THE INDEMNIFICATION ACT
The legislature opened on January 18th, 1849, when Lord Elgin had the
gratification of informing French Canadians that the restrictions
imposed by the Union Act on the use of their language in the public
records had been removed by a statute of the imperial parliament. For
the first time in Canadian history the governor-general read the
speech in the two languages; for in the past it had been the practice
of the president of the legislative council to give it in French after
it had been read in English from the throne. The session was memorable
in political annals for the number of useful measures that were
adopted. In later pages of this book I shall give a short review of
these and other measures which show the importance of the legislation
passed by the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry. For the present I shall
confine myself to the consideration of a question which created an
extraordinary amount of public excitement, culminated in the
destruction of valuable public property, and even threatened the life
of the governor-general, who during one of the most trying crises in
Canadian history, displayed a coolness and patience, an indifference
to all personal considerations, a political sagacity and a strict
adherence to sound methods of constitutional government, which entitle
him to the gratitude of Canadians, who might have seen their country
torn asunder by internecine strife, had there been then a weak and
passionate man at the head of the executive. As it will be seen later,
he, like the younger Pitt in England, was "the pilot who weathered the
storm." In Canada, the storm, in which the elements of racial
antagonism, of political rivalry and disappointment, of spoiled
fortunes and commercial ruin raged tumultuously for a while,
threatened not only to drive Canada back for years in its political
and material development, but even to disturb the relations between
the dependency and the imperial state.
The legislation which gave rise to this serious convulsion in the
country was, in a measure, an aftermath of the rebellious risings of
1837 and 1838 in Upper and Lower Canada. Many political grievances had
been redressed since the union, and the French Canadians had begun to
feel that their interests were completely safe under a system of
government which gave them an influential position in the public
councils. The restoration of their language to its proper place in a
country composed of two nationalities standing on a sure footing of
equal political and civil rights, was a great consolation to the
French people of the east. The pardon extended to the rash men who
were directly concerned in the events of 1837 and 1838, was also well
calculated to heal the wounds inflicted on the province during that
troublous period. It needed only the passage of another measure to
conceal the scars of those unhappy days, and to bury the past in that
oblivion in which all Canadians anxious for the unity and harmony of
the two races, and the satisfactory operation of political
institutions, were sincerely desirous of hiding it forever. This
measure was pecuniary compensation from the state for certain losses
incurred by people in French Canada in consequence of the wanton
destruction of property during the revolt. The obligation of the state
to give such compensation had been fully recognized before and after
the union.
The special council of Lower Canada and the legislature of Upper
Canada had authorized the payment of an indemnity to those loyal
inhabitants in their respective provinces who had sustained losses
during the insurrections. It was not possible, however, before the
union, to make payments out of the public treasury in accordance with
the ordinance of the special council of Lower Canada and the statute
of the legislature of Upper Canada. In the case of both provinces
these measures were enacted to satisfy the demands that were made for
compensation by a large number of people who claimed to have suffered
losses at the outbreak of the rebellions, or during the raids from the
United States which followed these risings and which kept the country
in a state of ferment for months. The legislature of the united
provinces passed an act during its first session to extend
compensation to losses occasioned in Upper Canada by violence on the
part of persons "acting or assuming to act" on Her Majesty's behalf
"for the suppression of the said rebellion or for the prevention of
further disturbances." Funds were also voted out of the public
revenues for the payment of indemnities to those who had met with the
losses set forth in this legislation affecting Upper Canada. It was,
on the whole, a fair settlement of just claims in the western
province. The French Canadians in the legislature supported the
measure, and urged with obvious reason that the same consideration
should be shown to the same class of persons in Lower Canada. It was
not, however, until the session of 1845, when the Draper-Viger
ministry was in office, that an address was passed to the
governor-general, Lord Metcalfe, praying him to take such steps as
were necessary "to insure to the inhabitants of that portion of this
province, formerly Lower Canada, an indemnity for just losses suffered
during the rebellions of 1837 and 1838." The immediate result was the
appointment of commissioners to make inquiry into the losses sustained
by "Her Majesty's loyal subjects" in Lower Canada "during the late
unfortunate rebellion." The commissioners found some difficulty in
acting upon their instructions, which called upon them to distinguish
the cases of those "who had joined, aided or abetted the said
rebellion, from the cases of those who had not done so," and they
accordingly applied for definite advice from Lord Cathcart, whose
advisers were still the Draper-Viger ministry. The commissioners were
officially informed that "it was his Excellency's intention that they
should be guided by no other description of evidence than that
furnished by the sentences of the courts of law." They were further
informed that it was only intended that they should form a general
estimate of the rebellion losses, "the particulars of which must form
the subject of more minute inquiry hereafter, under legislative
authority."
