Lord Elgin - Sir John George Bourinot (distant reading .txt) 📗

the government meant nothing else than the giving of a reward to the very persons who had been the cause of the shedding of blood and the destruction of property throughout the country. Sir Allan MacNab went so far in a moment of passion as to insult the French Canadian people by calling them "aliens and rebels." The solicitor-general, Mr. Hume Blake,[10] who was Irish by birth, and possessed a great power of invective, inveighed in severe terms against "the family compact" as responsible for the rebellion, and declared that the stigma of "rebels" applied with complete force to the men who were then endeavouring to prevent the passage of a bill which was a simple act of justice to a large body of loyal people. Sir Allan MacNab instantly became furious and said that if Mr. Blake called him a rebel it was simply a lie.

Then followed a scene of tumult, in which the authority of the chair was disregarded, members indulged in the most disorderly cries, and the people in the galleries added to the excitement on the floor by their hisses and shouts. The galleries were cleared with the greatest difficulty, and a hostile encounter between Sir Allan and Mr. Blake was only prevented by the intervention of the sergeant-at-arms, who took them into custody by order of the House until they gave assurances that they would proceed no further in the unseemly dispute. When the debate was resumed on the following day, LaFontaine brought it again to the proper level of argument and reason, and showed that both parties were equally pledged to a measure based on considerations of justice, and declared positively that the government would take every possible care in its instructions to the commissioner; that no rebel should receive any portion of the indemnity, which was intended only as a compensation to those who had just claims upon the country for the losses that they actually sustained in the course of the unfortunate rebellion. At this time the Conservative and ultra-loyal press was making frantic appeals to party passions and racial prejudices, and calling upon the governor-general to intervene and prevent the passage of a measure which, in the opinion of loyal Canadians, was an insult to the Crown and its adherents. Public meetings were also held and efforts made to arouse a violent feeling against the bill. The governor-general understood his duty too well as the head of the executive to interfere with the bill while passing through the two Houses, and paid no heed to these passionate appeals dictated by partisan rancour, while the ministry pressed the question to the test of a division as soon as possible. The resolutions and the several readings of the bill passed both Houses by large majorities. The bill was carried in the assembly on March 9th by forty-seven votes against eighteen, and in the legislative council on the 15th, by fifteen against fourteen. By an analysis of the division in the popular chamber, it will be seen that out of thirty-one members from Upper Canada seventeen supported and fourteen opposed the bill, while out of ten Lower Canadian members of British descent there were six who voted yea and four nay. The representatives of French Canada as a matter of course were arrayed as one in favour of an act of justice to their compatriots. During the passage of the bill its opponents deluged the governor-general with petitions asking him either to dissolve the legislature or to reserve the bill for the consideration of the imperial government. Such appeals had no effect whatever upon Lord Elgin, who was determined to adhere to the well understood rules of parliamentary government in all cases of political controversy.

When the bill had passed all its stages in the two Houses by large majorities of both French and English Canadians, the governor-general came to the legislative council and gave the royal assent to the measure, which was entitled "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." No other constitutional course could have been followed by him under all the circumstances. In his letters to the colonial secretary he did not hesitate to express his regret "that this agitation should have been stirred, and that any portion of the funds of the province should be diverted now from much more useful purposes to make good losses sustained by individuals in the rebellion," but he believed that "a great deal of property was cruelly and wantonly destroyed" in Lower Canada, and that "this government, after what their predecessors had done, and with Papineau in the rear, could not have helped taking up this question." He saw clearly that it was impossible to dissolve a parliament just elected by the people, and in which the government had a large majority. "If I had dissolved parliament," to quote his own words, "I might have produced a rebellion, but assuredly I should not have procured a change of ministry. The leaders of the party know that as well as I do, and were it possible to play tricks in such grave concerns, it would have been easy to throw them into utter confusion by merely calling upon them to form a government. They were aware, however, that I could not for the sake of discomfiting them hazard so desperate a policy; so they have played out their game of faction and violence without fear of consequences."

