THERE was a general election in the summer of 1827, so that the House of Assembly which met on the 14th of February, 1828, was a new one. Some members who afterwards occupied a leading position in the public affairs of the Province, made their appearance in this House, amongst others, Edward Ii. Chandler, who came to represent the county of Westmorland; John H. Partlow, a representative of the county of St. John; and John W. Weldon who represented the county of Kent. Richard Simonds, one of the representatives from Northumberland, was elected speaker. The speech of the Lieutenant Governor was in a hopeful strain, and dwelt particularly on the new measures that had been passed by the Imperial parliament, for regulating Colonial trade. He congratulated the Province on the greater attention that was being given to agriculture, and also on the improvements on the great roads. There were several contested elections, which came before the House, but only one that demanded any particular notice. This was the petition of Patrick Clinch and James Brown, complaining of an undue election in the county of Charlotte. Messrs. Clinch and Rrown were imprudent enough to write letters to several members of the House, in reference to the contested election in

Charlotte, in which they said, that they thought they could discover a disposition in some of the honorable members to throw every difficulty in their way in contesting the case. They said that this was due to the fact that their own seats and those of their friends, might be ultimately affected by the decision of the House. They also charged the sheriff with misconduct at the election. The House regarded this as a high contempt and breach of their privileges and ordered the arrest of Messrs. Brown and Clinch by the sergeant at arms. On being brought before the House they admitted that they had written the letters complained of, and were immediately committed to the common gaol in the county of York. On the following day they petitioned for their release and expressed their regret for having written the letters. Their release followed immediately, and Mr. Clinch, a few days later was seated as member for Charlotte in the place of Joseph N. Clarke, whom the sheriff had returned as elected. There was no doubt of the truth of the statements contained in the letters, but the whole transaction shows the high view which the members of the House of Assembly took of their privileges and their determination to maintain them.

At this session the Council sent down a resolution to the House of Assembly, declaring it to be desirable that a Provincial penitentiary should be erected. This was concurred in by the House am! a committee appointed to obtain information and look up a suitable site for the proposed prison. This movement, however, led to nothing substantial, and it was not until the session of 1811, that legislation was had for the establishment of a Provincial penitentiary. In the meantime the County of St. John, finding its criminals too numerous to be accommodated in the common gaol, erected a house of correction on its own account, and this building in 1841 was taken over and converted into a Provincial penitentiary.

Among the acts passed during the session, was one for granting a bounty on flour, manufactured at the steam mills in Portland. The act for regulating elections of representatives was amended by requiring the candidate to be possessed of real estate to the value of two hundred pounds in the county for which he was elected, over and above ail encumbrances and to have had his title registered six. months before the election. Another act provided for the trial of controverted elections by means of a committee of members to be chosen by a complicated ballot system. This was a slight improvement on the former practice, but these committees of the House, no matter how chosen, were never quite free from partizan feelings, and it is to be feared that in some cases these feelings prevailed over the claims of justice.

As the disputed boundary question with the United States was to be decided by the King of the Netherlands, the presence of Sir Howard Douglas was required in England to assist in preparing the British case. The Governor desired to dispose of the legislative business of the year before taking his departure from the Province, so he called the Legislature together on the 19th of December, 1828. The House sat from that date until the 10th of February, 1829. The speech of the Governor at the opening of the session was very lengthy and dealt with a variety of subjects. Great progress had been made in public works, and the roads of the Province for the first time were beginning to be fit for travel with wheeled carriages. He was able to inform the legislature that arrangements had been made for the British government providing arms for the militia without any cost to the Province. He recommended the attention of the legislature to measures for the improvement of navigation, by the building of a greater number of light houses. A light house had been erected on Partridge Island at the entrance of St. John harbor very soon after the founding of the Province, and one or two others had since been built, but the lighting of the coast was very imperfectly done, a condition of affairs which was largely due to lack of means. The Governor closed his address by a highly eulogistic description of the Province and its resources.