During the session of 1846 the commissioners made a report which gave
a list of 2,176 persons who made claims amounting in the aggregate to
£241,965. At the same time the commissioners expressed the opinion
that £100,000 would be adequate to satisfy all just demands, and
directed attention to the fact that upwards of £25,503 were actually
claimed by persons who had been condemned by a court-martial for their
participation in the rebellion. The report also set forth that the
inquiry conducted by the commissioners had been necessarily imperfect
in the absence of legal power to make a minute investigation, and that
they had been compelled largely to trust to the allegations of the
claimants who had laid their cases before them, and that it was only
from data collected in this way that they had been able to come to
conclusions as to the amount of losses.
When the Draper-Viger ministry first showed a readiness to take up the
claims of Lower Canada for the same compensation that had been granted
to Upper Canada, they had been doubtless influenced, not solely by the
conviction that they were called upon to perform an act of justice,
but mainly by a desire to strengthen themselves in the French
province. We have already read that their efforts in this direction
entirely failed, and that they never obtained in that section any
support from the recognized leaders of public opinion, but were
obliged to depend upon Denis B. Papineau and Viger to keep up a
pretence of French Canadian representation in the cabinet. It is,
then, easy to believe that, when the report of the commissioners came
before them, they were not very enthusiastic on the subject, or
prepared to adopt vigorous measures to settle the question on some
equitable basis, and remove it entirely from the field of political
and national conflict.
They did nothing more than make provision for the payment of £9,986,
which represented claims fully investigated and recognized as
justifiable before the union, and left the general question of
indemnity for future consideration. Indeed, it is doubtful if the
Conservative ministry of that day, the mere creation of Lord Metcalfe,
kept in power by a combination of Tories and other factions in Upper
Canada, could have satisfactorily dealt with a question which required
the interposition of a government having the confidence of both
sections of the province. One thing is quite certain. This ministry,
weak as it was, Tory and ultra-loyalist as it claimed to be, had
recognized by the appointment of a commission, the justice of giving
compensation to French Canada on the principles which had governed the
settlement of claims from Upper Canada. Had the party which supported
that ministry been influenced by any regard for consistency or
principle, it was bound in 1849 to give full consideration to the
question, and treat it entirely on its merits with the view of
preventing its being made a political issue and a means of arousing
racial and sectional animosities. As we shall now see, however, party
passion, political demagogism, and racial hatred prevailed above all
high considerations of the public peace and welfare, when parliament
was asked by the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry to deal seriously and
practically with the question of indemnity to Lower Canada.
The session was not far advanced when LaFontaine brought forward a
series of resolutions, on which were subsequently based a bill, which
set forth in the preamble 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 satisfied, should form
the subject of more minute inquiry under legislative authority (see p.
65 _ante_) 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." The act provided that no indemnity should be paid to
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." Five commissioners were to be
appointed to carry out the provisions of the act, which also provided
£400,000 for the payment of legal claims.
Then all the forces hostile to the government gathered their full
strength for an onslaught on a measure which such Tories as Sir Allan
MacNab and Henry Sherwood believed gave them an excellent opportunity
of arousing a strong public sentiment which might awe the
governor-general and bring about a ministerial crisis. The issue 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_. The
debate on the second reading of the bill was full of bitterness,
intensified even to virulence. Mr. Sherwood declared that the proposal
of 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 until a further
appeal had been made to the mayor and corporation of the city. The
issue proved that he was clearly right in his opinion of the measures
that should be taken to restore order at this time. The law-abiding
citizens of Montreal at once responded to a proclamation of the mayor
to assist him in the maintenance of peace, and the coroner's jury--one
member being an Orangeman who had taken part in the funeral of the
deceased--brought in a unanimous verdict, acquitting LaFontaine of all
blame for the unfortunate incident that had occurred during the
unlawful attack on his residence.
