Title: The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion
Author: Dent, John Charles, 1841-1888
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion" ***


Libraries)



THE STORY OF THE
UPPER CANADIAN REBELLION.

[Illustration: Yours truly, John Rolph]



THE STORY

OF THE

=UPPER CANADIAN
REBELLION=

JOHN CHARLES DENT

AUTHOR OF "THE LAST FORTY YEARS" &C.

VOL. I.

[Illustration]

TORONTO.

PUBLISHED BY C. BLACKETT ROBINSON

1865

_New York_



THE STORY

OF THE

UPPER CANADIAN REBELLION;

LARGELY DERIVED FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS.

BY JOHN CHARLES DENT,

_Author of "The Last Forty Years," etc._

       *       *       *       *       *

    "Well, God be thanked for these rebels."--_I Henry IV._, Act iii,
    sc. 3.

    "Truth is not always to be withheld because its expression may wound
    the feelings of public men, whose official acts have subjected them
    to public censure. If it were, history and biography would cease to
    be guiding stars, and, above all, would offer no wholesome restraint
    to the cruel, or corrupt, or incompetent exercise of
    authority."--_Tupper's Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir
    Isaac Brock._

    "We rebelled neither against Her Majesty's person nor her
    Government, but against Colonial _mis_-government.... We
    remonstrated; we were derided.... We were goaded on to madness, and
    were compelled to show that we had the spirit of resistance to repel
    injuries, or to be deemed a captive, degraded and recreant people.
    We took up arms, not to attack others, but to defend
    ourselves."--_Letter to Lord Durham from Dr. Wolfred Nelson and
    others, confined at Montreal, June 18th, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

=Toronto:=

C. BLACKETT ROBINSON, 5 JORDAN STREET.

1885.



_Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year 1885,
by_ C. BLACKETT ROBINSON, _in the office of the Minister of
Agriculture._



I DEDICATE THIS BOOK TO MY ESTEEMED FRIEND,

GEORGE STEWART, JUN'R.

OF QUEBEC:

WHOSE RESEARCHES IN A KINDRED DIRECTION WILL ENABLE HIM TO

DO FULL JUSTICE TO WHATEVER IS MERITORIOUS IN IT; WHILE

HIS GENEROUS APPRECIATION OF THE EFFORTS OF HIS

LITERARY BRETHREN WILL RENDER HIM

INDULGENT TO ITS DEFECTS.

JOHN CHARLES DENT.

Toronto, 1885.


[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer errors, including punctuation, have
been corrected. All other inconsistencies have been left as they were in
the original.]


CONTENTS.

                                          PAGE.
CHAPTER I.
THE BANISHED BRITON                          9

CHAPTER II.
A BILL OF PARTICULARS                       46

CHAPTER III.
THE FAMILY COMPACT                          71

CHAPTER IV.
FATHERS OF REFORM                           96

CHAPTER V.
A "FREE AND UNFETTERED" PRESS              122

CHAPTER VI.
THE CASE OF CAPTAIN MATTHEWS               144

CHAPTER VII.
THE NIAGARA FALLS OUTRAGE                  151

CHAPTER VIII.
THE "AMOVAL" OF MR. JUSTICE WILLIS         162

CHAPTER IX.
THE CASE OF FRANCIS COLLINS                195

CHAPTER X.
LIGHTS--OLD AND NEW                        213

CHAPTER XI.
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE                    231

CHAPTER XII.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT                         253

CHAPTER XIII.
MR. HUME'S "BANEFUL DOMINATION" LETTER     264

CHAPTER XIV.
"SEE, THE CONQUERING HERO COMES!"          282

CHAPTER XV.
"A TRIED REFORMER"                         296

CHAPTER XVI.
THE TRIUMPHS OF A TRIED REFORMER           324

CHAPTER XVII.
REACTION                                   342

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE FORGING OF THE PIKES                   354



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

John Rolph                        Frontispiece

David Gibson                               284



THE STORY

OF

THE UPPER CANADIAN REBELLION.



CHAPTER I.

THE BANISHED BRITON.


[Sidenote: 1819]

In the afternoon of a warm and sultry day, towards the close of one of
the warmest and most sultry summers which Upper Canada has ever known,
an extraordinary trial took place at the court-house in the old town of
Niagara. The time was more than threescore years ago, when York was a
place of insignificant proportions; when Hamilton could barely be said
to have an existence; and when the sites of most of the other towns of
the Province whose names are now familiar to us still formed part of the
hunting-grounds of the native Indian. The little town on the frontier
was relatively a place of much greater importance than it is at present;
though its fortunes, even at that early period, were decidedly on the
wane, and such glory as it could ever boast of possessing, as the
Provincial capital, had departed from it long before. To speak with
absolute precision, the date was Friday, the 20th of August, 1819: so
long ago that, as far as I have been able to learn, there are only two
persons now living who were present on the occasion. The court-room,
which was the largest in the Province, was packed to the doors, and
though every window was thrown open for purposes of ventilation, the
atmosphere was almost stifling. Even a stranger, had any such been
present, could not have failed to perceive that the trial was one in
which a keen interest was felt by the spectators, many of whom were
restless and irritable, insomuch that they found it impossible to keep
perfectly still, and from time to time shifted uneasily in their places.
Whispers, "not loud, but deep," occasionally reverberated from the back
benches to the quadrangular space in front assigned to gentlemen of the
long robe, and ascended thence to the august presence upon the judgment
seat. Ever and anon the stentorian voice of the crier proclaimed
silence, in a tone which plainly signified that endurance had well-nigh
reached its limits, and that he would really be compelled to proceed to
extremities if his mandate were any longer disobeyed.

The court-room was of the old conventional pattern. At the upper end was
the large elevated desk, or throne, extending nearly half way across the
chamber, with spacious cushioned chairs, and other suitable
accommodation for the presiding judge and his associates. To right and
left were the enclosed jury boxes, with seats raised considerably above
the level of the floor, but not so high as those provided for the
justices. Directly opposite the throne of justice, and about six yards
distant therefrom, was the prisoners' dock, into which five or six
persons might have been thrust, at a pinch. The intervening space
enclosed by this quadrangle--throne, prisoners' dock, and jury
boxes--was mainly appropriated to the use of barristers and attorneys,
and their clients. A large portion of the space so appropriated was
occupied by a table, around which were distributed a few chairs, every
one of which was occupied; and at the end directly below the judicial
throne was a small enclosure provided for the clerk of the court, set
apart by a low railing, and containing a desk of diminutive size.
Between the clerk's desk and the left-hand jury box was the witness
stall, raised to a level with the highest seats provided for the jurors.
A seat for the sheriff was placed a short distance to the right of the
throne of justice, and on a slightly lower level.

All these arrangements occupied perhaps one-third of the entire
court-room. The rest of the space, extending from the rear of the
prisoners' dock to the lower end of the chamber, was occupied by seats
rising tier behind tier, with a passage down the middle. Between each
of the ends of these seats and the walls of the chamber were passages of
about three feet in width, leading to the doors, for purposes of
"ingress, egress and regress." Such was the plan of the conventional
Upper Canadian court-room in the olden time; and such, with a few
inconsiderable modifications, many of them remain down to the present
day.

The sole occupant of the judgment seat, on this sultry afternoon, was a
gentleman of somewhat diminutive size, but withal of handsome and
imposing appearance. Though he had reached advanced middle life, he
presented none of the signs of age, and evidently retained all his
vigour unimpaired. His eyes were bright and keen, and his small but firm
and clearly cut features were lighted up with the consciousness of
mental power. No one, looking upon that countenance, could doubt that
its owner had all his faculties under strict and thorough control, or
that his faculties were considerably above those of average humanity.
The face was not one for a child to fall in love with, for it was a
perfect index to the character, and was firm and strong rather than
amiable or kind. Evidently a man who, should the occasion for doing so
arise, would deal out the utmost rigour of the law, if not with
indifference, at least without a qualm. He was the Honourable William
Dummer Powell, and he occupied the high office of Chief Justice of the
Province. In conjunction with the Reverend Doctor Strachan, Rector of
York, he had for several years practically directed the administration
of affairs in Upper Canada. Francis Gore and Sir Peregrine Maitland
might successively posture as figure-heads under the title of
Lieutenant-Governors, but the real depositaries of power were the Rector
and the Chief Justice. Ominous combination! which falsified the aphorism
of a great writer--now, unhappily, lost to us--about the inevitable
incompatibility of law and gospel. Both of them had seats in the
Executive Council, and, under the then-existing state of things, were
official but irresponsible advisers of the Crown's representative. More
than one would-be innovator of those days had been made to feel the
weight of their hands, without in the least knowing, or even suspecting,
whence the blow proceeded. They were the head and front of the junto of
oligarchs who formed the Vehmgericht known as the Family Compact, and
for all practical purposes their judgment in matters relating to the
dispensing of patronage and the disposal of Crown property was final and
conclusive.

The counsel for the prosecution was a handsome young man of
twenty-eight, who for some years past had been steadily fitting himself
for the important part he was destined to play--that of Mr. Powell's
judicial[1] and political successor in the colony. The time was only ten
years distant when he, in his turn, was to become Chief Justice of Upper
Canada. The time was still less remote when he was to succeed Chief
Justice Powell as Dr. Strachan's most active colleague--as the chief lay
spokesman of his party, and the chief lay adviser of successive
Lieutenant-Governors. His name was John Beverley Robinson, and his
destiny was doubtless sufficiently clear before him on this 20th of
August, 1819. He had strong claims upon his party, for he was the son of
a United Empire Loyalist, and during the late war with the United States
had proved that he was no degenerate scion of the stock whence he had
sprung. He had been present at the surrender of Detroit, and had borne
himself gallantly at the battle of Queenston Heights. Nor had his party
shown any disposition to ignore his claims. On the contrary, they had
pushed him forward with a rapidity which would have turned any head with
a natural tendency to giddiness. He had been appointed Attorney-General
of the Province before he had been called to the bar, and when he was
only twenty-one years of age--a special Act of Parliament being
subsequently passed to confirm the proceeding. In 1815 he had been
appointed Solicitor-General, chiefly in order that he might draw the
salary incidental to that office during a two years' visit to England.
Soon after his return he had again been appointed Attorney-General, and
had early signalized his re-accession to office by his manner of
prosecuting certain criminals from the Red River country, who had been
placed on trial at York. Those proceedings do not fall within the
purview of this work, but it may be said with reference to the young
Attorney-General's connection with them that he had proved himself an
exceedingly narrow partisan and a docile pupil of Dr. Strachan. He now
presented himself to take a leading part in one of the most shameless
and iniquitous prosecutions that ever disgraced a court of justice. His
personal appearance was decidedly prepossessing. His figure, clad in
well-fitting garments of the fashionable cut of the period, was light,
agile and compact, and his face, rather inclining to narrowness, was
surmounted by a high and smoothly-finished brow, beneath which looked
out a pair of steel-grey eyes, the usual expression of which was eager
and firm, but on the whole not unkindly. His mouth was finely formed,
and when he was in a pleasant humour--as indeed he not infrequently
was--his smile was sweet and ingratiating. In intellectual capacity he
was considerably in advance of most of his professional brethren of that
day, and he had cultivated his natural abilities by constant
watchfulness and study. His features, one and all, were well and sharply
defined, and he was probably the handsomest man at the Provincial bar.

