Die Beschwerden von Upper Canada an die britische Krone, 1832.

The Seventh Report from the Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada on Grievances; to whom were referred Lord Viscount Goderich’s Despach to His Excellency Sir John Colborne, of the 8th November, 1832; to which is added, The Report from the same Committee, on the Petition of William Forsyth, late Proprietor of the Niagara Falls Pavilion.

To the Honorable the Commons House of Assembly.
The Select Committee on Grievances, to whom were referred the Despatch of Lord Viscount Goderich, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, of date the 8th of November, 1832, with the Message of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, and several letters, petitions, and other Documents which had been addressed by William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire, to the Secretary of State, accompanying the same — the Message of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor in reply to the address of the House of Assembly for information concerning the dismissal and re-appointment to office of Mr. Solicitor General Hagerman, the appointment of Mr. Jameson as Att'y General in the room of Mr. Boulton, and relative to the expulsion of the said William Lyon Mackenzie from the House of Assembly in a former Parliament — and certain other messages, petitions and documents on various subjects of grievance and public and private wrong — have, in obedience to the orders of the House, made some enquiry on the several subjects referred to them, and agreed to the following Report:
In 1828, a Select Committee of the House of Commons enquired into the causes of those embarrassments and discontents which had for many years prevailed in the Canadas. This Committee conclude their report by stating their anxiety “to record their complete conviction that“ neither the suggestions they have presumed to “make, nor any other improvement in the Laws“ and Constitutions of the Canadas, will be at “tended with the desired effect, unless an impartial, conciliatory and constitutional system“ of government be observed in these loyal and important Colonies.
Last summer another Committee of the House of Commons entered upon an investigation of the causes of Canadian discontents, but confined their enquiries to the Lower Province, the Right Honorable E. G. Stanley having under great misapprehension assured the House that the utmost harmony prevailed between the Lieutenant Governor and the Council and Assembly of this Colony.
Your Committee respectfully submit the results of their enquiry, together with the evidence. If it shall appear to the House that there is just cause of complaint, and that the government has not exerted its Constitutional powers to remedy the evils from which the people desire relief, the course to be pursued is to address the Throne, stating their grievances and praying redress. If, on the other hand, the House shall be of opinion that the government is administered impartially, with sound discretion and a single eye to the general welfare; that its officers and ministers enjoy the public confidence and worthily discharge their various duties, there can be no doubt but that the Representatives of the people will mark their approbation of their conduct by cheerfully placing in their hands the small Annual Grant, which in name, more than reality, indicates a popular influence in the government.
The almost unlimited extent of the patronage of the Crown, or rather of the Colonial Minister for the time being and his advisers here, together with the abuse of that patronage, are the chief sources of Colonial discontent. Such is the patronage of the Colonial Office that the granting or withholding of supplies is of no political importance unless as an indication of the opinion of the country concerning the character of the government, which is conducted upon a system that admits its officers to take and apply the funds of the Colonists without any legislative vote whatever.
Some years ago the people of the County of York held a meeting and petitioned for the redress of Grievances; their memorial was transmitted by W. W. Baldwin, Esq. the Chairman of the meeting, to the Right Honorable E. G. Stanley, and his advice requested as to the means of redress, which he most willingly gave. His autograph letter in reply, from which the following is an extract, is appended to Dr. Baldwin's evidence given before Your Committee.

