7.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that at or about the same time, the said Robert Christie openly and publicly declared his intention of causing the said François Quirouet, John Neilson, François Blanchet and Jean Belanger, to be dismissed from the office of Justice of the Peace on account of their political conduct and the votes they had given in this House, and that the said François Quirouet, John Neilson, François Blanchet, and Jean Belanger were dismissed from the said office because they had voted and presided at Committees in this House at which votes had been passed in opposition to the views of the then Provincial Administration.

8.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that in expressing himself on the subject of the said dismissals planned by him, the said Robert Christie publicly declared that the time was come when no political neutrality would be permitted, when those who were not the friends of the Administration would be considered as being its enemies; and that those who would not support Lord Dalhousie's Administration should hold no place under his Government.

9.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it did not by law appertain to the said Robert Christie to prepare the said list, and still less to advise the dismissal of his fellow Justices of the Peace, and that he made the said list, and advised the said dismissals voluntarily, and with the criminal intention of restraining and annihilating as far as in him lay, the liberties of the people of this Province, and the freedom of the opinions and votes of this House.

10.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that in consequence of the list prepared by the said Robert Christie, the said François Quirouet, John Neilson and François Blanchet, members of this House, were dismissed from the office of Justice of the Peace by the last Commission of the Peace now in force, in and for the District of Quebec, without any other cause than their opinions and votes in this House; and that such is the public rumour and notoriety, founded chiefly on the declaration and language of the said Robert Christie, as well before as after the said dismissals.

11. Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie, at the time he prepared the said list, and advised the Governor-in-Chief to the said dismissals, was one of the members of this House, after having been before and up to that time, one of the confidential officers of this House.

12.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee,

that the said Robert Christie openly threatened to cause to be dismissed from the office of Justice of Peace, and from every other office, all those members of this House who would not support all the measures of the Provincial Government under the administration of his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, and pointed out in gross and outrageous language those members of this House whose opinions and votes had been in opposition to the views of the said administration.

13. Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie took advantage of the opportunities he possessed, in the first instance, as a confidential officer, and afterwards as a member of this House, to become a spy upon the opinions and votes of the members of this House, and did in fact report them to his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor-in-Chief of this Province, with a design to irritate his Excellency against those members of this House whose opinions and votes were in opposition to the views of his Excellency, and to induce his Excellency to punish them by arbitrary dismissals from office, and by other abuses of the Royal Prerogative.

14-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that by his report and perverse counsels, the said Robert Christie induced his Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor-in-Chief of this Province, to abuse the Royal Prerogative, for the purpose of arbitrarily and without any legitimate. reason, dismissing the said François Quirouet, John Neilson and François Blanchet, from the office of Justice of the Peace, on account of their votes and opinions in this House; that by his avowal and conversation, he exposed and made public the odious motives of these unjust dismissals; and that by these means the said Robert Christie endeavoured to degrade the Government, to excite feelings of dislike to the authority of the King, and to destroy the confidence of his Majesty's subjects in the Provincial Administration.

15.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, and is unworthy of the confidence of his Majesty's Government.

16.-Resolved-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the said Robert Christie is guilty of a high contempt of this House, and is unworthy to serve or to have a seat as a member thereof.

These resolutions were adopted by the House, and were followed by the usual resolution, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant, &c. It would be trifling with the understanding

of one's readers to institute any argument to shew that the facts found in the foregoing resolutions constituted no legitimate ground for the expulsion of Mr. Christie. Freed from the tautology and exaggeration of impeachment forms, they amount to nothing more than a finding that Mr. Christie had recommended to Lord Dalhousie to leave out of the list of magistrates four individuals, and that he had been a spy upon the proceedings of the House. As to the first-The merits of the advice must stand upon its own basis; it might be very good, it might be very bad, very wise or very foolish, very disinterested and magnanimous, or very malicious, without operating any legal disqualification: if we should think the better or the worse of Mr. Christie for it as a man, in foro conscien tiæ, it lay not within the competence of any exterior tribunal : but these things are too plain to be insisted upon. The second head of offence is the being a spy upon the public proceedings of a public body: observe here, that it is the right and the duty of every individual to examine those proceedings with lynx eyes; and I have no hesitation in saying, highly as I esteem representative Governments, that, without this check, they would be the most formidable instruments of tyranny and oppression that the wit of man ever devised.—The resolution relating to this head will stand as a monument of a Legislative Bull not easy to be paralleled.

