In the meantime the unhappy Bill, which had caused such an explosion in the colony, was running the gantlet of the British Parliament. On June 14 it was vehemently attacked in the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone, as being a measure for the rewarding of Rebels.[9] He, indeed, contented himself with 'calling the attention of the House to certain parts' of the Bill in question; but Mr. Herries, following out the same views to their legitimate conclusion, moved an Address to Her Majesty to disallow the Act of the Colonial Legislature. The debate was sustained with great Vigour for two nights; in the course of which the Act was defended not only by Lord John Russell as leader of the Government, but also, with even more force, by his great opponent Sir Robert Peel. Speaking with all the weight of an impartial observer, he showed that it was not the intention of the measure, and would not be its effect, to give compensation to anyone who could be proved to have been a rebel; that it was only an inevitable sequel to other measures which had been passed without opposition; and, further, that its rejection at this stage would be resisted by all parties in the colony alike, as an arbitrary interference with their right of self-government. On a division the amendment of Mr. Herries was thrown out by a majority of 141. And though, a few nights later, a resolution somewhat in the same sense, moved by Lord Brougham in the Upper House, was only negatived, with the aid of proxies, by three votes, the large majority in the House of Commons, and the firm attitude of the Government on the subject, did much to quiet the excitement in the colony.
The news from England (wrote Lord Elgin) has produced a marked, and, so far as it goes, a satisfactory change in the tone of the Press; in proof of which I send you the leading articles of the Tory papers of Saturday. … The party, it would appear, is now split into three; but on one point all are agreed. We must have done, they say, with this habit of abusing the French; we must live with them on terms of amity and affection. Such is the first fruit of the policy which was to bring about, we were assured, a war of races.
This satisfactory result was also due in part to the wise measures adopted by the Ministry, under direction of the Governor-General, for giving effect to the provisions of the much-disputed Bill.
We are taking steps (he wrote on June 17) to carry out the Rebellion Losses Bill. Having adopted the measure of the late Conservative Government, we are proceeding to reappoint their own Commissioners; and, not content with that, we are furnishing them with instructions which place upon the Act the most restricted and loyalist construction of which the terms are susceptible. Truly, if ever rebellion stood upon a rickety pretence, it is the Canadian Tory Rebellion of 1849.
[Sidenote: Fresh riots.]
Unhappily the flames, which at this time had nearly died out, were re- kindled two months later on occasion of the arrest of certain persons concerned in the former riots; and though this fresh outbreak lasted but a few days, it was attended in one case with fatal consequences.[10] Writing on August 20, Lord Elgin says:—
We are again in some excitement here. M. Lafontaine's house was attacked by a mob (for the second time) two nights ago. Some persons within fired, and one of the assailants was killed. The violent Clubbists are trying to excite the passions of the multitude, alleging that this is Anglo-Saxon blood shed by a Frenchman.
The immediate cause of this excitement is the arrest of certain persons who were implicated in the destruction of the Parliament buildings in April last. I was desirous, for the sake of peace, that these parties should not be arrested until indictments had been laid before the grand jury, and true bills found against them. Unfortunately, in consequence of the cholera, the requisite number of jurors to form a court was not forthcoming for the August term. The Government thought that they could not, without impropriety, put off taking any steps against these persons till November. They were, therefore, arrested last week; all except one, who was committed for arson, were at once bailed by the magistrates; and he too was bailed the day after his committal by one of the judges of the Supreme Court.
All this is simple enough, and augurs no very vindictive spirit in the authorities. Nevertheless it affords the occasion for a fresh exhibition of the recklessness of the Montreal mob, and the demoralisation of other classes in the community.
Again on the 27th he writes:—