[...] "Upon the subject of the Legislative Council, “(which I do not hesitate to say, without any disrespect to or reflection upon the individuals who” compose it is at the root of all the evils complained of in both Provinces). Upon the exclusion of the Judges, with the single exception“ of the Chief Justice, from all interference in “political business — and upon the necessity of “introducing some alteration into the present“ Jury system — the three most important points “of your petition, you will find that the opinion “of the Committee entirely concurs with yours, “and that opinion I am disposed to support to "the utmost of my power.”
Mr. Stanley adds that the Constitutional remedy is “open to the people of addressing for "the removal of the advisors of the Crown, and “refusing supplies.”
The patronage of the Crown, as now exercised in this Province, includes the payments of gifts, salaries, pensions, and retired allowances to the Clergy of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal & Roman Catholic orders, and to nearly the whole of the civil officers of the government, including Sheriffs, Collectors of Excise and Customs Revenue, Coroners, Justices of the Peace, Commissioners of the Court of Requests, the heads of the several departments and all in subordinate stations under them; to Judges of the District and Surrogate Courts, Registrars of Conveyances, Wills, &c., Commissioners of Customs, Clerks of the Peace, &c. &c. These officers hold their several situations only during the pleasure of the Crown. The Royal patronage also embraces the judicial establishment, many pensions, the nomination of one branch of the Legislature, by the name of the Legislative Council, and the appointment of its speaker and other officers, — the selection of the officers of the House of Assembly — the control of the Indian Department, of King's College, and of Upper Canada College, the appointment of the twelve District Boards of Education, and the direction of the expenditure of public monies in aid of Emigration — the selection of the Executive Council — the uncontrolled management of millions of Acres of public Lands — the appointment of 1500 commissioned Militia Officers — the sole control of the Military and Naval Forces — and (subject to the votes of the House of Commons in this case) the regulation of the whole Military and Naval expenditure.
The Crown also controls the expenditure of a large annual amount of local taxation by its power of appointing the District Magistracy during its pleasure—the justices thus appointed select the District Treasurers and a large number of subordinate officers, and exercise varied and extensive civil and criminal jurisdiction.
…The Crown appoints the members of the Court of King's Bench, and the Judges of that Court regulate at their discretion the tariff of fees to be paid therein by suitors. These judges are dependent on the Crown for such retiring pensions as it may see fit to award them, if any, and enabled to look forward with hope and expectation to the enjoyment of other offices and situations within its gift, by themselves and their families.
The Canada Company, the several incorporated establishments for Banking, Canalling and other purposes, and the Harbour, Dock & Wharf Companies, in nearly all cases, unite their patronage with that of the local government, and steadily strive to increase the influence of the Crown.
The Post Office Department, with about a hundred Deputy Post Masters, is under the sole control of the Crown — contracts are made, and all appointments held during its pleasure; the surplus revenue is transmitted to England.

[...] The Despatch of 8th Nov. 1832.
The Despatch from Lord Viscount Goderich to Sir John Colborne, dated November 8th, 1832, and specially referred to your Committee, is an answer to the representations of about 24,500 of His Majesty's subjects of this Province, transmitted to England by Mr. Mackenzie, a member of this Committee and the agent deputed by the Petitioners to urge their claims on the consideration of Government. There is an error in the Despatch, which states the number of Petitioners by Mr. Mackenzie at 8 or 10,000, below the true number, a subsequent letter to Mr. M. from the Colonial Office, appended to this report, corrects that mistake.
Mr. Mackenzie also went to England as the Agent of about 10,000 Petitioners of the several religious denominations, whose claims Mr. George Ryerson was sent home to advocate in 1830.
The documents referred to your Committee are very voluminous, instead, therefore, of reporting them, some extracts have been made to which the Despatch has reference; These selections and other correspondence with the Colonial Office are appended to this report.
The Despatch itself recommends many very valuable measures that His Majesty had been graciously pleased to suggest to the Government of this Province, and which are eminently calculated, if acted upon, to render the people more happy and contented, viz: —

1. The passing of a Bill for the amendment of the Election laws.
2. The alteration of the Charter of King's College, in such a manner as shall agree with the wishes of the people — [acted on this year by the Assembly.]
3. The placing the Town Members of the Assembly on the same footing in respect to wages as the County Members — [acted on this year.]
4. Allowing all the members of religious denominations, who cannot conscientiously take an oath, the privilege of the elective franchise — [acted on.]
5. The interdiction of the disposal of Crown Lands to favourites, and rendering them the subject of competition — [partly acted on.]
6. The repeal of the law which excludes British subjects from voting at elections and being elected, until the expiration of seven years after their return from their residence in a foreign country — [acted on by the Legislature.]
7. The non-interference of all persons holding official situations in the Province at elections.
8. The strong recommendation of His Majesty for a universal diffusion of Education, especially among the poorest and most destitute — [acted on by the House of Assembly this year.]
9. The desire expressed, that the most ample and particular information should be given to the House of Assembly of the avails and diposition of the Casual and Territorial revenue.
10. The disposition expressed by His Majesty that the Ministers of religion should resign their seats in the Councils, and that no undue preference should be given to the preachers of the Church of England — [to this recommendation, the Address of the Council hereto appended, was the answer.]
11. The reducing the costs of Elections.
12. The passing of a Bill for the independence of Judges — and
13. The passing of a Bill limiting the number of persons holding offices to seats in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Mackenzie, in his efforts made in England for the attainment of a redress of grievances, was generously assisted by Mr. Hume, (who has always taken an active part on behalf of the people of Canada), and by Messrs. Warburton, Ellice, O'Connell, Grote and Roebuck, Mr. Viger, Lord Howick and other Gentlemen of liberal principles.
Among other subjects of complaint embraced in the Petitions referred to your Committee, were the neglect of general Education — the delays, costs and partialities exhibited in the administration of Justice — defective Jury laws — inconvenient polling places at county Elections — an imperfect state of the representation in the House of Assembly — the Primogeniture laws — the Crown and Clergy Reserves, and the large Provincial debt.
Upon these and other matters of Grievance, your Committee have taken the evidence of individuals of various religious and political creeds which they herewith submit to the consideration of the House.

