MINISTERIAL CRISIS: 
 
 MR. D. B. VIGER, 
 
 MH§ FOSEfUOH 
 
 fi£M 
 
 it inafi 
 
 fit >'•' l ; Ml "' Mil fl/Illtt )iii 
 
 BEING A 
 
 ... »j. ..m>j! du{*:i rii :nii> ,iniri <>l he >‘,h ji iMfih 
 
 REVIEW OF THE HON. MR. VIGER’S PAMPHLET 
 
 rod nj 
 
 • <1 7 /ii. 
 
 It ^u<.mu; yUciooqao t tibilElii:> 
 
 
 " ENTITLED 
 
 'f'/iij .. . :.'.t 1 fi • .irii ’! »l V- -t timuii )»nn 
 
 “LA CRISE MINISTERIELLE ET 
 
 MR. DENIS BENJAMIN VIGER, ETC. EN DEUX PARTIES ” 
 
 .. : : . . ' .< i< : Ml •f.'l ‘P.Othf .n< a: 
 
 BY A REFORMER OF 1836- 
 
 holirnri 
 
 Printed and Sold at the Chronicle ft Gazette Office. 
 
 5S2S3r®S5?®Sff* 
 
 1844. 
 
The following remarks were thrown together very hastily, 
 the author having intended to get them inserted in one of the 
 Newspapers. When about to place them in the hands of the 
 Printer it was suggested to him, that their publication in pamph¬ 
 let form would be more likely to secure for them a general cir¬ 
 culation, especially among those who have not an opportunity of 
 seeing the Newspapers. It is hoped that there will be a suffi¬ 
 cient number of Reformers in each of the Districts zealous 
 enough lo promote the gratuitous circulation of this pamphlet 
 among those whose means of obtaining political information are 
 limited. 
 
HON. MR. VIGER.-HIS POSITION. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Viger’s long promised explanation lias at length appeared. 
 The pamphlet which contains it is at least sufficiently imposing in appearance. 
 There is an “ Avertissement,” “ Premiere partie,” “ Seconde Partie” and 
 “ Postscriptum.” Were it not for the respect which we entertain for Mr. 
 V iger’s personal character and for his undoubted talents, we should be tempted 
 to exclaim “ Parturiunt rnontes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” The greater part ot 
 the pamphlet is occupied with Mr. Viger’s speech in the Assembly on Mr. 
 Price’s motion, which might certainly have been published at least two months 
 ago. The remainder, which is about the length of an ordinary editorial article 
 in one of our leading prints, contains no new matter whatever, and leaves Mr 
 Viger and his position precisely where they were. 
 
 If the Speech, when delivered bv Mr. Viger, with his usual ability, failed 
 to convince the Members of the House of Assembly that he was right in oppos¬ 
 ing the Ex-Ministers who had made a constitutional stand in defence of the 
 rights and liberties of the people, there need not be much apprehension enter¬ 
 tained that the pamphlet under consideration will produce any serious effect 
 on the public mind. Nevertheless, Mr. Viger is not a man to be treated with 
 any thing like contempt, and his apparent confidence in the soundness of his 
 views, and the challenge he has thrown out to his opponents, would alone be 
 sufficient to ensure for him a notice at our hands. The following is a brief 
 extract from the pamphlet: 
 
 “ Ce qui devra maintenant paraitre inexplicable, c’est qu’en depit de Pin- 
 sistance de Mr. Viger sur ces motifs, comme sur une foule d’autres, d’une 
 importance egale pour les Ministres, de reculer devant ce qu’il regardait 
 comme un grave oubli de leur devoir, on ne voit pas qu’un seul Membre ait 
 tente de le refuter. Ce qui devra surprendrc encore davantage, c’est qu’a 
 peine il est question de ces remarques dans les nombreux discours des Ministres 
 ou de leurs paitizans !” 
 
 Mr. Viger might have spared the word “ tente.” The members of the late 
 Ministry and their friends have always felt quite satisfied that Mr. Vigor’s ob¬ 
 jections to their conduct were fully answered, and it is therefore a little too bad 
 to be told that thqy never even made an attempt to refute them. 
 
 Before going into the merits ol the questions at issue between Mr. Viger and 
 the Ex-Ministers, we would observe that we are not of the number of those 
 who look upon Mr. Viger either “ comme devore par l’ambition” or “comme 
 s’ctant couvert de deshonneur,” or “comme un traitre a son pays,” or as being 
 under the influence “ de vues d’une ambition vaniteuse, ou d’interets meree- 
 naires.” Mr. Viger has passed through the ordeal of public life with so much 
 honor to himself as to render the charges of which he complains quite nugatory 
 
4 
 
 lie lias however committed a grievous error, and his friends have put the most 
 charitable construction possible on his conduct when they have attributed to 
 him that he was “ le jouet d’une espece d’ hallucination” “dans la plus com¬ 
 plete illusion.” Could they have had any doubts on the subject the pamphlet 
 under consideration would, in all probability, have set them at rest. 
 
 In dealing with Mr. Viger we have the satisfaction of being able to come 
 at once to the real question before the country, viz : Responsible Govern¬ 
 ment. Our present opponent is far too honorable to descend to what we must 
 term the jugglery of Mr. Gibbon Wakefield. He does not pretend that 
 the late Ministry had lost ground either with the Legislative Council or with 
 the House of Assembly, that their measures were unpopular, that he himself 
 was the leader of a party in opposition to them, and that they were obliged 
 “ to pick a quarrel” with the Governor to save themselves from defeat. All 
 these things, however, have been said or insinuated by the leading partizansot 
 the Provisional Ministry. Mr. Viger, on the other hand, declares that “ up 
 to Monday 27th Nov. our Ministers enjoyed an influence in the House that 
 could hardly be surpassed.” “ Jusqu ’au Lundi, 27e Novembre nos Ministres 
 excr^aient dans la Chambre une influence qui n’est guere susceptible d’etre 
 surpassee.” He goes on to admit that their measures encountered no serious 
 opposition and that many others of great importance (qu. University bill ?) 
 were on the point of terminating in a similar manner, “ etaient sur le point de 
 se terminer de la meme maniere.” These admissions are very important, 
 coining as they do from a gentleman of Mr. Mger’s high character and the 
 leading member of the existing Administration. Mr. Wakefield, however, 
 will care little personally for this exposure of his misstatements, and it would . 
 hardly be fair to act upon Mr. Buchanan’s principle and hold all the opponents 
 of the late Ministry responsible for the sayings and doings of the Hon. Member 
 for Beauharnois. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the questions at issue between Mr. Vi^er and 
 the Ex-Ministers. The former gentleman objects to all the proceedings in 
 Parliament on the ground that they were based on the Ministerial explanations, 
 authorised as it was supposed, and on the two documents first read in the House 
 and afterwards communicated by message, by the Head of the Government, and 
 that the explanations not having been authorized, and the communication of 
 the documents having been unprecedented and highly improper, the House had 
 really nothing whatever before it to form the basis of an address or of any 
 other proceeding. This view of the question Mr. Viger embodied in his 
 amendment to Mr. Price’s motion. We shall, however, be more precise in 
 stating what we understand to be the grounds of Mr. Vigor’s opposition to the 
 Ex-Ministers. He says, 1st—that they resigned without any cause, or rather, 
 that there was no specific fact admitted on all hands, as the ground of their 
 resignation. Alluding to Mr. Lafontaine’s communication, lie says that ex¬ 
 cept what relates to the Secret Societies Bill it “ n’avait rien de l’btat de fails 
 precises, clairs et distincts, essentiellment necessaire en pareille circonstance.” 
 Ad. It is denied that the Ministry ever had permission to explain in the manner 
 that they did, and even if such permission had been given, it should have been 
 