Several other members of the legal profession, all of them more or less
widely known in the forensic, judicial or political annals of the
Province, were present. Conspicuous among them was the brilliant but
unscrupulous Christoper Alexander Hagerman, who had already taken high
rank at the bar, and was destined to be one of the most active and
intolerant directors of the oligarchical policy. Archibald McLean, tall
and lithe of limb, had then been more than four years at the bar, and he
had already given evidence of the high abilities which were to gain for
him an honoured seat upon the judicial bench. He had been retained to
defend two prisoners at the Niagara assizes, and his presence in the
court-room was due to this fact. Another figure at the barristers' table
was Samuel Peters Jarvis, his hands yet red with the blood of young John
Ridout, ruthlessly shed by him in a duel two years before, and never to
be effaced from the tablets of his memory. There, too, sat Henry John
Boulton, a young man of much pretension but mediocre intellect, who had
been appointed acting Solicitor-General during the previous year, and
who united in his own person all the bigotry and narrow selfishness of
the faction to which he belonged. He, also, had been concerned in the
shedding of young Ridout's blood, having acted as second to the
surviving principal in that affair. With this exception his past life
had been uneventful, but his future was fated to be marked by
considerable variety of incident, and by actions which even the most
favourable judgment cannot regard with unmixed complacency.

The twelve jurymen sat in their places, in the jury-box to the left of
the judge. The witnesses summoned on behalf of the Crown were the
Honourable William Dickson and the Honourable William Claus, both of
whom were members of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada. The former
gentleman was an enterprising Scotchman who had settled in Niagara while
it was yet known as Newark, where he had first kept a general store, and
afterwards practised law and speculation with great pecuniary success.
Like the Jarvis above mentioned, he was disfigured by a red right hand,
having shot his man in a duel fought in the autumn of 1808 behind the
United States fort on the opposite bank of the river. It is fair to Mr.
Dickson, however, to say that he was the challenged party, and that the
duel was in a measure forced upon him by the barbarous usages of society
in those (happily) far-off days. The other witness, Mr. Claus, was at
the head of the Indian department at Niagara, the abuses in the
administration whereof were notorious. It was well understood throughout
the district that Dickson and Claus between them had contrived to make a
tolerably good thing out of the Indians, and that they had been
concerned in some decidedly shady transactions. If it be true that
Heaven helps those who help themselves, certainly both those gentlemen
were entitled to look for divine assistance. They possessed and
exercised a wide influence throughout the settlements in the Niagara
peninsula, as well as at the Provincial capital, and were commonly
regarded as being on the high road to great wealth. Two years before the
date of the trial forming the subject of the present chapter, Dickson
had purchased the whole of the splendid township of Dumfries, comprising
94,305 acres, at a trifle over a dollar an acre; and he had already
begun to realize upon his investment. Claus and he occupied seats at the
barristers' table, in close proximity to the Attorney-General. The
spectators included pretty nearly every prominent resident of the town
of Niagara and its immediate neighbourhood.

But the most conspicuous figure in that crowded court-room yet remains
to be considered. It has been mentioned that the prisoners' dock was
large enough to hold five or six persons. On this occasion it held but
a single, solitary prisoner. A man large and bony, who, when in his
ordinary state of health, must have weighed not less than fifteen stone.
Just at present he was very far from being in ordinary health, for
during the preceding twelvemonth he had undergone sufficient worry and
suffering to destroy the life of any man of average vitality. After
having successfully defended himself through two criminal trials, he had
been cast into prison, where he had languished for more than seven
months. During his long confinement he had been subjected to a course of
treatment which would have been highly culpable if meted out to a
convicted criminal, and which was marked by a malignant cruelty hardly
to be comprehended when the nature of the offence charged against him is
considered. His own account of the matter is a plain and simple
narration of facts, the truth whereof rests upon the clearest and most
indisputable evidence. "After two months' close confinement," he writes,
"in one of the cells of the jail, my health had begun to suffer, and, on
complaint of this, the liberty of walking through the passages and
sitting at the door was granted. This liberty prevented my getting worse
the four succeeding months, although I never enjoyed a day's health, but
by the power of medicine. At the end of this period I was again locked
up in the cell, cut off from all conversation with my friends, but
through a hole in the door, while the jailor or under-sheriff watched
what was said, and for some time both my attorney and magistrates of my
acquaintance were denied admission to me. The quarter sessions were held
soon after this severe and unconstitutional treatment commenced, and on
these occasions it was the custom and duty of the grand jury to
perambulate the jail, and see that all was right with the prisoners. I
prepared a memorial for their consideration, but on this occasion was
not visited. I complained to a magistrate through the door, who promised
to mention my case to the chairman of the sessions, but the chairman
happened to be brother of one of those who had signed my commitment, and
the court broke up without my obtaining the smallest relief.
Exasperation of mind, now joined to the heat of the weather, which was
excessive, rapidly wasted my health and impaired my faculties. I felt my
memory sensibly affected, and could not connect my ideas through any
length of reasoning, but by writing, which many days I was wholly
unfitted for by the violence of continual headache."

There is a pathos about this plain, unvarnished story that appeals to
every heart. That a man, no matter what his crimes, should have his
nervous system thus cruelly undermined; that his physical and mental
faculties should be slowly but surely filched from him in this
deliberate fashion, is an idea not to be borne with composure by anyone
whose breast is susceptible to human impulses. But Robert Gourlay was no
great criminal. He had engaged in no plot to blow up King, Lords and
Commons. He had been guilty of no treason or felony. He had threatened
no man's life, and taken no man's purse upon the highway. He was by no
means the stuff of which great criminals are made. He was not even a
vicious or immoral man. He was an affectionate husband, a fond and
indulgent father. His story, from beginning to end, even when subjected
to the fiercest light that can be thrown upon it, discloses nothing
cruel or revengeful, nothing vile or outrageously wicked, nothing
grovelling or base, nothing sordid or mean. On the other hand, it
discloses a man of many noble and generous impulses; a man with a great
heart in his bosom which could warmly sympathize with the wrongs of his
fellow-creatures; a man in whom was no selfishness or greed; a man of
decided principles and stainless morals; who was incapable of dishonesty
or cruelty; who had a high sense of human responsibility; who feared his
God and honoured his King. When we compare his virtuous and honourable,
albeit turbulent and much misguided life, with that of any one of his
immediate persecutors, the contrast is mournfully suggestive of Mr.
Lowell's antithesis about

    "Truth forever on the scaffold; wrong forever on the throne."

To what, then, was his long and bitter persecution to be attributed? Why
had he been deprived of his liberty; thrust into a dark and unwholesome
dungeon; refused the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act; denied his
enlargement upon bail or main-prize; branded as a malefactor of the most
dangerous kind; badgered and tortured to the ruin of his health and his
reason? Merely this: he had imbibed, in advance, the spirit of Mr.
Arthur Clennam, and had "wanted to know."[2] He had displayed a
persistent determination to let in the light of day upon the iniquities
and rascalities of public officials. He had denounced the system of
patronage and favouritism in the disposal of the Crown Lands. He had
inveighed against some of the human bloodsuckers of that day, in
language which certainly was not gracious or parliamentary, but which as
certainly was both forcible and true. He had even ventured to speak in
contumelious terms of the reverend Rector of York himself, whom he had
stigmatized as "a lying little fool of a renegade Presbyterian." Nay, he
had advised the sending of commissioners to England to entreat Imperial
attention to colonial grievances. He had been the one man in Upper
Canada possessed of sufficient courage to do and to dare: to lift the
thin and flimsy veil which only half concealed the corruption whereby a
score of greedy vampires were rapidly enriching themselves at the public
cost. He had dared to hold up to general inspection the baneful effects
of an irresponsible Executive, and of a dominating clique whose one hope
lay in preserving the existing order of things undisturbed. It was for
this that the Inquisition had wreaked its vengeance upon him; for this
that the vials of Executive wrath had been poured upon his head; for
this that his body had been subjugated and his nerves lacerated by more
than seven months' close imprisonment; for this that he had been "ruined
in his fortune and overwhelmed in his mind." And all these things took
place in "this Canada of ours," in the year of grace eighteen hundred
and nineteen--barely sixty-six years ago--while the Duke of Richmond was
Governor-General, and his handsome scapegrace of a son-in-law nominally
administered the government of the Upper Province.

With a view to a clearer understanding of the circumstances which led to
this most villainous of Canadian State prosecutions, it will be well to
glance at some details of the prisoner's past life.[3]

Robert Gourlay was the son of a gentleman of considerable fortune--a
retired Writer to the Signet--and was born in the parish of Ceres,
Fifeshire, Scotland, in 1778. He received an education suitable to his
social position, and while at the University of St. Andrews was the
fellow-student and personal friend of young Thomas Chalmers, who
afterwards became one of the most eloquent pulpit orators of modern
times.[4] Robert was the eldest son of his parents, and, being heir to
the paternal estates, he grew up to manhood with the expectation of one
day succeeding to wealth and station in society. He was put to no
profession, and after leaving college, devoted himself to no settled
pursuit. He was on visiting terms with the resident gentry of his native
shire, and took some interest in local military matters. In 1806 he
offered to take charge of an expedition for the invasion of Paris, being
probably impelled thereto by the mad attempt of Lord Camelford several
years before. He was full of energy and robust health, bountiful and
generous to the poor of the parish, a practical philanthropist,
possessed of great intelligence and a genuine love for his kind; but
withal somewhat flighty and erratic, of impetuous temper, deficient in
tact and discretion, and given to revery and theorizing. He was, in
short, a bundle of contradictions, some of his idiosyncrasies being
doubtless inherited from his father, who was a generous and high-minded
but unpractical man. The sire would seem to have been conscious of his
son's weaknesses. "Robert," he was wont to say, "will hurt himself, but
do good to others." The son studied deeply the economical side of the
pauper question, and his researches in this direction brought him into
intimate relations with that eminent writer Mr. Arthur Young,[5] at
whose suggestion he was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the
condition of the poor in England. By virtue of this appointment he
travelled, chiefly on foot, through the most important agricultural
districts of the island, after which he was pronounced by competent
authorities to be the best-informed man in the kingdom respecting the
poor of Great Britain. As I have said elsewhere: "He was consulted by
members of Parliament, political economists, parish overseers, and even
by members of the Cabinet, as to the best means for reforming the poor
laws, and was always ready to spend himself and his substance for the
public good."[6]

