IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ 1.0 I.I |4J ■ 50 1^ 1^ |2.2 Hi 13. 2.0 iJ& 1-25 1 1.4 1 1.6 1 III! Ill == < 6' ► Hiotographic Sciences Corporation \ ^V ^\ •NJ :\ \ 23 WIST MAIN STRKT WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 '^^ u.. %0 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The( toth The Institute has attennpted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D D D D Couverture endommag<^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge IntArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou ?ui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mittiode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. I I Coloured panes/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es I — I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Thei poss ofth fiimi Origi begii thei sion, othe first sion, or ill r~V^Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ li^ Pages ddcolories, tachetdes ou piqudes □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es r~~L^howthrough/ I— J Transparence D D D D Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont it6 film6es A nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The shall TINI whi( Map diffc entii bag! righ reqi met r~7| Additional comments:/ I I Commentaires suppldmentaires; Docket title Is bound as last page but filmed as first page on flche. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X e itails 8 du todifier r une Image The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: IMatropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Dapartment The images appearing hare are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce k la gAnirositA de: Matropolitsn Toronto Library Canadian Hiitory Departmant Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de i'exempiaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. >s Original copies in printed paper covers are fiimad beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commenpant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon ie cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, seion Ie cas: Ie symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbole V signifie "FIN". IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimAs A des taux de rAduction diffArents. Lorsque in document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, ii est fiimA A partir de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images nAce?saire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la mAthode. errata to I pelure, 3n A n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ».-»V: V,' I »-:%y^4^,,.vS u:,-rV ■M^ I M ''<*im^f^n*► 8 « B pi W 00 i'/I-<-. •*«(»., ,v,iil*««S«i---« ' f REMARKS THE EARL OF ELGIN'S DESPATCH, '' Dated the 5th qf May, 1849. Copy of a DESPATCH from Governor-General the Right Hon. the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine to Earl Gret. Government House, Montreal, Mt Lobd, May 5, 1849. (Received Maj 23, 1849.) In consequence of the excitement which the passage of the measure for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada, whose property was destroyed during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838, has occasioned, and of the desire expressed in certain quarters that Her Majesty's power of disallowance should be exercised in this instance, I think it my duty to furnish your Lordship with a report upon it in anticipation of the usual period for the transmission of the Bills of the Session. It will be necessary, however, before I proceed to explain its provisions, to submit a statement of the circumstances which led to its introduction. 2. In the last session of the Parliament of Upper Canada, an Act was passed, entitled " An Act to ascer- " tain and provide for the payment of all just claims "arising from the late rebellion and invasion of the " province." The intention of this Act would seem to have been to provide indemnity only for owners of pro- perty which had been destroyed by rebels and sympa- thisers from the States. But in the first session of the united Parliament, an amended Act was passed, (4 and 5 Vic, c. 39) which contains the following clause, " and " be it enacted, that the powers vested in, and the duties " required of, the said Commissioners under the said " Act, shall extend and be construed to extend to inquire " into all losses sustained by Her Majesty's subjects and "other residents within that part of this province to " which the said Act extends, from the first breaking " out of the said rebellion to the passing of the said Act, " and the several claims and demands which have accrued " to any such persons by such losses, in respect of any " loss, destruction, or damage of property occasioned by " violence on the part of persons in Her Majesty's ser- " vice, or by violence on the part of persons acting or " assuming to act on behalf of Her Majesty, in the sup- " pression of the said rebellion, or for the prevention of " further disturbances, and all claims arising under, or " in respect of the occupation of any houses or premises " by Her Majesty's naval or military forces, either