5 
 
 held as withdrawn by the communication from the Head of the Government 
 protesting against it. It follows, of course, from the adoption of such a view, 
 that the Ministers violated their oaths of secrecy as Executive Councillors, 
 od. It is asserted that the Ministers took a great latitude in their explanations 
 —stating facts not alluded to in Mr. Lafontaine’s communication, and one 
 Member is accused of speaking “ de ce qui s’etait passe sous Sir Charles 
 Bagot” We propose taking up these several objections, in the order in which 
 we have stated them, and shall therefore proceed to consider, 1st, the cause of 
 the resignation. Mr. \ iger is evidently much attached to forms and prece¬ 
 dents, not more so, perhaps, than some members of the late Ministry. We 
 are very far from finding fault with him on that score, but when we are refer¬ 
 red to a precedent we must examine closely to ascertain whether the circum¬ 
 stances are similar. Mr. Viger is perfectly aware that under a bona fide sys¬ 
 tem of Responsible Government administered as he, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Bu¬ 
 chanan, the Ex-Ministers, a large majority of the Honse of Assembly, and a 
 still larger majority of the people think that it ought to be administered, a re¬ 
 signation could not take place unless on what he terms facts “ precises , clairs 
 et distincts .’’ Hence it would be difficult to find a precedent in England for 
 the course taken by the Ex-Ministers, no Sovereign there having attempted, 
 since the Revolution, to administer the affairs of the Empire unless with the 
 advice of the Responsible Ministers of the Crown. The circumstances in 
 Canada were such as to impose on the Ministry the necessity of establishing a 
 precedent. Let us assume, for argument’s sake at present, that the statements 
 of the Ex-Ministers had appeared without comment, that Mr. Secretary Daly 
 had risen in his place in the House and admitted both their correctness and 
 that the Head of the Government had given his entire sanction to their being 
 communicated to the House—What then would have been Mr. Vioer’s course ? 
 
 o 
 
 Would he have pretended that there were no facts “pre'eises clairs et distincts ?” 
 Let us examine the statement of Mr. Lafontaine for ourselves. The facts 
 there slated are, 1st, that “ His Excellency took a widely different view of the 
 jxisition, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Council from that under 
 which they accepted office.” 
 
 2d. That such “difference of opinion has led not merely to appoint- 
 “ ments to office against their advice, but to appointments and proposals to 
 “ make appointments of which they were not informed in any manner, 
 
 “ until an opportunity of offering advice respecting them had passed bv, 
 
 “ and to a determination on the part of His Excellency to reserve for the ex¬ 
 pression of Her Majesty’s pleasure thereon, a bill introduced into the Pro- 
 “ vincial Parliament with His Excellency’s knowledge and consent, as a Gov¬ 
 ernment measure, without an opportunity being given to the members of the 
 “ Executive Council to state the probability of such a reservation.” 
 
 We freely admit, and so did Mr. Lafontaine, that with the Governor’s theory 
 regarding Responsible Government we have nothing to do, unless in so far as 
 it influences him in the actual administration of public affairs. But assuming as 
 we now do the statement of Mr. Lafontaine to be correct, and admitted as such 
 by the Governor, we maintain that there were facts “ precises clairs et distincts’ 
 
6 
 
 more than sufficient to justify the resignation. But if instead of taking the 
 broad ground which they did, the late Ministers had resigned upon what Mr. 
 Viger would call “un fait distinct,” viz : on some one of the many appointments 
 which were calculated to undermine their political influence, what would have 
 been the result ? Why, the delusion under which Mr. Viger and the public 
 were and are still labouring would have been kept up. It would have been 
 supposed that the Governor was really administering public affairs with the 
 advice of his Council, and that the latter had resigned merely because in some 
 one particular case the Governor had differed from them. Then we should 
 have heard on all sides, both from friends and enemies—“ What an unreason¬ 
 able set of men ! They wanted an entire controul of the Prerogative,—they 
 wished to deprive the Governor of all voice in the administration of the Gov¬ 
 ernment,”—in short all that has been falsely urged against them might, under 
 such circumstances, have been said with perfect truth. We contend, that not¬ 
 withstanding all that has been said of the superior conduct of the Nova Scotia 
 Councillors, the Canadian Ex-Ministers were still more faithful to their con¬ 
 stituents as well as to the great cause of Responsible Government. Lord 
 Falkland has, it is true, like Sir Francis Head, “ let the cat out of the bag,” 
 and has shewn clearly that he either does not understand Responsible Govern¬ 
 ment or that he has no idea of carrying it into practice. We believe the views 
 of Sir Charles Metcalfe—and we judge him by his own public declarations— 
 to differ in no essential particular from those expressed bv Lord Falkland. 
 The Governor who could contemplate offering such a situation as the Speaker- 
 ship of the Legislative Council without consulting his Council, either does not 
 understand the working of Responsible Government or does not choose to 
 practise it. 
 
 Our object in the foregoing remarks has been to shew, that in the circum¬ 
 stances in which the late Ministers were placed , differing entirely from 
 those under which the resignations occurred, quoted bv Mr. Viger as prece¬ 
 dents , they would not have done their duty to Parliament or the people had 
 they not brought the real question under discussion. Then as to the time. 
 That of course is a point which their supporters ought to have the liberality to 
 leave, in some degree , to their own judgment. They themselves could never 
 have had a doubt that they would be censured by many. Some charge them 
 with holding office too long , from mercenary considerations, although one of 
 their number had previously resigned twice, and had then been accused of be¬ 
 ing too hasty. Others again raise the cry ot precipitancy , and amongst the 
 latter class we should be almost inclined to rank Mr. Viger, who says “ on ne 
 u croit pas devoir se permettre ici des conjectures sur les motifs de cette preci- 
 “ pitation de leur part lor? qu’ils devaient, ce sernble, pouvoir souffrir encore 
 “ quelques semaines de ce qu’ils out qualifie d’ antagonisme, qu’ils avaient 
 “ pu supporter pendant deja pres d’une annee.” This subject has been fully 
 treated by Mr. Baldwin in his speech at the Toronto dinner, and we shall 
 therefore content ourselves here with stating that although particular cir¬ 
 cumstances forced the Ministry to bring the state of public affairs under the 
 notice of the Governor General, yet we can imagine no time more suitable for 
 a discussion of the points of difference between His Excellency and the Coun- 
 
7 
 
 cil, than when Parliament was in Session ; and we would remind Mr. Viger 
 that the Council were never informed of the “ antagonism” until the dav that 
 they determined on resigning, and further that the term was not employed by 
 them but bv the Governor General. 
 
