The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-20 00:00:00

ON CANADA.

LETTER 111.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE Su
Bryanstone-square, Jan. 19.
SIR—In your journal of the 9th inst., you call my atten-
tion to Lord John Russell's first resolution, which states that
the House of Assembly of Lower Canada had not fulfilled
the promises made to his Majesty's Nlinisters, when, in 1831,
they conceded certain revenues before that thee levied and
applied by the Crown, relying on the good feeling of that As-
sembly to make proper provision for the Civil List of the country;
and that, therefore, as the House of Assembly had not ful-
filled that compact, the Imperial Parliament was war-
ranted in passing the Bth resolution of last Session to take the
money from the Canada Treasury, without the sanction of
the House of Assembly to pay that Civil Establishment.
lam willing to admit that Lord Goderich made that
concession, as I think liberally, in the hopes that the As-
sembly of Lower Canada would have granted a permanent
Civil List as the House of Assembly of Upper Canada did ;
but there certainly was not any compact on the part of
Lower Canada to do so, that could warrant such a resolution
of the constitutional rights of that Assembly. You are quite
correct that that Ist resolution alleges—" That since tire
31st of October. 1832, no provision had been made by the
Legislature of the province of Lower Canada fur defraying
the charges of the administration of justice, and for the
support, of the Civil Government within the said irrovince.
This statement has been made by the Ministers of the Crown
and repeated by all their supporters, and that by the refusal of
the Assembly to vote supplies the judges of the land, the
Governor, the sheriffs, and other public officers requisite to
carry on the Government of the province had been left desti-
tute, and the courts of justice were in danger of being shut up.
But such statements are altogether erroneous, as regards the
House of Assembly, and the public should be disabused of such
unfair statements, as that body has voted supplies regularly
every year, and sent a Bill of supply to the Legislative Coun-
cil, which has rejected it as regularly, because rejections were
made of some, and certain conditions were imposed in other
items by the House of Assembly. If you read M'Gregor's
excellent History of Lower Canada, you will see that
for twenty years past there has been a yearly dispute
between the House of Assembly and the Legislative
Council about supplies. The House of Assembly called
for accounts, required explanations, objected to items
altogether, and rejected others, which the Legislative
Council and the Governors refused to agree to, and this sort
of contest has been continued every year since 1832. It is
highly unjust, therefore, to the representatives of the peo-
ple in Canada to charge them before the Imperial
Parliament with refusing the supplies, and thereby of
putting an end to the administration of justice; and
still more unjust to assign these acts as the reason why Par-
liament should now interfere with the constitutional rights of
the Assembly, when the blame has rested with the Legislative
Council alone ; and when the House of Assembly has from
time to time been loud in their complaints to the Crown
against such conduct. It is not true that the Governor is des-
titute of supplies, for the House of Assembly have granted
10,000/. yearly as a permanent grant, which they have not in-
terfered with, and cannot alter ; and there is also an amount of
nearly 20,000/., which is received by the Governor from different
sources of revenue—making, as Lord Glenelg's letter shows,
a sum of about 30,0001. a year at the disposal of the Governor
of Lower Canada. It would be tedious to prove my state-
ment, as regards the supplies, by giving you the details of the
proceedings of the House of Assembly in every year since
1833 ; but I will state one instance—the proceedings of the.
last vote of supply in 1836—that equal justice may be done to
the House of Assembly, and that the public may be undeceived
ae to the charge which has been, so prominently and so un-
justly, made against the House of Assembly, for not granting
supplies to pay the Civil Government and the Judges. The
Chronicle has stated (30th December)—and the Chronicle is
considered good autherity—" 2'hat the House of Assembly of
Lower Canada have refused to appropriate the supplies for'
several years, and left all the functionaries in a state of des-
titation"—wilich they know, or ought to know, is not correct.
I repeat, that the House of Assembly have voted the supplies,
but the Legislative Council have refused them
On the 26th February, 1836, the House of Assembly. " Re-
solved to address his Majesty and the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, to solicit from them the reforms, which have been
asked for by this House, and the people (of Canade), and the
removal of grievances and abuses; and determined to grant his
Majesty the supplies requisite for the interval between the 15th
of January and lath Jaly next—regard being had to the cir-
cemstauces attending each item asked for, and to the resources
of the country."
The address to the King, and the petitions to the Lords
and Commons, praying for redress of grievances, were agreed
to by 55 to 7.

I submit that in this proceeding they followed the precedent
of the best times of the English Parliament, and demanded a
redress of grievances, at the time they were voting supplies.
The estimate for the expense of the Civil Government in 1833,
was 54,6071., and the AssernLly having then made some reduc-
tions for pluralities and improper charges, voted 47,2541., al.d
passed a Bill of Supply for that amount; but the Legislative
Council rejected it, because of the reductions and conditions
that Lad been made.