The Montreal disturbances soon evoked the indignation of the truly
loyal inhabitants of the province. Addresses came to the
governor-general from all parts to show him that the riots were
largely due to local causes, "especially to commercial distress acting
on religious bigotry and national hatred." He had also the
gratification of learning that his constitutional action was fully
justified by the imperial government, as well as supported in
parliament where it was fully discussed. When he offered to resign his
office, he was assured by Lord Grey that "his relinquishment of that
office, which, under any circumstances, would be a most serious blow
to Her Majesty's service and to the province, could not fail, in the
present state of affairs, to be most injurious to the public welfare,
from the encouragement which it would give to those who have been
concerned in the violent and illegal opposition which has been offered
to your government." In parliament, Mr. Gladstone, who seems never to
have been well-informed on the subject, went so far as to characterize
the Rebellion Losses Bill as a measure for rewarding rebels, but both
Lord John Russell, then leader of the government, and his great
opponent, Sir Robert Peel, gave their unqualified support to the
measure. The result was that an amendment proposed by Mr. Herries in
favour of the disallowance of the act was defeated by a majority of
141.
This action of the imperial authorities had the effect of
strengthening the public sentiment in Canada in support of Lord Elgin
and his advisers. The government set to work vigorously to carry out
the provisions of the law, appointing the same commissioners as had
acted under the previous ministry, and was able in a very short time
to settle definitely this very disturbing question. It was deemed
inexpedient, however, to keep the seat of government at Montreal.
After a very full and anxious consideration of the question, it was
decided to act on the recommendation of the legislature that it should
thereafter meet alternately at Toronto and Quebec, and that the next
session should be held at Toronto in accordance with this arrangement
This "perambulating system" was tried for several years, but it proved
so inconvenient and expensive that the legislature in 1858 passed an
address to Her Majesty praying her to choose a permanent capital. The
place selected was the city of Ottawa, on account of its situation on
the frontier of the two provinces, the almost equal division of its
population into French and English, its remoteness from the American
borders, and consequently its comparative security in time of war.
Some years later it became the capital of the Dominion of Canada--the
confederation of provinces and territories extending across the
continent.
In the autumn of 1849 Lord Elgin made a tour of the western part of
the province of Upper Canada for the purpose of obtaining some
expression of opinion from the people in the very section where the
British feeling was the strongest. On this occasion he was attended
only by an aide-de-camp and a servant, as an answer to those who were
constantly assailing him for want of courage. Here and there, as he
proceeded west, after leaving French Canada, he was insulted by a few
Orangemen, notably by Mr. Ogle R. Gowan, who appeared on the wharf at
Brockville with a black flag, but apart from such feeble exhibitions
of political spite he met with a reception, especially west of
Toronto, which proved beyond cavil that the heart and reason of the
country, as a whole, were undoubtedly in his favour, and that nowhere
was there any actual sympathy with the unhappy disturbances in
Montreal. He had also the gratification soon after his return from
this pleasant tour to receive from the British government an official
notification that he had been raised to the British peerage under the
title of Baron Elgin of Elgin in recognition of his distinguished
services to the Crown and empire in America.
But it was a long time before Lord Elgin was forgiven by a small
clique of politicians for the part he had taken in troubles which
ended in their signal discomfiture. The political situation continued
for a while to be aggravated by the serious commercial embarrassment
which existed throughout the country, and led to the circulation of a
manifesto, signed by leading merchants and citizens of Montreal,
urging as remedies for the prevalent depression a revival of colonial
protection by England, reciprocal free trade with the United States, a
federal union or republic of British North America, and even
annexation to the neighbouring states as a last resort. This document
did not suggest rebellion or a forceable separation from England. It
even professed affection for the home land; but it encouraged the idea
that the British government would doubtless yield to any colonial
pressure in this direction when it was convinced that the step was
beyond peradventure in the interest of the dependency. The manifesto
represented only a temporary phase of sentiment and is explained by
the fact that some men were dissatisfied with the existing condition
of things and ready for any change whatever. The movement found no
active or general response among the great mass of thinking people;
and it was impossible for the Radicals of Lower Canada to persuade
their compatriots that their special institutions, so dear to their
hearts, could be safely entrusted to their American republican
neighbours. All the men who, in the thoughtlessness of youth or in a
moment of great excitement, signed the manifesto--notably the Molsons,
the Redpaths, Luther H. Holton, John Rose, David Lewis MacPherson,
A.A. Dorion, E. Goff Penny--became prominent in the later public and
commercial life of British North America, as ministers of the Crown,
judges, senators, millionaires, and all devoted subjects of the
British sovereign.
