possibly be in the summer of 1873. He came to this country an utter stranger to every man in Canadian public life. He found at the head of affairs a gentleman who had long held the reins of power; who had a very wide circle of warm personal friends; who was regarded with affectionate loyalty by his Party; and whose Government enjoyed an overwhelming support in Parliament. With such a support at its back, the Government might reasonably lay claim to possessing the confidence of the Canadian people, and, possessing such confidence, it was entitled to the confidence of Her Majesty's Representative. There was, moreover, a manifest disposition on the part of some opponents of the Government to make the most of any little shortcomings of which Ministerialists might be guilty. One of the most virulent of the Opposition, a man whose own character could not be said to be wholly above reproach, made certain wild charges against the Government. These charges were so utterly monstrous and incredible that any man of probity might reasonably refuse to believe them until they were proved to be true by the most irrefutable evidence. Such evidence was not forthcoming. The head of the Government hurled back the charges in the teeth of the man who had made them; pronounced the latter a slanderous calumniator; protested that his own hands were clean; and called upon his Maker to bear witness to the truth of his avowal. His conduct was not unlike that of an honest man smarting under a strong sense of injustice. He professed to court inquiry, and while he treated Mr. Huntington's motion as one of want of confidence in the Government, and triumphantly voted it down, he himself came forward with his motion for a committee. Both from his place in the House, and to the Governor-General in person, he continued to protest before God that there was no shadow of foundation for the charges made against him. He spoke of his acquittal as a matter which did not admit of a moment's question. Under these circumstances, is it any wonder if Lord Dufferin refused to believe vague and unsubstantiated charges from such a source; charges which might well have excited incredulity by the very depth of their blackness? Is it to be wondered at, even if His Lordship sympathized with those whom he believed to have been so shamefully maligned, and who seemed so anxious to set themselves right before the country? Such was the state of affairs when Parliament was adjourned on the 23rd of May.
With regard to the prompt transmission to England of the Oaths Bill, His Excellency simply complied with his official instructions, and with the Union Act, which requires the Governor-General to transmit "by the earliest convenient opportunity" all Acts of Parliament to which he has assented on Her Majesty's behalf. His Excellency's despatch to the Imperial Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 15th August, 1873, puts this matter very clearly. It shows that he understood and was prepared to do his duty, no matter what might be said by Opposition members, and no matter how scurrilous might be the attacks of hostile newspapers. "Amongst other respects," says the despatch, "in which my conduct has been criticised, the fact of my having communicated to you by the first opportunity a certified copy of the Oaths Bill, has been a very general point of attack. I apprehend it will not be necessary to justify myself to your Lordship in this particular. My law-adviser had called my attention to the possibility of the Bill being illegal. Had perjured testimony been tendered under it, no proceedings could have been taken against the delinquent, and if, under these circumstances, I had wilfully withheld from the Home Government all cognizance of the Act, it would have been a gross dereliction of duty. To those in this country who have questioned my procedure it would be sufficient to reply that I recognize no authority on this side of the Atlantic competent to instruct the Governor-General as to the nature of his correspondence with Her Majesty's Secretary of State." The assertion so often made, to the effect that the Law Officers of the Crown in England were improperly influenced to advise a disallowance of the Bill, is in itself utterly preposterous, and no attempt, so far as we know, has ever been made to bring forward any proof of it.
There remains for consideration the prorogation of Parliament on the 13th of August.
Before the adjournment on the 23rd of May, as we have seen, it had been understood that Parliament should meet only to receive the committee's report, and not for the despatch of ordinary business. It had not even been considered necessary that His Excellency should attend. During his absence in the Maritime Provinces, however, the famous McMullen correspondence had appeared in print, and this, together with other circumstances which had come to his knowledge, had made him resolve to be present at the reassembling of Parliament. The attendance of Government supporters was not large, very few, if any, being present from outlying constituencies. The Opposition on the other hand, was fully represented, and was eager for the battle, which was regarded as inevitable. It soon appeared that there was nothing to be done. Owing to the disallowance of the Oaths Bill there was no report from the committee. In the estimation of His Excellency, to proceed with the investigation, as the Opposition members were desirous of doing, would under these circumstances have been to place the Ministry at an unfair disadvantage. A considerable number of its supporters were absent, whereas the Opposition was in full force. It has been charged upon the Ministry that this was part of their tactics, and that the absentees were acting under the orders of their Chief in remaining at home. This is another of those loose, sweeping assertions which may be true, but the truth of which has not been proved. That unhappy Ministry has enough to answer for at the Bar of History, without being called upon to refute charges which have never been substantiated by evidence. In any case, no fair-minded person will wish to hold the Governor-General responsible for such tactics. His position was one of no ordinary difficulty. Very damnatory correspondence had been given to the world, but it was not in such a shape that the House could possibly regard it as free from suspicion. The most serious charges seemed to point rather to the guilt of Sir Hugh Allan and McMullen than to that of the Members of the Government. The charges directly affecting the Government were solemnly and emphatically repudiated by the Premier, who pledged himself to explain the matter under oath to the satisfaction of the whole world, as soon as a properly constituted tribunal should be appointed, with authority to take evidence under oath. Sir Hugh Allan published a sworn affidavit, negativing McMullen's charges, and McMullen himself had subsequently admitted that his charges had been hasty and inaccurate. The latter, moreover, was evidently a man whose character was not such as to inspire respect. The Government could still command a majority of votes in the House. Under such circumstances, can His Excellency be blamed if he continued to act upon the advice of his constitutional advisers by proroguing Parliament? He was determined, however, that there should be no unnecessary delay, and exacted as a condition of adopting that course that parliament should be convened with all imaginable expedition. His reply to the memorial presented by the Opposition is so much to the point that we cannot do better than abridge a portion of it. "You urge me," says His Excellency, "on grounds which are very fully and forcibly stated, to decline the advice which has been unanimously tendered me by my responsible ministers, and to refuse to prorogue Parliament. In other words, you require me to dismiss them from my councils; for you must be aware that this would be the necessary result of my assenting to your recommendation. Upon what grounds would I be justified in taking so grave a step? What guarantee can you afford me that the Parliament of the Dominion would endorse such an act of personal interference on my part? You yourselves do not form an actual moiety of the House of Commons, and I have no means of ascertaining that the majority of that body subscribe to the opinion you have enounced.. It is true, grave charges have been preferred.. but the truth of these remains untested.. Is the Governor-General, upon such evidence as this, to drive from his presence gentlemen who for years have filled the highest offices of State, and in whom, during the recent session, Parliament has repeatedly declared its continued confidence?.. Certain documents of grave significance have lately been published in the newspapers, but no proof has been adduced which necessarily connects them with the culpable transactions of which it is asserted they formed a part.. Under these circumstances, what right has the Governor-General, on his personal responsibility, to proclaim.. that he believes his ministers guilty of the crimes alleged against them?"
Such were the circumstances under which the prorogation of the 13th of August, 1873, took place. Looking back on it, in the light of the seven years which have since elapsed, it will be hard to arrive at any other conclusion than that Lord Dufferin did not deserve the animadversions which were heaped upon him. As he himself observed in his despatch to the Colonial Secretary two days after the prorogation: "It is a favourite theory at this moment with many persons that when once grave charges of this nature have been preferred against the