 We have endeavored to demonstrate, that assuming Mr. Lafontaine’s repre¬ 
 sentation to be true, and uncontradicted in any way, there were facts quite 
 sufficiently “ precises clairs et distir.cts” to be laid before Parliament and the 
 Country, and that Mr. Viger has no right to charge the Ex-Ministry with not 
 following British precedent , until he is prepared to shew a precedent of a 
 British Sovereign administering the affairs of the Empire on the same princi¬ 
 ples as Sir Charles Metcalfe did those of Canada. The only precedent that 
 occurs to us at this moment that can be applied with propriety to the case be¬ 
 fore us, is the resignation of Messrs. P. Robinson, Markland, Wells, Baldwin, 
 Dunn and Rolph, in consequence of Sir Francis Head’s meeting a very similar 
 remonstrance to that of the Ex-ministrv in a very similar manner to that of Sir 
 Charles Metcalfe. In that case the Council put their views on paper, in the 
 shape of a memorandum, which was answered by the Governor, on which the 
 Council resigned. Mr. Baldwin asked permission to make the usual Parlia¬ 
 mentary explanations, which was granted, exactly as on the late resignations. 
 Not being in Parliament, he wrote a letter to the Parliamentary leader of his 
 party, (Mr. Perry,) stating all the circumstances connected with his accept¬ 
 ance and resignation of office, which letter was read in the House of Assembly 
 in the course of debate. An address to the Lieut. Governor, for information, 
 was then passed, and all the documents communicated, when the House pro¬ 
 ceeded to pass a vote of want of confidence in the new Ministry. Now, what¬ 
 ever opposition may have been made to Mr. Baldwin’s views of Responsible 
 Government at the time, we never heard any one assert that there was no 
 ground for the resignation , or that the proper mode had not been taken of 
 bringing the question fairly before the country. 
 
 We come now to consider, 2dl v, the Ministerial explanations, the authority 
 for making them, and what Mr. Viger terms the protest against them (le pro- 
 tet le plus formel) on the part of the Head of the Government. We shall also 
 prove the correctness of Mr. Lafontaine’s statement as to the real cause of 
 lhe resignation of the late Ministry, which we have already assumed to be true. 
 Mr. Vigor has verv correctly stated the circumstances under which Executive 
 Councillors may disclose to the public “ ce qui sc passe ou se communique 
 dans leurs deliberations.” He says “ Us peuvent obtenir de lui (the Gover¬ 
 nor) la permission de faire connaitre aux Chambres Legislatives les points 
 sur lesquels leurs vues se sont trouv^es differentes.” u They may obtain per¬ 
 mission from him (the Governor) to make known to both Houses of the Le¬ 
 gislature, the points upon which their views are found to be different.” Mr. 
 Viger goes on to add that they can give no explanations but with regard t‘> 
 facts of public notoriety ; and refers to past history for examples. We shall 
 have something more to say to Mr. Viger about <k precedents,” but we deny 
 altogether his position that the Ministers are precluded from giving such expla¬ 
 nations as mav be required for the public good. The rule with regard to 
 
8 
 
 explanations is perfectly clear, and there can be no limitation whatever to the 
 extent of the disclosures which may be made except that which the public weal 
 may require. It is true that no disclosures can be made without permission, 
 but whenever a difference arises between the Head of the Government and his 
 Ministers, Parliament and the public have a right to the fullest information. 
 What is the object of making explanations at all? That the public may be 
 able to judge whether the retiring Ministry have acted right or wrong. They 
 are the parties upon trial, and they have a right to expect permission to state 
 every thing necessary for their complete justification. It would be as un¬ 
 precedented as it would be useless for the Sovereign or his Representative to 
 limit the explanations of Ministers, because any attempt to do so would inva¬ 
 riably be met, as Mr. Baldwin declared in the House he would have met it, 
 viz. by a refusal to sav one word until the required permission should be 
 granted. No new Ministry would venture to assume the responsibility of 
 such a refusal. But on the other hand no man or set of men would be borne 
 out by Parliament or the Country in asking permission, or using it when given 
 to make disclosures unconnected with the subject of difference. We contend 
 that the late Ministry made no allusions whatever, during the debates arising 
 out of their resignation, that had not a direct and palpable bearing on the ques¬ 
 tion at issue, and that were not necessary for their vindication. Although 
 many insinuations have been made that they violated their oaths, no specific 
 case has been adduced in which they stated anything unconnected with the 
 cause of their resignation. As to the mode of making the explanations, that 
 we believe it is admitted was in accordance with all precedent. The verbal 
 permission has been cavilled at, and it has been said that it should have been in 
 writing. On this point we are unwilling to speak with much confidence, but 
 we arc tolerably certain that precedents could be given for both modes. It 
 was only during last Session, a few weeks before the resignation, that a Mem¬ 
 ber of the administration had resigned on another point. His permission to 
 explain, if we mistake not, was a verbal one. In our view of the question, 
 and we feel convinced that we are correct, it can be of no consequence what¬ 
 ever, whether the permission is a verbal or written one. In either case it must 
 be full, and unrestricted or it will not be accepted at all. The explanations 
 are invariably made in presence of a Responsible Minister, whose duty it is to 
 take care that facts are correctly stated. We admit that one cause of difficulty 
 on the occasion of the late resignation, was the inability of the Governor’s only 
 responsible adviser to attend the sittings of the House.’ Undoubtedlv the best 
 course would have been, to have put off all explanations as well as all public 
 business until the new Ministry had been formed. It was not, however, the 
 fault of the Ex-Ministers that a new Ministry was not formed, and we may re¬ 
 mark en passant that we wonder it has never occurred to a man so fond of 
 “precedents” as Mr. Viger, that a provisional Ministry is both anew and 
 dangerous experiment. There are precedents perhaps, but then the circum¬ 
 stances are as widely different as are those which led to the late resignation in 
 Canada, from those which caused Sir Robert Peel to refuse office in 1839. 
 When the late Ministry applied in the usual wav tor full permission to make 
 such explanations as were necessary for their vindication, it was franklv ac- 
 