Im- " perial or provincial." I do not find that any objection was taken by the Home Government to the principle or details of either of these Acts, except on the ground that the preamble REMARKS. This Act, or rather Clause, was framed to supply an importAnt omission in the Act 3 Vic. cap. 7C, namely — in respect of any claim or demand which might accrue from loss, destruction, or damage of property occasioned by violence on the part of persons in Her Majesty's ser- vice, iic, and does not extend to the class of claimants beyond that of loyal and innocent sufferers. of the fint as it was origiiiully introduced, coiitaineil a pledge, which was afterwards, on Lord John RusHeli's rcniongtrance, expunged, that the indemnity in question ■hould form a cliarge on the Imperial Treasury. 3. On the question of providing funds for the pay- ment of tlie indemnity thus voted, considcrahle differ- ence of opinion appears, however, to Imvc prevailed in the local Parliament. The leaders of the Liberal party gene- rally contended that it would be unjust to make it a charge on the resources of the united province, without extentl- ing a similar boon to Lower Canada, and that it would be inexpedient to saddle on the general revenue so con- siderable an additional burden as the joint indemnities would probably amount to. No steps were accordingly taken during the subsistence of the first Baldwin and Lafontaine Administration. In 1845, however. Lord Metcalfe's Oonservative Council projiosed that a special fund derived from Tavern and Marriage Licenses, which formed part of the revenue of the Consolidated Fund, and was more productive in U])pcr Canada than Lower Canada, should be surrendered to the municipalities, and that in Upper Canada it should in the first place be charged with the payment of the indemnity. This proposal was carried through Parliament. On the same day, however, and at an earlier hour, the following resolution was adopted by the House of Assembly unanimously. " Resolved, — That an humble address be presented to " his Excellency the Governor-General, praying that his " Excellency will be pleased to cause proper measures " to be adopted, in order to insure to the inhabitants of " that portion of this province, formerly Lower Canada, "indemnity for just losses by them sustained during " the rebellion of 1837 and 1838." 4. In order that the scope and purpose of the Address thus unanimously voted, and of the measures taken by the Government upon it may be projierly understood, it is necessary that attention should lie directed to the following circumstance. Ordinances were passed by the Special Council in the years 1838 and 1839, under which the losses of those loyal inhabitants of the province whose property had been destroyed while they were supporting the Government had been ascertained and reported upon. It was therefore clearly the intention of the Government and Parliament, in the proceedings adopted at this period, to extend the indemnity beyond that limit. 5. The mode of getting over the pecuniary difficulty in the case of the indemnity for Upper Canada which the Parliament thus sanctioned, was unquestionably a costly one, and it has always been contended by those who opposed the plan that, as in the financial arrangements consequent on the union between the provinces. Lower Canada had by no means the best of the bargain, it was not fair to give up a portion of the common fund, to which the Upper happened to con- tribute more largely than the Lower Province, without granting an equivalent to (he Utter. REMAKKH. The reason assigned by Messrs. Baldwin and Lafon- taine for not attempting, when in power in 1843, to provide for losses incurred in the rebellion, de- serves notice. If the losses of loyal parties are here referred to as unascertained, and probably large, it ia inconsistent with the statement in section four, that the losses of the loyal inhabitants had been ascertained and reported on, and destroys the argument that the Govern- ment of 1845 clearly intended to extend the indemnity beyond the limit of loyal losses. The limit of compen- sation to Upper Canada at the time to which the extract refers, had been set by the Act 3 Vict., cap. 76, at 40,000/.; the ascertained and reported claims of Lower Canada unpaid (29,000/. having been paid by Lord Sydenham) amounted to 9926/. 7». 2d. (See Fourth and Fifth I{eport.s of Commissioners, 1840.) It is not pretended that the aggregate of these two known amounts — moderate when compared with the sum now demanded for Lower Canada only — had deterred the Government of that day from acting, as the impediment appears clearly to have been in the apprehended magni- ttide of some unascertahied demand. If other losses than those of innocent and loyal sufferers were contem- plated, the character of the losses for which provision of 90,000/. is now made, is fully expliiined, and in a manner directly contradicting the assertions of the Government, that their intention is not to pay the losses of parties engaged in the rebellion. In as far as this argument is directed against the ad- ministration of 1845, could it be shown, or were it