IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A t .^ A €// ^ A ^ % 1.0 I I.I 1.25 iai2.8 Itt ^ |i£ 12.0 125 ■ 22 Photographic Sdences Corporalion 23 WIST MAIN STRliT WlbSTIR,N.Y. MSM ( 71* ) •72-4903 4^' CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Cflnadiair Institute for Historical IMicroreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions hlstoriqu« Tachnical and Bibliographie NotM/NotM taohniqiMS at bibliographiquas Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for fiiming. FOaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographieaily uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or whiQh may aignificantly ehanga tha uauai mathod of filming, ara chaolcad balow. □ Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur r~n Covara damagad/ D D D D D n Couvartura andommagia Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pallicui4a pn Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua nn Colourad mapa/ Cartaa giographiquaa wt coulaur Colourad init (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Enora da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) rn Colourad plataa •nd/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa it coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rail* avae d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ Laroliura aarria paut eauaar da i'ombra ou da la diatoraion la long da la marga InlAriaura Bianic iaavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ 11 aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa lora d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta, mala, loraqua eala Atait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont paa «ti fiimiaa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairaa auppiimantairaa: L'Inatltut a microfilm* la maillaur axampiaira qu'il iui a Ati poaaibia da aa procurer. La« details da eat axampiaira qui tont paut-Atra uniquaa du point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifier una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la m4thoda normele de filmege aont indiqute ci-daaaoua. Thi tol pn Coloured pagaa/ D D n D Thia item ia filmed at the reduction ratio chaclced below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-deeeoua. Pagaa da couleur Pagae damaged/ Pagaa andommagtea Pagae restored end/or laminated/ Pagaa reetaurAae et/ou peiiiculAes Pagae discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pegea dicoiorias. tachet^es ou piquAes Pagae detached/ Pagae dAtachAes Showthrough/ Tranaparence Th« poi ofi filn Orl bat tha aio oth fin alo orl r~1 Quality of print variea/ Qualit* inAgaia de i'impression Includes supplementary materiel/ Comprend du metAriel supplAmentaira Only edition available/ Seuie Mition disponibie Th( ehi TW wt Ml dit b* rig re< m« Pegee wholly or pertiaiiy obscured by errata slips, tissuaa, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible imege/ Lee peges totalement ou pertiellement obscurcies par un fauiilet d'errata. une pelure. etc.. ont AtA filmies i nouvsiu de fepon A obtenir ia meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X • y 12X 16X 20X MX 2BX 32X ails du idifiar una naga TIm copi filmMl h«ra hM b««n rtproduoMl thanks to tiM gMMToalty of : Biblloth^uo rational* du Quibac Tha imagaa appaaring haia ara tha baat quality poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and laglbillty of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract apacif icationa. Origiral copies in printad papar covara ara fllmad beginning with tha front cover and ending on tha laat page with a printed or illuatratad impres- sion, or the becic cover when appropriate. Ail other original copiea are filmed beginning on ttie firat page with a printad or illuatratad imprea- alon, and ending on the leet pege with a printad or illustrated impreaaion. The last recorded frame on each microfiche ahall contain tha aymboi —•»- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the aymboi V (meaning "END"), whichever eppllaa. L'axemplaire fllmA fut reproduit grice A la g4n«roeit4 de: BibiiothAque nationala du Quibec Lea Images suhrantea ont MA reproduitae avac la plus grand aoln. compta tenu de le condition et de la nattet* da l'axemplaire fllmA. et en conformit* avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Lea exempleiree originaux dont la couverture en pepler eet ImprimAe aont fHmAa an commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminant salt par la darnlAre pege qui comporte une emprelnte d'impreeaion ou dliluatration, aoit par ie aacond plat, salon la caa. Toua lea autrea axempleirea originaux sent filmte en commen^ant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'impreeaion ou dlHuatration et en termirant par la damlAre page qui comporte une telle emprelnte. Un dea aymbolee sulvonts epperaltra aur la demlAre image de cheque microfiche, aalon le caa: la aymbole -^ aignifie "A 8UIVRE". la aymbola V algnlfia "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hend comer, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framea aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les certes, planches, tabiaeux, etc., peuvem Atre filmAa A das taux da rAduction diff Arenta. Loraqua la document eat trap grand pour Atre reproduit en un aaui clichA, 11 eat flimA A partir da i'angia supArieur geuche, de gauche A droite, et de Iwut an bea. an prenant la nombre d'imeges nAceesaira. Lea diagrammes auivants illustrant la mAthoda. rrata o laiura, I A 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 c ,:> *!. v^'f'ii^*:^ -.laaaoaK!-! ^ V '/'^/'ijL, ^ LETTER T« TBI wamn «•». MWiB viBC«ir«» mi9mvmx^ % WITH OBSERVATIONS ON A 1% MEMOIR OR STATEMENT O^ JAMES STUART, ESQITIB]^ KBLATING TO -' FRAYING FOR ' *«>^| "%- * THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAID JAMES STUART FROM TUB OFTICB OF ATTORNETt-QBNERAL OF THAT PROVINCB. • • • • • • •'..•• • • » ."•••• '• •* • • * • • •'•••• • I • . • . • •• • ••- • •• ••" • , •• •• •••••• > ••- ••• TMmtATBD raoM TOT rRSNOH or DENIS BENJAMIN VIGIER, ESOUIRl, By a BARRISTER. ir '4' lONDON: PRINTED BY CUNNINOHAM AND SALMON, 119, FI^CT 8TREOT. 1881. ■'^1 ^^j^jr NOTE. Thb Yratfslatdr of Vtt iidllOwiug pfftges ttt\» that ■omt apology, for th«ir style, is called for. In addition to the disadvantages attaching to translators generally, he labours under the additional one of being, from the nature and importance of the subject, and the fear of perverting, in the slightest degree, the original text, confined to technical expression, and as literal a translation as could be a£forded. In consequence of the difference in the idiom of the two languages, tlie Translator has BottetifAes fStlt bis iaability to convey the precise ideas of the Author ; however, un the proofs have been read over to, and. approved by that gentleman, it is hoped that the translation will be found generally faithful ; and, should this be thought In any instaJMe not to be the case, the Translator ciraves indulgence, on the grounds already stated. .... . .::••■•.' .'. fte '^p^l^ituiU It should be observed, that the Author of the following observations, being in England, has not had the facility of consulting, and correctly quoting, a host of authentic docu- ment8,>-official p«pers, — the Journals of the l*rovin(!ial Parliament of Lower Canada, — nior eVto Atetk ($f/4>(krltataetit, aad hodlu which he has necessarily referred to. Obliged, generally, ^o'qffnfe'frMlttiMNnory) he may not have used the very words; but he em at least say, that they are in substance correct. TABLE OF CONTENTS. fum Reiolations contuined in tho Second Report of the committee ofgrierances of the House of Asaembly of Lower Canaoa, bearing date 16th March, 1831 4 Letter ih>m D. B. Viger, Eaqaire, to Lord Vincount Goderich .... 6 Preliminary Remarlis . . . . , ib. PART THE FIRST. As to the objection, that the petition was signed by partisans and the accased themselves, their attorneys, counsel, and friends. That the committee was composed entirely of persons belonging to the same political party, ftc. . . 11 As to the objection, that the first petition became extinct at the condnsloa of the Parliament in which it was presented . .12 Answer as to Mr. Stuart's objection, that the house proceeded exparte . . ib. Mr. Stuart's objection as to his not having been heard . . .14 As tothe objection, that the witnesses examined before the committee were not on their oath . . . ... 18 As to the objection, that tho House of Assembly has arrogated to itself the power of convicting Mr. Stuart of criminal charges cognisable by courts of law only. fr'c. ... . . . . 19 As to Mr. Stuart's objections on the ground of want of specification in the accusa- tions ..... . . SI PART THE SECOND. Of tho accusation brought against Mr. Stuart for malversation, by persisting in prosecuting, before the tinperior courts, persons accused of tnning oflences, and for which they should have been prosecuted at the quarter sessions, for the sordid purpose of increasing his emoluments . . . . 23 As to tho charge of partiality and persecution, with reference to the prosecutions for libels . . . .... .27 As to Mr. Stuart's menaces and violences at the Sorel (William Henry) election 28 As to prosecutions for perjury, instituted exclusively against tho electors at Sorel (William Henry), who had voted against Mr. Stuart: refusal or neglect to prosecute those who had voted in his favour . . .30 Of the offence of having induced certain unqualified persons to take the oath at the Sorel election, and of the subornation of perjury . . .33 1 PART THE THIRD. REMARKS ON THE APPENDIX. No. 1.— As to the report to Sir James Kempt, made the 13th of August, 1830 No. 2.— Of Mr. Green's affidavit . . . . . Analysis of the afiidavits, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 . . . . As to Allard's affidavit. No. 1 1 ; Indictment against Louis Marcoux, No. 12 . . Of the affidavit of Francois Gazaille dit St. Germain, No. 13; and that of Fran- cois Gazaille dit St. Germain the younger. No. 14 Of Olackmeyer's affidavit. No. 8. .... Of Schiller's affidavit — or writing, without signature, and not sworn, given under this denomination, as that of Mr. Henry Crebassa,— affidavit of George Okill Stuart, No. 10, Appendix ... OfMr. Von Ifland's affidavit. No. 15 . . . . . Remarks upon these documents .... Of the report made on the 20th October, 1828, to His Excellency Sir J. Kempt, Administrator of the Government, with reference to the prosecution for libel pending in the courts. No. 16. Appendix ... Conclusion • . • • • ... Supplementary observations contained in a letter addressed to the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Goderich, Colonial Secretary, &c. &c. &c. . . ■ 43 44 ib. 47 48 49 ib. ib. 52 56 62 65 97666 RESOLUTIONS Contamed in the Second Report qf the Committee of Cfrievmces, of the Hotin of Aaaemblif of Lower Canada, bearing date the \&th of March, 1831. / Rbbolvbd, 1. That it IB the opinion of this Committee, that Jamea Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, by persisting in prosecutingr before the superior tribunals, persons accused of minor offences, which ought to have been prosecuted at the quarter sessions of the peace, has been guilty of malversation in his office, and that with the sordid view of increasing his emoluments. 2. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said James Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, in order to show his attachment to the executive government of the day, has been guilty of partiality and persecution, in the execution of the duties of his office, by instituting libel prosecutions, unjust and ill founded, against divers persons; and has thereby renderea himself unworthy of the confidence of His Mi^jesty s subjects in this province. 8. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Jamea Stuart, Esquire, Attorney Gtenend of this province, by making at the election at Sorel. in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, where he was one of the candidates, use of throats and acts of violence, to intimidate some of the electors of the said place, and by promising impunity to others, displayed his contempt of the freedom of election, ana has Infringed the laws which protect it. 4. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said James Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, by prosecuting for perjury certain electors of Sorel, who had voted against him, and by refusing or neglecting to prosecute others who were.no better qualified, but who had voted in his favour, was actuated by motives of Girsonal revenge, which made him forget his duty, and the oath he has taken as His ajesty's Attorney General in this province. 5. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said James Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, by inducing, at the said election of Sorel, certain electors who were not qualified to take the oaths usual on such occasions, although he knew that tiiose individuals were not qualified, has been guilty of subornation of perjury. 6. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that by this conduct, the said James Stuart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, has brought the administration of criminal justice in this province into dishonour and contempt ; and that ho has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and is unworthy of the confidence of His Majesty's Crovemment. 7. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for the reasons before mentioned, it is expedient that the said James Stuart, Esc^uire, Attorney General of this province, be, as soon as may be, deprived of his office ot Attorney Greneral in this province, and that he ought not to fill any other office of confidence therein. 8. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient that an bumble address be presented to His Majesty, praying that it may please him to dismiss the said James Stuart, Esquire, from the office of Attomev General of this province, and thereafter not appoint him to any other office of trust thereii . 9. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor in Chief, praying him to be pleased to suspend the said James Stnart, Esquire, Attorney General of this province, from the said office, and the execution thcreot', until the pleasure of His Majesty on tjUs subject shall be made known in this province, and that the said address be accom- panied by a copy of these resolutions. TRANSLATION OF A LETTER PROH D. B. YIGER, ESQ. TO THS RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD VISCOUNT GODERIGH. BmUy / I toy /> My Lobo, The moment Mr. Stuart's memoir was placed in my hands, I nre the ugumentt which he uses, in answer to the charges brought aeainst him by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada my most Berious attention, intcnmne to submit/them to your lordship with the shortest possible delay. But, besides being ooliged tojpn some attention collection of papers which I received at the same time, it was nec^nary that I should myself diligently to a memoir of sixty-four closely printed folio pafM, embracing a gnat Tariety of questions, — some of which, already sufficiently complicated, were rendmd much more so by the manner in which they are discussed. This is not alL The author introduce! new subjects, as well as arguments equally so, — some of whish, as it appean to me, are foreign to the question, whilst others are of no real importance. MThatever mr own ideas, in this respect, might be, I could not take upon myself to pass lightly over aU those sub- jects whicn mieht not, under the circumstances, appear to me woithy of serioni attention ; still less could I observe silence with respect to those, which I might regard as a sort of ex- crescence, attached to the memoir. Hy task, however, might have been of a lighter description, had not obstacles of aa serious a nature as those I had to surmount, presented themselves ; had it been my lot to discuss the opinions expressed in the memoir, or the facts there stated, or the suppodtions given as facts, to whica such opinions apply, in Lower Canada, where the events them- selves are universally known, — where the facts, which it is necessary to state with some degree cf exactitude, are for the most part notorious. I have not that advantage on this side the Atlantic. My task has, on this account, become one of difficulty : becanso omiasiona in my observations, which in Canada would be of no importance, might here prove to be of serious consequence. When your lordship reads my observations upon the memoir in question, you will easily appreciate these difficulties, and I am, therefore, precluded the necessity of dwelling longer on the subject. It remains for me to remind your lordship, that, as I had the honour to inibrm yon, (and your lordship was pleased to agree with me) not having been able yet to conclude my labour on this memoir, I think I should send your lordship that portion of ■■'! r.bservations which follows this letter. I shall continue diligent in my application to theu. ■ nnd, com- plete my task, by submitting the whole to your lordship as soon as possible. I beg your lordship to receive the assurance of profound respect with which I have the honour to be. Your lordship's most obedient, humble servant, London Coffee House, 29th September, 1831. D. B. VIOBR. The Right Honourable Lord Viscount Ooderich, &c. &c. Xtt^i^t^-t'-i OBSERVATIONS ON MR. STUART'S MEMOIR. PRELIMINART BBMABKS. The interests and grievances of a province are at this moment in question, aa agunat a functionary of high rank, in the shape of an accusation, the eravity of which alone is of such a nature as to rouse a feeling of interest which must, prima fade, plead in its fkvour. One is apt enough to consider the public as an abstract being, particulariy when at so great a distance from the scene where such events as those, which form the subject of the accusations now in question, have occurred, — whilst at the same time, on the contrary, on« 6 is natunlly diipotcd to indulgence towards him whom we «ee obliged to lubmit to an ordeal, the rigour of which ever ttrikes ut more forcibljr than iu juitice, io loug aa his faults can admit of the shadow of a doubt, even of the faintest description. I should, howeTer, remark, that Mr. Stuart, in an interest, anv thing but that of the inhabiUnts of Lower Canada, has so framed his memoir as materially to lessen the weight of such considerations. He has taken such high grounds of defence. The motives he suggests for the purpose of interesting his Majesty's Government in his favour, have reference to considerations of ao essential and lofty an order, that they must eclipse, and actually cast into the ahade all those motives which might be considered of a personal nature, even tothe extent of taking themselves out of the rules of justice as regards individuals. It is not «riiva,the mere appli- cation ol the rales of morality, or of public justice, to an ordinary case : the memoi|r, on the eonthvy, puts an extreme case, relatmg to those rules which constitute the fonndation of the Oovernment, and without which it could no longer exist. If we are to believe Mr. Stuart on the subject, his cause ia that of the authorities. Hie fate is so closely linked to the existence of the Oovernment, that the one^could not be sepa- rated fVonk the other. His own downfall would drag after it that of public order in the colony. One should not even, therefore, think on any account, of holding bis condoet Ip to the light of scrutiny. The mode in which the House of Assembly has proceeded against him, is " too nidenlfy rtjfugnant to rtaton andjuitiee." " ThiM a tcm o ri o m sAovM nM be Med upon at tM foundation qf ulterior proceeding$ agaiatt him." Whether he be guilty or not, the House of Assembly must be immediately diiven hum the foot of that throne'which they have dared approach, for the purpoee of demanding justice against him. To lend an ear to their complaints would be to "permit the mlrodiM- tiott of a dahgerout wettdtnt" All would be lost ; authority would be without fbundatioo. hi fine, " theYe wnuVi be no further hope of auy thing faithful, uprigfit, or fffieiemt im th$' adtttmttratioH of the Government. It could not be luppoud, heneeforvard, that honourahU MCM woti/li enter, into thi public lervice. Colonial Govemmenti could ao longer contimte tc tubtiit." That I may not be exposed to the suspicion of exageeration, I have u^hitr own exprsflsions. This is not the time to stop for the purpose oT enquiring whether those doo-t trines, which would render fnnctionarics, once received and started in practice in a aociety, inviolable, would not destroy the society itself; and whether, in its organization, it oouM offbr to those persons composing it, the slightest hope, a shadow of happiness, or of security. Seeing, from the, beginning, this discussion assume, in Mr. Stuart's memoir, such a cha- racter ofgravity, we shall feel at once the force of the reasons which induced me to observe, before entering on this discussion, that the importance which might, under any other ciiw cumstances, attach to considerations of private interest or of individual justice, should, in< some measure, vanish from the moment one finds it necessary to look at ^e question in that point of view in which Mr. Stuart himself has presented it After having shewn that his assertions, in this respect, as well as on this subject generally, are perfectly free from pretext, it might be expeaient to observe, that anv Government ' which would aubacribe to such pretensions as those set up by Mr. Stuart, deprived of all moral force, must depend alone on physical strength — that is to say, that it would be erected on an imaginary foundation ; that no man of honour could consent to. place himself at the mercy of an iirbitrary authority, and become the vile tool of an ignoble ambition or of interest, in order to degrade a peopl?^^; in fact, that virtuous citizens, faithful subjects, would soon be driven to hate a Government which could promise nothing but slavery. Another olntacle has presented itself difficult to surmount. It would have been desirable, undoubtedly, to have been enabled to follow Mr. Stuart (if I may use the expression) step by step, to difcuss, successively, each portion of his memoir, in tne order in which the various aubjects on which it treats present tnemselves. This is the plan which I at first proposed to myself, ami it was in accordance with this plan, that I commenced my task ; but, as I proceeded, it became difficult, and I was obliged , upon reflection, ultimately to abandon iL Some ex|ilanations on this subject will be useful. They will have as well the good effect of clearly pointing out the new course which 1 have proposed to adopt, as of faoiutating the means of reviewing these observations and thoir bearmgs, collectively, in order to contrast them with Ml-. Stuart's doctrines. They will also serve, in conjunction with some of my pre- cc. moir, and the nature of thoae which he haa ehoaen tQ bring forward by noticing, a* well aa thoae which he hai left in the ahade, ia well cal-, ettlatM to produce thia kind of illuaion ; if, indeed, one could not call analyaia to aid oa fwthe purpoae of aeparating, claaaing in due order, and placing thaae aubjacta in a piopr* pobt of Tiew, one in which we may euier diatinguiah and appreciate them according l« dieir real value. It ia fitting, in thii place, to remark, that out of three reporta of tho " CommiiM of Ormaneeu," which aerred as a ground for the chargea brought againat Mr. Stuart by thia Hooae of Aiaembly/copiea of all of which he ought to hare nad, and in <«et had at the time, by virtue i^ juTonler for that purpoae, without hia even having had the trouUe of asking for thenu(|.krhia memoir he has answered Uie heada of thoae aoouaationa, which are contained nwrely in the second report. With refinrenee to the third, he haa contented himself with addine to his memoir a collection of documents, without even auboiitting any a}>aervationa in explanation.* The chargea, then, contained in the aecond report, daim our attention in thia place. As to the memoir tacked on at the end of a petition, and of which it forma the anpplo- ment, and which it is intended to Bupiiort,'-instead of occupying himself solely or at leaat principally with the true state of the case, and above aiming at ezculpatfaie nimaeir from the onencet laid to his chsrge, Mr. Stuart embodiea. promiseuooaly, una witnout any sort of regularity, a crowd of heterogeneous matter, frequently of a totally unoonneetei^ description, with questions which should properly have formed the principal, nav, the ottly object of his attention. Again, he frequently hardly toucheo for a moment on tnese latter, in order that he may return to the leaa important; again he wanders, and again retnmll, creating ultimately the strangest of confusions. Btr. Stuart is not satisfied with confounding all sorts of questiona, ideu, filets, Mi». cipjes; he seems to foreet that his own conduct is the object of inquiry on the ntkrt or the House of Assembly, lu takes upon himself the part of an accuser, and adbpta tin chiriietiBr tqwaidaall, and against all. First, he makes a general attack upon all thoae who have taken any, even the moat indirect, part in the proraedinga relating to the chareea which he is called upon to answer. The greater proportion, aa well of the memoir aa or the petition, ia overloaded with recriminations, imputationa worse than harsh, and whieh I ahall leavO others to designate by whatever epithet they may conaider most applicable to them. Mr. Stuart returns repeatedly to harangues aninat those petitioners who have preferred chargea against him before the House of Assembly ; as well against the "etmmittte of tht Ammc qC2«Kfli%" as against the "Aitembly" itself, and the people whom it repreMnts; designating them "a party dominating in the Houh'" and against the witnesses who have deposed to facts, brought to his charge ; repeating and mingling: everywhere iodiacrimi- nately, assertions, doctnnes, and facts, as new as Aey are extraorainary, and alike devoid of any >principles or proofs calculated to give them weight In varioHB places, Mr. Stuart observes in the following words, and in otliera to t^o" same effect :— " that he onfy uek$ justice on the fact* of the case, without regard to wtmt of juriidiotioH in the AMemUy, to teehmcal objections, or to irregutaritjf and inaijiattieg tM tfi proeeeiiitgf adopted againet him." Tp which, however, of the arguments does he seem to attach exclusive importance f He«xcepta to the '' incompetency," to the " want ofiunM^Uetionf' on the part of the House of Assembly. He seems to fancy himself a mere individual called upon before an ordinary tribunal to plead to an indictment. A^in, he excepts to the form of Wing the charges, •egulanty," its " intufficiency," its want or " tpe^i^oHon." that which he terms its " irres He even mistakes the nature of some of the charges, which he take* to have referuioe to thosii offendea which are defined usually by technical terms, and which fall witfaip the ordinary scope of practice, and should, according to him, be " atwdifi and exdunoelji ■ inquired into by courts of law:" and this is aeain another cause for exception. In fine, he sees in the Assembly, by which he is accuaied, and which demands jiisqce i^nst him, a tribunal which has "taken upon itself to try and to condemn him, m»T ha.yvag proceeded against him" ex-parte: without having placed him in a situation to defend himfuf; "with- out any eommunieation or intimation to him, as to the accusation or nature of tie ofeiieee; wHkM requiriM his presence, after a secret examination of the witnesses; without ero^e^. examination, witnout an opportunity for cross^xamination on his part." Then, relying upon all he has advanced upontnls subject, as though they were established facts, or prmciplea of which h6 had imade a rigorously exact application, ne denounces all thfi,procei^ineB of the House of Assembly as so many acts by which it has rendered itself guilty of the most criminal " assntoption of power, foreign to its jurisdiction, above its competency ; of having distegaitded the prlndples which form the safeguard of men's reputation and fortune. • 8!dm wrtllng the tbave, Mr. Stuart Ium iniwcnd the flnt and third reports, coplw of which I ncelvcd «t thi> Iktier end of Oetober, .'