As Richard Simonds, the speaker of the House of Assembly, had been appointed provincial treasurer he resigned his seat in the House, and Charles Simonds, one of the members for St. John county, was elected In his place. At this session the Council made a highly important discovery, they found that the practice which they had adopted from the beginning, of sending messages to the House of Assembly by a member of the Council was contrary to Parliamentary usage and colonial practice, and they informed the House that for the future, all bills and messages from the Council, would be carried by a master in chancery. The House responded to this message in characteristic-fashion. Previous to that time it had been the custom tor bills to be taken up to the Council by two members of the House of Assembly. Now it was resolved that, for the future only one rnember should be sent up with a bill to the Council. This seems to have aroused the resentment of the Council and they soon found a grievance against the House in the fact that the speaker received their messenger standing but covered. They thought that the speaker should receive the messenger uncovered. This matter was referred to a committee of the House, and it was decided that the speaker should take off his hat after the messenger of the Council had made his third bow. It was fortunate that the House of Assembly was willing to yield in this matter, for the Council might otherwise have made it a pretext for putting a stop to all legislation.

In June, 1827, a new system of disposing of Crown lands at auction had been introduced by the surveyor general, acting for the Imperial government, its professed object being to place settlers on the land as rapidly as possible. Theoretically it appeared reasonable enough, but its practical effect was to give away the Crown lands of the Province to speculators for nothing. Under this system it appeared that in a year and a half, a hundred and eighty-seven thousand three hundred and thirty-six acres had been sold, for which there had been received in payment the sum of £905 16s. 4d. From this sum had to be-deducted £503 18s. 8d., for incidental expenses, leaving the sum of £401 17s. 7d., as the net-amount of the purchase money. This sum was not-sufficient to pay the expenses of the survey, so that the land went for absolutely nothing. Both Houses joined in an address to the King against the continuance of this wasteful and improvident system of disposing of the Crown lands of the Province. No answer seems to have been received to this address, but the question was solved at a later day by the transfer of the Crown lands to the government of the Province, to which they properly belonged.

The House and the Council joined in another address to the King in a matter which well illustrates the bigotry of that age. According to an act of the British parliament, passed in the reign of George III., foreigners who came into the Province for the purpose of becoming settlers, before being admitted to take the oath of allegiance, were required to take the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The repeal of this act was now asked for. At the following session of' the legislature a despatch was received from the Secretary of state for the colonies, announcing that the request of the legislature would be complied with, and this was done the same year by the act 10th George IV. Cap. 7, which was made applicable to this Province by an act of the legislature in 1830.

In his speech, the Governor had referred to the subject of education and a committee was appointed by the House of Assembly to report on this matter; The result of its inquiries was to show that the grammar schools were by no means doing the work that was expected of them, and that the Madras schools were a failure in the rural districts. The only schools that were really progressing in a satisfactory manner were the parish schools. No subject attracted more attention in the legislature for many years than that of education, and no province has ever been more liberal in its grants for that object, but until the introduction of free schools in 1870, and the adoption of a general system of assessment, the schools of the Province were never on a satisfactory footing.

At the close of the session the House of Assembly presented an address to Sir Howard Douglas, expressing the high sense they entertained "of his wise, paternal, energetic and impartial administration" and acknowledging with grateful feeling the deep and lively interest he had taken in the affairs of the province. This address was well deserved for Sir Howard Douglas was probably the best Governor New Brunswick ever had, under the old order of things. Being a man of ability and not a mere place-hunter, he was able to enter heartily into the spirit of the life of the province and to make himself acceptable to all classes. The people of New Brunswick parted from him with regret, but at that time it was fully expected he would return when the work he had to do in Europe was completed. This expectation was disappointed for Sir Howard Douglas in April, 1831, resigned his position as Governor of New Brunswick. The immediate cause of his resignation was one highly honorable to his character. The government of Great Britain proposed a new arrangement of the timber duties which would abolish the protection afforded to colonial timber against timber from the Baltic ports. Sir Howard considered such a measure unjust, and entreated Lord Goderich, the colonial secretary, not to pass it, declaring that the change would ruin New Brunswick and be very injurious to the other colonies. As his representations produced no effect, he felt that it was his duty to appeal from the government, to the public, by writing a pamphlet on the subject, and, as the publication of such a pamphlet, which was virtually an attack on the government, was incompatible with his holding his position as Lieutenant Governor of this province, he handed in his resignation. This was a notable example of public spirit and adherence to principle, for Sir Howard Douglas was by no means wealthy, and the loss of the income of his position was a very serious matter to him. Sir Howard Douglas was one of the first men in England who seems to have fully appreciated the value of the colonies. He believed that they would become in time an important support to the empire, and his view of their future has been amply realized. He was then and always was for "fair trade," a phrase that has become much in vogue in these days. Sir Howard's pamphlet produced a strong impression on the public mind, and the bill for changing the timber duties was rejected by the House of Commons. The. victory for the provinces, whose interests he had so much at heart, had been won largely by his efforts, but in the meantime he had ceased to be Governor of New Brunswick and to be in a position to assist it by his valuable advice and his untiring efforts.