Mr. Christie having been anew returned by the electors of Gaspé, he took his seat in the following session, whereupon it was moved and ordered :

"That the said Robert Christie, Esq., having in his quality of stipendiary Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the District of Quebec, called in question and counselled the then administration to call in question the freedom of debate in this House, is therefore undeserving of the confidence of the Government, and unworthy to be a Member of this House, and ought not to sit, and cannot sit as a Member." Whereupon it was ordered that the Speaker do issue his warrant, &c.

The mover was not satisfied with this, but went on to

move:

"That an humble address be presented to his Excellency: the Administrator of the Government, representing that Robert Christie, Esquire, having, while he was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the District of Quebec, and one of the members of this House, in violation of its privileges, of the independence of its members, and of the liberty of debate in this House, abused his situation by inducing the Earl of Dalhousie, then Governor-in-Chief, to dismiss from the office of Justice of the Peace, several members of this House, on account of their votes and proceedings therein, was for such conduct unanimously declared by this House, on the 14th February, 1829, and again this day declared unworthy of the confidence of his Majesty's Government, and unworthy of serving or sitting in this House, and praying, therefore, that his Excellency will be pleased to refuse to the said Robert Christie, Esquire, all marks of confidence on the part of his Majesty's Government, by dismissing him from any place of honour or profit he may hold during pleasure under his Majesty's Government."

Which last motion was postponed and was not ultimately proceeded upon.

Mr. Christie being returned a third time to the new Parlia ment, whose first session was had in the last winter, a motion similar to that last given was made and carried; and it is the question of the legality of that decision of the House to which I am now to direct my attention.

Two questions were thus brought under the consideration of the House :-First, Whether the facts found in the resolutions of the 14th February, 1829, were sufficient to render him unfit to sit as a member of the House; and 2d, Whether his expulsion in a previous Parliament operated as a legal disqualification to be elected for or to sit in this new Parliament. I will not add any thing more to what has been said on the first head. On the second, the following observations seem to be sufficiently obvious:-If the party was disqualified to sit, that disqualification must be to be found in some known law or well established parliamentary usage, it not being competent to any one branch of the Legislature to create a disqualification in a subject of the King; the whole burthen

F

of proof lay then upon those who asserted the disqualification; and in the absence of any authority whatsoever, the House could not limit the elective franchise of the King's subjects at Gaspé, nor could they deprive a member of the right vested in him to sit and to vote as such; but conclusive as this negative form of argument was, there was no better settled rule of Law than that the expulsion of a Member did not disqualify him from sitting under a new return.

One of the first cases, is that of Richard Woolastone, to be found in the Commons' Journals of the 20th February, 1698. The entry is as follows:

"The House, according to order, proceeded to take into consideration the Report from the Committee to whom it was referred to examine the lists of the Receivers, and the names of the Commissioners of the Treasury, Customs and Excise, at the time of making the act made in the 5th and 6th year of his Majesty's reign, for granting to his Majesty certain rates upon Salt and upon Beer, Ale and other Liquors; and of the present Commissioners; and Mr. Woolastone attending in his place was heard, and then withdrew.

And a motion being made and the question being put :"That Richard Woolastone, Esq., being a member of the House of Commons, and having since been concerned, and acted as a Receiver of the Duties upon Houses, as also upon Births, Marriages, and Burials, contrary to the Act made in the 5th and 6th year of his Majesty's reign, for granting several duties upon Salt, Beer, Ale and other Liquors, be expelled this House.

The motion was carried in the affirmative by a division of 184 to 133, and it was thereupon ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant."-Comm. Jour. vol. 12, p. 519.

In the list of Members of the House of Commons for 1700-1-Cobb. Parl. Deb. vol. 5, p. 1231-it will be found that this Gentleman was returned anew, and an examination of the Commons' Journals will shew that no attempt was made to expel him, which would doubtless have been done if it had been considered that his previous expulsion had operated a disqualification.

The next case is that of Sir Robert Walpole, which will be