whom he still represents. The Democratic Reformers always disgraced and retarded the cause of Reform. 179 and No, 6. — Characteristics of an able Governar and Minister, as laid down by Mr, Ryerson in the Christian Guardian, January 8, 1840. Originally- selected from " An Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times." 1. He will not only have honest intentions of mind, but wisdom to plan and courage to execute. 2. He will regard the interest of the prince and people, as inseparably and invariably united. 3. He will endeavour to destroy party disUnctions ; and to unite all men, in support of the common and national welfare. 4. In consequence of this he will be hated by the corrupt part of the kingdom, high and low ; because their expectations and advantage can only arise from those distinctions and that influence which he labours to abolish. 5. The honest and unprejudiced part of the nation will adore him for the contrary reason. 6. He will be remarkable, rather for his knowledge in the great princi- ples of wisdom and virtue, than the oblique ways and mysteries of selfish cunning. 7. He lay be displaced once, or more than once, by the power of faction ; but the united voice of an uncorrupt people will restore him vo the favour of the Sovereign, especially in the time of danger. And the oflener he is cast down by corrupt power, the deeper root will he take in the afiections of the Prince and people, and rise and flourish with renewed vigour. 8. He will be distinguished by his regard to religion, honour, and bia country. 9. If his measures are not always clear to the people i«i their means, they will always be so in their ends. 10. As a natural and happy consequence of this cpauuet, should he happen either to err in design, or fuil iti execution, aa uncorrupt people will still confide in him. They will continue to repose in his general wisdor and integrity ; will regard hiu ab a kind of watchful father ; yet, though wise, not infallible, 11. He will look forward, rather thrn L^ what is past ; and be more zealous to select and reward those who may do vvell, than to prosecute those whou;, in iii^ own opinion, he may think dehnqviiHU. 180 IS. His principles and conduct, as they will be hated by tlie vile, so they will be derided by narrow minds, which cannot enlarge their con- ceptions beyond the beaten track of present practice. Prince Maurice WBB ridiculed in his attempts for those very expedients by which he drove the Spaniards out of his country. 13. If his little or no influence in Parliament bo objected to him, he will answer as Henry the Great did with reijard to Rochelle, "I do uU I desire to do there, in doing nothing but what I ooght." 14. The laws he frames will be generous and comprehensive ; that is, in Lord Verulam's nervous expression, "deep, not vulgar; not made on the spur of a particular occasion for the present, but out of providence for the future ; to make the estate of the people still more and more happy." 15. Above all, he will study to restore and secure upright manners and principles ; knowing these to be the very strength and vitals of every state. 16. As by these means, he will put the natural and internal springs of government into action ; so he will keep up the action in its full vigour, by employing ability and merit : and hence men of genius, capacity, and vTirtue, will of course filUhe most important and public stations, in every department of the state. 17. To fulfil this great purpose, he will search for men capable of serv- ing the public, without regard to wealth, family, parliamentary interest, or connexion. 18. He will despise those idle claims of priority of rank, or seniority of atation, when they are unsupported by services performed in that rank or station. He will search for those, wherever they are to be found, whose active spirits and superior capacity promise advantage to the public. 19. He will not abuse this power indulged to him of superseding supe- rior rank, by preferring his own favourites. If he finds the appearance of ability and worth among the friends or dependents of his enemies, he will trust them with the execution of his most important designs, on the success of which his own character may depend. 20. Having no motive but the welfare of his country, if he cannot accomplish that, by such njeasures as hia heart approves, he will bravely jmd peaceably reiign. imi 181 No. 6. — ' Cfmracteristics of an Impartial Public Writer, as laid out hy Mr. Ryerson, in the Christian Chiardian, September 19, 18.38 ; which he selected izs his exampler, as far as he might think it his duty to write on public affairs, and as far as his humble capacities would allow. Originally selected from " An Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times." Let us attempt to sketch this portrait for the use of those who may aspire at impartiality ; and consider *' by what characteristics he would be distinguished." 1. He would choose an untrodden path of politics, where no party man ever dared to enter. £. He would be disliked by party bigots of every denomination: who, while they applauded one page of his work, wonld execrate the next. 3. The undisguised freedom of his manner would please the brave, astonish the weak, disgust and confound the guilty. 4. Every rank, party and profession, would acknowledge he had done tolerable justice to every rank, party and profession, their own only excepted. 