upon the constitutional principles contended for by the House of Assembly, "that all the revenue accruing in the province shall be under the control and appropriation of the provincial legislature." The following extract from his Excellency's despatch to Sir George Murray on the subject, will best illustrate the wisdom of his decision: -" I could entertain no hope," says Sir James Kempt, " after the resolutions adopted by the House of Assembly, (previously transmitted to Sir George Murray,) that it would be disposed to pass any act in which the king's right to appropriate the revenue raised by the 14th Geo. III. c. 88., would be specifically acknowledged; and, although the present bill is substantially the same as the supply bill passed in 1825, to which objections were stated by Earl Bathurst, in a despatch addressed to Sir Francis Burton, dated the 4th June, 1825, yet, as you admit in the despatch of the 29th September, 1828, which I had the honour of receiving from you, that, as long as the House of Assembly is called upon to provide for, and to regulate any portion of the public expenditure, it virtually acquires a control over the whole;' and as a scheme for the permanent settlement of the financial concerns of the province is in contemplation, I assented to the present arrangement, viewing it as a temporary measure to meet the difficulties of the present year, until such a scheme is. matured, and a permanent settlement effected of the question in controversy by his Majesty's government at home.

"I was further induced to give my assent to the present measure by the consideration, that without a supply of some kind by the provincial legislature, the public service could not be carried on under the instructions which I have had the honour of receiving from you, the funds which the law has placed at his Majesty's disposal being insufficient to defray the expenses of the civil government; under all circumstances, therefore, I entertain a hope, that the arrangement which I have sanctioned will be approved of by his Majesty's government."

It would have been impossible for Sir James Kempt, with all the power of his well-known great abilities, to have established harmony in the province, had he not taken upon himself to assent to the finance bill passed by the provincial parliament. His administration throughout was conciliatory and constitutional; and, if he had remained sufficiently long in the province to examine and reform the condition of its magistracy, and to ascertain the actual moral and physical condition of Canada, he would certainly have effected a completely satisfactory understanding and lasting harmony between the legislature and his Majesty's government.

CHAP. X.

GENERAL ELECTION UNDER THE REPRESENTATION ACT. - LORD AYLMER GOVERNOR. - TROOPS FIRE AT THE ELECTORS IN MONTREAL, AND KILL THREE MEN.

An act of the provincial parliament was passed in 1828, which received his Majesty's sanction in August 1829, to increase the representation of Lower Canada from fifty to eighty-four members. In 1830, a general election took place, agreeably to this act; and on the return of Sir James Kempt to England, Lord Aylmer, the present governor, was appointed his successor.

Soon after the meeting of the first provincial parliament, under Lord Aylmer, the civil list, the branch of revenue still held by the executive power, the charges against the Attorney-General, and, in fact, the interference of his Majesty's government in the local affairs of the province, renewed discontents. The Governor, although he did not abandon the distribution of that portion of the revenue which the legislative assembly claimed the disposal of, yet suspended the Attorney-General, who has been dismissed from office since his return to this country. No measure, indeed, could have been more unwise than for Lord Goderich to have sent that gentleman back to Canada as Attorney-General. Such an act, on the part of his Majesty's government, would have greatly alienated the loyalty of the

Canadians, and weakened their confidence in British

justice.

A most indefensible and disastrous circumstance occurred during the contested election last May (1832), for the representation of the city of Montreal in the provincial parliament.

Mr. Tracey was opposed by Mr. Bagg, who was supported by a large majority of the magistrates of Montreal.

It became evident that Mr. Tracey would be elected by the inhabitants; and, on the 20th of May, a novel mode of securing the election of Mr. Bagg was attempted. The latter, and his friends, alleging that the public peace would likely be endangered, demanded the attendance of a strong constabulary force. To make a show of necessity for this demand, it was afterwards reported that the Canadians were prepared to revolt, or to burn Montreal; when the apparent object seems to have been dispersing the

electors.*

The first charge, as has since been proved, was unfounded, inconsistent, and iniquitous, when we

consider the well-known loyalty of the Canadians, and their obedience at all times, when the country was attacked by foreign foes.

The second charge was, if possible, still more inconsistent and impudent, when it is well known that five-sixths, at least, of Montreal is the property of the very people who were accused of a determination to burn the city.

As to the public peace being in danger, the charge was proved equally absurd.

The magistrates, however, who had certainly no right to interfere in the election, nor had even any jurisdiction in such matters, when, in case of public disturbance, the sheriff and returning officers have all the powers of magistrates in preserving the peace, did interfere at this election.

Special constables were sworn in at different times, in greater numbers than would be at any time necessary to preserve order; but as the election was evidently going against Mr. Bagg, and no act of violence, unless it were occasionally loud language, being likely to occur, a dispersion of the electors seemed the only mode of defeating Mr. Tracey: the troops were, therefore, ordered to be in readiness on the morning of the 21st of May. A squabble occurred after mid-day between the electors, and the troops were sent for, even before reading the riot act. On their arrival at the poll, there was scarcely the appearance of any disturbance, yet the troops remained until six in the evening, when the poll adjourned, and Mr. Tracey departed, accompanied by some of his friends. At this moment one man huzzaed for Mr. Tracey; this was objected to by the