/A r In fact, iheM procMdingt, by hit Mscottnt, am " loo tvtdtnlljf ripugnMHt to fMicm and jmttkt to nquirt obttnatm." Han I agtin boirow liis own etpnMiona. Thii ii, doubtleM, pathing illiuion •■ fkr u it can |[o in aueh a eaaa. And it btcomea itill mora atriking whan wa conaidar thai, according to Mr. Staort'a own petition, the Houie of Aaaambly requiiad hia diamiaaal. Ha dcea not aocnae the Aaaembly oraeeking hia condemnation, in the aama manner aa though he wera befora a court of criminal juria> diction ; nor could they, in fact, have done so in petitioning the crown. It ia evident, then, from thia ciroumsUnce, that the idea of '• (ryiM, " comtieting," and "funiMu^' him of tiieir own authority, never waa entertained by the Houae. The AaaemUy oonflnea itaelf to aolioiting of the Mvereign the onhr juatice that he u enabled to eteente of hia own aooord, by virtue of the executive authority with which ha ia invested. Mr. Stuart, however, eonfounding ideaa and fiuta, of ao distinct and contradictory n daaeription, aoevaea the Assembly oihaving "tonviaid," condemned,— «f having arro> gated to itaalf at once the moat distinct and contradictory powera ; and of having exarciaad,, and bUmUd ,jrte testimony; to have appealed to it as a proof would be almost extraragance. He, however, confidently produces these affidavits, certainly taken exparte, as unquestionable proof: affidavits which are sufficiently characterised bv the cir- cumstances I have pointed out Besides, we may observe, that this sort of proof destroys itself/— that the greater part of that set up, against positive testimony, is purely neeative, —that a part of the facts, which it has been attempted to prove, could offer nothing for his joatification, even were they taken for granted. Lastly, Mr. Stuart concludes by producing a document, by means of which he becomes a witnesa m his own cause. It is his own report, dated the 20th of October, 1828, to Sir Jamea Kempt, then Governor of the Province, in which he labours to justify himself be- forehand in regard to those facts which are brought to his charge, by toe House of Assembly, in this last session of 1831, and on which a great proportion of the -barges against him are fouudnd. Neither will it perhaps, on this account, be necessary tt> dwell on it at any length, when the rest of the memoir shall have been discussed. It will be sufficient here to remark, that this circumstance alone will, of itself, give rise to strange veflectiona on tiie bittemeas of Mr. Stuart's complaints, as to " his notnaving been aware of the steps of die House cf Assembly against dim, except from the address of the House of thia year." OBSERVATIONS ON MR. STUARTS MEMOIR. PABT THE FIBST. Tbk difiSerent subjects of these observations will be dwelt upon in proportion as the} appear in themselves to be more or less worthy of attention, or according to the mode in which they have been discussed in the memoir. We cannot treat of them all separately, but will take those together which are in some degree analogous, and upon which it is not requisite to dilate at great length. • We will apply ourselves at once to the refutation of certain objections, which, although founded on assertion of facts, have nothing whatever to do with the merits of the du- cussion ; and which, for this reason, should be at oqce disposed of. We shall afterwards come to the others successively, in an order which will not be exactly similar to that in which it was found necessary to mention them in the analysis, nor in that in which they occur in the memoir ; from which we will deviate, however, as little aa possible. It will be seen how difficult, under these circumstances, it would be to discuss this subject in a more regular manner, or to avoid repetition. Should it be found that 1 have discussed some of these auestions with too great mmutcuess ; should I be reproached for having dwelt at too great length on others, it should be considered that I could not take upon myself to pre- serve an indistinct silence, nor even to pass hghtly over subjects which appeared, to the i^ttthor of this memoir, of such im,}ortance, as to induce him to apply himself laboriously to the discussion of them : appealing to them, as he does, with the greatest confidence, as embracing motives sufficiently powerful to induce his Majesty's Government at once to dis- § 11 HUM the charge, brought by the Commons of Lower Canada, aeainst him, and u con* taining atUBoiently strong reasons for his complete justification and acquittal. Ai to the objection fonnded on the following : that " tkefint petition mm tigtud, eneluihtlg, ig He parlhoM and adherent* tf tie tame political parly, m tubterthnee to wkue viewt tht principal offencet, uhieh kad been made tie eu^ecl of buBctmonl, were committed; "for tie mott part, tioie of tie pertoni aecuted, and pf tioir attorney*, couniel, and friend*." The Committee of the A«*embly was " competed entirely of portono bekmifing to lie *ame political party, ofwUci *ome eftiem were prominent mender*, and alt ofwiom,froiit political ammotity or pertonal re*entment, were inown to be ioetUe to Urn." 'Mr. Stnart.) Mr. Stuart's assertions, against those who signed the petition in which his conduct is complained of, with reference to the criminal prosecutions which form the Subject of the second report, made to the House of Assembly by the committee^ demand but little attention, consequently I shall content mjrself by saying, that, whatever he may advance upon this subject, the petition was not signed solely " by partuant of the mdividuah iuaued, butheactutedtiemsekei, their eoutuel, attormes, or Jfieiub." Besides, if all the persons, who signed it, were in fact friends of individuals accused, their number was con'- siderable ; and, the circumstance of their being friends, would not be unfavourable, but, on the contrary, honourable, to them, and would give weight to, instead of weakening, their daims. Those who suffer fixun injustice, have the greatest right to complain of it ; frequently it becomes a duty to do so, — nay, an act of public virtue,' on the part of those who witness the sufferings of their friends, to join them in denouncing the authors of their woes,, and in callbg down upon them the vengeance of the outraged laws. After having laboured from the commencement by assertions, devoid of proof, to arouse prejudices against those who signed the petition presented against him, relating to these criminal prosecutions, Mr. Stuart comes to the subject of the formation of the cd not Mr, Stuut'a brother, a nember of the Honie of AiMmbljr, bseu ill dorlnc a part of the lait ■uiion, it ii poMlblfl that he might hart endesvonied to defend him. 12 that thii wu not in any retpect a aecret committee ; that it proceednl undar ngolatioiui ■imilar to thoie obaerved in other committees, without myatery, in fact according to the UMgea coounon, aa well to the Commons of Lower Canada as to those of England. Besides, Mr. Stuart, to whom it is by no means intended to impute a voluntary con- cealment on this subject, has set forth, in his memoir, the aflSdavit (among others) of a Mr. Von Ifland, to which he evidently attaches an extraordinary importance. He also dwells upon certain assertions contained in it, to which he attaches eijual importance; from which affidavit we must necessarily conclude, that the examination of the witnesaet, before this committee, was of any thmg but a secret nature. As to the objection fonnded on the pretence, that the Arst petitioa elusion of the Parliament in which it was pieiented. ' b«e«me urtmet" at the ooa- It would indeed be setting the judgment of those who take the trouble of givine the slightest attention to the nature of the accusations in questiou rather too much at nought to dwell upon laboriously refuting Mr. Stuart's objection, founded on the circumstance that the House of Assembly took cognizance of complaints enumerated in a petition, presented in a session of the precedine year, and proceeded with the inquiry in another pi^ament, and after a new election. With regard to grievances, particularly of so public a character, and of this importance, the Commons were not surely called upon to await the impulse ftom out of doors, in order to proceed to the examination of these matters. The House of Assembly had, in fact, jurisdiction ; it needed not a petition to put it into action, and less to invest it with the right of exercising it. The House could do it of ite own auAority ; it was a daty, as well as one of ita most important righta; one of those obligations of the moat imperious nature, as well as regards the people which it represents, as the government itself. It certunly is not necessary to have studied very deeply the principles of constitu- tional law, or the usage of parliament, in order to be convinceid of these truths, which are in die nature of things, and on this account it is thought should not be dwelt npoo at greater length. As to Mr. Stoart's objectien, founded on his assertion, that the House of AasenUy proceeded e»parte. Let vs see what he says upon this subject : " Ha hat bttn declared gnilty tf offtmtu leitAimt ever having been made aware, except 6y the addrett, with the proeeediHga on ieUek th» laid addrett had been grounded, or with any other proeeedinga that amtd lead to tueh a reiult." "He hat thut been convicted by the mere authority fftkt Jtiembly, upon bxpartk proceedingt, to which he hat been an entire ttranger, without any opportunity/or drfence, or juitification, or hearing qf any kind." The evidence to be found in the report of the committee is composed of ** Ms K.xpAJrrKitatetnentt qTimdi- viduab examined at witneitet before the committee, in the jmtltltqf the petittontTf and wUhout cross- sxamtnolton, or opportunity for eroit-examination, o» At* parti Mt evidanet it inadmittibh." Such importance does Mr. Stuart attach to his objection, founded on the circumstance that evidence was taken exparte, that he returns to and repeata it three times in the same paraoiaph, besides doing so again in the course as well or his memoir as of this petition. Lastlv, he savs, " To thetemoctedingt the petitioner wat an entire ttranger, no tnlima- tion iimng ossit given to Aim that hit conduct wat the lubgect of complaint or invattiga- tion — NO explanation or drfence having been required/rom him." These assertiona are frequently reverted to in some shape or other throughout the memoir. The importance attached by Mr. Stuart to the argumenta rused on the circumstance that procoedinga were had, as he is pleased to term it, exparte ; that he was unaware of the charge; that he was a positive stranger to all the steps taken by the House of Assembly against him, is the effect of delusion. His observations upon this subject are the more ex- traordinary, when we but consider the subject, according to the simple rules of analogy ; for he cannot be ignorant of the fact that, whether in reference to accusationa broasht, afr- fioidinff to the ormnary course of law, against individuals, or to those which are of an ab> solutely public nature, against functionaries, the proceedings taken are exactly similar to those adopted by the House of Assembly, of Lower Canada, on this occasion. It acted ajBcording to received principles, and consecrated practice. Let us give a few momenta attention to this subject, in order that we may again revert to it for Uie purpose of esta- blishiog, and calling to our aid, strict rules and positive principles. With regard to charges brought against individuab, according to the ordinary course of law, Ahe offence is silted by the magistrates who take the depositions. The case ia aub- mitted to » grand jury, who can, of their own proper authority, send it into court ; and the depositions are never made known to the prisoners, — they are not even reduced to writing JQ the presence of the grand jury. Nevertheless we are aware of the serious consequences f! ^' 18 attending these charges, with regard to him who ia the object of them. The magiatralf , the judge himsl as of a serious nature. An accused could not, in the first place, strictly claim greater pri • Tilege in renrd to proceedinss which may interest him. had before a body such as that iii question ( that tiw rtihs to which we must confoim on these occasions are regulated, as regards sbdety^ by pHnciples of self-preservation, — by those of a justice of a superior order, m compariaou of #hioh, incKvidnal considerations lose that importance which they must possess when ctM resafA matters abstractedly and independently of their relation to the general and essential interests of a society. It cannot be denied, that actual suspension should be the natural and necessary result, of accusations as grave an those laid to the charge of Mr. Stuart. We cannot he irnorant of the fact, that, in Eaglaud, wh^re there is a tribunal which can, on the spot, iUm take judicial cognizance of an impeachment, according to the nature of the offences, or of the crimes which have, at various periods, served as motives for these sort of pro« ciMlnfiii on the part of the House of Commons, the immediate consequences are fVe^neut^f of a veW'ttioeh more rigorous character. Without entering into useless details on this sub^ jettt suffice it to observe, that Lord Melville did not wait until the Gommons had taken steps #Hd' iwud' ib him, with the executive government. He tboueht himself called upon to tfeiider me nsignation of all his oflBces, pretiotis to being heard before that House, whoflei uiifiefition it wait to aecuse him. I have said enough of received principles, and the practice of the English Mtfliament. If we would but argue with reference to what has paaned in Clinada arone, Mr. Stuart's pretensions would not be found to possess any weight. But before lobkin? at the question, in this new point of view, I will ask, how the rieht doiild be contested of a House of Commons, of an Assembly representing the people or a country, of a branch of the legislature, of a body forming an integral and essential potrtion of the government (taking this word in its true sense, with reference to the prin- dples 6( aixi constitution), to call upon the executive branch of this government to sns- ptaKl' and dismiss an officer, whoise conduct and proceedings' might, at various timet, have nadf the effect of filling the hearts of the people with alarm, of undermining their confidence in the cdnrts of justice, as well as in the administration, and protection of the govermneut itself? ■j To continue him in his ofltiiie. particularly dnder sttch circumstances as those just men- tioned, would be to confusis and to desti'oy. instead of, as is pretended by the memoir, to support and strengthen authority. It would be in vain to speak of the possible abuse bv the HoiisiB 6f this power. If one must argue, and act according to hypoiniesis of this kino, all ebv^rament must be forsaken, all aUdi6nty must be annihilated, the liberty which {lk wiiff at government and authority) can be alike abused hy ill' must be destroyed ; and «rd have but too o{(6h had strange' en^mpl^ of the trudi of this fket. Oh the other hand, it is peibulisrly the duty of the representative branch of the O^ veriimerit, of the CoinnionB, to lbo!i into the grievances umwr whieh the people, whom Hbx/f lepreteni, may suffer; td trac« the source from whence they ftow ; to hear their^elhims and compl'tiihts, against those who are the audiors of them, to throw a light on their eon- iaei, and*, finaJhr, to hand theita over to the executive government; t6 judge of thbse' cir- cumstances; under which they should ask of the executive poti^er to deptive the semknts of the crown of the power of continuing in the abuse of its confidence, and in this reiypeet to protect its own interest as well as that of the people. What would be thought in Edig- land of a public functionary, of an officer of the crown, who, under circumstances such \ 16 M those, which form the subject of the preceding picture, ihould have become Ui* object of ap address from the House of Commons, praying his suspension and i^ltimatedis- missal ; and suspended, in fact, in consequence of this address, complainiqg> bitterly of having been " taken unaware* :" and should exclaim, with a confidence of being listened to, against what he might call a tentence passed, trtfAowt any intimation hcming bnn givHi to him ; without having been afforded an opportunity q/* " dtfmc^' anajtuti- fieafion. Would such a functionary find many persons to echo his complaints, and joia him in crying out tyranny ; in declaring that he was a victim, immolated on the altar of arbitrary authority ? As to the power of the executive Government to suspend, or to dismiss, these offloers ; to try them summarily ; or to choose any other means ot administering this justice, which is one of its most essential duties, we cannot longer deny it. This is surely one of its best established prerogatives; the one most necessary to the maintenance of public order ; one without which its right of surveiUance, over functionaries, would become next to nugatory ; a mere net castto satisfy the credulity of the people. This power is still more necessanr m a distant colony, in which there exists no tribunal but the executive government itself, to which immediate recourse can be had, for the purpose of checking the errors or the pauione of functionaries, and the injustice of which they may be guilty. Immediate suspension, when an offence is substantiated, may be, under certain circumstances, and is, in fac^ often absolutely necessary. If this were not the case, the government would frequently find itself exposed to the inevitable suspicion of conniving at the malpractices of its officers, who themselves, con- fident in the hope of impunity, a hope founded on all the possible chances which would result in their favour, by the delays and difficulties with which the steps taken against them are necessarily accompanied, might triumph, in braving the authority of the government, and in playing with tnat of the laws ; and by insulting, at the same moment, the victims of their ambition, or their vengeance. In fact, it would be to root out from the hearts of the people the hope of obtaining justice; that is to say, to place the governors and the governed in the most critical as well as the most unhappy situation possible. It is useless to dwell on this subject. What man, accustomed to reflect on the organisation of societies, — on the means of insuring to them some stability, — could be unable to see, at once, the vital importance of these considerations ? If we come to the examination of that which has passed in our own country even, we may see that what are called precedent* militate against the accused. It is very true that at the time of the first analogous charges brought by the House of Ckimmons of Lower Canada against the two chief judges of the province in 1814, the governor refused to accede to the request made for their suspension. But we must first remark, and it is one of the anomalies, amongst many others, which one might point out in the history of our province, that another branch of the legislature, whose opinion, as such, deserves respect on the part of the executive branch, the legislative council, composed chiefly of functionaries, contended strongly that the Commons of Lower Canada had not the right to bring any charge against a public functionary without their privacy and their participation. This was to constitute themselvea judges in their own cause, and to make the Assemoly, in this respect, actually dependant on the council. Secondly, one may perhaps remark, that the testimony produced in support of the charge was not as circumstantial as it ought to have been. This was the first occasion in which a step of the kind had been adopted, and it would not be astonishing that some laxity had crept into the proceedings of the Assembly. Whatever might have been the cause, this refusal on the part of Governor Prevost to suspend them was considered by the House as a violation of their privileges and constitutional rights, and so it was declared to be by a resolution adopted even on the motion of Mr. Stuart himself, then a member of the House of Assembly. If we quote this case against him, as being one with which his name is connected, it is because he was actuated on this occasion merely by matters of public interest, in which he was less likely to be biassed than on this occasion, where the interest is of a different nature, and of one calculated to give ideas a false direction. At any rate, we may easily conceive that His Majesty's Government could not subscribe to this strange pretension on the part of the legislative council of Lower Canada. The right of the House of Assembly to impeach could not be denied. Taught in fact in the school of experience, in bringing, in 1817, a new charge against one of the judges of the Court of King's Bench, they did not fail to add the weight of formal proofs ; to accompany it with circumstantial evidence ; and asked the governor to suspend him ; and, at the same time, in an address to his Majesty, prayed that he might be removed. The governor's answer is remarkable on more than one account. He declared to the House of Asssembly that he had/ound tome difficulty, and had entertained doubts, in eontequenct of the con- duct ff tho deceased govirnor* on a similar occasion ; but that, after a minute examina- tion ^ the evidence, and the authority with which by his commission he voat inveetedp he had signified to Mr. Foucher the necessity qf discontinuing his judicial functions until a decision had been come to upon the subject. The difficulties which afterwards arose as to the mode of proceeding in order to come to a decision against Mr. Foucher, and which * 8ir Georg* PrcToit. 17 •ndad in ftllowing him. some yean afterwardi, to resume hii wat, form no part of my lub- JMt Th« mere fact of his luipension ia inflBcient here to add weight to my own ob- aenrationa. Beaides, I cannot auppoae that it will be attempted to argue, that this atep, on the part of the eovemor, waa unconstitutional, — an act of tyranny or of injustice; and what ia better worthy of remark atill, is, that we may observe that, on neither of these oc- eaaiona was it pretended that, for any of the reasons urged in Mr. Stuart's memoir, the ateps taken by tlie House of Assembly were either null, irregular, or insufficient. Here another case for comparison presents itself, which, without being precisely ■imilar, may be introduced, in accordance with the rules of strict analogy ; it is the case of the suspension, and final dismissal of Mr. Justice Willis, in Upper Canada. The case waa recent and became the aubject of solemn argument, and is, therefore, better worthy of attention. The cauae of the treatment which Mr. Justice Willis experienced, was found in an opinion siren in his capacity of judge, as to the competency of the court of which he waa a member. I think I am right when I say, that the consequence of this opinion, had it triumphed, would have been to affect the validity of the proceedinga of this court during many yean, and to prevent the possibility of holding it, so long as an act of sove- ni|{n power, on the part of the legislature, had not disposed of this anomaly. As this opinion waa overruled, it would be useless to dilate upon it now. But there is at least one circumstanee which might, at first sight, appear to be in its favour. A judge can be guided by no other rule than that moral obligation which binds a minister, whose duties are of a sacied character, and which he is bound, by the oath he takes before he exercises his office, to observe. It is an essential duty with him not to decide upon any other principles than those hia conscience approves. Mr. Justice Willis might be wrong. But, if he thought his opi- nion legally correct, mieht it not be asked, how he could ulow himself to change it, and BO give up n point, which he felt it an imperious duty to sustain ? And it appears to me, that this sanctity of intention, which never can be forgotten by a judge, without his being guilty of prevarication, was depended upon for his justification. But even thia purity of intention is not sufficient of itself to justify a public man. The statesman should be mindful of the effects consequent upon his mistakes, and of their in- fluence upon the general and essential interests of society. A government cannot, upon the pretext or this purity of intention, which would, in a moral or a legal point of view, jus- tify an individual; leave the government and society itself a prey to the errors of a public man, when such errors may lead to anarchy, tyranny, or a general confusion. This is, if I mistake not, the point of view in which the questions raised and discussed, in the case of Mr. Justice Willis, must have been regarded. The proceedings of the government of Upper Canada were approved and confirmed by that of his Majesty in England. One act alone of this judge was, however, called in question, and that as to an opinion upon a single point of doctrine. The entire country had not (as in the case under discussion) ndsed her voice, nor preferred complaints against him for many years preceding. The reason for the decision must have been, doubtless, the danger of the consequences which might have resulted from this single act ; from the firightful effects that this judicial opinion was caleulated to produce. A few moments attention to the nature of the charges brought by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada against Mr. Stuart, will be sufficient to show how much more weighty are the reasons which have influenced, as well the steps taken by this body as the determination of the governor, in the present case. Had there not been, independently of the charges, to the consideration of which Mr. Stuart has confined himself in his memoir, anything more than his steps taken with regard to the commissions, — were not these alone necessarily calculated to create alarm throughout the province ; to destroy confidence in all titles relating to real property, and in the majority of those acts which might affect these titles, as welF as in other acta of equal importance ; nay, to induce a fear that all the fortunes in the country were in danger of being thrown into general confusion 1 Besides, he was complained of for having frequently placed himself in a double capacity, and thus obliged to defend and support, at one and the same time, the conflicting interests of the Crown and those of his private clients. Who could then be tempted to exclaim against the measures taken by the Commons of Lower Canada? Could personal motives of pity, interest, or even of equity, influence those which arise from considerations so essential, as well to general interest as to public justice ? It would be treating a government, nay, an entire people, with a little too much levity to pretend, that they should possess so little weight in tlie balance, and that it should be turned in favour of an individual, the subject of n charge sustained by formal proofs, founded on facts of public notoriety. But the complaints of the Assembly are not founded on one subject alone. Even sup- posing steps, for which the accused is blamed, were mere errors. They were not occasional j^lts, momentary delusions. It will be easily conceived that those which form the sub- ject of discussion in the memoir, are faulte committed during a series of years ; that they are intimately connected with the general administration of justice and even of the govern- ment. They were acts which attacked principles upon which authority and public order can alone rest with any security. For a long space of time, the government and the people, whose interesU can never be separated, without weakening or breaking the bonds which unite them, must have suffered, and did suffer, equally. Mr. Stuart's conduct had already, E nwiont to Um iMt MHion, bMn « f Hbjtct of inauify wtd •nmiution on the ptrt of tk« HooM of AMtmbly, and of complwolt on that ot the conntry. We cannot even, in co»ri>' daring attbieota complicated a* tneie are. aeparate them by a kind of philoaopbical abatrao- tioB ; think of them, if we may uee the eipmaion. piece-meal, and without aoeing the Tarioua Unka which unite them one with another. They all have their weight in the aoala againat the individual who it the aubject of thaae complainta. I ahould bo allowed to add, and we ahall be easily convinced of the fact, that on an ocoaaton auch aa thia it would ba unqneatiooably a great miitake not to look at the tout tuttmhh of the aubjeota. As to tha objectioa, foanded on the circanstanee that the wilaesiea examined before the eomaitlaa ifoNMnrMiM." W- Lat us aee what Mr. Stuart saya. " Tht Autmbhf, it tttwu, bv its Mtiimtd Mtfito- rte, ktu eomiettd a pubHe officer of malvenation in hi$ offiet, upon tkt txpartt dtelaraHomi QfimJMiuah, in Ikt absence of tht aecmed .... wthmtt otimg neom, and without nqKM- «6t/jity." That the evidence received by the committee waa not taken on oath, ta a atraagt nason for objection on the part of a man who has held the higheat rank, anone the officers of the Crown, in Lower Canada. The objection, had it any foviidation, would be a rara disoovaiT. If the House were guilty of an offence, in thia reapect, it ia one with which the English House of Commons has, for agea past, been conatamly stained. If it ware, in ftot, posaible that this waa an error, on the part of the House of Assembly, it aaena to ma that it did not deserve to be treated with so much harshneaa by Mr. Stuart: on tha eoa- trary, the House might have claimed some indulgence on hia part, aa being the eontinned praotioe of the Bnglish House of Commons. One should, acooiding to the memoir, con- aider thia practice " to repugnant to reason and justice, as to be too evident to rtqukt e^ servation. But, again, how could thia be an error on the part of the Commona of Lower Caaada, when we reflect that, as we have already observed, it is an invariable practice of Uie Engliah Houae cf Commona, founded on principles, recognised for ages aa law? I think I am not mistaken in saying, that a person cannot be awom nnlesa tha right to do BO is conferred, either by virtue of the common law, or of a poeitivt law ; that tha KiujK himaelf cannot confer thia right on those on whom he is not authorised, by law, to confer it It ia for thia reason, also, that the King'a prerogative of establishing courts, othor than those which he can authorise to be held by virtue of the laws, is in reality a mere abatract right, since an act of the Sovereign power, on the part of the legislature, is necessary, in oraer to put it ip practice. Legally or constitutionally speaking, the Commons of Lower Canada, or their committee, could not, in fact, any more than those of Eneiand, cauae vritoesses, called before them, to be sworn. Mr. Stuart cannot be ignorant of thia. Mo- mentary forgetfiiln(>sa must surely have been the cause of his falling into auch an error on the aubject. Until Mr. Stuart has shown, that the House of Assembly had some legal meana of proceeding in this inquiry, different from those employed by them.