Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Various - Страница 22

Table of Contents

But, by a freakish irony of fate, this year of solid government—the most notable since the great session of 1841—is known chiefly as the year of the Rebellion Losses Bill.^[1] The matter is important, not in itself, but in its consequences, and as an illustration of the political conditions of the day. It was natural that there should have been destruction of property during the Rebellion; natural, too, that some attempt at compensation should be made; and according to the varieties of loss, so would the justice of the several claims also vary. The simplest came with the wanton destruction by rebels of loyalist property. But what was to be said where, as at the village of St Benoit, property seized, but guaranteed, by the British commander, was destroyed by volunteers as soon as Colborne left the place. The problem was laid before the imperial government early in 1838. In the same year an ordinance authorized the appointment of commissioners to investigate the claims of certain loyal inhabitants of Lower Canada—a phrase altered, in the month of March 1838, to certain inhabitants. The government in Upper Canada, following suit, sought to compensate its loyal subjects. Even when Russell intimated the unwillingness of the British government to pay any indemnity to the provincial treasury, the provincial governments still persisted. Sydenham found, on his arrival in Lower Canada, that Colborne had already awarded £21,000 to claimants; and in Upper Canada new acts not merely set apart £40,000 from the provincial funds, but recognized that claims might arise through ‘violence on the part of persons in Her Majesty’s service.’

The first chapter of events closed when Sydenham ended the operations of the commission, since provincial credit could not face the strain of paying claims. Up to this point the only criticism which suggests itself is that war and revolt bring their necessary consequences with them, and that it is not easy, in restoration, to keep pace with the earlier work of destruction.

The second stage was reached when Metcalfe, in answer to certain claims from Huntingdon, Lower Canada, suggested a general review of the situation followed by final settlement. This his parliament planned to accomplish in a series of acts, appropriating the duties on tavern licences to the purpose of compensation in Lower Canada, and the proceeds of the Marriage Licence Fund to those in Upper Canada. The commissioners entrusted with the inquiry were first instructed to classify carefully the cases of those who were, and of those who were not, engaged in the Rebellion; and then, in a sentence which became notorious, they were told, ‘It is not His Excellency’s intention that you should be guided by any other description of evidence than that furnished by the sentences of the courts of law.’ In their report the commissioners included 2176 claims, in all amounting to £241,965, 10s. 5d.; but they were of opinion that £100,000 would meet all real losses.

Then came the crisis under Elgin. Metcalfe had, for practical purposes, pledged his successor’s support to the project; and even if he had not, La Fontaine made it plain that refusal to support some measure of compensation would probably break up a ministry which had been the choice of the people and of their representatives. Yet the compensation about to be secured to French Canadians, many of whom had been actively or passively in revolt against England, roused afresh the old loyalty cry, and irritated racial prejudice into vigorous life. The tory ‘die-hards’ in Canada and in Britain, politicians who regarded concessions to the French as a kind of treason, at once became vocal. But, in spite of criticism from the party of British ascendancy in Canada, and from statesmen in Britain, who were ignorant of the actual facts, it is difficult to see how Elgin could have acted otherwise, even had he been opposed to the measure. The majorities, too, in the House of Assembly never fell below twenty, and the measure finally passed by forty-seven votes to eighteen. Nor must it be supposed that the majority was French as opposed to British. As Elgin pointed out, there was a majority for the bill, not merely among the British members for Lower Canada, but even in Upper Canada. In other words, assent was asked to a bill approved, as few other bills had been, by the representative opinion of both French and English. The bill passed in the lower house on March 9; on April 25 the governor-general was insulted as he came from meeting his parliament, the House of Parliament was set on fire, mob law prevailed in Montreal, and on April 30 Elgin was once more insulted and the safety of his person endangered by another mob attack, the mob throughout the incident being reinforced by citizens of better standing. The natural conclusion was reached when, in November, Elgin had to report a change in the seat of government, since Montreal had proved itself unsuitable for the purpose. Apart from the exciting details of the outrage, two aspects of the incident concern the political history of Canada: the behaviour of the governor-general and the revelation made through it of Canadian party spirit.

Of Elgin’s calm wisdom there can now be no doubt. Indeed, it is impossible to trace a single error in his conduct. He judged aright that his predecessor and his ministers left him no option in the matter. His only alternative was to reserve the bill, but, as he pointed out, in words not without their heroic touch: ‘I considered, therefore, that by reserving the Bill, I should only cast on Her Majesty, and Her Majesty’s advisers, a responsibility which ought, in the first instance, at least, to rest on my own shoulders, and that I should awaken in the minds of the people at large, even of those who were indifferent or hostile to the Bill, doubts as to the sincerity with which it was intended that constitutional government should be carried on in Canada.’ Happier than his father-in-law, he found a response in Britain, and although Gladstone in the Commons and Brougham among the Peers led a fierce attack on awarding compensation to ‘persons engaged in, or having aided or abetted the Rebellion,’ their criticism was more than balanced by one of Peel’s stately and judicial utterances, congratulating Elgin on his firmness, resolution and impartiality, and urging that nothing be done to reawaken feuds and racial distinctions. Enemies taunted the governor with his pusillanimous refusal to enter Montreal after the second insult; but only to give him an opportunity to reveal himself at his very best, for he quoted Wellington’s words in 1830: ‘I would have gone if the law had been equal to protect me, but that was not the case,’ and he preferred the misreading of his motives to ‘possible bloodshed and a conflict between races.’ He had faced the crisis, and had come out more than conqueror.

But there is a political interest as well as a personal. It may be questioned whether anything did more, on the one hand, to bring the French populace and the Canadian government into absolutely sound and friendly relations, and, on the other, to discredit tory ultras. In truth 1849 was a fatal year for the latter party. Born into the possession of unjust privilege and petty prejudice, governing in the narrowest spirit of caste feeling, incapable of any larger view of union, in which British and French might seem one, the tories of the older school were at last to reduce themselves to absurdity and nonentity. It had become apparent that they were the party of law and order only when law secured their privileges and order meant acquiescence in their claims; and that their imperialistic sympathies faded and died when they could no longer dictate what the imperial policy should be. The gallant protectors of British ascendancy over French intrigues in 1837 found themselves, in 1849, traitors as militant as any of their quondam opponents. It is significant, too, that when the annexationists made their boldest bid for power, at the end of the year, tory politicians and merchants found themselves hand in glove with radical malcontents in calling for a breach with that empire of which they had once regarded themselves as a forlorn remnant of defenders.

[1]	A measure, according to Elgin, ‘to which an importance so disproportionate has been attached in the recent history of our affairs, only because the British public bestows no attention upon us, except at seasons of agitation.’ Elgin to Grey, October 5, 1852.