9 
 
 corded to them, coupled, however, with a request that they would put on paper 
 the substance of what they proposed communicating to the House. They had 
 no doubt that Mr. Dalv would be present, and never, of course, for one moment 
 imagined that there would be any difference as to matters of fact. The real 
 parties on their trial were the Ex-Ministers on the one hand, and Mr. Daly on 
 the other, but unfortunately, as we think, the Governor General was advised to 
 make himself a party personally, and the consequence has been, despite all the 
 efforts ot the Ex-Ministers to prevent it, that His Excellency has placed him¬ 
 self in the position of an accused person, and is at this moment looked upon bv 
 many as the leader of a party adverse to the late Ministry, rather than as the 
 strictly impartial Representative ot the Queen. Such has been the unfortunate 
 result ot the communication to the House of the document purporting to be an 
 answer to Mr. Lalontaine. The course taken by the Governor on this occa¬ 
 sion, and which is very strongly objected toby Mr. Viger, even while he tries 
 to apologize for it, though quite inconsistent with Responsible Government as 
 understood in Canada, is in strict accordance with the views on that question 
 which His Excellency is known to entertain. According to the Governor’s 
 request, Mr. Lafontaine prepared a statement embodying the substance of the 
 proposed explanations, and sent it early on Monday morning to His Excellen¬ 
 cy.—No intimation was made to Mr. Lafontaine that any objection was enter¬ 
 tained to his statement until within an hour before the time that the House 
 was to meet on Wednesday, when the letter of the Governor General, dated 
 Tuesday, was placed in his hands. It was, of course, impossible for him to 
 communicate with his colleagues unless the explanation had again been post¬ 
 poned. No intimation was given that this paper would be communicated to 
 the House. It is now to be considered whether there was anything in the 
 document alluded to, which ought properly to have caused further delay, or to 
 have prevented the explanations altogether. Mr. Viger calls Mr. Lafontaine’s 
 letter “ une espece d’expose.” The answer to it is principally an argu¬ 
 ment against the view taken by the Ex-Ministers of Responsible Government, 
 and the protest which is such a bug-bear to Mr. Viger, in reality amounts to 
 nothing. It is not, as we shall shew, a protest against explanations being 
 made, but against the arguments made use of bv Mr. Lafontaine and his col- 
 leagues. The protest, however, is conditional. Mr. Viger does not seem to have 
 noticed what follows it. The whole paragraph ought to be taken together, and 
 it is most unfair in Mr. Viger to quote the first two lines, omitting the remain¬ 
 der. Mr. Lafontaine had imputed to the Governor that “ he took a widely 
 different view of the position, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Coun¬ 
 cil from that under which they accepted office.” This representation His Ex¬ 
 cellency says u is calculated to injure him xvitliout just cause in the opinion 
 of Parliament and the People” it conveys “a misapprehension of his senti¬ 
 ments and views, which has no foundation in any part of his conduct,” unless , 
 mark what follows, “ his ref usal to make a virtual surrender of the Prero¬ 
 gative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes ” can be regarded 
 as warranting the representation. Now, surely even Mr. Viger ought to per¬ 
 ceive that the words following unless , explain the whole difficulty. The pro¬ 
 test is merely against the argument of Mr. Lafontaine, and everything depends 
 
10 
 
 after all, on what is understood by Responsible Government, that “ unde¬ 
 fined question as applicable to a Colony .” We assert with perfect confi¬ 
 dence that the present Governor General considers Responsible Government 
 as understood bv the majority of the House of Assembly, bv the late Ministry, 
 bv Mr. Viger himself, by Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Wakefield, his own great 
 champions, to be inadmissible as requiring “ a virtual surrender of the Pre¬ 
 rogative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes.” What then becomes 
 of the Protest ? We contend that the main facts, stated by Mr. Lafonlaine, 
 “ faits precises clairs et distincts” are not contradicted in the answer. Is it 
 denied that appointments were made without the advice of the Council, and 
 prejudicial to their political influence ? The next question we ask is,—Is such 
 a mode of proceeding consistent with the resolutions of 3rd Sept., 1841, which 
 the Governor General professes to take as his rule of Government ? We think 
 not, so does Mr. Viger and so do the House of Assembly. Here then was the 
 real point of difference which led to the remonstrance on the part of the Minis¬ 
 ters. The Governor, in his answer, states that he observes in the explanations 
 “ a total omission of the circumstances which he regards as forming the real 
 grounds of their resignation.” These His Excellency then proceeds to men¬ 
 tion, but it will be observed that there is no difference with regard to facts. 
 The Governor makes no allusion to those circumstances which led to the re¬ 
 monstrance, but this, of course, is a virtual admission of the correctness of Mr. 
 Lafontaine’s statement. The main difference between this and the explana¬ 
 tion given by the Governor General, as any one understanding the question will 
 at once perceive, is that the Governor passes over the “ some preliminary re¬ 
 marks” and dwells altogether on the demand made by the Council, his refu¬ 
 sal to accede to which was, in his opinion, the cause of the resignation, where¬ 
 as the Ex-Ministers dwell upon the erroneous system which was in opera¬ 
 tion, and, which as they proved to the satisfaction of the House, had been pur¬ 
 sued by the Governor General, and gave as their reason for resigning that on 
 remonstrating with His Excellency, they found him determined to adhere to 
 his previous course , and in a state of “ antagonism” with them on the sub¬ 
 ject. Nothing can more clearly shew that the Ministers were not very tena¬ 
 cious even about the adoption of their own suggestions, than the following ex¬ 
 tract from the letter of the Governor General, “ Three or more distinct propo¬ 
 sitions were made to him, over and over again, sometimes in different terms, 
 hut always arriving at the same purpose, which in his opinion if accomplished, 
 would have been a virtual surrender into the hands of the Council , of the 
 Prerogative of the Crown.” The passage italicized is a favorite one, and 
 in point of fact, the whole question at issue depends on the extent to which the 
 Prerogative is to be controlled. The great object of having a Responsible 
 Ministry is, that there may be a “ guarantee” that the Prerogative will be 
 subject to controul, and that it will be exercised in accordance with the well 
 understood wishes of the people, represented and advocated by men having the 
 confidence ot Parliament. It is important to bear the foregoing remarks in 
 mind, because it would be supposed from the document alluded to, that the 
 demand ol the Council was made without any particular reason for it, whereas 
 we have shewn that “ the some preliminary remarks as to the cause of their 
 
