Delphi complete works of.., p.479
Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 479
As the question stood at the opening of the LaFontaine-Baldwin administration, it is plain that a grave injustice rested upon many injured persons in Lower Canada as compared with their fellow-citizens of Upper Canada who had received compensation for their losses: granted that there were black sheep among the claimants, this did not affect the validity of the other claims. It was this injustice that LaFontaine, whose constant policy it was to safeguard the rights of his nationality, now determined to rectify. Early in the session he moved, seconded by Robert Baldwin, a series of seven resolutions, reciting the failure of the previous commission and demanding the appointment of a new body with proper powers, and the payment of claims. The resolutions, carried by large majorities (the vote on the first one, for example, was fifty-two to twenty) were followed (February 27th) by the introduction of a bill to bring them into effect. The measure was entitled, “An Act to provide for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose property was destroyed during the rebellion of the years 1837 and 1838.” There was no difficulty, as far as voting power went in carrying the bill through parliament. It was passed by the House of Assembly (March 9th, 1849) by a vote of forty-seven to eighteen, and accepted without amendment by the legislative council by twenty against fourteen votes. The fact that the measure received overwhelming support in a legislature only recently elected, must be carefully noted in considering the constitutional aspect of the question involved.
The Act is 12 Vict. c. 58.
Under the provisions of the Act the governor-general was empowered to appoint five commissioners whose duty it should be “faithfully and without partiality to enquire into and to ascertain the amount of the losses sustained during the rebellion.” The commissioners were given authority to summon witnesses and examine them under oath. For the payment of the claims the governor was empowered to issue debentures, payable out of the consolidated revenue of the province at or within twenty years after the date of issue and bearing interest at six per cent. The maximum amount to be expended on the claims (including the expenses incurred under the Act and the sum of £9,986 issued in debentures under the Act of June 9th, 1846) was not to exceed £100,000; if the claims allowed amounted to a higher total, a proportionate distribution was to be effected. The Act also provided that no claim should be recognized on the part of any persons “who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion, or who, having been taken into custody, had submitted to Her Majesty’s will and been transported to Bermuda.”
9 Vict. c. 65.
The introduction and explanation of the bill before parliament naturally fell to the task of LaFontaine, who made a number of speeches in its support, traversing the whole question of indemnity from 1837 onwards and affording an admirable history of the measure. Baldwin took but little part in the debates on the Rebellion Losses Bill. It has often been said that this was from lack of sympathy with the measure, and insinuations of this kind were made in the House of Assembly. But a speech made by Baldwin during the debate on the introduction of the preliminary resolutions (February 27th, 1849) emphatically affirms his concurrence in LaFontaine’s proposed measure. He had been accused, he said, of wilfully abstaining from speaking on the measure, but this was an error, for he had merely refrained from speaking because there was no necessity to do so. The whole matter had been set in such a clear light by his friends that it would be impossible to elucidate it still further. In the brief speech which followed, Baldwin went on to show that the measure contemplated by the resolutions would merely do for Lower Canada what had already been done for the upper part of the province. If the resolutions failed to indicate how to avoid indemnifying any who had taken up arms, so too had the Act of 1841.
3 Vict. c. 76.
The passage of the bill was, of course, an easy matter as far as obtaining a majority went. But nothing could exceed the furious opposition excited both within and without the parliament by the introduction of the bill. The old battle of the rebellion was fought over again. With Papineau back in the assembly, Mackenzie now revisiting the country under the Amnesty Act, the legislature in session at Montreal and a French-Canadian at the head of the administration, it seemed to the excited Tories as if the days of 1837 had come back, and that they must rally again to fight the cause of British loyalty against the encroachments of an alien race. The bill for payment of the losses seemed like the crowning triumph of their foes, and the cry, “No pay for rebels,” resounded throughout the province. Many Canadian writers, as for example, the late Sir John Bourinot in his Lord Elgin, have seen in the opposition of the Tories nothing more than a party contest, the familiar game in which a likely issue is seized upon in the hope of a sudden overthrow of the government. “The issue,” he says, “was not one of public principle or of devotion to the Crown, it was simply a question of obtaining a party victory per fas aut nefas.”
Lord Elgin (Makers of Canada Series), .
The issue was not, indeed, in the real truth of the matter, a question of devotion to the Crown and the retention of the British connection. But the Tories, many of them, in all honesty saw it so. One has but to read the newspapers of the day to realize that something more than a mere party question was at issue. It was a contest in which right and justice were fighting hand to hand against a blind but honest fanaticism to whose distorted vision the Rebellion Losses Bill undid the work of the Loyalists of 1837. The rabble of the Montreal streets that burned the houses of parliament were doubtless inspired by no higher motive than the fierce lust of destruction that animates an inflamed and unprincipled mob. But the opposition of Sir Allan MacNab and the reputable leaders of Conservatism was based on a genuine conviction that the safety of the country was at stake. In the blindness of their rage the Tories lost from sight entirely that they themselves had sanctioned the payment of compensation for losses in Upper Canada, that the Draper government had itself originated the present movement, and that the bill expressly stipulated that nothing should be paid to “rebels” in the true sense of the term. The reasoned logic of LaFontaine’s presentation of the bill fell upon ears which the passion of the hour made deaf to argument: the fiery invective of Solicitor-general Blake, who answered the Tory accusation of disloyalty with a counter-accusation of the same character, only maddened them to fury. In the debate on the second reading of the bill the parliament became a scene of wild confusion. MacNab had called the French-Canadians “aliens and rebels.” Blake in return taunted him with the disloyalty that prompts a meaningless and destructive opposition.