When Lord Elgin found that the manifesto contained the signatures of
several persons holding office by commission from the Queen, he made
an immediate inquiry into the matter, and gave expression to the
displeasure of the Crown by removing from office those who confessed
that they had signed the objectionable document, or declined to give
any answer to the queries he had addressed to them. His action on this
occasion was fully justified by the imperial government, which
instructed him "to resist to the utmost any attempt that might be made
to bring about a separation of Canada from the British dominions." But
while Lord Elgin, as the representative of the Queen, was compelled by
a stern sense of duty to condemn such acts of infidelity to the
empire, he did not conceal from himself that there was a great deal in
the economic conditions of the provinces which demanded an immediate
remedy before all reason for discontent could disappear. He did not
fail to point out to Lord Grey that it was necessary to remove the
causes of the public irritation and uneasiness by the adoption of
measures calculated to give a stimulus to Canadian industry and
commerce. "Let me then assure your Lordship," he wrote in November
1849, "and I speak advisedly in offering this assurance, that the
dissatisfaction now existing in Canada, whatever may be the forms with
which it may clothe itself, is due mainly to commercial causes. I do
not say that there is no discontent on political grounds. Powerful
individuals and even classes of men are, I am well aware, dissatisfied
with the conduct of affairs. But I make bold to affirm that so general
is the belief that, under the present circumstances of our commercial
condition, the colonists pay a heavy pecuniary fine for their fidelity
to Great Britain, that nothing but the existence of an unwonted degree
of political contentment among the masses has prevented the cry for
annexation from spreading like wildfire through the province." He then
proceeded again to press upon the consideration of the government the
necessity of following the removal of the imperial restrictions upon
navigation and shipping in the colony, by the establishment of a
reciprocity of trade between the United States and the British North
American Provinces. The change in the navigation laws took place in
1849, but it was not possible to obtain larger trade with the United
States until several years later, as we shall see in a future chapter
when we come to review the relations between that country and Canada.
Posterity has fully justified the humane, patient and discreet
constitutional course pursued by Lord Elgin during one of the most
trying ordeals through which a colonial governor ever passed. He had
the supreme gratification, however, before he left the province, of
finding that his policy had met with that success which is its best
eulogy and justification. Two years after the events of 1849, he was
able to write to England that he did not believe that "the function of
the governor-general under constitutional government as the moderator
between parties, the representative of interests which are common to
all the inhabitants of the country, as distinct from those that divide
them into parties, was ever so fully and so frankly recognized." He
was sure that he could not have achieved such results if he had had
blood upon his hands. His business was "to humanize, not to harden."
One of Canada's ablest men--not then in politics--had said to him:
"Yes, I see it all now, you were right, a thousand times
right, though I thought otherwise then. I own that I would
have reduced Montreal to ashes before I would have endured
half of what you did,"
and he added, "I should have been justified, too." "Yes," answered
Lord Elgin, "you would have been justified because your course would
have been perfectly defensible; but it would not have been the best
course. Mine was a better one." And the result was this, in his own
words:
"700,000 French reconciled to England, not because they are
getting rebel money; I believe, indeed that no rebels will
get a farthing; but because they believe that the British
governor is just. 'Yes,' but you may say, 'this is purchased
by the alienation of the British.' Far from it, I took the
whole blame upon myself; and I will venture to affirm that
the Canadian British were never so loyal as they are at this
hour; [this was, remember, two years after the burning of
Parliament House] and, what is more remarkable still, and
more directly traceable to this policy of forbearance,
never, since Canada existed, has party spirit been more
moderate, and the British and French races on better terms
than they are now; and this in spite of the withdrawal of
protection, and of the proposal to throw on the colony many
charges which the imperial government has hitherto borne."
Canadians at the beginning of the twentieth century may also say as
Lord Elgin said at the close of this letter, _Magna est Veritas_.