11 
 
 proceeding” are of vital importance to the Country. The system previously 
 pursued by the Governor had been very unsatisfactory, and was calculated to 
 destroy the political influence of the Ministry, and they were compelled to re¬ 
 monstrate and to come to an understanding with His Excellency on certain 
 points. Almost the only point on which there is even an apparent misunder¬ 
 standing between the Governor and the Ex-Ministers, is that regarding the 
 “ stipulation” That, however, would long since have been cleared up had 
 there been a Responsible Minister in Parliament. We believe that there is no 
 real difference between them. The Ministry have never denied that thev gave the 
 Gov. General to understand that they could not afford him any assistance in the 
 administration of the Government it the system of making appointments preju¬ 
 dicial to their influence was to be continued. This may be termed requiring 
 “ a stipulation.” We deny that it is so. Will any one pretend that if at the 
 present time, it being perfectly well known to every one that the Governor has 
 avowed his determination not to be influenced in any way by party considera¬ 
 tions, His Excellency were to invite Mr. Viger to form an administration, he 
 might not with perfect propriety ask His Excellency whether such were his 
 views as to the mode of administering the Government, as if so, it would be out 
 of his power to render him any assistance? There surely would be no “ stip¬ 
 ulation ” in all this, and we could very easily find plenty of English prece¬ 
 dents for “stipulations” of this kind. Now, in our judgment, Mr. Viger if 
 called on as we have supposed, would not only be justified in taking such a 
 course, but he would neglect his duty to his country if he failed to do so. If 
 then a gentleman called on to form an administration would be justified in com¬ 
 ing to such an understanding with the Head of the Government as to his views 
 on public policy, surely the members of an administration are equally warranted 
 in doing so, especially after a change in the Head of the Government, and 
 when they have reason to think that there is a wide difference between him and 
 them as to the policy to be pursued. We have extended our remarks on this 
 subject to a greater length than we could have wished, because there is an ap¬ 
 parent, although no real difference between the Governor General and the late 
 Ministry with regard to the “ stipulation,” which never could have existed 
 had there been a Responsible Minister in Parliament during the discussion, as 
 was fully expected when the explanations w’ere made. As to the ether points 
 there is no dispute. The Ministers also felt themselves bound to explain to tho 
 Head of the Government, that if appointments w T ere to be made, as heretofore, 
 without their advice being taken, they could not continue to hold office. The 
 reference to the lists of candidates was also called for. The object was that 
 these lists should be deposited with the Responsible Secretary of the Province, 
 and not with the Private Secretary to the Governor. We assert broadly, that 
 unless the advice most respectfully tendered by the late Council be followed 
 out, there can be no real Responsible Government , as it is understood bv the 
 Country. The votes of the Ex-Ministers for Mr. Boulton’s resolution, which 
 was seconded bv Mr. Lafontaine, afford the best evidence that can be offered, 
 that they did not require “ a stipulation ” in the ordinary acceptation of that 
 term. 
 
 As we propose to offer a few remarks elsewhere on the general question of 
 
12 
 
 Responsible Government, we shall now proceed to the 3d objection taken by 
 Mr. Viger, viz: to the latitude takenby the Ex-Ministers in their explanations. 
 We have already pointed out what we conceive to be the true doctrine with 
 regard to Parliamentary explanations, and we feel persuaded that we are cor¬ 
 rect. The nature of the difference between the Head of the Government and 
 the late Council necessarily led to the disclosures of which Mr. Viger complains 
 but which the Ministers conceived themselves fully authorized to make. The 
 simple question is—had these statements anything to do with the subject under 
 consideration ? Now, one cause of the difference between the Governor and 
 the Ex-Ministers was, that appointments had been made without or against the 
 advice of the latter. This fact was undisputed. What possible objection then 
 could be made to the furnishing of instances in which it had been done ? Mr. 
 Viger is entirely astray in his charge that one of the Ministry made disclo¬ 
 sures with regard to what took place in Sir Charles Bagot’s time. The case 
 to which he refers and which was simply an illustration of the manner in which 
 strangers were fastened on the country by means of letters from English friends, 
 was not given in any way on information obtained by the gentleman who allud¬ 
 ed to it, as a Member of the Council, but on private information open to anv 
 other individual as well as to him. 
 
 We have abstained from saying any thing on the subject of the “ Secret 
 Societies Bill,” although the course pursued by the Governor with reference 
 to that measure was entirely inconsistent with Responsible Government. The 
 Ministry might, and probably would have resigned on this question alone, as 
 “ un fait distinct,” had it not been evident to them that the difficulty in which 
 they became involved with regard to it, was caused bv a total misconception on 
 the part of the distinguished individual at the head of the Government of the 
 mode of working out Responsible Government. This is, after all, the real 
 question before the country, and Mr. Viger must not conceal from himself that 
 it is. It is idle for him to tell the people of Canada that the Governor General 
 subscribes entirely to the Resolutions of 3d Sept., 1841, and considers anv 
 other system of Government impracticable. We do not for one moment mean 
 to question the sincerity of His Excellency", who has been perfectly consistent 
 throughout the whole of the late difficulties. We do, however, mean to say, 
 that the Governor General does not understand those resolutions in the same 
 sense in which they are understood in the Province. There is now no real 
 Responsible Government. Mr. Viger is fond of precedents— let him find a 
 pi ecedent for the Private Secretary ot the Sovereign performing the 
 duties now discharged by the Private Secretarv of the Governor General. 
 It is stated in the public newspapers at Toronto, that letters have been received 
 irorn Mr. Higginson, pledging the Government to a certain line of proceeding 
 with regard to the University, and even promising large endowments of money, 
 which no responsible Ministers would dream of. We care not whether these 
 papers have stated what is strictly the truth. Perhaps they have not. The fact 
 however remains, that while Mr. Viger is a responsible Minister, the Governor’s 
 in esponsible Private Sec’y is carrying on a correspondence on the local affairs 
 of the Province, which fall peculiarly within the department of the responsible 
 Secretary. It is notorious that since the arrival of Sir Charles Metcalfe the 
 
13 
 
 Private Secretary has discharged more of the functions of a Minister of the 
 Crown than any one of die really responsible Ministers. Nothing can he more 
 obvious than the impropriety of a Private Secretary keeping up ? a correspond¬ 
 ence on the local atlairs ot the Province, and of course expressing' opinions with 
 regard to them by which the Government must he bound. Again, Mr. Viger. 
 being a Responsible Minister, will be bound to defend in his place in Parlia¬ 
 ment, all the answers ol the Governor to the addresses daily sent to him, in 
 which he pledges his present and future administration as to their line of policy 
 on many subjects, but which in all probability none of Ins Ministry ever see 
 
 until they are in print. In one of them we find the following passage_ u for 
 
 “ although it is physically impossible consistently with the despatchof public 
 “ business that every act of the Governor in this Colony could be made the 
 “ subject of a formal reference for the advice of the Council, there can be no 
 u doubt that it will be the inclination as well as duty of the Governor to con- 
 “ suit the Council on all occasions of adequate importance .” We must 
 compliment the individual, whether responsible or otherwise, who frames the 
 various answers to addresses. Responsible Government is “ an undefined 
 question as applicable to a Colony ,” but the Governor General is determined 
 to govern in strict accordance with it as he understands it. We are now told 
 that he will “ consult the Council on all occasions of adequate importance ” 
 —he himself, as a matter of course, being the judge. Why, Sir Francis Head 
 promised as much 8 years ago, and there has never been a Governor in the 
 Country that would not have made the same admission. And vet Mr. D. B. 
 ^ iger holds himself to the Canadian Public as responsible for such sentiments, 
 and pledges himself to his Countrymen that Responsible Gov’t is fullv conceded. 
 Let us not be misunderstood however. Every Menpber of the late Council 
 was as well aware as the Governor can be, that it is “ physically impossible to 
 make formal references to Council of every matter that comes up for decision,” 
 nor did any of them desire that any such system should be practised. Everv 
 act of the Governor, however, must be communicated by his Secretary, anti 
 that Secretary should be a responsible Minister, thoroughly acquainted with 
 the policy of the Administration of which he is a Member, and capable of ad¬ 
 vising the Governor on every subject not of sufficient importance to be referred 
 to the Council. If the Secretary recommends any step prejudicial to the Ad¬ 
 ministration, which for his own sake he will not do, his colleagues will of 
 course hold him responsible to them. One thing is perfectly clear, viz., that 
 there must be a party Government, and that the Governor must be prepared to 
 administer the Government in accordance with the wishes of his Council, so 
 long as he retains them. What we complain of is, that Mr. Viger, knowing as 
 he must do, the opinions of Sir Charles Metcalfe on this subject, should repre¬ 
 sent him as entertaining those views of Responsible Government which he Mr. 
 Viger has always professed, and which he admits are held “comme une 
 espece de foi politique dans toute l’^tendue de cette Province,” and of which 
 he savs “ rien ne fait plus d’honneur a ses habitants que leur sentiment pro- 
 fond d’attacbement pour un systemc dont la pratique pexit seule assurer ces 
 droits precieux.” A great deal has been said in some of the public journals, 
 about the support given to the Governor General bv the English press. For 
 