“I am not come here,” said Blake, “to learn lessons of loyalty from honourable gentlemen opposite.... 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. This 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.” For a man of MacNab’s fighting temper, this was too much. “If the honourable member means to apply the word ‘rebel’ to me,” he shouted, “I must tell him that it is nothing else than a lie.” In a moment the House was in an uproar: Blake and MacNab were only prevented from coming to blows by the intervention of the sergeant-at-arms, while a storm of shouts and hisses from the crowded galleries added to the confusion of the House. Blake and MacNab were taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms, several of the wilder spirits of the galleries were arrested, and the debate ended for the day.
An excellent account of the debate is given by Dent, Canada Since the Union, Vol. II. p et seq.
Of the various arguments advanced against the bill in the Canadian parliament and elsewhere, two only are worth considering. It was said in the first place that under the terms of the bill a certain number of persons who, in heart if not in act, had been rebels would receive compensation. This was undoubtedly true, but was also unavoidable. Unless one were to have given to the commissioners inquisitorial and discretionary powers, unless, that is to say, they had been allowed to declare any one in retrospect a rebel simply on their general opinion of his conduct, — a remedy that would have been worse than the evil it strove to cure, — it is undoubtedly true that many of the disaffected inhabitants of the Lower Canada of 1837 could claim compensation. But it must be borne in mind that they could not claim compensation for being disaffected, but simply for having lost their property. The Act did the best that could be done. It accepted the only legal definition of “rebel” that was possible; namely, persons previously convicted as such. These it excluded. To all others who could prove damages compensation was to be given.
The other objection was perhaps more serious. It was urged against the bill that the Upper Canadian losses had been paid out of a special fund raised in Upper Canada; namely, the proceeds of the tavern licenses paid in that part of the province. The bill of 1849 proposed to pay the Lower Canadian losses out of the general fund of (united) Canada. By this method, it was argued, the people of Upper Canada were called upon to pay all of their own damages and a share of those of their neighbours. The answer made by the administration to this argument may be found in the speeches delivered by LaFontaine in March, 1849, and in a circular drawn up in Montreal, presumably by Hincks, in defence of the government, and subsequently printed in the London Times. It ran as follows: —
March 23rd, 1849.
The proceeds of tavern licenses, in both provinces, had previously formed part of the general fund. When Mr. Draper’s Act of 1845 was passed, these proceeds were removed from the general fund and alienated to special uses in each section of the province. In Lower Canada they were given to the municipalities: in Upper Canada they were applied to the payment of the rebellion losses. Now in Upper Canada the sums in question were considerably greater than in Lower Canada: the license taxes in the one case amounted (taking an average of the last four years) to £9,664; in the other case to only £5,557. Hence, argued LaFontaine, the effect of the proceeding was to give to Upper Canada an overplus of £4,107 a year, which was equivalent to a capital sum of £68,454. The same kind of segregation had also (in 1846) been made of the marriage license proceeds, in which case the surplus accruing amounted to £1,785 and represented a capital of £29,764. Putting the two together it appears, according to LaFontaine’s view of it, that Upper Canada thus received the equivalent of a capital sum of £98,000. Since the present bill only asked for £90,000 (the other £10,000 of the £100,000 representing claims already certified), Lower Canada was only asking what was well within its rights. This argument of LaFontaine may, or may not, appear convincing. Since the Upper Canadian license tax was paid by the people of Upper Canada, it is hard to see that the surplus of its proceeds over the tax in Lower Canada had anything to do with the case. It must be remembered also that the Lower Canadian tax was used in Lower Canada. But the argument is part of the history of the time and is here given for what it is worth.
Intense excitement prevailed throughout Canada during the parliamentary discussion of the bill. Public meetings of protest were held by the Tories throughout the country. Petitions poured in against the measure, many of them directed to Lord Elgin himself, in order, if possible, to force him from his ground of constitutional neutrality. Resolutions were drawn up at a meeting in Toronto praying the queen to disallow the bill if it should pass. In many places the excitement thus occasioned led to violent demonstrations, in some cases, as at Belleville, to open riots. The inflamed state of public feeling at this period and the exasperation of the Tories are evidenced by the disturbances which occurred at Toronto on the reappearance of William Lyon Mackenzie. On this occasion Baldwin, Blake and the ex-leader of the rebels were burned in effigy in the streets of the town. The following is the exultant account given of the burning by the Toronto Patriot, the most thorough-going organ of Toryism.
