the desertion of her husband. They were lodged in lock-up cribs, on straw; two in one crib, and the third in another. The stench of their insalubrious dungeon, where they were confined in strait jackets, was complained of by the prisoners above. The bed clothes of some of the prisoners were not washed for six or eight months together. The atmosphere was in the last degree pestilential, and the food insufficient. An idle apprentice and a person charged with murder associated in the same room; which necessarily became a school of vice for the less hardened.

As in the previous session of 1829, Mr. Mackenzie brought forward resolutions, directed against the practice of filling the Legislative Council with dependent place-men; but they were not pressed on either occasion. If this point had been pressed by the House, which showed an inexplicable backwardness in dealing with it, there is reason to believe that it would have been conceded by the Imperial Government.*

* In a dispatch, addressed by Sir George Murray, then Colonial Secretary, to Sir James Kemp, Governor of Lower Canada, Sept. 29, 1829, and also "virtually” addressed to Sir John Colborne, as he was officially advised, the following passage on the subject of the Legislative and Executive Councils

Occurs:

"The constitution of the Legislative and Executive Councils is another subject which has undergone considerable discussion, but upon which His Majesty's Government must suspend their opinion until I shall have received some authentic information from your Excellency. You will, therefore, have the goodness to report to me, whether it would be expedient to make any alteration in the general constitution of those bodies, and especially how far it would be desirable to introduce a larger proportion of members not holding offices at the pleasure of the Crown; and if it should be considered desirable, how far it may be practicable to find a sufficient number of persons of respectability of this description." Under these circumstances an immense power was placed in the hands of the Governors.

The canal era preceded that of railroads. In 1824, not a single effort of a practical nature had been made to improve the inland navigation of the Province. In 1830, the Rideau had been completed. A vessel of eighty-four tons burthen had, in the previous November, passed through the Welland. The Burlington and the Desjardins canals were far advanced towards completion. Mr. Mackenzie, who had been a warm advocate of internal improvements, obtained a committee, in the session of 1830, to inquire into the management and expenditure of the Welland Canal Company. The whole thing had so much the appearance of a financial juggle-the original estimates of £15,000 to £23,000 having been followed by an expenditure of over £273,000*-that curiosity must have been much excited to know by what legerdemain the different steps in the financial scheme had succeeded one another.† Mr. Mackenzie fully appreci

*This canal has now cost £1,727,922 5s. 3d.

† The original estimates were only for a canal that would pass vessels of forty tons burthen. The company's capital was originally limited to £40,000. The government was empowered to take the work at the end of thirty years, on paying the company twenty-five per cent premium on the outlay. The estimates were made in 1824; and in April, 1828, an act was passed increasing the capital stock to £200,000. The Province subscribed for £25,000 of the stock, in 1825; and next year it loaned to the company £25,000, at interest, for three years. In 1827, this loan was converted into stocks, by a very close vote, twenty against eighteen. In 1826, the Legislature had been told that the work would be completed by the spring of 1827, at a cost of £20,000 less than the company's capital. When 1827 came, the usual story about unforeseen circumstances was told; and by 1830, it was admitted that the whole expenditure would be £300,000 Although Lower Canada had only a remote interest in the work, her Legislature came forward, in 1827, with a subscription of £25,000 to the stock. Next year, Mr. Merritt visited England, and obtained from the British Government a loan of £50,000, in security for which authority was afterwards given to assign the whole work. He also sold some

ated the effects of these internal improvements upon the price of produce. "Instead of 1s. 101d. to 2s. 6d. a bushel for the superior wheat of this fertile Province," he said, in May 1830, "paid too often to the farmer in goods at double their value, we now find the miller and the merchant eagerly purchasing grain at 5s., and, in some places, even at 6s. currency per sixty pounds.' As a commercial speculation the work was not destined to pay the stockholders; but the Province, which became the proprietor of the canal, has been amply repaid by the increased value given to its produce. A more striking example of this fact than that given by Mr. Mackenzie need not be desired. So well satisfied was he with the result of the internal improvements, so far made, that he declared, "I would cheerfully consent to involve the Province in debt, in conjunction with Lower Canada, in order to improve the St. Lawrence to the ocean." Lower Canada had taken the lead by making an appropriation for the survey of the St. Lawrence above Montreal.

shares elsewhere.

In 1830, stockholders in New York had paid in £72,000; in Lower Carada, £12,825; and in Upper Canada only £2,462, exclusive of the Legislative subscription.

CHAPTER XII.

The Small Libel Suit-Mackenzie Pleads his own Cause and Succeeds-Din of the Electoral Battle-Responsible Government-Canada compared with other Countries-Rules for Elections-A subdued Black List-The Opposition to Mackenzie's Re-election-The Principles on which he Successfully Appealed to the People-The Politics of Bank Discounts-Success of the Official Party in the Election.

IN writing the biography of one who had many enemies in the public period of his life, while some of his cotemporaries are still living, it is impossible to avoid the revival of recollections that will give pain, or cause offence. But the duty of the impartial biographer is plain. While it should be his study not to inflict needless wounds upon the feelings of the living, the author is not at liberty to omit prominent facts which are essential to the elucidation of his subject. It is my aim, in dealing with events that may revive unpleasant recollections in the minds of some of the actors, to present the facts in the spirit of impartial history, free from rancor or animosity.

When Mr. James Edward Small appealed to the electors of York, in 1828, to select him instead of Mr. Mackenzie, a story affecting his professional reputation was circulated to his disadvantage. Every one Loves to find some other cause for his want of success than the relative merits of himself and his opponent;

and Mr. Small alleged that he had lost the election by the circulation of a statement affecting his professional integrity. He stated, on the hustings, his intention to prosecute. Mr. Mackenzie was not the author or retailer of the alleged slander. Mr. George Ridout, Mr. Small's brother-in-law, canvassed Mr. James Hogg, of Milford Mills, for his vote. The miller replied that he could not vote for a man who had cheated or defrauded him out of forty or fifty dollars. Mr. Hogg was prosecuted for slander. He was not permitted to justify, or produce evidence in support of the accusation. The jury gave Mr. Small fifty pounds damages. The costs swelled the amount to £78 19s.

The story had been told by Hogg for Mr. Mackenzie's benefit-at least that was the effect, though it was probably not the intention-and he, in turn, repeated it, on the strength of the evidence in the Hogg trial, for the benefit of Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Mackenzie was prosecuted, too, but with a very different result. The alleged libel bore date November 25, 1829. The evidence in the former trial, which formed the staple of the second alleged libel, showed that one Daniel McDougal held a note against Hogg for £3 13s., "payable in liquor at the market price." The liquor had not been taken, and the question was whether the note could be collected. Mr. McDougal called to consult Mr. Small on the matter. The lawyer gave an opinion that the note, if sued in the Court of King's Bench, could be collected. Mr. McDougal left the note with Mr. Small, but alleged that he ordered him not to sue or make costs upon it, and that he made a