con- ceded, that the losses of the loyal inhabitants had all been ascertained and reported on, under the ordinances of the Special Council, and that the labours of the Com- missioners had consequently been brought to a close for want of material to work upon, the reasoning would be conclusive; but the despatch of Lord Sydenham to Lord John Russell, of the 25th of August, 1841, furnishes evidence of the very opposite character, as Lord Syden- ham states, "that he brought the operations of the Indemnity Commission to a close for want oi funds." From this summary closing of the commission, there was every reason to assume that the loyal claims had not aU been ascertained and reported on, and that a further inquiry was in fact necessary. The mode of raising the necessary means here alluded to, was the striking off from the general revenue the tavern licenses, and appropriating them to municipal purposes in each section of the province, making the payment of the indemnity to Upper Canada, a first charge on the Upper Canada portion. The reason for selecting and alienating this particular source of revenue may be briefly stated. The tax in Lower Canada is fixed at 4/. per licence; in Upper Canada it ranges from 3/. in thinly peopled districts to 10/. in populous towns and villages; producing, from the smaller population of Upper Canada, nearly double the revenue collected from the Lower Province. This unequal, and, as was considered, unjust distinction in the system of taxation between the two sections of the Province, determined the Government of the day to strike it «£ \ 6. 1 indemi fettere under which their li the ell ever, a There with ft in Pal these I stancei convic of ind( this po opposi nurabc and h clause situate any p: invidi( madei # \^' # 6. The Conmiisaionen appointed tu apportiuii the Indemnity in Upper Canada appear to Iiave been un- fettered by any special inBtructiuns, and to huve acted under the proviiiont of the Acti to which I have referred, which gave large discretionary powers. At the close of their labours they delivered to the Oovcmraent lists of the claims rejected or allowed by them, without, how- ever, any statement of the grounds of their decision. There is no reason to doubt they discharged their trust with fidelity. During the course of the recent debates in Parliament, quotations were, however, made from these lists, with the view of showing that in some in-, stances the names of persons who hod been actually convicted of treason appeared upon them as recipients of indemnity. Much irritating discussion took place on this point ; for, while on the one hand the Con8er\-ntive opposition affirmed that such cases were both few in number, and defensible on special grounds, Mr. Pnpincau and his adherents contended that the insertion of a clause in the Lower Canada Act excluding persons so situated from participating in the indemnity fund on any pretext whatsoever, was only a fresh proof of the invidious distinction between the provinces, constantly made to the disadvantage of Lower Canada. ir.- ..,-'' -:'?^V':'^-.;,, REMABKH. , The latter part of this section does not accurately state what occurri'd in debute, or the facts. Two only of the three parties referred to who received sums from the Commissioners were tried and both were acquitted. The ground of payment is stated in the following letters from the Com-missiouers : — London, C. W. March 10, 1849. My Dear Sib, — I am in receipt of yours of the 8th instant, and gludly give you all the iiiforniatiou in my power, on the claims for rcl>cllion lugxcs sustained by Elliikini Klnlcolm and Klisha Hull, and which were allowed by the Commissioners for the Brock District. — Eliukim Malcuhu clnimed 37/. ICs. 3(1., and we allowed him 271. IGs. 3(/., which wns nmdc up of items such as hogs, and sheep, and u marc, all which were liden by or for the Militia, and which, therefore, we considered should bo allowed him. Elisha Hull claimed 554/. 16s. Gd., and of this we allowed only 26/. 4«. l^d., excluding all the rest. The sum allowed was like the otlier, for things used for the Militia service, use of the House for Guard, wood fur- nished, ic. All claims for damage sustained by absence or the like were excluded. But when property had been taken for the use of the Militia, or their horses, pointed to examine into the Ilebcllion losses. To enable you to do this, the reports nuule by them will be furnished to your Secretory, on his making ap- plication on your behalf for the same. In reply to an inquiry put by the Secretary of tltc Commission as to the powers conferred u|>on the Com- missioners to carry out the instructions of the Qovcm- ment, the Commissioners were informed that, — Ist. In making out the classification called for by your instructions of the 12th December last, it is not hia 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. 2nd. His Excellency considers that you have no power 08 Commissioners to call either for persons or papers, and that you must, therefore, be satisfied with such general evidence as the cbumants may produce, or as may enable you to form a general estimate of the losses they have suffered. 