tained from complicating the subject with any abstract question of
government, but have rejected every proposal for laying down formal
principles upon such questions. The House has, I think, in this course
done justice to the earnest desire of Her Majesty that the colonial
administration generally should be conducted in harmony with the wishes
of her people, whatever may be the variations arising out of local
considerations and the state of society in various colonies, subject to
which that principle may be carried into practice; and it is anxiously
hoped that the same wise forbearance which has led the House of Assembly
to decline the unnecessary discussion of subjects of so much delicacy,
may lead them also to regard the practical decision now announced as the
final close of the controversy, and to unite in the promotion, not of
objects of party strife and rivalry, but of the more substantial and
enduring interests of the colony which they represent." If these words
have any meaning, they seem to show that at that date the British
government believed the right of appointment to be in the Crown, without
reference to the council, and that they were unwilling that any general
principle should be laid down by the legislature of the province which
conflicted with this view.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] This change had been effected by a royal commission under the signet
and sign-manual dated December 3d, 1832. There is nothing in the records
of the province to show why this was done. Neither the council nor the
House of Assembly had asked for it. The Nova Scotia council was not
divided until 1838.

[4] Mr. Wilmot's resolution was carried in the assembly without a
division, so that he had the solid support of the popular branch of the
legislature, yet little good was to be expected from such votes in the
House.

[5] The resolution to present this address was strongly opposed by Mr.
Wilmot and his colleague, Mr. Fisher, who both declared the conduct of
Lord Metcalfe to be contrary to the principles of responsible
government. Mr. Wilmot's speech led to a singular result. He was
attacked in the _Loyalist_ newspaper for his opposition to the address,
and this attack having been brought to the notice of the House of
Assembly was voted a breach of privilege. Messrs. Doak and Hill, the
proprietors of the paper, were arrested on the warrant of the speaker
and committed to prison. On the application of their counsel, Mr. D. S.
Kerr, they