The next question which came before the Assembly was—the demand of a permanent provision for the governor, and a certain number of the leading executive officers. After a long debate, however, it was carried by a large majority in the negative. This decision placed the Assembly completely at issue with the crown, and has been represented as a breach of faith on their part. They had not, it is true, come under any formal engagement; yet the report of the committee of 1828, which decidedly connected this arrangement with the cession of the disputed revenues, had always been referred to by them as embracing almost every thing desired; and to this part of it they had never hinted any objection. On the 6th of December, 1830, they had passed resolutions, insisting, indeed, on the control of the entire revenue; but expressing an intention, were this gained, to grant the permanent provision now demanded. That preliminary claim certainly embraced also the casual and territorial branches still withheld; yet these were not of great amount, and the present bill, like that relating to the judges, might have been so framed as to be inoperative without these funds being embraced by it. No reason was assigned; but the view of the Assembly is stated to have been, that the executive, not being dependent on them for a naval and military establishment, would, in case of such a permanent settlement, have been entirely free from that control which they sought to exercise over it. They passed, however, a vote of annual supply, which Lord Goderich, though much dissatisfied with the tenor of their proceedings, thought it expedient to sanction.