6

other origin' is three to one, that is, 450,000 to 150,000. Assuming this, for the present purpose, to be correct, it follows that a majority of persons of British origin are against the colonial oligarchy. The larger the number they claim as British,' the more completely does it make against them in their attempt to show that it is the grievances of the French Canadians-to use your author's words of which we hear. Many of your readers are, doubtless, aware that the French Canadians' inhabit the seignories-the British, what are called the townships. Now, to bear out your author's view of the case, it would be necessary to show that the said township inhabitants have not joined their French brethren in their complaints and demands. What is the fact? In some of the largest counties inhabited by persons speaking the English language, Members in favour of an elective council were returned by majorities of two to one; and in the county of Sherbrook, which was considered the strong-hold of colonial Toryism, the Constitutional' Members prevailed by a very small majority only. Now it is this reforming spirit of the British inhabitants of Lower Canada which has reduced the minority to the miserable plight which I have exhibited. It is composed, not as the oligarchy desire to be believed-not as the author of the article in your last number has assumed-of the British population, but of the official party and their few adherents.

Now for your author's remedy. In answer to a question, How is Lower Canada to be kept quiet?' he says, We should be answered by their neighbours of the surrounding British provinces, (as we have frequently heard those provincials express themselves,)" Bring the militia down the Ottawa, let the New Brunswickers pass their border, and we'll soon make a settlement of the stiff-necked Frenchmen." I propose to show that the Minister who should rely on the co-operation of the several colonial militia corps against the people of Canada, would certainly make a settlement of the stiff-necked Frenchmen,' but it would not be in the manner anticipated by your author; and for the very simple reason that the mass of the people in nearly (if not quite) all the colonies sympathise with their brethren in Lower Canada, and are actually making similar demands of the Imperial Government. Upper Canada has passed a strong resolution against the constitution of the Council, and in favour of co-operation with the lower province. In Nova Scotia the expediency of rendering the Councils elective was discussed in 1834, when one of the law officers of the Crown even, admitted that such a measure was necessary to give independence to the body in question. In New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward's Island, the people are also at war with the local authorities. In the Assembly of the first-named colony supplies have been refused as in Lower Canada, and in all the colonies public meetings have been held in favour of the elective principle. At these meetings the warmest

sympathy for the people of Lower Canada has been expressed. Is it then likely that the militia of the surrounding British provinces' are to be relied on, if the British Minister should desire to settle the stiff-necked Frenchmen?'

There is another argument against coercion, or, as your author quaintly calls it, settling the stiff-necked Frenchmen,' which is worthy of consideration. The people of Canada-I may add the people of all countries, as distinguished from their aristocraciesare sure of the sympathy of the people of the United States. I do not mean to say that the Government at Washington would interfere, but I do say that there would be no want of aid from the Kentucky riflemen. In one of the very last New York newspapers which have reached this country, there is an account of a public dinner on the 4th of July, at which several toasts were drunk, expressive of sympathy with the Canadians. I quote the words: Our Canadian neighbours-may their struggle for reform be distinguished by the fearless and uncompromising spirit which consecrated the 4th of July in the calendar of freedom.' Again : The Hon. L. J. Papineau, D. B. Viger, and the Canadian Parliaments-oppressed by men who feel power and forget right; may their patriotism be crowned with success, and may tyrants learn wisdom from past folly.'

If I correctly appreciate and exhibit the state of public opinion in the colonies, the project of an union of the legislatures of the two Canadas is thereby proved to be futile. Taking the votes of the Upper Canadian Parliament, about two-thirds of the population are in favour of the elective principle, and, of course, at least that number against an union. These, added to the population of the lower province, make the adherents of the local oligarchies in the two Canadas to number 130,778, and the advocates for a reform in the Council to number 688,087. I can scarcely think the militia, even if brought down the Ottawa, would be much inclined to act against the stiff-necked Frenchmen.' In the united House of Assembly the numbers would be 112 reformers to 34 anti-reformers. Now, with this large majority against a legislative union of the two provinces, I again address myself to the editor of the Repository,' and ask him whether he would dispose of the question against the wishes and feelings of that majority? I can anticipate his answer. He would not legislate against the majority.

The emigration question is another question which bad men have misrepresented in this country. A fund for hospitals was raised in Canada by a five-shilling tax on passengers. The plan originated with Englishmen, and was carried through the Assembly in conformity with the earnest recommendation of Lord Goderich. It came into operation, and was attended with the most beneficial effects. Never were funds better administered. Part was expended on hospitals-part in forwarding

destitute immigrants to their place of destination; the whole on the immigrants themselves. Suddenly the Tory party discovered that the tax was only an expedient of the Assembly to check immigration. A more false insinuation never before came from the lips of man. The Canadians are not opposed to immigration." They receive with brotherly love those immigrants who settle among them. To the abuses of immigration they are opposed. For instance, they do not like to see 500 people cooped up in a dirty ship of 300 tons. They ask for a law to check this, when they are immediately met by a howl from the traders in human flesh, official and non-official, and are accused of animosity to immigrants.