The Hon. William Black, a member of the Council, succeeded to the Presidency of the Province on the departure of Sir Howard Douglas, and continued to fill that position for about two years, until the arrival of Sir Archibald Campbell in the autumn of 1831. In 1830 the Legislature met on the 12th of January and it was prorogued on the 8th of March. The only matter of importance referred to in the President's speech is the opening of King's College, which began its work under its new charter in 1829. An act had been passed at the previous session granting £1,100 per annum for the endowment of the College on condition that His Majesty would grant £1,000 sterling to the College, which he had promised to do. This liberal grant from His Majesty did not come out of his own pocket nor out of the British treasury, but it was a part of the sum obtained from the Crown lands of the Province, so that the entire grant to the College was from funds that properly should have belonged to the Province. In a financial sense the College had been placed on a satisfactory footing, and if its charter had been more liberal its success would have been assured.

The most important bill of the session was that for the relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. The Imperial Parliament in 1829, had passed the act generally known as "Catholic emancipation," removing those disabilities which had prevented Roman Catholics from sitting in the House of Commons, or from holding civil or military offices. This measure had been carried by the Government of the Duke of Wellington, who had violently opposed all concessions to the Roman Catholics until it was felt that if these concessions were not granted, Ireland would rise in rebellion. The same act would have been passed more than thirty years before by William Pitt, but for the bigotry of George III., who set up the pretext that to consent to it would be a violation of his coronation oath. While the Duke of York was alive, the same influence prevailed with George IV., but the Duke of York being dead, the King had to yield, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Lord Eldon, who solemnly declared that if this act were passed the sun of Britain's glory would set forever. The Provincial act for the relief of Roman Catholics merely made the Imperial act applicable to New Brunswick. It was brought to the attention of the Legislature by a despatch from Sir George Murray, who commended it to their favorable consideration. It passed without any opposition in the House of Assembly, but in the Council, the chief justice opposed it and placed on the journals of that body a long protest against its passage. Chief Justice Saunders was a Tory of the old school, on whose dull mind the progress of the world made no impression. From the day that he became a member of the Council untii the end of his long life he opposed all reforms until he came to be looked upon with contempt, even by those who had formerly been with him on the side of obstruction.