— nay, from thoaa to which the English Commons themselves constantly have recourw, under aimilar circum- stances, we shall be allowed to think, that the Commona of Lower Canada have neither merited reproach for extravagance in their conduct, nor for injustice in their atepa on thu oceaaion. Let us auppose, that the House of Assembly, or the committee, had taken upon them- selves to cause the witnesses to be sworn, then Mr. Stuart might have accused the Houae of Assembly of an assumption of power which did not even belong to die English House of Commons. Mr. Stuart might then, with some reason, have denounced the Houae of Aasembly, which accused him, as a body whose members were a prey to bUnd passiona, calculated to lead them into the groBsest errors, as strangers alike to the first notions of constitational law. and to the practice of the English parliament ; in foot, as men whose eztmvagance and ignorance united, rendered them absolutely unworUiy of enjoying the advanti^ of a constitutional government, and of exerciaing the rignta which spring from it According to Mr. Staart. no responsibility would attach to the witnesses examined before the committee of the House of Assembly. This assertion appears to him to be one of importance ; and he repeats it more tha:; once. It is on this account that he attributea, at first, to the witnesses' "faluhoods, by which they sought to ityure him; or, as he says in another place, to satitfy thar wickedness and their revenge," I shall not, for the moment, dwell on any observations respecting this worse than strange assertion. We shall return to this subject in the discussion of the testimony, and sort of firoof, by affidavits, taken before a magistrate, whose duty is merely passive, and pi U M pe 19 4ow »» WMMt in pHttingqMMtuMw m to any of the freU stated in particniur, but OMrely «■« f - V'.Uj aa to the trnth of their contenta, and that frequently without the preaenee of Mj tf-i i/ut t|M party intareated in obtaining Uie affirmation of the AwU ; in order to oppoee H to the kind of teaUmony raceived before a committee, which is compoaed of several mem- ben, each of whom hu an equal risht to propoae questions to the witnesses rekting to any pwtiealar fact to which they may depose, or any others to which he may think proper to obtain answers. ^ witness, oalled before the House, is not, it is true, upon his oath: bat he is in the iM^e of hia country ; he ia eipoeed to ignominy if, in giving his eridence, he is guilty a* nntruth ; he is even exposed, on a summary proceeding, to suffer immediate inoai^ oaration. This is not a mere vain theory,— it is the practice in the English House ot Com- mons, and adopted in that of Lower Canada. In pfeading his own cause, the cause of a Kblio functionary of his rank, Mr. Stuart should, in the first place, have shrunk from the jrc^riety of such an assertion; and from the danger even by thus expressing himself of WMUuniag that respeet which is due. aa well to moral sentiment, as to that civil duty whrniapoMaon a witneea the necessity of never departing from the truth, whilst giving onaeaoo oefbra a tribunal of this importance. Again, oathe subjeot of this olgection of Mr. Stuart's, there is an observation which, before we proeee^, desenes a moment's attention. He aeema to have adopted, with regard to public functionaries, a principle, a system, to ifh\p^ all his ideas have reference ; and are, if I may use the expression, co-ordinate. Hfi ^e||ita that public functionaries should be independent ; and we are left to conclude, fraisi hia mode of expressing himself, that the colonial government cannot, without this sort of ipf ioli^bility as regards them, eoHtinue to esitt, Mr. Stuart does not, however, formally deny, tliat the |Ioute of Assembly has some power of inquiring into the conduct of pubbe dalinquenta : ^ut he denies the right of using the only means known and copsecr^ted by the laif^ aaq practice of Parliament, in order to effect this inqwiry. Heputs forth, as a principle, that the evidence taken before a House of Commons, of Lower Cfanada, is not worthy of credit, because the witnesses are not sworn ; and that auch evidence caqnot be used as the foundation of any proceeding against public fiinctjonarief, whose conduct may be an object of inquiry. And, since the House has no power to tender this oath, it follows, that it would not have any means of preferring charges aeainst then|i. Nothing more than Mr. i^tnart's system could be necessary to insure the staoility of tb^ govamiqent ! Can it be necessary to discuss, seriously, assertions of this kind ? As to the oljection, tliat " tk« Houu ofAuettthlj/, it teenu, JU* arrogated to iteelf Ike power, »»t e*lfvf eoeftiotmg a puilio ajleer of maiveriation m Ue office, but ef cHmmal ekurgee eeg- oiMmle t]f eoarti of law oalg : ef eutomatien of ferjurj/, ma viohaee at the election' ....... " Tie Aeeentblm hat ao righ* to bring ehargee agmut a pubUo fiuutianarji, he rc^pmi if any pther of enoce ihm ihote relating to official nuecoadaot.'' It ^. Unless to animadvert on the incorrectness of some of these expreaaions. Th^ House of Aasismuly did not pretend to convict; but Mr. Stuart considers it criminal in hfiying chai|g^ him with an offence of which it belonged to the courts of justice alone ^ take cognizance. Here we shall soon see that he is in error as to the fact, and that he la not oalled to account by the House of Assembly for any one of those offences of ^\^ip^^ cognisance should, in fact, proper! v be taken by the ordinary tribunals. Nevertheless, I wilt, before I come to this particular suoject, argue hypotheticaDy, and suppose that the charge bn>vd)t by tke House of Assembly has reference to two offences of the nature he mentions, and tnat tnw should be regar(|[ed in the technical sense which he attaches to them. Row- ing th^ objections, the doctrine and ideaa of Mr. Stuart on this subject woul^ still be illusory. It would be, at leaat, qufte novel to questjon the right of an Assembly representing the people of a country, the Cqmmp^a in fact, to bripe a charge against a public fi^t^ctionary ; to require his suspension, his dismissal, and particularly in England to prosecute him ev^d in the House of Lords, for offences, the cognizance of which may belong to the o>4iDWr trihnnil^s. This idea, like mai^ others assufning to be of a constitutional class, ^bic§ oecnr in each pi^ragraph pf fhc; ^epioir, is neither in accordance with the practice npr the usages, nor with the received principles on these subjects, and is equally repugnant to tha one and to the other. Let qi; see if the Epdish Hoi)|w of Commqns have interdicted themaelv^s the rwbt of RTOoe^flfpg against puiuic functionaries in cases in which the crime or the ofience lai^ to theiv chi^rge mjgh^ ]iave becoipe the subject of a prosecution before the ordinary tribun^'^ High treason and embezzlemeiit are surely crimes or offences defined by law, of whicli these latter courts can teke cognizance. Can we tbink that if the House of Commons, in the Cfent of ^n inquiry, were convinced that a minister, or other public functionary, hfid be^ guilty of ihe one or the other of these offences, it would be fair to tax them at pnce with injustice and extravagance, because they should require his suspension and h)a dismissal? 20 If aren h« wu the lubioet of proMcution in the Houie of Lords, would it be kllowftble to Mkv thtt it wu, on their part a criminal usurpation T Could an impeachment against him be excepted to, under the pretence that the inferior court* posaeiied an exoluuve juria- diction? This power in the courts, of taking cognizance of these offences, could no more militate against that of a branch of the legislature, particularly the popular branch, than against that of the executiTe branch itself inquiring into the conduct of functionaries, each according to the nature of his duties. It is a part of the duty of the House of Commons to employ, according to circumstances, the various means attached by the constitution to its juriadie- tion, in watching over these functionaries, in order, if necessary, to have them displaced or punished : they may do the one or the other: it is in their discretion to do so, according to the fltneaa ana nature of the case. Bat leaving for a time this subject, to which it may perhaps be necessary to return, let us observe that Mr. Stuart has again strangely mistaken the nature of the accusation brought against him by the House of Assembly under the title of luborHation of penury, when he persuaded himself that it had in view merely that definitive crime which subjects any one against whom such an accusation may be brought, to a prosecution before a tribunal accord- ing to the ordinary course of law. The House would nave subjected itself to the gravest reproach, and even -idicule, had it not carried itself above sucn considerations; and Mr. Stuart, in such a case, would most certainly not have failed to direct his shafts against it. The term, subornation of perjury, should not be taken here in a purely technical aenae, It was not the duty of the House of Assembly to inquire whether Gazaille dit St Germain, whom Mr. Stuart, one of the candidates at the election, had induced to take the oath, waa more guilty than Aussant or the others accused from Sorel (William Henry), prose- cuted by him, as Attorney-General, for periury, and so justly and reasonably acquitted. That which might be termed the mere substance of the crime, waa found as much in the act of the former as of the latter. But intention, which alone renders acts of thia de- acription criminal, was equally absent at the time they respectively took their oaths. What would have been thought of the House of Assembly, had it required (and it is pretended, in the memoir, it ought to have done so) that a prosecution should be instituted against Mr. Staart, in one of the ordinary courts, for subornation of perjury, when he whom he (Mr. Stuart) had induced to commit it, not only never ought to have oeen, and never could be, convicted, but could not have intended to swear falsely ? Of what blindness, of what in- justice, would he not, in such a case, have accused the House of Assembly 7 We must take these expressions, then, in a more extensive sense. And first, as in allusion to the offence of an Attorney-General, a candidate at this election, abusing the influence which his important functions afforded him, by inducing this St. Germain, in order to qualify and vote in his (the Attorney-General's) favour, to swear to the truth of a falsehood whica he, the voter, might however believe to be true ; an error, which could form no excuse for the public functionary on this occasion. Secondly, the inquiry, on this occasion, is con- eeming the commission of an offence, of at least as grave a nature, perhaps of a mora aeriousone, as regards morality and public justice, consequent upon the first offence (and the consideration of which, at this moment, is quite in keeping) committed by this func- tionary in prosecuting afterwards, as guilty of perjury, those who, led by the example of St. Germain, dupes to their own confidence in the opinions publicly delivered by this chief officer of the crown, took an oath similar to that to which we have already alluded. Lastly, in reference to another offence, that of having aimed these prosecutions, accompanied by circumstances which greatly aggravated their injustice, against those who haa voted in favour of his adversary, whilst hu had not even thought of prosecuting those who had com- mitted the same offence, in order to vote in his favour. With regard to the acts of violence at this election, laid to Mr. Stuart's charge by the House of Assembly, can he have thought that it alluded to physical force ? That he was accused of having acted the part of a wrestler. It is sufficient to read the report of the committee, the depositions and the evidence which form part of it, and to see the pro- ceedings of the House of Assembly, in order to be satisfied that this charge has reference to that kind of moral violence which he exercised towards the electors, by means of menaces, to which his office gave an importance,— of which events have furnished a sad proof how the influence, which resulted from his functions, had been employed, for the purpose of persuading the persons, to whom we have already alluded, to take the oath in question. Returning now to Mr. Stuart's assertions, as to the pretended exclusive right of the ordinary courts, we may observe, that if this right could be established, functionaries, par- ticularly in the colonies, would be insured that independence, in feet, that sort of inviolability which would place them equally aloof from all kinds of surveillance on the part of the lociu authorities and his Majesty's Government itself,— an independence, to confer which Mr. Stuart seems to regard as a sort of chef-d'auvre on the part of the Government, and without which he thinks it could not continue to exist in the colonies. This exchmve right would be particolarly convenient, if there happened to be found, in the organization of the admi- mstration or of the courts, some evil, which a man, clothed with these high functions, was ii IndttMd, from notirM of penonal inUntt, to pratMt, an intortat comwon to all who night be placed in a aimilar situation. He miriit let at nought complainto which could be of no avail ; inault thooe who might dan make them, and load them with hit rewntment. Thia would doubtlww be a lUrange perapectiTe to exhibit to hie Maieaty'i colonial lubjecta, particularly under Moif cifoum- ataneoa, inch aa thoee which I shall take an opportunity of defining. It is, basidee, in the poss e ssion of powers, in some measure ezolusiTe. which an Attomey-Oeneral, amordiogto Mr. Stuart's own account, exercises in Lower Canada, that he would know hinaalf to be innolaUe.* On the other hand, in looking at the subject in a point of Tiew more fiivoarabie to the goTcmed, the result of this doctrine as to so exclusive a right of the courts; of the entire absence of jurisdiction on the part 6f the Commons of a country under similar circum- stanoea to examine into the conduct of a public officer, once firmly seated, would be, that he mig^tlie daily guilty of the gravest ofiences, and might defy, at once, th9 aatbority of the oourts, that of the government of the countrjb and, in hetj that of his Majesty's go- vernment itself. Whether this conduct, on an occasion of the kind, were systematio or not, on his part, it would sufliee, that he had not mme to the extent ef absolutely comnitting himself: that, on the one hand, his faults might approach some of those grades of crime defined oy law,— whilst, on the other hand, some criminal act might be wanting, the proof of which is necessary in order to constitute the precise offence, and thus affora an eaeape from the vengeance of the laws themselves. In answer to the House of Assembly, he would plead incompetence, — ^want of jurisdiction on their part ; before a court, he would except to the abaence of some of those circumstances necessary in order to his trial and conviction. In either of which a)t:rnatives he would be sure to triumph. Lastly, Mr. Stuart'a doctrines, as to the two charges of subornation of perjury and of violence, in the election of Sorel, being susceptible, once received, of constant application, thejr would have the effeif^of authorising all sorts of disorder by the actual hope of im- punity. What doctrines ! What a foundation for a government ! As to Mr. Staart's objection oa the ground of want of tpedflcation in these accusations. The habit of appearing before the ordinary tribunals, and of occupying himself some- what exclusively in tne affairs at the bar, has misled the author of the memoir. He ever reasons according to rulea observed, with regard to proceedings in these courts. Offences of a positively public nature, such as those committed by functionaries in the exercise of their duties, are not susceptible of being previously defined, in the same manner as those committed by private individuals, which are usually of a less complicated cha- racter ; besides, in accusations which have reference to official misconduct, such as that in auestion in the reports made to the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, the statement of le facts ^emselves is sufficient upon which to found the charge, and ihe necessary pro- ceedings, against him who is the object of the charge. For the same reason, these pro- ceedings are not subject to those forms purely of a technical nature, which are in use, and necessary, at the bar. and in the ordinary courts, where prosecutions have reference to offences strictly defined by the laws. Mr. Stuart cannot assuredly feign ignorance of the nature of the facts laid to his charge in the diree reports. It would be truly useless to stop in this place for the purpose of pointing out in a more minute way the facts which will be easily understood on reading the reports themselves. On the other hand, if Mr. Stuart could even explain his conduct in a manner cal- culated to raise a reasonable doubt, as to the truth of tne charges brought a^inst him by the House of Assembly, we may suppose that he could not hope to be acquitted of them, at once and without any formaliU ; without, in fact, taking steps for clearing up these doubts in a manner consistent with perfect justice. It will not be pretended that |iis denial, or mere affidavits, sworn on the other side the Atlantic, should tney even contaih facts of much greater importance and probability than they really do, are sufficient for the purpose of destroying, at one blow, all the effect of the proofs, whether oral or in writing, taken on the spot Itself, and confirmed at the time by documents of so important a character as those produced before the House of Assembly. It would be necessary to have recourse to ulterior proceedings. We may infer even, from the steps taken by his Majesty's Government in 1817, in reference to a charge brought bv the House of Assembly against another public functionary, that it was understood that the legislative council of the province should possess a jurisdic- • We thtll looa hs what there it, In fMt, of ezelasive 4n wiiich may prove to be of some importance. Suffice it, ibr the moment, to obeerve, that we have tJie avowal of Mr. Stuart that the fUnetiona of the Attorney-General, in the province, are, in this respect, exclusive ; and thia fact, with reference tc the preaent discussion, deservee particular attention. Letua now see how he juatiflea himself for having constantly prosecuted, before the superior tribunals, persona against whom proceedings should have been taken at the Quarter Sewions. According to him, it was the practice of those who prsceded him in office ; it waa in- cumbent on him to proeecute thoee who were in the prisons ; "and the Ai$emblu hot imputed to htm, without anjf reaton whatever, and gratuitouify, a eordid motive :" when, in doing so, he performed an imperious duty. Hence it may be thought that he laboured in the cause of humanity, and moreover of innocence, in order to shorten the period of the con- finement of prisoners. In the first place, this causa would be misunderstood. In fact, he himself obeerves, in the same paragraph, that the Court of King's Bench, /or criminal bueineu, t'l held onfy twice, whibt the Quarter Sessions are held four times, in the course of the year. So that, in the first place, it seems difficult enough to understand how it wouM be more advan- tageous to a prisoner that he should be imprisoned for six months, in order that he might be prosecuted in the Court of King'a Bench, instead of remaining only three months in prison, and taking his trial at the Quarter Sessions. Secondly, the interest of the public would, in such a case, be as little taken care of as that of the prisoner, on account of the former being obliged to be at the expense of feeding, Isdging, and guarding a priaoner, for double the necessary time. Lastly, the proaecutioos, in the Court of King'a Bench, costing more than seven times as much as those at tiia Quarter Sessions, it may be conceived, that a aystem of this kind can be no more connstent witii economy than with the principles of well- directed humanity. It ia surprising, that the evil consequences of such a system should have escaped the observation of the Attorney-General, and riiould not have made him feel sensibly the yiciousness of the system itself, and have induced him to alMmdon, instead of persisting in it for so many yean. If he was not blinded by feelings of interest, on account of the con- siderable profit arising firom such a course, an individual might be justified, in a moral point of view, for an error of this kind ; a public man could never be juatified, either in the eyes of the public or the government There is a striking circumstance, which militates much more to Mr. Stuart's dis- advantage. The executive government, nc-cording to Mr. Stuart's own account, had directed nis attention to this abuse, — had taken stops to correct it, — had made known its intentions, — and had given orders for remedying it; and he also remarks, that these orders were complied with in the district of Quebec ; they were left unexecuted in the district of Montreal, on account of certain circumstances,— which, says he, it is useless to parti- cularize : the clerii of the peace did not inttitute proueutume at the Quarter Settion*, at it wai hit duty to have done. But the Attorney-General travelled, as we shall see, regularly twice a year to Montreal, in order to attend the sittings of the Court of King's Bench, betidet thou of the tpecial Courtt of Oyer and Terminer : to wh. 