Having married and settled down on one of his father's estates, he took
upon himself various offices of public usefulness and philanthropy. His
enterprise and public spirit caused him to be much looked up to by the
yeomanry of Fifeshire, and he soon came to be recognized as the special
champion of the smaller tenantry at agricultural meetings. At one of
these meetings he conceived himself to have been discourteously treated
by his neighbour, the Earl of Kellie. The discourtesy does not seem to
have been of a serious nature, but Mr. Gourlay became irritated to a
degree altogether disproportionate to the offence. He wrote and
published a pamphlet, in which Lord Kellie was handled with much
severity. It was circulated by the author throughout Fifeshire, and
widely read; and from this time forward he was much given to taking the
public into his confidence respecting his personal grievances. His
attack on Lord Kellie, however, weakened his popularity, and in 1809,
partly owing to this cause, and partly to his being in temporary
ill-health, he accepted a proposal from the Duke of Somerset to become
the tenant of a farm belonging to his Grace, and situated in the parish
of Wily, in Wiltshire. For a time all went well with him in his new
abode. His farm was a model for the emulation of all the landholders in
the parish, and his products gained prize after prize at successive
agricultural exhibitions. But Mr. Gourlay was nothing if not critical,
and certain of his surroundings afforded legitimate grounds for
fault-finding. There were many and serious defects in the system of
administering the poor-laws of Great Britain in those days, and the
administration in the parish of Wily was attended by some specially
objectionable features. These erelong became painfully apparent to the
keen eyes of Mr. Gourlay, who began to agitate for a reform. He went
into the matter with characteristic earnestness, and, by dint of
constant speechifying and weekly letters addressed to the local
newspapers, he soon began to produce an impression. His appetite for
agitation grew by what it fed upon, insomuch that he became a confirmed
grievance-monger and hunter-up of abuses. The magnates of the county
began to look coldly upon him, and even, in some instances, to array
themselves in open opposition to him. This only tended still further to
arouse the native pugnacity of his disposition, and his attacks upon
local abuses and those who upheld them became more and more violent.
Now, in all this there can be no doubt that Mr. Gourlay was from first
to last chiefly actuated by genuine philanthropy. He certainly had no
selfish or pecuniary purpose to serve; and indeed it is hard to conceive
of a man less influenced by mercenary motives. His life was passed in a
perpetual war against veritable and undoubted evils; but unfortunately
his hotheadedness and want of tact prevented him from doing justice to
himself and his views. He lacked the calm intellect and patient temper
necessary to the successful fighting of life's stern battle, and had the
unhappy faculty of generally putting himself in the wrong, even when
there could be no doubt that he had originally been in the right. Some
of his letters to the newspapers were remarkable for nothing but their
indiscretion, violence and bad taste, and he came to be looked upon by
the landlords of Wiltshire as a visionary and dangerous man. His own
landlord, the Duke of Somerset, was of this way of thinking, and after
some remonstrances at second-hand which proved unavailing, his Grace
resolved that this "pestilent Scotchman" must be got rid of. A bill in
Chancery was filed against him on some pretext or other, with the view
of putting an end to his tenancy. Years of irritating and ruinous
litigation followed, the ultimate result of which was a decision in Mr.
Gourlay's favour. But it was the old story of _Jarndyce_ v. _Jarndyce_.
The protracted litigation had eaten up the substance of the successful
litigant, and upon the promulgation of the decree the Wiltshire Radical
was a ruined man. This would have been a matter of secondary importance
to the heir of a wealthy Fifeshire laird, but unhappily his father had
also come to the end of his resources. Injudicious speculation and the
mismanagement of an agent, combined with the necessity of placing a
large quantity of real estate in the market at an inauspicious time,
were the causes which led to the bankruptcy of the elder Gourlay, who
was stripped of his great possessions and left with a bare subsistence.
The son's prospects of inheriting a fortune were thus at an end, and at
thirty-seven years of age he found himself almost wholly without means,
and with a family of five children and a wife in delicate health
dependent upon him for support. The howl of the wolf began to be audible
to him; distant, as yet, but still gradually drawing nearer. To his
mind, a change of the base of his operations was clearly indicated.

Five years before this time he had acquired a block of land in the
Township of Dereham, in the County of Oxford, Upper Canada, where his
wife also owned some property. He now began to cast his eyes anxiously
towards the setting sun, with a view to the rehabilitation of his broken
fortunes. After weighing the matter carefully, he resolved to cross the
Atlantic and pay a visit to Canada, in order to ascertain whether it
would be prudent to remove his family thither. He seems to have been
very deliberate about making up his mind, as he did not set sail from
Liverpool until the month of April, 1817, and did not reach Canada until
early in June. The country delighted him, more especially the Upper
Province; but one with so keen an eye for abuses had not far to look
throughout our fair land in those days for subjects of criticism. Having
made himself acquainted with some of the most glaring iniquities of the
ruling faction, and with the various causes which tended to retard the
progress of the colony, he began to liberate his mind by written and
spoken utterances such as had not theretofore been heard in the
Province. The effect of these appeals to popular sentiment was soon
apparent. People who had long smarted silently under injustice did not
hesitate to make known their discontent. The disturber of the public
tranquillity continued to speak and write, and he made his presence felt
more and more from month to month. Having resolved to engage in business
as a land agent, and to set on foot a huge scheme of immigration to
Canada from Great Britain, he went diligently to work to gather specific
and definite information, and to attack one abuse after another. He
travelled about the country hither and thither, addressed public
meetings, and wrote letters to all the papers that would publish his
animadversions. He was in deadly earnest, and put all the energy of his
impassioned nature into his appeals. In commenting upon the
delinquencies of public officials he did not mince matters, though I
search in vain throughout his voluminous writings for any evidence that
he was ever guilty of a misstatement, or even an exaggeration. He
regaled his readers and hearers with indubitable facts--facts which, for
the most part, were easily susceptible of proof, and which were
eminently calculated to arouse public indignation against the harpies
who reaped where they had sowed not, and who gathered where they had not
strawed.

These proceedings, as may readily be believed, rendered him
inexpressibly obnoxious to the Executive, and to the horde of myrmidons
who held office at their sufferance. But the cup of his transgressions
was not yet full. His next proceeding filled it to overflowing. He
addressed a series of thirty-one printed questions to prominent persons
in different parts of the Province, asking for topographical and other
information. The thirty-first question was so framed that, if truthfully
replied to, it was certain to elicit facts which would form the
groundwork of damnifying strictures on the principal abuses of the time.
"What, in your opinion," asked Mr. Gourlay, "retards the improvement of
your township in particular, or the Province in general?" Throughout the
Home District the influence of the Compact was sufficient to prevent any
replies from being returned to these queries. Elsewhere that influence
was partial only, and many answers were received from other districts.
The all but invariable reply to the thirty-first question attributed the
slow development of the country to the Crown and Clergy Reserves. Mr.
Gourlay did not attempt to conceal his intention of publishing the
results of his investigations, and of circulating them all over Great
Britain and Ireland. Having succeeded in arousing a good deal of popular
enthusiasm, he proceeded to strike what he intended to be another
damaging blow. Owing to his exertions, a convention was held at York,
whereat he advocated a petition to the Imperial Parliament, praying for
an investigation into the public affairs of Upper Canada. He also
suggested the sending of deputies to England in support of the petition,
and it is not improbable that such a course would eventually have been
followed, but the petitioners were as yet not fully organized, and
before any of their plans could be brought to maturity their champion's
career of agitation received a sudden and, for the time, an effectual
check.

The oligarchs had taken alarm. If this man were permitted to go on as he
had begun, there would soon be an end of the existing order of things,
which they had so tremendous an interest in preserving. At any cost, and
by whatever means, he must be suppressed. There must be a general and
determined advance against him all along the line.

The prime organizer of this most unrighteous crusade is believed to have
been the Reverend Dr. John Strachan, Rector of York, member of the
Executive Council, supreme director of the lay and ecclesiastical policy
of the Church of England in Upper Canada, champion of the Clergy
Reserves, and what not. It may seem a thankless task to write in strong
depreciation of a man who, in his day and generation, was looked up to
with reverence by a large and influential portion of the community, and
whose memory is still warmly cherished by not a few. But truth is truth,
and the simple fact of the matter is that Dr. Strachan did more to
stifle freedom and retard progress in Upper Canada than any other man
whose name figures in our history. His baneful influence made itself
felt, directly or indirectly, in every one of the public offices.
Wherever liberty of thought and expression, whether as affecting things
spiritual or temporal, ventured to lift its head, there, bludgeon in
hand, stood the great Protestant Pope, ready and eager to strike. It may
perhaps be conceded that he acted according to his earnest convictions.
So, doubtless, did Philip of Spain and Tomas de Torquemada. It is not
going too far to say that Dr. Strachan was utterly incapable of seeing
more than one side of any question involving the interests of himself
and his church. When his cause was a just one, who so fond as he of
appealing to the majesty of the law. When he wished to pervert the law
to his own purposes, who so apt at enjoining a disregard therefor.[7]
There is abundant reason for believing that he was the original
instigator of the Gourlay prosecutions. They were at all events carried
on by his satellites, and fostered by his fullest concurrence and
approval. Their object was to drive Mr. Gourlay out of the country, and
to this end it would appear that the Compact were prepared to go
whatever lengths the necessities of the case might require. A criminal
prosecution for libel was set on foot against the doomed victim of
Executive malevolence, who was arrested and thrown into jail at
Kingston, where he lay for some days. The trial took place on the 15th
of August, 1818, when Mr. Attorney-General Robinson put forth the utmost
power of his eloquence to secure a conviction. In vain. The prisoner
conducted his own defence, and so clearly exposed the flimsiness of the
indictment that the prosecution utterly failed. A second arrest on a
similar charge resulted in another acquittal at Brockville. It was by
this time manifest that no jury could be found subservient enough to
become blind instruments of oppression. The alleged libel consisted of
two paragraphs in a petition to the Prince Regent, drafted by Mr.
Gourlay, approved of, printed and published by sixteen residents of
Niagara District, six of whom were magistrates. These paragraphs
contained a vivid but faithful picture of the abuses existing in the
Crown Lands Department, and it would probably have been difficult to
find a jury anywhere in Upper Canada, some members whereof had not had
personal experience of those abuses. Having failed in two attempts to
convict him of libel, Mr. Gourlay's foes hit on another and more
effectual method of accomplishing his destruction.

