nothing to say. In that they might
have been right, and he wrong. But, according to British practice, they
ought to have resigned on what he had done, and not on what he would not
promise to do. If the Crown intended to do just as they desired the
Governor-General to do, still the promise ought not to be given, nor
ought it to have been asked. The moment a man promises to do a thing he
ceases to be as free as he was before he made the promise. It is
essential principle that in the British Constitution that the Crown
should be free--should be undefined in its prerogative. The exercise in
that prerogative may be checked in various ways; but to bind it by
promises is to infringe its constitutional liberty. If the Queen were to
bind herself by promise, or declaration, that she would not appoint any
person contrary to Sir Robert Peel's advice, how could she refuse to
make O'Connell a peer, or appoint him Lord Chancellor of England if Sir
Robert were to insist upon it? How could she ever get clear of Sir
Robert by differing with him on a question of policy, if she were to
bind herself before-hand to act according to his advice? Would it not be
virtually giving the regal power into his hands?

Dr. Ryerson then proceeded to illustrate the views which he held on this
subject:--

I can find examples in English History since 1688, of British Sovereigns
having done just as Sir Charles Metcalfe is alleged to have done; I can
also find examples of ministers resigning on account of what such
Sovereigns had done; but I can find no example of any minister resigning
on account of what the Sovereign would not promise to do on the subject
of consultation and possible appointments.

I have seen it alleged, that the Governor-General was not bound to
act upon the advice of his Council, only to ask it before he made
any appointment. But the Governor-General did take the advice of
the Council, in regard to the appointments of the Clerks of the
Peace, both in the Bathurst and Dalhousie districts. Yet he is
blamed as much for not acting upon it as if he had acted without
taking it. But in Mr. Hincks' writings, and in all the papers
advocating the same sentiments, I observe that it is contended that
the Governor-General should act upon, as well as take, the advice
of his Council. If so, what is he but their amanuensis--the
recorder of their decrees?--the office which Sir Charles Bagot