'h subject we shall, in ita turn, allude. The number of offences, the prosecutions for which he found himself bound to undertake, — a heavy charge of which tlie Clerk of the Peace should have relieved him, — must also, doubtless, on each occasion, have aroused his attention to the negligence of this officer. Hence one may ask, how it could have happened that, for ao many years fol- lowing, he should not have thought, for one moment, of aaopting the meana afforded him by his functions of obliging die Clerk of the Peace to discharge his duties, and to respect the orders of the executive government, or to punish him for not doing so? It will be presently seen, by his own memoir, with what really escetme zeal he jgave evidence, in commencing a prosecution which he himself quotes, in the shape of recriminations, against a witness, G ir ; 24 and in bringme a charge againit an officer belonging to a department with which he must have been nearly unacquainted, for the commission of an isolated fault of this kind, — and one of a trifling nature. And Mr. Stuart constantly lost sight of offences, committed daily under his oycs, during many years in succession, even by an officer of justice. He did not take the slightest step in support of the views, manifested by the executive, to check this > abuse, by which he must himself have so grievously suffered, on account of the loss of his valuable timb, — and on account of being obliged to rivet his attention on matters of detail, so little worthy his important funct ns. If tnis, again, was a mere error — the constant effect of inattention for many years would it be excusable in a public functionary of this rank and importance? Mr. Attorney-General could not be ignorant of the fact, that the Assembly voted sums of money every year for this purpose, as well for Montreal as for Quebec. It even he had been ignorant of this fact, — if tnis had not been done, — it would have been his duty, at least, to advise the executive upon the subject, in order tliat it might adopt measures cal- culated to compel the execution of its orders. Besides, how did it happen that he did not l^vc up to the authorities an officer who should thus have abused the confidence reposed in iiim, and have despised the orders which he had ruceivod on this subject? And as this abuse did not exist in the district of Quebec, why did he not see that means were adopteunitv served to encourage, — they were assured of the nopes of iavour, in order to stimu- ate tiiem. It would have been sufficient to have seen some of the disgusting diatribes with which the country was inundated at this time, in order to experience a sentiment of indig- nation. Without speakine of a crowd of other productions of this nature, let us cast our eyes over the extracts which are found in one of the reporta of the committee of grievances of the Assembly in this year, taken from that which was made to the Assembly in 1829. I shall be pardoned the energy of these expressions, when it is considered against whom these writings were directed ; even the Assembly itself was exposed to every kind of insult, and treated like a pack of seditious persons, rebels, and traitors. The grand jury of Quebec themselves, after having found true bills in the cases of libel submifted to tnem by the Attorney-General, represented to the court, on the 31st March, 1828, that writings or the opposite side were frequently not of a less dangerous description and not less worthy of public reprobation ; and the chief officer of the Crown an auxiliary, as well of the grand jury as of the court ; the only person in the province who instituted and prosecuted charges in the criminal courts, did not find ground for prosecution aeainst the authors or printera of these productions ! These were not libels, according to Mr. Stuart's account, of a sufficiently defamatory description to deserve the attention of the officen of die Crown, at the head of whom he was. His conduct was, doubtless, the best protection he could afford to those who rendered themselves, daily guilty of outrage and calumny towards the inhabitants of the country — the representation — tne members of the Assembly — irreproachable magistrates — mifitia oF' era of all ranks, who were dismiwied, without any ceremony, by hundreds, and in- s 'Itevi, whose offence was that of adopting means of seeking justice from his Majesty's p jvemment, by addressing petitions to him. to relieve them from being subject to the ex- ei :ise of an authority as iflegal as it was arbitrary and violent. Mr. Stuart seems to think, at the same time, that the circumstance of the grand jury having found true bills, sufficiently justified him in having instituted the prosecutions,— whence arises the presumption, that they were founded on principles of justice ; whilst, supposing there to be sufficient proof of crime to authorise inaictmente, the choice of those against whom they were preferred was not less marked, with the stamp of partiality and persecution, with which ne is accused. Mr. Stuart does not dwell upon those important considerations which should rivet his attention; he relies, in this matter, upon the report made to Sir James Kempt, then go- vernor of the province, of the 20th of October, 1828, adding it to the appendix of nis memoir. Whilst alluding to this document, his own work, he should at least have re- membered the just complainte of the Assembly, in 1828-9, with reference to holding the too fiimouf Special Court of Oyer and Terminer, of Montreal, in November, 1827. Particularly * It may be leen, by the report of the committee of grlevaneei of lh« Aiumbly in 1828-9, in what onnur thii Gaielle wai eit«bliali«(l by the Oorernar. H 38 the complaints of the citizens, and ailerwarda those of the Assembly itself, as to the com- position of the body of grand jurymen of this Court ; and, amongst many other grievances, as to the strange manner in which they conducted themselves, with respect to the indict- ments for libel, in order to bring them before the Court. And it is useless to state these considerations, or, for the moment, to dwell upon the subject. We must content ourselves with taking up the idea put forth by Mr. Stuart, in this part of the memoir, aa to the right of grand juries with reference to charges, which are the objects of their attention. Ha speaks of this as though he would exclude the right of a branch of the legislature — of the Assembly, watching over matters of this kind, in cases where grand juries may not exactly have complied with those strict rules, the observance of which can alone be the pledge of security, aa well on tibe part of the citizens as on that of the government. This would again be a constitutional doctrine of a novel description. Some parts of the report, made to Sir James Kempt, of which we have just spoken, would furnish subject matter for some important observations on the subject, as well as on the ex-offieio informations to which Mr. Stuart alludes, en pauant. But all the errors, into which Mr. Stuart has fallen, upon these different subjects— the grave offences which he had committed on these occasions, have been already the sub- ct of inqui^, examination, and of the report of a committee of grievances of the Assembly of Lower Canada, in the session commencing in November, 1828, and which terminated in March, 1829. It was on the report of this committee that the Assembly adopted the resolutions of the 4th of March, communicated to his excellency. Sir James Kempt, the then governor, by an address which they presented to him, praying him to take the wAote into hit eontid»ration, confidtntiy ruy%»g upon tk» hop* that tS$ mmoim which tht royal prerogative afforded his Mqjeity, and thane which the power and autho' rity with which hie Excellency was invettedfor the protection qf hit Mo^eity't fmthfut eubjectt in the province, would be employed for the purpose of remedyiv the ttSutee or for the renuvat qf'the eutjeete of complaint upon which thete reiolutionx were founded. That part of the third report particularly should be read, headed " Indiettnenlt for libel, and proteeutioni in respect of alleged offences committed at the last election. — Special Courts of Oyer and Terminer.— Seleetion ^ jurymen audreturniuff Meer qf the west- ward of Muntreal" , and the evidence on which this part of the report is founded, as well as those documents which supported it ; we may then be convinced that tlie conduct of the Attorney-General was even at this period inexcusable ; it has become much more so since. As to Mr. Stuart's menaces and violence at Sorel (William Henrjr) Election. Before discussing this part of the memoir, and those which immediately follow, it ia right to observe, that Mr. Stuart begins by what he calls some " explanations on this fourth head qfeffence" which he says are necessary, " in order that a just opinion qfit may be entertained." He says that '< on his receiving the appointment of Attorney-General, it was intimated to him, that it was deemed proper that he should represent the borough a/* William Henry as his predecessors in offK* generally had done." He also says, a little further on, that he bad been " It so happens, he says, that one of the voters (Camerere), against whom Allard, an indigent carter, gave evidence, had not taken the oath at the election. He conse- quently thought it fitting, no doubt, as auxiliary qfthe Court and of the grand juries, and as being charged with criminal prosecutions, to institute a prosecution for perjury against this Allard, and a true bill was found by the grand jury of this prolific Court of Oyer and Terminer in November 18i27. But this prosecution was never followed up, neither was it ever the object of enquiry by a petit jury. Cannot Mr. Stuart recollect that amongst the d;)po8itions of this AUard, which were sent to him, one of which charged this Camerere, there was one deposition or affidavit of this same Allard, given on thu morning followins; the day on which he had deposed against Camerere, by which he acknowledged that it was a mistake, and explained the motives which had led him into error, in accusing Camerere of having taken, in order to qualify him- self, an oath which he had not in fact taken ; and if this circumstance which might at first have escaped Mr. Stuart, is not the true reason which induced him to abstain from takinjT further proceedings; if this was not the real motive, it would remain for him to explain why he could have lost sight of an o£fence, which appeared to him at first of so grave a character ; and how it happened that his zeal could be so diminished and extinguished on the subject of this prosecution. The humble condition of this Allard, according to him, no doubt, rendered his depositions unworthy of attention, and wholly insufficient to admit of any prosecution for perjury, against those who were the objects of accusation. Be it so. But he, however, appeared to Mr. Stuart sufficiently worthy of confidence, to prefer, on the faith of his deposition, an indictment for subornation of perjury against Marcoux, one of the voters or partizans at the election of Sorel, in a contrary interest to his own ; and he cites the deposition of this same Allard, which he has placed in the appendix to the memoir, under the No. 11, as the foundation of this prosecution ; the indictment, in which case immediately follows under the number 12, found against Marcoux, by the grand jury of this Court of Oyer and Terminer, which had just pro- nounced AUard himself as perjured, and that, on the evidence of a person who was i 31 i 11 32 Srusecuted by Mr. Attoraey^leneral for the perjury which ho charged Marcoux with, aving induced bim to be gnilty of. It remains for uf to observe, that this prosecution ought not to have been, and in fact was no more followed up, than that which he instituted against Allard. Mr. Stuart does not seem to have needed a prival* proM' urt of King's Bench, when this special Court was extinct. These prosecutions, with the exception of that respecting Claprood, which became the object of a trial by a jury, terminated only in March, 1830, by a verdict acquitting the prisoners. In the mean time Mr. Stuart had endeavoured to have them decided by $peeial juries, a new mode, and one almost without example in Canada, in respect to offences prosecuted in the criminal Courts. The formation of this body of special jurors was again the subject of complaints as grave as they were just, on the part of the Assembly, in 1630. The inegularity, in the mode of selecting these jurymen, obliged the Court to reject them. Lastly, in March, 1830, the defendants caused another body of special jurors to be rejected, on account of irregularity. But, im- pressed with the desire of seeing the termination of these vexatious prosecutions, they consented, immediately after having obtained the opinion of the Court, to submit the cases to these same jurymen who, ultimately, acquitted them. And Mr. Stuart hokle himself retpontible for the reasons which induced him to institute and support these prosecutions ! These reasons should have been fully set fortli ; their force and justice should have been demonstrated. Has he done so? Could he do so ? Mr. Stuart had had, during nearly three years, time for useful reflections on this subject. He should have made some enquiries as to the pretensions of Gazaille other- wise St. Germain, to the right of suffrage, in respect of which he had taken the oath. We shall easily perceive, by the following article, what his own opinion is upon this subject, and still he could remain during this space of time, persuaded that in support- ing these prosecutions, he was discharging an obligation, an imperious duty! To say the least of it, he was in error; and if it was a mere error, it was not such a one as can excuse a public man. Before proceeding to another portion of our subject, we should call to our recollec- tion, that according to Mr. Smart's constitutional ideas, tlie right of jurymen in regard to the examination of cases submitted to their consideration, wuuld be absolutely ex- clusive. It would be a crime on the part of a branch of the legislature, of the Com- mons of a country, to give attention to their conduct, any more than to that of the • See again, in the report of tlio committco of gricTttnecs of 1829, how Ihesn nrosccullons were broucht before the couit by (he granO jury. ° 88 courta, with rGferonco to what hud uccurrod before them. They should bo regarded u» infullible, and, ubore all, inviolable. But theie proaecutionii hud been at firit rejected by a body of grand Jurymen. Mr. Stuart, a mere public functionary, took upon him> self to blame them, and to decide that they were wrong. Mr. Stuart again preiented l>ills in theie same cases before another body of jurymen, who at last found true bills. But the jury before whom the persons accused afterwards pleaded their cause, HcquittGd tiieni on the evidence of those even whom Mr. Stuart accuses otmalict and fatfhood, tngmdtrtd by a itrong duirt tf injuring him, Mrgtd to a $trong dur-n^. According to ihc statements found in two of the affiaavils, accompanying the me. , some of the persons who had made them were present at this trial. Speaking, however, in a legal and technical sense, a prosecution instituted accord- ing to the forms prescribed by our criminal law, is not a trial by witn»ii»$, hut a trial Ay jury ; those latter have themselves the right of forming a judgment as to these witnessoa, that is to say. it belongs tu them to weigh their testimony ; to balance the weight of the proof derived from them ; to reject that of those witnesses whom they consider unworthy of belief; to take as a guide for their dcciaiou that which seems to them worthy of it, in order to turn the scale in favour of, or agoiast the accused. The juries exercised this jurisdiction, which essentially belongs to- them, in many instances, with regard to these prosecutions, under the eyes, and without disap- proval on the part, of the judges. They found verdicts in favour of the accused, on proof, derived from depositions of those very witnesses opposed to that produced by Mr. Stuart. Nevertheless, after this solemn decision, emanating from a competent authority, Mr. Stuart treats these witnesses, by his memoir, as though they had been attaintod and convicted of the most iufamous corruption. Of the offence of liaviug induced certain unqubiijicd persons to take the oath at the Sorel election, and of the subornation of peijury. Before entering upon the discussion of this subject, I should first observe, that it is the portion of the memoir on which Mr. Stuart seems to have intended to bestow the greatest care, occupying, as it does, the greatest space in his work, and as to which ho has entered into tho minutest detail. It is also on this subject that he assumes the most peremptory tone. One would suppose, to bear him, that b6 taJces it for granted that one must be convinced of the fidelity of the picture he has drawn of the witnesses produced before the committee of the Assembly, when he has represented them as perverse men ; men carried away with such a violent desire to injure him, that they nave rendered themselves voluntarily guilty, in order to attain that end, of palpable falsehoods, the extravagance of which, happily for him, destroys their efiect Here again we cannot allow ourselves to suspect that this was no more than a dextrous tactic in order to conceal fear ; and that this i^ectation of confidence is a mere veil used to conceal the weakness of his own cause. One thing is certain ; which is, that this is the part of his memoir in which he has crowded at once Ae greatest number of these naked assertions,— suppositions given as established facts, proved and admitted ; whilst the facts themselves contradict them, and, above all, recrimina- tions which are not merely devoid of pretext. It seems as though he had been afraid of their effect ; and he confutes them, and would appear to have endeavoured to cri- minate rather than to justify himself. What I say, may, must appear extraordinary ; I allow it. I only ask one thing, which is. that I may not be condemned as guilty of exaggeration, before the picture, which it now becomes my duty to sketch, has been examined. I should observe, in the second place, that it is on this subject also that Mr. Stuart appeals in the most urgent manner to the depositions taken by affidavit, which lie has placed in the appendix annexed to the memoir, in ordurto oppose them to the evidence received before the committee of the House of Assembly. If these affidavit.s possessed in fact any real importance— if the depositions militated strongly against the facts proved before the committee of the Assembly — it would be proper to return to the considerations, which were lightly passed over in the preliminary remarks, with reference to the mode in which these sort of depositions by nffidavits are taken before the magistrate or the judge, and to dwell upon them, in order to compare it with the mode in which facts are established by witnesses under circumstances such as those in question, before a committee of a House of Commons, or be- fore the House itself. We wiH resume this train of thoughts, if on coming to the examination of that part of the appendix, in which these affidavits are found, it appears necessary. Here we must remark that, lest we should be persuaded, as Mr. Stuart, in fact, endeavours to persuade others, that those who may have found them- selves under the necessity of taking a part, whether active or passive, in the inquiry into his conduct, and in the necessary operations to the inquiry on this subject, peti- tioners, witnesses, members of the committee, those of the Assembly, the inhabitants of the whole country have conspired, united to ruin him, we shall agree that the mod 3 84 of inquiry, and particularly of intcrrogatisn ; thti facility of prsposing queiitioDS t«> the witnenacs, before the Commoua, or one of their cuinmittcea, on lubjecti of this nature, ia much better calculated to elecit the truth, to draw it from the months of the witnessea,— to place them in a condition to tell the whole troth without reserve, than that which is employed in the ordinary tribunals. It is, doubtless, particularly much C referable to the practice of receiving depositiona contained in i{ffidavtt*, drawn up eforehand in the closet, frequently by the party, or bis agents, interested in obtaining the desired evidence. These depositiona are almost always awom in private, without the presence of any other rcrson than the magistrate, if we except the party requiring ibem, or his inferiov agcrts, who usually go much further in obtaining evidence favourable to the cause Iney have espoused than the party himself would dare go. We must also remember, that these depositions are really taken tsparU. The duty of the magistrate, who receives the affidavit, is almost always purely passive. He con- fines iiinisclf to asking the witnesses if the deposition is true. He does not propose questions to them on each particular fact, nor on circumstances on which the witness's silence may induce us to look at the facts in quite a different light to that in which it would be necessary to present them, in order to place us in a situation to understand them perfectly, and to draw conclusions from them which would be consistent with the facts themselves. Concealment alone may have the effect of falsehood. On the other hand, he who has recourse to this sort of proof, chooses witnesses with u view to foster an interest which has not always for object to elicit the whole truth merely. Even supposing the deponent to be entirely free from all prejudices, he is necessarily less on his guard, in simply swearing to a deposition written beforehand, than when he finds himself before a tribunal where he is subject to bo interrogated by different persons who may not share his opinions ; who mav entertain views differ- ing from liis own ; and before whom he may fear committine himself. None of these considerations can operate against him who deposes by affidavit. How would it be, if, in a case of this kind, the witness were a prey to prejudices similar to those entertained by the person soliciting his evidence ; influenced by analogous feelings ; animated by the same passions 7 If, in fact, in giving his evidence, he felt that he was forwarding his own interests, and that it was a means, by justifying an accused, of acquitting himself from the suspicion of crime ? It may be conceived that the danger of error, arising from this concealment, from infidelity even, would be much more immi- nent, if the witnesses were persuaded that their depositions were intended to be used as cti'^ence, not on the spot, where the truth or falsehood of the statements or circum- stances might be easily made apparent, but in another hemisphere, where these illusions or disguise, — falsehood even, — could not have any bad result from the cir- cumstance that it would be nearly impossible to discover it. These considerations, and others of a similar character, might be greatly multiplied ; but it would be too much to dwell more upon them at this time, since we shall see that with all these advantages, the agents who employed themselves in Mr. Stuart's favour, ha« ' .lot been able even to prove anything which is calculated in the slightest degree to weaken the evidence received before the committee of the Assembly. It should be here remarked, that in the discussion of this part of the subject, the order which Mr. Stuart prescribed for himself, has as much as possible been carefully followed, although it may not be the one most favourable to the developement of the observations which this part of the memoir are necessarily calculated to call forth. But in the first place, I shall not deserve reproach for having, by changing this order, and separating his arguments, endeavoured to weaken them ; to cause the order in which he has himself presented them, with the intention that they may produce the greater effect, and possess that force, which by the mode in which he expresses himself he would seem to imagine invincible, to be lost sight of. I only desire that I may not bo reproached for the length and repetition which must be the effect of this mode of discussion. If it is fastidious, it will have the advantage at least of being the most straight forward plan, and of presenting the facts in such a manner as to have nothing -'-.to fear from complaints on the part of Mr. Stuart. Nevertheless, on the other hand, it should be observed, that the facts will be found placed in a light sufficiently clear to assure us of being enabled to draw just conclusions from them ; and on this part of the discussion, particularly, to leave nothing to desire, in order to justify the Assembly, on the one hand, and on the other, to call down upon the head of the accused the whole weight of the accusation for an offence; proved, not by evidence alone, but by his own avowals. Mr. Stuart begins, on this part of the subject, by returning to new suggestions with reference to the extraordinary assumption of power on the part of the Assembly. He complains of the feeling of injustice which he experiences on seeing himself the object of an imputation, brought to his charge in an unjust and arbitrary manner. The laws of the land, as to him, have been virtually suspended. The safeguards provided for the security of men's persons, reputatii)n,and fortunes, have, in this proceeding of the Assembly against him, been disregarded and rendered of no avail. Lastly, speaking again of this assumption of authority, he adds, that the offence of which the Assembly has taken upon itself to convict him, is that of suborna- tion of perjury. He is charged with it for "having, at the election o/Sorel, induced certain nmssR tUclor$, who wtre not quali/itd, to lakf tht oalh$ wual on tuck oco^wnf, uttkoiigk that thoH ifuhyidualt wtrt not quiiiyie4" He is, at we avaiii obierye, inceuuitly occupied with U ; it if the joriadiction, which, aa we have seen, is at firat bronght in qaedtion in th« dJMuiaition qn hia nieana of defence upon thia subject. He K^ds that he Uiu not w^ V (*» name$ oftht uveral inmiduaU, with the lubornation of whom it might be Muppond the Auemblu meant to ciarge him ; and he And* the name of one individual only," it ia that of OazaUle, otherwiae St. Germain, who he in fact mentiona a little A^ar on, and on this subject he complaina of the •■' lingular facility in' the imrnUation af(^«m ta km." .... "that one $uppoied act of $uborniftioti in (Ac evidence ihould be multiplifdinto ttveral ia the fharge and eonvietian qf the J^ftembhf." We have before seen that the great uarober of fajse oaths which were taken at the isfection, could not have been taken but after the oath taken by St. Germain, who voted, aa Mr. Stuart remarks, at an earfif hour; be voted in fact on the second day of thia election. Hence we may see that Mr. Stuart continuea to mistake the nature of the charge brought against him. It is not founded on an isolated aot of penury, althou^ the aasembly have quoted St. Germain'a oath merely, the falsehood of which, whatever hia intention may have been, is proved ; but uoon the error into which this example, and the repeated conversations ot Ht. Stuart led the electors, and determined them on committing a similar fault. Mr. Stuatt reasons on this part of the subject u he haa done on all the others. In combating this fact, he persuades himself that the charge would be unsupported. Here he is in error. I should at the aame time add that even in confining himself to looking at the thing in this point of view, however limited It may be, very far from having Ibrnished proof or even probability of his innocence, he accuses himself, by the picture be b^ traced. Let us now come to facts. 