It has already been stated that under the original system, which was introduced at the foundation of the province, the only clergymen authorized to solemnize marriages were those of the Church of England; ministers or the Kirk of Scotland, Quakers, and clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church,. Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and all Presbyterians, except those connected with the Church of Scotland were excluded from the operation of this marriage law. The agitation for a change in this system commenced at an early period, and in 1821 a bill passed the House of Assembly authorizing all ministers of the Gospel to solemnize marriage. The vote on this bill was a close one, thirteen being in favor of it and eleven against it. Among those who opposed this just measure, were Hugh Johnston, Harry Peters and Ward Chipman, Jr., of St. John, and John Allen of the County of York, while John M. Wilmot, Charles Simonds and Andrew S. Ritchie, of St. John, and Peter Fraser, John Dow and Stair Agnew, of the County of York, were on the side of reform. The two members for Kings county of that day, John C. Vail and David B. Wetmore, were against the bill,-while of the Queens County members, one, William Peters, was for it, and the other, Samuel Scovil, was against it. This bill was defeated iu the Council, a fate that befel many subsequent bills of the same kind in that body. For several years the House of Assembly continued to pass the dissenters marriage bill, and the Council as steadily to reject it. The opposition to this measure in the House gradually died away,. until in 1830, there was no division taken on its passage, l)ut that made no difference in regard to the attitude of the Council towards it, and the bill was rejected, as it had been so many times before. Iu 1831 a dissenters' marriage bill was again passed by the new House of Assembly, which met that year, and when a committee was appointed to search the journals of the Council to learn what had become oi their bill they found that the Council had summarily rejected it without a division. The House of Assembly concluded that nothing would serve to bring about the reform asked for, but to petition the King, and accordingly in 1831, a petition was prepared :n which the grievance with regard to dissenting Protestant clergymen, was duly set forth. It was stated that for several years in succession the House of Assembly had passed a bill to extend the privilege of celebrating marriages to dissenting clergymen, but that for reasons unknown to the House, such bills had not been concurred in by the other branch of the Legislature. The petitioners, who described themselves as "Your Majesty's Faithful Commons," asked that the King '"would be pleased graciously to give instructions to the administrator of the Government, to recommend the Legislature to pass such bill as he may deem proper, to obtain your Majesty's royal sanction for the purpose of extending the privilege of celebrating and solemnizing marriages, to the regularly ordained and settled clergy of dissenting congregations in Your Majesty's Province of New Brunswick." At the next meeting of the legislature, in 1832. the various dissenting religious bodies showed great activity in presenting petitions. in favor of the passing of the dissenters' marriage bill. These petitions came from every part of the Province, and very largely from the ministers and adherents of the Wesleyan Methodist Society. The bill was passed by the House on the 10th of February apparently without any opposition, and went to the Council, where it passed with a suspending clause, being reserved for His Majesty's approval. It was supposed that this bill would settle the dissenters' marriage question, and the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Archibald Campbell, seems to have shared in this belief, for in proroguing the Legislature he «aid:

"I am particularly gratified to find that the new marriage act, which has just passed into a law, is calculated to give a high degree of satisfaction to a large portion of His Majesty's loyal subjects in this colony."

Nothing more was heard of the act, however, until the session of 1834, when a despatch was received from His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated the 1st of January of that year, in which it was announced that His Majesty had been advised to withhold his assent from the bill, on the ground that the act was confined in its operation to four denominations of Christians, the "Wesleyan Methodists, the Baptists, Presbyterian Seceders from the Kirk of Scotland, and Independents, and also because, before obtaining a license from the Governor, the minister who desired to solemnize such marriages must produce a certificate or letters of ordination, which must be derived from some British convention, synod, conference or association. In other words, the act was disallowed because it was not liberal enough, and thus two years of time were lost, no doubt in consequence of the act having originally been drawn in a restricted form to enable it to pass the Council. Thus the malign influence of that .antiquated and illiberal body was the means of postponing the operation of the dissenters' marriage act until the year 1834, when on the 22nd of March, a bill which was in the terms suggested by the Colonial Secretary, was passed, and the dissenters' marriage question settled forever on an equitable basis.

At this session of the Legislature, the province finally got rid of one of the features of the English criminal law which interfered with the course of justice. The criminal laws of the province were those of England with all their cruelties and absurdities, and criminal law reform in New Brunswick was dependent on the action of the Imperial Parliament. Among the absurdities of the law was that with reference to benefit of clergy. This was founded on an ancient claim by the clergy, of exemption from the penalties imposed by law for certain crimes. It had its origin in the claim made by the ecclesiastics after the Norman Conquest, for the entire exemption of their order from the jurisdiction of the common law courts. Benefit of clergy was at first limited to the regular clergy, but was at length extended to all who could read. Laymen, however, were not allowed to take the benefit of clergy more than once, and upon being admitted to the privilege escaped the death penalty, being branded '.n the hand and released. In the reign uf Queen Anne, benefit of clergy was granted to all persons without requiring them to be able to read. The records of the supreme court of New Brunswick show that benefit of clergy was frequently claimed in capital offences, and that the claim was always allowed if the person who applied for it had not enjoyed it before. It was abolished by the Imperial statute Seventh and Eighth George IV., and the legislature of New Brunswick by an act passed in 1829, which was amended and perfected by another act passed in 1830, also abolished benefit of clergy and prescribed other punishments in its place.