3rd. The object of the Executive Qovemment in ap- pointing your commission being merely to obtain a general estimate of the rebellion losses, the particulars of which must form the subject of more minute inquiry hereafter under legislative authority, his Excellency can- not regard it as necessary that you should travel to the country parts of the district to obtain such particulars. The variance between the instructions of the 12th December, 1845, and the 27th February, 1846, has been alleged as an indication that the Government at the latter period intended to extend the indemnity beyond the limits of the losses of the loyal inhabitants specified in the commission. Independently, however, of the fact that the contrary was officially stated by a member of the Government at the first meeting of the provincial parliament (1647), after the reception of the report of the Commissioners; the reasons assigned in the second letter of instruction*, 27th February, 1846, sufficiently explain why the pro- posed classification was abandoned-^namely, the want of means to secure correct data. No Act of Parliament having been passed in reference to the subject, the Commissioners had no authority, nor could the Government supply the deficiency, to examine on oath, or to compel the attendance of witnesses, or the production of papers. To obtain a correct classifi- cation under such circumstances, where the interests of the claimants were so deeply concerned was impossible, to persist in requiring it, worse than useless. To fall back, consequently, upon the only classification which it was in the power of the Commissioners at that time to make, appeared the only alternative, and the abandon- ment of the full return was considered the less im- portast, the object of the Executive Government being, ♦•* 1 8. The CommiHionen ftirnished their report (a copy of which I enolo«o) in April, 1840, Mr. Daly having, on the 8nd of that month, intimitted to them, in a letter ' marked "imme4iate," that hia Excellency was desiroua to be enabled to oomo to an early deoieion as to the eoune to be taken by the Executive during tlie sesuon •f ParliaMent in regard to the game. It doen not, how- ever, appear that any further step* were taken in this matter by th» Adminiatration to which ho belonged up te Manfli, 1848, when they retired from office. As it •■UMl b* ro|ypoied that the proceedings which I have detailed wwa intended to be barren of all result, this eJrettwtaWne o*ly goee ta prove the great difficulty of doiliqg witb the question latiabctorily. 9. SMb wai tke state, however, in which this ques- tiM iteod wke* the |«esaBt Qovemment came into •Aee. That they iboidd prepoee to found a measure •n what Ikeir predecesaon had done in the matter was to be exytated, tfnd I did not think that I should be J M it M e d in riekhig a miaisteiial orisii^ at a time when my Council was supported by the Urge minority of a feaeaUy sleeted AasamUy, by refusing te permit the in- toodnotioB of a BUI whicJi was simili r to one that had ■lIMi^ baa* faased fer the benefit of Upper Canada, and wyek aackiad moMover to be nothing more than the ikriet logical aonse^oanoa of preliminary measures adopted by the Local OavanuMnt aad Farliam jn^ under fanner Oov4BMm. 10. The preamble of the bill, of which a copy is hete- witk tmaUUi, deciarea that in order to redeem the pledge gives to part^ee in Lower Canada, who sustained leasasdniingtherebelUoa in 1837—1838, or to their htni/kh ateditors, asaigBS, or ayant droit by the Address ilf >li< ftassiiililj . Ilii ^^iatment of a Commission, and Ik* aamapOBdeaae of the Qovemment above referred Wk " it ia fiaatasBiy and just that the particulars of such ■ losNk not yai satisfied should form, the subject of more "■iliMeiilfBiiy under legislative authority, and that " th* nwtt so £k only aa thsy may have arisen from the "Mat ar partial, luynst or wanton destruction of the " dwellings Imildlmp^ proptirty and effiMts of the siud ** ililiiikitantai ami finw tba sfiauie, taking, or carrying KIMARKi. aa ia explained in the third clause of the letter of the 27th Fcbrtiary, " merely to obtain a general vatinmto of the liebelliun loaaea, the particulars of which would form the subject of more minute inquiry thereafter under legislative authority." The instructions contained in the second clause of Mr. Daly's letter of the 12th December, 1840, to the Commissionon, and which were not recalled or mudi- Bad by the subsequent letter of the 37th February, may be adduced as an additional proof, that while the Government of 184S desired to obtain a return of eveiy description of claim, (which could be effected by the combining the reports of the different Comniissloncn,) they did not intend to enhtrge the class of parties entitled to indemnity. The clause referred to directs the Commissioners to abstain from touching uiran any of the cases reported on by the former Commisaioners, amongst which the claim of Dr. Wolfred Nelson, and of others implicatetl in the rebellion, had been rejected. These instructions were neglected, and a largo amount of disallowoil claims restored to the list of applicants in the last