heads year after year, while John Beverley Robinson and one or
two others manipulated and directed the whole course of public affairs.
It is probable, however, that in the present instance the three senior
Councillors may have been influenced by the arguments of Baldwin and
Rolph, who felt very strongly on the question at issue.

The Lieutenant-Governor's reply, every paragraph of which bears evidence
of the Chief Justice's cunning hand, is dated on the following day, but
was not actually communicated until the next regular Council day, which
was Thursday, the 10th. It contained a firm but courteous expression of
his Excellency's dissent from the opinions expressed by the Executive
Councillors as to their privileges and duties. It was contended that the
Lieutenant-Governor was the sole responsible minister, and the
difference between the constitution of the mother-country and the colony
was referred to as being highly advantageous to the latter. His
Excellency, it was said, was only bound to consult his Council when he
felt the need of their advice, and to do so on the innumerable subjects
upon which he was daily compelled to decide would be "as utterly
impossible as for any one but himself to decide upon what points his
mind required or needed" advice. The position taken by the Councillors
was declared to be unconstitutional, but his Excellency informed them
that his estimation of their talents and integrity, as well as his
personal regard for them, remained unshaken, and that he was not
insensible to the difficulties to which he would be exposed should they
deem it necessary to resign. He added, however, that should they be of
opinion that their oaths required them to retire from office, he begged
that they would not on his account hesitate to do so. As they were very
strongly of that opinion, they waited on his Excellency on Saturday, the
12th, and tendered their resignations, which were accepted. They had
held office precisely three weeks.

The clue to this puzzle is easily found. Sir Francis had conceived an
utter distaste for the persons and political principles of the Reformers
of Upper Canada. There was an inherent antagonism between the nature of
this shallow, feather-brained sketcher by the wayside and the natures of
men like Rolph, Bidwell and the Baldwins, whose quiet earnestness and
fixity of purpose had been intensified by the long course of injustice
to which they, in common with their party, had been sub