Since the foregoing sheets were sent to press, some observations have appeared in the British Critic, for May, 1823, upon the Civil Administration of Sir George Prevost, in Canada, which may perhaps be thought to require a brief notice. The writer of the remarks in question, after premising that the military conduct of the late Commander of the forces in the Canadas has been sufficiently exposed in another Journal, (the Quarterly Review) proceeds to assert, "that his domestic management of the Colony was no less censurable. That finding that the Canadian party gave him most trouble, his object was to obtain a temporary popularity for his own administration, and a peaceable residence for himself, by every possible species and degree of weak concession, which he dignified with the name of conciliation. That the Catholic Bishop being at the head of the party, was honoured with a seat in the Legislative Council, received a pension of 1,500l. per annum, which he still enjoys, and was either overtly or tacitly confirmed in all the usurpations of power and of Government property, (about 40,000l. per annum,) upon which he had ventured, whilst discouragement and insult (a term of which the Critic informs his readers he does not repent) were heaped upon the Protestant Bishop and his Clergy, and upon the Loyal Members of both houses, and that the just remonstrances of his Lordship in defence of the rights of his Church, and which it was his first duty to protect, were represented at home as the dictates of party spirit and political feeling."

Although the generality of most of these remarks might seem to preclude the necessity of any reply to them, yet, as the writer, in descending to particular statements, displays a gross want of information, it becomes necessary to expose his misrepresentations, in order that his censures may be rightly appreciated.

The policy of Sir George Prevost towards the Canadians, was, as the foregoing pages will shew, adopted immediately upon his assuming his government, and could not therefore be the consequence of any trouble given him by the Canadian party, from whom, on the contrary, he invariably received the most cordial support. His object in that policy was to strengthen the hands of Government, and to avail himself, as he afterwards did, of the whole resources of the country, in case it should be attacked. But that any concession whatever was made by Sir George Prevost to effect that object is altogether untrue.

The Catholic Bishop, though his character and influence well entitled him to that distinction, was not honoured with a seat in the Legislative Council during the government of Sir George Prevost, nor did he receive during that period a pension of 1,500l. per annum. In 1775, the British Government granted to the then Catholic Bishop a pension of 200l. per annum. In the year 1778, a further sum of 150l. per annum, was given to the same Bishop for the hire of the Episcopal Palace at Quebec, for public offices. These two sums were continued to the subsequent Bishops, and constituted the only income received by them from Government, until the arrival of Sir George Prevost in Canada. During his administration, His Majesty's Government was pleased to increase that salary to the sum of 1,000l. per annum, in favour of M. de Plessis, the present Catholic Bishop, "as a testimony," to use the words of Lord Bathurst, in his despatch upon the subject, "of the sense which His Royal Highness the Prince Regent entertained of the loyalty, and good conduct of M. de Plessis, and of the other Catholic clergy of the Province."

The charge that Sir George Prevost either tacitly or overtly confirmed the Catholic bishop in all the usurpations of power and of government property, upon which he had ventured, is so obscurely worded, that it is difficult to give it a distinct answer. The privileges and possessions of the Catholic clergy were assured to them at the period when Canada became a British province, and the present Catholic bishop is not in possession of any property, nor does he exercise any power which his predecessors have not enjoyed since that period with the knowledge and concurrence of all former governors of the Province, and of His Majesty's Government. The "accustomed dues and rights" of the Catholic clergy of Canada, are formally secured to them by the act of 14 Geo. 3. c. 83, §. 5.

To the assertion, positive in proportion to its want of proof, that the Protestant Bishop and his clergy, and the loyal members of both Houses, were treated with insult, it will be merely necessary to answer, that Sir George Prevost was incapable of treating any person, much less those of a sacred character and profession, with indignity or insult—and a confident appeal is made to the Protestant clergy of Canada, and to the loyal members of both Houses, against an insinuation as base as it is groundless.

To the critic's charge of general mismanagement in the affairs of the Colony, a reply, if any were wanting, will, it is trusted, be found, in the foregoing pages; in the approbation of His Majesty's Government of the very policy which this writer so acrimoniously condemns, and in the highly flattering testimonials to the merits of Sir George Prevost's civil administration, which he received not only from the Canadians, but from the most respectable of the English inhabitants.

It is evident that the writer of the article in the British Critic has blindly adopted the prejudices and feelings of the Quarterly Reviewer towards Sir George Prevost, and as he appears to dwell with particular complacency upon the exposure which he imagines to have been made of that officer's military character, he is justly entitled to share in the disgrace which must attend his coadjutor's failure, and in the odium which will always attach to the anonymous traducer of departed merit.