Mr. Mackenzie asserts that the object of the authorities was to get the Captain out of the Province, and thus deprive the Opposition of his vote, "in order to give the local Government a preponderance in the Legislature against the people's rights."[88] This, however, can hardly be accepted as a full or true explanation, as the Captain's absence at the time would not have given such a preponderance to the Government on any test vote. The weakening of the Opposition may or may not have been one of the objects sought to be achieved by the Captain's accusers. If so, it signally failed. Captain Matthews, be it understood, was not in receipt of half-pay, but of a pension. He had served twenty-seven years, and, on his corps being totally disbanded, he had settled in Upper Canada with the approbation of the Government. Having since been elected a member of the Provincial Assembly, his first duty was to that body, and it was necessary that he should obtain its leave before proceeding to obey the order of the Master-General. Accordingly, on Thursday, the 28th of December, 1826, he rose in his place and made a motion involving an application for leave of absence. He explained the circumstances, and, in the course of the debate which ensued, expressly stated that he asked for leave, not with any desire of its being granted, but merely in order that the House might do its duty. The Opposition stood faithfully by him in this emergency. The House felt that the honour of one of its members was concerned. It refused the application for leave, and, on motion of Mr. Rolph, set on foot an inquiry into the circumstances on its own behalf.