The Legislative Council.
This body forms a part of the patronage of the British Government; they are the nominees of the Minister of the colonies, who can add to their numbers at his discretion. In continually rejecting the many valuable measures earnestly prayed for by the people, they may be fairly presumed to act in obedience to the power from whence their appointments were derived. Your committee examined some of the members of the council holding offices of emolument under the government, and from their answers it will readily be seen whether they are or are not under the influence of the Lieutenant Governors for the time being.
Capital may be brought into any country, but under an arbitrary, imprudent, and irresponsible government it will be impossible to retain a large share of it. Notwithstanding the encouragement given to emigration, as stated in Mr. Robinson's accounts; it appears by No. 5 of the Appendix, that the population of the colony has not increased much beyond the natural rate in an agricultural settlement of great extent, fertile soil, and spare population. The emigration at Quebec in these four years, as also at New York, has been very extensive. The more wealthy class of emigrants pass through Canada to the United States.

Justices of the Peace.
These officers are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor alone, during his pleasure. Their powers severally and collectively are very extensive. By a reference to the returns appended to this report it will be seen that they consist chiefly of persons of a particular bias in politics, and are a means of extending the power and influence of the colonial system.
Several witnesses were examined as to the mode of appointing Justices of the Peace, the character of the Magistracy, &c. Their evidence and returns of the present magistrates of the colony are submitted herewith.

