the old system. This was notably shown by their treatment of the governorship, and by their fear of one-man power generally. The colonial governor was not elected by the people, nor responsible to them in any way; it was therefore to the popular interest to hem in his power by all lawful expedients. This was done by the colonial legislature, the only exponent and servant of the popular wish. The State governor, however, was elected by the people, was responsible to them, and was as much their servant and representative as the legislature. Nevertheless, the distrust of the non-representative, appointed, colonial governor was handed down as a legacy to his elective and representative successor. The fact that the colonial governor was made irresponsible by the method of his appointment, and that a colonial legislature appointed in the same way would have been equally irresponsible and objectionable, was seemingly overlooked, and the governorship was treated as if a single person were more dangerous than a group of persons to those who elect both, and can hold both equally responsible. Accordingly, he was hampered with the Council of Appointment, and in other ways. We have since grown wiser in this respect; but the curious fear still survives, and shows itself occasionally in odd ways,such as standing up for the rights of a wholly useless and pernicious board of aldermen.