report. The Report of the Commissioners was made the ground of an inquiry (put by a member of the present Provincial Government) at the commencement of the Session of 1847 to the following effect. Whether the Government intended during the Session to bring in any Bill making provision 'for the claims ns reported by the ComraiHsioncrs. The answer given by the Govern- ment was in Nubstanco, that the state of the provin- cial chest would not then bear any additional burden; that the Qovemment were not in consequence prepared to submit any immediate proposition, and that under no circumstances did they intend to recommend claims not within the limit of the terms of the Commission. This was the occasion referred to in a recent publication, when the support of Mr. Scott, member for Two Moun- tains, whose claim of 0000/. had been filed by the Com- missioners was withdrawn from the late Government; the occurrence took place in the commencement of Lord Elgin's administration in Juno, 1847. The difficulty of dealing with these claims was materially increased by the disregard shown by the Commissioners to the second clause of the letter of in- structions of 12th December, 1840, already referred to. Objection has never been made to the introduction of resolutions, or a bill to pay just losses. The whole tenor of the debates shows clearly the point on which the struggle turned ; namely, the admission or rejection of parties implicated in the rebellion. In the course of the two revolts of 1837 and 1838, upwards of 13U0 persons, in the district of Montreal, were imprisoned; 002 on the first, and 816 on the second revolt. Of the first number, it does not appear that more tlian six were tried; of the second set, 816, Sir John Colbome writes to Lord Normanby, date 6th May, 1839, that the greater number were taken with arms in their hands; of these, 104 were brought to trial, and 96 convicted ; the others were set at large, in the expectation that the imprisonment they had under- gone would prove sufficient punishment. It cannot consequently be assumed that the eight sent to Bermuda, or the 96 convicted, embraced all the parties who were known to have been engaged in the Rebellion. "ci S '•ij letter of the catiniuto uf h would form cafter under ' K'l . ■ " »w»jr of their property wid effeoti, iliould \>e paiil Mid "Mtiified, provided that none of tlm pcnionN who havn " been cooTicted of luifh tr«'««on, alleged to have Ix-t ii " committed in that part of thi» proviiiw! formerly the " province of Lower Canada, lince the \»t day of Noveni- "i»er, 1837; or who ]utv'n\g Itecn vhar|{oocial purposes of iho Act. lu tlieso particulars the Act merely n^optH the recommendntioB of the ConimissionerH of Inquiry named by Lord Metcalfe, who state in their Rciiort that the claims wkieb tlicy recognised reproHcnt a sum total of iilfiOSL 10«. M.; but tliat^ in their opinion, the sum of 100,000/. would be nearly equivalent to t'.ie losses suffered, and sufficient to meet the amount of such clnims as shall have been the object of n close examina- tion. 11. Notwithstanding, however, the extent to which tiie preceding Qovcrninent and Parliament itself appeared to l>e committed to the principle and even to the s raised to it both within the walls of the Legislature and ?)eyond them. It was contended that whereas the destruction of property which took place in Lower Canada was generally the work of the military or volunteers employed in suppressing a re- bellion, it was in Upper Canada as generally the work of traitors or sympathisers who were engaged in raising one, tliut the two coses required therefore a different treatment, and thbt a more stringent rule ought to have been applied to test the validity of claims to indemnity in the Lower than in the Upper Province. To this it was answered that the principle on which the Bill was framed had already been acted upon in Upper Canada, and that Parliament, by its unanimous vote, had given a pledge that it should likewise be applied to Lower Ca- nada; that it was notorious that much property belonging to unoffending persons had been wantonly destroyed in this section of the province during the rebellion. That it was false to affirm that the measure was intended for . tbe benefit of rebels, that, on the contrary, all convicted rebels, as well as those who having confessed their guilt were sent to Bermuda, were expressly excluded; and that for the rest the Commissioners appointed nnder the Act would be bound, nnder the sanction of an oath, precisely in the same way as the CommiiMioners for Upper OvmAa had been before them, to examine mi- nutely into the justice of all dalms preferred before them, and to apportion the indemnity aceordiBg to (lie true Intent and meaning of the Act MMAaU. Orrat stms I* laid nfmn tli« wfMirt anal reMMmfrnJa- tion of the C'onimiiwiniH^ni. But aa the lattM uf in- stnirtions of the STth K«Hnu»y, tH4«, rlnuM 3^ eapfeMiy statjii the objprt of the Kxeeutive Uovemmant, in a^ pointing the ConmiiiMlmi, t« have beea nirWy t»tbioin a gmuirni ttlimnte o/Iha RtbMim Umu, the paHiatUwt of wMeh wmn to /wm M KiHOARDnrc. PAYMENTS MADE IN UPPER AND LOWER CANADA ON REBELLION L0S8E& 1839. 