A proposition was subsequently made, that the Governor would condescend to take back the three retired Councillors, and appoint a Catholic, provided we abjured certain heretical opinions which we never entertained. The offer was courteously declined.

After waiting five weeks, during which no government measure was introduced, a Civil List Bill was brought down. This included the salaries of the Governor, the Secretary, and the Attorney General. The government was compelled by the opposition to abandon the whole scale. Whenever they ventured to divide, they were beaten; yet, with the prerogative, about which they talked a great deal, thus dragging at their heels, they never abandoned their places. No other measure was produced during the whole session; nor did they venture to fill up a vacancy; to appoint from their own side being a violation of the principle put forward in the speech; and the members of the opposition steadily refusing all solicitation, unless full and ample justice was done.

Matters went on in this way till towards the close of the session; the leading members of the opposition arranging the revenue bills, and giving good-humored assistance in carrying forward the business of the country. Before the House rose, a vote of want of confidence was moved, and sustained by twenty-four members, including the Speaker; twenty-seven voting against it one from our side, fearful of a dissolution, going with the government. As an amendment to the vote, the following resolution, which is quite a curiosity in its way, was moved and carried: :

Resolved, That, placing implicit confidence in His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, this House feel satisfied that His Excellency will, as soon as circumstances permit, carry out his intentions, as declared in his opening speech, of calling to his Executive Council men representing the different interests of the country.

This is an open assault upon responsible government. You will observe that it declares implicit confidence in the Governor, not in his Council, and discharges them from all responsibility. This cunningly devised stroke at the new system is worthy of the men who now surround Lord Falkland, and who ruined Sir Colin Campbell. Did you ever hear of a weak ministry, in England, asking for a vote of confidence in the Queen, and compelling one-half of the nation to declare that they

had none?

The view taken by the opposition of the character of this resolution, is expressed in the following one, moved by Mr. Doyle :

Resolved, That inasmuch as the resolution reported from the committee implies, that there are circumstances in the state of this Province which at present prevent the full enjoyment of the Constitution, by having a

Council representing the well understood wishes of the people, and tends to sanction a continuance, during the recess, of the present Executive Council, in its now imperfect state, and thus in effect to suspend the Constitution of the country; this House deem it the right of the people of this Province, that His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor should at all times be surrounded by a Council that will insure to his administration such an amount of the confidence of this House as will at once impart vigor and efficiency to its measures.

The drift of Lord Falkland's letter to the ex-Councillors was to charge upon them an attempt to wrest the prerogative from him, by retiring. He subsequently published an extract from a dispatch, reflecting upon us. All this was felt to be rather too gross by both sides of the House, and the following curious resolution, moved by Mr. Uniacke's brother, was passed unanimously a few days before the close of the session :

Whereas, An article was published in The Royal Gazette newspaper, of the 29th February, purporting to be an extract from a dispatch of the Right Honorable the Colonial Secretary, as follows:

"We understand that His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor received by the last packet a dispatch from Lord Stanley, in which the Secretary of State expressed his strong approbation of Her Majesty's government, of the course pursued by Lord Falkland in resisting the pretensions of Mr. Howe and his colleagues."

And whereas, His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor has thought it inexpedient to furnish the correspondence with the home government, in relation to the retirement of Messrs. Howe, Uniacke, and McNab,

Resolved, That these gentlemen, in retiring from the Executive Council, exercised a right which this House recognizes as a part of the Constitution.

What will be thought abroad of an Executive Council allowing such a resolution as this to pass, or, being too weak to resist it, keeping their places, we need not conjecture. You will perceive, then, that Lord Falkland's policy, during the last few months, has drawn forth a resolution of no confidence in his government, sustained by twenty-four members out of fifty-one; a vote of confidence in the Governor, carried by a majority of three; and the resolution copied above, giving His Lordship a gentle rebuke for making unfounded charges, and publishing extracts from dispatches evidently called forth by ex-parte representations sent from the Colony. How all this may be viewed in Canada and in England, I know not; but here, one feeling of disgust pervades the mass of the constituency, who will, if this absurd state of things is suffered to continue, do justice to themselves and their friends at the next election.

The best illustration that can be given, of the weakness and inefficiency of the government, is to be found in the fact, that they were unable to carry the Governor's own salary, and were afraid even to move for £5,700 of arrears due to the public officers. Lord Falkland is now in this position; refusing to form a fair coalition, which he professed to desire, and which was entirely practicable three months ago, he has been compelled to form a party government, which he openly denounced. At this moment, the liberals, comprising two-thirds of the people and onehalf of the House, are excluded from all Executive influence, and have been driven from the few offices they held. They do not complain of this, but will know how to follow the example set them hereafter; experience having taught them that moderation and magnanimity are thrown away upon the opposite party.

I trust these few brief observations will not only guard me from misrepresentation with respect to Canadian controversies, but enable you to judge of the real state of public affairs in this Province. One word, with respect to my former opinions, to which I have recently observed some reference in Lower Canada. I supported the French Canadians, in their just demands, down to the period when they commenced their armed trainings, and shed blood, and then denounced the promoters of the insurrection. I was at first opposed to the Union, but became a convert after the publication of Lord Durham's report. I supported Lord Sydenham, because he acted with great decision and good faith to us here, and because I saw that in Canada responsible government would flow naturally from his principles and measures. The result has proved that I was not far wrong.

