FR ARR A ER

Rebellion Losses. 139

general feeling that the government and discipline of the institution should be free from all sectarian bias, so that the rights and privileges of all might be maintained without offence to the religious opinions of any. Numerous petitions were presented, praying for a repeal or modification of the charter. In 1837 the Local Assembly, &y authority of the Home Government, passed an Act removing many of the objectionable features of the charter, but certain restrictions still remained, and it failed to meet the wishes of dissenters, as well as of many liberal-minded members of the Church of England. The scheme of establishing the university, however, which had remained in abeyance since the granting of the charter, was now pushed forward. A building of great size was projected, and a wing of it was actually erected in what is now known as the Queen’s Park, Toronto. As mentioned on a former page,* the foundation stone was laid by Sir Charles Bagot in April, 1842. The institution was opened for the admission of students somewhat more than à year afterwards, but it in no sense met the popular demand, and a continual agitation was kept up against it. Mr. Draper’s Government, as has already been seen,f endeavoured to conciliate public opinion by introducing à measure for establishing a university embracing three denominational colleges, but Church of England influence was too powerful in the Assembly, and the Bill was withdrawn., Mr. Baldwin, though a sincere Episcopalian, recognized the injustice of maintaining a sectarian institution out of Provincial funds, and did not hesitate to grapple with the difficulty. His Bill amended the charter of King's College, abolished the faculty of divinity and all other denominational restrictions, enlarged the powers of Convocation, and established a purely non-sectarian seat of learning, under the name of “the University of Toronto” Dr. Strachan’s desire to preserve the Provincial University as an essentially Church of England institution was thus frustrated, and he

* Ante, Vol, I., p. 191, tante, p. 13.

140 The Last Forty Years.

applied himself with characteristic energy to the establishing of a seat of learning in accordance with his views. The outcome of his exertions was the founding, several years later, of the University of Trinity College, Toronto.

Several railway bills were passed during the session. For some years past evidences had not been wanting that the old methods of travel and transportation would have to be abandoned, and that the railway carriage was destined to supersede the cumbrous forwarding wagon. Many leading merchants and capitalists of the Province had begun to grasp the main points of the situation, and to form plans in accordance with the new order of things. During the last few years many railway charters had been obtained from Parliament, but very little had been done in the way of actual construction. As early as 1836 a horse-railway had been opened, connecting Laprairie, on the St. Lawrence, with St. Johns, on the Richelieu, and a year later locomotives were employed upon it. In 1839 the Erie and Ontario Company opened a line of horse-railway between Queenston and Chippewa, but the steepness of the grades was such that it could not be worked satisfactorily, and soon fell into disuse. In 1845 a charter was obtained by the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway Company, for a line to connect with the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Company of Portland, Maine. This line, by amalgamation, subsequently developed into the Grand Trunk.* In 1846 the Lachine Raïlway, which also now forms part of the Grand Trunk, was begun. The legislation of 1849 plainly indicated that the era of railways had fairly set in in Canada. An Act was passed guaranteeing the interest on loans to be raised by any company chartered by the Legislature for the construction of a line not less than seventy-five miles in extent, This measure gave an additional impulse to railway construction, and was eagerly taken advantage

#On the subject of Canadian railways generally, see ‘‘Eighty Years’ Progress of British North America,” p. 190 et seg., and Trout’s ‘‘ Railways of Canada,” passim.

Rebellion Losses. 141

of by various enterprising companies. The Great Western, the Northern, and the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Raïilways were all materially assisted in their development by this Act.*