14 
 
 this we were fully prepared. The press as well as the Imperial Government, 
 will always take sides against the Colonists when they are contending for their 
 rights as British subjects. It is well, however, that the Canadian people should 
 know the opinions expressed by the English Ministerial press, which are tho¬ 
 roughly against Responsible Government as understood by the Canadians to 
 have been established by the Resolutions of 3d September, 1841. The 
 London “ Times” says— 
 
 “ The truth is that “ Responsible Government”, or in other words repre- 
 “ sentative government in a Colony is not and cannot in the nature of things, 
 “ be the same thing as Responsible or Representative Government in an im- 
 “ perial State.” 
 
 We need not continue the quotation which contains precisely the same argu¬ 
 ments that we heard years ago from Sir Francis Bond Head, whose opinions the 
 Editor of the leading journal of England understands Sir Charles Metcalfe 
 to hold. Again let us quote an extract from a writer in the “ Times”.—Al¬ 
 luding to Sir Charles Metcalfe’s recognition of the Resolutions of 1841, which 
 he regrets ; he says— 
 
 “ The fact is that the principles for which he contends , and the Resolu- 
 “ lions in question are incompatible, and cannot co-exist, and the only re- 
 “ medy in my humble judgment must come hence. The Imperial Government 
 “ must pass resolutions to amend those passed in Canada in 1841 !!!,** 
 “ Sir Charles Bagot got us into a difficulty from which there is no safe way 
 “ out but by a retreat. The fatal steps must be retraced, and the sooner they 
 “ are so the easier we shall find the operation. There must be no squeamishness, 
 “ no mincing the matter. Responsible Government has been tried, and found 
 “ wanting, and we must hear no more of it. But it is not in the power of Sir 
 “ C. Metcalfe, though he has had a fair kick at it, to give it the coup de 
 “ grace. That power is possessed by the Imperial Government alone.” 
 
 Need we add another word to prove that the English opposition to the Ex- 
 Ministers, is to Responsible Government, which they hate, and which they ful¬ 
 ly believe Sir Charles Metcalfe to have had a kick at! Will Mr. Viger help 
 to kick it over for ten years more ? 
 
 Having quoted the opinions of the “Times” we proceed to give those of 
 the “ Morning Chronicle”, the great organ of the Whig party. It is true that 
 the latter journal, unable to believe “that a man of Sir Charles Metcalfe’s 
 good sense and liberal views could have been guilty of such an error,” and de¬ 
 ceived by “a well informed correspondent” (qu. Mr. Wakefield?) has cen¬ 
 sured the conduct of the Ex-Ministers. It has, however, done so on broad 
 grounds, and grounds that we unhesitatingly pronounce false. The Ex-Minis¬ 
 ters did not desire “ to exclude him (the Governor) from any voice in the 
 management of affairs”—they did not treat him “ as if he really formed no 
 part of the Council over which he presided”—they did not “ pick a quarrel 
 with the Governor as a pretext for slipping out of office instead of being driv¬ 
 en out by a Parliamentary vote.” Our readers will readily guess the quarter 
 
15 
 
 from which such charges emanated, and will understand that the censure of 
 the “ Morning Chronicle” was owing to its belief of the statements of a person 
 on the spot, in whose veracity it confided. No wonder that the “ Chronicle” 
 should exclaim against the “gross impolicy of raising a dispute on an abstract 
 principle of government, when circumstances had not rendered its determi¬ 
 nation necessary ” and against “ the indecency of requiring such a pledge 
 from a Governor whose previous'conduct had indicated no necessity for so 
 binding him. For our own part we look upon.the above quotation as strong 
 evidence in favour of the Ex-Ministry, but with regard to the great principle 
 at stake, the views of the “ Morning Chronicle” are every thing that we 
 could wish, and are in direct opposition to the “ Times” and to the Gover¬ 
 nor General. We have italicised the most important passages. 
 
 From the Morning Chronicle. 
 
 “ The friends of the retiring councillors assert that the dispute has originated 
 11 in Sir Charles Metcalfe claiming a right to make all appointments in the 
 “Province, without the sanction or advice of any Responsible Minister, it is 
 “ quite clear that such a claim, on the part of the Governor, ts perfectly in- 
 “ compatible with any responsibility on the part of any one else ; for no 
 “ one in his senses would consent to be responsible for the conduct of a dopart- 
 “ ment in which another person had the nomination of his subordinate agents. 
 “ That every appointment under the Crown should be made with the sanc- 
 “ tion of a Responsible M inister , is the first principle of Parliamentary 
 “ Government. And those, indeed, who would not admit the full principle 
 “ of Responsible Government, would surely allow its application to questions of 
 “ local patronage. A Governor from England may sometimes be able to form 
 “ a sounder opinion respecting the policy of Government than those who have 
 “ had the confidence of the Colonial Assembly. But with respect to appoint- 
 “ ments to office, it is impossible that he can be so competent a judge as persons 
 “ having, from their earliest youth, a knowledge ofcolonial society. With res- 
 “peetto such matters the Governor must, in ninety-nine cases in every 
 “ hundred, take his opinion from some one else, instead of forming it himself; 
 “ and it is surely better that that other person should be recognized and respon- 
 “ sible. If Sir Charles Metcalfe, therefore,really insisted on exercising the 
 “ patronage of the Crown , without the sanction of any Responsible Minis- 
 “ ter , he undoubtedly deviated from the established rules of Parliamentary 
 “ Government , in a manner which must have rendered it impossible for any 
 “ of his Ministry to act under him. 
 
 We cannot conclude our notice of Mr. Vigor’s pamphlet without some re¬ 
 marks on the peculiar position of that gentleman. He professes to approve 
 of the general policy of the late Administration, and to hold their views on 
 the subject of Responsible Government—and by his vote on the Address be 
 admits that the Council ought to be consulted on all appointments to office. 
 He differs principally with the Ministry on a question or questions of mere 
 form. Even upon his own view of the case the late Ministry were in an em¬ 
 barrassing position, and brought into it in consequence of the Head of the Go- 
 
16 
 
 vernment not having acted according to those principles professed by Mr. 
 Viger. Now even admitting them to have acted imprudently, injudiciously, 
 or whatever Mr. Viger pleases, is that, we ask of him seriously, a good 
 reason for bringing dissension among his countrymen, whose influence must 
 necessarily he destroyed by a division? With whom has he linked himself? 
 Let him enquire who are the parties getting up addresses in Upper Cana¬ 
 da in opposition to the late Ministry. Has he any sympathy whatever with 
 them or they with him ? Will he condescend to be yoke-fellow with the 
 Grand Master of the Orangemen? Who are the loudest in singing his prai¬ 
 ses in Lower Canada? Why the very men who a few years ago objected to 
 his being fattened for the galloivs. 
 