1840. 1841. 1845. 1846. 1847. £4,103 St. 5d. . > Upper Canada. An Aet passed 11th May; 1839, cap. 98, far the payment of certain losses sustuned by sondry iaMtlimta therein named (by debentures.) £12,000 8terling=£ 14,800 currency. To Lower Canada, w claims passed by CommiiaieBers a^xiinted under ordinanees of Speeial Council. £14,600 currency To Lower Canada, ditto. £40,000 Upper Canada, 9> Vic, cap. 72, an Act to provide for the payBnent of claims arising out of the Rebellion and Invasion {■ Upper Canada, and to appropriate the duties o» ftrram Hcenses to local purposes. £9,986 Is. 2d. Lower Canada, 9 Yic, cap. 60, an Act to provide fcr tiie pay- ment of certain Rebellion losses in Lower Camdt,, and to appi opriate the proceeds of the Marriage Idoense Fund. £3,613 8t. 9d. Upper Canada, 9 & 10 Vic, cap. 33, an Act to anthonae the issuing of debentures to pay the balance due to cUim^ts for losses during the Rebellion and Invasion in Upper Canada. PETITIONS AGAINST THE BILL. County of Shefford Address to Lord Elgin. Meeting called by the Mayor. Hemmingfonl, Beauhamois .... Mayor presided. Petition to the Legulature. Missisquoi County Public Meeting. Petition to Lord Elgin. Horton and adjacent Townships, Ottawa . Public Meeting. Petition to Lord Elgin. County of Huntingdon Public Meeting ; 789 signatures. Petition to Lord Elgin. Unaapbam, West Biding of Xork ... On requisition to the Magistrates. GesMiy of FtontaMc . .'- . . Petition to Le^pslatara. GoMBty •t Haatincp ..;.... Pitto. Dialriat af Johnston Ditto. Votity aad others^ Beaiiharnois . ^ . Ditto. County Meeting of Qlengarry .... Meeting called on requisition to Magistrates. PeUtion to Lord Elgin. MontrMi, City of Meeting called by requisition to the Mayor; 6fi00 signatures. Petition to Lord Elgin. Bytom Meeting called by the Mayor on requisition. Petitiou to tbe Legis- lature. Distdet of Qore Convened by the Sheriff. Petition to Lord Elgin ^ad the Legislature. Qonafy of Sberfarook Public Meeting in the Market House. ,'f Hamilton ■ • • • Requisition signed by 500 Z^'^*^' BelJevilie . . - ' ' ■ ■ Convened by Slieriff. ' Counties of Lennox and Adding ■ " ' ^°"''«''«d «>jr Sheriff ' To«,ntoCity . . "''^''•^'"ffton . , Publie Meeting. District of Huron. . .\ ^"J'"' '"n the Chair ^P^'We . . '•••.. Meeting called by Sh«.,-«- .„ - CWsostom . . •••••• Meeting by Magfstltes '''°®'*"»'-- County of Dundas .;;;•■• ^"j" Meeting by Magist«tes • • • Meeting calJed on H«. Township of E„,i,^ . Lo,^ Elgin. ^""''''■°" ^''^"'^ ''^ ^00 Freeholders Petit." . !-fpofH„ntLy ; • • • ■ ^•'«*-to Jve^or-Genend "" Township of Sandwich- ' ' ^•»«'' Meeting held on I • ■ Port^binson ..':;• ;_ • • ^->iontoOoternl;rr'""- ^--"o"- I^n^ Elgin. Peterborough ' :., ■ Ditto. Fitzroy . , "■•••■ Ditto. " • -* Copnty of Carlton ' ' " " " ' ^'"'to- Township of Parkenham" . " " • l"^^'" ^"^^''^8 heU hy reaui.H- Townshpof^apean . . " ' ' " ^«««- *» Governor-oLZ """• Township of Osnabruck ' ^'"''- County of Stanstead ■•••••- Ditto. a^^ ^- : ^- ::::: r"*-""'"^- "•""-*"•"'■ Porthope ..■•■•.. Ditto. DirtriptofBathuret . ' ' ' • ^'«o. ' ' '■ ■ • Ditto. . . The above imperfect JiW i, ^ P- al, that we. presented '"" ^^""'^^ '-« « ^'e of Canadian pape . That after the word "Berm.H .- implicated in the said Rebell! ^'"°''^« '"' '"^''rted; «Nor an Moved by Mr. Wilson- ""^ '» suppressing it." That all after the word « Be In Committee, Colonel p.- " 'vas intended by th!v'*'**'*^t'«'t a great deal r •^ "*"»"»"'•'"" rf 1,0.™,. 11 1 ParliBment Buildings. sehoWers. Petition to Lord Elgin. Do }-oii mean to exclude any of those 800 men who were imprisoned in the jail of Montreal, for their par< ticipation in the Rebellion, ami who were subsequently discharged from custody through the clemency of the Oovemment, and whose claims I understand to exceed some 70,000/. 1 — No reply. Do you not mean to pay every one, let his participation in the Rebellion have been what it may, except the very few who were convicted by the Courts-Martial, and some six or seven who admitted their guilt and were sent to Bermuda t — No reply. . Colonel Prince then sy means com- iment, which was l^llion, from the in any manner son who aidedi 'ersons whom "fr. Attorney, put to him. Id allude no ner, pausing Act, all who rtion in the lion of the of honour- Ifayt. Beaubien Bouthillier ' Cartier Cauchon Chabot Chauveau Davignon i Duchesnay Dumas t 6 Fortier Fourricr s Fourquin 1 Guillet Lafontaine y .i! Laterriere Laurin a Lemieux S Methot ■^ Mongenais § Papineau Polette u •g Rauvageau 1 Tacha Ph Viger Armstrong De Witt Holmes Nelson 29 Soott, of Two Mountains Drummond 1 English Constituencies / Lower Canada. 