By a Provincial statute known as the Alien Act, passed in 1804,
authority was given to certain officials to issue a warrant for the
arrest of any person not having been an inhabitant of the Province for
the preceding six months, who had not taken the oath of allegiance, and
who had given reason for suspicion that he was "about to endeavour to
alienate the minds of His Majesty's subjects of this Province from his
person or government, or in anywise with a seditious intent to disturb
the tranquillity thereof." In case the person so arrested failed to
prove his innocence, he might be notified to depart this Province within
a specified time, and if he failed so to depart he was liable to be
imprisoned until he could be formally tried at the general jail
delivery. If found guilty, upon trial, he was to be adjudged by the
court to quit the Province, and if he still proved contumacious he was
to be deemed guilty of felony, and to suffer death as a felon, without
benefit of clergy. This statute, be it observed, was not passed at
Westminster during the supremacy of the Plantagenets or the Tudors, but
at York, Upper Canada, during the forty-fourth year of the reign of
George the Third. More than one eminent authority has pronounced it an
unconstitutional measure. There was, however, some show of justification
for it at the time of its enactment, for the Province was then overrun
by disloyal immigrants from Ireland and by republican immigrants from
across the borders, many of whom tried to stir up discontent among the
people, and were notoriously in favour of annexation to the United
States.[8] It was against such persons that the Act had been levelled,
and there had never been any question of attempting to apply it to
anyone else. Now, however, it was pressed into requisition in order to
compass the ruin of as loyal a subject as could have been found
throughout the wide expanse of the British Empire; who had resided in
Upper Canada for a continuous period of nearly eighteen months; who was
no more an alien than the King upon the throne; and whose only real
offence was that he would not stand calmly by while rapacious and
dishonest placemen carried on their nefarious practices without protest.

Among the various dignitaries authorized to put the law in motion, by
the issue of a warrant under the Act, were the members of the
Legislative and Executive Councils. William Dickson and William Claus,
as has been seen, were members of the former body; and as such they had
power over the liberty of anyone whose loyalty they thought fit to call
in question. Dickson was a connection by marriage of Mr. Gourlay, and
for some months after that gentleman's arrival in this Province had gone
heart and hand with him in his schemes of reform. For Mr. Dickson then
had a grievance of his own, arising out of the partial interdict of
immigration from the United States which had been adopted after the War
of 1812-15. He was the owner of an immense quantity of uncultivated
land in the Province, including the township of Dumfries already
mentioned, which he was desirous of selling to incoming settlers. The
shutting out of United States immigrants tended to retard the progress
of settlement and the sale of his property. His anger against the
Administration had been hot and bitter, and he had even gone so far as
to state publicly that he would rather live under the American than
under the British Government. But he had managed to induce the Assembly
to pass certain resolutions, recognizing the right of subjects of the
United States to settle in Upper Canada. The restrictions being relaxed,
his only cause of hostility to the Administration vanished, and he
ceased to clamour against it. His sympathy with Mr. Gourlay's projects
vanished into thin air. Those projects contemplated enquiry and reform.
Dickson, having accomplished his own ends, desired no further reform;
and as for enquiry, he had excellent reasons for burking it, as it would
probably lead to the disclosure of certain reprehensible transactions on
the part of himself and Claus, the Indian agent. He therefore presented
a sudden change of front, and, so far from continuing to act with Mr.
Gourlay, he became that unfortunate man's bitterest foe.

How far Dickson's enmity was stimulated by coöperation with the leaders
of the Compact party at York will probably never be known. That there
was something more than a merely tacit understanding that Mr. Gourlay
was to be got rid of is beyond question. But before any arrest could be
effected under the Act of 1804 it was necessary that perjured testimony
should be forthcoming. It was easily provided. On the 18th of December,
1818, a secret consultation took place between Dickson and one Isaac
Swayze, at the former's private abode. Swayze was a resident of the
Niagara District, and the representative of the Fourth Riding of Lincoln
in the Legislative Assembly, but was nevertheless a man of indifferent
character, and so illiterate as to be barely able to write his name.
During the Revolutionary War he had been a spy and "horse-provider" to
the loyalist troops. More recently he had been chiefly known as one of
the most bigoted and unprincipled of the Compact's minor satellites; a
hanger-on who was ever ready to undertake any disreputable work which
the Executive might have for him to do. He was a smooth-tongued
hypocrite, who made extravagant professions of zeal for religion when he
was in the society of religious people, but afterwards laughed at their
credulity for believing him. "When electioneering," said he, "I pray
with the Methodists." At other times he gained votes by threatening to
bring down upon the electors the vengeance of the Executive, who, he
averred, were specially desirous of having his services in the Assembly.
Corruption can always find apt tools to do its bidding.

   "Where'er down Tiber garbage floats, the greedy pike ye see;
   And wheresoe'er such lord is found, such client still will be."

Isaac Swayze was a veritable modern counterpart of the client Marcus,
and when he gained votes by holding his patrons _in terrorem_ over the
heads of the electors, he was merely echoing his ancient prototype:--

   "I wait on Appius Claudius, I waited on his sire;
   Let him who works the client wrong beware the patron's ire."

His employers knew their man, and that he would not stick at a trifle to
keep their favour. On the day after his secret interview with Dickson he
proved his subordination to authority by committing wilful and
deliberate perjury. He swore that Mr. Gourlay was an evil-minded and
seditious person, who was endeavouring to raise a rebellion against the
government of Upper Canada; that he, deponent, verily believed that said
Gourlay had not been an inhabitant of the Province for six months, and
had not taken the oath of allegiance.[9]

On the strength of this sworn statement, Mr. Gourlay was arrested under
the Alien Act of 1804, and carried before Dickson and Claus, both of
whom were specially and personally interested in putting him to silence.
The examination and hearing before them, which took place on the 21st of
December, was a transparent mockery of justice. Dickson, Claus and
Swayze, in common with nearly every one in Upper Canada, well knew that
their victim had been resident in the Province for nearly three times
the period specified in the Act. Dickson had been in constant and
familiar intercourse with him for sixteen months. Claus had known him
nearly as long. Swayze had conversed with him at York more than a year
before, and had been acquainted with his proceedings from month to
month--almost from week to week--during the entire interval. The charge
of being an evil-minded and seditious person was too absurd to be
seriously entertained for a moment by any one who knew Mr. Gourlay as
intimately as Dickson had done for more than eight years.[10] As for his
not having taken the oath of allegiance, it had never been required of
him, and he was both able and willing to take it with a clear and honest
conscience. But as matter of fact no one suspected his loyalty, and the
charge against him was the veriest pretext that malice could invent.
When he appeared before his judges, however, Messieurs Dickson and Claus
professed to be dissatisfied with his defence, and alleged that his
"words, actions, conduct and behaviour" had been such as to promote
disaffection. They accordingly adjudged that he should leave the
Province within ten days. A written order, signed by them, enjoining his
departure, was delivered to him. "To have obeyed this order," writes Mr.
Gourlay,[11] "would have proved ruinous to the business for which, at
great expense, and with much trouble, I had qualified myself. It would
have been a tacit acknowledgment of guilt, whereof I was unconscious. It
would have been a surrender of the noblest British right; it would have
been holding light my natural allegiance; it would have been a
declaration that the Bill of Rights was a Bill of Wrongs. I resolved to
endure any hardship rather than to submit voluntarily."

He paid a heavy penalty for his disobedience. On the 4th of January,
1819--the third day after the expiration of the period allowed him for
departure--Dickson and Claus issued an order of commitment, under which
he was arrested and lodged in Niagara jail, there to remain until the
next sitting of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. His pugnacity was by
this time fully aroused, and he determined to fight his ground inch by
inch. After some delay, he caused himself to be taken before Chief
Justice Powell, at York, under a writ of _habeas corpus_, for the
purpose of being either discharged from custody or admitted to bail. The
argument was heard on the 8th of February, when several persons of
wealth and good social position presented themselves, and offered to
become responsible to any amount for his appearance whenever called upon
to stand his trial. The attorney who argued the cause on behalf of the
prisoner presented three affidavits, made respectively by the Honourable
Robert Hamilton, Peter Hamilton, and the prisoner himself, who, in order
to render his position doubly unassailable, had meanwhile taken the oath
of allegiance. In the first affidavit it was deposed that Mr. Gourlay
had been domiciliated at Queenston for more than nine months, and that
the deponent verily believed him to be a natural-born subject of Great
Britain. By the second it appeared that deponent had known Mr. Gourlay
in Britain, where he was respected, esteemed, and taken to be a British
subject; "and that he is so"--thus ran the affidavit--"this deponent
verily believes is notoriously true in this district." The prisoner's
own affidavit set forth that he was a British subject; that he had taken
the oath of allegiance, and that he had been an inhabitant of Upper
Canada for more than a year prior to the date of the warrant first
issued against him. There could hardly have been a clearer case. But the
prisoner's enlargement at this time would have been a triumph for him,
and would have made him a popular idol, which would not have comported
with the policy of the Unholy Inquisition at the capital. He was
remanded to jail, the Chief Justice indorsing judgment on the writ to
the effect that the warrant of commitment appeared to be regular, and
that the Act under which it was issued made no provision for bail or
main-prize.

When Mr. Gourlay was first placed in durance at Niagara he was possessed
of robust health, a vigorous frame, a seemingly unconquerable will, and
a perfervid enthusiasm for the cause of truth and justice. But his
sufferings during the ensuing six months were of a nature well
calculated to sap the health of the most robust, to rack the frame of an
athlete, to tame the wildest enthusiasm, and to subjugate the strongest
will. When we read of what the gentle and erudite John Fisher or the
eloquent and upright Sir John Eliot underwent in the Tower for
conscience sake, the heart's blood within us is stirred with righteous
indignation. But we are calmed by the reflection that these things took
place centuries ago, and in a far-distant country. In the case of Robert
Gourlay we can lay no such flattering unction to our souls. His slow
crucifixion was accomplished in our own land, and at a time well
remembered by many persons now living among us. Some idea of what he
passed through may be derived from his own words already quoted. Further
light on the subject may be obtained from noting his demeanour when
placed on trial, as the reader will presently have an opportunity of
doing.

For some months after his incarceration his fine state of health and
exuberant animal spirits kept him from utterly breaking down. His whole
nature was up in arms at the wrongs he had sustained, and his pugnacity
asserted itself as far as his circumstances would admit of. He obtained
the opinions of eminent English lawyers as to the legal aspect of his
case. The unanimous opinion of counsel was that his imprisonment was
wholly unjustifiable. Sir Arthur Piggott was clear that Chief Justice
Powell should have discharged the prisoner when brought before him under
the writ of _habeas corpus_, and that Dickson and Claus were liable to
actions for false imprisonment. This opinion was acted upon, and
proceedings were instituted against the two last-named personages. But
the contest was too unequal. Each of the defendants obtained an order
for security for costs, which security the plaintiff, being in
confinement, and subject to various disabilities, was unable to furnish.
The actions accordingly lapsed, and Dickson and Claus thus escaped all
civil liability for their most reprehensible deeds.

