o me you have not weighed the
arguments on the other side. These may be concisely stated. 1st.
That the ensuing session will be one certainly preceding a general
election, and therefore, one in which popular doctrines have their
fullest force. 2nd. That members having committed themselves by the
vote of last session would fear to retrace their steps and brave
the charge of inconsistency at such a time. 3rd. That the
ex-ministers would have an opportunity, which they would not
neglect, of presenting a new question for the country. You have
sickened them of the first question; they would like a second,
better selected, if they could get it. For example, if they moved a
committee to inquire how the Government has been administered
during the last ten months, would they not be very likely to carry
it? Information can do no harm; enquiry is a right of the House,
etc., etc. Who would venture to oppose when the committee was
granted? No business would be done till it had reported. Whatever
the report--and if they got a majority on the committee, we may
judge its character--their point would be gained, and they would
have a new issue to try before the country; a new topic of
inflammatory harangue, and studious misrepresentation. Whether this
would be their move I cannot say, but they would do something
tending to a similar end. The experience of 1836 will teach them
not to make a dead set against doing business, or granting
supplies, etc. They will make that a consequence, and if possible
force the Government to a dissolution, thus casting the onus of
doing no public business on the Government. Again, although not
meeting the present House may be considered as an admission of
inferiority there, I think this less injurious than that the new
Administration should be beaten there; and I cannot in any way
anticipate a different result. After going over the list in every
way I see no just ground for hoping for victory there. Again, of
those in whom we might place some hope of a vote in a crisis, there
are some who will not be in their places. Col. Prince certainly
will not, and I doubt much if Hon. W. H. Merritt, or Mr. Thorburn
can. Does no other Upper Canadian Reformer suggest himself? I
confess that I am at a great loss. Neither Harrison nor Merritt can