ous vote of
the Assembly without incurring any responsibility whatever. By reference
to the correspondence between successive colonial Governors and the Home
Office, it appears to have been tacitly recognized by the magnates on
both sides of the Atlantic that it was unnecessary for a colonial
Executive to defer to a Parliamentary majority. The right of appointment
to office was considered to be the exclusive prerogative of the
representative of the Sovereign, and it was regarded as a badge of
colonial dependence that the people should have no voice in such
matters.

It seems to have been assumed that certain Imperial interests were
involved in this great question, and that to give way to the popular
demand would be to render the colonies free from Imperial control. What
those particular interests were which required to be protected by so
jealous and anomalous a doctrine does not appear to be anywhere
specified with precision. But nothing is more certain than that
confusion and chaos must be the inevitable outcome of any attempt to
reduce to practice such opposite principles as are involved in
Representative Government and Executive irresponsibility. Such an
attempt in England would very soon produce revolution. Such an attempt
in France did actually produce revolution in 1830, when Charles the
Tenth was deposed for his persistent endeavours to maintain an unpopular
ministry in power. No country in the world would long continue to
tolerate a Parliamentary system which was free and representative in
theory, but tyrannous and despotic in practice. Upper Canada was indeed
long-suffering, but a time arrived when it became evident that there was
a limit to her powers of endurance.

As the years rolled by, and the country steadily advanced in wealth and
population, abuses grew apace.[30] The Executive became rapacious and
tyrannical. Commanding, as they did, the entire administrative and
official influence of the Province, they ordered all things according to
their own pleasure. They could count upon the support of every member of
the Legislative Council. Indeed, through their pliant tool, the
Lieutenant-Governor for the time being, they controlled the membership
of the latter body, and took care that no man was appointed a
Legislative Councillor unless he was either one of themselves or wholly
subject to their influence. The Assembly soon found that it was
deliberately and systematically deprived of the privileges which of