The Lower Canadians object to the British American Land Company, not because it will promote immigration, for they think its tendency will be to check immigration. They object to it on grounds which should, I think, secure some approval. They object to it because the Constitutional Act, by conferring upon the Canadians local legislatures, assigned to the said legislatures the management of their internal affairs, including the public lands. The Declaratory Act of 18 Geo. III. c. 12, besides securing the people of the colonies from taxation by the Imperial Parliament, guaranteed to them the disposal of all moneys levied within the several colonies. The proceeds of land sales have always been considered as a ready means of avoiding direct taxation. In the United States not only a considerable portion of the expenses of the States Governments is supplied from this source, but a considerable fund is raised for the purpose of education. The sale of land to the Companies for much less than the market price, and the appropriation of the proceeds without the consent of the local legislatures, have deprived the people of the two Canadas of this mode of superseding direct taxation. Both the Canadian legislatures have resolved that the establishment of these Companies is a violation of the Declaratory Act of 18 Geo. III. c. 12, and their opinion is borne out by that of many sound constitutional lawyers. Many persons are favourable to these Companies, because they coincide in opinion with the author of England and America. To them I would remark that the Companies in question violate the principles laid down by that author, and about to be put in practice in South Australia. For instance, the Canadian Companies sell lands on long credit, and, by that means, enslave all those who become their purchasers. They will, if unchecked, fill the Canadas with rotten boroughs and rotten counties. But I am filling too much space. I will, therefore, say but little more.

At page 536 your author speaks of the refusal of indemnity for war losses as the 'principal grievance of the French Canadians:" this is a mistake; it is the Upper Canadians who suffered such losses. But the refusal of indemnity is not their principal grievance. The principal grievance of both provinces is the vicious constitu

tion of the Councils; then come the Land Companies, and a host of other grievances follow, much more irksome than that which your author has named.

There are other errors which need scarcely be noticed, after the general exposition I have given of the case of Canada; such, for instance, as those which are involved in the expressions, the paltry opposition of the Quebec and Montreal orators,' (p. 542;) the reluctance of the French minority,' (p.536;) denying bread and home to the British labourer,' (p. 542;) the mass of the French population, exclusive of their agitators, the supporters of Papineau, are well affected,' (p. 537;) and other passages tending to convey an idea that all we hear of Canadian discontents has no reference to the general opinions of the people-an error which, if acted upon by our Government, would certainly be productive of most disastrous consequences.

H. S. CHAPMAN.

P. S. Since the above was in type Canadian newspapers have been received as late as the 4th of August. They exhibit a progressive increase of discontent.

Reform Associations are organizing all over Lower Canada, in communication with a parent Association in Montreal. Similar Associations have, for some time, existed in Upper Canada, and the two central Associations of Torento and Montreal are in close and amicable communication. Thus the plan of bringing the militia down the Ottawa' would not be attended with the results anticipated by your author.

A great Reform Meeting had been held in a county where the "Constitutional' interest was supposed to predominate, namely, Missisquoi. This appears to have disheartened the colonial Tories. The Liberal papers say, that Missisquoi is lost to the Tories for ever. It may be safely affirmed that the Constitutionalists' are reduced to a most miserable minority.

The language of the Constitutional' papers is extremely abusive towards the present Administration. Towards Lord John Russell and Lord Glenelg their tone is contemptuous in the extreme; and yet it is for this very party that these two noble lords are sacrificing their characters as statesmen. My Lords Glenelg and John Russell, I pray you look to this.

H. S. C.

622

EPISTLE TO G. C. HOLLAND, ESQ., M.D.,

WITH MRS. LOUDON'S 'PHILANTHROPIC ECONOMY, OR THE PHILOSOPHY OF HAPPINESS.'

BY THE AUTHOR OF CORN-LAW RHYMES,'

DOCTOR, I send you, with this scrawl,
A thing by no means common;
For, by the Power that made us all,
I send a perfect Woman!

No flimsy thing of pride and prate,
Corruption's empty pander,

Who loathes not quite the goose, her mate,
Yet loves her neighbour's gander.

I do not praise her cheek's rich hue,
Her dress, her air of fashion;

I say not that the soul's deep blue
Melts in her eye of passion.

But I commend her to the heart
On which your own reposes,
Because her stern worth can impart
A grace, like rain on roses;
And teach parental flowers to teach
The lore of gainful duty

To every plant within her reach,
And all their buds of beauty.

The meek-tressed angel of your home

May take to her own bosom

Thoughts bright and pure as ocean's foam,

And fresh as morning's blossom.

Nor need she dread a rival's look,

Or hate a rival's merit:

I send a woman in a book!
A world-awaking Spirit!

A charm! a host! a scourge! a sting!
By tyrants seen with sadness!

A truth-taught POWER! whose mental wing
Shall smite them into madness!

Oh, thanks to Loudon !--and to thee,
Sword-breaking Might of Letters!—
Enfranchised Woman shall set free
The slave who forged her fetters.

For Truth is freedom unto those

Whose souls have strength to seize her;
They play a game which none can lose
Who seek her

Sheffield, August 24, 1835.

EBENEZER.