o.'O 



CANADA. 



enemy. The hal>it<inx, in Let, ever >inre they 

 (Mine under British (luiiiinutiun, have I. .id every 

 reason to be s.itislied witli the degree of civil li- 

 bi-rty and worldly prosperity which they have en- 

 joyed. Their religion has been allowed to retain 

 ull its privileges ana property ; their tuxes have been 

 exceedingly light, and their security of person and 

 property as complete as in England. The contest 

 with Britain, therefore, has arisen less from any 

 real grievance or oppression, than from a struggle 

 of the popular portion of the legislature to obtain 

 entire control over the executive departments of 

 government. 



Foremost among the points at issue was the mat- 

 ter of finance. We shall not here trace the earlier 

 struggles of the assembly. It will be sufficient, in 

 the account of more recent events, to commence 

 with the year 1828. For some time previous to 

 that year, the expenses of the civil government of 

 Lower Canada were provided by the revenues im- 

 posed by the act of 1774, and appropriated by the 

 English treasury, partly by a sum of 5000 per an- 

 num previously appropriated by the Canadian legis- 

 lature, and partly by revenues levied within the 

 province, and at the disposal of the assembly from 

 time to time. The system of defraying a part of 

 the expenses by annual votes of the assembly was 

 new about the year 1818, and arose out of the de- 

 sire of the assembly to acquire the control of the 

 purse. They now put forward two claims : first, 

 they insisted upon their right to appropriate and 

 control the whole of the expenditure, not confin- 

 ing themselves to that which was provided by their 

 own votes ; and secondly, they denied the right of 

 the crown to apply the duties under the act of 

 1774. It is obvious, and was afterwards admitted, 

 that so long as the assembly was called on to pro- 

 vide for and to regulate any portion of the public 

 expenditure, it would virtually acquire a control 

 over the whole. Impressed probably with this 

 opinion, and desirous of conciliation, a committee 

 of the house of commons, in 1828, recommended, 

 that " the receipt and expenditure of the whole 

 public revenue," including the duties of 1774, and 

 apparently including also the hereditary revenues 

 of the crown, " should be placed under the super- 

 intendence and control of the house of assembly ;" 

 but they proposed to annex this condition, that the 

 governor, judges, and members of the executive 

 council, should be made, by a permanent provision 

 for their salaries, independent of the annual votes 

 of the assembly. This report seemed to give gen- 

 eral satisfaction to the colony, and the assembly 

 appeared to limit their demands to the complete 

 fulfilment of its provisions. They promised a civil 

 list when "the whole public revenue arising within 

 the province should be given up to them ;" and 

 lord Goderich, then secretary for the colonies, felt 

 that it would be more generous, and fancied it 

 would be equally effectual, were he to give up the 

 revenues^?*, and trust to the assembly for grant- 

 ing a civil list afterwards. This he accordingly 

 did, but he still reserved in the hands of the Bri- 

 tish government certain revenues known as the 

 casual and hereditary revenues of the crown. 

 This reservation was deemed very unsatisfactory, 

 and the assembly passed a resolution that " under 

 no circumstances, and upon no consideration what- 

 ever, they would abandon or compromise their 

 claim to control over the whole public revenue." 

 They determined, therefore, not to grant tny per- 

 manent supply, and on the 8th March, 1831, they 



drew up u long list of grievance*, which was pre- 

 sented to the governor (lord Aylmer), who trans- 

 mitted it to the colonial office, with an admis- 

 sion that many of the complaints were well-founded. 

 The government, in reply, declared that there was 

 scarcely a point which it was not willing to con- 

 cede, and the assembly expressed their satisfaction 

 at the feelings of kindness and good-will manifested 

 towards them by the government. In 1832, the 

 assembly passed a supply bill, providing, or very 

 nearly, for all the demands of government ; and 

 there were in this session other indications of a 

 reasonable disposition in the assembly. In 1833 

 also, the assembly passed a bill of supply, but they 

 now annexed to some of their grants certain con- 

 ditions, which induced the legislative council to 

 reject the bill. These conditions afforded the first 

 instance of the exercise by the assembly of the 

 power of the purse. To the grant of salary to 

 each person holding office, all of whom were men- 

 tioned by name, they added a proviso, that he be 

 not a member of the legislative council, or, as to 

 others, of the executive council. The salaries of 

 the judges were made conditional upon their not 

 holding any other office under the crown. Mr 

 Stanley, then secretary of state, gave orders for 

 paying official persons . out of that part of the re- 

 venue which had not been surrendered by lord 

 Goderich. 



In the same year, the assembly first proposed to 

 make a fundamental alteration in the constitution 

 of 1791, by making the legislative council elective. 

 In 1834, similar contumacy prevailed in the as- 

 sembly, and in this year a fresh appeal was made 

 to the British parliament, and a new committee 

 appointed to consider the petition of the assembly. 

 It was in this year that the assembly passed their 

 ninety-two celebrated resolutions, in which through- 

 out the whole there are scarcely disguised threats 

 of an intention to throw off the allegiance of the 

 colony, and to apply the elective principle not only 

 to the legislative council, but to the executive 

 government. They declined also this year to pass 

 any bill of supply whatever, and made a peremp- 

 tory demand that the legislative council should be 

 elective, without which nothing would be accepted 

 as satisfactory. Changes of ministry in England, 

 about this time, prevented immediate attention to 

 Canadian affairs ; but on the restoration of the 

 Melbourne cabinet, a commission of inquiry was 

 sent out, consisting of the earl of Gosford, Sir 

 Charles Edward Grey, and Sir George Gipps. The 

 first of these succeeded lord Aylmer as governor, 

 and in his opening speeches professed the most con- 

 ciliatory views towards the French or popular 

 party. The address of the assembly was civil, but 

 reiterated the demand of an elective council. 

 Mearrwbile Sir FrancisB. Head, who was sent out to 

 Upper Canada, made public part of the instructions 

 of the British government, by which it appeared 

 how little thy were prepared to concede the de- 

 mand of an elective council. Upon this the as- 

 sembly was in a flame, complained that lord Gos- 

 ford, by his smooth language, had deceived them, 

 and insisted much more urgently than ever that 

 the council should be elective, tracing its present 

 constitution (the members being appointed by 

 mandamus from the crown) to the prevalence 

 of the aristocratic principle in 1791. The legisla- 

 tive council, indignant at the violent endeavours of 

 the assembly to overthrow it, vented their resent- 

 ment by rejecting almost every bill sent up from 



