the Committee of Grievances, in support of this head of imputed offence.-But, considering the falsehood of the charge to have been clearly and plainly established, he thinks he may, at least for the present, omit this disagreeable task; reserving, however, his right to do so, if it should hereafter be rendered necessary.

As he has already done, under a preceding head of imputed offence, it is incumbent on the petitioner that he should, under this head also, notice an alledged irregularity and incorrectness in the taking of evidence by the Committee of Grievances, in support of it, which must excite extreme surprise. By the Affidavit of Dr. Von Iffland,* one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, it appears that, in the Report of the evidence taken before it, there has been a suppression of material facts and circumstances which made part of his answers to the questions put to him, and that the evidence contained in the Report, in a number of particulars, is incorrect and different from the evidence really given by him before the Committee. In what relates to François Gazaille dit St. Germain, it appears that Dr. Von Iffland stated before the Committee facts, from which it was to be inferred that the said St. Germain took the oath, of his own free will, upon an alledged reservation of a life-estate, the existence of which estate was not denied or doubted at the time he voted; and that these facts have been entirely suppressed in the evidence ascribed to Dr. Von Iffland. The facts which this witness thus stated before the Committee, and which have been suppressed in the Report of evidence, being the document above designated as "A Copy of Evidence, &c." are in his Affidavit proved to be the following, viz.:— "That St. Germain called upon Dr. Von Iffland the day before "he voted, and, after mentioning his intention to vote for James "Stuart, Esquire, one of the Candidates, stated also the nature "of his qualification, which he represented to consist in the "usufruct for life, or life-estate, in part of the house in the "Borough, which he had given to his son, by deed of gift, ex"ecuted before Mr. Crebassa, Public Notary. The next morning, "the said St. Germain again called on Dr. Von Iffland, and

• Vide Appendix to this Memoir, P.

"informed him that he had just seen the said James Stuart, who "had told him, that if he (St. Germain) had reserved a life-estate,

as he represented he had done, he would have a right to vote. "That Dr. Von Iffland, being desirous of assuring himself of the "reservation stated by St. Germain to be contained in the deed "of gift to his son, immediately after went to the office of the "said Crebassa, for the purpose of seeing the said deed of gift, "and applied for the perusal of it to the said Mr. Crebassa, who "refused to let him see it. That soon after Dr. Von Iffland met "the said St. Germain, who persisted in the confident assertion "that the said deed of gift contained such a reservation, as he "had stated, and that he would go and vote for the said James "Stuart: and, in the course of the morning, Dr. Von Iffland "heard that the said St. Germain had voted for the said James "Stuart. That Dr. Von Iffland did not hear any doubts ex"pressed of the truth of the fact stated by the said St. Germain, "as to the said reservation, until five or six days after the "election was over, when the said St. Germain, in conversation "with him, renewed his assertion, that he had reserved to "himself a life-estate, as above mentioned."

The evidence of Mr. Green, which he states on oath to have been suppressed, was of a nature to defeat the second charge, by disproving it. The material facts, making part of Dr. Von Iffland's evidence, which he states, on oath, to have been suppressed, were equally calculated to disprove and defeat the sixth charge against the petitioner. Under these two heads of accusation, then, according to the express Affidavits of Mr. Green and Dr. Von Iffland, the evidence to prove innocence has been suppressed, while evidence, from which culpability of some kind or other might be inferred, has alone been reduced to writing. Upon such an extraordinary mode of investigating the conduct of a public officer, and establishing his guilt, by suppressing the evidence of his innocence, no observation can be deemed necessary. It is, however, strikingly illustrative of the spirit and manner in which the proceedings against the petitioner have been promoted and carried on by the individuals with whom they originate, and of the means which have been perseveringly employed to injure him, He will only further permit himself to express his regret, that

F

the facts thus suppressed should not have been reported to the House of Assembly, as it might reasonably be presumed that, with this evidence, of which it appears to have been improperly deprived, the Assembly of Lower Canada, in the judicious exercise of its high and important functions, would have abstained from both these charges.

Having, as he humbly apprehends, fully established the grounds on which his respectful appeal to His Majesty has been made, the petitioner submits the case set forth in his petition to His Majesty's gracious consideration, in the full persuasion that the measure of justice due to a servant of the Crown, in the faithful and honest discharge of his duty, will not be withheld from him.

London, 46, Albemarle Street,

6th August, 1831.

True Copy, J. STUART.

(Signed)

J. STUART.

Copy of a Letter from James Stuart, Esq. to the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Goderich, one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, relating to the foregoing Petition and Memoir.

London, 46, Albemarle Street, 6th August, 1831.

MY LORD,

In conformity with the intention expressed in my memorial, addressed to your lordship from Quebec, the 14th April last, on the subject of my suspension from the office of Attorney General for the Province of Lower Canada, I now do myself the honour to transmit to your lordship, to be laid at the foot of the throne, my humble petition, that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to afford me an opportunity of defending myself against and disproving the charges specified in the address of the Assembly of that province, for my dismissal from office. Together with this petition, I also do myself the honour to transmit to your lordship a memoir or statement in explanation and support of it. Being solicitous that the charges of the Assembly may receive the most complete and satisfactory investigation, it has been with much satisfaction that I have observed that an agent has been deputed by the Assembly to sustain their charges and address; and I beg leave to express my humble wish that, under your lordship's authority, he may be made acquainted with every allegation and document proceeding from me, in relation to this matter, in order that he may be enabled to contest them, if so advised.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect,

APPENDIX TO THE MEMOIR.

No. 1.

Copy of a Report made by JAMES STUART, Esq. Attorney General of Lower Canada, to His Excellency SIR JAMES KEMPT, in a letter to LIEUT. COL. YORKE, Secretary to His Excellency.

SIR,

Quebec, 13th August, 1830.

I have been honoured with the commands of His Excellency Sir James Kempt, signified in your leter of the 5th Ma y last, transmitting an extract from a Report of a Committee of the whole Council of the 31st May, 1822, in which certain recommendations are made with a view to the reduction of the public expenditure in the administration of justice in criminal cases; and requiring me to take the subject generally into consideration, and suggest any measures that may occur to me as necessary to give greater effect to the recommendation of the Council.

In obedience to His Excellency's commands, I have perused the extract of the Report of Council above referred to, with the documents connected with it.

In order to ascertain whether any thing can be done in furtherance of the object of this Report, it is necessary to mention the heads of expenditure, which it was intended by the Report to reduce, the means suggested for accomplishing the proposed reduction, and the effect of them.

The heads of expenditure were, 1st, The expense incurred in the conduct of criminal prosecutions by fees to the officers of the crown.