 Mr. Viger is a gentleman of great experience in political life, one who 
 professes to understand the working of representative government as well 
 as any other man in Canada, and he therefore must know that it is moral¬ 
 ly impossible that he can continue politically connected with the party 
 which is opposed to the Ex-Ministry. He may possibly divide his coun¬ 
 trymen,—though we don’t believe that he can—but what would be the con¬ 
 sequence? their utter prostration as a party. We trust that we have treat¬ 
 ed Mr. Viger in the foregoing observations with that respect to which we 
 admit that he is entitled. We deem him to be in fearful error, both in 
 the view that he has taken of the great question discussed during the last Ses¬ 
 sion of Parliament, and still more in the course that he has subsequently 
 adopted. He has done great service to the cause of civil and religious 
 liberty during his long life, but the injury that he has inflicted on the coun¬ 
 try by giving his sanction to the Government being conducted for upwards 
 of two months without a Ministry, is greater than can be imagined at present. 
 
 The foregoing remarks were written previous to the publication of the Gov¬ 
 ernor General’s answer to the highly important address from the Warden and 
 fifteen Councillors of the District of Gore. The object of that address was to 
 put the Governor General in possession “of the true state of public opinion and 
 the real feelings of the country,” “in the absence from your Excellency of con¬ 
 stitutional advisers.” We shall quote the most important passage. 
 
 “ We therefore humbly assure vour Excellency, representing as we do, va- 
 “ rious townships in this District, and being intimately acquainted with live 
 “ views, feelings and wishes of the several constituencies we have the honor to 
 “ represent, that public opinion in this District, and we believe throughout the 
 “ length and breadth of Canada, will fully sustain the late Executive in the 
 “ stand they have taken, and the views they have expressed in relation to Co- 
 “ lonial Administration under the principle of Responsible Government, as 
 “ enunciated and set forth in the Resolutions of the Assembly of September, 
 “ 1841, and practically carried into operation under your Excellency’s late 
 “ lamented predecessors, Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot.” 
 
 It is evident that on the receipt of an address emanating from parties of so 
 much influence in a very important section of Upper Canada, the Provisional 
 
17 
 
 Administration (for every act of the Governor must on our principles be ascri¬ 
 bed to them,) felt the absolute necessity of advising the Governor General to 
 make an explicit declaration of those views on Responsible Government which 
 they are prepared to support, and which, any new administration that may be 
 formed, will have to defend in Parliament. No one has more distinctly avowed 
 his responsibility for every act of the Government than Mr. Viger, and yet we 
 hardly know how to believe it possible that he can have sanctioned and bound 
 himself to defend in Parliament, the answer to the address from the Warden and 
 Councillors of the District of Gore. It must be obvious to every man who 
 reads that answer, that the Responsible Government of the present Provisional 
 Administration, is essentially different from that which the people of Canada 
 believed to have been conceded by the resolutions of 3rd September, 1841. 
 We shall have very little trouble in proving this to the satisfaction of every un¬ 
 prejudiced reader. In the document communicated to the House of Assembly 
 by the distinguished individual at the Head of the Government, will be found 
 the following passage. 
 
 The Governor General subscribes entirely to the Resolutions of the Legisla¬ 
 tive Assemblv of the 3rd September, 1841, and considers any other system of 
 Government but that which recognizes Responsibility to the People and to the 
 Representative Assembly as impracticable in this Province. 
 
 The resolution in question declares in express terms “ That the Head of the 
 Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of his Govern¬ 
 ment, the Representative of the Sovereign is Responsible to the Imperial au¬ 
 thority alone.” This is one of the most important principles declared in the 
 resolution, the one upon which the whole system hangs, and the misunderstand¬ 
 ing; regarding which has led to all our difficulties. Let our readers mark (he 
 contradictory language of the answer to the Gore address, which contains Mr. 
 D. B. Viger’s new view of Responsible Government. 
 
 “He (the Governor) is also virtually responsible to the peo¬ 
 ple of this Colony, and practically more so than even to the 
 Mother Country. Every dav proves it and no Resolution can make 
 it othenvise'. ! !” 
 
 One would suppose that after such a declaration the absurdity of advi¬ 
 sing the Governor General to profess to uphold Responsible Government, 
 would have occurred to such shrewd politicians as Messrs. Viger and Dra¬ 
 per, but no! we are assured in almost the next sentence that the Gover¬ 
 nor “ entirely agrees” with the signers of the address if they mean that “ the 
 Resolution of September, 1841, should be faithfully adhered to.” We deny 
 the practical responsibility of the Governor to the people of Canada. It can¬ 
 not and ought not to exist. Until the public became aware that the Governor 
 entertained strong views of his own both with regard to the measures, and the 
 patronage of the Government, he was considered by all parties in the Countrv 
 as the Representative of his Sovereign, and as disposed to be perfectly impar¬ 
 tial to all. What a change has since taken place ! and how painful it must be 
 
18 
 
 to His Excellency to find himself in the position in which he now is. The 
 virtual Responsibility to the people of Canada, which is referred to in the an¬ 
 swer to the Gore address, arises from His Excellency being now considered by 
 many as at the head of a party, and that party the minority both in Parlia¬ 
 ment and in the Country. The very addresses which appear to give so much 
 satisfaction to His Excellency, what are they? party addresses—how different 
 from those welcoming his arrival, which were from the whole people. 
 