“On Thursday evening [March 22nd, 1849], the inhabitants of Toronto witnessed a very uncommon spectacle — more uncommon than surprising at this time. The attorney-general, the proud solicitor-general and the hero of Gallows Hill were associated in one common fate, amid the cheers and exultations of the largest concourse of people beheld in Toronto since the election of Dunn and Buchanan. The three dolls, — would that their originals had been as harmless! — were elevated on long poles and paraded round the town, visiting the residences of the three noble individuals, and subsequently two of them were burned near Mr. Baldwin’s residence and the third opposite Mr. McIntosh’s, in Yonge Street, the house in which the humane and gallant Mackenzie had taken up his abode. It would be impossible to describe the expressions of indignation and disgust on the part of the people towards the triumvirate.”
The scene was concluded by smashing in the front windows of the McIntosh house with a volley of stones. The partisan press spared no efforts to arouse a desperate opposition to the bill. “Men of Canada of British origin,” pleaded the Church, a forceful publication devoted to Anglican Toryism and the doctrines of Dr. Strachan, “no sleep to the eyes, no slumber to the eyelids, until you have avenged this most atrocious, this most unparalleled insult!” In the same month the New York Herald declared that the “fate of Canada was near at hand.” “This may be the commencement,” it said, “of a struggle which will end in the consummation so devoutly wished by the majority of the people, — a complete and perfect separation of those provinces from the rule of England.”
March 29th, 1849.
In the mother country, both in and out of parliament, loud protests were raised against the measure. The London Times interpreted it as the selfish machination of a rebel faction. “As things have been turned upside down since 1838,” said a Times editorial on the Canadian situation, “and what was then the rebel camp is now the government of Canada, it is obvious that no measure of compensation is likely to pass which does not include some of the offending gentlemen themselves in the bill of damages made out. The alternative is either no compensation to anybody, or to all alike. This must be very annoying to the Royalists (sic), who marched to and fro, and who incurred expense, wounds, and loss of health by their prompt succour of the state. . . . If we would judge of the feelings excited in the breast of such ardent Royalists as Sir Allan MacNab, we must suppose a parliament of Chartists and Repealers, not only dividing among themselves all the offices of the State, but also compensating one another for their past sufferings with magnificent grants from the treasury.” It is to be noted that the usual Tory designation of their party as Loyalists is not strong enough for the Times in this issue, which implies a still more chivalrous degree of devotion to the throne by using the term Royalists. The same article speaks of the “loyal population of Canada being considerably excited,” talks of their settled “impression that rebellion has been rewarded and loyalty insulted by the British Crown,” and describes Canada as a “colony that hangs by a thread.”
London Times, March 21st, 1849.
The crowning event in the agitation against the Act of Indemnification was the riot at Montreal, which broke out on the news that Lord Elgin had given his assent to the bill. This was on April 25th, 1849. Lord Elgin’s consent to the measure was, of course, the result of due deliberation, but the immediate circumstances of giving assent were of a somewhat hurried character. Among other bills awaiting his sanction was the new tariff bill. Navigation was just opening at Montreal and the sudden news that an incoming vessel was sighted in the river induced Lord Elgin, at the request of the ministry, to proceed in haste to the houses of parliament. It seemed to Lord Elgin that he might as well take advantage of the occasion to assent to the other bills that were also waiting his approval. The news that the bill had become law spread rapidly through the town, and the haste of Lord Elgin’s proceedings gave an entirely false colour to what had happened. As the governor-general left the houses of parliament “after the consummation of his nefarious act,” (to use the words of a Tory journalist), he was greeted with the “groans and curses” of a crowd that had assembled about the building. As he drove through the city on his way to his official residence of “Monklands,” the groans and curses were accompanied with a shower of random missiles. Stones crashed against the sides of the governor’s carriage and rotten eggs bespattered it with filth, but no serious harm was done to its occupants. As the evening drew on the excitement throughout the city increased apace. The fire bells of the town were rung to call the people into the streets, and a printed announcement was passed through the crowd that a mass meeting would be held at eight o’clock in the Champ de Mars.
Hincks went out to “Monklands” to request the governor-general to assent at once to the tariff bill. Reminiscences, .
Montreal Courier.
All this time the House was in session. MacNab warned the ministry that a riot was brewing, but the government were reluctant to make a precipitate call for military help. At eight o’clock the wide expanse of the Champ de Mars was filled with a surging and excited mob, howling with applause as it listened to speeches in denunciation of the tyranny that had been perpetrated. Presently from among the crowd the cry arose, “To the parliament house,” and the rioters, ready for any violence, hurried through the narrow streets of the lower town to the legislative building. On their way they wrecked the offices of the Pilot with a shower of stones. A few minutes later a similar volley burst in the windows of the house of parliament. The members fled from the hall in confusion, while the rioters invaded the building and filled the hall of the assembly itself. The furniture, chandeliers and fittings of the hall were smashed to pieces in the wild rage of destruction. A member of the crowd took his seat in the speaker’s chair and shouted, “I dissolve this House.”
