the time and thoughts of ministers that they have not leisure for
matters of greater moment" He clearly saw into the methods by which
his first unstable ministry, which had its origin in Lord Metcalfe's
time, was alone able to keep its feeble majority. "It must be
remembered," he wrote in 1847, "that it is only of late that the
popular assemblies in this part of the world have acquired the right
of determining who shall govern them--of insisting, as we phrase it,
that the administration of affairs shall be conducted by persons
enjoying their confidence. It is not wonderful that a privilege of
this kind should be exercised at first with some degree of
recklessness, and that while no great principles of policy are at
stake, methods of a more questionable character for winning and
retaining the confidence of these arbiters of destiny should be
resorted to."

While the Hincks government was in office, the Canadian legislature
received power from the imperial authorities--as I shall show
later--to settle the question of the clergy reserves on condition that
protection should be given to those members of the clergy who had been
beneficiaries under the Constitutional Act of 1791. A measure was
passed for the settlement of the seigniorial tenure question on an
equitable basis, but it was defeated in the legislative council by a
large majority amongst which we see the names of several seigneurs
directly interested in the measure. It was not fully discussed in that
chamber on the ground that members from Upper Canada had not had a
sufficient opportunity of studying the details of the proposed
settlement and of coming to a just conclusion as to its merits. The
action of the council under these circumstances was severely
criticized, and gave a stimulus to the movement that had been steadily
going on for years among radical reformers of both provinces in favour