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