His reasons for not reserving the bill for the consideration of the British government must be regarded as equally cogent by every student of our system of government, especially by those persons who believe in home rule in all matters involving purely Canadian interests. In the first place, the bill for the relief of a corresponding class of persons in Upper Canada, "which was couched in terms very nearly similar, was not reserved," and it was "difficult to discover a sufficient reason, so far as the representative of the Crown was concerned, for dealing with the one measure differently from the other." And in the second place, "by reserving the bill he should only throw upon Her Majesty's government or (as it would appear to the popular eye in Canada) on Her Majesty herself, a responsibility which rests and ought to rest" upon the governor-general of Canada. If he passed the bill, "whatever mischief ensues may probably be repaired," if the worst came to the worst, "by the sacrifice" of himself. If the case were referred to England, on the other hand, it was not impossible that Her Majesty might "only have before her the alternative of provoking a rebellion in Lower Canada, by refusing her assent to a measure chiefly affecting the interests of the _habitants_ and thus throwing the whole population into Papineau's hands, or of wounding the susceptibilities of some of the best subjects she has in the province."

A Canadian writer at the present time can refer only with a feeling of indignation and humiliation to the scenes of tumult, rioting and incendiarism, which followed the royal assent to the bill of indemnity. When Lord Elgin left Parliament House--formerly the Ste. Anne market--a large crowd insulted him with opprobrious epithets. In his own words he was "received with ironical cheers and hootings, and a small knot of individuals, consisting, it has since been ascertained, of persons of a respectable class in society, pelted the carriage with missiles which must have been brought for that purpose." A meeting was held in the open air, and after several speeches of a very inflammatory character had been made, the mob rushed to the parliament building, which was soon in flames. By this disgraceful act of incendiarism most valuable collections of books and documents were destroyed, which, in some cases, could not be replaced. Supporters of the bill were everywhere insulted and maltreated while the excitement was at its height. LaFontaine's residence was attacked and injured. His valuable library of books and manuscripts, some of them very rare, was destroyed by fire--a deplorable incident which recalls the burning and mutilation of the rich historical collections of Hutchinson, the last loyalist governor of Massachusetts, at the commencement of the American revolution in Boston.

A few days later Lord Elgin's life was in actual danger at the hands of the unruly mob, as he was proceeding to Government House--then the old Château de Ramezay on Notre Dame Street--to receive an address from the assembly. On his return to Monklands he was obliged to take a circuitous route to evade the same mob who were waiting with the object of further insulting him and otherwise giving vent to their feelings.

The government appears to have been quite unconscious that the public excitement was likely to assume so dangerous a phase, and had accordingly taken none of those precautions which might have prevented the destruction of the parliament house and its valuable contents. Indeed it would seem that the leaders of the movement against the bill had themselves no idea that the political storm which they had raised by their inflammatory harangues would become a whirlwind so entirely beyond their control. Their main object was to bring about a ministerial crisis. Sir Allan MacNab, the leader of the opposition, himself declared that he was amazed at the dangerous form which the public indignation had at last assumed. He had always been a devoted subject of the sovereign, and it is only just to say that he could under no circumstances become a rebel, but he had been carried away by his feelings and had made rash observations more than once under the belief that the bill would reward the same class of men whom he and other loyalists had fought against in Upper Canada. Whatever he felt in his heart, he and his followers must always be held as much responsible for the disturbances of 1849 as were Mackenzie and Papineau for those of 1837. Indeed there was this difference between them: the former were reckless, but at least they had, in the opinion of many persons, certain political grievances to redress, while the latter were simply opposing the settlement of a question which they were bound to consider fairly and impartially, if they had any respect for former pledges. Papineau, Mackenzie and Nelson may well have found a measure of justification for their past madness when they found the friends of the old "family compact" and the extreme loyalists of 1837 and 1838 incited to insult the sovereign in the person of her representative, to create racial passion and to excite an agitation which might at any moment develop into a movement most fatal to Canada and her connection with England.

Happily for the peace of the country, Lord Elgin and his councillors showed a forbearance and a patience which could hardly have been expected from them during the very serious crisis in which they lived for some weeks. "I am prepared," said Lord Elgin at the very moment his life was in danger, "to bear any amount of obloquy that may be cast upon me, but, if I can possibly prevent it, no stain of blood shall rest upon my name." When he remained quiet at Monklands and decided not to give his enemies further opportunities for outbursts of passion by paying visits to the city, even if protected by a military force, he was taunted by the papers of the opposition with cowardice for pursuing a course which, we can all now clearly see, was in the interests of peace and order. When at a later time LaFontaine's house was again attacked after the arrest of certain persons implicated in the destruction of the parliament house, and one of the assailants was killed by a shot fired from inside, he positively refused to consent to martial law or any measures of increased rigour