A Responsible Government.
The Governors of colonies, like other men, are individually liable to all the infirmities of human nature, and in their political capacity, when left to act without restraint, they, no doubt, sacrifice occasionally the interests and happiness of the people, to the gratification of their own passions and caprices. One great excellence of the English constitution consists in the limits it imposes on the will of a King, by requiring responsible men to give effect to it. In Upper Canada no such responsibility can exist. The Lieutenant Governor and the British Ministry hold in their hands the whole patronage of the Province; they hold the sole dominion of the country, and leave the representative branch of the Legislature powerless and dependent.
…There have been three classes of persons examined before Your Committee — the first, of whom the Venerable Dr. Strachan is one, are of opinion that the Government is well enough as it is, and that as to responsibility it is as responsible as other Governments.
The second class desire a responsible Ministry, some heads of departments well paid, to direct the government, to prepare bills and most of the business of the session, and to hold office or lose it according as they may happen to be in the minority or majority in the House of Assembly. This system was never attempted in any of the old colonies, but Your Committee have asked many questions with a view of ascertaining what is the public opinion concerning its practicability here; and it appears that Mr. Mackenzie, in his letters to Lord Goderich, expressed a belief that with some modifications it might be productive of a greater share of good government and public prosperity than is at present enjoyed by the people.
A third class contend for elective institutions, and affirm that while Governors come from without, and Judges are commissioned from without, favoritism towards their connexions will prevail to an extent that would destroy the influence of any set of 'Ministers,' constituted upon the principle desired by the second class; that the influence of Downing Street will continue to prevail as hitherto; and that the favourites of the Secretary of State will, as at present, be placed in important offices to the exclusion of better qualified men.
The facts connected with the cases of Mr. Jameson, Mr. Boulton, and Mr. Hagerman; the dismissal of the Crown Lawyers by one Colonial Minister, and the unexplained re-appointment of one of them to his former office, and of the other to the highest judicial situation in Newfoundland, a short time after, by another; the assertion by Colonel Rowan, to Mr. Boulton, on the authority of the Lieutenant Governor, that the cause of his and his colleague's summary dismissal, was the part they had taken in the House of Assembly to promote the repeated expulsions of Mr. Mackenzie, after they were (it was presumed) made acquainted with the opinion of the Home Government on that course of proceeding; and the prompt and ready refusal of His Excellency to inform the House, in answer to its Address, of the reasons which had induced the Colonial Department to pursue the course it did in these matters, (although even Sir Peregrine Maitland has admitted in his despatches to Mr. Stanley on the Falls Outrage, that it had become the usage in the colonies, unreservedly to submit such correspondence to the Colonial Assemblies,) — these circumstances clearly prove that there is no responsibility to public opinion in Upper Canada, and it may be inferred from His Excellency's reply that he has instructions from England to withhold from the Legislature the official correspondence of the Colonial Department concerning their affairs.
The cause of the removal of the Crown Officers can only be learnt by Your Committee from the Despatch of Lord Goderich, who expressly says it was done because they opposed the avowed policy of His Majesty's Government; the truth of which charge is abundantly notorious; nor does His Lordship seem at all to notice the personal indignity they had offered to himself even as a Minister of the crown. It is difficult to imagine on what ground His Excellency Sir John Colborne qualified the language of the Colonial Minister, and limited it to the case of Mr. Mackenzie's expulsion, unless it was to furnish the excuse which Mr. Boulton is known to have offered, that the views of His Majesty's Government had never been communicated to him as they had been to Mr. Solicitor General. But although His Excellency has given this limited view without any known authority, yet we have heard Mr. Solicitor General publicly declare that his removal had not the remotest connexion with Mr. Mackenzie's expulsions and pretended disqualification by the late Provincial Parliament. The declaration therefore of His Excellency on the one hand, and of Mr. Solicitor General Hagerman on the other, are in direct contradiction; and His Majesty's government at Home can alone tell where the truth lies. It appears probable they were dismissed for opposing the views of His Majesty's Government, not only in the expulsions of Mr. Mackenzie but also from their treatment of Lord Goderich and of His Despatch, embracing a variety of matters of general interest and policy, and that they have since been restored upon irreconcilable representations and excuses the nature of which this system of concealment prevents our ascertaining.
The unexplained reappointment to office of the Crown Officers, Messrs. Boulton and Hagerman, men whose conduct and character were always particularly obnoxious to the people, created great dissatisfaction and distrust in the colony.