The thread of the narrative may now be resumed pretty nearly where it
was dropped a few pages back. It was, as has been said, the 20th of
August--nearly a year subsequent to the Kingston trial[12]--when the
prisoner was finally placed in the dock to undergo the semblance,
without the reality, of a judicial investigation into his conduct. He
was himself firmly persuaded that the jury empanelled in his case was a
packed one. We have no means of knowing all the circumstances whereby he
was led to this conclusion, but the idea is not in itself inherently
improbable. In those days, and for long after, no man tried in Upper
Canada for anything savouring of radicalism in politics could hope to
receive fair play. In Gourlay's case there were one or two suspicious
features which, to say the least, require explanation. The custom
ordinarily adopted by the sheriff, in selecting jurymen, was to draw
them in rotation from the various townships in the district. "In my
case," says Mr. Gourlay, "it was said that he had varied his course; and
not this only, but, instead of drawing from a square space of country,
he chose a line of nearly twenty miles, along which it was well known
that there were the greatest number of people prejudiced and influenced
against me."[13] Mr. Gourlay further declares that it was observed by
people in court that in the glass containing the folded transcripts from
the jury-list some of the folded papers were distinctly set apart, so as
to admit of their being drawn, apparently with fairness, in the ordinary
manner. These papers so set apart from the rest, as Mr. Gourlay informs
his readers, were "caught hold of" as the twelve which should decide his
fate. The names of the jurors, which, so far as I am aware, have not
hitherto appeared in print, are worthy of preservation. They were
William Pew, John Grier, William Servos, James B. Jones, Ralfe M. Long,
David Bastedo, John C. Ball, John Milton, James Lundy, William Powers,
Peter M. Ball and John Holmes.

The personal appearance of the prisoner had undergone a woful change
during his confinement. Had his own wife seen him at that moment it is
doubtful whether she would have recognized her lord. Could it be
possible that that frail, tottering, wasted form, and that blanched,
sunken-eyed, imbecile-looking countenance were all that were left of the
once formidable Robert Gourlay? The sight was one which might have moved
his bitterest enemy to tears. His clothing, a world too wide for so
shrunken a tenant, hung sloppy and slovenly about him, and it was
remarked by a spectator that he had aged fully ten years during the six
months that had elapsed since his journey to York in the previous
February. His limbs seemed too weak to support him where he stood, and
as he leaned with his hands upon the rail in front of him his fingers
twitched nervously, while his whole frame visibly trembled. The saddest
change of all had been wrought in his once fine eyes. They were of light
grey, and their ordinary expression had been more sharp and piercing
than is commonly found in eyes of that colour. They had been clear and
keen, and expressive of an active, vigorous brain behind them. At
present they were wandering, weak and watery, altogether lacking in
lustre or expression. They told their sad tale with piteous brevity. The
brain was active and vigorous no longer, or, if still active, was so to
no definite purpose. The spark of reason was for the time quenched
within him. His oratory and his writings were no longer to be dreaded.
The man whose large presence had once carried about with it unmistakable
evidences of physical and mental power had been reduced to a physical
and mental wreck. No man in that closely-packed court-room was now more
harmless than he. The Compact had indeed set an indelible mark upon
him--a mark which he was to carry to his grave, for during the
forty-four years of life that remained to him he was never again the
Robert Gourlay of old, and was subject to periodical seasons of mental
aberration.

And yet, as he stood there trembling and distraught, with that sea of
faces turned upon him, he was not altogether without some glimmering of
reason. He was at least passively conscious, like one in a troubled
dream, of what was going on around him. He realized, in a misty, dazed
sort of fashion that he was on his trial; but, cudgel his memory how he
would, he could not recall the nature of his alleged offence. The fact
is that, though no stimulant had passed his lips, he was in a state that
can only be characterized as one of intoxication. We know, on undoubted
authority, that very emotional persons are sometimes intoxicated by a
plate of soup, and that invalids have become tipsy upon eating their
first beefsteak after convalescence. Mr. Gourlay was endowed with an
enthusiastic, exuberant nature, which required to be kept in subjection
by abundant exercise. Up to the time of his imprisonment he had led an
active out-of-door life, whereby the demon of nervousness within him had
been kept at bay. But long-continued confinement in a close cell,
deprivation of fresh air and suitable exercise, had hindered his
exuberance from finding vent. His mind had been thrown back upon
itself. He had not been permitted to confer with his friends, except
under such restrictions as made converse intolerable. He had been kept
in such a state of nervous tension that he had had no appetite, and had
eaten scarcely any food. His sleep had been broken by mental discomfort,
and he had sometimes lain the whole night through without a minute's
unconsciousness. What wonder that his flesh had sunk away from his
bones, and that his frame had lost its elasticity! For some hours every
day he had lain prostrate on the bed in his cell, in a state of
feebleness pitiful to behold, unable to speak or move, and hardly able
to breathe. "One morning," he writes, "while gasping for breath, I
besought the gaoler to let me have more air, by throwing up the window.
'You are no gentleman,' said he; 'you gave that letter[14] out of the
window, and I will come presently to nail it down.' Happily a friend
soon after called upon me, and through his interference the window was
put up. The brutal gaoler had never before been uncivil to me ... but
there is a spirit throughout animal nature, brute and human, to oppress
in proportion as opportunity is safe, and the object defenceless. The
wounded stag, and the close prisoner of a Provincial Government,
experience similar treatment."[15]

The summer heat, as before mentioned, had been excessive. No rain had
fallen for weeks until just before the opening of the assizes, when
there had been three days of damp, cool weather. During these three days
the prisoner's strength had rallied wonderfully, and he had been able to
prepare a written defence, as well as a written protest against the
legality of his trial, in case of a hostile verdict. But the exertion
had been too much for him in his enfeebled condition, and, as though to
add to his miseries, the heat had become more intolerable than before.
He had not known how utterly his nerves were shattered until his case
had been called for trial, and he had been placed in the prisoners'
dock. Hot and stifling as was the air of the court-room, it was balm
itself when compared with the vitiated element which he had long been
forced to breathe. The stimulus was too great, and he was no longer
master of himself. To quote his own words, he became rampant with the
fresh air, and was reduced to imbecility at the very moment when he
specially needed strength, patience and recollection. Such was his
condition when Mr. Attorney-General rose from his seat and proceeded to
lay bare the prisoner's unspeakable enormities. It had been determined
that no attempt should be made to convict him of sedition, and that the
only charge to be pressed against him should be his refusal to leave the
Province. The indictment, however, was read and commented upon,
doubtless for the purpose of influencing the minds of the audience. It
charged, with wearisome iteration and reiteration, that he, the said
Robert Gourlay, being a seditious and ill-disposed person, and
contriving and maliciously intending the peace and tranquillity of our
lord the King within the Province of Upper Canada to disquiet and
disturb, and to excite discontent and sedition among his Majesty's liege
subjects of this Province--and so forth, and so forth, to the end of the
tedious and tautological chapter. The patriotic and disinterested
conduct of Dickson and Claus, in performing the imperative but
unpleasant duty of committing their personal friend to jail, lest he
should undermine the loyalty of the people, was commented upon with
periphrastic eloquence. When the official inquiry was put to the
prisoner: "How say you, Robert Gourlay, are you guilty or not guilty?"
he instinctively replied "Not guilty." Then came the next query: "Are
you ready for your trial?" Ready for his trial, indeed! when his
helpless condition was apparent to everybody who could catch a glimpse
of his tottering frame and his vacant, expressionless face. The
unmeaning sound which issued from his lips was taken for an affirmative,
and the farce of an impartial investigation proceeded with.

During the whole of these proceedings the prisoner stood like one amazed
and confounded; as one who gropes blindly in the dark for what he cannot
find. From the various hints scattered here and there throughout his
numerous writings, we are able to form some idea of what he underwent
during that trying ordeal. His imagination had been rendered more lively
by weakness and prostration of body, and he was so stimulated by the
change of air from his cell to the court-room that his sensations were
chiefly those of a vague and unreasoning delight--delight at the
prospect of freedom; delight at the prospect of once more enjoying the
luxury of heaven's sunlight unimpeded by the bars of a prison cell; of
running rampant through the land, and feeling upon his sunken cheeks the
deliciously invigorating air of the open fields. His high spirit had
been effectually tamed by that rigid, excruciating torture of close
confinement during the dog days, with no other companion than despair.
By this time personal liberty and fresh air seemed to him the only
things greatly to be desired. He was cognizant of a sensation of
thankfulness that his trial had come on at last, even though it should
result in his banishment. He rejoiced that he should even thus be set at
liberty from his horrible situation.[16] He longed to feel the tide of
human life ebbing and flowing around him, and to feel that he himself
was not a mere drone in the hive. During the progress of the trial,
though he was oblivious of most that was going on in the court-room,
memory and fancy were keenly alert, and he rapidly lived over again many
episodes of his past life. The dead and gone years rose up before him
like the scenes of a rapidly-shifting panorama, even as the past is said
to arise before the mental vision of those lying on beds of pain, just
before the great mystery of the grave is unfolded to their view.
Subjects and scenes long forgotten or seldom remembered presented
themselves. There was the little Fifeshire school, with its umbrageous
playground, where he had been a merry laughing lad, and where Dominie
Angus had given him his first taste of ferule and Fotherup. There was
the patched portrait of Cardinal Beaton, in St. Mary's College, at which
he and his friend John Dean had been wont to gaze with rapt admiration
in the old days left so far behind. There was that odd adventure among
the Mendip Hills, during his professional peregrination through
Somersetshire more than a dozen years before, and upon which he could
not remember that he had bestowed a single thought since his arrival in
Canada. There, too, was the drunken type-setter from Bristol, who had
taught him the technical marks to be used in making corrections for the
press, and whom he had neither seen nor thought of since the publication
of his pamphlet in which be had portrayed the sufferings of Bet Bennam
and Mary Bacon. Who shall say what other scenes, sad or mirthful,
presented themselves among his "thick-coming fancies"? Possibly he
recalled the high hopes of his boyhood, when he thirsted to better the
condition of the poor, and was almost persuaded that he had been sent
into the world expressly to guard their interests against the exactions
of grasping landlords. Visions, too, may have arisen before him of his
beautiful Wiltshire farm, where the modest daisies peeped above the
grass, and the joyous lark sang from the meadow; where he had once been
so happy in the companionship of his fond wife and little ones, who at
this moment waited in longing expectation for tidings from the absent
husband and father. Perchance also he called to mind, at that crisis,
his little dead daughter, who had blossomed and faded among the green
glades of Wily, and over whose grave the parson of the parish had
refused to read the services of the Church.[17] The poor babe had died
unchristened, and under such circumstances the rubric forbade the
solemnization of funeral rites.

