giving
compensation to French Canada on the principles which had governed the
settlement of claims from Upper Canada. Had the party which supported
that ministry been influenced by any regard for consistency or
principle, it was bound in 1849 to give full consideration to the
question, and treat it entirely on its merits with the view of
preventing its being made a political issue and a means of arousing
racial and sectional animosities. As we shall now see, however, party
passion, political demagogism, and racial hatred prevailed above all
high considerations of the public peace and welfare, when parliament
was asked by the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry to deal seriously and
practically with the question of indemnity to Lower Canada.

The session was not far advanced when LaFontaine brought forward a
series of resolutions, on which were subsequently based a bill, which
set forth in the preamble that "in order to redeem the pledge given to
the sufferers of such losses ... it is necessary and just that the
particulars of such losses, not yet paid and satisfied, should form
the subject of more minute inquiry under legislative authority (see p.
65 _ante_) and that the same, so far only as they may have arisen from
the total or partial, unjust, unnecessary or wanton destruction of
dwellings, buildings, property and effects ... should be paid and
satisfied." The act provided that no indemnity should be paid to
persons "who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion, or
who, having been taken into custody, had submitted to Her Majesty's
will, and been transported to Bermuda." Five commissioners were to be
appointed to carry out the provisions of the act, which also provided
L400,000 for the payment of legal claims.

Then all the forces hostile to the government gathered their full
strength for an onslaught on a measure which such Tories as Sir Allan
MacNab and Henry Sherwood believed gave them an excellent opportunity
of arousing a strong public sentiment which might awe the
governor-general and bring about a ministerial crisis. The issue was
not one of public principle or of devotion to the Crown, it was simply
a question of obtaining a party victory _per fas aut nefas_. The
debate on the second reading of the bill was full of bitterness,
intensified even to virulence. Mr. Sherwood declared that the proposal
of the government meant nothing else than the giving of a reward to
the very persons who had been the cause of