that the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would then be arbitrary, for the judge would be legislator." Shall we then, who are the immediate delegated guardians of that liberty and constitution; shall we set the wicked example and attempt to violate them to gratify our passions or our prejudice? and for whom and upon what occasion? not to preserve the sacred person of the Sovereign from assassination, or his Kingdoms from invasion or rebellion; not to defeat the arbitrary designs of a desperate minister or a despotic Court, but to inflict an additional punishment upon a libeller, who appears, by the question itself, to have been convicted of the greater part of his offences by due course of law, and to be in actual imprisonment at this moment, under a legal sentence pronounced by the supreme court of criminal justice in consequence of that conviction. Can we say that there are not laws in being to preserve the reverence due to the magistrate, and to protect the dignity of the Crown from scandalous and seditious libels? are they not sufficient, if temperately executed, to punish and deter the most daring from the commission of those offences? If they are, for what purpose is this application? If they are not, can the proposition now made to you be deemed the proper or effectual method of enforcing them ?"

The last case in order of time is one which has occurred within our own day-it is the case of Lord Cochrane.

Lord Cochrane being then a member of the House of Commons, was indicted in the King's Bench, tried and convicted of a conspiracy, an offence which carries along with it infamy, and renders the person convicted of it incompetent to be heard as a witness in any of the King's Courts. This conviction was complained of by Lord Cochrane, with what reason is altogether foreign to this enquiry. He was, in consequence, on the 5th July, 1814, expelled the House of Commons; and was returned anew to the same Parliament, and took his seat on the 3d July, 1815.-Parl. Deb., vol. xxxi. p. 1074.

There can be little doubt that, obnoxious as Lord Cochrane then was to the men in power, a second expulsion would have been moved, if it had been conceived that his first expulsion operated a disqualification. No such motion was

made.

After such an overwhelming weight of reason and of authority, the question naturally arises, on what grounds could the House of Assembly, in the last Session, order the expulsion of Mr. Christie. The only light that can be afforded upon this question is to be derived from the speeches of the members who supported that measure, and these I give without com

ment:

"Mr. MORIN said, he only wished to consider the question as it appeared on the journals, which were our guides. Mr. C. was condemned for a contempt of this House; and members do not seem to pay attention to what they themselves pronounced, namely, that he was unworthy of the confidence of Government, and unworthy of sitting in this House. A man that is declared unworthy, is not unworthy only for a day, but must be always unworthy. That this is a new Parliament makes no difference; no more than it would in a Court of Justice make any difference in the case of a man convicted on sufficient proof; when new judges were appointed to preside, he could not bring his case forward again. As for disfranchising Gaspé, this measure is so far from taking away the elective franchise, that it is confirming the rights and privileges of all-as soon as the House is organized, it becomes seized of the rights of the electors, and seized of its own rights. The House had declared that he had invaded the privileges of the House-attempted to controul the freedom of debate; and had thus attacked the existence and independence of the House; by which he tried not only to destroy the House, but to destroy the rights of all the electors. We, therefore, cannot keep in our bosom a man like that-we cannot re-admit him, unless the resolutions for his expulsion are rescinded; and we must still declare him incapable and unworthy of sitting. Members should recollect that it was not a pardon that was required of the offence, but an absolution, a clearance. As to precedents, let it be shewn that there has been a parallel case, and that members have been expelled in England, for infringing the political rights of members while sitting in the House. It has been said that the decision of one House is not that of another; but if that be admitted, all our rules would have to be re-established every Parliament. We must maintain their inviolability, as well as the moral independence of the House. I do not say that the Member for Gaspé should be driven back by the Serjeant at Arms; but I say it is the

duty of this House, in order to preserve the rights of all, to conform to the vote of censure before passed, which is a justice the House owes to itself.

"Mr. DEMERS enquired whether the learned gentleman who spoke last meant to say that Mr. Christie would be deprived of his right of citizenship by being excluded from this House. He would possess those rights as much when he was outside the bar as within it. He might when outside of the bar have his Habeas Corpus, as well as inside. He may come here like other citizens, and hear our proceedings. To say so was to say that all who are not inside our bar are deprived of the rights of citizens-yet no one dare say that those respectable citizens then at the bar were deprived of their rights of citizens.

