l more sickening
humiliation was in store for him, as well as for the venerable Mr. Baby.

During the session of 1828 several petitions were received by the
Assembly praying for relief against a law passed in 1825, whereby
certain taxes had been imposed on wild lands.[134] Among other
grievances complained of was the manner in which the law had been
passed. It was distinctly alleged in one of the petitions that the
measure had been pushed through both Houses with too great rapidity, and
that most culpable means had been employed in order to procure the
assent of certain members to whom it was objectionable. The Assembly
entertained the petitions, and appointed a Committee to inquire into the
matter. A number of witnesses were examined, and some astounding facts
elicited. The allegations as to undue influence were proved by the
clearest evidence, and by witnesses who had generally been accustomed to
act with the Government. One of these was our somewhile acquaintance,
the Hon. William Dickson, who, as has previously been seen, was the
owner of an immense tract of land,[135] and was consequently seriously
affected by the law enacted in 1825. His evidence, as printed in the
Appendix to the Journals of the Assembly,[136] stands as a perpetual
indictment against Sir Peregrine Maitland and the venal clique by whom
he was surrounded. It appears that from the time when the Bill relating
to the taxation of wild lands was first introduced into the Upper House
it was an unpopular measure, and that it was opposed by a majority of
the members. Most of the latter were large landholders by virtue of
their membership, and some of them had acquired additional blocks by
purchase. The obnoxious Bill was opposed at every stage, and there
seemed to be no possibility of its becoming law. Its defeat being
regarded as inevitable, its opponents to some extent relaxed their
efforts, and congratulated each other upon their apparent success. On
the third reading, however, Mr. Dickson found, to his supreme
astonishment and disgust, that some of the members upon whom he had
relied for votes presented an entire change of front, and appeared in
the _role_ of supporters of the measure. It was noticeable that all the
converts, or perverts, held offices under the Government. The Hon. John
Henry Dunn, Provincial Receiver-General, took a different course. He had
been among the most determined opponents of the Bill, and had declared
that it would never pass