From all such musings he was recalled by the voice of Chief Justice
Powell, demanding if he had aught to say ere the sentence of the court
should be pronounced upon him. The sentence of the court! For the best
part of two hours he had been wool-gathering, and the words beat upon
his brain without arousing any just appreciation of their significance.
He now once more awoke to the fact that he was on his trial, but he
could not grasp the potentialities of his situation, nor could he for
the life of him recall the precise nature of the offence with which he
had been charged. He did, however, realize that the jury had returned a
verdict to the effect that he had been guilty of refusing to leave the
Province, pursuant to the order served upon him. By a desperate effort
he managed to rally his senses sufficiently to remember that he had been
accused of being a seditious person, though whether the accusation had
been made yesterday, or the day before, or half a century ago, he was
wholly unaware. Turning towards the jury-box, he enquired of the nearest
occupant whether he had been found guilty of sedition. Suddenly it
flashed across him that he had prepared a defence, together with a
written protest against the anticipated verdict. But by no mental
exertion of which he was capable could he remember what he had done
with the defence, nor could he call to mind the word "protest," although
at that moment he had the written one in his pocket. After a moment's
struggle to remember what he wished to say, he found himself hopelessly
befogged, and abandoned the attempt. Then, to the amazement of all who
heard him, he burst out into a loud, strident peal of unmeaning,
maniacal laughter--laughter which had no spice of merriment in it, and
which was a mere spontaneous effort of nature to relieve the strain upon
the shattered nerves. Bench, bar, jury and spectators stared aghast. Such
laughter sounded not only incongruous, but sinister, ominous. It was
suggestive of the expiring wail of a lost soul. It was more eloquent
than any mere words could have been, and spoke with most miraculous
organ. Over more than one heart there crept a sort of premonition that a
dread reckoning must sometime arrive for that day's work: that Eternal
Justice would sooner or later exact a fit penalty for the cruel
perversion of right which was then and there being consummated. It would
be interesting to know what, at that particular moment, were the
innermost sensations of William Dickson and William Claus, both of whom
sat within a few feet of their victim, and both of whom had repeatedly
received offices of kindness at his hands.

Strange to say, the miserable man's memory was merely suspended, and he
afterwards recalled with much clearness the thoughts and reflections
which passed through his mind during that delirium of more than two
hours. He even remembered the senseless bray of laughter which, to the
sympathetic mind, is not the least impressive feature of that iniquitous
trial. His overwrought nerves being temporarily relieved by the
cachinnation, he regained for a few minutes some measure of composure
and sanity. With the return of reason came a returning sense of
injustice and oppression. He made a brief but ineffectual attempt to
argue the matter with the Chief Justice, who informed him that the facts
had been dealt with by the jury, and that he could be permitted to speak
only on questions of law. The sentence of the Court was then pronounced.
It was to the effect that the prisoner must quit the Province within
twenty-four hours. He was reminded of the risk he would run in the event
of his presuming to disobey, or to return to Upper Canada after his
departure therefrom. He would be liable, according to the words of the
Act of 1804, to suffer death as a felon, without benefit of clergy. The
Chief Justice finally proceeded to read him a severe lecture upon his
past course since his arrival in Canada, and furthermore to give him
some excellent advice. He informed him that in this country the law is
supreme; that no man can be permitted to run counter to it with
impunity; that those who administer the law should be no respecters of
persons; that justice is even-handed, and metes out impartially to the
poor man and the rich. He advised him to turn his great abilities to
practical account, whereby he would no doubt win happiness and
distinction. "Perhaps," says George Eliot, "some of the most terrible
irony of the human lot is to hear a deep truth uttered by lips that have
no right to it." Poor Gourlay was conscious of some feeling of this sort
when he heard such truths proclaimed from such lips. To his
morbidly-sensitive nature, such irony seemed an aggravation of all he
had endured. To think that, after such experiences as had fallen to his
share, a Family Compact judge should gravely inform him that in Upper
Canada the administrators of the law should be no respecters of persons!
that justice is even-handed! To think that such an one should presume to
advise him to become practical, with a view to wealth and happiness! It
was like the adulterous woman who, on eloping with her paramour, wrote
to her husband enjoining him to be virtuous if he would be happy. The
incongruity struck the prisoner so forcibly that for a moment he was on
the verge of another explosion of sardonic laughter. Before leaving the
dock he made one last attempt to draw attention to the treatment he had
sustained while in prison. By way of heightening the effect of his
narration, he informed the Court that his letters had been suppressed by
the sheriff:[18] that while his enemies had been allowed to fill the
newspapers with lying diatribes against him, and to prejudice the public
mind in view of his impending trial, his own letters to the Niagara
_Spectator_ had been rigidly withheld from the light of day, and this
by official interference. Chief Justice Powell put the cap-sheaf upon
the pinnacle of absurdity by informing him that if he chose he might
prosecute the sheriff. Prosecute the sheriff! when he had just been
sentenced by the Chief Justice himself to leave the Province within
twenty-four hours, and when he was liable to the last penalty of the law
in case of his return to prosecute!

The trial was ended, and--blissful thought!--for the ensuing twenty-four
hours he was free to come and go whithersoever he would. He was taken in
charge by his friends the Hamiltons, and spent the night in their house
at Queenston. Next day--Saturday, the 21st of August--he obeyed the
mandate of the law, and shook from his feet the parched dust of Upper
Canadian soil. His mental condition was far from satisfactory, but he
would brook no interference with his actions, even from his best
friends. The feeling uppermost in his bosom was a delicious sense of
being at large, with no one to shut the cell door upon him, or otherwise
to control his actions. He felt like one recalled to life. The unhappy
man was well aware that his brain was weak, but he also knew that he was
not what is ordinarily understood as insane. Like Baldassarre, he
carried within him that piteous stamp of sanity, the clear consciousness
of shattered faculties. His feebleness was as patent to himself as to
others. He knew that he was the mere wreck of what he had once been, and
he knew further that his mental and bodily ruin was due to the triumph
of tyranny and injustice. Still, he was, for the moment, happy. There
was sunshine in his heart, and gladness in his eye. Having crossed the
Niagara river, he knew that he was beyond the material grasp of those
whose baneful shadow was nevertheless destined to darken the rest of his
life. "I thanked God," he writes, several years afterwards, "as I set my
first foot on the American shore, that I trod on a land of freedom. The
flow of animal spirits carried me along for more than two miles in
triumphant disgust. It carried me beyond my strength, till, staggering
by the side of the road, I sunk down, almost lifeless, among the bushes,
and awoke from my dream to a state of sensibility and horror past all
power of description. If at my trial, and so long after it, I was
callous to feeling; if I was blind to objects around me, and regardless
of consequences, the scenes I had passed through were now too visible:
my senses were too keen; my feelings too acute. Before, all was frozen
and rigid; now, extreme relaxation resigned me to the torture of a
distracted mind, feeble, doubting, and irresolute. In fact, my nervous
system had undergone a most violent change; and, to this hour, the
effects are permanent: to this hour, with every effort and every
appliance, my natural tone of health and vigour cannot be regained."[19]

One of the bitterest reflections which forced itself upon him was that
he, a man of unimpeachable loyalty, had been banished--"flung out like a
spoilt jelly,"[20] under a statute which had been passed to guard
against the machinations of aliens and traitors. "Banishment" was to him
a word replete with repulsive and disgraceful associations. He liked it
no better than did the sweet rose of the Capulets.

   "Banished: that one word--_banished_.

       *       *       *       *       *

   There is no end, no limit, measure, bound,
   In that word's death."

       *       *       *       *       *

On the 27th of August, precisely a week after the trial above described,
a high and mighty English nobleman who was for the time domiciled in
Canada underwent a more terrible experience than ever fell to the lot of
Robert Gourlay. He was travelling at the time through a part of the
county of Carleton, and while wandering through the woods, attended by
several companions, he found himself exceedingly unwell. His spirits
were depressed, and he was dominated by what seemed an unaccountable
dread of water. His valet had noticed that for a day or two previously
he had shrunk from performing his customary ablutions, and had cleaned
his hands and face by the application of a damp towel. On approaching
within a few yards of a forest stream he was seized by violent spasms.
By a desperate resolution he forced himself to take his seat in a canoe
which had been provided, but the little craft had not proceeded many
yards ere he was seized by a fresh paroxysm, and in a frenzied tone
ordered the boatman to land him on the nearest bank. The order was
promptly obeyed, and he had no sooner escaped from the boat than he ran
frantically into the depths of the wood. He was pursued and overtaken by
his companions, who found him foaming at the mouth and raving mad. They
secured him until the paroxysm had spent itself, when they conveyed him
to a neighbouring shanty. The sufferer, at his own request, was soon
after removed to an adjoining barn, where he said he should be more
comfortable than in the shanty, as it was _further from the water_.
Throughout the rest of the day and ensuing night he was subject to
repeated returns of the paroxysms, during which he suffered untold
agonies. It was evident to himself and those about him that he was
afflicted by the most terrible of all maladies to which humanity is
subject--hydrophobia. He had been bitten by a tame fox a few weeks
before, and the deadly rabies had ever since been rankling in his
system. He realized that he must die, and the instincts of his race--he
was a remote by-blow of royalty--taught him to make an ending in a
manner becoming a gentleman. Towards evening he consented to be taken
back to the shanty, where a bed had been prepared for him. Except while
the paroxysms were upon him, he was perfectly calm and collected, and
gave his last sad directions to a friend who stood by his side. About
eight o'clock on the morning of the 28th the death-agony came upon him,
and his excruciating tortures were at an end.

Thus passed away Charles Gordon Lennox, Fourth Duke of Richmond, Earl of
March and Baron Settrington in the peerage of England; Duke of Lennox,
Earl of Darnley and Baron Methuen in the peerage of Scotland; Duc
d'Aubigny in France, Governor-General of Canada, lord of Halnaker,
Goodwood and West Hampnett. There was, as has been above hinted, a bar
sinister in his escutcheon, for he was descended from King Charles the
Second and the fair and frail Frenchwoman Louise Renée de Querouaille,
who was commonly known among Englishmen of her day as Madam Carwell.
This lady, who was probably the least bad of the unlicensed prostitutes
of Charles's seraglio at Whitehall, was for her many virtues created
Duchess of Portsmouth. Her descendants, like those of Nell Gwynn and the
rest of that frail sisterhood, are reckoned among the great ones of the
earth. The Duke whose melancholy fate has just been chronicled was the
father of Lady Sarah, spouse of Sir Peregrine Maitland,
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada.

       *       *       *       *       *

Was there any connection between these two tragical events: the trial of
Robert Gourlay and the death of the Duke of Richmond? Mr. Gourlay
evidently leaned to the belief that there was.[21] The Duke and his
son-in-law had passed through Niagara during the hot weather of July,
while the victim of Family Compact villainy was gradually having his
health and reason tortured out of him in the jail at that place. He was
of opinion that the two distinguished visitors should have exercised
their prerogative by setting him at liberty. This, of course, was an
altogether unreasonable belief. His Grace was not at all likely to
interfere in the matter, and as for Sir Peregrine, he was completely in
the hands of Mr. Gourlay's enemies. The belief, however, is worth
recording, as exhibiting the extent to which Mr. Gourlay's persecution
continued to prey upon his mind, even after the lapse of years, and when
he was in as good health as he ever regained.