Mr. L. LAGUEUX said, I do not pretend that we are bound to go by the decisions of the last Parliament, but I say that the same reasons and the same dangers exist now as then; though we may not be bound by the same resolutions, we are bound by the same motives of prudence, policy, and justice. The representatives of the people are the same here as there -jealous of our liberties-and cannot but come to the same decision. The same people who decided by their representatives then, are here present by their representatives. It has been said, a punishment cannot be twice inflicted for the same offence-but this is not a punishment, it is a censure-and the consequences are that future confidence is withdrawn. Mention has been made both of expunging the entries, and of absolution from the offence; but neither can be done. It remains the same as in 1829. The corps de delit remains. do not want to be convinced of it, to see all the particulars of the progress; all we have to do with is the record of the judgment-the conviction is sufficient. Had any one shown that in 1829 we were wrong, it might be otherwise; but as long as that conviction is recorded, we have no occasion for other proofs.

We

"Mr. QUESNEL said, that if any one could produce but one similar instance of the political crime for which Mr. Christie had been expelled, he would submit. But all the precedents were for different matters. This was a delit unique, and could not but be visited as such. He wondered at the honourable member for the Lower Town taking the present course, as on the former occasion he had expressed himself very differently.'

I have thus, so far as in me lay, put before the public all the materials necessary to enable them to come to a correct conclusion; and I have been more particular, not only by reason

of the intrinsic importance of the subject, but also because the district of Gaspé having, with a very becoming spirit, (and I say so without any reference to the merits or demerits of the object of their choice, but solely in reference to the maintenance of their own elective franchise, and in that, the liberties of all the electors of the Province,) re-elected Mr. Christie; and as the question may thus be anew brought under the consideration of the Assembly, it is of the last degree of importance that a right and sound judgment should be come to thereupon.

Division on the Expulsion of Mr. Christie.

YEAS.-Archambault, Beaudet, Blanchard, Boissonnault, L. Bourdages, R. S. Bourdages, Brooks, Bureau, Cazeau, Corneau, Courteau, Demers, Deschamps, Dessaulles, Dewitt, P. A. Dorion, Dumoulin, Fortin, Guillet, Heney, Joliette, Knowlton, Lafontaine, Lagueux, Malhiot, Methot, Morin, Mousseau, Neilson, Noel, Panet, Proulx, Rochon, Scott, Thibaudeau, Trudel, Turgeon, Valois, Viger, Wurtele, Quesnel-41.

NAYS.-Baker, Baxter, Bedard, Caldwell, Casgrain, Clouet, Cuvillier, Deligny, De Montenach, De St. Ours, Duval, Dionne, Fisher, Goodhue, Heriot, Hoyle, Huot, Larue, Laterrière, Lee, Leslie, Letourneau, Peck, Stuart, A. C. Taschereau, Taylor, Wright, Young-28.

Division on the motion that the Committee should be named in the ordinary way.

YEAS.-Boissonnault, R. S. Bourdages, Caldwell, Christie, Corneau, Courteau, Deligny, De Montenach, Dionne, Dumoulin, Fisher, Heriot, Huot, Laterrière, Letourneau, Stuart, A. C. Taschereau, P. E. Taschereau, Wurtele -19.

NAYS.-Archambault, Baker, Baxter, Beaudet, Bedard, Blanchard, Louis Bourdages, Brooks, Bureau, Casgrain, Cazeau, Cuvillier, Des. champs, De St. Ours, Dessaulles, Dewitt, P. A. Dorion, Fortin, Goodhue, Guillet, Heney, Hoyle, Joliette, Knowlton, Lafontaine, Larue, Lee, Leslie, Malhiot, Methot, Morin, Mousseau, Neilson, Panet, Peck, Quesnel, Quirouet, Rochon, Taylor, Thibaudeau, Trudel, Turgeon, Viger, Wright and Young-45.

NO. V.

INTERNAL ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY OF THE ASSEMBLY.

Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.

JUVENAL.

CAR TEL EST NOTRE PLAISIR.

Ordonnances des Rois de France.

THE SUBJECT RESUMED AND CONCLUDED.

THE most general division of governments, and of the most ancient too, is into governments of law and governments of will. That form of government known by the name of a tyranny is but one species of the latter description of governments. History affords us many examples of aristocracies not restrained by law, and subsisting for considerable periods of time-so also of democracies; but the duration of these last has, from obvious and permanent causes, been so short, that they have been looked upon as transitions from one to another settled form of government, rather than as being themselves entitled to the name of a government.

In governments of law, the assumption, by any body in the state, of power not given to it by the law, is evidently subversive of the principle of the government.

In a Constitution like our own, composed of three separate and independent branches, the assumption of such power is dangerous in any of the component branches, but in none so dangerous as in the popular branch. The irresponsibility belonging to large majorities, the passion to which all popular bodies are liable, the confidence which the people naturally place in men selected from among themselves, and by them

H