SIR George Prevost arrived with his troops at Barbadoes on 29 Dec'r., 1808, but the French having reinforced Martinique and Guadaloupe, his further movements were delayed.

Dr. Croke, in his letter to lord Castlereagh of 11 February, states his having refused his assent to the appropriation bill, which had passed both houses. He endeavors to justify himself- 1st, because there was a clause in it to pay the special agent of the province 200 guineas, as conflicting with the 16th article of the Royal instructions, forbidding the governor to pass any bill" of an unusual and extraordinary nature and " "importance, whereby H. M. prerogative may be prejudiced, the special agent having been appointed without the governor's concurrence; 2nd, because he considered that there was inconsiderate profusion' in the sums voted, likely to embarrass the finances. £25,649 2s. 81d. had been, in all, appropriated, while the probable ways and means amounted only to £17,080, which would make a deficit at the end of 1809 of £8569 is. 8d., equal to half a year's revenue. He argues that the assembly have always sought to expend as much as possible for roads and bridges. He says: "The "whole of the money so obtained goes amongst themselves " "and friends, as commissioners, contractors, and in a variety ' "of other capacities, besides the convenience of the commu"nications in themselves. It has been a constant struggle "of the council every session to restrain them within any "reasonable limits. They have increased every year, and in " "the present appropriation bill have far exceeded all former "

33

allowances." He says it has ever been even the avowed object of the democratic party to involve the country in debt for the purpose of rendering the house of assembly absolutely necessary to the government for the payment of the interest and other necessary supplies. "This principle, till the pre"sent session, has always been strenuously resisted by the "council, but I am sorry to find amongst some of the new "members of that board, a disposition to court popularity by " supporting the assembly in their favorite views."

66

It is obvious that the necesssity of roads being opened and improved, must grow greater as the progress of settlement and population advanced; and no other mode of expending the revenue could have tended so much to the benefit alike of town and country, in facilitating intercourse and promoting agriculture, as this kind of appropriation. As all our road commissioners were appointed by the governor in council, and were accountable to the executive, it seems unfair to charge members of assembly with personal motives on this subject. It is true they were called on usually to recommend and suggest the names of the commissioners, but this was only occasioned by the want of local knowledge on the part of the council, who, I believe, frequently overruled these nominations whenever they thought fit. It is certain that the members of the council never sympathised fully with the intense desire for road improvement which the rural population everywhere felt. Although they ought to have considered that the benefit of roads acted as fully in favor of the town as of the country, yet their time and attention being engrossed with their public and private business in Halifax, from which some of them rarely went 50 miles on any occasion, and as some of them were strangers who only resided officially here, they were jealous of any diversion of public funds from the civil list. Dr. Croke, now president, had been a short time in the province, and had imbibed prejudices against the members of the house, not being aware that in this matter they only represented faithfully the wishes and interests of their electors, and now, to his dismay, he finds that the council recedes from its usual opposition, and puts himself in the gap to oppose the popular will.

Until 1786, no appropriation act had been usual, the sums agreed on by both branches being paid without a bill. Dr. Croke proposed that the sums he deemed most necessary to be paid should now be taken from the treasury on the joint votes passed in the late session, agreeable to the practice prior to 1786. He suggests to the minister also that £4000 a year additional should be granted by parliament, towards the provincial estimate, so that all the civil officers of the colony should be paid their salaries independant of the assembly; and to cover this sum, that additional duties might be raised in the customs. He says: "This measure might be brought "forward even as a favor intended to the province." He also suggests, "To direct the governor not to assent to the pay of" "the members of assembly. They now receive ten shillings" "a day till £800 is exhausted, which occasions their sessions" "to be protracted till the money is exhausted."

