THE Legislative session of 1797 opened on the 17th January, and the Governor in his speech referred to the difficulties which existed between the two houses. He suggested that a permanent provision should be made for the salaries of the public officers, or at least that the grants should anticipate the year for which they were provided so "that persons who give up their time and labor to the public service, and who by their appointments are made responsible for their conduct in office, may not again be exposed to such delay, as, in a great measure, amounts to a denial of justice, in the withholding of their reward on account of any accidental differences of opinion that may arise between the different branches of the Legislature.'' The Assembly in reply to this speech stated that it did not contemplate the establishment of permanent salaries, and it expressed its regret that the Governor should have characterized to conduct as a denial of justice. This was a bad beginning, for it led the House to believe that the sympathies of the Governor were with the Council in the contest between the two Houses. The ill-feeling was further increased when Governor Carleton in replying to the address of the House of Assembly undertook to lecture that body, telling them that their declining to attend to his reccommendations, "gives me the greater concern as you* herein deviate from the line of conduct at all times-pursued by the British House of Commons, by which you have so often professed a laudable intention to be solely guided. This was more than the House was disposed to stand, and two strongly worded resolutions were passed affirming the position taken by the House and justifying it. These resolutions were carried by a vote of eighteen to four, the Attorney-General voting with the majority. Mr. Glenie endeavored to have a resolution of censure passed on the Governor, and his speech to the House declared to be a breach of privilege, but this was defeated by seventeen to five. The only members who supported Mr. Glenie in this vote, were Captain Agnew of York, and Messrs. Younghusband, Mowatt and Campbell. That such a resolution should be seriously put forward and receive any support, is the best proof of the bad feeling that existed between the Governor and the House of Assembly. Many moderate men who voted against Mr. Glenie's resolution did so, rather out of respect to the office he held, than from any desire to support Governor Carleton.

The House lost no time in proceeding with a measure for the payment of the public services of 1795 and 1796. It passed the House without a division but when it reached the Council that body rejected it, after keeping its fate in doubt for some days. Every member of the Council was present when the vote was taken, and only two, Judge Upham and Mr. Bliss, voted for the bill. The Chief Justice and Mr. Robinson who had shown some independence at the previous session, had now gone over to the enemy. Judge Upham and Mr. Bliss placed the reasons for their support of the hill in writing, and have thus left a record for themselves for good sense and moderation which is highly honorable to them.

The House then proceeded with a hill for raising a revenue and appropriating the same. The appropriations in this hill were for the services of the years 1796 and 1797. The Governor's friends in the House endeavored to have this measure modified hy striking out the appropriations for payment of members, but they were defeated by a vote of 17 to 6. They then sought to have all the appropriation clauses of the bill struck out, but this was defeated by a vote of 20 to 3. The bill was finally passed by a vote of 16 to 7. The late of this measure in the Council was not long in doubt. It was thrown out by the same vote as the former bill, leaving the province without any revenue act or any appropriations for another year. When this result was reported to the House, the Attorney General moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for raising a revenue and appropriating the monies arising therefrom, but this was defeated by a vote of 17 to 5. The House was not disposed to allow its appropriations to be revised in conformity with the wishes of the Council. The last phase of this conflict during the session of 1797, was the passing of an address to the King on the present state of the province, setting forth the evils which had arisen in consequence, of the conduct, of the Council This was passed by a vote of 17 to 3, the only members who voted against it being Col. Fanning and Messrs. Peters and Yeomans. Such an address was not likely to receive much attention from the home authorities, for they were always accustomed to listen to the representations of the Governor, and Governor Carleton was actively opposed to the Assembly. His correspondence, now brought to light, shows that in forwarding this address, he took care to accompany it with such observations of his own as were calculated to prevent 't meeting with a favorable reception. It is not likely that there would have been any objections made to the bills passed by the House and rejected by the Council but for his initiative, except perhaps in respect to the bill for holding some of the terms of the Supreme Court in St. John. The judges who all lived in Fredericton were naturally averse to going to St. John to dispense justice as the journey was, at any time, a difficult one to undertake and particularly so in winter. But this was a natural consequence of the capital of the province being placed in a small town remote from the centre of population. The address of the Assembly produced no effect on the Secretary of State, who was disposed to regard its members as a rebellious body who needed to be taught their duty.

