A deputation from the meeting for free institutions, requested the intercession of the governor with the crown; but he replied, that if the grant of free institutions, and the discontinuance of penal coercion, were connected by one common advocacy, the interests of the colony, of the crown, and of philanthropy, would demand the most serious precaution. He maintained that all British rights were conceded, "excepting the elective franchise;" and quoted with more cleverness than dignity, their statements of colonial opulence, to show how little they had suffered by a former denial of their prayers. Mr. Gellibrand, senior, was a person of intellectual tastes and lofty spirit. His early life had been spent among liberal politicians: he was a zealous advocate of freedom, but still more of knowledge and virtue. Mr. Gellibrand, junior, was a lawyer of popular talents, whose practice as a barrister made office of little importance, and who, when discarded by Arthur, opposed him with incessant vigour. His eloquence was never exhausted, and his learning as a lawyer obtained him consideration in the court, which his boldness as a pleader often threw into jeopardy. Mr. Thomas Horne exhibited a fervour in the popular cause, worthy his kinsman. The rest were chiefly settlers, and patriots from resentment or conviction. These meetings preserved the principles of constitutional freedom; and if they did not hasten its possession, reiterated its lessons and prepared for its enjoyment. Whatever temporary turmoil the meetings created, they were conservative of great interests, and deserve a grateful remembrance. These appeals to the British legislature were commonly accepted in silence: by the crown they were graciously received and forgotten. They had no perceptible influence on colonial policy, and only acquitted the settlers of indifference to rights, which can never be valued at too high a price.