lf, for nine-tenths of the people are
opposed to the Governor-General." I answered, "I know it; but I believe
that nine-tenths of the people are mistaken, and that if they will read
what I am about to write they will think as I do."

The contest was severe; the ablest and most meritorious public men in
the province were arrayed on the opposite side; but I felt that truth
and justice did not rest on numbers--that there was a public, as well as
an individual, conscience, and to that conscience I appealed, supporting
my appeal by reference to the past professions of Reformers, the best
illustrations from Greek, Roman, and English history, and the authority
of the best writers on constitutional government, and moral and
political philosophy, and the highest interests, civil and social, of
all classes of society in Upper Canada. For months I was certainly the
"best abused man" in Canada; but I am not aware that I lost my temper,
or evinced personal animosity (which I never felt), but wrote with all
the clearness, energy, and fire that I could command.

The general elections took place in October, 1844, and in all Upper
Canada (according to the _Globe's_ own statement) only eight candidates
were elected in opposition to Sir Charles Metcalfe! Such a result of a
general election was never before, or since, witnessed in Upper Canada.

It has been alleged again and again, that Sir Charles Metcalfe was
opposed to responsible government and that I supported him in it. The
only pretext for this was, that in the contest with Sir Charles Metcalfe
his opponents introduced party appointments as an essential element of
responsible government, which they themselves had disavowed in previous
years when advocating that system of government. The doctrine of making
appointments according to party (however common now, with its
degenerating influences) was then an innovation upon all previously
professed doctrines of reformers, as I proved to a demonstration in my
letters in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe.

Sir Francis Hincks, in an historical lecture delivered at Montreal, in
1877, has revived this charge against Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has
attempted to create the impression that there was a sort of conspiracy
between the late Earl of Derby and Lord Metcalfe to extinguish
responsible government in Canada. For such an insinuation there is not a
shadow of reason, though the author may have thought so, from his strong
personal feelings and