^^ ».^^ ^a?^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V' ^ /- «. 1.0 U JiO "■■■ 1^ i;£ 2.5 IL25 111.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 ^1 % 4 72 /a el ^^:^' > ^%^.^^ vl ^^'^ ( moaning "CON- TINUeO"). or tha symbol V (maantng "END"), whichavar appiiaa. IMapa. piataa. charts, ate., may ba fllmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly inciudad in ona axpoaura ara fiimad beginning in tha uppar laft hand comar. laft to right and top to bottom, as many frames aa required. The following diagrama iliustrato tha method: L'exemplaire film« fut raproduit grdca d la ginArosit* de: Legislature du Quebec Quebec Lee images suivantas ont tt6 reproduitas avac la plus grand soin. compta tenu da la condition at de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film«. et en conformitA avac las conditions du contrat de filmage. Lea axempiairea originaux dont ta couverture en papier aat imprimte sont filmte an commandant par la premier plat at an tarminant soit par la derni4re page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreesion ou d'illustration, soit par ie second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres axempiairas originaux sont filmte an commandant par la premiere page qui comporte une amprainte d'impreesion ou d'illustration at en tarminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la demise image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie eae: Ie symboie — » signifie "A SUIVRE ', Ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Lee cartes, planches, tabieeux. ate, peuvent dtre filmte i des taux du rMuction diff^rents. Loreque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, ii est filmA i partir de I'angle sup4rieur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut en bee, an pranant Is nombre d'Images nAcessaira. Las diagrammes suivants iilustrent la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 pe^^ ii. FROM THE THRl RIVIRS " INttUIRlR," OP Saturday 14, and Tuesday 17th April, 1855. «MM.^»^^t^ #^^S^^MM PERMANENCY OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. /X A Petitions are now distributed throughout the coun- try for signatures, requesting his Excellency to ex- ercise the prerogative of the Crown, and select some permanent place for the annual assembling of Parlia- ment. We have been frequently told that the system of itinerant Parliaments has effected much good for the country. This has been so often and so energetically reiterated, that the public gave it a kind of passive credence, without questioning its clainl to belief. The assertion was regarded as a sort of axiom challen- ging our assent by its self-evident truth. This im- pression has evaporated, and the people are now ex- amining the reasons, if any, that sustain the assertion. The plaiTsible, indeed the only one, is, that these pe- riodical migrations of Parliament have made both sections of the Province better acquainted ; that they have thus discovered each others good points, and learned mutually to prize and adopt what is laudable in each. Now this is a very pleasant picture, exhibit- ed for public contemplation; but we deny, and with- out any restriction on the denial, tiiat the people of both sections of Canada have mutually learned more of each other, from the shuttlecock system of Govern- ment. Any experience gained this way was confined to the Hon. Gentlemen who compose the Legislature. We are not aware of any public effort made by them to disseminate their new and enlarged impressions. ostentatiously trumpetted to the public as the results of a system worked out by the doctrine of exchange. The advocates of a stroUing Government should poLt to some tangible good, conferred by it on the com- munity^ What prejudice peculiar to either section ot the Provmce, has been removed or ameliorated ? What political tenet has been abandoned ? What vunous doctrine in legislation has been abjured ? What constitutional fallacy has been exploded? INone Our legislation is as distinctive in its charac- ter and as sectional as ever, and until we see our l^arhament legislating for Canada, as a unity, we must refuse credence to the benefits that the self-love or self-deception of some would lead us to believe ac- crued from the present system. The Members of Parliament who travelled periodically to exchange courtesies in a character semi-official and semi-social,~ a kmd of mongrel Legislative deputation,-.may have had the angularities of their ideas and opinions, and perhaps prejudices, rounded ofl^'by the friction of con- tact ; but we have yet to learn that this very desira- ble " consummation " could not have been achieved in a permanent residence, as well as in a shifting habi- tation. Admit there has been a cultivation of " broth- erly love " (which, by the way, if the debates of the present session be an index, we may reasonably doubt) at what an enormous