1st. According to Mr. Stuart's account, in the memoir, " He waa met on the aecond day of the election, in the moriung, when in the act of proceeding alone, from hit lodging! to the poll, by Francois Qazaille dit St. Germain, whom he had n^ver teen btfore, and who informed him that he had come to offer him his vote." It was on the second day of the election, in the morning. It was at an early period of the election. These are important points. Let us now see how the facts, with re- ference to this subject, are confirmed by the affidavits produced by Mr. Stuart himself, for his justification. Mr. Stuart Aad nt^ver teen thit man before. Mr. Jones, however, whose affidavit is produced by Mr. Stuart, after having declared that « St, Germain told the deponent, the day before he voted that he intended to vote for the laid Jamet Stuart, and grounded hit i ight to vote on a reservation, which he taid he had made in a deed of gift to hit ton, of a houie im the borough, by which he had reserved to himself the usufruct for hit lift of two apartments in the house," adds the following expressly, " that he, deponent, also knows that the taid St. Germain, before he gave his vote, went to the lodgings of the taid Jofiiet Stuart, to consult lam as to his right to vote under this reservation," Doctor Von Iflwd> the principal witness among those who gave these affidavita in ffkvo^QT of Mr. Stuart, deposes that, " on th/t first day of the election, being the 20urt of a houit or house; and landt, in Ikt boroufh, of tht «kolt oj'whith hi had txecuttd a dttd ofgifi to hit ton, lubfttl to the rtitrvalioti oj a lift ulalt 1 upon Ihii ituttmtnt bt. Utrmain wa$ told, by tht pttitiotur, that h» had a right to vott,* and that hit vote wmtd bt gladly aectpttd." Wt muii rtmembtr, " that ht had utn kim tlttvhirt at will at at tht poll ;" however, St. Germain sweari, ai we have Men, " that he dott not recollect having ever tpoken to him be/ore giving him hit vote, and it wai at tht poll that ht informed him oJ hit right to vote ; ntithtr aoet he rtmembtr to havt tpoktn to him tinci." Here ia again a very remarkable difference between Mr. Stuart'a expoaition and the dedarutiuna under uath of tboao whoae aiBdavita he prodiiceH with reference to the reaerved eatate, in roapect oi' which St. Germain imagined that his right of auflVage coold be supported. According to the aflSdavita of Messrs. Jonct and Von Ifland, St Germain, who had referred to Mr. Jonea for the truth of the fact, declares that the life eatate consisted of lire apartmtntt in a houtt. According to Mr. Stuart, it wan in respect of the life estate in a hmut, or houtit, or landt. As to St. Germain, he does not idlnde in the remotest degree in his affldavit to explanations, either with Mr. Stuart, Mr. Jones, or Mr. Von Ifland. We must even infer, from his deposition, that he could not have had any with Mr. Stuart. Let us now observe, that Mr. Stuart frequently complains in the memoir, with a bitterness which rebounds upon the returning officer, that the electors who came np to vote for his opponent, were iitiltrattand extrtmely tjfnoranf,— epithets which are found •gain in tb« affidavits of Mr. Jones and Mr. Von Ifland. Now, St. Germain was well known to these latter, to whom Mr. Stuart, say they, frequently referred at to tht qua- lifieationt q/'thevottri : and St. Germain declares, l»y his affidavit, that ho cannot liffn hit nomt: and according to Mr. Stuart's own account, he can neither read nor trrttt. Doubtless ho was neither a Mttrrnt nor a Itarntd man. He could hardly be acquainted with the delicate distinctions which may present themselves with reference to the nature of this supposed right, in order to confer upon him or to deprive him of the right of voting, by virtue of tho act of parliament quoted in the memoir. According to him, it wat at tht pott that Mr. Stuart told him that he viae entitled to vote. If it happened whilst on his way to the poll, as Mr. Stuart states it to hav« been in the memoir, tho interview would not have been of long duration. The explanation, according to tho terms of the memoir, iros ihort. According to Messrs. Jones and Von Ifland, tho reservation of the life estate was in respect of . to his son. This, then, by Mr. Stuart's account, was the point in dispute. Mr. Stuart would have answered to tiiis objection, that the fact of this reservation tea* never called in quettion. If any doubt had been exprened a» to the fact of the reservation having bean tnade, he would have required St. Germain to produce hit title. It was acquiesced in. Ont thing ia quite certain, which is, that the fact of the reservation wat admitted. Mr. Stuart lays great stress upon this, as a means of defence. He insists at length, and pertina- ciously upon this point. He pretends that the witnesses have suppressed it in their testimony, and tluit, according to his account, with iniquitous views. He seizes this opportunity of formally imputing to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, candidate, and o(A«r«, who, he says, were among this candidate' t friends and partisans, two of whom are still under a charge of perjury, and subornation of perjury, a mali- cious faheh'wd. We have already seen what shoidd be thought of this description of insults so pro- digally bestowed, as well as of the accusatA<>n.<> against some of the witnesses. But here we may feel astonished that the insults have not even the shadow of a pretence ; that this reproach, if it had any foundation, recoiif: entirely on Mr. Stuart himself. True, there is not a word in the evidence of the committee which can substantiate the fact of this reservation having been acquiesced in ; but the contrary. The question turned merely on an alienation, without reference to any reservation. Mr. Stuart asserts boldly that it is a voluntary and criminal suppression. But if it be a criminal suppression, what are we to think of Mr. Stuart, who should himself be guilty of this kind of suppression, in his eyes, of so criminal a nature ? We have already seen what should be thought of the affidavits produced by him ; we shall soon see more, — that those who undertook to draw them up, have now and then, in order to serve bis II 38 (Mr. Stuart'd) cause^ puthed thoir aoal even beyond indiBcretion, if indeed the witnesses thfedisetved hav6 not done so. No mention whatever has ever been made of this lact in thd ttffldatifs ; ftot et«h in that of St. Germain ! And. nevertheless, those who, beriide^ this latter, hatft deposed on the subject of the election, Messrs Welles, Yon tfland, and JotUM, Were, by their own account, daily at the election ; were likewise at the poll. W<» may see that they took an active part in it ; notwithstanding which, not one of them deposeit ib this pretended fact. Lststly, tilt. Stttbrt had under his eyes the evidence given before the committee by Ml*. Crebntsa ((he returning officer), notary, wo had executed as well St. Germain's deed as those of Aussant, and others, prosecuted by Mr. Stuart for periunr, and acquitted. It is this Mr. Crebassa, notary (returning officer), who produced before the colnmitteo the two tiUe-deeds of Aussant and St Germain, which form a part of the report. HiM of St. Germain contaius no reservation, nor does that of Aussant. He deposes thai St. Germuh, as Well as Aussant, " had made dtuiatim of all bis property without nsfrve:", . .."that if he had not been the returning officer, he ihould have told them not to vo^f." Lastly, he thought when St. Germain presented himself to vote, " that he coutd not take the oath without petjuring hinuelf." And Mr. Stuart never even thought of proving the fact of the leCtiprocal acquiesceuce ia this reservation, which he cites as being, in his eyes, of so mncn importance, that ha considers it alone sufficient for his fUitiffcaftoin, and an infallible means of triumph over witnesses, his enemies bent upon histtin! Mr. Sttiart pretends that the fact stated by the witnesses is incredible. It may appear somewhat incredible that he could himself have lost sight of tiie necessity of proving a fact, upon which he relies, for charging these witnesses with a voluntary and mali- tioiis suppression of truth ; which, if it were in fact a suppression, was effected by Germain is, as we have seen, an illiterate man. According to Mr. Stuart's avowal, he can neither read nor right. Let us now come to his own deposition. We must, however, above all, remark, that he is seventy-nine years of age. This is an advanced age. It is possible that the memory may not be either very strong, or very exact, at this age. None of these considerations checked Mr. Stuart's friends, who even inspired him with an entire confidence in his deposition, — a confidence which he expre&aes without bounds. Let us now sec what should be thought of this document. We have seen, by the affidavits just alluded to, that St. Germain was desirous of voting for Mr. Stuart. He spoke to Mr. Von Ifland of his intention, and of the re- servation in respect of which he founded his pretension to the right of suffrage. This latter advised him to take Mr, Stuart's advice, St. Germain had since told him that he had been to take Mr. Stuart's opinion. Mr. Jones, to whom he had also applied, and who had given him similar advice, knows that he had been to consult Mr. Stuart at his lodgings. St. Germain had also had conversations with Burke of a similar nature to those with Mr. Jones and Von Ifland. Lastly, according to Mr. Stuart, he had had a s1u>rt ex- planation, with St. Germain, on going to the poll. Here is evidence sufficiently specific upon this subject. What are we to think now, when we reflect, that not one word of all this is to be found in this affidavit? A conversation with Mr. Nelson, and with Mr. Nelson only, is mentioned in it upon the subject of the reservation in question ! First, we must remark, that he begins, in this affidavit, by mentioning the contract in which should have been found the reservation of which we have spoken, in such a manner as to induce us to think that ho has a most retentive memory, without, however, pointing out more than a life estate in one or other of two houses. But no mention is made of* lands, as in the explanations given, according to the memoir, to Mr. Stuart, nor of li 40 turn apartments onfy, as in the affidavits of Messrs. Jones and Von Ifland. Immediately after he introduces Mr. Nelson, who, he says, camo to him on the evening of thejirst day of the election to lolieit hit vote and to whom he stated that he had a reservation, and who told him that he had a right to vote, and that if '^anu difficulty wat made about it at the poll, he would toon put an end to it." He adds, " that he did: not promise Mr. Nelson to vote for him." What does he do ? Continuing by adding that having mvde up hit mind to vote for the said Jamet Stuart, it might be suppused that be is about to allude to those consultations or explanations with Messrs. Jones, Von Ifland, and Burke, or with Mr. Stuart. He did not apparently feel the necessity of this ; having made up hit mind. However, in order the better to satisfy himself, he says, as to his right of voting, and to obtain advice upon this subject, he went to Mr. Henry Crebassa, before whom the deed of gift had been executed, that in which should have been found this reservation. Mr. Crebassa " refused to give him any in- formation or advice on the subject." It might be thought that, at that time, he must have been desirous of taking the advice of the other deponents, or of Mr. Stuart. It seems to me that he should, at least, say something as to the explanations which he bad had with them upon this subject, in order to take a decided part. The contrary is the case. Mr. Crebassa refused to advise him. Upon this, he again immediately dejmses that he left him confirmed in the belief of his right to vote! Ills conclusion does not flow from the pre- mises. But, lastly, be immediately adds, that he went to the poll to give his vote! that * when Mr. Henry Crebassa asked him for whom he would vote, he declared himself desirous of giving it to Mr, Staart. This is not all. Arrived at the poll, an altercation took place, during which he with- drew from the table : he returned soon after. We should think thut it was the alTair of a moment, that he withdrew from the table, in order to return again almost immediately. He does not make any mention of the removal of the poll to another house, a fact upon which the witnesses produced before the committee agree, and it is affirmed by Mr. Stuart. Neither does ho speak of the explanation which Mr. Stuart mentions to have had with him, on coming to this new poll. He had retired from the table: he returned a short time ajierwards, and took (he says) the oath of qualification to entitle him to vote, in the sincere and firm belief' that the said deed of gift contained the reservation in question. This is not enough in bis opinion, to convince us of his sincerity on this occasion ; he adds that this belief still exists firmly in his soul and conscience : * it should be ob- served that he again adds that he took the oath voluntarily, and of his own free will and accord. He seems to have considered these reiterated affirmations necessary in order to come to this declaration, that it was the said Crebassa, who put the Holy Evangelists into hit hand to kiss ! Who would think that he was otherwise than satisfied op what HE HAD SAID IN ORDBR TO ATTEST THE WILLIN0NR8S WITH WHICH HIi TOOK THE OATH. One cannot divine what scruple annoys him upon this subject. Again he deposes " that he did not hesitate to kiss the Holy Evangelists," and the reason is, he says, because " Itefelt no repugnance whatever to taki: the oath, being convinced that he had a right to do so, in virtue of the laid reservation." Again he gives another reason ; it was not in consequence of Mr. Stuart* s explanations, nor on account of his conversation witli Messrs. Jones, Von Ifland, and Burke, still less on account of that with Mr. Crebassa, on whose refusal to advise him he left, " convinced of his right to vote." Mr. Nelson is now again introduced : he was " convinced," he says, that ne " had a right to take the oath, havine already, at the solicitation of Mr. Nelson, voted in favour of two members jor the county of Richelieu, in which the said Borough (of William Henry) is situated," But be does not mention when this occurred. After swearing thus formally, and repeatedly as to the freedom with which he took the oath entirely of his own accord; as to the absence of all hesitation, of all repugnance whatever to take it, we may easily conceive that he is, as he declares, "positive in affirming, upon his oath, that the said James Stuart never touched his hand for the purpose ofptcdng it on the Holy Evangelists." Such are the subjects upon which his memoir is perfectly faithful. Then he immediately adds, and one can hardly tell why, that " he thinks that one Burke was present ;" he is the only one whom he remembers ; this is worthy of remark ; " but does not recollect the names of the other persons." But he is also wt3ll acquainted with the annual value of the houses, which he imagines were included in the reservation. Then he swears " that he has never spoken to the said James Stuart since he voted for him, and does not recollect to have ever spoken to him before." Hence it may be asked, how Mr. Stuart could have taken upon himself to assure bim that he had a right to vote, and to take the oath required of him, in order to qualify himself? And yet he swears "that the said James Stuart, at the noil, told the deponent that, on the life-estate which he had reserved to himself, he clearly had a right to vote." * Bom* of the word* whiuh are to be fuuiid hor«, luch >i " in hit tout and eoHtelenee," &c. are not to be fonnd in the Irinilition of the original affldavit of St, Germain, which la in Frencli ; both the original and trtniU- tion being contained in the appendix lo Mr. Stuart'a memoir, we wtiro guidrd by the original. 41 To crown this chef-d'ceuvre of an af lavit, he says, " that he ii *mentynine yeart nid;" and this is a preface to another fact, to which he swears, saying, that "he »» »« the full enjoyment of hit facultiee, and in aood health." We may conceive, that an explanation of this kind, as to the state of his faculties, and of his health, was im- portant, and still more so that which follows, the necessity of which we shall feel, after what we have seen of the use he makes of his faeultiet: "he reeolleeU perfectly," he says, " all that took place at the taid election, tn the year one thoutand eight hundred and twenty-twen, when he gave hit vote." He makes no exception ; after which he again declares, that "he hat no other motive for making thit €hfmtition than the detire to render homage to truth and juttice." What homage? We cannot be surprised now to see him conclude by declaring " that he cannot tign kit name.'" One cannot be astonished, that the magistrate who received this deposition, sur- prised, as he must have been, at its contents, should, as he remarks at the bottom of the deposition, have taken the trouble of reading and explaining it to the witness before administering the oath to him. Who could have been otherwise than struck with its strange contents'? And how could a man " tn the enjoyment of all hit faeul- tiet" have signed it after these explanations, supposing even he was in as good liealtb as he declares himself to have been? It is this affidavit, however, that Mr. Stuart confidently opposes to the evidence received before the Committee ? This confidence is explained, when we consider Mr. Stuart's repeated assertions as to the irregularity— the pretended nullity of the proof received before the committee, under the pretence that it had not been given with the sanction of an oath ! If the doctrine which he pretends to support ttaroaghont the memoir were well-founded ; if this evidence were actually void, on account of its not having been taken upon oath ;^ie was not in want of the single affidavit of St. Ger- main. He should even have perceived that, far from serving his cause, a deposition of so strange a nature was only calculated to give it an air of ridicule, and to deceive him who would endeavour to rely on it. I think I have now shown, not only by undeniable proof, but even according to Mr. Stuart's own avowal, that his conduct, with reference to St. Germain's vote and oath, la inexcusable. It may, however, be said with truth, that it may still be htoked at in a point of view calculated to make more apparent, if possible, the exactness of the conclusions which flow from the facts that I have staled, and place in a still clearer light, the truth and the justice of the observations which relate to this portion of the memoir. We must now be convinced tbmt the reports of the Assembly by no means relate to ordinary oiTences ; to the faults of an individual ; to insulated traits in his conduct : and it is now alike impossible not to see that it is the tout ensemble of this conduct, which we must examine, and which it is necessary to consider in a light proportionate to its extent ; to the importance of the functions with which ho was invested. I wish to confine myself now, to consider the complaints of the Assembly upon this part of the case, in no other way than as they bear upon the other steps taken by Mr. Stuart, which are immediately connected with the subject of accusation in question in this part of the memoir. The truth of tlic remark I made a short time since, must in truth be felt ; that even had Mr. Stuart furnished proof of many of the facts which he states gratuitously, for the purpose of justifying himself, the accusation on the part of the Assembly, with reference to this particular subject, would not be less completely made out. In fact, what are we to say of Mr. Stuart's proceedings on this occasion, if we consider them in connection with his conduct during; the election; and with that he afterwards observed, during nearly three years, with reference to the electors of Sorel (William Henry), by instituting and supporting, with a constancy worthy of a better cause, the prosecutions for perjury which he had directed against them in the criminal courts ? It must be borne in mind that these are the steps of an Attorney-General, who exercises exclusively in the province the functions of prosecutor in the courts ; that he is the auxi- liary articularly that of the Attorney General, witli reference to these prosecutions. The result of the in- quiries of the assembly, and of the evidence submitted to it, was that no circumstance could justify the necessity of these special courts of Oifer and Terminer generally, but above all, that far from instituting in these courts prosecutions for the purpose of deli- vering the prisons if they were crowded, the Attorney General, who had probablv re- quired that this Court should be held, and whose opinion on this subject must have had the greatest weight, employed himself, as we have already observed, principally in carrying on prosecutions in respect of offences which do not lead to the necessity of detaining in prison him who is t' object of them, if he can give bail fur his appear- ance, which was done by those vho were accused ot offences, more particularly in question. The assembly then complained, as it has done this year, of the Attorney General's partiality and injustice in the exclusive choice which he made of those who belonged to the party opposed to that to which he was attached, or who had acted in an interest directly opposed to his own, in order to carry on prosecutions against them. Tho House reproached him for having brought before this special Court of Oifer and Terminer of November, 1827, the same prosecutions as those which had been rejected by the grand jury of the Court of King's Bench two months before, llie House com- plained, with too much reason, of the manner in which the body of grand jurymen of this special court was composed ; parUy of persons, who had acted a very warm part in the election of Montreal, the most important election of the district in which Sorel (William Henry) is situated, and at which these jurymen had asted in the same interest as that to which Mr. Stuart was himself attached, and in which he was sup- ported by the active steps of the governor, who had, as we have seen acted in concert with biro, in furtherance of his election. " The foreman of this grand jury had himself been one of the warmest partisans of the unsuccessful candidates, and found, in conjunction with his brethren, bills for offences imputed to those who had ac^ed in opposition to his wishes, and to the party to which he had been attached at this election, which had been warmly contested. This foreman was one of the ver^ persons alleged to have been assaulted by some of the accused parties. In fine, the grand jurymen of this Court were not all of them even entitled to exercise all the rights of a citizen, [citoyens actifs,] some of them had not even any real property." But for the fear of prolonging this discussion, we might remark with what irregu- larity, not to use a harsher expression, proceedings were taken at different tiroes, in * There are no axiiei or eireailt for erimloKl buslneii in Lower Canadi, In the exteniive dlitrieti of Qoebeo and Montreal there are, In each year, two termi, durlnir which tho Court of King'i Bench ii oeeapled ■oleljr in criminal mallera. In the other termi, thit court can exerciie Juriidielion in civii maltera onljr. 48 order to brinff these prosocutions before the Court ; and a pictaM would be drawn cal- culated to offer a vast field for painful reflections ; but in coi^ning ourselves now t6 tbe consideration of that which has reference to prosecutions carried on against the Eretended peijurcrs of Sore], we must remember, as we before remariusd, that after aving removed these prosecutions from the ipecio/ court ofOifer and TtnuHer to that of the Court of Kind's Bench by ctrtiorari, the accused were harassed, during more than two years ; obliged to return from term to term, and lastly, alter having caused to be rejected two jury panels, on account of the irregularity of their selection, they consanted to submit their cases to one of these bodies of jurymen, and were acquitted by them in March, 1630. But during a period of nearly three years, the Attorney-General had had time for some reflection. He could, and should, have thought of the necessity of obtaining some precise information, on the one hand, as to the pretensions to the right of suffrage, upon which he had advir ed St. Germain to vote and to take the oath ; on the other, as to the motives wiiich might have caused the defendants to fall into an innocent error, for which he pretended to punish them as for a crime, meriting the stamp of infomy, though it was his own work. Did the slightest doubt never, during so great a length of time, suggest itself to his mind, as to the propriety or justice of prosecutions which must appear to him at least rigorous ? On tbe contrary, he persisted for years in steps which could, in fact, be regarded by the public in no other light than that of a vident propensity and effort to turn the administration of justice into an instrument of perse- cution and personal vengeance. Once more, if this was a mere error on the part of Mr. Stuart, an error at once altogether pa^>ablo, and of so serious a nature — a heedlessness of such long duration, on the part of a man who performed ftanctions of so important a character, posse88e.4 of itself and independently of every motive which might render it less guilty in an individual, all the characters of gravity sufficient t» support the accusations laid to his charge by the Assembly of Lower Canada — most assuredly, far from weakening them by his memoir, he has evidently added motives calculated to justify the Assembly in having taken those steps which they took against him. OBSERVATIONS ON MR. STUART'S MEMOIR. PART Tllli TfllRO. REMARKS ON THE APPENDIX. No. I.— As to the report to Sir Jamei Kempt, made the 13th of Augast, 1330, Mr. Stuart's answers to the charge brought against him for having persisted in instituting and sustaining, in certain courts, prosecutions in respect of minor offences, which should have been carried on in those of the quarter sessions, have been discussed with some care in the course of those observations. It has been clearly shown, I think, that Mr. Stuart, far from having given satisfactory explanations of his conduct in this particular, has, on the contrary, by the manner in which he has endeavoured to defend himself, somewhat added to, instead of diminishing, the weii^ht of the accusation which pressed upon him. Neither can it be explained what could have been his motive for placing, at the head of the appendix to his memoir, his report to Sir James Kempt, of tbe 13th of August, 1830, which furnishes new arguments against him. This report shows, that on the 5th of May preceding, the Governor had caused to be transmitted to him the extract of a report of the executive council of the 31st of May, 1823, which contained recommendations framed at that time mth a view to diminish the expend of the administration of justice in criminal matters. It was then an inconvenience already felt for a number of years preceding; Mr. Stuart does not pretend that he was, that he could be, a stranger to this report of the executive council ; his answers to this portion of the accusations of the Assembly are a proof to the contrary. It has also been seen by his answers, that the views of the executive government were conformed to in the district of Quebec, whilst these recommendations were without effect in that of Mon- treal. Mr. Stuart, instead of justifying himself— instead of himself pointing out some step for the purpose of obliging the Clerk of the Peace at the Quarter Sessions of Montreal to do there what they did at Quebec— contents himself with pointing out the '' nature of the expenccs incurred in the district of Montreal, the economy which might be observed there also in this respect, and the means of insuring it. Why did he not take the means of dirainiahing these expences, and of observing the economy in question'? M 44 In point of fact, he loses sight of the principal object, that on which it was bis duty, as well an his interest, to show that he was free from blame. Besides these recommendations of the executive council, and other steps oik the part of the gOTem- mont, the grand juries of the district of Montreal made, as we have seen, on their part, for years past, presentments upon this subject We observe by tiie memoir, that Mr. Stuart exercised, like his predecessors, a monopoly in fact, with respect to the prose- cutions instituted in the criminal ooarts. He was* charged with institnting and proie- cuting them. He was, by his own avowal, the auxUiary of the courte and of Ike grand jurUi. These latter complained, flrom year to year, oi the abase in question, which was his own viork. It was surely in his power to remedy it. He might and should have attempted it. lie should, upon seeing these presentments, have shown that in fact he had endeavoared to remedy the evil. It does not seem either by this report, or by the memoir, that he even felt the necessity of justifying himself upon this anb> ject. Again, all that can be found upon this subject in this report made to Sir James Kempt, are observations as vague as those which we have seen in the answers to this bead of the accusations of the Assembly. Mr. Stuart again contents himself with speaking generally of the duty of the Clerks of the Peace to cany on themselves these prosecutions before the Quarter Sessions. How was it that the Clerii of the Peace at Montreal dared to take upon himself to do it, when the Attorney-General alone, exercising the power of carrying on before the other courts prosecutions in criminal matters, took them np in order to institnte then elsewhere ? Can it be thought that this Clerk of the P mlttee. He doea not merely say that hla answer was to this effect ; he swears posi- tively, and it must be thought, when we observe the formality of bis expiasalons on tbia sabjMl, that these are the precise terms, word for word, used by bim in ilviof bia avideww bafora the Committee. We And no explanation upon tbia subject nanca, bow •!