part of my political conduct, having even for one instant, been affected in any manner by feelings of a private or personal nature."

The Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had already been brought forward in the other House, to the proposed representative convention. He particularly dwelt on the hardship to Upper Canada of bringing that province, as well as the revolted one, within the operations of the proposed instructions.

Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of ministers generally, gave a reluctant assent to the bill; but said he did not expect a great deal from Lord Durham's mission.

On the 5th of February, Mr. Roebuck, on Lord Brougham's motion to that effect, was heard by the House at great length as agent of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada. In concluding his address, he reserved to himself the right of calling, at a future stage of the bill, evidence to prove the various facts which he had stated in the course of his speech. Lord Brougham expressed a doubt, whether such evidence was to be received at the bar as a matter of course.

On the 8th of February, the bill came on to be read for the third time.

Lord Ellenborough rose to oppose it. He thought it by no means followed, from the present state of things, that the Legislative Assembly could not meet for the benefit of the public service. Had there ever been a time when the people of Lower Canada, suffering as they were, under the effects of rebellion, would be more disposed to accept the alterations proposed by the Imperial Parliament? His opinion was, that by acting on the bill itself, they would lose the

only opportunity which they were likely to have of making a permanent settlement of the affairs of Lower Canada.

Lord Ashburton animadverted on the rapid manner in which the Governors succeeded each other in the Canadas. Sir John Colborne had been removed to make way for Sir Francis Head, Sir Francis Head for Sir George Arthur, Sir George Arthur would retire before Lord Durham's supreme authority. His Lordship suggested for the consideration of ministers, whether there could not be left to Lord Durham the power, if he thought proper, of again calling together the Assembly of Lower Canada.

Lord Mansfield, in the course of a long speech on the general question, said that he believed a great portion of her Majesty's subjects of large landed and other property, and extensive influence, did feel there was a kind of incapacity in the present ministers from which they anxiously desired to be delivered. He regretted that the Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel did not take more active measures of opposition.

The debate was prolonged by speeches from Lords Lansdowne, Brougham, Melbourne, and Fitzwilliam. The bill was then passed. Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham, entering, on somewhat different grounds, their protest against it on the journals of the house.

The more important provisions of this bill were in substance as follow. The constitution of Lower Canada was suspended till November 1840. Her Majesty in council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint, or authorize the Governor to appoint, such and so many special

councillors, as she might think proper. It was declared, that until November 1840, it should be lawful for the Governor, with the advice and consent of the majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower Canada, as the Legislature of that province, at the time of passing the act, was empowered to make: and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her Majesty, should have the like force

and effect as laws passed before the passing of the act by the legislative bodies. The Governor was to have the initiative of all measures proposed to the council, five of whom were required for a quorum.

Then followed certain restrictive provisoes before noticed.

It was then directed, that a copy of every such law or ordinance be transmitted to the Home Government, and her Majesty was empowered, by an order in council, at any time within two years from the receipt thereof, to disallow the

same.

them, has been materially aggravated by the confusion in which certain obscure clauses of the reform bill have left the law of elections, and which it only requires a few declaratory enactments to remedy. Much, too, is assignable to the nicely balanced state of parties, which both renders every vote of the greatest importance, and lends fresh activity to political passions. The abuse complained of, has been of late rapidly progressive, and has now reached its height. Indeed it would not be easy to speak with exaggeration of a system, under which a gentleman learns to consider it to be his duty to vote for his party on every issue, whether of law or of fact: so, that in the words of a legal writer on the subject, "The decisions of every man upon oath, in a matter involving much subtle disquisition, and diversity of opinion, is absolutely predetermined according to his political creed."

The famous question of opening the Irish registries, for instance, turns entirely upon the construction of certain acts of parliament, yet, being a mere point of law, it has been distorted into an affair of party, in which the conservatives maintain the affirmative, and their antagonists the negative, side. The grounds of controversy on this subject, are shortly, as follows. By the Irish election law, the registering barrister is bound to investigate every claim to vote, whether objected to or not. Should he deem the claimant entitled, he supplies him with a certificate to that effect, and such certificate is conclusive of the right of voting, nor does any appeal lie against this determination, when favourable to the voter. On the other

As early as the 21st of November, 1837, Mr. C. Buller, who had been chairman of a committee to which the consideration of the system of election committees had been confided, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the preceding session, though it had never come under discussion. This bill, in its original shape, provided, that three assessors, barristers of seven years' standing should be appointed by the Speaker to act as chairmen of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal from the revising barristers on matters of law. Afterwards, while the bill was in progress through committee, it was thought better, that the first assessors should be named in the act itself, and the future appointments be placed at the disposal of the Speaker, subject to the confirmation of the House. These functionaries were to hold office till dismissed by the Crown upon the address of the House, and were to receive 2,500l. per annum for their services.

On the same day, Mr. O'Connell informed the House, that he likewise had devised a plan which

he was anxious to submit to its consideration, and, accordingly, the learned gentleman obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar purpose. Mr. O'Connell's scheme would transfer the main part of the jurisdiction now exercised by the House, to the Court of Queen's Bench. It provided, that the Speaker was, in the first instance, to name a committee of five, who, when they had considered the case, made by the petition, and had heard counsel on both sides, should define the points at issue between the parties and report them to the House. The Speaker should then refer the matter by his warrant to the Court of Queen's Bench, and the issue be tried before the chief justice, a special jury, and the five persons composing the beforenamed committee. The decision of the jury would determine the right to the seat.

It is possible that, if the House could be brought to part with a jurisdiction, which at present it exercises so much to the prejudice of all parties concerned, the principle of Mr. O'Connell's plan might be adopted with success. But the House of Commons has evinced no such disposition. And Sir R. Peel, though, in the first instance, he seemed, at least, not unfavourable to the project of stripping that assembly of its constitutional right of deciding upon election petitions, found it expedient to assimilate his views to the prevailing opinion.

Mr. Buller's bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of November. Lord Stanley, in opposing it, remarked that he thought the fault was less in the tribunal than in the law, and suggested the appointment of a committee, consisting of men of the greatest eminence among them, who might ex

amine the conflicting decisions of former committees, and lay down general rules of law and practice which should finally be affirmed by a declaratory act. With a view to a fuller consideration of the subject, he moved that the second reading be postponed till the 12th of May.

Mr. Williams Wynn approved of the establishment of such a court of appeal as was proposed by the present bill, nor did he object to the scheme of assessors, though he felt a difficulty as to the mode of their appointment. He declared solemnly that he believed the imputations cast upon the members of election committees to be most unfounded.

Mr. O'Connell, having intimated his intention of abandoning his own bill, said it was notorious that, when a committee was to be ballotted for, there was a canvass on each side, and that the decision might be predicted as soon as the result of the ballot was known. He cited the case of Carlow, where three different committees had come to three different decisions on the question of opening the register. The first settled that the register should not be opened-eleven hon. members, on their oaths, came to that decision. On another committee, eleven hon. members decided on their oaths that the same register should be opened. It was then thought that the possible differences between the committees were exhausted-but no-a third committee decided that the register should be opened partially. There was no man, he was sure, who heard him, who was not convinced, that a worse species of tribunal than an election committee there could not be.

Lord John Russell recom