It was deemed advisable that Mr. Gourlay's case should be a perpetual
warning to any and every person who might thereafter dare to tread in
his venturesome footsteps. Accordingly, as has been seen, he had to
drink the cup of mortification to the very dregs. And, by way of
deterring public writers from aiding and abetting any such pestilent
innovators for the future, it was determined that a notable example
should be made of the editor of the Niagara _Spectator_, who had dared
to side with the oppressed against the oppressor, and had published some
of Mr. Gourlay's attacks upon the abuses of the time. His name was
Bartemus Ferguson, and he had on several occasions manifested his
sympathy with projects of reform. The discipline inflicted upon him was
swift and severe. He was seized while in bed, in the middle of the
night, a hundred and fifty miles from home, conveyed to jail at Niagara,
and thence to York, where he was detained in prison for some days out of
the reach of friends to bail him. He was tried for sedition at the
Niagara assizes a day or two before Mr. Gourlay. In order that public
journalists of the present day may note in what comparatively pleasant
places their lines have fallen, I transcribe the sentence of the court,
which was as follows:--"Therefore it is considered by the said court
here that the said Bartemus Ferguson do pay a fine to our said lord the
King of fifty pounds of lawful money of Upper Canada: That he, the said
Bartemus Ferguson, be imprisoned in the common jail of the District of
Niagara for the space of eighteen calendar months, to be computed from
the eighth day of November, in the sixtieth year of the reign of our
said lord the King: that in the course of the first month of the said
eighteen months he do stand in the public pillory one hour, between the
hours of ten o'clock in the forenoon and two o'clock in the afternoon:
and that at the expiration of the said imprisonment he do give security
for his good behaviour for the term of seven years: he the said Bartemus
Ferguson in the sum of five hundred pounds, and two sureties in the sum
of two hundred and fifty pounds each; and further, that he, the said
Bartemus Ferguson, do remain imprisoned in the said jail until the
aforesaid fine be paid and security given."

The composition for which the editor was thus held to so stern an
account was a letter written by Mr. Gourlay, and signed by his name,
published in the _Spectator_ during the editor's absence from home, and
without his knowledge. It animadverted pretty sharply on the
Administration of the day. In the jingling and jangling phraseology of
the indictment, it was calculated to "detract, scandalize, and vilify
His Grace Charles Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Aubigny, Captain-General
and Governor in and over the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick and their dependencies; and to scandalize and
vilify Sir Peregrine Maitland, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable
Military Order of the Bath, His Majesty's Lieutenant-Governor of this
Province of Upper Canada." Certain public officials, not specifically
alluded to by name, were referred to as fools and sycophants. But the
letter did not contain a syllable which was not literally true, and was
mildness itself when compared with letters and articles which are
constantly published with impunity in newspapers of all shades of
political opinion in these present times. It appears that, upon the
humble and unequivocal submission of the culprit, some of the most
severe penalties imposed by the court were remitted, and that he was
erelong allowed to resume his business;[22] but all enthusiasm for the
public good had meanwhile been crushed out of him, and he became one
more added to the list of subservient tools which the Executive always
managed to have at their control. Such were the glories of a free press
in enlightened Upper Canada sixty-six years ago. Such were the "good old
times" which our grandfathers are never weary of belauding to the echo.
How bright are the hues of retrospection! But for us of the present
generation, let us be thankful to the Giver of all Good that such brave
old times are long past, and that they can never return. Let them go;
but surely it is too much to expect us to pronounce a benison upon their
dead and departed dry bones.

Even before the commencement of proceedings against Mr. Gourlay under
the Alien Act, his conduct had furnished a pretext to those in authority
for striking a heavy blow against freedom of speech and action. The
holding of conventions, whereat meddlesome persons of the Gourlay stamp
might air their grievances and agitate for investigations into public
abuses, was a thing not to be tolerated in Upper Canada. Upon the
assembling of the Legislature at York, in October, 1818, the
Lieutenant-Governor, in his opening Speech, hinted at a law to prevent
the holding of such meetings; and in the course of the ensuing session a
Bill to effect that object was introduced into the Assembly by Mr. Jonas
Jones, member for Grenville. The Bill was supported by twelve out of the
thirteen members present, and was speedily passed into law; but, as will
hereafter be seen, it was not destined to a long life.

       *       *       *       *       *

After a brief delay in the State of New York, Mr. Gourlay repaired to
Boston, and thence took ship for Liverpool. On a subsequent page we
shall catch one more brief glimpse of him, but with that exception the
present work has no further concern with his chequered existence. He
will be referred to from time to time, but only incidentally, and for
purposes of illustration. Those who may feel sufficient interest in him
to follow his fortunes and misfortunes to the bitter end, will find some
account of them in the authority quoted below.[23]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Not, however, his _immediate_ judicial successor. Mr.--afterwards
Sir William--Campbell became Chief Justice in 1825, and Mr. Robinson's
succession did not take place until four years later.

[2] "Upon my soul, you mustn't come into the place saying you want to
know, you know! You have no right to come this sort of move!"--_Little
Dorrit._

[3] For a much more comprehensive account of Mr. Gourlay's life than the
one here given, the reader is referred to a sketch by the author of this
work in _The Canadian Portrait Gallery_, Vol. III., pp. 240-256.

[4] More than half a century later the venerable Doctor thus wrote to
his old school-fellow: "... I received your interesting letter ... with
no slight emotion of kindness and respect, having ever regarded you as
one of the ablest of my fellow-students at St. Andrews; and who, if
human life had not been the lottery it is, would have earned by his
talents, and merited by his friendly disposition, a place of high and
honourable distinction in society."

[5] The following observations, written concerning Mr. Young by Mr.
Gourlay many years afterwards, contain, so far as they go, a singularly
accurate portraiture of the Banished Briton himself:--"He was an
enthusiast, and of course honest: he was well educated, and a gentleman.
In all his voluminous writings a mean sentiment is not to be found. His
habit of making free with people's names, and taking liberties with
their writings, arose from an uncontrollable ardour in the cause of
improvement.... His inclination to accumulate crude and undigested
information, sufficiently evinced in some of his tours, had their full
scope: he then lost himself, and bewildered others, in the confusion of
detail. I question if he ever had the power of correct abstract
reasoning. His imagination was too busy for it: his eye was too
ravenous, devouring all within its reach."--_General Introduction to
Statistical Account of Upper Canada_; p. xcvii.

[6] _Canadian Portrait Gallery_, Vol. III., p. 241.

[7] _Ex. gr._:--"The law! the law!" impatiently exclaimed the Reverend
Doctor, in his most strident vernacular, when the question of Barnabas
Bidwell's expulsion from the Assembly was under discussion in his
hearing--"Never mind the law; toorn him oot, toorn him oot."

[8] "The local situation of Upper Canada exposes it to the inroad of
aliens of all nations, who, having no tie of allegiance or affection to
Britain, may thence be suspected of evil designs; and for that reason
terrors may be held out to keep them at a distance; but for British
subjects to be suspected and made liable to penalties on mere suspicion,
is contrary at once to nature and the spirit of our constitution. It is
more especially absurd when we consider that the law was expressly made
for _their_ protection."--_General Introduction to Statistical Account
of Upper Canada,_ p. lxviii.

[9] Seven or eight years after this time Swayze narrowly escaped
prosecution for the murder of Captain William Morgan, who is presumed to
have been slain for his threatened disclosure of the Masonic Ritual.
Swayze openly boasted that he had been concerned in the abduction of
Morgan, and in the execution of Masonic vengeance upon him. He professed
to be able to indicate the precise spot where the body was buried--which
spot, he declared, was not far from the bottom of his garden. Upon
investigation these vainglorious boastings proved to be utterly without
any foundation in fact.

[10] Dickson had originally made Gourlay's acquaintance in 1810, when he
visited and spent a week with him at his farm in Wiltshire. See
Gourlay's _Statistical Account of Upper Canada,_ Vol. 2, p. 494.

[11] _General Introduction to Statistical Account of Upper Canada_, p.
ix.

[12] In these times there was but one jail delivery per annum in Upper
Canada.

[13] _Statistical Account_, Vol. II., p. 342. In a note to p. xv. of the
_General Introduction_, Mr. Gourlay says further: "The jury in this case
was notoriously packed. To guard against the effects of this as much as
possible, I had, in the expectation of trial for libel, obtained lists
of inimical jurymen, and had people willing to appear in court to swear
that many of them had prejudged me openly, in the rancour of party
dispute. These lists were handed to me through the door, before and
during the assizes; but all caution and care forsook me in the time of
need."

[14] Referring to a letter written to attract sympathy to the case of
the editor of the Niagara _Spectator_, who had been imprisoned and
shamefully abused for publishing several of Mr. Gourlay's criticisms.
Some account of the persecution to which this gentleman was subjected
will be found on a future page.

[15] _Statistical Account_, Vol. 2, pp. 393, 394.

[16] _General Introduction_, p. xv.

[17] _General Introduction_, pp. ccviii., ccix., and note.

[18] The sheriff was Thomas Merritt, father of the gentleman who
afterwards became the Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, to whose
enterprise, more than to that of any other man, we owe the Welland
Canal. It is right to add that most of the subordinate duties of the
office of sheriff were discharged by an underling, and that Thomas
Merritt may have been personally free from blame in respect of Mr.
Gourlay. Assuming him to have been blamable, his son, the Hon. W. H.
Merritt, in after days, did his utmost to atone for it by espousing Mr.
Gourlay's cause in the Canadian Assembly, as will be seen by reference
to the Parliamentary debates of 1856, 1857 and 1858.

[19] _Statistical Account_, Vol. II., pp. 400, 401.

[20] Ib., p. 401.

[21] Mr. Gourlay was in error as to the date of the Duke's death. He
represents him as "writhing in agony at the self same hour," and as
dying on the same day when he, Mr. Gourlay, crossed over into the United
States.--_Statistical Account_, vol. 2, p. 401. He was astray by exactly
a week. By reference to the precept of the court, I find that Mr.
Gourlay's trial took place on the day specified in the text--Friday, the
20th of August. He left the Province on the following day--Saturday, the
21st. The Duke's death took place on Saturday, the 28th.

It may perhaps be as well for me to refer here to a story which seems to
have obtained some currency, to the effect that the Duke of Richmond's
death was due, not to hydrophobia, but to delirium tremens. There is not
the shadow of truth in the story. The evidence as to the Duke's having
been bitten at Sorel by a tame fox; as to his showing the healed wound
on his thumb several weeks afterwards; as to his dread of water during
the day before his death, and as to all the circumstances attending that
tragical event, is as clear as evidence can very well be. Moreover, his
habits were by no means such as to lead to _mania a potu_. He was a _bon
vivant_, but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, he did not drink
to excess, and was always master of such brains as he possessed. His end
was one which his family might honestly mourn, and there was little in
his life, nothing in his death, of which they had any cause to feel
ashamed.

[22] "Major-General" D. McLeod, in his "History of the Canadian
Insurrection," p. 75, incorrectly states that Ferguson "died in jail
from extremely cruel usage."