• wa la think, that a man who almost immediately alter giving bia evidence^ falbliM so gtMa an error as to the sense of a passage ; of a single sentence ; very s h a ft, and renoita h In a different sense, could after more than two months, femambsr practoaly, an mif and so complicated an answer? There would be something myate- rloua in tbia. The Doctor was evldonlty led away by hla excessive leal. Beaidaa, this soppoaed long answer would have reference to conversations with St. Ckmain, belbre or during the election, and since, upon the reservation of the Ufa •Btato npon which he voted and took the oath. This is a repetition, with soma ad- dition, of what la found in the Doctor's first affidavit, but adding nothhig impovtant to What he bad already said upon this subject. We should here again observe, that it was Doctor Von Ifland who dictated hia Mtawen to tiia clerk of the committee, by whom they « ?re taken down. It was fo* by* to sae that it waa correctly taken d-^wn. These depositions are always read over to the witoesaes, in order to ascertain that they contain no errors, and in order that he OMiy owieot them, if be find any, before they are considered as completed, for the pnr- paae of forming a portion of the report. Can it be supposed, that the committee de- viated axMassW from this rule, from a constant habit, with the view of suppressing the truth f What motive could induce the committee to be guilty of such an act,— an act equally contrary to the laws of morality and tlie principles of honour ? But the answer which he pretends to have given to the committee, has not even any connec- tion with the question proposed. Again, he might have had it in writing, — have cansed it to be added to his deposition, if it had been omitted. Lastly, we have seen that, according to his account, he had beard pretended falsehoods spoken of, or sup- pressions, which he declares to have occurred in taking down his answers immediately after his examination. He swears that, if ho did not petition the Assembly, for the pmrpose of asking of them permission to rectifv his errors, it was becauH the leuion wm too far advanced ; and the session did not terminate for mere than a month after thia period. It may now be asked, what confidence can be placed in the deposition, by qfidanit. of a man capable of so far straining levity, to use no harsher term, as to give, under the sanction of an oath as true, facts such as these ? Besides, after the observations which have been already made, on that part of Mr. Stuart's memoir which relates to the oath taken by St. Germain, of what weight can this tirade of the Doctor's be ; and his declarations, as to his conversations with St. Germain, with respect to the stipulation for this reservation, which is not even found in the deed upon which St. Germran pretended to rest bis rif;ht of voting 1 How coald the innocence, or the error, of this man be urged in Mr. Stuart's favour after charges brought and prosecuted, during a period of nearly three years, against thoae pretended perjurers of Sorel, who were led by St. Germain's example ; who had, m foot, resolved to vote, and to take the oath, in consequence of the opinion given by Mr. Stuart himself? In fine, of what importance can Dr. Von Ifland's deposition be now, after the avowals of Mr. Stuart, who could go the length of inducing this Saint Germain to vote, and to take the oath upon thin right, a right arising out of a deed which be had not seen ; out of a reservation which is not to be found in it, — out of an undefined stipulation, which, even supposing that the deed contained such a reser- vation, would not have ensured this right of suffrage ? We may also know, after what we have already seen of the extreme treachery of Doctor Von Ifland's memory, what must be thought of that part of his affidavit which relates to that which, according to him, be had said of those alleged to have been sent, by a Mr/. Schiller, to Sorel: and particularly of the aflBdavit which Mr. Stuart, in the letter of the 8d of June, 1880, testified a desire of obtaining from Mr. Crebassa. If we are to believe Doctor Von Ifland, Mr. Stuart told him that this qjffidavit " had bten prepared at Mr. Crebatsa't desire, when at Montreal, and that he had called on the S€fid James Stuart to swear to the said affidavit ; but had been prevented from doing so, bv finding him too much engaged to be spoken to." Mr. Von Ifland further deposes, that " Mr. Crt- boisa declined making the satd affidavit, when required to do so at William Henri/, not on the ground of any inaccuractf in the said affidavit, but because, as he stated, his brother and ton were umtUUi^ that he should make the said affidavit, and had told him not to do so." m'r Laatly. Mr. Von Ifland adds, * litU* Airthw on, " that with rupict to thii fropoud tMdmit of the taid Mr. Cnbaua, a$ well at two or thru others, he received a letter from me laid Jame$ Stuart, amtainir^ the inttructioiu under which the taid affidavitt were to be taken, which letter he aimexed to hit qffidinit, and to which he referi." We have one mora remark to make with nfennce to thia subject, which is, that Mr. Von Ifland haTini " tn compliance with the taid letter, renewed hu remiett to the taid Mr. Crebatta, to be informed whether he would make the taid qfidavit, and, if not, that he would ttate hit reason for not doing to; he wat told fry Mr. Crebatta, that he would make hit own affidavit, ana tend it down to the taid Jamet Stuart." This affidavit, like the others, which had been sent to him, was intended to oppose to ihefalte declarationt which had, according to him, been made during the trial mAut- eant for perjury, with reference to the conduct of the taid Jamet Stuart, at Sorel. But we have the affidavits of Messrs. Schiller and OkUI Stuart, upon this subject. It follows, that notwithstanding this pretended desira on the part of Mr. Crebassa, his promise to give this affidavit, he no more gave it than did he give his reasons for not{ having done so, as he was required. According to Mr. Von Ifland, it was his intention to send one of his own framing to Mr. Stuart ; he did not pretend, then, to sign and swear that which had been drawn up by Mr. Stuart, and it is, nevertheless, by affi- davits such as these, that we should apparently persuade ourselves, that this docu- ment in which is found Mr. Crebassa's name, to which the title of affidavit has been given, destroys the efiect of the evidence given by Mr. Crebassa before the Committee, and can militate strongly against the depositions given by the other witnesses. What ideas I What pretension ! We may again see what reliance should be placed upon the deposition of Doctor Von Ifland, when he deposes, that he did not say before the Committee that Mr. Stuart threatened the electort : that he did not ute violence. Does he, like Mr. Stuart, pretend that physical force was meant ? He deposes also, that the word alteration was used, instead of additions. He says, that he did not depose that there had been a rofuMl to sign certain affidavits ; that what he said upon this subject alluded only to Mr. Crebassa. He pretends that he is made to say, in the deposition taken before the Committee, that Mr. Stuart used wordt injurious to Mr. Crebatta ; whilst, he had only declared, that Mr. Stuart had said, that Mr. Crebassa acted ttupidlif, expressions which would, ac- cording to Doctor Von Ifland, be apparently civil. Lastly, according to Mr. Von Ifland, he is made to say, in the deposition taken before the Committee, that Mr. Stuart " had threatened Mr. IVelletlhat he would complain (fhim to the governor, whereat the Deponent had stated that Mr. Stuart relied on the as» sistanee of Mr. Welles being agent of the seignory ....... and finding that Mr. Welles ab- sented himself from the poll. . . . he remonstrated with him on hit conduct ; intitted that he thould not absent himself from the poll ; at the same time stating, if he did so, he would report him to the governor." May it not be asked, whether this was not in fact a threat ? What follows in the affidavit, with respect to the correspondence between the governor and the rector ; and the little panegyric on Mr. Stuart s conduct, which com- poses the rest of the affidavit, docs not merit a remark. To this, however, is the evidence by affidairit, produced by Mr. Stuart, in support of his memoir, reduced. Can it bo thought that this is sufficient to overbalance the evidence upon which the committee relied for the purpose of bringing charges against ii REMARKS UPON THESI DOCUMENTS. 1 have already entered too much at detail into the various documents, forming this Eortion of the appendix, annexed to Mr. Stuart's memoir ; but I remarked at first, efora entering upon the examination of the memoir, that I could not, under the pre- sent circumstances, take upon myself to pass lightly over, or to be silent with respect to, subjects which might not appear to me worthy of serious attention, or which might appear to me really foreign to the question. Thus, for the same reason, I do not deem it right to pass on to another subject, without making some remarks upon this de- scription of proof, the weakness, or rather the nullity of which is, however, so striking. It would be utterly useless to comment further, either upon Mr. Stuart's report to Sir James Kempt, of the 13th August, 1830; upon Mr. Green's affidavit, or on that of Allard, and others ; upon the indictment of Marcoux : documents to which the appel- lation of Aon cPeiuvret (an expression used before entering upon this discussion) may 50 with MMOn be applied. We ihaU confine ounelvesin the foliowing observations, re- lating to thia part of the appendix, to the consideration of what shonld be thongfht of tho witnesses whose affidavits Mr. Stnart has produced, in order to see, if, even sup- posing the facts to which they depose were of any importance, their depositions could possess any weight, with reference to what passed at the Sorel election, or for the purpose of weakening the evidence produced before the committee. We mav have seen how far Mr. Stnart has allowed himself to bo led away, by the violence of his resentment, against the witnesses who gave Ibeir evidence befom the committee of the Assembly. They are not merely the objects of severe reproach in his memoir ; he has been prodigal towards them of the bitterest insult, of the most crying outrage. Under the idea which he had formed, that their evidence was dictated by hatred and falsehood, he paints them in the blackest colours. If we were to ap- peal to him, they would be infamous characters. But injuries a^e not answers, neither is abuse refutation ; and we will not return to this subject. A bare denial, of asser- tions devoid of proof, is sufficient. Let us allow, however, fur a moment, that, under the circumstances, some of the witnesses might not after the contest in which they had been engaged,— after the manner in which he had conducted himself towards them ; and considering the complaints in the country, arising from such conduct, have been free from prejudice against him ; how much stronger reasons have we not to offer in opposition to the species of evidence which he pretends to adduce for his justi- fication, more especially when we consider, at the same time, who the persons are whose affidavits he has chosen to obtain, and particularly the persons whose evi- dence he actually regards as that most important for his justification. Above all, let ns remark, with rr.rpect to these witnesses, what influence it was possible to gain over them, in the name of a man clothed with functions, as im- portant as those exercised by Mr. Stnart at that time ! He was not only a first officer of the Crown, — he, whose opinion the governor is obliged to take for his guidance in legal matters,— but also an executive councillor, and giving also, by ri;;ht, his opinion in that character. He was also, as we see by his own memoir, a sort of sole auxi- liary in the province, of the courts, and of the grand juries, in the exercise of their functions ; possessing, in fact, a sort of monopoly, when it was necessary to institute and support prosecutions in criminal matters. We may nen with what rigour he was enabled, during many years, to exercise functions of this nature ; to what fate those, who were the object of his resentment and his prejudices, were subject. With ideas of so strange a character, as to the rights attached to his office, could be be disposed to exercise, with indulgence or moderation, a power such as that which he considers essentially necessary to the servants of government in order to its support? It is also easy, in accordance with his opinions in this respect, to imagine, what must have been necessarily the feelings of those who, employed by, or performing duties for, the go- vernment, became fellow-labourers under him, in order to procure him votes at an election, the success of which must have appeared in his eyes, as well as in the eyes of his patron, the then governor, really in the light of a state affaix. Let us now see who the persons are whose affidavits lie produces, and who depose to the transactions of which we have spoken, at the Sorcl election. We will not dwell upon Burke's affidavit, which is scarcely more than a kind of vague panegyric upon fat. Stuart's conduct ; nor on that of the man Pnnl, an iUiterate man : both known as Mr. Stuart's partizans, a fact which Mr. Stuart could not deny, and whoso depositions otherwise are of no greater importance than the deponents themselvest ; but it is right to make some few observations with respect to those whom Mr. Stuart himself regards as, and styles, in his memoir, the most respectable persons of the place, Messrs* Welles, Jones, and Von Ifiand. The first was the government agent for the seigniory of Sorel, where the borough is situate, and barrack master. According to Mr. Stuart, " he had been relied upon for the canvassing of the borough in his favour." Mr. Stuart was so well aware that Mr. Welles must be attached to his cause, from quite another iceling than that of an ordinary attachment to himself or his views,— in fact, so well convinced was he that it was Mr. Wcllcs's imperious duty, as a govern- ment officer, to make every effort in order to ensure his election, that he loaded bim publicly, at the poll, with bitter reproaches, for what he called his neglect to serve him ; and threatened him, aloud, that he would report his conduct, upon this subject, to the government. There is one fact which shows what the situation of the agent, for the seigniory and barrack master, was, with respect to this election, under an administration such as that then existing. It was this Mr. Welles who was charged with the communi- cation to the rector, Mr. Kelly, of the contents of the note, written by the governor's order, which has been mentioned in the course of these observations, and with re- ference to which Mr. Kelly gave the evidence which forms a part of the report of the committee. It was he who, on this occasion, was the organ of this governor's threats A4 to thi* netor, timt he woald complain of him to Am UiAop, eT«n to the Seentaty tf State in EitgUmd, under the pretence, that lti» father interfered in the election in an in- terest oppoaed to that of Mr. Staart : conduct which he regarded aa an acf of lio$tility ta the govenwuHt. All these are undisputed ikcts. Mr. Von Ifland, in attomptinf to ■hiilw the proof of these facts, himself corroborates them. Mr. Jones was avowedly attached to Mr. Stuart's interests. In order to con- vince ourselves of this, we have only to read bis affidavit Again, could Mr. Stuart deny Uiat Mr. Jones was one of the avowed partisans of the administratien ; and par- ticmariy that he was warmly so at this period, as he was in bis favour at the election. We see, by bis own deposition, that, like Mr. Welles and Mr. Von Ifland, be was a sort of confldential man, whom Mr. Stuart consulted, and to whom he referred, in order to satisfy himself of the rig^t of soffirage, claimed by the electors who offered to give him ^eir votes. He was, besides, a lientonant-colonel of militia; and this ciN cumstance, which, at any other time, anywhere else, and under a different admini- stration, would be of little importance, i» of great weight at this moment. We also see, by Mr. Von Ifland's affidavits, that be himself was a partizan of Mr. Stnarfs. They both fiimish proof of his excessive seal during the election, and of that with which he continued to be animated after its tennination. It was to him that Mr. Stuart gave orders whilst the poll was open. It was he who was recplred to prqiaie bUmk toarrantt ag^nst the electors, who Incuned his dis^easure, by voting in an in- terest opposed to his own. It was he who caused them to be arrested ; it was he, a magistrate, whom Mr. Stuart publicly enjoined to make hatte. These are, amongst many others which miriit be cited, facts proved, and in answer to which nothing has been said, not ev*n in Mr. Von Ifland's uBdavits. We may again see, by the pressing letter addressed to him, of the 2d of June, ISSQf, placed at the end of Mr. Von Ifland's second affidavit, numbered fifteen, in the ap- pendix to the memoir, how much Mr. Stuart relies on his zeal and activity. Ho com- municates particular recommendations to him with reference to Mr. Henry Crebassa, whose affidavit he testifies an anxious desire of obtaining. It will be admitted, that these pressing recommendations show much more sensibly confidence in the activity and zeal of a partizan, than that which would be testified to a man who, during the course of the election, or about this time, would simply have performed acts of magis- terial duty, independent of every kind of feeling of tdfection or favour for those who might require these acts, or those on whose account it was of great importance that they should be obtained. It may be remarked, en paisant, that Mr. Jones and Mr. Von Ifland, whilst they were yet both of them magistrates, rendered each other the mutual service of swearing fnd receiving affidavits, we one of the other. What activity must not men situated like Messrs. Jones, Welles, and Von Ifland, have used in the steps- they took for the purpose of insuring the success of Mr. Stuart's election, whilst they knew, besides, that in so acting they supported the views of a Governor, himself capable of being equally zealous in favour of bim who supported him in his own administration ; who could adopt means of so violent a character, in fhct, coupi ditat, with a view to triumph 1 This Governor remained upon the spot, and nothing could escape his scrutinizing eye. Besides, what could they expect from this Governor if they were wanting in seal, when they saw him go the length of interdicting a roan like Mr. Kelly, the rector, (who was in the habit of seeing him,) his house, under the pretext of his father's opposition at Mr. Stuart's election ; of considering this opposition as a state affair. LasUy, when the Governor threatened this rector, that he would make his conduct the subject of complaint against bim to bis Bishop and to the Secretary of State, as though, in bis character of ecclesiastic, he was, in a case of this kind, respon- sible for his father's conduct, and should be punished for it at once as for a crime which dishonoured the body of which he was a member, and as for a crime against the state. m It seems to me that no more is necessary to show how deeply the depositions of these three witnesses, however respectable they may be otherwise considered, may with reason be stained with the suspicion of prejudice, — ^with a feeling of interest in Mr. Stuart's favour. But we must again add, that Mr. Jones was a lieutenant- colonel of militia ; all three were at that time magistrates in the place ; and there were scarcely any others, vith the exception of the returning officer. We may see by 'he report of the committee, made to the Assembly in 1820, relating to the organiza^ tion of the militia, that from the lat of May, 1827, to the 8th of September, 1828, four hundred and thiriy-tbree officers of militia were dismissed by the Governor,* widt a * Thtt It to tay, in the ume proportion ai if tiM BagUili GovcnuBMt h*d dlmltied ttom tifbt to Ma lliouaand In EngUmI aiona, witliout reekcning Scotland or Ireland. 59 view of inflacncing; tho elections, by dismiiising tfioso who did not lend themselves to his views, or to panish those who dared take pgirt in the measures adopted in the province, for the purpose of presenting petitions to his Majesty and to tho English Parliament, having for object to complain of his administration, or to paralyse their efforts. It is unnecessary to add, that the officers who were dismissed were replaced by more acconunodating persons: doable the number were, in fact, commissioned. As to the magistrates (without any other reasons than those which determined the Governor to act as he did with respect to the militia), the general commission nomi- nating them was annulled, with a view of excluding those whose sentiments were not in accordance with those of his administration ; and we may also sec, by another report made to the Assembly by one of its Committees, that, besides many others, the names of four Magistrates, extremely eligible in every respect, were cut out of dio new commission, on account of their political opinions in the House of Assembly in the preceding session of tho Provincial Parliament. It may be easily conceived, at the same time, tha<: the names of those three magistrates, whose affidavit* are found in the appendix, were included, without fail, in the new commission. Let us content our- selves with pointing out one more circumstance :— lliese same men had, up to that period, been in the habit of, in some measure, leading affairs in the borough, with respect to elections. We sec, by Mr. Stuart's memoir, that it had been intimated to him, that he should cause himself to be elected for this borough after the manuer of his predecessors in office. Then, fur the first time, a strife existed in tho borough between those who bad constantly possessed tho ascendancy at the election, and those who contented themselves with followiny; the impulse of those who possessed it, in the contests which arose there between men who, although opposed for the moment, were not the less the partizans of the powers of the day. The contest was warm in 18S7, and, for the first time, these latter experienced a defeat. We m.ty imagine what im- pression this circumstance must have left on the hearts of these witnesses. If it might be suiil with truth, that some of tiic witnesses who appeared before the Committee of the Assembly, might be repruuched with bciii<; prejudiced against Mr. Stuart, might ii not be seen that, independently of all other motives for reproach, thes^ 'inct'ons when made to the decription of evidence produced by Mr. Stuart, she kl ' :'"e much greater weight? All those who have deposed in his favour by affidu V: reference to what pa.sscd at tho time of this Sorcl election, were his parti? > n striving to justify Mr. Stuart, they strivcd to justify themselves per- sonah . 