On saturday, the 10 March, president Croke submitted this question to H. M. council: "Whether, no appropriation bill " "having passed, the lieutenant governor or commander-in-' "chief has power or authority, with the advice and consent" "of H. M. council, to draw, by warrant, on the treasury for " "any such sum or sums of money as have been voted by the " "assembly and agreed to by the council, for the purposes' "expressed in such votes and resolutions." On the 14 March, the council requested that the opinion of the attorney and solicitor generals should be obtained on this point. (The chief justice, Blowers, had declined to attend the council on this occasion.) 22 March. The opinions of the attorney and solilicitor general were read. They were against the power sought by the governor. Dr. Croke then took a vote of the council on the point. Mr. Michael Wallace, the treasurer, voted alone in favor of the president's claim of power, the other members present, viz., Belcher, Brenton, Hill, Uniacke and Morris, against it. He put several other questions to the board,—one on the revenue acts: whether the governor could draw sums from the treasury without an appropriation bill. On one of these acts, all the members, except Mr. Wallace, replied in the negative. On the other act, Wallace,

Belcher, Brenton and Morris, were of opinion that the king could use the sums raised under it. Hill and Uniacke dissenting, and Brenton afterwards begged to retract his opinion as erroneous. On the 24 and 28 March, Dr. Croke took the opinion of the council as to his drawing warrants on the treasury, when, on a division, Mr. Wallace voted in favor of his doing so, and messrs. Morris, Uniacke, Hill, Brenton and Belcher in the negative. Dr. Croke tells the secretary of state, "I was very sorry to find that H. M. council, and even "most of those members who hold places in the government, "seemed inclined to support the pretensions of the house of" "assembly, rather than those of the governor,—and that”

they shewed little disposition to relieve the government" "from its embarrassments. It is much to be lamented that " "the chief justice, who has privately given his approbation "to the steps I took, and who is decidedly of opinion with' me as to the rights of the governor, could never be pre“vailed on, though specially summoned and admonished, to attend any privy council since Sir George Prevost's depar-" "ture."

Sir George Prevost had anticipated that Mr. Blowers, the chief justice, would absent himself from the council while Dr. Croke administered the government. As to the opinion the chief justice had about the powers of the executive to nullify the judgment of the assembly in revenue and expenditure, I cannot help supposing that he felt doubtful whether English lawyers and statesmen would approve of the governor's interference with the treasury, when both branches had concurred in the appropriations, and the acting governor desired, by force of prerogative, to annul their decisions. The result of the reference to the English attorney and solicitor general in the case of Walker's seat for Annapolis, had shewn that the representative body were regarded in England as the house of commons of the province. The doctrines of Uniacke and Stewart had, on that occasion, been fully upheld, and the views of the chief justice overruled. He would therefore be, very properly, cautious of committing himself now, especially

as his absence from council evinces a distrust of Dr. Croke, or at least a want of inclination to support his administration.

Dr. Croke refers to the attorney general receiving 200 guineas per annum from the assembly by an annual vote, and the solicitor general all his salary in the same way, as likely to affect the independance of their judgment. He also expresses apprehension that the province will be lost to Great Britain, unless the prerogative be upheld. He says: "Whatever " "outward appearances there may be of loyalty and affection "to Great Britain, the relations-the family and commercial" "connexions, and the property of a great part of its inhabi-" "tants, centre in the United States. Is it, then, to be won-" 'dered at that they should be attached to American princi-" "ples and democratic forms of government?"

That the people of Nova Scotia, of all ranks and origin, have ever set a high value on the principles of justice and freedom, secured to them by British law, admits of no doubt. In Dr. Croke's imagination all this was perverted into a desire for the republican principles of the United States, and he set himself in opposition to nearly every gentleman in the colony, as well as to the representative branch. In his Prize Court, Dr. Croke was absolute, and his salary and emoluments were about treble those of the governor of the colony. It was hard on him to listen to the opinions of other men, who differed from himself; and we see that in his official letters to England, he descended to impute interested motives to the members of assembly as regards their pay, &c., and the provincial law officers of the crown.

The winter of this year proved very severe, and a large subscription was made 10 February, 1809, for relief of the poor. [On sunday, the 19th inst., at Annapolis, the lady of lieutenant colonel Darling was safely delivered of a son. N. S. R. gazette, tuesday, 28 Feb'y., 1809. This, I think, was Sir Chas. Darling, late governor of Victoria.] Early in March, 1809, the U. S. congress passed a bill-to remove the embargo, on 15 March, except as to England and France, and their dependencies. The vessels of war of the two belligerent powers were forbidden to enter the waters of the United States. After 20 May,