Acts were also passed making additional provision for the administration of justice in both sections of the Province. In Lower Canada the establishment of a Court of Queen’s Bench having appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters was provided for. In Upper Canada the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Error and Appeal were established, and important changes were introduced into the practice and organization of the Court of Chancery. The last-named Court had long been a by-word and à reproach. Since its original establishment in 1837 the Chancellorship had been vested in the Crown. The Vice-Chancellor and sole Judge was the Hon. Robert Jameson, mentioned on former pages. This gentleman was à fairly efficient jurist, but he had given way to personal infivmities, and had allowed the business of the Court to fall greatly into arrear, Suitors were sometimes unable to obtain decrees after years of delay, and there was an utter want of order and arrangement in the procedure, The Chancery Act of 1849 was prepared by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Blake, but was introduced by Mr. Baldwin, who was solely responsible for its provisions. It increased the number of judges to three, and established a system of procedure which, capably directed, as it was, soon rescued the Court from the odium which had gathered round it. The question at once arose as to who was the proper person to be appointed to the onerous and dignified office of Chancellor. The profession, almost with one voice, indicated Mr. Blake himself as the most suitable person in the Province for the position. Mr. Blake had entered upon what would certainly have been a very brilliant Parliamentary career, which he was loth to forego. Though he had been only two sessions in

* Canada : 1849 to 1859,” by the Hon. A. T, Galt, p. 25. + 4nte, Vol, I., pp. 108, 109, 318.

142 The Last Forty Years.

the Assembly he had made a reputation which the oldest Parliamentary veteran might well have envied. He however yielded to the pressure of Mr. Baldwin and others, and on the 1st of October, 1849, became Chancellor of Upper Canada. The result fully justified the sanguine predictions of the profession, and the judgments of the Court of Chancery soon inspired the respect which was justly their due. It may be added that Mr. Blake retained the Chancellorship until March, 1862, when failing health compelled him to relinquish it. He died in Toronto in 1870. Mr. Jameson continued to sit as Vice-Chancellor until the end of 1850, when he was permitted to retire on a pension.

À ministerial measure to increase the number of Parliamentary representatives from 84 to 150—4.e., 75 from each section of the Province, instead of 42—was withdrawn, the Ministry being unable to obtain a two-thirds vote* in its favour, as required by the twenty-sixth section of the Union Act with respect to any measure for making a new apportionment of ridings and representation.

Among the other important legislation of the session were an Act providing for a complete system of municipal organization in Upper Canada; an Act amending the law relative to duties of Customs, whereby considerable change was made in the tariff; a new Act regulating the admission of Immigrants into the Province; a new School Act for Upper Canada, and an amended one for the Lower section of the Province. The great question relating to the Clergy Reserves, which will hereafter claim careful consideration, also came before the Assembly, but the time had not yet arrived for dealing with it.

The entire legislation of the session, including five reserved bills, consisted of no fewer than 200 measures. The most noteworthy one

*The full representation being 84, the number of votes (two-thirds of the whole) 1cquired to carry the measure was 56. The number of members who voted for it was 55, 80 that a single additional vote would have carried it,

DR SAT EN dot, Le Een a re » à ph Yi 2e:

EN de SN URI

Rebellion Losses. 143

of them all, in view of its immediate and ultimate results, yet remains to be mentioned—the famous Rebellion Losses Bill.

As its name imports, this Bill was a legacy bequeathed by the troubles of 1837-38. No sooner had the insurrection been put down than measures were set on foot in both Provinces to compensate those loyal subjects who had suffered direct pecuniary loss by it, Legislation on the subject was introduced into the Upper Canadian Assembly early in 1838, and on the Gth of March in that year an Act was passed authorizing the appointment of Commissioners to investigate the claims of “certain loyal inhabitants ” for losses sustained during “the late unnatural rebellion.” Commissioners were accordingly appointed, and in due time they made their report, which was the basis of further legislation during the session of 1839.* In Lower Canada the Special Council in like manner made some provision by Ordinance for the recompense of loyalists whose property had been destroyed by rebels. But such legislation as this did not fully meet the requirements of the case. There had been considerable wilful and incidental destruction of property by persons acting in support of authority, and it was felt that the persons aggrieved thereby were entitled to compensation. The Upper Canadian Acts and the Lower Canadian Ordinance failed to provide for compensation in such cases, and supplementary legislation was thought desirable. There was much discussion on the subject, but no further legislative action was taken until the first session after the Union, when an Act was passed

