PROHIBITORY ACT UNPOPULAR
The result of the attempt to enforce prohibition was what might have been expected. The law was resisted, liquor continued to be sold, and when attempts were made to prevent the violation of the law, and the violators of the law were brought before the courts, able lawyers were employed to defend them, while the sale of liquor by the same parties was continued, thus setting the law at defiance. This state of confusion lasted for several months, but it is unnecessary to go into details. In the city of St. John, especially, the conflict became bitter to the last degree, and it was evident that, however admirable prohibition might be of itself, the people of that city were not then prepared to accept it. At this juncture came the astounding news that the lieutenant-governor, the Hon. H. T. Manners-Sutton, had dissolved the House of Assembly against the advice of his council. This governor, who had been appointed the year previous, was a member of an old Conservative family, one of whom was speaker of the British House of Commons for a great many years. The traditions of this family were all opposed to such a radical measure as the prohibitory law, and, therefore, it was not to be expected that Manners-Sutton, who drank wine at his own table, and who considered that its use was proper and necessary, would be favourable to the law. But even if he had been disposed to favour it originally, or to regard it without prejudice, the confusion which it caused in the province when the attempt was made to enforce it, would naturally incline him to look upon it as an evil. At all events, he came to the conclusion that the people should have another opportunity of pronouncing upon it, and, as the result of this view of the situation, resolved to dissolve the legislature, which had been elected only a little more than a year, and had still three years to run.
DISSOLUTION OF LEGISLATURE
The election which followed in July, 1856, was perhaps the most hotly contested that has ever taken place in the province. In St. John, especially, the conflict was fierce and bitter, because it was in this city that the liquor interest was strongest and most influential. All over the province, however, the people became interested in the struggle, as they had not been in any previous campaign.
By the Liberals and friends of the government, the action of Governor Sutton was denounced as tyrannical, unjust and entirely contrary to the principles of responsible government. On the other hand, the friends of the governor and of the liquor interest declared that his action was right, and the cry of "Support the governor," was raised in every county. At this day it is easy enough to discern that there was a good deal of unnecessary violence injected into the campaign, and that neither party was inclined to do full justice to the other.
CHAPTER IV
REFORM AND PROGRESS
The result of the election was the defeat of the government. Mr. Tilley lost his seat for St. John city, and the Hon. James Brown, the surveyor-general, was rejected by the county of Charlotte, so that two of the principal members of the executive were not in their places when the House was called together in July. The city of St. John, and the city and county of St. John, sent a solid phalanx of six members opposed to prohibition, and an Act repealing the prohibitory liquor law was passed by a vote of thirty-eight to two. The new government which was formed had for its principal members, the Hon. John H. Gray, who became attorney-general; the Hon. John C. Allen, solicitor-general; the Hon. R. D. Wilmot, provincial secretary; the Hon. John Montgomery, surveyor-general, and the Hon. Francis McPhelim, postmaster-general. The other members of the executive council were the Hon. Edward B. Chandler, the Hon. Robert L. Hazen and the Hon. Charles McPherson.
When the House met in July, the Hon. Charles Simonds, of St. John, was elected speaker, and it was soon discovered, after the liquor bill had been disposed of, that the majority supporting the government was so small as to make it impossible for them to accomplish any useful legislation. When the legislature again met, in the early part of 1857, it was seen that in a House of forty-one members twenty were arrayed against the government, and the only way in which government business could be done was by the casting vote of the speaker. This condition of affairs speedily became intolerable, because it practically made legislation impossible, but it was brought to an end by Mr. McMonagle, one of the members for the county of Kings, withdrawing his support from the government. Two courses only were now open to them, to tender their resignations or advise the dissolution of the legislature, and they chose the latter. The House of Assembly was dissolved by proclamation on April 1st, 1857, and the writs for the election were made returnable on May 16th.