a fi “at y < tO Bd ee ee oS os Pe Re it ; it YS fe ate Lee ay rye gee 2 4 4 ce ! Py a ay vere 4 AP igs ade on, . 2 ery a verse a 7 iy ar ak oy Aa) bod : Preer ts vet - vt “Sg: 6 Ltr Em * ba ES : Puy eb ne AN gy * J , * ah : AS PARLE PPO ye Lares ve. ee Et as ve oT a oli? tt ; 255 ey AG |e [iat Gee Rs CLS ae F f. t re ve ek or +o . efi ieee y : iJ vd ‘ Mee gh of vat # Ye aT) / . , 2 : he ke VRE! AES ELC’ Bee. Pn eae eh SO ee! ae: Piwe %, Veet ro phen e * < f vay eas ~ & “ig; ‘ rd * 8 CS Ms Wo] Pie, 3 aa eb en USSR, ¢ ~ &. & 2m ' oe “ tf So 5 w . 2a ass ? * . * Ma Mae ey PST Sh nS ‘ ’ aa 7% Nhe f 4 : A w. P ; . 4 pes’ “6 ld $35 ‘ ; . Pa ay ws J {? afr: 7 “a2 cts te we Ws _ SS ) o nee eee Me, V Pig ae y 4 oy: : : - Ct ig OA % es BS we , y ’ : ae " os al ee ’ Pr. % aed i Oe Py be: 8 & “ges wis © SORES of, et, Pag of sm gat eS es PP? 2} en cals ha atte ty ise 2 2G os AU Hi 4s Mik: te Die! jt “ , 4 itigt hy! on q oe ' : t of * f ee a bees vs ‘ : : ig x fie TP AE ip vty +. ’ : ° p ‘ q ‘er, ’ : i+ y oi *" S78 fee . - “? ste < : ere egy ane : . of } : ; ane : 4 ¢ | 1" OEE lel knee, : 7 WTP AT EP LB eee rs en > -ghly’ PB id gf et “e Oh ; ft . : ygrer? ry 2 208 9 eA bytotr eA t fi f ‘ q ; aa . > we y 2 $s 9 fgte ; Fy z “ : . a. B . ya’ - —e* te : j J . L . ; oe ‘ . ~ 's. = / + F; . 2 : '. Vtefe a re Z = + "4 ¢ y ‘ ; p . ‘ 7 2 & , ye ’ «43t vie 1p un? ced ot tit ee a e*3 ; ee ~ * sO .4. Pe or. , , Sp etn. 9 om ; ‘ongh ph Ee Sa DD Le aa OE eg GP hdd Pe AE OOD hd tgs Os fi fie Pt a a he PL” OTE aw ward? hz Ort Ox? 2 Leek, patel; 4 7 . . 4 oe of, a se t= “fe fy G06, LEE as eA 83 . fe - he f? ast nc. HO% Bigs ey os ; 2. die ar )- age , Sos 4 . ; tet ‘xy iA . Se 33H = ee ape : : sie + a. DERE CE: ON THE INSURRECTION IN CANADA. EDWARD BAINES, ESQ., M.P., EDITOR OF THE LEEDS MERCURY. A friend, knowing that I felt much interest in the question—now the great one of the day—tTHE REBELLION IN CANADA, has sent me your Mercury. { much reeret that it should have been a week old before I had the opportunity of reading it, because, had I read it when fresh, I should have had time to have attempted this answer in a less hasty manner, and before other matters had destroyed or thrown fresh light on your facts, opinions, or arguments. I trust, however, to your candour in publishing the fol- lowing attempt to show the question ina somewhat different hight; and I think it proper to premise that I have travelled over aconsiderable part of the United States, and a still greater proportion of the two Canadas, and was not an unobservant traveller, nor confined to the decks of steam-boats and the great public roads, nor solicitous of finding myself always in select company only. You say— ‘¢ Not a doubt seems to be expressed in many quarters that ** the imsulted majesty of the country must be vindicated, and ‘the troublesome and violent Canadians coerced by the ‘© sword.” Here let me say, that I hope there is not a doubt that such is the case; and, from your known intimacy with some of “7 - her Majesty’s Advisers, Iam right glad to assume it to be so. As to the American Revolution and the Canadian Rebellion, I really see little analogy, though there is no doubt that a great proportion of your readers will know little more than that Ca- nada is in America, and that they will therefore needs be alike. You are fully borne out in your opinion—‘‘ That the ** demand of an elective Council (or Upper House of Legis- ‘‘ lature) in Canada was a disguised demand of indepen- *“* dence ;” and I agree with you, ‘ that it would be far better ‘** to release the Canadians entirely from our dominion, than ‘** to keep the name and the expense of sovereignty without ‘‘ the substance;” and that “‘ the demand of an elective 79 e ** Council was fraudulent, and ought to be resisted [ am not a little surprised how you can have found reasons for altering these opinions. The public revenues have not yet been seized, though, in my opinion, they ought to have been seized long since, and appropriated to the objects for which they were collected, viz. the payment of the Governor, Judges, and Officers of the Crown, so unjustly kept out of their honourable earning: — s; and, when pushed to the greatest Mconveniences, themselves and their families depending, in most instances, on the credit of their tradespeople, have had insult added to injury, by an Advocate—himself a hire- ling—denouncing them as “ howling officials,” in a certain Assembly, where he can claim impunity for his conduct. You ask—** Shall Great Britain consent to the indepen- ** dence of Canada?” and add, ** To this question we are ** not prepared to give a negative.” Sir, I am prepared to give a negative, and trust to be only one among an overwhelming majority of my countrymen ready to give it,—certainly among those classes who are best able to appreciate the question, but who have not to exclaim to the people ‘‘ give me your voices,’—with the