* For minute information as to the various Acts relating to this subject prior to the great measure of 1849, sec “The Questions : Was the Late Rebel-Paying Mensure forced on the Present Ministry by their Predecessors ? and is that Bill a Transcript of the Rebellion Claim Bill for Upper Canada,” etc., etc. ; Montreal, 1849. See also ‘The Question Answered : Did the Ministry intend to pay Rebels?” Montreal, 1849. The pamphlet last-named is understood to have been the joint production of Mr. Hugh E. Montgomerie and Mr.—now the Hon.—Alexander Morris. The former was a clever young Tory journalist of Montreal, and Vice-President of the Shakspeare Club of that city. He was arrested and imprisoned for instigating the mob to riot in connection with the Rebellion Losses Bill, He returned to Great Britain soon afterwards, and now resides there, Mr. Morris was then a law student in the office of the ex-Attorney-General, Mr, Badgley, in Montreal.

144 The Last Forty Years.

by the United Parliament extending the compensation to loss occasioned by violence on the part of persons “acting, or assuming to act” on Her Majesty's behalf, “in the suppression of the said rebellion, or for the prevention of further disturbances.” This statute, however, was restricted in its application to Upper Canada, and the subject, so far as the eastern section of the Province was concerned, was allowed to remain in abeyance until February, 1845, when the Assembly passed an Address to Sir Charles Metcalfe, praying that his Excellency would be pleased to cause proper measures to be adopted “in order to insure to the inhabitants of that part of this Province formerly Lower Canada, indemnity for just losses during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838” The prayer was granted, and Commissioners were appointed to enquire into the losses sustained by “ Her Majesty's loyal subjects, in that part of the Province of Canada which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada, during the late unnatural rebellion, , . and arising and growing out of the said rebellion.” The Commissioners were instructed to distinguish the cases of persons who had joined or aïided the rebellion from those who had not. In attempting to act upon these instructions the Commissioners soon found themselves in difficulties, and applied, through their secretary, for information as to how the distinction was to be made, This was on the 11th of February, 1846. Earl Cathcart had succeeded to the post of Governor-General. It will be remembered that Mr, Draper’s Government were then in power, and that they stood sorely in need of French Canadian support. They fel’ that this subject of rebellion losses was a dangerous one, and they were doubtful as to what was the wisest policy for them to adopt with respect to it, They accordingly temporised. The Provincial Secretary was instructed to reply to the secretary to the Commission to the effect that it was not his Exceilency's intention that the Commissioners “should be guided by any other description of evidence than that furnished by the sentences of the Courts of Law ;” that the

Rebellion Losses. 145

Commissioners had no power to call for either persons or papers ; that they must be satisfied with such general evidence as the claimants might produce ; and that they were intended to obtain merely a general estimate of the rebellion losses, “the particulars of which,” it was added, “ must form the subject of minute enquiry hereafter under legislative authority.”

The report of the Commissioners was rendered on the 18th of April, 1846, while Parliament was in session. It set forth that the want of power on the part of the Commission to proceed to a strict and regular investigation had compelled them to trust to the allegations of the claimants, and that it was from these data alone, and the general inferences to be drawn therefrom, that they had been able to form even an approximate estimate of the sums requisite to cover the amount of damages sustained. A schedule was appended to the report, exhibiting a list of 2,176 persons, claiming sums amounting to £241,965; but an opinion was expressed that £100,000 would be sufficient to meet all mer:torious claims. Sums amounting in the aggregate to £25,503 were actually claimed by persons who had been condemned by court-martial as having been concerned in the insurrection,

Now, the only purpose which the Draper Government could hope to effect by proceeding any farther in the matter of rebellion losses was to gain French Canadian support, It had by this time become doubtful whether such support was to be had by that Government at any price. The temporising policy was therefore persisted in. An Act was passed providing for the payment of the balance due on certain Lower Canadian rebellion claims which had been investigated and recognised before the Union, but the whole amount involved was only £9,986, and the main question was left untouched, As the French Canadians yielded no support to the Government they were not in a position to bring any pressure to bear, and nothing more was done in the way of compensating rebellion losses in the lower

146 The Last Forty Years.

section of the Province until the period at which the narrative has arrived—the session of 1849.

