ds--and these funds were inadequate for the purpose.
So carelessly were these funds managed that one receiver-general, engaged
in business, became a heavy defaulter. The governors dissolved the
legislatures with a frequency unparalleled in political history, and were
personally drawn into the conflict. Public officials, including the
judges, were harassed by impeachments. Bills were constantly rejected by
the legislative council on various pretexts--some of them
constitutionally correct--and the disputes {341} between the two branches
of the legislature eventually made it impossible to pass even absolutely
necessary measures. Appeals to the home government were very common, and
concessions were made time and again to the assembly. In fact, the
contest as to the revenues and expenditures ought to have closed, in a
great measure, with the abandonment, in 1832, by the government of every
portion of the {342} previously reserved revenue, but, as Lord Durham
pointed out, the assembly, "even when it obtained entire control over the
public revenues," refused the civil list because it was determined "not
to give up its only means of subjecting the functionaries of government
to any responsibility." The conflict was carried on to the bitter end.
It does not appear, however, that the majority in the assembly at all
understood the crucial difficulty. They devoted their whole strength to
attacks on the legislative council, and to demands for an elective body.
The famous ninety-two resolutions of 1834, in which Papineau's party set
forth their real or fancied grievances, did not contain a single
paragraph laying down the principles of parliamentary or responsible
government as worked out in England, and ably supported by the moderate
Upper Canadian Reformers like Robert Baldwin. The home government ought
to have appreciated the gravity of the situation, but they were not yet
prepared to introduce into these colonies the principles of parliamentary
government. In 1835 they appointed a commission to inquire into the
nature of the grievances and the best method of remedying them. The
governor-general, Lord Gosford, was the head of this commission, but it
failed because Papineau and his party were not now prepared to listen to
moderate and conciliatory counsels. When in 1837 the assembly continued
to refuse supply for the payment of public officials, and of the arrears,
which up to that time amounted to nearly one hundred and fi