[...] The class of persons who are in favor of elective institutions contend, that they were found to work well in the old North American colonies while in a colonial state, that the people of Upper Canada are entitled to the enjoyment of institutions equally free with those enjoyed by the old colonists during the time they were colonial, and under British protection — that few politicians are now found contending that these continental colonies, capable of containing large population, will for a long series of years be required to submit to the inconveniences resulting from perpetual interference by the Home Government in their internal concerns. That in the House of Assembly many useful bills are proposed and carried for many successive sessions which are continually thrown out in the Legislative Council; of which the return moved for in the House of Commons by Mr. Hume and appended hereto gives particulars up to the year 1832 — that it is the wisdom of the aristocracy to try to make the people fearful of themselves, by raising idle cries about loyalty, republicanism, jacobinism, and revolution — that birth, office, or peculiar privileges ought not to give to a few superiority over the many — that the legislative council neglect and despise the wishes of the country on many important matters which a council elected by the freeholders would not — that the people, if united in claiming their privileges to constitute the second branch of the legislature, would obtain it, and that it is weakness and wavering among their representatives which alone can make them timid, as to claiming the enlargement of their liberties — that the prejudices of early education, borrowed from books written by or under the authority of pensioners and salaried lawyers who have with one voice endeavoured to lull the people into the very erroneous belief that the union of church and state and the wisdom of former ages in devising great privileges for the peerage are the cause of the greatness of England, while in truth it is owing to what she has saved of popular institutions — that elective institutions are the only safeguards to prevent the Canadas from forming disadvantageous comparisons between the condition of the colonists and the adjoining country — and that the crown of England, by its ministers, exercised no patronage in Connecticut and Rhode Island; none in the other New England States, save the appointment of a Governor; none in the proprietary governments; and that hence there is no disloyalty in freely and calmly discussing which of these modes of government that have been granted to British subjects and countries will best suit Canada.
When Sir John Colborne assumed the government of this province, in his reply to the address of the legislative council in answer to his speech at the opening of the session, he expressed to them his opinion of the deficiency of independence in that loyal body. His Excellency’s communications with the Colonial Department convey the same sentiment.
The following is an extract of a despatch from His Excellency Sir John Colborne to Secretary Sir George Murray, dated York, Upper Canada, 16th February, 1829.
“With respect to the constitution of the executive and“ legislative councils, on which subject you require information, it is evident, that whatever persons may be appointed “members of the executive council, there will be a considerable degree of jealousy existing in this limited community “of their influence and authority; they must necessarily reside at York, and will seldom be able to accept the charge “without holding other offices under the crown. On many “accounts it is very desirable that the Chief Justice should “retain his seat in the executive council; but there can be no “doubt that occasionally he must, as a judge, be led too deeply “into the political affairs of the colony.
“Composed as the legislative council is at present, the province has a right to complain of the great influence of the “executive government in it. The legislative council consists of seventeen members, exclusive of the Bishop of “Quebec; of those, from accidental causes, not more than “fifteen ever attend to their legislative duties. Thus, out of the “number generally present, six are of the executive council, “and four hold offices under the government; I have there “fore intimated my intention of recommending to His Majesty’s government to increase the legislative council.
“It is exceedingly difficult to find persons qualified for it; “but if about eight or ten more can be selected from different parts of the province, and the majority be considered “independent, there can be no good reason assigned for excluding the executive council.”
In the return to the house of commons, from which the above extract was taken, it is noted that “Since the date of the despatch, the “Right Reverend Dr. Macdonnell, Roman catholic bishop, and John Elmsley, Esquire, two “additional members have been added to the “legislative council.” Of these the first named has a pension or allowance during the pleasure of the colonial department, and the last left the executive council, declaring that an independent minded man could not be there.
The dependence of the legislative council is strikingly manifested by the facts stated in the evidence of the Honorable Colonel Clark, and the Honorable William Dickson, members of that body, before a select committee of the house of assembly during a late parliament. It appears that several legislative councillors had objected to a measure strongly urged by the executive, and its failure was inevitable. To ensure its passing, coercive means were adopted, and those members who were dependent on the government, were told either to vote directly contrary to the opinions they had thus publicly expressed, or be dismissed from their offices. After this disgraceful attempt to coerce men to disingenuous and inconsistent conduct, those unacquainted with the threats which had been used were astonished at the sudden, unexpected, and unexplained change in the conduct of several members; and when this surprise was expressed to the late Honorable James Baby, (who was also an executive councillor, and the senior member) he shed tears at his humiliation, and only exclaimed “my children!” “my children!” and the late Honorable Chief Justice Powell replied to a similar enquiry of surprise, “I have received a new light within the last ten minutes.”
It also appears that the last named gentleman was on another occasion obliged to have a protest he had entered on the journals erased, and the erasure can be seen. The protest of Chief Justice Powell was against a school bill, passed the House of Assembly, then uninformed of its hearing, under the ambiguous phraseology of which it was intended to give Dr. Strachan £300 a year. The bill passed, and Dr. Strachan for many years received this sinecure salary, till it was done away with on the address of the House of Assembly.
We have already adverted to the circumstances of the Chief Justice being introduced into the Legislative Council, of which he is Speaker; and altho’ the House of Assembly have repeatedly pointed out to His Majesty’s Government, the inexpediency, in a limited community like this, of blending the judicial and political duties together, yet the same injurious system is continued. Its impropriety has been lately manifested by the result of a pecuniary negociation likely seriously to impair the independence of the judiciary and increase the distrust of the people.
The House of Assembly voted £200 a year to the Speaker of the Legislative Council, being the same as is allowed the Speaker of the Assembly, whose duties, as we have already stated, are far more arduous and laborious — but since the acts making the judges independent and providing for them, even undue salaries, a negociation has been carried on which has ended in giving a further £200 a year out of the Casual and Territorial Revenue to the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench.
As long as these pecuniary inducements and bonuses can be held out to those occupying the judiciary we cannot consider it practically in a better or safer condition than it used to be: and Your Committee would suggest the propriety of addressing His Majesty’s Government on the subject of thus exercising undue influence on the judiciary or even countenancing negociations derogatory from its presumed independence and purity, which ought to be above suspicion. This additional salary ought to be disallowed.
It appears therefore that the Legislative Council, as at present constituted, has utterly failed, and never can be made to answer the ends for which it was created; and the restoration of legislative harmony and good government requires its re-construction on the elective principle.
The opinions of Mr. Fox, Mr. Stanley, Earl Grey, Lord Erskine, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Hume, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Warburton, and many other eminent British Statesmen, have been expressed in favour of elective institutions as the most suitable for the Canadas; and it appears to Your Committee that Mr. Stanley correctly describes the Legislative council as being “at the root of all the evils complained of in both Provinces.”
The affairs of this country have been ever against the spirit of the constitutional act, subjected in the most injurious manner to the interferences and interdictions of a succession of Colonial ministers in England who have never visited the country, and can never possibly become acquainted with the state of parties, or the conduct of public functionaries, except through official channels in the province which are ill calculated to convey the information necessary to disclose official delinquencies and correct public abuses. A painful experience has proved how impracticable it is for such a succession of strangers beneficially to direct and control the affairs of the people 4000 miles off; and being an impracticable system, felt to be intolerable by those for whose good it was professedly intended, it ought to be abolished, and the domestic institutions of the province so improved and administered by the local authorities as to render the people happy and contented.…
This country is now principally inhabited by loyalists and their descendants, and by an accession of population from the mother country, where is now enjoyed the principles of a free and responsible government; and we feel the practical enjoyment of the same system in this part of the empire to be equally our right; without which it is in vain to assume that we do or can possess in reality or in effect 'the very image and transcript of the British Constitution.
The House of Assembly has, at all times, made satisfactory provision for the civil government, out of the revenues raised from the people by taxation, and while there is cherished an unimpaired and continued disposition to do so, it is a reasonable request that His Majesty's adviser in the province and those about him should possess and be entitled to the confidence of the people and their representatives, and that all their reasonable wishes respecting their domestic institutions and affairs should be attended to and complied with.
Your Committee would respectfully recommend that, besides the usual number for the Journals, a large edition of this report, with the evidence and other appended documents, should be printed in a portable form, as early as possible, and distributed among the members of the House, for general circulation throughout the colony. — And, as the affairs of the Canadas will probably occupy a large share of the attention of the Imperial Parliament during its present session, it might perhaps be advisable to transmit to London a certain number of copies for distribution among those members of the Legislature who take an active interest in Canadian affairs.