The circumstances had of course undergone a great change. A Reform Government, in which French Canadian influence was very strong, had succeeded to power. French Canadians felt that they had been deprived of their rightful share in the administra. cf affairs ever since the Union, and now that their time l\ad arrived they did not scruple to push their influence to its utmcst length. A clamour had arisen from one end of Lower Canada to the other on the subject of compensation for rebellion losses in that section of the Province, and legislation could no longer be postponed. The Ministry, strong as they were, could not have resisted the pressure brought to bear upon them, even had they been so disposed. Had they displayed any hesitation at dealing with the suliect, Mr. Papineau would have availed himself of such an opportuuity to raise a tumult about their ears. Such a tumult would have been fatal to their influence. But they neither displayed nor felt any such hesitation. It was not only their interest but their bounden duty to redeem the virtual pledge which had been given by the Tory Government to the people of Lower Canada. It was incumbent upon them to take up the work “left half done by their predecessors.” * Early in the session Mr, Lafontaine introduced into the Assembly a series of resolutions on the subject, which, with some slight amendments, were speedily passed. A Bill founded on these resolutions was next introduced. It was intituled “ An Act to provide for the Indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose property was destroyed during the Rebellion in the years 1837 and 1838.” The preamble set forth that “in order to redeem the pledge given to the sufferers of such losses, , , it is necessary and just that the particulars of such losses, not yet paid and satisfed, should form the subject of more minute enquiry under

#* Walrond, p. 73,

Rebellion Losses. 147

legislative authority, and that the same, so far only as they may have arisen from the total or partial, unjust, unnecessary or wanton destruction of dwellings, buildings, property and effects, . . should be paid and satisfied.” It was provided that none of the persons who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion, or who, having been committed to custody, had submitted to Her Majesty’s will, and been transported to Bermuda, should be entitled to any indemnity. Provision was made for the appointment of five Commissioners for carrying out the Act, and a sum of £100,000 was appropriated for payment of claims. Such was the bombshell which Mr. Lafontaine cast upon the floor of the Assembly.

The outery from the Opposition was immediate and furious, They contended that in all previous legislation on the subject the indemnity had been restricted to “ loyal inhabitants,” whereas in the Bill now before the House there was nothing to prevent any rebel from claiming and receiving compensation for his losses, unless he had actually been convicted or banished to Bermuda. It was notorious that not a tithe of those who had been actively engaged in the insurrection had been arrested. What was to prevent any or all of those persons from putting in their claims, and being recompensed for their own treason? A “rebel Government,” it was said, had succeeded to power, to the displacement of loyal subjects, What more natural, it was asked, than that such a Government should put a premium upon treason by seeking to reward rebels ? Argument of this sort told upon the country at large. The excitement was by no means confined to members of Parliament, nor to the city of Montreal, though, owing to the latter being the seat of Government, the outery was louder there than elsewhere. The rage of the Opposition grew from day to day, and by the time the measure came up for a second reading it had become absolutely ferocious,

Nor was their hot anger greatly to be wondered at, More than

148 The Last Forty Years.

thirty-two years have passed since that disturbed period, and surely it is possible at this distance of time to look at the matter dispassionately from both sides. It must at once be conceded that the Rebellion Losses Bill of 1849 was a wise and statesmanlike measure: a measure calculated to dissolve long-standing prejudices, and to heal old wounds which had not yet closed. There had been much wanton and cruel destruction of property during the rebellion, After the lapse of so many years it was not always easy to decide whether the person aggrieved had been an actual rebel or not. Moreover, a full amnesty had just been granted, and it would have been most injudicious to partially nullify that act of clemency by discriminating between claimants, unless where the latter had been regularly convicted by due course of law. To have done so would have been to open the way to many evil consequences, of which perjury and detraction would have been among the greatest, It would have been wiser to leave the question altogether untouched than to have prohibited all but approved loyal subjects from participating in the compensation. All this seems perfectly clear at the present day. But it was hardly to be expected that the Tory loyalists would view the question in that light in 1849, They had been trained to regard the dignity and power of the Crown as of more importance than the liberty of the subject. They admitted no justification for the risings of 1837-38. According to their creed, a man who rebelled against the authority of the Sovereign, no matter under what provocation, was a dangerous criminal whose death or banishment was imperatively required in the public interest, A rebel was only a degree worse than a blasphemer or an infidel. Their own loyalty had been fully attested, and they conceived that it had been very inadequately recompensed. Scarcely had the Union been consummated ere “ rebels” had been admitted to power, and had become the trusty counsellors of royalty’s representative in Canada. After the lapse of a few brief years a still higher premium had been placed

