revised and corrected to the end of the third and last Session of the 13th Provincial Parliament inclusive.—Neilson and Cowan, Quebec, 1830.

The framers of this rule evidently had it in view to render their nominations the nomination of the whole House, and to exclude all possibility of management in the selection. If such a power had been to be vested in any individual, it could only be vested in the Speaker; but as he might be a party man, such a delegation of power would have been injudicious. To have left it afloat to be taken up by any individual in the House who pleased, was evidently altogether without the view of the framers of that rule; if one could do it, so then could another and another, and all. If he acted upon his own sole judgment, then he assumed a power which no stand ing or ability would justify, and which no patience on the part of the House would long submit to. If, on the other hand, he consulted with others, then the number of those others might be small-they might be united together for the attainment of objects, not the most meritorious-and though probably the most active, might not be the most impartial of its members; and in one word, the views of a party might be consulted, rather than the general interests of justice and of the country. But besides, there would be no adequate guaranty that the nomination would represent the general unbiassed sentiments of the whole House; so too, the mover would be placed in the awkward dilemma of either recommending his own nomination to the House in one or more of these committees, to the prejudice of his modesty, or of passing himself over, and thus depriving the country of services which he at least must have deemed that the House would consider of importance, or they would not have permitted him to select and point out the individuals who were entitled to their confidence. Above all it would lead to a concentration of power unfavourable to the interests of truth and of liberty. Let it be observed also, that these considerations might or might not have had weight before a Committee of the whole House,

sitting to enquire into the expediency of repealing the above rule. So long as that rule subsisted, no other course than that prescribed by it could be lawfully adopted.

The following permanent Committees, consisting each of eleven members, were moved and ordered on the 29th January, viz :

1st.-A Committee of Privileges and Elections.

2d.-A Committee of Privileges, whereof five to form a quorum, to take into consideration all questions which may arise in the House, and be referred to them relating to grievances, and petitions of grievances.

3d.-A Committee of Courts of Justice, to take into consideration, and report their opinions and observations on all questions which may arise in the House, and be referred to them relating to Courts of Justice and the Admininistration of Justice.

4th.-A Committee of Public Accounts.

5th.-A Committee of Education and Schools. 6th. A Committee of Agriculture.

7th.-A Committee of Trade, to take into consideration, and report their opinions and observations on all matters which may be referred to them, relating to Trade, Fisheries and Navigation.

8th.-A Committee of Roads and Public Improvements, to take into consideration, and report their opinions and observations on all matters referred to them, relating to Roads and Bridges, Improvements of Internal Communications, and settlement of Waste Lands, and Reports and Expenditures connected therewith.

9th. A Committee of Expiring Laws, to enquire into all Laws expired or about to expire, and deemed necessary to be revived, or renewed, or amended.

10th.-A Committee of Private Bills, to take into consideration, examine and report their opinions and observations on all petitions for Private Bills referred to them.

11th.-A Committee of Bills to be engrossed, to examine and report their opinions and observations on all Bills ready to be engrossed, or that have been engrossed.

If in the most ordinary cases the House reserved to itself the direct nomination of its own committees, and excluded its members from any other power in relation thereto, except that of giving an individual vote for one individual of the

committee, and if, as is the fact, any encroachment upon this rule had been looked at with so much jealousy during the Sessions immediately preceding the last, that even in soliciting an addition of members to committees already established, the House would not permit the mover to name in his motion any individual to be added to the committee, but left them to be selected in the ordinary course, it was hardly to have been expected that any individual would have come forward, and have named all the members of all the committees, still less was it to have been expected that the House would have acquiesced in so sweeping a measure as this; yet, upon the occasion of naming these committees to whom so large a power of the House came to be delegated, the new and before unheard of proceeding of motions by an individual member, containing the names of all the members of each of these committees, was submitted to the House and carried. But previous to the passing of these motions the question of the propriety of them was distinctly brought before the House by a motion in amendment, "That the committee of privileges and elections be elected in the usual and customary way," which was lost upon a division of 19 to 46, and a second motion in amendment, "That the House do to-morrow resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider the expediency of repealing the 2d section (being the rule above given) of the rule of the House relating to committees, so far as the same concerns permanent committees, and that in future permanent committees be chosen by ballot," which was in like manner lost by a division of 21 to 48.-I apprehend that the foregoing change in the mode of nominating committees is a dangerous innovation; but it is to be borne in mind, that this was the first Session of a new Parliament with increased numbers, and that very many of the members sitting for the first time could not be expected to be familiar with the details of practice of the House.-Notwithstanding this, however, I am persuaded that had longer time been afforded for reflection, the majority of the House would have come to the conclusion, that

the old and now subsisting order for the nomination of committees, acted upon since the first establishment of the Constitution, should be pursued.

The importance of the consequences flowing from the above proceeding can only be fully understood and appreciated by men familiar with the machinery and movements of deliberative bodies.

The subject to which I shall next solicit attention is one easily intelligible to all; it relates to the expulsion of a member of the House in the last Session, for the third time, and involves an enquiry of the deepest importance, being no less than whether this act of the Assembly was sanctioned by the Law and the Constitution. I need not here premise that to this standard the Assembly is bound to adapt its proceedings.

For the right understanding of the question in all its bearings, it is necessary to go back to the two previous expulsions. of the member in question, entering into them no farther than is necessary to elucidate the decision of the House in the last winter.

In the Session of 1829, Robert Christie, Esquire, having been returned member for the District of Gaspé, various subjects of alleged complaint against him having been embodied incidentally in a Report of one of the Committees of the House, together with evidence taken exparte before the Committee reflecting upon his conduct, petitioned the House to be heard at the Bar, and to have an opportunity of examining the witnesses produced against him; which petition was rejected as contumelious. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present enquiry to enter into any critical examination of the evidence offered in support of the petition, nor into the question, how far it was consistent with principles of justice to deny Mr. Christie the means of confrontation with his witnesses, which even the barbarous criminal codes of continental Europe for the last century gave to all accused persons. For all the purposes of the present argument, the Resolutions framed upon the report of the Committee, and which will be

found in the journals of the House under date of the 14th February, 1829, will be sufficient; they are as follows:

1.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the petition of Robert Christie, Esquire, referred to this Committee is false, contumelious and vexatious, and is an attack by the said Robert Christie against the honour and privileges of this House.

2. Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Robert Christie, Esquire, a member of this House, being Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the District of Quebec, was commanded by his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor-in-Chief of this province, in the course of the year 1827, to prepare and lay before him a list of those persons whom it should appear to him advisable to appoint to the office of Justice of the Peace for the said district.

3. Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie did in fact prepare the said list and submitted it to the Justices of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec, by order of the Governor-in-Chief, for the purpose of having it approved and signed by them, and that the said Justices refused to approve and sign the said list.

4.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie intentionally left out of the said list, by him made, the names of François Quirouet, John Neilson, François Blanchet, and Jean Belanger, Esquires, who had been for many years and then were Justices of the Peace for the District of Quebec, and members of this House, for the purpose of causing them to be deprived of the office of Justices of the Peace, on account of their opinions, and the votes they had given in this House.

5.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that in presenting the said list to the Justices of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec, the design of the said Robert Christie, and the aim of his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, were to throw upon the said honourable Justices the responsibility and censure which might attach to the arbitrary and illegal dismissals which they proposed to effect by the new Commission of the Peace and to save themselves harmless.

6. Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie afterwards laid the said list before his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor in Chief of this Province, as a list of the persons with whose names, in the opinion of the said Robert Christie, the new Commission of the Peace ought to be filled up.