was not allowed to plead the truth of the libellous allegations as a justification, nor was he allowed to examine the prosecutor or plaintiff on matters of difference which may have led up to the motive for commencing the prosecution. In this case the indictment was in three counts. The first was having published evidence at some trial which reflected on the Colonel; the second and third counts were grounded on criticisms on Mr. Prince's conduct in a subsequent paper. Mr. Crown boldly threw away all technical grounds of defence, admitting the publication, and defended himself on the merits of his case, a perilous course to pursue in the then state of the law. He derived no benefit from proving his case. He was stopped by the Judge when he ventured to broaden his defensive ground by examining the prosecutor as to the differences of opinion which led him to seek satisfaction in a libel suit. Colonel Prince had been elected by the reformers as a reformer in 1847, but soon went to the other side, for which action the Globe had paid him some unwelcome attention. This was probably the real cause of the offence. Mr. Brown conducted his case with great ability for a layman, and addressed the jury in a speech of great power. The jury acquitted him on the first count, but found him guilty on the second and third counts, as they were compelled to do by the charge of the Judge. He was sentenced to pay a fine of £30. Some of the audience wished to pay it for him on the spot, but he declined to allow them. It may be questioned whether he then pursued a wise course in defending himself in person, if he looked only to the obtaining of advantages in the course of the trial; but if he looked to the public effect only, he was undoubtedly correct in determining to defend himself. If he was less successful with a Judge than a professional advocate, he was probably more successful with the jury. In this case the leading barrister in London, the late John Wilson, congratulated him warmly, and volunteered to become his surety before leaving the court room.

CHAPTER III.

THE REBELLION LOSSES BILL.-MR. BROWN DEFENDS LORD ELGIN.

In the second session of this parliament the government brought in a bill to provide for the payment of losses sustained by the loyal inhabitants of Lower Canada during the rebellion. The principle of the measure was just, and therefore defensible as explained by its promoters, though it was quite possible that some disloyal persons might be able to secure some advantages from it. Mr. Draper's administration had three years before appointed a commission to inquire into the losses sustained by the insurrectionary movements. This commission reported in April, 1846, that the claims for losses amounted in the aggregate to £241,965 10s. 6d., but that a sum of £100,000 might be considered sufficient to meet the claims which ought to be paid. No further action was taken by that government. Upper Canadian losses had been arranged for by the Act of 1840 and 1842, and the Assembly, in 1845, had unanimously passed an address, asking His Excellency the Governor-General to take measures to insure to the "inhabitants of that portion of the Province, formerly Lower Canada, "'indemnity for just losses by them sustained during the rebellion of “1837 and 1838." The estimate given was, under instructions to the commission, a "general" one, "the particulars of which must form "the subject of more minute inquiry hereafter."

66

The measure introduced to give effect to the report was, as Lord Elgin remarked, "nothing more than a strict logical following out of "their own acts [meaning the late ministry's acts]; though," he added, "it is not altogether free from objection," but "their predecessors "had already gone more than half way in the same direction, though 66 they had stopped short, and now tell us they never intended to go "further." No legislative Act passed during the existence of the union provoked so keen a controversy or gave rise to so much violence and agitation. The loss of the election fifteen months previous to this time would seem to have embittered the Tories to an intense degree. Acts of lawless violence against prominent reformers and the property of the state were almost invited by the speeches of these leaders; and at last they inflicted lasting disgrace on themselves and the country by a violent attack on the Governor General and the outpouring of a continuous torrent of abuse upon him, although he confined himself strictly to the performance of his duty in giving the royal assent to the bill, which had passed both Houses. Lord Elgin

wrote: 66 The Tory party are doing what they can by menace, intimi"dation and appeals to passion, to drive me to a coup d'état. "If I had dissolved parliament I might have produced a rebellion, "but most 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." At this trying time Mr. Brown, in the Globe and at public meetings, threw himself into the thick of the fight in defence of the Governor-General and the government, not wholly because he fully approved of the manner in which the measure was promoted, for he did not-so important a measure, he felt, should have been mentioned in the speech from the throne, and should have been previously foreshadowed, and time given to its careful consideration before introducing it—but he thought that the constitutional course of Lord Elgin, in giving his entire support to his advisers on a subject which had already been partially dealt with by the opposite party, should be as vigorously defended as the unconstitutional course of Lord Metcalfe, in refusing to take advice from responsible ministers, was denounced. The utmost energy was shown by the Globe in calling on the people to support the Governor-General. Every number was filled with articles, letters and addresses, from all quarters, supporting Lord Elgin's action. The insane fury of the Tories against him only diverted public discussion from the merits of the bill and towards the defence of the representative of the Queen, so unjustly assailed. The general result was that addresses were sent to the Governor-General signed by nearly 150,000 people, while a petition got up by the Opposition praying for his recall was signed by about 25,000 to 30,000.