2 Watts Baldwin Blake •i Boulton, of Norfolk i Cameron, of Kent ■i Fetgusson ,1 Flint M'Farbt&d Merritt ,^ Morrison * i Notman o Price 1 Scott, of Bytown 13 Thompson J |3 Burritt Cayley Crysler Dickson Hall Johnson Lyon M'Donald, of Qlengarry M'Domdd, of Kingston M'Nab Mallock M'Lean Meyers Prince Robinson Seymour Sherwood, of Brockville Smith, of Durham Smith, of Frontenac Smith, of Wentworth Stevenson 22 Wilson Badgeley Brookes Christie Gugy B M'Connell I I I 1 Egan French 44 12 MFKECH OF MR. JONES In the Lfffiilative Council, \4lh May, in Debate on the Address to the Governor- General on the iiihject of the Montreal riots. •O Honourable Mr. Jones felt himself called upon to make a few remark* on the present occasion. He begged in the outset to say, that he disclaimed ufTering anything in justification, or even in excuse for the tumults and disturbance of the public peace, that occurred on the 25th of April, and subsequently, in this city, and especially for the destruction of property, and above all for the insults offered to the Sovereign, in the person of His Excellency the Governor General. He had come into this House predisposed to support the Admiuistra- tiob, professing then to be, as he was still, a liberal in his opinions. He repeated he was disposed to support the Administration, so far at least as he should consider their measures and policy might tend to promote the good of the country. When the measure to which the question now before the House led him, he meant the Rebellion Indemnity Bill, was introduced into Parlia- ment, assuming, as he was constrained to do from its wording, that it embraced in its provisions all such persons as were • not expressly excluded by one of its clauses, without reference to the part they had taken during the rebellions of 1837 and '38; but desiring to inform himself as to the correctness of his views of it, he sought light upon the subject from every |)ossiblc source, and he must say that all the information he could gather in regard to it, concurred to satisfy him that he had taken a correct view of the measure. He was convinced that all, irrespective of the part they had taken during the rebellion of 1837 and '38, would be entitled to be indemnified under the provisions of the bill, who were not excluded by the proviso contained in it, that is to say, he who had raised his anft to subvert the Queen's authority in the Country, as well as he who had done the same thing to support it, would indiscriminately be entitled to 'indemnity by the bill, with the exception of those alone who were particularly excluded by the proviso made in the bill itself, consequently, he who had suffered loss through his rebellion and his own wicked a<*s, would be entitled to be paid such loss. He distinctly recollected the remarks that fell from the honourable Speaker on a recent occasion, adverted to by the honotiraWe member who spoke before the last, (Mr. James Morris), and he must confess that he was surprised to hear those remarks at the time Ihey were made, because they were so much at variance with every- thing he had before heard from that honourable member, or any other member of the Administration. Assuredly had such views been entertained by those honourable gentlemen when the bill was introduced into Parliament, they would have expressed them, when it was under discussion in that House. There were three honourable members of the Administration present on that occasion, neither of whom ventured to make any such declaration at that time. As the honourable member, (Mr. J. Morris), to whom he had alluded, had thought proper to advert to a statement made to him personally, by the honourable Speaker, which he said induced him to support the bill alluded to, he (Mr. Jones) would advert to what took place between himself and another honourable and distinguished member of the Govern- ment,* at a private interview, in contradiction to what the honourable member had stated as the views entertained by the Administration, expressed to him by the honourable Speaker. At the interview he referred to, after considerable conversation on the sub- ject of the Indemnity Bill had taken place, and con- siderable difference of opinion arisen between them in respect to it, in order that lie might not mistake the views of the honourable member of the Government, he (Mr. Jones) had named three or more persons whom he and that distinguished member of the Government both knew to have been engaged in overt acts of treason and rebellion ; that they were persons who had taken up arms to subvert the Government, he asked him if those individuals would be entitled to indemnity under the bill. That honourable member of the Government was too honest and too honourable a man to attempt to deceive him, he therefore answered him candidly and frankly, that they could make no distinction ; and, con- sequently, those persons could not be excluded from being indemnified for their losses, if they had sustained any. He should not have adverted to this circumstance, had he not deemed it necessary to do so, to meet the ' assertion openly made by the honourable Speaker from his place in that House, and the statement of the honour- able member who had based his opinions upon the in- formation he had personally received from the same honourable individual. His honourable friend upon his right had adverted to the vote he (Mr. Jones) had given on a former occasion, and had charged him with the respon- sibility of what was at that moment transpiring in that honourable House. That honourable gentleman said, that to his (Mr. Jones's) vote on the call of the House, was attributable