The present aspect of Colonial affairs on this continent is a little cloudy, but we must not despair. The people of England have taken a century and a half, since 1688, to work out responsible government. We, even with the benefits of their experience, must not expect to enjoy the fruits of a blessing so inestimable, without some years of discussion and delay, and some painful sacrifices; but I have great faith in the good intentions of the home government, and much reliance on the firmness and intelligence of our people; guided, as they will be, by the practical sagacity of their tried and experienced leaders. If we keep within the boundaries of the Constitution, and work together for good, a rational system will be founded in a few years that cannot be very easily disturbed.

Meanwhile, believe me, very truly yours,

JOSEPH HOWE.

TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX.

GENTLEMEN, When you are kept, for a whole day, excluded from the lobby of the Assembly; and, when the doors are opened, find a resolution on the journals censuring the conduct of one of your representatives, it is very natural that you should desire to know why an old friend should deprive you of a day's rational amusement, if there was nothing more to be gained than a compliment of so questionable a character. "Why should Howe get us shut out," I think I hear you say, "if he had no other object in view than to get a rap over the knuckles?" I had a much higher object in view; and, when you see clearly what it was, I think you will be satisfied that its attainment will be cheaply purchased by your day's exclusion, and my rap over the knuckles.

My object was, to put an end to a system unknown in this Colony until 1844; practiced in no other on this continent; abhorrent to an Englishman's nature; dangerous to every Colonist, a system on which the law of England frowns, and from which the whole stream of modern Parliamentary and Executive precedent, flowing from the Imperial fountain head, indignantly turns away.

That you may clearly apprehend my meaning, and enter into my feelings, ask yourselves and inquire of each other, if there ever was an instance in Nova Scotia, prior to 1844, of a Governor including the names of respectable men, without their knowledge or consent, in Executive communications, of a disparaging and injurious character; and then, having employed his own pen to defame, abusing his high office that he might publish; laying his own libellous attacks and inuendoes, by the hands of his Executive advisers, upon the tables of both branches of the Legislature? Many of you are familiar with public events, and documents, for half a century. Can you recall an instance in which a Governor, by such an eggregious act, evinced his malice or his ignorance? I think not. Many of you have grown up and lived under the successive administrations of Sir George Prevost, Lord Dalhousie, Sir James Kempt, Sir Peregrine Maitland, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Jeffery, and Sir Colin Campbell. Do the journals of either House contain one document, written by the hand, and made public by the order, of either of those Governors, including the name, and striking at the character, of any gentleman that they happened to dislike? You will refresh your memories, and search our Legislative archives, in vain.

Many of you are deeply read in British political history. Did you ever hear of the Sovereign including a subject's name (without that subject's knowledge, interference, or consent, and for the purpose of stamp

ing disapprobation,) in private notes, directed to individuals, and then, when the negotiation failed, publishing the communications?

Did you ever read that the Sovereign, having vainly endeavored to silence the opposition of members of Parliament, or lure them to support the government, sent down to both Houses official denunciations of the refractory, and sought to damage their characters by misrepresentation and inuendo, under the sign manual?

Did any King or Queen, since 1688, direct a minister to bring down to Parliament the Sovereign's criticism of the conduct of the Speaker of the Commons, in his private capacity as a lawyer, to be read under the said Speaker's nose-he being compelled to record, on the journals of the House over which he presided, the inuendoes aimed at his own character?

If Nova Scotia has been ruled for half a century by a dozen Governors, and the mother country for two centuries by as many Sovereigns, without any such breaches of Executive propriety, or violations of the subject's rights, whether British or Colonial, the presumption is, that none such are indispensable to the good government either of these Provinces or of the United Kingdom. If no public man in England, since 1688, and no one in Nova Scotia, down to 1844, has been thus treated, we are justified in concluding that such outrages are unauthorized by our Constitution, at variance with the genius of our laws, and repugnant to all the recognized proprieties of public life.

The presumption is as deeply founded in reason, as it is extensively fortified by the history of representative institutions in both countries. If any set of men, having gained the Sovereign's ear, and seized on the administration, could use the Sovereign's name to brand political opponents, and make the official communications from the throne to the people, vehicles of personal defamation, no public man would be safe; and the Sovereign, instead of being elevated above the passions and the strife of party, would be brought into personal collision with the subject, and be exposed to personal indignity and danger. There could be no opposition to government, because every man who attempted it would be marked, denounced, and branded, by an abuse of his Sovereign's name,

In barbarous times, the Sovereign's name was thus abused by bold, bad men, who grasped the prerogatives, and often controlled the person of the King. The Duke of Gloucester, in 1483, having vainly endeavored to induce the Lord Hastings to join his administration, accused his mistress of witchcraft, and himself of treason; and cut off the head of Hastings with most indecent haste. The accusations of witchcraft and treason were about as well founded in this case, as the charge preferred