Bathurst, the colonial secretary, fully concurred in the view of the postmaster general that the subject was one of great delicacy, and wrote to the governor general, Lord Dalhousie, setting forth the facts and stating that under ordinary circumstances he would have had no difficulty in recommending a prosecution.
In view of the attention which the house of assembly had been giving to the revenues of the colonial post office, and of the doubt which had been suggested as to the right of Great Britain to receive those revenues, the colonial secretary thought it possible that the enforcement of those rights at that time might embarrass the governor general by giving the assembly an additional ground for contention with the mother country. He, therefore, had given directions that the deputy postmaster general should communicate with the governor general on the subject, and should not institute proceedings without the full concurrence of the latter.
The deputy postmaster general was instructed in this sense in September 1820, and matters remained in abeyance until 1826, when the deputy postmaster general, presumably with the concurrence of the governor general requested the opinion of the attorney general of Lower Canada on the subject. The attorney general, James Stuart (afterwards Sir James) advised that the right of the post office was clear, and he conceived that there should be no difficulty in recovering pecuniary penalties for the infringement of the postmaster general's privilege.
But no action was taken on this opinion. The relations between the provincial governors and the assemblies were becoming more strained as time went on, and the governor general had no desire to augment the grievances of the assemblies by introducing irritating matters, in which the right of the home government might with reason be held to be disputable.
FOOTNOTES:
[190] In course of debate in assembly, December 16, 1825 (Report in Colonial Advocate).
[191] Journals, House of Assembly, March 1, 1820.
[192] Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.
[193] Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.
[194] Ibid.