The session of 1798 was a brief one and the only result of it was the passing of two acts, one for the continuing of laws that were near expiring, and the other in amendment of an act for the regulation of seamen. The House of Assembly passed bills for the purpose of raising a revenue and to appropriate money for the public services, but they were rejected by the Council without even being read. One of these bills simply provided for the expenditure of the year 1795, while the other was a revenue and appropriation bill combined, but they both met the same fate. All the other bills sent up by the House were rejected by the Council although some of them were wholly unobjectionable even from the point of view of the Council itself. Political spite had a great deal more to do with this conduct than patriotism or any exalted principle. We may see in these episodes the causes which made the Council so unpopular as a Legislative Body, and which led to its final extinction at a time when its character and usefulness had greatly improved.

Governor Carleton in transmitting the proceedings of the session to the Secretary of State, seems to have thought it necessary to make some explanations in regard to the conduct of the Council, with reference to the terms of the Supreme Court. He stated that no complaint had been received from any suitor that the holding of all the courts at Fredericton amounted to a denial of justice. He doubted whether suits could be made less expensive with real benefit to the community, but no such effect would result from holding half the terms at St. John. Such reasoning was worthy of this obstinate but dull-witted governor. If the rendering of suits less expensive and the making of justice more accessible were not objects that deserved to be encouraged, why not go a step farther and have no courts at all.

In his correspondence at this time with the Secretary of State, Governor Carleton brought up another matter which was destined to create a great commotion in the Province at a future day. The grants of land given to the first settlers of the Province, provided for the payment of a certain annual sum to the King in the shape of quit rents. It is clear that when these grants were made, the grantees had no idea that the provision for the payment of quit rents would ever be enforced, looking upon it merely as a nominal acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the Crown. Carleton now suggested that the quit rents be collected, basing his advice on the ground that if much longer left undemanded, the right of collection might become a subject for public discussion. The Secretary of State replied that the main obstacle to the payment of the quit rents was the failure to collect them when due, for in the grants given to the Loyalists they were exempted for ten years from 1783. He advised that this exemption be extended to all classes of grantees and that the collection of quit rents begin forthwith.

A great wave of patriotism seems to have swept over the Province during the summer of 1798, and subscriptions were started in various localities for the purpose of carrying on the "just and necessary" war against His Majesty's enemies. These subscriptions were pledges for the payment of the amounts subscribed annually until the end of the war A very large sum was obtained in this way, considering the means of the people. The officials who had large salaries gave freely, the Governor putting down his name for five hundred guineas, which was just one third of his salary apart from the fees of office. Chief Justice Ludlow and the Rector of Fredericton, Rev. George Pidgeon, each subscribed fifty guineas, and Secretary Odell and Surveyor General Sproule each thirty guineas. Such gifts were gratifying proofs of the patriotism of the people but it is singular that private persons should have been asked to contribute in this way. Altogether about £3,000 was subscribed throughout the Province, an amount which would be but a drop in the bucket in the prosecution of a great war, but which must have entailed a good deal of self denial on the part of those who gave it.

The session of 1799 brought the deadlock between the Council and Assembly to an end. The situation had become serious, for the Province had been without an appropriation act for four years and without a revenue act for three. The Treasury was empty, yet the debts of the province and the salaries of its officials had not been paid. It was a situation that reflected no credit on any person, but the chief blame must rest on the Council, who by throwing out all the appropriation and revenue bills for several years, placed the Province in the unhappy situation it had reached.

Soon after the opening of the session the Governor laid before the House a number of letters he had received from the Duke of Portland, the Secretary of State, in reference to the differences between the Council and the Assembly. These letters were four in number and extended over as many years. The Secretary took strong ground against the payment of members although he-belonged to a family who had absorbed more public-money than almost any other in Great Britain, and he also censured the placing of items for extraordinary services, in money hills, but he summarily disposed ot the objection of the Council that no items could be passed by the House except such as had been recommended by the Governor. The Duke wrote like a man who was wholly ignorant of the conditions existing in New Brunswick, and indeed how could it be otherwise when his only informant in regard to provincial affairs was the Governor, who took good care to present everything in the light which best agreed with his own interests. A careful perusal of the Duke's letters shows that his prejudices against the conduct of the House had become considerably modified from what they were at first. The Governor did not make public all of the letters but only extracts from them, and he was careful to suppress the latter portion of the Duke's letter of the 6th June, 1708, in which he said, that although he had objected to the payment of members of Assembly, yet if it be thought desirable, as a temporary measure, he was too anxious for the restoration of the harmony and good understanding between the different branches of the legislature, to hesitate in recommending that they be acquired on Such terms.