It was the duty of the House of Assembly to put an end to
all pluralities and unnecessary expence; and they ought to
have received the thanks of the Colonial Minister, for their
attention to economy in the finances of the Pros ince, and the
Legislative Council ought to have been admonished for re-
jecting that Bill.
In February, 1836, the House of Assembly took the Esti-
mate of Supply of 1833—viz., 54,6071.—and having made
some deductions from salaries and items that were too high,
and annexed conditions to others, they passed the Bill, having
reduced somewhere about 6,000/.
Lord Gosford's Reports (see Par. Paper, No. 51, 1837) to
Lord Glenelg on the 12th of Mareb, 1836, states that the House
of Assembly, on the 3d of March had passed a Bill of Supply fur
six months, and sent it up to the Legislative Council on the
sth of March, and that, after the first and second reading it
wat lost on the 9th of March in a Committee of that body.
The House of Assembly were most desirous of settling every
difference, in the hopes that Lord Gosford intended to grant
the demands of the Assembly, and they were considering the
supplies and arrears when, by the publication in Upper Ca-
nada of the whole of his Lordship's instructions, Ly Sir Francis
Head, the House of Assembly of Lower Canada became
alarmed, and saw that his Lordship had no power 'to grant the
chief redress they sought for, viz., en alteration in the Legis-
lative Council so as to meet the wishes of the people. The
House of Assembly therefore renewed their demands for re-
dress of grievance before they would grant supplies for more
than six months. Lord Gosford says, " I can only repeat my
belief that, but for that publication (by Sir F. Head) the
arrears and full supplies would have been granted."
It is evident from a perusal of the instructions, that Lord
Glenelg, whilst he strongly inculcates conciliation in his in-
structions to Lord Gosford, neither gave him the power, nor
intended lie should make the concessions required by the
Canadians in the Legislative Council. The fair promises of
Lord Gosford, though very vague and indistinct, had so far
prevailed in the House of Assembly, that when the publication
of th_ instructions appeared, they were on the point of grant-
ing the arrears of former years and the supplies for the whole
year 1836, almost without conditions, relying on the promises
held out in that portion of the instructions which his Lordship
had made public.

The transaction does not appear very creditable either to
Lord Glenelg or Lord Gosford, if the attempt made was to
get the supplies on false pretences, and to induce the Assembly
to believe that his Lordship wanted only time to make the pro-
mised concession of full redress of their just complaint of the
Legislative Council. His Lordship is therefore correct in writing
to Lord Glenelg :—" I can only repeat my belief, that but for
that publication (viz., the part of my instructions which I had
kept secret) the arrears and full supplies would have been
granted."

Lord Gosford further writes :—" The Assembly, in grant-
ing the supplies, adopted another plan for effecting the aboli-
tion of pluralities." Where any officer held two situations
the salary of one only was voted, and the other entirely
omitted. Among the principal omissions not founded on the
objection to pluralities are the Postage Account of the Civil
Secretary's office, the salaries of the Executive Councillors
and of their Assistant Clerk, of Mr. Justice Gale and one of the
Provincial Aides-de-Camp." His Lordship rdds:—" I under-
stand, chiefly in consequence of those omissions, that the Le-
gislative Council declined to proceed with the Bill."
The following are some of the reductions which the House
of Assembly made in the estimates, and tie conditions assigned
opposite each officer's name, for nof paying the double or treble
salary which had been given to persons holding incompatible
offices, and you will be able to judge whether the objections
were reasonable or not

1. The Clerk and Registrar of the Executive Council was
also .a member of the Legislative Council—the House of As-
sembly voted his salary of 250/. for six months as Registrar,
and to be paid provided he gave up ass member of the
" Legislative Council," which two offices were deemed in-
compatible.

2. . The Clerk of the Legislative Council hell also the situa-
tion of a Member of the Executive Council, and the [louse of
Assembly voted 2251., the half-year's salary, as Clerk, and to
be paid, provided he "relinquished the situation as member of
the Executive C.,micil."
3. The Cie; k of the Crown in Chancery had his salary
voted, and to be paid, provided he was neither " Mem-
-1),- of the Legislature, nor of the Executive Councils."
4. The salaries of the Chief Justice of the Province, and
of the Chief Justice of Montreal, were voted in full, without
any conditions.
5. The salaries of Six Puisne Judges were voted, and to be
paid, " provided such Judges shall
neither hold, nor enjoy
any other profit whatever under the Crown." The salary of
Judge Gale was alone refused, for good reasons assigned.
6. The Judge of the Court cf Vice-Admiralty had a salary.
voted, and to be paid, " provided that he do not exact or take any
fees, or hold any other office of profit under the Crown."
7, The salaries of the Sheriffs of the District of Quebec, cf
Montreal, and of the Three Rivers, were voted, and to be
paid, " provided they were neither a Legislative nor Execu-
tive Councillor."
8. The salary of the Commis.ioner fur msnarring
t,
was voted ; and to he paid " provided he be neither a Lcgisla-
nOr Executive Councillor." estates
9. The salary of the Master of the Grammer School at
Quebec was voted; and to be paid, " provided he do teach
gratuitously at least twenty children belonging to destitute
parents."
These are a few of the conditions annexed to the
payment
of those public functionaries by the Commons of Lower Ca-
nada ; and. I ask you, whether the British House of Commons
or her Majesty's Ministers were warranted, in April li 8-, to
resolve, that the House of Assembly of Lower Catia,'a had
nut granted supplies sin-:e 1832, when it was tile Leyislativc