5. He would be called arrogant by those who call every thing arro- gance, that is not servility. 6. If he writ in a period when his country was declining ; while he pointed out the means from whence alone iionest hope could arise, he would be charged by scribbling sycophants wit'i plunging the nation into despair. 7. While he pointed out the abustjs of freedom, and their fatal effects, he would be blackened by designing whisperers, as the enemy to freedom itself. 8. The worthless of every profession would be his sworn enemies; but most of all, the worthless of his own profession. 9. As he would be reviled and defamed by the dissolute great without cause ; so he would be applauded by an honest people beyond his deservings. 10. Though his abilities were small, yet the integrity of his intentions would moke amends for the mediocrity of his talents. m 182 11. A« 0uch a writer would have little preteniioai to literary iiune ; 90 he would not be intoxicated with the fuoiea of literary vanity ; but would think with Sheffield, that " Ono moral, or a mere weil-matur'd deed, Doen all desert in science exceed." 1£. Yet though he scorned the gildings of false ambition, and the richet acquired by adulation ; he might not, possibly, be unconscious of that unsought dignity, that envied superiority to wealth and titles, which even the love of wisdom and virtue give. 13. Should any of the great, therefore, affect to disdain him on account of his private station, ho might, perhaps, reply with Perdita, " I was not much afraid ; for once or twice I was about tu speak, and tell him plainly. That the self-same sun that shines upon his palace, Hides not his heavenly visage from my cottage, But looks on both alike." 14. His free and unconquered spirit would look down with contempt on views of interest, when they came into competition with views of duty. 15. Nay, were he called to so severe a trial, he would even dare to make the greatest and rarest of all honest sacrifices, that of friendship itself, to truth and virtue. 16. Should the sense of his duty to his country determine him to a farther prosecution of his labours, he would say, " If such my fate, do thou fair truth descend. And watchful, guard me in an honest end : Kindly severe, instruct my equal line To court no friend, nor own a foe, but thine." ; I :i el •I ™ i I' a \ ■ * *^ INDKX TO THE IMUNOll'AL SUBJECTS. Abandonment of tlicir fonnor principles by tlm lute Counaollor«, 10'4— Hi. Mdreas to tlie people of Western Cunadu, by the author, 5— 13— of tho Toronto Association to tlio people of Canada, import and icndencv of it, 5, ril, l«o. ^ Accusers of the Governor Lloneral refuted out of their own moulht?, 50— T2, 78, 79, 95, UU, 103—110. Anomalies, five, in Uie i-rocoediiigs of the lato Counsellor ofrainet tho Governor General, 31 — 38. Appointments to njjice, nono luiirle by tho Governor Genonil without hid knowing tho sentiments of his udvider;:?, au — those objected to by tho late Connsollord stated by Mr. Sullivan to be Iriflin^r, ;)0— ouunot bo made without tlie knowledjro and concurrence of at luast one respon- sible adviser, 89, 90 — two modes of makinij, recognized by the lato adviser?, 88, 89 — should bo made without regard to parlv, according to tho formerly avowed principles of tho lato Counaoilors, UO— qualifications and merit the true rulo of, 141—147. Apostucij of the late Counsellors from the principleti formerly professed by themselves and by tho Reform Press and Reformers generally, 102—116. AsBOciation at Tnrohto, of 1844 and 1834, compared, fi— demands of the former niakt fhe Governor General a slave and infringe tho rights o" their fellow subjects, 44 — 19 — denies the responsibility of the Governor General to the Imperial authority and involves independence, 12U — 130. Bacon, Lord, qii tod against tho late • msellors, 135. Blake, Mr. W. li , states rc^i jnbit government to be inrnpablo of accurate delli on, i;i — denies lu responsil hty of the Governor Gencrnl to tht Imperial authority, V^A — 130. British Practice disrf:garded by tlie late Cuunsell'TS, 22 — 29, 34, 120. Bxirke, Right Hon. Edmund, quoted against the late Counsellors, 148, 149. <' Case of facts,^^ what meant by, 21— essential to tho kind of ministerial explanation involved in this question, 21 — no,t furnished liy the lato Counsellors, 22 — 29. " Cases of adequate importancr," this phrase perverted by the late Coun- sellors, 88 — examined in itj legitimate connexion, 88 u) — Counsel- lors ultimate and principal judi^es of, 8^, 90. Charges of the late Counpel'ors agninst tiic Governor General, exammed and refuted, 39 — 48. Corruption of party poli';y t>o ernment, 137 — 143. Courtesy of the Governor v' j,'. ral towlrd:^ his late CounaellorB, aa Btftted by thoraselves, 92 — 94. CounciHors, Legislative, ought not to be popular Bgitatot?, 131, t3«. ^^„Ta< IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 7 A CP. :/ 1.0 Si^ IIIM I.I I !^ Ilia ^ 1^ 12.0 IL25 i 1.4 1.6 Pholograpliic .Sciences tuition 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 # \ C\ '«^^. ^X Wr^ %y.^ % ^^<»^"^^ ^ ^ '^ y^ r' €>. '^ 4^' w^ i& <> SKSB 11 INDEX. FJ ,u , :> Counsellors, why rc3pon!iiblc, 19 — mny be responsible fn<- acts which they have not formally advised, 19, 85, 86 — responsHM.ity of, vohiii- twy, and thoretoro i.j linrdnhip, 80, 8(5— dilferont ^ oiinds of" jesijf- nation by, 'iO, '21 — why Bworn to i-.ocrecy, ^11 — I3riti::h mode r >osi