ronounced guilty,
the advantage of an immediate suspension was unquestionable. Mr. Ryland
conceived that no other power or privilege was, however, intended to be
conveyed by the despatch to the Legislative Council than that of
sitting, as grand jurors of the province, upon accusations brought by
the Assembly against the public servants of the Crown, and that if the
charges brought by the Lower House were considered by the Council as
valid, His Majesty would then exercise the Royal Prerogative, either by
suspending from office or dismissing from his service the party
accused. He was strongly of opinion that a communication of the
substance of that despatch by a _solemn_ message to both Houses of
the Provincial Parliament, would be the utmost that either House could
reasonably require to enable them to proceed to a final adjudication,
as far as the Crown intended they should proceed, upon accusations
preferred against individuals by the Assembly. He was astonished at the
line of argument adopted before His Excellency for the purpose of
forcing an analogy between the Court of the Lord High Steward of
England and that which it was proposed to establish in Canada. The High
Court of Parliament took cognizance only of crimes committed by Peers
of the realm, upon indictments previously found in the inferior Courts.
He contended that Sir John Sherbrooke was not empowered to constitute
any tribunal but for the trial of offences recognised as such by
statute or common Law. If Mr. Justice Foucher was accused of any such
offence, the ordinary tribunals of the country could take cognizance of
it and inflict punishment. Mr. Ryland was deeply impressed with the
idea that the longer or shorter continuance of the province as an
appendage to the British empire would be dependent on the events of the
present or coming session of parliament. Mr. Ryland did not relish the
idea of the Legislative Council being deprived of its _constitutional
character_ by the supposition even that it might be compelled to
adopt a course of proceeding contrary to its own judgment. He thought
that the Legislative Council ought to be made parties to any accusation
adduced against a public officer by arrangement. There was no precedent
for a commission, and indeed, Mr. Ryland was in every way opposed to
the plan of leaving to the Legislative Council the adjudication of
charges preferred against public officers by the Assembly. Sir John
Sherbrooke could not underst