exception of a cer- tain school of politicians, not very numerous, but always in person, voice, or writings, before the public—I mean the political economists, who, though apparently everywhere and in every thing, are far from numerous, And this large majority will not doubt the right of ‘© England to coerce the Canadians,”—will not ‘‘ doubt her ** power to do it,’ -and, moreover, will not ‘* doubt the ** advantage of holding Canada under military subjugation.” It will occupy far too much space to go with you through the history of Canada, though it is probable that we might not agree upon every point. You are sufficiently correct and fair to answer every purpose required. I will state, that, since Mr. M’eGregor (of whom I wish I could speak favour ably) wrote, the relative populations of British and French origin are a little altered—the British increasing by emigra- . . > . ’ 4 , ’ tion and births far more rapidly than the F rench,—the latter, though producing laree families, bringing up but a small pro- portion : the Cholera likewise made sad havoc among them in the seignories, whilst in the free and common soccage of the British emigrants not one case occurred. We may, I think, take, then, the French population of the Lower Province at 420,000, and the British at 170,000. This difference, though of little importance in itself, will hereafter. become of value in arcument. The population of the Upper Province may remain at 400,000 or 410,000, British and Irish. For myself, Sir, I see no reason why the Province could not have continued to go on quietly and prosperously under the very (may I say too) liberal constitution cranted to it, but for the > violent guidance” of the House of Assembly, by Papineau and others. You say truly, ** that the Canadians were not oppressed ; : : ] 2 rit? tay a+} ~~ . acitated by cratty persons, having certain eCotisth notions. . . + - why y= thar : bow va! : + — Se ~ na ¢$ . : | 2 ] vith WridsUll LIE Y Con! ‘ »©U LO Lis! Y ase LU msiead y Aviles 5 9 4a -_ {, Such appears to be the opinion of their neighbours in the United States,—at least that portion of them, the thinking part. As a proof, I quote the following observations, by Professor Silliman, of Yale College, Massachusetts, from his travels in Canada:—‘** It is questionable whether any con- ‘* quered country was ever better treated by its conquerors ‘¢ than Canada; the people were le ft in complete possession ‘ of their religion and revenues to support it—of 1 their pro- ‘¢ nerty, laws, customs, and manners: and even the defence ‘¢ of their country is without expense to them; and it 1s a ‘¢ curious fact, that (unless by the great counterbalancing ‘© advantages it produces), so far from being a source of ‘¢ revenue, it isa charge on the treasury of the empire. It would ‘¢ seem as if the trouble and expense of government was taken ‘¢ off their hands, and as if they were left to enjoy their own ‘¢ domestic comforts without a drawback. Such is certainly ‘¢ the appearance of the population; and it is doubtful ‘¢ whether our own favoured communities are politically more ‘““ happy;—they are not exposed in a similar manner to ‘* poverty and the danger of starvation, which so often invade ‘ the English manufacturer, and which, aided by their ‘‘ demagogues, goad them on to every thing but open rebel- ‘¢ lion. Lower Canada is a fine country, and will hereafter ‘¢ become populous and powerful, especially as the British ‘“ and Anglo-American population shall flow in more exten- ‘< sively, and impart more vigour and activity to the com- ‘munity. The climate, notwithstanding its severity, 1s a ‘< good one, and very healthy and favourable to the freshness ‘¢ and beauty of the human constitution. All the most im- ‘¢ portant comforts of life are e ~asily and abundantly obtained.” And, if more is wanted on that he ad, ] quote various extracts from an address of this very House of Assembly, at a period when, if there exist at this time (after so much has been con- ceded to their demands) sufficient grounds for rebellion, there then existed ten times as much. [t is true, that, though they have got much that they demanded, they demand more, and those demands appear to me to be far too monstrous to be upheld by any one (not oO either ignorant or forgetful of parts of the argument) who has patriotism, who has national feeling, or any regard for 080,000 of his brother subjects, speaking his own language, connected with him either by close or remote relationship, and who, sympathising with us in our glory or our shame, are as ambitious as they are desirous of the closest connection with their Mother Country, and desirous that their Canadian brethren of a different origin should partake in the blessings of a Constitution and Laws which they and their ancestors had learned to prize. On the 24th December, 1792. the address to his Excellency Alured Clarke. Kisq., Lieut. Governor, from the