1..3y were parties concerned in tlio contest; — they must have been neces- sarily a prey to the resentment which would result from a defeat, under circumstances which added much to the bitlcrncss of re«;rcts which an occurrence of this nature is usually calculated to inspire. Again, it has been already remarked, whilst speaking of the evidence received by the committee, that the witnesses who appeared before it, as well as two or three of the principal witnesses who deposed by aliidavit in Mr. Stuart's favour, underwent the legal and constitutional test of an examination before a fMtad jury. This tribunal had a right to weigh this conflicting evidence, and to judge which portion of it should possess the greatest weight in the balance of justice. It decided ; and pronounced in favour of those witnesses produced before the committee, in acquitting, by a verdict, the voters of William Henry, who were charged wilii perjury. It was before these tri- bunals that Mr. Stuart should have bafiled the malice, the corruption, which he imputes to the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, against which he also ventures to be lavish in his abuse, on this side the Atlantic, as though he had succeeded in con- signing them to infamy. Upon seeing Mr. Stuart treat them, by his memoir, so unjustly, it may be easily conceived, that if he did not succeed in convicting them before the Courts, they were not indebted for this advantage to a feeling of pity or indulgence on his part, — to one of indifl'erence or of apathy. Prodigal of accusation as he has been, can it be supposed that he would have ne$;lected the means of contradicting the witnesses who deposed in favour of the accused parties ; of prosecuting them ; of convicting them of >'al.;e- hood.when he prosecuted, with so much determination and constancy, the accused themselves, whose innocence these witnesses attested, by giving their evidence against him ; when, in fact, he could only see in some of them rivals or adversaries, to whose elforls he might attribute his defeat at Sorcl. Neither shall we return, in this place, to the observations relating to the manner in which evidence is taken before a Committee of a House of Commons, in order ti» compare it with that of taking depositions by afiidavits ; still less to fresh remarks upon the affidavit of the elder St. Germain, wliicli is sufficiently characterized by his own deposition to cause it to be rejected. We shall content ourselves with con- cluding this part of our subject by observing that, after all, these affidavits do not deserve that we should arrest our attention with reference to tho subjects discussed ; first, because this pretended proof, opposed to formal and positive evidence, relates in truth to the facts which arc of some imporlanco, purely of a negative character, and secondly, because, had they even possessed n t«i(ally different character, the facts P which are deposed (o by thoiii (even supposing thoni to he snl)Htantiutod) arc not of siiiiicient importance to shako the evidence ; lastly, bccanso, alter all, Mr. Stuart him- self justifies tbo Assembly and condemns himself, by his own avowals. or the Report made on the SOth of October, I8'28, to his Excellency Sir James Kempt, Administrator of the Government, with referonco to the prosecution for libel pending in the Courts. — No. IG of the Appendix. After what we have seen, in the course of these observations, as to that piurt of Mr. Stuart's memoir which relates to the prosecutions for libel, it would be useless to dwell upon each individnal subject brought under consideration in this report. Tn order to show on which side licentiousness was to bo found, it would be only necessary to compare the passages in the Gazettes, which served as a pretext for the charges, with the extracts which were in the report of the Committee of the Assembly. Is it possible to take greater licence than is taken in the productions of these partisans of the administration, in which insult was heaped upon the Assembly, its members, . magistrates, officers of militia, upon men above all reproach, in fact, upon the entire Province and its inhabitants? It has bticn already observed, that the militia orders themselves were made a vehicle for constantly renewed outrages. Some excnso might at least be found for those who were the objects of these Injuries, with the necessity in which they were of defending themselves, if some expressions savouring of irritation escaped them. What can be thought of the conduct of those who pro- voked them? Indeed, when this report was made known to the province, it excited universal astonishment. It could hardly be understood how Mr. Stuart could have attempted to justify himself by this expos6 of such motives for liis conduct. One feature in this report first demands our attention : it is the tone of assurance adopted by Mr. Stuart, for the purpose of giving us to understand that one has no right to examine into, — to question the conduct, or the steps, of those who are in authority, or arc charged with some portion of the administration. After the picture of facts which has been sketched in these observations, what are we to think of this extreme zeal for the purpose of keeping out of view— of concealing under an impene- netrablc veil the steps of public functionaries? Tnie, he paints the authors of libels as calumniators, as far as regards the measures of Government, and the proceedings in courts of justice. Wc may have seen whether the reproaches used ut that time against those who formed the administration in the province, were stamped with the die of calumny. Here I should return to some of the observations which I hare already made upon the mode adopted by Mr. Attorney-General himself, in the conrts in instituting prosecutions ; I shall add some with reference to the one in question in this report. It has been seen that Mr. Stuart identified himself, if we may use the expression, with the courfs and the grand juries, of which he calls himself the auxiliary. It has been also seen, that many of the bills for offences committed at the elections, and par- ticularly those for perjury at the Sorel election, were thrown out by the grand jury of the Court of King's Bench at Montreal. He renewed them; and presented fresh bills at this Sjpecial Court of Oiftr and Terminer, the holding and proceedings of which excited, with so much reason, the loudest complaints to the grand jury of this court, the mode of forming which jury, provoked also the grave complaints to which we have alluded in the course of these observations. The majority of these grand jurymen, as we have also seen, had evinced a disposition to entertain this sort of prosecutions. I should now again point out another circumstance, calculated to show tlie spirit in which these, as well as many other matters were conducted at that period. It is proved, by the inquiries of ths Committee of the House of Assembly in 1829, some extracts from which have been given, that some of these bills for libels, presented in March, 1828, were found first by the grand jury on a day when the sitting judges did not form a competent court. The same bills were tbund, says the report, two days after, tn the absence of some of the jurymen who had found the bills without hearing the testimony repeated, and that with the assistance of a juryman who was not present at the time of the first finding. These are features which, doubtless, according to Mr. Stuart, should be hidden by the veil of silence. According to him, as we have also seen, he showed little regard enough for the opinions of n body of grand jurymen, regularly selected and assembled in the Court of King's Bench at Montreal, who had thrown out bills which he had caused to be presented to them, since he again presented these some bills, two months afterwards, to the grand inry of this Special Court of Oyer and Terminer. If we had not been already able, after tho facts pointed out in these observations, to form precise ideas as to the feelings to which the steps taken by the first officer of the Crown must have given rise in the pro- vince, the account he himself gives of them would be well calculated to characterize them. Let us see, from his own exposi6, on what were founded the prosecutions in uestion in this report. 87 The first of wliicli ho given an account was founded on an article contained in the Gacettr, in wliich the editor, in speaking of the then existing administration, had made use of the word nuiiance. This expression had reference to the complaints made by the whole country against this very administration, and to the steps taken by the inhabitants of the province for the purpose of being delivered from it. The author of the libellous article, after having expiosed some of the grievances attributed to this administration, observed, that "then could be little doubt that luch an adminittra- tioH would be considered as a nuisance by the British Government .... who would speedsfy extinguish it. Let it be seen by the libellous passage what were the Governor's faults at that time, — how arbitrary his daily conduct to the people was, and then let it be asked afterwards whether these expressions could be, in the then state of things, con- sidered as so libellous, particularly in comparison of the insults heaped at that time, by the administration itself and their partisans, upon those who were daily the objects of their outrage, committed for the purpose of compelling the people to renounce appeal- ing upon the subject to the justice of the Government, or m order to punish them for having dared to adopt the means of soliciting it from their Sovereign. We shall not be at the trouble of taking up hero the insinuations found in Mr. Stuart's report, against the editor, with reference to the place of his birth, when he says that he was an Irishman ; that he was in distressed circutnstanees ; that he was'the organ of a party acting in opposition to his Majesty's Government in the Provincial House of Assembly. Mr. Stuart should know better than any one, that this feeling of oppo- sition to the Government never existed on the part of those to whom he attributes it ; be should know even, on the contrary, what they had done for the purpose of uphold- ing its authority, and of contributing to the defence of the country in times oi triaL He ought to know that, guided by a feeling of honour and of duty, they were perfect strangers to views of a mercenary character. Neither can he be ignorant, that he, whose ashes he now endeavours again to disturb, was not a man to sell his pen. He also knows, or ought to know at least, that tliose whom he accuses of having employed him, would .lever have been guilty of bribing any one to work against their Govern- ment. But those whose cause the writer defended, entertained, like all honest citizens, that feeling of profound attachment to their rights, which is always allied with that of duty, — a property possessed by virtuon.s subjects, on whose fidelity alone a Government can count with security. Mr. Stuart immediately dwells, with still much greater force, upon another pas- sage relating to the Governor's enforcing the old militia ordinances of the Legislative Council of the years 1787 and 17t!t8 ; that is to say, of periods anterior to the existing constitution. It would, perhaps, for more reasons than one, have been well, on his part, not to have insisted upon again raisins; this discussion. I would it were in my power to dispense with any allusion to it. Let us first observe, with regard to the nature of these ordinances, that they exceeded, in many respects, the authority of a legislature whose powers had been cir- cumscribed by the English Act of Parliament which had formed it. By these laws burthens, taxes in fact, of an excessively oppressive character had been imposed upon the people of the country ; and the Council was interdicted this power. Besides, it lias, in tact, by these ordinances subjected the whole province to martial law, which it placed in the GoTemor's hands. We may refer, upon this subject, to the reports made to the Assembly by the Committee, as to the militia, and as to the grievances Afl82i). Since the dale of tlie.se ordinances, the Government of the Province had been subjected to the priuciples«of the constitution of England, under which the citizens rould not be .subjected to martial law without the authority of the Parliament. These or- dinances, which were repugnant to the principles of the new Gavemment of the Pro- vince, had been repealed* by an Act of the year 1794, which substituted for the pro- • TIiom' ordinances were unknuwn. It was necessary to hare them printed in 1837. Had they been without dale and without title, they might have been taken for ducumenls extracted from chronicles of the middle affes, and the darkest periods of feudality. The Governor was authorized to embody tlie entire or a portion of the popuhition at will. If he selected only a portion of the agricultural population, the ordinances stiljecled those who reroivined in the country to make enclosures, to cultivate and get in the harvest of land liclonginR to the absentees. Ho might make regulations at his pleasure, and of his own authority, for the pur- imse of putting into operation this military power. It was necessary that all oB'ences against these provisions fiheiild be prosecuted, exclusively, before courts martial, &c. &c. These provisions had excited universal disgust: vexatious prosecutions had resulted from them. One anecdote may convey some idea of the feelings to which they had given rise. These ordinanres had preceded, by some years only, the establishment of the existing constitution. At the time of the Arst election, in some of tlie phtcards which were printed at that time, one of the questions ptoposed, in the form of • probationary ques- tion, to the candidates was the fallowing :— Are you not ready to do all in your power to repeal the miliUa ordinances, which the Chief Justice has declared to be contrary to Divine and human lawsP They \ dectarfd In be rtpealfd, from the second session of the Provincial Parliament. m vUioM to be fonnd io these ancient ordinances, new and temporary provisions. Those oidlnances had not merely been repealed, they had been declared to be repealed, by tUaactoftheProTincial Parliament. Besides, it is a maxim < iseorated by juris- prudence, that when a perpetual act is repealed by an act which bsUtutes new tern- porarr proTisions, the repealed act is not again in force aftei expiration of the repealing act, unless an intention is apparent, in this latter, thi. the repealed act should revire after the termination of the time fixed for the duration of the repeal- ing act. This intention is not found to be in any manner expressed in the act of 1794. The enactment, by which these ordinances were declared to be repealed has a contrary import. Again, the provisions of these ordinances were in opposition to the principles of the then existinn; Government in the Province ; this circumstance alone would exclude all idea of the intention of the legislator that they should revive. Further : all branches of the legislature had agreed upon the extinction of these ordinances. It is clear, frjm three speeches of different Governors to the two Houses, ftom 1806 to 1819, that the executive Government considered them as irrevocably repealed. In the collection of laws printed by the authority of the Provincial Gro- ▼emment, the headings merely of these ordinances had been alone inserted, with the addition, like all other laws which had ceased to be in force, of the word '< repealed." Other laws had been merely repealed by acts substituting new temporary provi- sions, without even the term declaratory being found in them. No one ever thought of appealing to them, as though they were in force, after the expiration of the act of repeal. These militia ordmances had, at two or three intervals, ceased to be in force. From 1816 to lttl7, particularly, the province had been without militia laws, because the acts regulating them had not been renewed. The executive Government had not thought for a moment of enforcing these ordinances. On the contrary, in 1819, the militia acts having been continned with amendmcntii which, although they approached to some of the provisions to be found in this class of laws in England, had displeased the Administration. The Governor, in his speech at the prorogation, expressed his regret as to the neceqpity in which he fonnd himself of sanctioning the Bill, on account of the functions with which the militia officers were invested, by virtue of certain laws Wo may easilyjudge that he would not have held language such as this, nor have sanctioned the fiuf, and that which could not possibly have been carried into execution. the Council itself would not have concurred in these amendments, if it could have been imagined for a moment that the Governor, without an act of the Provincial Parlia- ment, should be invested with a power ten times greater by virtue of these repealed ordinances ; and the Governor, supported by the opinion of Mr. Attomey-General, revived them by his general order. Without entering into other details, it should be observed, that since 1827, this very question, on more than one occasion, became a subject of discussion in the Assembly. One would wish to be able to give a sketch of these discussions, in order to convey here an idea of the reasons given by some members, for the purpose of shew- ing that these ordinances could have revived by the expiration of the acts of the Pro- vincial Parliament. One of the principles was, that the repealing clause of the act of 1794, relating to these ordinances was repeated by a subsequent act passed in 1803, which ref(ulated the militia by new provisions, as though the useless repetition of this repealing clause could have had the effect of causing thi revival of a law declared to be repealed, and which was for ever abrogated. Whilst contending that this repeal had not had the effect of actually abolishing these ordinances, they, at the same time, avowed, that they were repugnant to the principles of our Government ; that they placed in the hands of the executive a lever, try means of which it could overturn the Constitution, and trample under foot all the rights which flowed from it in favour of the citizens. They did not see that, inde- pendently of any other consideration, this was the strongest reason which could be given, in order to shew that these ordinancos could no longer be appealed to as hav- ing the force of law in the Province, after the changes which had taken place, in this respect, in his Government, and when the principles of his Constitution had become incompatible with the existence of them. Mr. Stuart alleges, upon this subject, that he had obtained a judfrment in accord" ance with his opinion ; he says, at the same time, that it was in a cause which ho had pleaded alone. He might have been led into error as to the motives which determined the advocates of the opposite party to preserve silence. My information, as to the cause of their withdrawal at that time, is very different. from Mr. Stuart'i ; bat the tact, that, they did not plead, » sufficient of itMlf. This circamatance may explain how a judgment, bearing out the opinion that these ordi* nances could revive, might have oeen delivered. It would uso suffice to see the reasons which have been placed under the eyes of the public as motives for this judg- ment, in order to solve that which should otherwise be regarded as a thing extremely difficult of explanation. It should be remembered what use was made of these ordinances for the purpose of influencing the election in 1837,— the dismissal of more than four hundred lAllitia officers, and the appointment of a number double that of the officers who were dis- missed, all under pretence of these ordinances, and vrith tiie views which we have exposed. Such were the subjects which the auUior of the libellous passage had to discusii. It might now be asked which, in the opinion of the Attomev-Oeneral of the province, the enforcing these ordinances, or the remarks of the editor as to their nullity, most appear most just? Which of those two opinions given by him agreed best with the principles of the Government, and which was best calculated to contribute to its security and to the maintenance of the interior tranquillity of the province 1 As to the second prosecntion, v« Vail conttiut ourselves with remarking, that the editor of the same paper, ' - >bje he first prosecntion, inserted in his columns, a letter, become public by lu. s of a f^ signed by Mr. Lee, a c - . ' ffii'er dismissed by one of the general orders of which .... have already spoken. .utve it to observe, that if this letter was of a criminal character, it would have doubtiess been, unles* under very extraordinary circumstances, wise to prosecute the author himself, instead of instituting a prosecntion against the editor who had inserted it in his columns. But we shall see, further on, what feelings are evinced, as to this editor's connections. The third prosecution in question in this report, was founded on Gazette articles with reference to the criminal prosecntion carried on against Mr. Jacques Vigor, of which we have already spoken, in the course of these observations, whilst enlarging on that part of the memoir in which Mr. Stuart reproaches Mr. Viger in the strange manner we pointed out, for the purpose of weakening his testimony. That which is to be found in that part of the report upon which I am commenting at this moment, is little more, aa far as regards this prosecntion, than a repetition of what may be seen in the memoir which has l>een already discussed, it is therefore useless to return to tiiis subject. We shall content ourselves with asking, first, whether this strange prosecu- tion was not well calculated to excite public astonishment and even sometiiing more ? Mr. Viger submitted to an order of tupersedeos which be could not avoid obeying, and he was prosecuted criminally for not having executed an order to which it was impos- sible for him to conform. Secondly, some of the magistrates, whose first order he had not executed, and whose steps with regard to their brethren by whom the second order had been given we have noticed, were among the grand Jurymen of this Court of Oyer and Terminer who found the bill against Mr. Viger. The chairman of these magistrates, whose activity in this matter is evidenced by a production to be seen in the report of the committee, quoted in that portion of the observations to which we have just alluded, was one of the judges of this very Court of Oyer and Terminer. This was the subject of complaint on the part of the authors of these writings, who regarded these things as an insult and an outrage to the laws. These are the publications par- ticularly denounced by Mr. Stuart in his report, as at once a crime and an extravagance, meriting all the severity of the Iaw.4 ! But conld the public regard this formation of the court and juries as an homage done to justice, and the prosecution itself as an act of imperious duty on the part of the first officer of the Crown, auxiliary of the courts and of the grand juries? When upon this snbject, Mr. Stuart, in talking of what he terms the ignorance of the people, and of the danger of these writings, breathes sentiments of the most profound contempt. According to his account also, Mr. Viger, the inspector of roads, was intimately connected by relationship, or otherwise, with the party who sup- ported the paper which contained these writings ; these writings, according to him, might influence the petit juries, composed of illiterate intUviduals. Such is the expos6 of ^e motives upon which Mr. Stuart relies with confidence for his justification, and with which also he terminates this part of the report. We may leave it to be judged on which side the true ideas of justice and respect for principles are found. The fourth prosecution in question in the report, was instituted at once against the printer and editor of the Canadian Spectator. The crime was that of considerations on the fate, to which those who were prosecuted by Mr. Stuart for perjury, pretended to hare been committed at the Sorel Election, were obliged to submit. The conduct of the Attorney-General was complained of by the authors of this publication, for hav- ing presented against them in this Court of Oyer and Terminer, of which we have so frequentiy spoken, bills which had been thrown out by the grand jury of the Court of King's Bench. They complained that the foreman of this grand jury was one of the warmest partisans, at the election, in the interest opposed to that of the accused. Amongst other facts of public notoriety, the extraordinary part he performed at this last election, was pointed out. It was observed that a justice oj the peace, he was clerk to Mr. Molson, who had himself been a candidate, and had not succeeded ; and that he pos- Q ,60 acMed no olhtr proptrl^ than hu talar^, Ssc- These were Ibe crimes commilted by tbe editor and tbe printer ; subsequent events, the acauittal of tbe accused after the trial, and under tbe circumstance we have mentioned, show whether these obsertations shonid have been regarded as of so criminal a nature ; whether they deserved the title given them by Mr. Stuart of uandalout HMt. According to Mr. Stuart's account, the bills were ignored by the ar^nd Jury of the Court of King's Bench. This is being any thing but particular in exac. icss of expres- sion. DoubUesa this term might be used in a general sense. But when speaking upon this subject, he should have specifically stated that these bills had been thrown out and not simply ignored, as he states in the report now in question. After what has been already seen in another portion of these observations ; or of tbese prosecutions and the proceedings againft Claprood, it is thought unnecessary to dwell longer now upon this subject The fifth and the sixth were instituted, the one against the printer of the Qutbee Gaxttte, the other against Mr. Charles Mondelet. It might first be asked, whether there was any justice in prosecuting, at one and the same time, the editor of a Gaaette who in- serted in his colun.ns the public proceedinics ; and the resolutioua of one of tbe constitu> tional committees, occupied also with petitions which were drawn up and signed at that time, for the purpose of asking the Enslish Government to use its authority in putting an end to the arbitrary acts of which ue country was at that time the victim. Let us see now what the nature of the writing is, signed by Mr. Mondelet, as secretary of one of these committees, in respect of wliich this prosecution was instituted. The Governor had just dismissed two militia officers, men of acknowledged merit. It was on account ot their political feelings with respect to liis Administration, of which the country complained. He denounced them, by a militia order, us having ihowu themselves the active agents of' a party hostile to the Government. What language on the part of a Governor under such circumstances ! The crime of the constitutional com- mittee and of Mr. Mondelet was, the resolution, that this allegation, on the part of hit FjxaUene^f, was entirely without foundation. Such was the writing denounced by Mr. Stuart as worthy the vengeance of the laws ; and he qualifies this allegation on the part of his Excellency by the word fact, which is no more than an insult added to th« injustice of which he was guilty towards the officers, litis word is at least singularly employed in that case ; and it was a crime committed by their fellow-citizens to declare that this fad, if indeed it had been one, was ill / violence of some of the expressions on the part of those whose feelings bad been so cruelly wounded in the province, of their fellow-citizens, themselves attacked as a party hostile to the Government, Lave been considered worthy of some indulgence ? The expression of their indignation, provoked by this imputation of disloyaltij, should rather liavo been consi- dered as a claim to esteem, than as meriting persecution. What Government is not really interested in fostering that profound sentiment of honour which rebuts the suspicion of infidelity ? We must not dwell longer upon this subject. It is also useless to comment on Mr. Parent's letter. Deliberately read, it will give a correct idea of the feelings which the conduct of the Administration was of a nature to inspire. It is useless to dwell on the seventh of these prosecutions, instituted in respect of a publication, which, according to Mr. Stuart's own report, is of the same stamp as that preceding it. We will content ourselves with making here one remark on a passage in this report, worthy of attention. Mr. Stuart speaks in it, with hardihood, of the criminal views of some individuals, ifc. ; but the mass of the inhabitants, he adds, was in no degree infected with the disloyalty that might be inferred from such proceedings in other countries. This is mysterious language. What may be said upon this subject is, that criminal intentions are usually manifested by actions. What are the actions to which these expressions of Mr. Stuart allude, and who are the authors of them 1 This he leaves us to guess. Again, this sort of homage paid to loyalty by a people treated with indignity, as they were at this period, has at least something extraordinary in it. These criminal intentions, and these faithful feelings, would form a somewhat extraordinary contrast. The memoir contains many other enigmas, which Mr. Stuart has not thought proper to solve. The eighth of these prosecutions was instituted against Mr. Charles Mondelet, a militia officer, whom the governor had dismissed. The reason given by the governor for this step, was Mr. Mondelet's absence from tbe division to which he belonged for some years past. At the same time he nominated officers who no more resided on the spot than did Mr. Mondelet himself. It was this inconsistency to which Mr. Mondelet alluded in the letter addressed to bis excellency, and published at that time in the Quebec Gazette, at the same time complaining that he nad been treated thus without |1w 61 having betH htard. Hii excelloncy'* logical exaotneM it attacked in paaaafca con* tained in thii letter, as ia the juitice of bis steps, upon which Mr. Stnart particniarlv insist!, and which he cites at length. It is astonishing that he did not point out with greater care what is said by Mr. Mondelet upon the sabject of the militia orders, which mnst have appeared to him by this letter, of a still more criminal natare, after what we have read upon the sabject. We leare it again to be imagined, what the pnblie must haTto thought on seeing the goTemor entangle himself in stnmge inconsistencies, such as issning the general orders, and prosecuting criminally those who were the victims of them, liecaose they ventured to complain. It has been already remarked, it must be felt, that in state of such singalar disorder, vivacity of expression on the part of those who complained, was entitled to some indulgence. Mr. Stuart, referring as regards the ninth and the last prosecutions, to what ia already found upon the same subject in thai part of the report which precedes, we shall not dwell upon it more, than for the purpose of observing that, Mr. Nailaon, the editor of the Quebec Gazetle had inserted in his columns Mr. Lee's letter, and also ob- servations upon the bills found against the editors of the Montreal columns, of which we have spoken, or for political offences, already thrown out