At this session of the legislature the revenue bill was rejected by the Council, and when the legislature was prorogued on the 8th of March, it was left without any means of raising a revenue. The journals of the Council do not afford any evidence of the cause which led to the rejection of this necessary measure, but a paragraph in the Royal Gazette leads to the inference that it was due to the objections of the Council to a clause in the bill authorizing the provincial revenue officers to enter private houses Li search of smuggled goods. Whatever may have been the cause, the difficulty was quickly remedied by the President calling the legislature together three days after the prorogation. The legislature sat on this occasion only four days and passed a revenue bill which was practically the same as that which the Council had rejected. Tlxe extraordinary disregard of the public interests which was shown by the Council in this matter, proves that they were a very unfit body to legislate for the people of New Brunswick. So far as can he gathered they made no attempt whatever to have the hill amended by the House, and made a statement of their objections to it so that the House might have had the opportunity of considering them. They simply threw it out summarily, without any regard for the effect that its rejection would have on the interests of the people of the Province.

The death of King George IV. took place on the 26th of -Tune, 1830, and the event was known in New Brunswick at the beginning of August. This, under the old law, required the dissolution of the House of Assembly, although the existing House had only sat three sessions. The election which took place immediately did not make many important changes in the representation of the several counties. Among the new men were Jaines Brown and George S. Hill for the County of Charlotte, both of whom made a considerable figure in the political history of the Province. William End, a clever Irishman, who also became quite celebrated in public life. was returned to represent the county of Gloucester. Another man who also became prominent was William B. Kinnear, who appeared for the first time as a representative for the city of St. John. William B. Kinnear, was a man of good ability and became Solicitor General in 1846. He was the first lawyer not a member of the Church of England, who attained to the position of one of the legal advisers of the Crown. None of the prominent men of the former House were defeated, and in Charles Simcnds, John H. Partelow, Edward B. Chandler, and George S. Hill, the House of Assembly possessed four reformers who were full of zeal for the public interests and who did splendid service in the work oi improving the constitution of the province so as to bring it in harmony with the needs of the people. If some of these men, viewed at this distance of time, appear to be rather conservative in their opinions, it must be remembered that when they were in public life the most effective canvass that could be used against a man was to say that he was an innovator. All changes, no matter how necessary, were looked upon as almost treasonable, by those who were intrenched in high office and enjoyed enormous salaries, drawn from the people of the Province.

Among the matters which were beginning to engage the attention of the people at this time was the question of temperance. In the early history of the Province the amount of liquor that was consumed by the people was enormous and a certain quantity of Jamaica rum every day seemed to be a necessary part of every man's diet. No work apparently could be carried on in the Province without the use of nun. Large quantities of rum were taken into the woods for the use of the men who cut and hewed the timber, which was the staple export of the Provinces. Every house oi barn raising, every event of any kind which brought people together, was a pretext for indulging in the consumption of large quantities of spirits. The effect of this on the health of the' people, as well as their morals, was very detrimental.

Crime was much more common in those days than it is at present. Business was seriously interfered with by the universal thirst for intoxicating liquors, and thoughtful people began to see that a reform in this respect was greatly needed. Father Matthew had not then begun his great work as a temperance lecturer, but there were others in the field who were equally zealous if not equally eloquent. The first temperance society was formed in St. John in September, 1830, and very soon afterwards a Provincial temperance society was formed in Fredericton. These were the beginnings of a great movement which culminated in the prohibitory liquor law In 1855. This law was a failure, but the temperance sentiment which brought it into being effected a successful reform in the manners of the people, so that, today, New Brunswick is as free from the evils that are due to an excessive use of intoxicating liquors, as any country in the world.

The legislature met on the 7th of February, 1831, and as Sir Howard Douglas was still absent from the Province, the opening speech was delivered by President Black. He called the attention of the Legislature to the necessity for improving the roads and for the erection of a public penitentiary. The legislation of the session was not very important, the principal bill passed being one relating to the criminal code of' England, which had been passed a year or two before. Bj this act a vast number of ancient statutes, from the time of Edward I. downward were repealed. Better provision was made for the trial of felonies and the-due punishment of persons convicted of them. Another act was passed for the purpose of consolidating and amending the laws relating to larceny and other offences connected therewith. There were also acts for amending the, laws relating to malicious injuries to property and of offences against the person. Another act of this session effected a much needed reform by dividing the county of York into two counties, the new county thus created being named Carleton. This act was reserved for His Majesty's royal approbation which was received on the 30th of May, 1832.