 We need not pursue this subject, but we have one or two observations to 
 make regarding the distribution of patronage, which the present administration 
 has distinctly declared is to be given solely according to merit , arid not with 
 reference to party considerations. It will be observed that the Governor has 
 repeated the old declaration that “ Her Majesty’s Government has no inclina¬ 
 tion to exercise any unnecessary interference in your local affairs,” and also 
 that “the Government should be administered according to the well understood 
 wishes of the people.” It is admitted on all hands that the Provincial admin- 
 stration must be composed of men entertaining the same political views, hav- 
 ng confidence in one another, and having the support of a Parliamentary ma- 
 ority. If then, the majority desire that the patronage of the Crown should be 
 ^administered with reference to party considerations, and the majority, as a mat¬ 
 ter of course, always will desire that it should be so administered, does it not 
 follow that the Governor bv throwing his personal influence into the scale 
 against the majority, is violating the very principle which he professes to fol¬ 
 low? Are the private opinions of the Governor or of the Imperial Cabinet, 
 to be the rule of Government in opposition to the well understood wishes of 
 the people ? The late Ministry in opposing the appointment of men to ofiice 
 who held political principles adverse to those of the majority of the people, 
 were acting in accordance with the wishes of their supporters, who will never 
 tamely submit to see Government influence placed in the hands of those who 
 will use it to the prejudice of the public interests. There can be no doubt that 
 the opposition being the parly of the minority , will be in favour of distributing 
 the patronage of the Crown to all parties, so that they themselves may get a 
 share. But how absurd it is for the Canadian Tories, who, when in power, 
 acted most strictly on the principle of never giving offices to their opponents, 
 to come forward now to condemn their own practice. We cannot conclude 
 these few remarks on the question of patronage without a reference to the “ir¬ 
 responsible and unconstitutional advisers,” complained of in the address from 
 the Warden and Councillors of Gore, but with regard to whom the Governor 
 says, “ I am not aware of their existence.” Now, every one knows that Sir 
 Charles Metcalfe, could have had no knowledge of Mr. Powell, the Clerk of 
 the Peace of the Dalhousie District, before he came to Canada, and it is only 
 fair to His Excellency to suppose that he did not appoint that gentleman,as well as 
 a Mr. McDonald, a mere stranger, who only came to the Province a few months 
 before,to highly important offices without advice or recommendation of some sort. 
 The public know perfectly well that Mr. McDonald had no claim whatever 
 to office in Canada, and that if judged according to merit, which is the pro¬ 
 fessed rule, neither he nor Mr. Powell could have succeeded in obtaining the 
 rcoemmendation of any person really responsible to the Canadian Public, in 
 
19 
 
 preference to other gentlemen who would have accepted the vacant offices. 
 The persons, whoever they are, and the Private Secretary could, in all proba¬ 
 bility, give some information regarding them, who recommended those appoint¬ 
 ments, are those whom the signers of the Gore address and the public term 
 “ irresponsible and unconstitutional advisers.” Having made broad assertions, 
 we feel disposed to prove them. The office of Clerk of the Peace of the Ba¬ 
 thurst District fell vacant a short time since. That office has generally been 
 filled by a Lawyer, and ought always to be unless there is some strong reason to 
 the contrary. Among other duties is that of drawing indictments at the Quar¬ 
 ter Sessions. On the vacancy occurring a gentleman applied for the situation 
 who is of unblemished character, born and educated in Canada, a Barrister and 
 Attorney at Law, and whose appointment would have given a large amount 
 of public satisfaction. Another candidate appeared in the person of a Mr. 
 McDonald, a stranger lately arrived from England, where one of hiwelatives 
 holds an official situation—he is not a Lawyer, and certainly has no peculiar 
 qualifications for the office. The Governor professes to maintain the principle 
 that office ought , in every instance, to be given to the man best qualified to 
 render efficient service to the State.” Acting on this principle the judicial 
 office of Clerk of the Peace was given to a stranger from Britain utterly igno¬ 
 rant of its duties, in preference to a Canadian Lawyer of respectable character 
 and talents! !! Such is the Responsible Government of Messrs. Vigor, 
 Draper and Daly. And with this illustration of the practical working out of 
 the theory of giving offices to individuals solely on the ground of merit, we 
 dismiss the subject. 
 
 We cannot better conclude our remarks than with a quotation from one of 
 our most eminent writers on political economy, Mr. McCulloch. It will be 
 found in an article on the Constitution and Government of England in “ Mc¬ 
 Culloch’s Geographical Dictionary” under the head “England and Wales.” 
 The Reformers of this Province have always contended for the principles of 
 the British Constitution, and have invariably been guided by British practice, 
 to which they will at all times defer. It is therefore important that they 
 should clearly understand the system under which the patronage of the Crown 
 is distributed in the Mother country—and notwithstanding the sneers of the 
 London Times and the Conservative journals against the Colonists, we mis¬ 
 take the people of Canada much if they do not insist on being placed on pre¬ 
 cisely the same footing as their fellow countrymen in Britain. To the Gover¬ 
 nor and to the Imperial Ministry we would address the warning of Lord Dur¬ 
 ham, which they would do well not to disregard. “ It needs but to follow out 
 “ consistently the great principles of the British Constitution, and introduce 
 “ into the Government of these great Colonies, those wise provisions by which 
 “ alone the working of the Representative system can in any country be ren- 
 u dered harmonious and efficient.” 
 
 From McCulloch’s Geographical Dictionary,—article on “ England and 
 Wales.”—Constitution and Government. 
 
 “ Not only are the Legislative measures proposed by the Crown and niw 
 « conduct of the internal Government of the country, and its foreign relations. 
 
20 
 
 “ with other States entrusted to Ministers, but they have also the disposal of all, 
 “ or by far the greater part of the patronage belonging to the Crown. Offices 
 “ involving no political responsibility , such as those of the household , 
 ■“ have been sometimes exempted from this rule, and left to be filled up by 
 “ the Sovereign according to his personal predilections, but this is not bv any 
 “ means an uniform practice, and Ministers have repeatedly required and ob- 
 “ tained the disposal of these offices.” 
 
 “ Generally speaking, patronage in a country like England, is always exer- 
 “ cised with a view to the acquiring or preserving Parliamentary support. 
 “ Napoleon, the King of Prussia and the Emperors of Austria and Russia 
 “ might select individuals to fill offices on the sole ground of their superior fit- 
 “ ness to discharge their duties. But in a free country suitableness for office 
 “ is not the only thing to be attended to in deciding as to the comparative 
 “ claims of candidates for official preferment: if they possess it so much the 
 “ better ; but the primary consideration is, how is the government to be car- 
 “ ried on ? Now that, it is plain will be best effected by securing the active 
 “ support of the friends of Government and by weakening the party of their 
 “ opponents; and the distribution of patronage is one of the principal means 
 “ by which these objects are to be realized. A government that should ne- 
 “ gleet to avail itself of this power could not long exist. Hence in England, 
 “ nine out of every ten situations are disposed of on the recommendation 
 “ of persons possessed of Parliamentary influence. This in fact is here the 
 “ via regia to preferment and state distinction. In filling up the conspicuous 
 “ situations, the talents and acquirements of the Candidates, as well as their 
 “ recommendations must necessarily be taken into account; but in the great 
 “ majority of cases parliamentary patronage is the sine qua non. Were the 
 “ Government more popular than it is, this result would be still more apparent. 
 “ A man of ability in Prussia without connections, has a much better chance of 
 “ getting on if he devote himself to the public service than in England ; but 
 “ at the same time, the chances of such a person being advanced are infinitely 
 “ greater here than in the United States. In the latter every thing is sacrifi- 
 “ ced to party considerations ; and the most splendid talents and capacity to 
 c< render great public services would never advance their possessor one step or 
 “ the ladder of promotion if he happened to be of a different party from that ii 
 “ favour at the time, or to want party support. The reason is, that in Eng 
 “ land parliamentary influence predominates merely, whereas in America it ii 
 “ every thing; and every thing must, in consequence, be made subservient t» 
 “ its support.” 
 
 IbSlIkZ