W. L. MACKENZIE, CHAIRMAN.
T. D. MORRISON,
DAVID GIBSON,
CHARLES WATERS,
Committee Room, House of Assembly, 10th April 1835.

Nachweis:

Mackenzie, W. L., The Seventh Report from the Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada on Grievances; to whom were referred Lord Viscount Goderich’s Despach to His Excellency Sir John Colborne, of the 8th November, 1832; to which is added, The Report from the same Committee, on the Petition of William Forsyth, late Proprietor of the Niagara Falls Pavilion, (Toronto: M. Reynolds, 1832).

Quellenbeschreibung

In dem insgesamt 500 Seiten umfassenden Dokument wandten sich Vertreter aus Upper Canada, darunter auch der Bürgermeister Torontos, William Lyon Mackenzie, an die britische Regierung, um gegen das koloniale Verwaltungssystem zu protestieren. Die Reformer forderten u.a., die Ausgaben für Wahlen drastisch zu kürzen und die Unabhängigkeit der Richter zu gewährleisten. Des Weiteren enthielt der Bericht Beschwerden über die Minister, die für die Kolonien zuständig waren. Ihnen wurde vorgeworfen, von England aus ihr Amt zu bestreiten, ohne jemals in den kanadischen Gebieten gewesen zu sein und kein Verständnis für die Kolonisten zu zeigen. Ähnlich beschrieben die Reformer den gesetzgebenden Rat in der Provinz, der einem Protektorat der britischen Regierung gleichkäme und auf Verbesserungsvorschläge und Bitten der Kanadier nicht eingehen würde.