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.