cost to the public is it at- tamed. If any mutual knowledge has been gained by the people of both sections, (and we believe there has,) It is not through the system of alternate Par- haments. Other and more powerful agencies have effectively achieved what this system was, and is, im- potent to perform. Had the Government never left Montreal,— and its flight from that city was rank re- venge, moral and physical cowardice,— this mutual knowledge and appreciation wguld not have been im- peded. Had the Government in its flight nestled it- self in " a lodge in some wilderness," beyond the verge of civilization, we would still recognize each other, and increased esteem would be produced by the recognition. It is downright egotism for our Legislators ro assume for a moment, that social in- ^ ,1 h «.' 1 i ♦ I ^ 4 * m ' t public stewards, if ihey shrin.. ''om the exercise of a right, they hold in trust for the public welfaie. By their position they are partially removed from the in- fluence of popular clamor, and will not servilely lend the ear to the whispered insinuation of the oily pa- triot, or the noisy demand of the demagogue. This, which is their peculiar excellence, constitutes the *• head and /rent" of their oftence. Heretofore the Legislative Council has been scoffed at, twitted, and held up to public censure, because it did not originate measures ; and now when it proposes one of immense advantage to every man in Canada, their conduct is reprobated by denying their light to independent le- gislative action. There is conjured a dreamy dread of collision between both Houses, a visionary and un- real phantom to be created by the absence of unanim- ity. There is no more danger of collision, on this question, from the present Legislative Council than there will be from the imbecile abortion by which it is to be succeeded. We had a recent " collision " on the Seigniorial Tenure Act and what was the re- sult ? The House of Assembly swallowed wholesale, the expurgations and amendments of the UpperHouse. The House of Assembly displayed no fastidiousness in accepting the corrections in their Bill. Like rea- sonable men they admitted their fallibility, and dis- played a very commendable docility in adopting a corrected copy of their Act. If both branches assume a dogged hostility and deem it a point of honor to admit no recession, then a collision may be reo-arded as injurious to the legislative character of both bran- ches ; but while there exists a mutual readiness to en- tertain and examine calmly the measures of each oth- er, with the view, ultimately, of reaching a just decis- ion, collisions, so far from being objects of dread, are positive advantages. It is further flippantly said, " The opinion of the Upper House was neither asked nor required in the matter." But did the country ask^^he opinion of the Lower House, as to the claim oi" Toronto to the seat of Government ? The opinion was gratuitously vol- unteered ; and if the Legislative Council, in the ex- 8 erciee of their duty, cli8j)lay some anxiety for thu care- ful adminiBtration of the public revenue, are they to be sneerinfrly told " they are a body effete and will goon be defunct." But if they are " effete " who contributed most largely to render thern such 1 The ultra loyal Upper Canadians. The Legislative Council committed a grave error in yielding their concurrence to the Rebellion Losses Bill; they stumbled then, and have yet scarcely recovered their former attitude. Who lent them the parting kick in their fall ? the loyal 'par excellence of Western Canada. They were revil- ed, snubbed, scoffed, scorned, maligned, buffeted, and slandered, for doing precisely what the popular re- presentatives had performed. The popular branch originated and cai-ried the Rebellion Losses Bill, and the public with the fickleness of a weather-cock, sought protection from the Legislativ Council against their own representatives ; and because it was with held, the "Sovereign people " vented their displea- sure in coarse abuse. There is some excuse for the Legislative Councillors for this serious error. The Lower House was arrayed against them, counte- nanced by a very plastic Governor. This, though no justification, is a palliative pica; but now when about to make some expiation for the former offence, they are greeted with a growl of scorn. Truly the vilest sin- ners make the most earnest saints. If there were one doctrine, more than another, the peculiar idol of con- servative worship, it was that of constitutional re- straint on the extravagance of the popular branch ; yet so impatient are these very conservatives to launch us on the muddy and turbulent wave of de- mocracy, that they cannot patiently wait for a devel- opement of the New Legislative Council Bill, but vilify the present Council and question its constitu- tional right to exercise its undoubted privileges. n ♦^ ♦ ^