in the Upper House, in no way sustained the Lieutenant-Governor's judgment. They referred to the declaration of the LieutenantGovernor in decreeing the dissolution of the Legislature, that he did so for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the people on the actual state of affairs and on the Ministerial changes which had taken place, and mentioned as an important fact that the newly-elected Assembly had condemned that action; but the majority of the members, in view of the important public works pending, did not consider themselves justified in refusing to concur in a general and independent manner with the measures of the Governmnt, with which view the supplies were voted. Furthermore, they reminded His Honor that his present Ministry was at least dependent upon the casting vote of the Speaker, and they added that "the well-known facts in connection with the election of the Speaker of the House are hardly of a nature to increase the importance of his vote." "At all events," pursued the petitioners,

"This majority cannot be invoked by the Lieutenant-Governor to justify his conduct. 'Le succés ne fait jamais le droit,'—success is not justification; and the electors would learn with consternation that a functionary of the Federal Government, (whom neither the people of the Province nor their representatives can constitutionally punish nor even censure) is to be protected from all censure and all punishment from those to whom he is directly responsible, provided that by his violation of the Constitution he can procure a majority, all the more easily obtained that he is less scrupulous as to the means of obtaining it by his certitude of absolute impunity. In his memorandum of the 18th March, the Lieutenant-Governor tells His Excellency that ho is reluctantly compelled to make revelations concerning the conduct of his Ministers, to maintain the dignity of his office, to prove that his object has always been to protect the constitutional liberties of the people, and finally, 'because the existence of the Constitution is at stake.' We, on the contrary, most respectfully hold that never has the Constitution received a more severe blow. The responsibility of the Ministers for all the acts of the Head of the State, and the absolute immunity of the latter, imply, necessarily, an entire reciprocal confidence, and the inviolability of the secrecy of their advice and counsel. No one can dispense with this rule without making Responsible Government an impossibility. If the Head of the State were allowed, after the struggle of parties has terminated in the House by the adoption of a measure, to come and accuse his Ministers of having acted through sordid motives or in any other reprehensible way, Ministerial responsibility would be no more. Such an act from a constitutional monarch would be a violation of the fundamental principles of Responsible Government, and would expose him to dangerous conflicts with his Parliament. How much more so does such an act, by a public officer who is responsible to a higher authority, deserve reproof and punishment?

"The Lieutenant-Governor, after assuming his office, as he admits himself,

gets persuaded that ministerial and administrative changes have become necessary, and determines to use the influence attached to his position to realize what he deems to be to the best advantage of the Province. The Prime Minister, acting in accordance with the wishes of a large majority of the national representation, follows a policy which does not commend itself to the personal opinions of the Lieutenant-Governor. Immediately the Lieutenant-Governor takes for mistrust or insubordination what was simply respect for the people's will. The most insignificant details are carefully criticised, confidential conversations are secretly noted, involuntary mistakes of employés are charged as grave errors of administration. Lastly, taking advantage of the confidence which his Prime Minister had placed in him, and the good faith with which he interpreted his words and his acts, he knowingly allows the vote to be taken in both Houses on measures introduced by his Cabinet, and then suddenly thwarts and arrests that legislation. He respects neither the decisions of both Houses regarding these measures, nor the confidence of the Houses in his Ministry, nor the energetic protestations of both branches of the Legislature claiming the free exercise of representative government. He dismisses his Ministers and brusquely dissolves Parliament.

"Then, to explain his conduct, the Lieutenant-Governor forwards to His Excellency Lord Dufferin his memorandum, dated the 18th of March, which alone, we humbly submit, would be enough to justify the dismissal of the Lieutenant-Governor. In that factum, under the pretence of defending the prerogative of the Crown, the Lieutenant-Governor divulges, in misconstruing them, certain acts and confidential conversations, the secret of which is considered as sacred by the Sovereign himself."

Mr. DeBoucherville had already replied to the memorandum of the Governor, and by this rejoinder the petitioners thought they had completed the answer. To the allegation of the Lieutenant-Governor that the DeBoucherville Administration were controlled by railway rings, they entered an emphatic denial; and their grievances against His Honor they summed up as follows:

1st. "The Lieutenant-Governor, in dismissing his ministers when they enjoyed the confidence of both Houses of the Legislature, and when they had not been guilty, as the Lieutenant-Governor admits, of any wilful want of respect for the prerogative of the Crown, has violated the principle of Responsible Government.

2nd. "The Lieutenant-Governor in giving as his reasons for the dismissal of his Ministers, the introduction without his consent of two Bills having reference to the financial interests of the Province, after he had really given his authorization to these measures and after these measures had been fully discussed and voted upon in the Legislative Assembly, has been guilty of a breach of good faith towards his advisers and of want of respect to the Legislature.

3rd. "The Lieutenant-Governor in his explanations laid before his Excellency Lord Dufferin has divulged the secrets of his advisers, giving an inaccurate version and a false interpretation to their words and actions; he has attacked the authenticity of public records, questioned measures and acts of

administration which he had long before sanctioned, and has rendered illusory and impossible all guarantees for that mutual confidence which should ever exist between the Chief of the Executive and his advisers.