Rebellion Losses. 149

upon rebellion by the advent to power of a Government in which the “rebel ” element was paramount. A rumour had soon afterwards got abroad that the “rebel Ministry” would introduce a measure to recompense the Lower Canadian rebels for the losses sustained by them in consequence of their own rebellion.* The rumour now received verification under their own eyes. Under such circumstances, was it reasonable to expect that they would either sanction the proposed measure or quietly submit to its imposition? No fairminded man will hesitate to answer this question in the negative, and had they restricted their opposition to constitutional means no permanent stigma would have rested upon them. Unfortunately for their fame, they resorted to methods for which no defence can be offered, while they at the same time brought such obloquy upon their party as a whole that it soon ceased to have a coherent existence. The events of April, 1849, sounded the death-knell of Canadian high Toryism.

The debates on the subject were the most exciting in our Parliamentary annals. There was hardly a member of the Assembly but took part in them. It soon became evident that there was at any rate no intention on the part of the advocates of the Bill to exclude rebels from compensation. Some of the speakers, including several members of the Government, went so far as to defend the payment of rebels on the ground that it was inexpedient to enquire who were, or who were not, rebels. The Hon. Malcolm Cameron, Assistant Commissioner of Public Works, expressed a hope that there would be no Star Chamber scrutiny as to whether à man was loyal or not, “The question,” pursued the honourable gentleman, “is not whether

* Had the Draper Government proceeded with their measure while they were in power they would doubtless have experienced precisely the same difficulties as beset the Lafontaine-Baldwin Government in 1849, If they had discriminated between loyal subjects and unconvicted rebels the measure would have been a dead letter in Lower Canada, and the French Canadians would have been furious. If they had not 80 discriminated their Upper Canadian supporters would have opposed them, just as they opposed the Bill in 1849, and for the same reason,

150 The Last Forty Years.

a man is loyal, but whether property has wantonly been destroyed. The people of Upper Canada are satisfied to pay” Mr. Hincks, Inspector-General, spoke to the same effect.* Mr. Baldwin, Attorney-General West, remarked that after an Act of Amnesty it would be disrespectful to Her Majesty, and an outrage on the man seeking compensation, to enquire what part he took at the time of the troubles. Mr. Merritt, President of the Council, said : “ À general amnesty has been proclaimed, and can we draw an odious and invidious distinction at this late day, to create dissatisfaction ? We trust all are now good and loyal subjects. It is our duty to keep them so, and not disturb the harmony which prevails. From the results of my own experience, I feel it would be very difficult to draw delicate distinctions between those called loyal and disloyal.” Mr. Drummond, Solicitor-General East, declared that it was not the business of the House to say who were guilty of high treason, for the Amnesty Act had done away with all that. In technical language, the persons pardoned were in the same position as before. There is no need to multiply illustrations. It soon came to be generally understood that in the consideration of claims, no distinction would be drawn between those of rebels and those of loyal subjects, unless there had been actual conviction or banishment to Bermuda.