At this session of the legislature the question of the casual and territorial revenue of the Province again came before the House. On motion of Mr. Partelow, an address was presented to the President, asking him to lay before the House a detailed account showing the amount paid into the casual revenues from 1st of January, 1824, to the 1st of January, 1831 ; and also a statement of the expenditure from the casual revenue for the same period. President Black, by the advice of the Council, declined to comply with this request, but said that he would transmit it for the consideration of His Majesty's ministers. When this answer was received by the House, it immediately took action. On motion of Mr. Partelow, a resolution was passed for an address to His Majesty, and Messrs. Partelow, Simonds and Chandler were appointed a committee to prepare it. It was laid before the House and agreed to by a vote of 14 to 8, the only persons who opposed it being the friends and relations of the members of the family compact. This address stated that large hums were taken from the people of the Province for licenses to cut timber on Crown lands, that the Commissioner of Crown lands, who was under no control in the Province, was invested with greater power with regard to the imposition of tonnage money and the exaction of fees than was compatible with a free Government. It expressed the opinion that if the Crown lauds were under the control of the Province, while the oppressions complained of would be removed the revenues would be more productive. It stated that the Assembly could not but view with just alarm that the day might possibly come when by a single mandate from the Crown land office, exactions of such magnitude might be made, as literally to stop the export trade of the country. The address also stated that the object contemplated was to relieve His Majesty's government permanently of the burthen of the whole civil list of the Province, for which purpose the revenues from the Crown lands should be placed under the control of the legislature.

The answer to this address did not come until the following year, when Sir Archibald Campbell was lieutenant Governor. A few days after the opening of the Legislature in 1832, the Lieutenant Governor laid before the House a despatch which he had received from Lord Goderich. In regard to supplying information as to the amount of the expenditure of the casual revenue, Lord Goderich stated that he had not received any command from His Majesty on the subject, and that as the resolutions of the Assembly were grounded altogether on erroneous information, it was not in his power to authorize the Lieutenant Governor to comply with the request of the House. The despatches which passed between Sir Archibald Campbell and Lord Goderich at this time show that the latter was the real obstacle to the granting of the request of the House of Assembly to place the casual and territorial revenues under the control of the Legislature. Lord Goderich was a Tory who had got by accident into a liberal government, and who is best known to readers of English history as "Goody Goderich", a nickname which he received in consequence of his failure to keep his administration together after the death of Mr. Canning.

The curt reply of Lord Goderich did not prevent the House of Assembly from again dealing with this important, matter. A few days after it had been received a resolution was passed asking the Governor to lay before the House an account of the money received from the casual and territorial revenue during the year 1830, and also a statement of the amount of the incomes of all officers in the civil departments of the province. This was carried by a vote of 18 to 8, there being at that period in the House an element unfriendly to the true interests of the province, which was content to let the crown land revenues remain ia the hands of the Imperial authorities. In reply to this address Sir Archibald Campbell said that with Lord Goderich's despatch before them, he was unable to comply with the request of the house. The House of Assembly was not to be so turned aside from its determination to redress the grievances of the province. It returned to the subject and resolved that it was reasonable and proper that His Majesty should be relieved from the payment of the civil list of the province, and therefore that it was necessary that information should be obtained as to the amount of the crown revenues and the annual charges thereon. Again His Excellency was asked to furnish the House with a statement of the receipts and expenditure of the casual and territorial revenue for the year 1831. Strange to say Sir Archibald Campbell complied with this second request and said that the documents should be immediately laid before the House. When this was done it appeared that the crown land receipts of the province for the year 1831 amounted to £14,913 18s. old., out of which was taken £1,750 for the salary of the Surveyor-General, £909 for his clerk, £2,750 Is. for the expenses of preparing and issuing patents for lands sold and for timber licenses, £1,932 10s. 2d. for survey money, and £150 for the annuity of Mr. Look wood'. The rest of the revenue went to defray the salary of the Commander-in-Chief, the Chief Justice, three assistant judges, the Attorney General, the Secretary and Clerk of the Council, Immigration Agent, the Archdeacon, the Presbyterian minister of St. John, the donation to King's College, and the donation to the Indians.

