ed in their support of the Bill. But the French vehemently
insisted on it, and the Ministry, dependent as it was on the
Lower-Canadian vote for its existence, had no choice. The Bill
provided, as the title indicates, for compensation out of the public
treasury to those persons in Lower Canada who had suffered loss of
property during the rebellion. It was not proposed to make a
distinction between loyalists and rebels, further than by the insertion
of a provision that no person who had actually been convicted of
treason, or who had been transported to Bermuda, should share in the
indemnity. Now, a large number of the people of Lower Canada had been
more or less concerned in the rebellion, but not one-tenth of them had
been arrested, and only a small minority of those arrested had been
brought to trial. It is therefore easy to see that the proposal was
calculated {22} to produce a bitter feeling among those who looked upon
rebellion as the most grievous of crimes. It was, they argued, simply
putting a premium on treason. The measure was fiercely resisted by the
Opposition, and called forth a lively and acrimonious debate. Among
its strongest opponents was Macdonald. According to his custom, he
listened patiently to the arguments for and against the measure, and
did not make his speech until towards the close of the debate.

Despite the protests of the Opposition, the Bill passed its third
reading in the House of Assembly on March 9, 1849, by a vote of
forty-seven to eighteen. Outside the walls of parliament the clamour
grew fiercer every hour. Meetings were held all over Upper Canada and
in Montreal, and petitions to Lord Elgin, the governor-general, poured
in thick and fast, praying that the obnoxious measure might not become
law. In Toronto some disturbances took place, during which the houses
of Baldwin, Blake, and other prominent Liberals were attacked, and the
Reform leaders were burned in effigy.

The Government, which all along seems to have underrated public
feeling, was so unfortunate as to incur the suspicion of {23}
deliberately going out of its way to inflame popular resentment. It
was considered expedient, for commercial reasons, to bring into
operation immediately a customs law, and the Ministry took the unwise
course of advising the governor-general to assent to the Rebellion
Losses Bill at the same time. Accordingly, on April 25, Lord Elgin
proceeded to the Parliament Buildings and gave the