When the bill passed the House early in the session a disgraceful riot took place in Toronto, when the Tory mob expressed their opinions by attacking the private houses of Messrs. Baldwin, the Premier, Mr. Blake, Solicitor-General, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, and others, and burning them in effigy, Happily no very serious damage was done to property, and no life was lost. An attack was threatened on the Globe office, but the chivalrous rioters were content with smashing the doors and windows of Mr. Brown's private residence on Church Street. The Montreal riots occurred some time afterwards on the occasions of Lord Elgin giving the royal assent to the bill, and his visit to the city to receive the address from parliament. On both occasions he was pelted with missiles of the foulest kind. This abominable conduct, as well as the burning of the parliament building, was the work of well-dressed persons, not of the lowest class of the population, as might be expected. Amongst the numerous deputations from the Province of Ontario sent to the Governor-General with

addresses, were those from Toronto, Kingston and Cobourg. The members of these deputations were entertained at Tetu's Hotel by some of the ministers on May 12th. In the course of the evening a violent mob of the opposite party surrounded the hotel, smashed all the windows of the dining-room and some of the doors, and tried to set the house on fire. At the same time a desperate attempt was made to force their way into the dining-room. At this juncture one of the ministers fired on the mob; the shot took effect in the neck of one of the assailants, after which the attack was abandoned. An attack was also made on Mr. Lafontaine's house, which was partially destroyed by fire, when one of the assailants was killed. This violence was attempted to be excused on the ground that it was very offensive to be obliged to divert public money to reward rebels. The real reason was Lord Elgin's refusal to make himself, as his predecessor had done, the tool of the Tory party, and this bill was selected as the most profitable to raise an issue upon, as its scope could be so easily misrepresented. Mr. Brown's share in encountering the riotous obstructionists was a large and prominent one. His chivalrous nature would at once lead him to defend the person of the Governor-General, but he felt that a far more important interest was at stake. The question whether a constitutional system of government, with ministers responsible to parliament, could exist in Canada or not, came up. "The first really efficient and "working government that Canada had had since the Union" (to use Lord Elgin's words) was assailed by force. The most seditious language was used towards the Governor. No greater crisis could have arisen. The party who then assailed Governor and ministers with violence, who defied the solemn decision of parliament, had succeeded six years before, with a Governor-General who was a suitable instrument, in destroying parliamentary government for a time before there had been time to fairly develop its principles. Had they succeeded in securing the recall of Lord Elgin, and, as a necessary consequence, the disallowance of the Rebellion Losses Bill, another severe blow would be struck at parliamentary or responsible government. As Mr. Brown stated at the time, "all such attempts to damage the new system "must be put down with a strong hand, and free action be accorded

to it." The violence and insults offered to the Queen's representative were to be at once resented and deplored. But the "ark of "the constitution" had to be defended first of all, as the peace and happiness of the whole people depended on its preservation, especially as the defence of the one implied and necessitated the defence of the other.

The Montreal disturbances ultimately gave birth to a new organization under the name of "The British North American League." This association was a queer mixture of Tories and Annexationists,

and comprised all the disappointed items. Like King David's famous army at the Cave of Adullam, "Every one that was in distress, and 66 'every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, "gathered themselves" to the meetings of the League. The Globe, and liberal journals generally, greeted the new political mongrel with a storm of ridicule. They were dubbed "Children of the Sun." After one brief attempt to effect something by their meeting at Kingston, the concern collapsed from the sheer rottenness of its material. They advocated extreme Toryism, extreme disloyalty, and finally threatened to drive the French into the sea.

The Governor.

The clumsy attempt at revolution had failed. General had proved himself a true constitutional ruler. By his moderation, firmness and prudence, he had averted serious dangers while giving full effect to the new system of government. Long before the close of the year many of his opponents showed they were ashamed of their conduct towards him; and he ultimately left Canada one of the most popular Governors that ever held sway over it. and probably the ablest of the all.