A few days later, on motion of Mr. Simonds, it was resolved that, in the opinion of the House, a proposition should immediately be made to His Majesty's Government, that upon the condition that all the Crown revenues, levied and collected in this Province, which might arise from the sale of Crown lands therein he placed under the control and management oi the Provincial Legislature, this House will then make proper provision for the whole civil list in the Province; and that a committee be appointed to prepare a petition to His Majesty upon the subject of the Crown revenues and civil list of the Province.

The address, which was the result of this resolution, stated the grounds on which the Province claimed the right to control its Crown land revenues and proposed to relieve His Majesty from the payment of the civil list and all other necessary expenses for the Government of the Province, on condition that the Crown land revenues should be placed under the control of the Provincial Legislature. Numerous reasons were given why this request should be complied with. A committee was appointed to wait upon the Lieutenant Governor and ask him to transmit this address to His Majesty. Sir Archibald Campbell replied that he would do so, but he would consider it his imperative duty to accompany it with such explanations as he might deem necessary and particularly to rebut the charges made against the public departments. Thus the Lieutenant Governor assumed at attitude of direct hostility to the House of Assembly in regard to this highly important matter.

The Crown land difficulty was not lost sight of during the session of 1833. Early in that session, on motion of Mr. Partelow, a resolution was carried that an humble address be presented to His Excellency, praying that he would cause to be laid before the House, at as early a date as possible, a detailed account, showing the amount of the crown revenues from the 1st of January, 1829, to the 1st of January, 1833, particularizing the amount received each year; also a statement of the salaries of all the public officers paid from the crown revenues. To this the Lieutenant-Governor replied, expressing his regret that he did not consider himself to have authority to furnish accounts embracing a period so long elapsed, but that he would furnish the House of Assembly with returns oi the receipts and expenditures for the year 1832, as he had done for the year 1831. A day or two later, a despatch from Lord Goderich was laid before the House of Assembly by the Lieutenant-Governor, in which he acknowledged the receipt of their despatch, proposing to assume the expenses of the civil list of the Province on the relinquishment by the Crown of the territorial revenues. The reply to this was, that his Majesty did not consider it necessary at present to call upon the House for a grant of the nature proposed, as he did not anticipate such a falling off in the revenue at his disposal as the House appeared to have apprehended. This was a sarcastic way of informing the House of Assembly that no change was to be made in the management of the casual and territorial revenues of the Province.

Sir Archibald Campbell, at a later day during this session, laid before the House an account of the casual and territorial revenue for 1832. From this account it appeared that there was a balance on band in favor of the revenue, on the 1st of January, 1832, amounting to £4,017 12s. 8d. and that the receipts for the year brought up the total to £20,421 Gs. 8d. against which warrants had been drawn for £11,704 13s. 8d. leaving a balance of £8,657 5s. 10d. at the end of the year. This account was referred to a committee, who called attention to "the tremendous expenses attendant upon the Crown land department, the enormous salary of the Commissioner and the large amount swallowed up in the collection and protection of the revenue." They expressed the opinion that under proper management an immense saving could be effected. A series of resolutions were passed by the House, in which the opinion was expressed that the powers exercised by the commissioner of Crown lands and forests were far greater than ought to be possessed by any subject, and these powers hail been too frequently used in a manner that was exceedingly detrimental to the general interests of the Province, as well as to the invasion of private rights. It was stated that the abuse of these powers had disturbed the tranquility which every subject ought to enjoy, that the granting of extensive mill reserves to certain individuals had been highly injurious to the commercial prosperity of the province by preventing fair and honorable competition and the introduction of capital; that the want of control by the legislature over the commissioner of Crown lands, and the refusal of the Governor to furnish the Assembly with all the information asked for, gave just reason to believe that great abuses existed in the Crown land department; that the majority of the existing executive council had not the confidence of the country as the first named on the list held the situation of commissioner of Crown lands and forests, and would succeed to the administration of the government of the Province in the event of the death or absence of the Lieutenant Governor, while the persons second and third on the list of executive councillors held public positions which were inconsistent with the administration of the government.

End of Volume I