The Opposition put forth all their strength. Mr. Sherwood, Sir Allan MacNab, Colonel Prince—who, as might have been expected,

*Mr. Hincks spoke with still less ambiguity in a circular issued by him while the debates were in progress, and subsequently published as an extra to the Montreal Pilot ; as witness the following extracts :—‘‘It may happen that parties were engaged in the rebellion who were never convicted of high treason, and who therefore would not be excluded under the Act. I believe the amount of such claims would he very small in pro. portion to the whole amount ; and it would be very injudicious indeed were the Legislature, for the sake of excluding them, to sanction a false principle, and to allow any set of Commissioners to decide arbitrarily that men were rebels who had never been convicted of high treason, . +. It is not proposed to pay 4 shilling to any individual who la: been convicted of high treason ; but in dealing with the question it is impossible to determine who were and who were not rebels,”—$See Montreal Pilot Extra, 26th February, 1849,

Rebellion Losses. 151

was a veritable “ Thorough ” on this question—Colonel Gugy, and all the leading members brought their utmost eloquence to bear upon the question, and did not scruple to give utterance to the passions which dominated them. Sir Allan went beyond himself in his vehemence, and stigmatized the entire French Canadian people as rebels and aliens. On the ministerial side powerful harangues were made by Messieurs Lafontaine, Baldwin, Hincks, Price, Boulton and others. But the speech par excellence was made by Mr. Blake, Solicitor- General West. How far such an address was wise or prudent under the circumstances may perhaps be open to question. It intensified the fury of the Opposition, and there can be no doubt that it made for the speaker bitter and life-long enemies, But it is probably not going too far to say that no speech ever delivered in à Canadian Parliament produced a more intense impression upon the hearers. In that tumultuous effort the pent-up wrath and indignation of fifteen years found vent. The state of the Province at and immediately before the time of the rebellion, and the manifold mischiefs wrought by Sir Francis Head, were graphically reviewed. The baneful effects of the domination of the Family Compact were depicted in lurid colours, and the system pursued by the oligarchy was denounced in such language as only a man of strong feelings can command. Lord Durham was defended against certain expressions of Sir Allan MacNab; and some of the acts and utterances of the gentleman last-named were ridiculed in such à fashion that the House was several times convulsed with laughter at the gallant knight’s expense. As the telling periods rolled on, the Assembly became spell-bound, and all felt that they were listening to a speech destined to live in our Provincial history. Sir Allan, as mentioned above, had stigmatized the French Canadians as rebels. Mr. Blake now undertook to show that there is such à thing as rebellion against the constitution, as well as rebellion against the Crown, and that the Compact to which Sir Allan

152 The Last Forty Years.

belonged had for years violated the principles of the constitution. “That loyalty,” said the speaker, “which is ever ready to extend and strengthen the prerogative of the Crown by stinting and limiting the liberties of the people, is not loyalty, but slavery. It cannot result in strengthening the connection of this country with England, but must tend to weaken the allegiance of the people of this Province by depriving them of their rights as British subjects.

I am not come here to learn lessons of loyalty from honourable gentlemen opposite. Loyalty to my Queen is the strongest and dearest feeling of my heart, and I trust my arm shall never be wanting when its aid may be required. . . But I confess I have no sympathy with the would-be loyalty of honourable gentlemen opposite, which, while it at all times affects peculiar zeal for the prerogative of the Crown, is ever ready to sacrifice the liberty of the subject. That is not British loyalty ; it is the spurious loyalty which at all periods of the world's history has lashed humanity into rebellion. . , The expression ‘rebel” has been applied by the gallant knight opposite to some gentlemen on this side of the House, but I tell gentlemen on the other side that their public conduct has proved that they are the rebels to their constitution and country.” By this time the Opposition were worked up to an explosive point. Sir Allan, his countenance ablaze, sprang to his feet and burst out with: “If the honourable aember means to apply the word ‘ rebel” to me, I must tell him that he asserts what is false” * He then, through the Speaker, called upon Mr. Blake to retract, which that gentleman peremptorily refused to do. Then ensued a scene of wild confusion. Some occupants of the galleries had been so wrought upon by the speech that they could not restrain themselves, and proceeded to discuss the question on their own account, Several breaches of the peace occurred almost simultaneously, and a cry

* The various reports conflict as to the actual words made use of by Sir Allan. Their purport was as stated in the text,

Rebellion Losses. 153

arose from the body of the House requesting the Speaker to have the galleries cleared. The two Solicitors-General cried out, “ No, no, don’t clear the galleries” Mr. Hincks protested against the House being controlled by a mob, and demanded that the Speaker should forthwith exercise his authority. That official accordingly ordered that the galleries should be cleared, which was done, the ladies hurriedly taking refuge in the body of the House. Several arrests were made ere the galleries were effectually emptied. The House sat with closed doors for about twenty minutes, and then adjourned for the day. A hostile meeting between Sir Allan and Mr. Blake was only prevented by the prompt interference of the Sergeant-at-arms.

