regard to the future policy of Canada, we will not ourselves expend the money of the English taxpayers, and not force upon the tax-payers of Canada a burden which, I am satisfied, they will not long continue to bear.'

As Mr. Bright predicted, the storm blew over, and early in April the Government received an intimation. from Mr. Seward that the Government of the United States intended to withdraw its notice for the abrogation of the treaty of 1817, and that the passport system would cease immediately.

Two years later, nevertheless, the affairs of Canada again occupied the attention of the British Legislature. In February, 1867, the Conservative Government introduced the North American Provinces Confederation Bill, which provided for the union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, under the name of the Dominion of Canada, with a Parliament, to consist of the Queen, a Senate of 72 members, and a House of Commons of 181 members.

When the second reading was moved in the Lower House, Mr. Bright, amongst others, complained of the manner in which the bill had been hurried on. There was a petition signed by 31,000 adult males of Nova Scotia-more than half the adult populationagainst Nova Scotia being included. Whether the scheme were a good one or a bad one, scarcely anything could be more foolish than that any of the provinces should be dragged into it. He could not discover any urgency in the matter at all. Mr.

Gladstone had referred to the desire of the Canadians to copy as closely as possible the institutions of the mother-country; but he (Mr. Bright) ventured to say that the clause enabling the Governor-General and his Cabinet to put seventy men in the council for life, inserted into the whole scheme the germ of a malady which would spread, and which before very long would require an alteration of this Act and of the constitution of this new Confederation. There were some other points he desired to mention-one of great importance. What was to be done with the. question of defence? Was this country to continue to maintain 12,000 or 14,000 men to garrison the fortresses of Canada, which, after all, would be of no service if the country were invaded by the Americans." But there was no desire on the part of America to annex Canada forcibly. There were persons who ill-naturedly said the loyalty of the Canadians had its price; but certainly if they applied to us for railway grants, works of defence, etc., it would be better for us, and less demoralising to them, that they should become an independent State. The time had come when it should be clearly understood that the taxes of this country were no longer to go across the Atlantic to pay the expenses of the government of the colonies. Canada ran no risk of aggression whatever, and every farthing spent with the idea of shutting out American aggression was money squandered through a hallucination which we ought to get rid of. For my share,' added the

speaker, 'I want the population of these provinces to do that which they believe best for their own interests to remain with this country if they like it, in the most friendly manner, or to become independent States if they wish it. If they should prefer to unite themselves with the United States, I should not complain even of that. But whatever be their course, there is no man in this House or in those provinces who has a more sincere wish for their greatness and their welfare than I have who have taken the liberty thus to criticise this bill.'

The bill passed through both Houses, and became law on the 29th of March. In the following year there was a Fenian raid into Canada, which was vigorously repelled by the militia; but we need not go through the subsequent history of Canada. Suffice it to state that whatever differences afterwards arose were amicably settled, and that she now presents to the world an enterprising and intelligent population of four million persons, enjoying the fullest measure of civil and religious liberty, and using their best efforts for the colonization of British North America.

In the year 1865 occurred the Jamaica massacre, an event which greatly excited the people of this country, and divided the most eminent of our literary men and statesmen into hostile camps. A negro insurrection having begun at Morant Bay, by resistance offered to the capture of a negro criminal, on the 9th of October, Governor Eyre suppressed the rebellion by a high-handed exercise of his powers. Martial

law was proclaimed in the island.

Not content,

however, with suppressing the insurrection, Governor Eyre continued the executions, and amongst those condemned to death, even on ludicrously insufficient prima facie evidence, was George William Gordon, a coloured member of the Legislature, and also a member of one of the Christian churches in Jamaica. Gordon, indeed, was seized in a part of the island which was not under martial law, and yet he was tried by martial law, and murdered. When the report of Governor Eyre's unwarrantable and sanguinary proceedings reached this country, together with his own despatches, a feeling of indignation was aroused amongst a great body of the people. Others, again, acting under the impression that the Governor had saved the colony, defended deeds which history must mark with the stamp of infamy.

Meetings condemnatory of Governor Eyre: took place in various parts of the country. At one held in Manchester, his antecedents were fully laid before the audience, and every credit given him for his conduct while in Australia. All that the meeting demanded was an investigation, and a deputation was appointed to wait on Earl Russell to prefer that request. As Mr. T. B. Potter observed, the meeting wished to do nothing unjust towards him; they merely wished that the name of England might be vindicated from what they considered a blot on the national escutcheon. Mr. Bright, speaking at Rochdale on the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon, said that from beginning

to end it was a mass of illegality, and he believed there was not a judge sitting upon the bench in the United Kingdom who, speaking in his private capacity, would doubt for one single moment that Mr. Gordon was murdered. At a meeting held at Bradford he said: 'I take my opinion only from documents furnished here, by those whose interest it is to put the most favourable interpretation on their conduct, and I say that murder is foul, and that there is no murder more foul than that done by men in authority under the pretence of law; I say if murder has not yet changed its name, and be yet a crime visited with punishment in this country, then I hope that the Governor of Jamaica and his accomplices will have to stand at the bar of justice for the murder of Mr. Gordon.'

For these utterances the member for Birmingham fell under the ban of the not very withering eloquence of Sir John Pakington, in the House of Commons. The question arose on the Report of the Address being brought up on the 9th of February, 1866. Mr. Bright replied very forcibly to his critic, and having dismissed all idea of party feeling, said he had not prejudged Governor Eyre. He reiterated his belief that Mr. Gordon had been cruelly murdered. In condemning the Governor he had taken the latter's own statement. He grieved to say that there were many persons in this country who did not feel the same sense of wrong and injustice when anything like this happened, if it were inflicted only