Governor Carleton did not Inform the House that this paragraph was in the Duke's letter, but he no doubt made the members of the Council acquainted with the fact, and it must have been clear both to him and to them that the Council would no longer receive the support of the Home authorities in its refusal to pass the revenue and appropriation hills. Therefore when the first appropriation hills sent up by the House made their appearance in the Council, that body resolved that it would pass them for the sake of harmony and to prevent public inconveniences. These bills were three in number, and provided for the payment of the services and debts of the year 1795. They were promptly passed, and also a revenue bill. An appropriation bill covering the services of the years, 1796, 1797,1798 and 1799, was also agreed to by the Council, finally, an act was passed imposing an additional duty of three pence a gallon on rum, for the purpose of providing a fund for the payment of the members of the General Assembly, at the rate of seven shillings and six pence for each day's attendance. As this duty would produce ten times as much revenue as was required for the payment of the members, the passing of this bill must be regarded as an ingenious means of creating a public opinion1 unfavorable to the Assembly, for the doubling of the duty on rum must have been looked upon as a very serious matter by the men of that day. In this respect it may have been regarded as a victory for the Council, but it was also a victory for the Assembly, because it created a precedent for the payment of members based on an act of the legislature. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, at a later period, the same quarrel was renewed between the two houses, and, as before, the Governor of that day gave his support to the Council. The principle of the payment of members is now so well established, not only in this province, but in every self governing colony of the empire, that it is surprising it ever should have been made a ground of controversy.

In his speech at the opening of the session, the Governor announced that by the declaration of the Commissioners appointed under the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the River Scoudac had been decided to be the St. Croix, and therefore the true boundary between New Brunswick and Maine. Thus was settled in a manner satisfactory to the province, a controversy that had lasted for many years and which had greatly retarded its settlement. Almost as soon as the Treaty of 1783 was made, there were disputes as to the boundary. The Treaty stated that the St. Croix river should be the boundary, but immediately a question rose as to what river was the St. Croix. The Americans claimed that the Magaguadavic was the river meant by the Treaty, while the British claimed that the Scoudac was the St. Croix. We have already seen that in 1784, Governor Hancock of Massachusetts wrote to Governor Parr, asking him to recall all British subjects from the territory west of the Magaguadavic which he claimed was a part of the State of Massachusetts. This letter was answered by Governor Carleton in June, 1785, New Brunswick having, in the meantime been separated from Nova Scotia. Carleton stated that not only was the Scoudac considered to be the St. Croix by Great Britain, but that a numerous body of Loyal refugees immediately after the peace, built the town of St. Andrews on the eastern bank of the river. He added that the Scoudac was "the only river on that side of the province of such magnitude and extent, as could have led to the idea of proposing it as a limit-between two large and spacious countries. "

