Whatever, therefore, be the verdict of this Commission, it obviously cannot affect either of these vital questions, which must be tried by the whole nation; and the decision of this Commission, worthless if it be for extension, is equally worthless if it be for repeal, because these Acts, if repealed on that verdict, would then be repealed on the ground of their unsatisfactory operation. The evil principle would not only be left undisputed and unrebuked, but it would be practically admitted that our constitutional privileges may again be violated should the results of such violation be temporarily satisfactory. Therefore I unhesitatingly venture to assert, that if the verdict of this Royal Commission should be for repeal, it would be more hurtful to our national interests than if it should report for extension, because, as it must be evident, the Acts would then be repealed on the ground of their medical inoperativeness, or the difficulty of their administration, or for some reason short of their constitutional iniquity, and not—as they will be when repealed by the people—on the ground and by reason of their essential wickedness as violations of morality and constitutional liberty. Surely it was the guardian genius of our Constitution who so happily blinded the Government which passed this law, as to permit it to assign and limit the grounds of this inquiry, as it has done, and has thus led it to throw upon the people themselves the necessity and duty, not only of repealing these Acts, but of forcing Parliament to place on the Statute-book a lasting record of this bitter conflict, in the form of a Statute which shall bind our Legislature for all future ages to regard as sacred the constitutional rights of the people, and which shall make it impossible for it again thus to violate the Constitution.