House of Assembly, says- ‘< Truly sensible of the paternal solicitude of our most ** sracious Sovereign, in watching over the happiness of his ‘* people, and of the justice and benevolence of the Parliament — ‘‘ of Great Britain, in granting to his Majesty’s loyal subjects ‘¢ of this province a new and liberal constitution for their colo- ‘¢ nial government, we shall ever retain the most erateful and ‘** lively sense of the duties we owe to the parent state; we ‘** cannot express the emotions which arose in our breasts on ‘that ever memorable day, when we entered on the enjoy- ‘* ment of a constitution assimilated to that form of govern- ‘* ment which has carried the glory of our mother country ‘* to the hichest elevation, &c., &c. ( Sioned ) °% 2B A. PA N K i¥ Speaker.” 29th March, 1799, to his Excellency Robert Prescott, Governor in Chief— ‘* We are truly sensible of the safety and protection which ‘‘ these distant parts of his Majesty’s dominions have expe. ‘‘rienced amidst the storms that have agitated other countries. ‘** The dispensations of Providence in our favour, and the security we have enjoyed from the mother country, are objects which merit our sincere and devoted acknowledg- ‘* ments; and we-shall guard against the insidious practices made use of for withdrawing the cre dulous from their duty to * the government by which they are protected. 6 ‘¢ Your Excellency may rely upon the continuation o! 543 harmony in the discharge of our duty, on every object “¢ tending to the support of the excellent and happy govern: <¢ ment under which we live. ( Signed) “DE BONNE,” 7th March, 1800. To His Excellency Sir Robert Shore Milnes, Lieut.-Governor :— << Tt cannot but afford us matter of the highest consolation Lat ~~ and gratitude to his Majesty, that at a time when many at ? ‘ parts of Europe, and other parts of the olobe are afflicted ‘¢ by the miseries of war, his faithful subjects in this province ~ *- are enabled to enjoy with confidence the fruits of their ‘¢ industry, and to meet in tranquillity to consult for the pub- o o- lic welfare, &c. ‘¢ The prosperity of our mother country, on which our own “ i. ‘depends, must ever give us great satisfaction, We. The La “ general mediocrity of the fortunes of his Majesty’s subjects ‘¢ in this province beine well known, we flatter ourselves our n ~ voluntary contributions, though small, will be favourably y . 5 , Lal ”. received.” 12th January, 1801. To His Excellency Sir Robt. Shore Milnes, Lieut.-Governor :— ‘¢ As by his Majesty’s paternal care, and the activity of ‘‘his fleets and armies, his faithful subjects in this colony ‘‘ have been protected from the violence of open aggression ; ‘< it is our peculiar duty by the steadiness of our principles to ‘¢ guard against the delusions of secret artifice. ‘¢ With the most lively gratitude we learn that his Ma- ‘¢ jesty, in his paternal attention to the wants of his subjects, ‘¢ however remote, has not only seen the necessity, but im ‘his royal munificence has provided the means of early ‘¢ education for our children. ‘¢ Your Excellency may depénd on our zealous and active ‘‘ co-operation for. the prosperity of the province, and by our ‘¢ loyal and unanimous exertions for the preservation of that ‘¢ most excellent constitution and government under which we ‘¢ have the happiness to live.” Again, 12th January, LS O22. ‘< We consider as a happy ay | ( »*% circumstance the apprehensions which were for a moment ¢ 7 raised tn the public mind by a society of lawless adventurers, . . as they only served to bring additional proofs of the perfect o A harmony which subsists among all ranks of his Majesty’s ‘* subjects in this part of his dominions, ** All classes of his Majesty's subjects entertain the highest ** sense of his Majesty’s paternal goodness, which has given - * to them the blessing of an excellent constitution, and se- ‘* cured to them all the advantages that flow from it.” These, Sir, are a few extracts from the Journals of the Assembly, as they happen to be within my reach. To proceed—*‘ ‘The House of Assembly claims a right to ap- ‘* propriate to the public service according to its own discretion, ‘‘ the whole of the revenues of the crown accruing within the ‘* provinee, including those produced by the sale of timber and ‘‘ waste lands, all fines and forfeitures, and the income from ‘* selonorial rights.” And I would ask, under what act of Par- hament, by what law, or even custom of this country to her » which, if granted, would be colonies they make these claims | an abandonment of the colony by the Crown. The rights of the Crown of France were, at the conquest, ceded to the Crown of Great Britain, and among those rights are all those named by you. How can England exercise a sovereignty, if the Crown itself is despoiled of, her rights? When and where are the waste lands of a colony considered the sole property of a few na« tives, afew earlier