the discussion now going on, He (Mr. Jones) was fully prepared to assume the respon- sibility of bringing together all the members of that honourable House. He thought on that occasion, as he now thought, that it was due to the mover for the call of the House, as a matter of courtesy, to accede to the motion ; besides which, it was his wish to deal fairly with the important question to be brought under con- sideration. The subject was one, in his opinion, of too much importance in the state of the country to be dis- cussed by less than half the members constituting that honourable House; and moreover, to have proceeded with it at that time, it would have been necessary to suspend one of the rules of that House, in order to have mode use of what was intended as aii amendment to an address, as an address itself, when the one upon which it was intended to be moved as an amendment was not proposed. The ^proceedings would have been unbe- coming that Hot^e ; and, even had it succeeded, would liave produced, in his opinion, no moral effect in the country, or possible good. Having disposed of these preliminary matters, he came to tbe question immedi- ately under the consideration of that House, munely, the address to His Excellency the Governor-General ; and • Thedutinguiabed member of tbe QoTeroment wu Mr. Altomey- Oeneral Lafontaine. >«1^ 13 • ^r ^ i he begged to repent ngain, that he iliHctaimeil any in- tention of justifying or in the least excusing the outrage and tumultuous proceedings that had occurred recently in the city, and which were the occasion of the address of that honourable House. Those proceedings were abhorrent to every proper mind, and should be repro- bated accordingly. When the subject of that address WM first spoken of in his pretence, he must confeas that he was rather inclined to favour a simple expression of abhorrence on account of the destruction of public pro- perty on the 25th April, and the subsequent tumult and outrage upon private persons, and the insult offered to the Sovereign through the person of her representative in thip Province, without alluding to the cause of the out- rage. However, on reflection, it had since occurred to him, that such an address would be too vague. It would also seem to imply that there had been no cause for the tumults and outrages that had been committed upon public decency and the destruction of property. Entertaining these views, he thought it but right that the address should advert to the true cause that had given rise*to those deplored events. Ho believed there was nothing unusual iu this manner of treating such subjects. That the recent outrages and disturb- ance of the public peace in this city were attribut- able to the passing of the Indemnity Bill, there could be no doubt. The obstinate perseverance with which this measure was pressed, in opposition to the nume- rously signed petitions and remonstrances presented to the Qovemor-Qeneral, and the^ total disregard paid to them, so incensed the people, that it was not ex- traordinary that there should have l>een tumult and demonstration of dissatisfaction with those whom the people considered as their enemies in this matter. It would be oUeged that the Indemnity Bill was passed in a constitutional way, and therefore ought to have been submitted to until constitutionally repealed. It must, however, be borne in mind that this was not an ordinary bill; it was not one prospective and progressive in its operation. That bill would irrevocably have accom- plished its purpose ere it would hove been possible to treat it by the ordinary constitutional means through Parliament. The mischief, therefore, would have been perpetrated before it would have been possible to repeal the law through the legislature. A knowledge of those facts no doubt made its opponents more violent than they would under other circumstances have been. Like causes produce like effects. In other times and in other countries it was matter of history, that to the indifference and deaf- ness with which the remonstrances of the people of New England were listened to by the parent country, iu 1766, were attributable the riots and acts of violence that occurred in Boston in those days, on account of the passing a law as constitutionally as the one now caus- ing disturbances in this country. He adverted to this fact as a matter of history, to show that riots and distur- bances had arisen in other countries from like causes, and that Montreal was not singular in this respect, and he said this without the least design to palliate or excuse the outrages that had recently disgraced this city. Outrages greatly calculated to damage the influence of the cause the perpetrators of them had most at heart. It would doubtless be said, that there was nothing irre- concilable with responsible government in the pawing of the law. This might be true according to the notions those who support the present system of carrying on the Government of this country. But it was not in accord- ance with his views of responsible government. It was never contemplated by responsible government, as reco- gnised when the principle was adopte