It is unnecessary to trace the progress of the measure through Parliament. It passed the third reading in the Assembly on the 9th of March, by a majority of forty-seven to eighteen. In the Legislative Council it passed its third reading on the 15th, by a majority of twenty to fourteen. For some weeks before it thus received the sanction of both Houses, the Opposition had availed themselves of the opportunity of turning the measure to party purposes, and Tory petitions against it had been pouring in from all parts of the country. Most of these were addressed, not to either House of Parliament, or to the Home Government, but to the Governor-General. They were all conceived in the same spirit, and prayed either that the Bill might be reserved for Imperial sanction or that Parliament might be dissolved.

The Governor’s ‘osition was not an enviable one. He clearly understood that tue object of the petitioners in addressing himself personally was to place him in collision with Parliament. As for the Bill itself, he does not seem to have had much sympathy with it. So far as his own feelings were concerned, he regretted that public funds should be diverted from what he regarded as more

useful purposes. He nevertheless fully recognised the necessity for

154 The Last Forty Years.

the introduction of the measure by the existing Government—a necessity imposed upon them by their predecessors.* He carefully read every petition which reached his hands. Perceiving how much was at stake, he determined to do nothing rashly. He postponed his decision until he had pondered the matter in all its bearings. The result of his deliberations was to convince him that his course was clear. To dissolve Parliament would be absurd. The present House of Assembly was only fifteen months old. Its members had been elected by virtue of a writ issued under the auspices of the party now in Opposition. Yet the measure petitioned against had been passed by the Assembly by a majority of more than two to one. There was no shadow of ground for believing that a new election would result in a change of Ministry, or in any material change of public opinion. There were, moreover, serious objections to reserving the Bill, although his Excellency well knew that he would be supported in so doing by public opinion in Great Britain. The measure relating to rebellion losses in Upper Canada had not been reserved, and precedent was therefore against such a course. This consideration alone would probably not have had much weight with s0 clear and independent a thinker as Lord Elgin, but it was a serviceable adjunct to a more weighty and manly reason. “ By reserving the Bill” wrote his Lordship, “I should only throw upon Her Majesty’s Government, or (as it would appear to the popular eye here) on Her Majesty herself, a responsibility which rests, and ought, I . think, to rest, on my own shoulders. If I pass the Bill, whatever mischief ensues may probably be repaired, if the worst comes to the

* “The Tory party,” wrote Lord Elgin, in the middle of March, ‘‘are doing what they can by menace, intimidation and appeals to passion, to drive me to a coup d'état. And yet the very measure which is at this moment the occasion of so loud an outcry is nothing more than a strict logical following out of their own acts. It is difficult to conceive what the address on the subject of rebellion losses in Lower Canada, unanimously voted by the House of Assembly while Lord Metcalfe was Governor and Mr. Draper minister, and the proceedings of the Administration upon that address, could have been meant to lead to, if not to such a measure as the present Government have introduced.”—Walrond, p. 75.

Rebellion Losses. 155

worst, by the sacrifice of me.” * Imperial interests, moreover, were not concerned, and there was no justification for reserving the Bill. To do so would be to emulate Sir Charles Metcalfe’s example, and to trample upon the principles of Responsible Government, An analysis of the votes put the constitutional aspect of the question in a very clear ligat. The number of Upper Canadian members who voted on the third reading was thirty-one, of whom seventeen voted for, and fourteen against it. In Lower Canada the French Canadians, of course, were ali in favour of the Bill. In addition to the French Canadian members from that Province there were ten of British origin, and of these six voted for, and four against it. This was a sort of logic against which it was vain to argue, and Lord

Elgin, after long and careful consideration, determined to assent to the Bill.

* Walrond, p. 78.

FR