settlers, or the conquered inhabitants resi- dent at any particular period claimed by the parties themselves ? To argue this question with a look of seriousness, would, ] take it, lead some to suppose that the ‘‘ head was not all right ;” because if granted, they would have left the Queen no power in the province but to appoint a Governor, and to main- tain and pay the troops. And, to show that there was no mis- take, in1833 ‘‘ the House of Assembly exercised their constitu- ** tional power of stopping the supplies, declaring that they ‘would grant no more money until an elective Council was ‘ conceded tothem, and the executive Council made responsible . L \ 8 ‘to the legislature. From that time forward the House of ‘© Assembly has acted upon this determination: no money has ‘¢ been granted; and the judges and officers of Government 4 ‘¢ have been for more than four years without their salaries. A ‘¢ government commission of three individuals, with Lord Gos- ‘<¢ ford at its head. was sent out in 1835 to inquire into the com- ‘¢ plaints of the Canadians ; but the Assembly denounced it as ‘¢ on unconstitutional interference. The grant of lands by the ‘¢ British Parliament to the Canadian Company and the North ‘«¢ American Land Company was also complained of by the ‘* Assembly ‘ as an unnecesary interference with the authority ‘¢ of the local legislature over the internal affairs of the pro- ‘‘ vince’ ” However “some reforms were made in the composi- ‘tion of the Council, but they were quite unsatisfactory to ‘¢ the Canadians. who continued to refuse the supplies. This ‘<< state of things led the British Parliament to pass an Act ‘¢ last session, empowering the Government to take money out ‘¢ of the colonial exchequer for paying the salaries, without ‘¢ the sanction of the House of Assembly. And this Act has ‘¢ so alarmed and provoked the Canadians, that they have ‘‘ now organized, armed, and disciplined themselves—have ‘¢ assembled over the whole country and declared their 6 independence,—and are now in general revolt against the ‘¢ Government.” Now. Sir, as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, | would ask, do you consider that Parliament has no right to lecislate for her colonies under any circumstances r Do you consider that a colony has a right to starve the officers of the Crown? Do you consider that the Crown has no right to the waste lands of her colonies ? I feel persuaded that your own reply will save me the neces- . sity of making one. As to the state into which the revolt has brought the pro- vince, and by what means it has been brought into it, the first . know well enough, and of the second I have formed rather strong opinions, not required here. It may be as well, however, to ask you for what reason, and en what grounds either they of the lower province, or yourself, Y complain of the Canada Company, which belongs to the upper province ; which has been converting the forest into glebe, and in a few years doubled, aye, trebled the population ? If we are to mix up the two Provinces, (as in my opinion ought to be), what then would become of that majority which you are so strongly the champion of ? for I would then boldly ask you ‘‘ what the People of Canada think, feel, ‘“¢ and resolve.” The People of Canada! i.e. of- the two Provinces, | estimate at 580,000 of British, and 420,000 of French origin—thus, then, what do the 580,000 demand? I answer fearlessly, without the possibility of a doubt, that they demand a close, an intimate, and an endearing connexion with the mother country. Yet, Sir, large as is this numerical majority, it is nothing as compared to the majority in wealth, in intelligence, and in moral as well as physical courage; and were it not that your article is so long and so studied, and required more attention, here would I rest my case for my oppressed Brethren. 1] would say, shall we, by a misapplication of what is termed liberality, legislate for the domimance of 420,000 ignorant and deluded men, to the expulsion of the 580,000 men, in every way their superiors—men who have in great part either received the land which they cultivate as the reward of years of labour in the service of their country, or who have been led to purchase that land from the Government to whom they have sworn fealty, and to which Government they look for quiet possession ? But I must proceed. You say—*‘ The whole body of the ‘¢ French Canadians, the old proprietors of t! ‘ € all ranks, from the magistrate to the labourer, are united ‘‘in their opposition to the Government. gd \d i, hk BP Ray wy, TY Sa bs wae eR = Pry. J , : Noi ae ai A Rr a ws : ; ek Ss | >. \ ‘@ SGN e "ea , : ‘ \; ae x ee ss ees Sas = ; 5 hss ep sant oe ve sayy te » a ts sie BSA » awe Siew oh aie Se ae eat RRS Rah) ee eS 3, “ye e “ Seen e 3 Dare % ie Shia tiah asthe Son Sets PK Aas sian’, es ig ete Se yi a cen 8) a. po >: toes. MY Ao Sy fc are We fhe ee A NS,