"The undersigned have not attempted to follow and discuss all the matters referred to in the original memorial, nor in some instances to re-adduce proofs and reflections therein contained, which answers explain or controvert allegations made from time to time and in different documents by the LieutenantGovernor. The record must be considered as a whole, and from it and in it will be found ample grounds for all they have advanced and asserted against the Lieutenant-Governor, whilst it demonstrates the necessity which exists that the constitutional rights of the people should be vindicated."

It ought to be added that Sir Francis Hincks has made several contributions to the discussion respecting Governor Letellier's conduct, through the editorial columns of the Montreal Journal of Commerce and by letters addressed to various newspapers. Without expressing any opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of dismissing the DeBoucherville Government, Sir Francis has strenuously maintained that the Lieutenant-Governor acted strictly within the Constitution. Of those who have undertaken to vindicate Mr. Letellier's exercise of his perogative as representing the Crown, probably there are none whose views are entitled to be received with more deference than Sir Francis Hincks, who has, in the course of a long and arduous public service, had experience in the positions of journalist, member of Parliament, leader of the Opposition, Cabinet Minister, Premier, and representative of the Crown in a Colonial Government.

CHAPTER IV.

LOCATION OF THE PACIFIC RAILWAY WEST OF RED RIVER.-SUNDAY LABOR ON GOVERNMENT WORKS.-ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, KINGSTON.-HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS ACT.-MOTIONS OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE.-PETITIONS FROM ALIENS.-WITNESSES IN CASES OF ASSAULT.-MARITIME COURT OF ONTARIO.OFFICES OF RECEIVER-GENERAL AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--LEASE OF THE PEMBINA BRANCH.-MR. MACKENZIE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE.THE O'DONOGHUE AMNESTY.-AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. AMENDMENT TO MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT OF 1876.-AMENDMENT TO DECK LOADS ACT.-THE POST OFFICE AND LETTERS CONCERNING LOTTERIES, &C.-THE EXTENSION OF THE RAILWAY ACT TO P. E. ISLAND.-STAMPS ON NOTES AND BILLS. REPEAL OF THE DUTY ON MALT.-CONFLICTING LAND CLAIMS IN MANITOBA. THE INSOLVENT ACT. WINDING UP OF INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANIES.NATURALIZED GERMANS.. PETITIONS OF RIGHT.-COMPULSORY VOTING.

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS. . PERSONS
IMPRISONED FOR LACK OF SURETIES TO KEEP THE PEACE.-ELECTIONS ACT.-
LAW OF USURY.-ATTACKS OF NEWSPAPERS UPON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

The location of the Pacific Railway from the crossing of the Red River westward to the Saskatchewan country, has been the subject of much discussion and difference of opinion among those who have given attention and consideration to the question. Mr. Sandford Fleming, the Chief Government Engineer, has consistently favored the route lying north of Lake Manitoba, and has had his views very strongly supported by the verbally expressed opinions and official reports of those of his subordinate officers more immediately in charge of the work in that district. On the other hand, the great majority of the people of Manitoba, but particularly the settlers of the county of Marquette, have strenuously contended that the road should be constructed south of the Lake. Mr. Fleming's reasons for preferring the northern route, briefly stated, are that in his opinion it is shorter, more direct, and easier and cheaper so far as construction is concerned, than the southern; and he would further appear to regard the latter as presenting engineering difficulties, in connection with the bridging of the several streams which would have to be crossed, of a rather formidable character-an opinion which was fully

confirmed by Mr. Marcus Smith, Assistant Chief Engineer, who was specially commissioned, in 1877, to make a personal examination of the country and report upon the subject. The advocates of the southern route disputed the whole premises of the Government Engineers, who, they contended, were imperfectly informed with respect to the character of the country traversed by the northern route, which they alleged to be, for a considerable portion of its length, mainly a succession of swamps and marshes, that could never be thoroughly drained, and would at best offer but a poor field for settlement and the pursuit of agriculture. Indeed, there were those who did not scruple to assert that construction would not merely be ruinously expensive, but next to impossible, in many places in the neighborhood of the Narrows of Lake Manitoba. It was urged, as a further reason for bringing the road south of the Lake, that it would be of equal service for national and for colonization purposes, opening up a large extent of very valuable territory and adding but very little to the length of the trans-continental line. Mr. Mackenzie, in the course of a discussion of the question in the House of Commons, intimated that while the Government had not yet finally determined upon adopting the northern route, they must have much more positive evidence against it and in favor of the other before taking the responsibility of refusing to be guided by the opinions and advice of their responsible officers.

A strong feeling exists in several quarters against Sunday labor in any form, and various attempts have been made to enforce the strict observance of the day upon railways, canals, and all public works under the control of the Government. The late Mr. Adam Gordon (South Ontario) had, in the course of his too brief tenure of his seat as a member of the House of Commons, in two successive sessions moved a resolution in favor of an "entire closing and cessation of (Sunday) labor" upon these works, except "in cases of absolute and unavoidable necessity;" and Dr. Christie (Argenteuil), assuming the fallen mantle of the deceased gentleman, submitted a similar proposition during the session of 1878. Members generally admitted the desirability of observing as decorously as possible the " one day in seven," but Dr. Christie's motion was regarded as too rigid. An amendment was therefore moved by Mr. Colin Macdougall (East Elgin), affirming all that was contended for by the Member for Argenteuil as to the importance of observing the day as strictly as practicable, but leaving the Government to