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