The matter rested here until the making of the Jay Treaty of 1794, under which it was provided that the decision of the question should be left to three commissioners, one to be selected by the United States, one by Great Britain and the third by the two commissioners. The British Commissioner was Thomas Barclay of Annapolis, the American Commissioner was David Howell, a, lawyer of Rhode Island. The third commissioner was Egbert Benson of New York, a lawyer of high standing. The Americans thus had a decided advantage in the make up of the Commission, if the decision was to be influenced by national sentiment rather than by the evidence, but this fact has had the good effect of placing the decision of the commission beyond question, for it was against the American claim. The interests of the United States were upheld by their agent, James Sullivan, a Massachusetts lawyer who wrote a history of Maine, while the British agent was Ward Chipman, the Solicitor General of New Brunswick. Edward Winslow was the Secretary- of the Commission. The first meeting of the Commission was held in August, 1786, and their final decision was given on the 25th October, 1798. The arguments put forward by the agents for the respective countries, were long and laborious, but the ultimate decision was not based on these ponderous terms filled with special pleading. No doubt the agents did as well as was to be expected of men who were mere lawyers, and had no special knowledge of the history of the settlement of Acadia and New England, or of the boundary disputes that had arisen between France and England at that early period. The name St. Croix had been given to the river in 1604, by Champlain when he established a colony of Frenchmen on an island in the St. Croix. Champlain published in his book a plan of this island, showing not only its shape and size, but the locality of all the buildings upon it. The foundations of these buildings still remained in the year 1787, when they were dug up by Thomas Wright, a surveyor, and this evidence which could not be impeached, settled the matter in favor of the British claim. The American claim was utterly baseless, for the Magaguadavic in no respect answered the description of the St. Croix as given by Champlain. Yet it is fortunate that the British commissioner was a colonist and not an Englishman, or the result of the arbitration might have been different. How much was involved in the decision may be judged from the fact that if the American claim had been sustained, the boundary line would have crossed the St. John at a point east of the Iokiok and about one-third of the area of the province would have been given to the United States. One-half of Charlotte, one-third of York and practically the whole of Carleton, Victoria and Madawaska Counties would have been-detached from this province and the St. John, instead of being our own river, would have belonged to a foreign country except about 120 miles of its-course. It is unnecessary to enlarge on tlie difference this would have made in the development of New Brunswick or in its present condition. With the boundary- line carried within twenty-five miles of the head of the Bay of Chaleur, the provinces of British North America would have been dislocated and their union into a confederation such as the Dominion of Canada would have been difficult if not impossible.

The Duke of Kent was at this time Commander in Chief in British North America, and he had suggested to the Home government the advisability of placing all the provincial regiments on the footing of corps liable to serve throughout the provinces. All these provincial corps were fencible regiments for the provinces in which they were raised, the term fencible being applied to regiments not liable to serve outside of their own territory-. Evidently it would be an advantage to have all the provincial regiments liable to serve in any part of British North America, but this, as was explained by the Secretary of State to Governor Carleton, could only be done by their voluntary action. The Governor in October, 1790, assembled the King's New Brunswick Regiment for the purpose of ascertaining if the officers and men were willing to extend their service to ail British America, and they unanimously agreed to do this. This was an important point and added considerably to the defensive strength of the provinces. The New Brunswick Regiment was disbanded at the peace of Amiens, but when war was renewed, another New Brunswick Fencible Regiment was raised, and this corps became the 101th Regiment of the line and served in defence of Canada during the war of 1812. In the same manner the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was sent to Canada and fought there all through the war, its services not being needed in the Island of its origin.

A difficulty arose at this time between Governor Carleton and the Home authorities, in consequence of an arrangement which had been made, without his knowledge, for paying the staff and contingent expenses of New Brunswick by w arrant drawn on the acting paymaster at Halifax. This measure, which had been taken in the interest of economy for the purpose of saving the salary of a deputy paymaster in New Brunswick, deeply offended Carleton and he asked leave to retire from his Governorship. The Secretary of State took Carleton's resignation very coolly, saying that it did not occur to him that the change in the mode of paying the troops would be regarded by the Governor as a reason for leaving the service. He added that the appointment of a successor would be made as early as possible. It did not take the Governor long to repent of the haste with which he had acted, for in a subsequent letter to the Secretary of State, he acknowledged his error, asked that his letter be forgotten and expressed his desire to continue Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, if it was not too late. This episode undoubtedly weakened Governor Carleton's position with the English officials, and it showed him that his services could be dispensed with.

Ever since the establishment of the Province the question of opening a practicable communication with Canada had been discussed, but owing to various causes, the principal of which was the uncertainty of the boundary line, nothing substantial had been accomplished. At this time the subject was again engaging attention partly as a result of the decision of the Commissioners with regard to the St. Croix, and partly in consequence of the Duke of Kent having directed his attention to this matter. If Prince Edward had remained Commander in Chief there is little doubt that this and other plans connected with the improvement of military communications between the provinces would have been carried out, but he made but a short stay in Nova Scotia, leaving early in August, 1800, for England from which he did not return.