by a grand jnry of a preceding court, and against Mr. Jacques Vigor. As regards the former it should be observed, that it would have been quite just unless there hud been some very extraordinary circumstances, to have conflned him- self to the prosecutiun of the author of the letter if it was really of a criminal nature ; and, as to the second, it should be remarked that all that was said by the editor upon this subject, was founded upon facts known at that time, and proved since before the committee of grievances of the House of Assembly in lKt9, of which we have already spoken. Still less should we dwell on some other parts of the report in which Mr. Stuart encourages prejudices artfully and designedly nourished in the province, against individuals whose only crime was to seek justice, or to call its principles into play in favour of the country. What could have been Mr. Stuart's motive for observing, that Mr. Neilson, the printer against whom he instituted criminal prosecutions for libel, was the son of the person who was in England the bearer of the petitions of the inha- bitants of the country against the administration T Why give it to be understood, that these resolutions of one of the constitutional committees were the work of Mr. Waller, who was also the object of prosecutions of a similar nature ? Mr. Stuart puts forth, with respect to the complaints made by the country against tho governor's conduct ; against the proceedings of Mr. Stuart himself in the courts of justice ; ngainst those of the jury of which we nave spoken ; or of other public officers, ideas which must doubtless appear very extraordinary to those who will take the trouble of giving the slightest attention to the state of the province at that period. Of what weight can assertions devoid of proof be ; bitter declamations against a people ; against men whom it is even at tliis day impossible to reproach seriously for their con- duct ? Besides, if we wish to make any inquiries upon this subject, it would suffice to consult the various reports of the committees (accompanied by proof, as formal as thoy are unanswerable in any way) made to the House of Assembly of Lower Canada in 18*29 and 1830 upon all these subjects, in order to see whether the complaints of the country were, as is pretended in this report, the work of calumny. I should now put aside this report, upon which it is useless longer to dwell, and content myself with observing, that the account given by Mr. Stuart himself of these prosecutions, is well calculated to place in a clear light the force of the accusations on the part of the House of Assembly, as to the partiality which existed in the choice of those against whom he instituted criminal prosecutions. I think also that I should conclude by some observations with reference to a fact in question in another portion of the memoir, calculated to serve as a comparison with many other analagons asser- tions to be found there. Mr. Stuart dwells really with singular gravity upon the necessity in which he found himself of instituting criminal prosecutions against those who had been the cause of riot at the election in the Western division of Montreal, in order to insure public tran- quility. If Mr. Stuart's observations upon the subject of this riot, were any where else and unconnected with the rest of his memoir, what he there says wonld be taken for a joke, even for an epigram. We may judge of this from a drcnmstance of public notoriety, and of which we are going to give an account. According to a custom which has at times held in some parts of Canada, and of which as I have already observed, I do not pretend to support the legality, the votes of widows or of unmarried femalea who possess landed estate or property to which the right of voting is attached, are taken. Every day throughout the continuance of this election (which was long, and stubbornly contested) women of all classes from the most inferior up to those most elevated by rank and education, in the city of Montreal, came each day, and at every hour to vote for one or oUier of the opposing candidates. Hence, how did it h^tpea that this riot was so terrible ; so dangerous an example ; how could it have left suish deep trace! oa that it was inpouitik) to oituto then otherwise than by bav iog recourse to proseontiona ia the criaiDal courts. Bat the iapartinlity with which the publio ofllcef acted at this period exhibits itself ocaia here io its brightest colonrs. There had io fact been a riot oa one of the days ol these election, whkh lasted for about one hour. It was easy to uace the source of the excesses, in ecdcr to form an opinion as to the necessity or inutility of siwh pro- secutions with reference to the real interest of justice and of toe fOTemment under the oircumstances ; 1 might admit (hut Mr. Stimrt had neither had the time nor tho oppor- tunity of atteading to inquiries ioto this matter. He could not at any rate be iguorant of the fact that the faults, which he tbouKbt it hit duty to denouoce, could not be at- tributed exclusively to those who had favoured the election of (hose candidates aeainst Whooi the administration of the country had made such strenuous efforts ; precisely tho contrary was the case. However, Mr. Stuart upon this subject, as well as with refer- •ace to the prosecotions Cot libel, saw no guilt but in tho party opposed to that to which ke was himself attached. He never thought for a moment that it was his duty to pcosecate those who had been guilty of similar ofieocos ; who had pro . jked the commissicn of them by acting in a contrary interest. Hence, what idea can be formed of this mode of acting in the character uf ausUUtry in the adniinistrution of justice f Would this be a good means of placing above suspicion, and of inspiring towards it feelings of perfect confidence, a thing so desirable, so essentially necessary, in all well regulated governments T If we come to the manner in which these prosecutions wore conducted, we shall find somethinK still worse. Mr. Stuart presented bills against the rioters, and sub- mitted them, during the term of the Court of King's Bench, in September, 1827, to the grand jury, who threw them out. He has immediate recourse to an ex officio informa- tion against them, and obli|ros them to give a species of bail for their appearance, upoa which sn^ect I have not time to dwell. But soon after, he obtains ir the following awmth of November, the special court of Oyer and Terminer, of which wo have so often spoken, and uf which the grand jury was partly composed of active partisans, at the very last election of Montreal, in an interest opposed to that of the accused. He pre- sents to the grand jury bills of a similar uescription against the same individuals; and this grand jnr^ finds, in this court, these bills which had been thrown out, in September^ by the grand jury of the Coatt of King's Bench. In fine, after successive proceeding* of more than an extraordinary description, the detail of which would also lead too far at this moment, all the accused are acquitted by the verdict of a jury, with the excep- tion of one, found guilty of an offence inferior to that of riot, and committed nnoer circumstances which so weakened the idea of an offence strongly made out, that the {'ury which found him guilty of this minor offence, thought it their dutv to recommend lim to the court as an object worthy of indulgence ! Neither sbull I dwell at tbi» moment, for the purpose of making observations as to the strange mode which has- been so often adopted in Canada, iu the administration of criminal justira, and parti- cularly with reference to simple offences, perjury, libels, riot,* liy means of a sptciat court of Oyer and Terminer; nor as to the kind of petit juries by which Mr. Stuari con- trived that the accused should be tried ; nor as to some things of a still more seriou» nature, — the mode of selecting jurymen in criminal matters, of which mode the As- sembly have so frequently, and for so many years past, complained ; subjects with respect to which we may refer to the report ot the committee of grievances, in 1829,. and to that which refers to the selection of jurymen, in 1830. I will content myself with asking, whether, after having seen this sketch, tho exactness of which it is hardly, possible to question, steps such us these taken lor years, were at all calculated to create and support confidence in the administration of justice, and in the Government! Whether these are services calculated to entitle Mr. Stuart to the gratitude of his^ Majesty's Government? Whether, in fact, this conduct, and tbe principles to whicit' be appeals, and which he regards as essential ibr the support of authority, are very well calculated to insure him stability 1 CONCLUSION. I am exposed to the reproack of having laboriously refuted palpable errors, a» tbough they had been calculated to have any weight. But the author of tbe memoir,, who has provoked these observatious, is a lawyer of reputation. It is doubtles to thia circumstance that should be attributed his being placed at the head of the law officers of the Crpwn, in Lower Canada. I must here again repeat, that I could not take upon myself to preserve an indistinct silence, nor even to pass lightly over subjects whicb had appeared to him of so great an importance, whatever might be mv personal opi- nions as to tbe nullity of bis argoments in defence, I think 1 have already jostined: myself in this retpect. * The word riot muBt here be taken in the lenie of an ordinary distntbance, and not that kind of lerioM dii> ■. tqibance properly called riot, calculated 19 endanger tbe public MNtx, and whieb, thank Ood, ia not of cotasMa owwncnc« in Canada. m i' It wu alio an indiipeuable duty on my part to fhow, that not only he had oarriad cxagKeration to the higheat degree, but that hia neoBoir waa throoghont stamped with the die ofiUuiion. The object of grave accnaationa, agitated by motiTea of no powerful an interest ; the author of the memoir might want cauaneas in hia feelings; but laying aside those considerations which refer to the violence of his recriminations, to the ab« sence of all pretence for assertions opposed to facts, we may ask oorselres how he could have endeavoured to establish or to support doctrines found to be in direct oo«- tradiction to principles received and consecrated by constant usage, and a practice in- variably in accordance with these very principles 1 Neither is the profound lentiment of contempt which he breathes forth, for what he calls the ignorance of the people of the province, that which the memoir contains of the least extraordinary character. Motives, which it is unnecessary to point out, should have forbidden its author uttering this reproach, a reproach in so many respects equally uniust and ill-founded. He appeals, upon this subject, to the danger which might result to the tranquillity of the country, which, according to his account, justified the necessity of prosecutions against vrriters whose productions might inflame the passions of the people,— a people to whom these writings would not be accessible ! Laying aside abo the consideration of this inconsistency, and that of the partiality which dictated the choice of those whom he selected as the objects of prosecutions, let us immediately acknowledge that vulgar and barbarous manners are almost invariably the inseparable companions of ignorance. Where is the proof that this people were a prey to the violence to which 4uch a state of things gives birth T If any thins is calculated to do honour to the people of Lower Canada, it is their respectable conduct at this period, as at others which preceded it. The Canadians knew how to ally the feeling of fidelity to their Sovereign and to the empire of which they form a part, to that of this firm attachment to their rights as citiaons, .-vhich is not nerely a necessary appendage to the love of liberty, but also a pledge of security to ihe Government itselt. And it is this people to whom Mr. Stuart, not long since the chief officer of the Crown in the province, attributes loudly this gross ignorance and brutality ! For years previous, the country was harrowed up by arbitrary, and more than arbitrary, acts ; but injustice alone was not enough, — he loaded them with insult. It was the entire people, citisens of all ranks and of all classes, who were the object of all that outrage possesses of bitterest, of columnly the most atrocious. What was the conduct of this people, the object of fresh insulis in this memoir 1 They took the means which the constitution places in the hands of the oppressed, in order to ask of the sovereign deliverance from this scourge. This was a crime ; it was with this again that Mr. Stuart reproaches them with more than bitterness. If the people bad been stained with this pr jfound ignorance, it would have been with an ignorance of a very extraordinary description ; since it would have produced all the efiect of enlight- ened minds and of a political education, acquired during a series of years ; of the spirit of order and of respect for the laws which are the natural consequences of them. As regards the Assembly in particular, far from having merited the bitter censure of which it is the object in the memoir, it had a claim to praise for its exactitude in following the principles of constitutional law ; for its constant attention in taking as a rule for its steps the usages and practice of the English Parliament. As to Mr. Stuart, without mentioning the violence to which he abandons himself in speaking of a branch of this Government ; that under which he occupied so confidential a post ; the strange pretensions, the doctrines stranger still perhaps, which he advances, doubt- less do not show a great fund of erudition upon this subject. They do not bespeak regular study, exact ideas. Should it have been thought that this could be the lan- guage of His Majesty's Attorney-General in the Province 1 Looking at Mr. Stuart's conduct in another point of view, with reference to the charges brought against him, it is still more inexplicable. "They are founded upon facts for the most part of public notoriety, supported by formal evidence, the produc- tion of which has been subiected to ail tlie rules prescribed by the law and the consti- tution. Far from taking any pains to justify himself, he contents himself first, by op- posing to these facts, denials, or assertions t qually vague, insults. He goes the length of making avowals which add to the force of ;hese charges from which he should have felt the necessity of clearing himself. An utter prey to his resentment as an accused, he becomes an accuser. He is so with regard to all and every one, no one is aloof from his shafts. If we refer upon this subject to the memoir, the petitioners who raised their voices against him, the witnesses who gave their evidence, the Committee of the Assembly who pro- ceeded to the examination of the subjects of these complaints ; the Assembly who listened to them, the whole country ; these are the guilty persons. All the elements of which the province is composed, by his account, were united against him, and this R M s :J:V lombinalioii In xUv work ofcriuip, ilR reMulU ■ tiuue of AJ«ehooda fVwn«d by hatred uiid ireamtii. AIud« exempt from fault, he roald not in an aucmbly ol' more than eighty uiembefii, And lonie capable of endeavunrinK to tten thia torrent o( iniquity ) tfume wb(> dared to raiM their voicea in hia favour on th« aide of truth and juatice. To ihiM are Itiii anawera to farta pretty nearly reduced. He atanda not in need of evi- dence. One would imacine that he was perauaded, that it waa aufficient for him to have imputed to them the moat beanleaa atro€ity. in order to be aatiafled that he had »tnm|)ed lliem with a character of indelible infamy, nothing more la wanting to inanra his triumph. What would be thought in England of a public ftinctionary, who, impeached by the Home of Coniniona under analagona circumatancea, ahould hold thia language to hia Kovereiitn t If it were poaaible that the entire population of Lower Canada bad at- tained thia de)rrce of corruption ; it would doubtleu be aaked whence thla deadly poiiion, whirh would circulate ihrongh all the veinaof a aociety, could have flowed ! The anawer to thia queition would moat aaauredly be no more advantageoua to the caum of Mr. Stuait than to public functionariea in ^eral. So roonationa a atate of thinga would not apeak in favour of tbia principle ot Inviolability with which, aa being eanential to llie atabiliiy of the Government, Mr. Stuart would wiah to aee them clothed. We are xufficientiy acouainted with the canaea which plant and nouriah the Mied of demoraliKation in the midat of a people. It doea not take root there aponta> neoosly, l»ut must hove been sown. Happily the idea of thin exceaa of immorality la chimerical. It ia not to be found in any country where a apark of liberty atill glimmera among the people, or a apark of juatice in its government. Under the pretence of exculpating himaelf, he imputea hia own fanlti to public officera, who, by hia advice, he should have directed in the right path, and who be had the power of compelling, had they refused to do ao. to fulBI their dutiea. Thia ia atiU not all ; the burden of hia recriminationa recoil, and would fall entirely on other con- stituted authoritiea ; on the juries who at first threw out the bills ; on the juriea who acquitted the accused persons, when his imperative duty forced him to prosecute them in the courts, for the purpose of regaining the equilibrium of the aociety deatroyeil by their crimes ; or for the purpose of checking a depravity which sapped the founda- tions of the Government. What must we think of judges, who, proceeding in the pro- secution of these indictments, shonld have been wanting at once in learning, talents, nnd seal, for tlie purpoae of instructing the juries tliemselves in their duties ? What must be said of the Governor who should have prmtituted his authority for the purpose of tampering the frensy which the virtuous conduct of this Attorney General would have alone produced, and have sacrificed him to the vengeance of hia enemies, bent on his destruction, as a punishment for such conduct ? It has been already remarked, that he does not seem to feel the necessity of evidence lor the purpose of accusing, more than of justifying. His bare assertions on this siile the Atlantic should be of suflicient ioHiortance to weigh down the acole. Such arc the claims, in respect of which he confidently aaka bis Miuesty to pronounce immrdiately in his favour; in respect of which he requires from him such an inatant support, as would bring with it an indelible stain ; a stamp of infamy against indivi- duals ; public men ; against the inhabitanta of an entire province ; against him who holds the reins of the Government in the name of hia Sovereign. When at this distance from the seat of Government, they cannot even have any suspicion of the fate awaiting them in another hemisphere. Such again are the pretensions of a man who complains of not havina been put on his guard ; of not having been aware of the proceedinga adopted against him; of not having been allowed an opportunity for defending himself! If, however, we are to believe Mr. Stuart, he supports the authority of the Govern- ment. What support for authority ! What a means of insuring its stability ! Tiiis would be a Government by physical force, and it is always at the moment when it would bo moat in request thut it is wanting — when moral force has lost its elasticity. It would, to use the expression of ono of the greatest men of the last century (and whose energy will make us forget whatever the comparison possesses of trivial), to support authority, as a rope supports the criminal whom it stifles. What a wide field fur reflection do the pretensions of Mr. Stuart open to ua ! I shonld be permitted, in turn to point out, among others, one which appears to mo worthy of all the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. Mr. Stuart does not think it sufficient to put forth and sup- port, as incontestable, principles, opinions which work no less than the destruction of all the rights of British subjects. He wishes to interdict to the people, to the Com- mons of Lower Canada, even the right of petitioning. Inquiry should not be permitted even to his Majesty's Government. To reject it immediately with the most pro- found contempt, to repulse them with disdain, would not be merely an act be- coming his dignity ; he invokes it as the preservation of authority ! Deprived of foundation, it would be lost beyond redemption. Such is the conduct which he endea- vours to prevail upon hia Majesty to adopt towards his faithful subjects, in the most important English colony of the North American continent. Such is the advice of U'r: W Id in 63 him who bat Utoly was eBtrastad to direct, by hU kdviee, th« individual admioUtorinff the goTernment in theee provinces. Snch are the pretensions apoa which he relies, when f eeking that this important Amotion, near him whom he has Jiist labowed to dls- grace, shonld be again entrusted to him. I must stop. The hope of obuining Justice has supported the Canadians on more than one occasion, in the midst of the severest trials. Its last ray has not ceased to shine for them. Coald I persuade myself that it was in the power of an individual to seiio the flambeau of WMviy^Arom the hands of his Sovereign, and to extinguish it t /y****^^*** SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD VISCOUNT GODERICH, COLONIAL SECRETARY, 4(0. its. Su. My Lord, The observations which I have submitted to your lordship, with reference to Mr. Stuart's memoir, were nearly concluded, when I received, on the S9th of last October, Mr. Hay's letter, with a copy of a letter froi . Mr. Stuart to your lordship, as an addition to tho appendix of the memoir, and miubered 17, together vrith Ave aiBdavits, numbered from 18 to 23. The consequence was the necess* .y of considering them In a separate article, and which will serve as a snpplrment t<) the observations already submitted to your lordship. After having read these fresh affidavits, I asked myself how Mr. Stuart oov«id have written to vour Lordship that the affidavits of Messrs. Gale, Delisle, and Turner wtrea compute rejutalion of the ueond charge brought kjf the Auembly depending upon the evidenu cf Mr. Jaequet Viger, and how he can consider the two others victorious, as to that part of th'i charges Drought against him, for partiality in his conduct with reference to :''■» nrose- cutlons Instituted against those wnom it was pretended had been guilty of /3ij<*i'y at Sorell If the subjects discussed were not or so grave a character, on* woc.t be tempted to turn into jest merely, tho justice of these assertions. Mr. Gale begins by deposing that he is an advocate. He via$ at the same time " » juttiee of the peace and chairman if the Court of Quarter Seuionifrom May, 1834., to Cfc- t(^r, 1880, for the district of Montreal, from which he was abtent, ' he says, "for a period of about teventeen months, on a mistiou on behalf of the executive government of Lower Canada. * According to him, Mr. Stuart, In carrying liofore the Court of King's Bench prose- cutions for minor offences, which might have been instituted at the Quarter Sessions, only followed in the stops of his predeceuon in office. Mr. Delisle, the clerk of the peace in this Court, denounced in the memoir as iiaving neglected his duty, in not having instituted them in that Court ; lastly, Mr. Turner, previously a justice of the peace, both depose to the same otTect aa Mr. Gule upon this subject; that It was the custom. If this be a good excuse, there are few »ccnsed persons who would want for one. But let us see whether, In the present case. . uj oomd even serve as a mere pretence. We have seen that the executive government endeavoured for vears to remedy this abuse; its views on this subject had been communicated to Mr. Stuart. This abuse had in consequence ceased at Quebec. It was, iiowever, continued at Montreal, in spite of the steps of the executive government ; c rits care and its recommendations, as well as of tho frequently repeated preseutirients of the grand jury at Montreal. Nevertheless, if we are to believe Mr. Gale upon this subject, " Mr. Attorney-General " would have been culpable, and it might have been made a charge against him, for " neglect of duty and the establishes practice of his predecessors in office, had he omitted " to bring before the grand jury, and the said Court of King's Bench, the bills of indict- " ment, the bringing of which is now, by some persons, endeavoured to be {>erverted into " malversation or is ascribed to improper motives." Mr. Gale makes a virtue of these proceedings ; Mr. Stuart holds, however, a language, in his memoir upon this subject, of a verv different nature. According to him, these were acts of necessity ; it was the fault of the clerk of the peace, and negligence in his department, which obliged him, Mr. Stuart, to have recourse to it! Mr. Delisle and Mr. Turner unite in a sort of panegyric upon Mr. Stuart's conduct for having followed in tho trodden path. It would be impossible for Mr. Delisle, violently attacked as he is by the memoir, to be made to play a more • We may aee, by (he report of the Canada Committee of the English Houh of Common*, which Mt in 1828, what the nature of this minion wai. 06 evAng^ical nbtmHn* thwi tbftt «r bestawiog prMMi, mow th«n ^nrtniioiu. upon ha fkUtfiSr. |tif (J#9.teae,,t||iA!t.Jif we «r« to boUisve theae gflntlenen npon tbe aubjeot, oihtrproeeedi»gM btfore the Maid court. Tl^eae .M««^na wiU, no 4QPl>t, tfpwr «tmaghouse scene was performed in taking these deposi- tions. Mr. Bondy, a well-Known magistrate, and a man above aU reproach, is intro- duced as having participated in these orgies ! Mr. Stuart^ however, does not even pretend that the depositions of these two persons were sent to him for the purpose of using them in support of the prosecntiona which he was to inatitnte against those who had taken false oaths by voting in his favour, as he instituted others against those who had voted in a contrary interest to his own ! What then can be hia motive for annex- ing these depositions to his appendix 1 It would, doubtless, be veiy useless to comment on this portion of hia letter, by which he again ^retenda to juatify himaelf upon tfaia aubjeot by aaying, that no private protecutor would incur the retponiUtility of acting on depositiont thut taken. Upon thia aubject, aa well aa upon all the others which have reference to tbia portion of the chargea of the Aaaembly, we ahould refer to what ia found in the ob- servations which precede it. Besides, supposing for a moment titat Mr. Stuart had been able to create some reasonable doubts as to the truth of this portion of the charges, let us p» farther still ; let us suppose him completely jnstifled on this p^cular point, would he be less cul- pable for having, during nearly three years, cohtinued to prosecute, with animoaity, men of whom a moment'a reflection, the alighteat examination, might ahow the innocence 1 Was not this a conduct stamped with the die of much more than par- tiality 1 Thia truth has already been exposed in its clearest light, and on this account I shall not dweU longer on the subject I beg your Lordship to accept the assurances of profound respect, with which I have the honour to be London Coffee House, 20th Nov. 1831. Your Lordship's obedient and very humble servant, D. B. ViaER. His To the:Iiighi iIqn.-L(}v4 V^oui|tGoderich, Majesty's Secretapg-MlSlatb^jroVatejCoI^p^alV &c.&c. &c. CunniDghim «Bd Salmon, Printer!, 119, Fle«t Street.