[23] _Canadian Portrait Gallery_, Vol. III., pp. 240-256.



CHAPTER II.

A BILL OF PARTICULARS.


The course of bitter persecution sustained by Mr. Gourlay was really the
first remote germ of the Upper Canadian Rebellion. In making this
statement I would not be understood as asserting that Gourlay was the
first person to set himself up in opposition to authority in the
Province, or even that he was the first victim of Executive tyranny.
There had been more or less of dissatisfaction at the selfish and
one-sided policy of the Administration ever since shortly after the
departure of Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe in 1796. Between that date and
Mr. Gourlay's arrival in the Province several personages of some local
note had paid heavy penalties for daring to have opinions of their own.
Mr. Wyatt, the Surveyor-General, had been dismissed from office because
he had presumed to point out certain official irregularities, and
because he would not betray the trust reposed in him. Joseph Willcocks
had been goaded into treason by a long course of persecution. Judge
Thorpe had been driven from the country quite as effectually as Mr.
Gourlay, for no other reason than that he had persisted in holding up
official corruption to the public gaze. But none of these manifestations
of "the oppressor's wrath, the proud man's contumely," had taken so deep
a hold upon the public mind as did the case of Mr. Gourlay. The injuries
inflicted upon him had been so cruel, the perversion of justice so vile,
that the public conscience received a shock from which it did not
recover during the existing generation. For the first time in Upper
Canada's history signs of an organized Opposition began to appear upon
the floor of the Assembly. Thenceforward the antagonism between the two
parties grew in intensity from year to year. In process of time the
Opposition frequently became the controlling power in the House. At a
later stage of its development it divided into two parts. One of these
constituted the moderate Reform Party of the Province. The other was
made up of the advanced Radical element, whence emanated the Rebellion
which forms the especial subject of the present work. All of which will
hereafter be narrated with greater amplitude of detail.

It has been intimated that traces of dissatisfaction began to be
apparent soon after Governor Simcoe's time. Upon his demission of
authority the direction of affairs devolved upon the Honourable Peter
Russell, as senior member of the Executive Council; and that gentleman
had not been long in authority before murmurs began to be heard about
the partial and defective administration of the important department of
Crown Lands. There were comparatively few men in the country possessed
of sufficient education and business experience to admit of their being
entrusted with the charge of public affairs; and where all the offices
were necessarily in the hands of a small number of persons, it was a
foregone conclusion that irregularities should creep in, and that
cliquishness and favouritism should prevail to a greater or less extent.
When Lieutenant-Governor Hunter arrived, in 1799, he found that certain
objectionable practices had become common, and that the foundation had
been laid of serious public evils. Greed and favouritism had obtained a
strong foothold, and scarcely any branch of the public service was
efficiently managed. The sin of covetousness was not confined to
subordinate officials, but included among its votaries some of the
highest dignitaries of the Province. It would seem that President
Russell himself had an itching palm, and that his individual interests
were carefully watched over during his temporary administration of
affairs. Everybody has heard how he made grants of public lands from
himself to himself,[24] thereby violating one of the most cherished
maxims of English jurisprudence. Lieutenant-Governor Hunter, in a letter
written to a friend in England soon after his arrival at York, refers to
P. R.--by whom Mr. Russell is clearly indicated--as "an avaricious one."
In a subsequent part of the same epistle he adds: "So far as depended
upon him [Mr. Russell] he would grant land to the de'il and all his
family as good Loyalists, if they would only pay the fees." During
Governor Hunter's own term of office, though there is no evidence of
corruption or double-dealing on his own part, abuses continued to exist,
and dishonesty too often stared honesty out of countenance. During the
_régime_ of his successor, Commodore Grant, these abuses grew steadily,
both in number and in bulk; and during Francis Gore's long though
interrupted administration, they reached a height which called aloud for
redress.

And here it is desirable to enquire into the specific nature of the
manifold evils which enriched a few at the expense of the many; which
endowed a venal and corrupt clique with a practical monopoly of
political and social power; which sowed the deadly seed of factious
strife, and stemmed the tide of Upper Canadian prosperity.

Theoretically speaking, the constitution granted to Upper Canada by the
Act of 1791 was not unfairly represented by Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe
as being "the very image and transcript of that of Great Britain."[25]
We had a Legislative Council, the members whereof were appointed by the
Crown for life. This body bore some resemblance to the British House of
Lords. Next, we had a Legislative Assembly, the members whereof were
periodically elected by the people--or rather by such of the people as
possessed a sufficient property qualification to entitle them to
exercise the franchise; and this property qualification was placed so
low as almost to constitute universal suffrage.[26] The Assembly
corresponded to the British House of Commons; and these two
bodies--Council and Assembly--with the Lieutenant-Governor, constituted
the Provincial Parliament. The last-named functionary of course
corresponded to the Sovereign of Great Britain. He was appointed by the
Crown, to whom he was solely responsible. He was in no constitutional
sense responsible to either branch of the Legislature, or to both
branches combined, or to any other cis-Atlantic authority whatsoever.

With such substitutes for King, Lords and Commons, Upper Canada might
therefore be said to possess a pretty close copy of the British
constitution. But when carried into practice the resemblance failed in a
matter of the very highest import. The absence of ministerial
responsibility was an all-comprehending divergence. When a British
ministry fails to command the confidence of the electorate, as
represented by the House of Commons, resignation must follow. In other
words, the Government of the day derives its power from the people, to
whom it is responsible for the manner in which it discharges the trust
reposed in it; and the moment it fails to command public confidence it
must give way to those who possess such confidence. The test of
confidence is the vote in the House of Commons. This has been a
recognized principle of English Parliamentary Government for nearly two
hundred years; in fact, ever since the settlement of the constitution
after the Revolution of 1688. With us in Upper Canada there was none of
this ministerial responsibility. We had a ministry, but not a
responsible ministry. It was manifestly impossible that each member of
the Legislative Council and Assembly should be consulted as to every
minute detail of the administration. Such a system would be cumbrous,
and altogether impracticable. The actual task of carrying on the
Government was therefore, as in England, entrusted to a small body of
men who, from the nature of their functions, were known as the Executive
Council. The members of this body were appointed by the Crown--that is
to say, by the Lieutenant-Governor--at will. It was not necessary that
they should have seats in either branch of the Legislature, to neither
of which were they in any sense responsible. They were not required to
possess any property or other qualification. In a word, the Crown's
representative was at liberty to select them without any restriction,
and no one in the Province would have had any constitutional right to
call him to account if he had seen fit to enrol his own valet as an
Executive Councillor. As matter of fact they were commonly selected from
the judiciary and other salaried officials, and from the members of the
Legislative Council. Their number was indeterminate, but was seldom less
than four or more than six, in addition to the Lieutenant-Governor
himself. Their functions consisted of giving advice to the
Lieutenant-Governor on all matters of governmental policy, whenever he
might deem it expedient to consult them. With respect to mere matters of
detail, such as appointments to office, he was not supposed to be under
the necessity of advising with them, nor, according to an opinion long
and ostentatiously proclaimed, was he in these early days under the
smallest obligation to follow their advice after it had been given.
This, however, was merely the prescriptive view, and it derived no
sanction from the Constitutional Act itself, which incidentally refers
to the Executive Council as being appointed "within such Province, for
the affairs thereof." On the other hand, the Executive Councillors
themselves were not legally or constitutionally responsible to the Upper
Canadian people, either individually or collectively, for any line of
policy they might inculcate, or for any advice they might give. There
were no means whereby they could be called to account by the people,
even should they corruptly and openly abuse the trust reposed in them.

It is not difficult to foresee the result of so anomalous a state of
things, though in this Province, owing to sparsity of population and
other local causes, the result did not immediately become apparent.
Simcoe was a strong-minded, as well as a conscientious man. He had a
policy of his own for the government of the country, both at large and
in detail, and during his _régime_ he carried out that policy as to him
seemed best. He from time to time went through the form of consulting
with his Executive Council, but, so far from receiving any impulse from
them, he invariably carried all before him at the Council Board, and was
the be-all and end-all of the Administration. He was, in short, a
beneficent despot, of high and disinterested views, who accomplished
much good for Upper Canada, and would doubtless have accomplished more
but for his too early removal. The moment his all-pervading influence
was gone, however, the mischief, as has already been seen, began to
work. President Russell granted public lands to Peter Russell, and
rapidly laid up a store of wealth. Where the head of the public service
was thus disposed to help himself, we may be sure that subordinate
officials were not slow to follow his example. Subsequent
Lieutenant-Governors were for the most part military men, with little
knowledge of the country's needs, and with a disposition to make their
voluntary exile as easy and agreeable--and withal as profitable--as
might be.[27] They naturally turned for counsel and assistance to their
Executive Councillors, who thus became the dispensers of patronage and
the supreme power in the State. The Crown's representative was a mere
tool in their hands. Their domination was complete. "A body of holders
of office thus constituted," says Lord Durham,[28] "without reference to
the people or their representatives, must in fact, from the very nature
of colonial government, acquire the entire direction of the affairs of
the Province. A Governor, arriving in a colony in which he almost
invariably has had no previous acquaintance with the state of parties or
the character of individuals, is compelled to throw himself almost
entirely upon those whom he finds placed in the position of his official
advisers. His first acts must necessarily be performed, and his first
appointments made, at their suggestion. And as these first acts and
appointments give a character to his policy, he is generally brought
thereby into immediate collision with the other parties in the country,
and thrown into more complete dependence upon the official party and its
friends."

It has been the fashion with most writers on our early history to
represent the Executive Council as an arbitrary creation of the early
Lieutenant-Governors: as an arrangement sanctioned by the Imperial
authorities, but not authorized by the Provincial constitution. Such
writers cannot have read the debates which took place in the House of
Commons while the Constitutional Act of 1791 was under discussion there.
Nay, they cannot have read the Act itself with much care. Nothing is
more certain than that the framers of that statute contemplated the
creation of an Executive Council. By reference to the seventh,
thirty-fourth and thirty-eighth clauses it will be seen that the
Executive Council is definitely mentioned by name, and that the
appointment of such a body is assumed, and treated as a matter of
course. But that the Council should occupy the same relative position as
in Great Britain, and that it should be amenable to public opinion as
expressed by the vote of the House of Assembly, does not appear to have
been clearly understood. Indeed, with the exception of a few master
minds, such as Pitt, Fox, and Burke, but little interest seems to have
been taken by British legislators in this important colonial experiment.
Parliamentary Government, though it had been long established in
England, had not then been reduced to a science. Even such clear-sighted
statesmen as Pitt and Fox were blind to facts which at the present day
force themselves upon the attention of every student of constitutional
history. What wonder, then, that there should have been defects in the
measure of 1791? What wonder that even eminent statesmen should have
attempted to square the circle in politics by introducing such an
incongruity as representative institutions without Executive
responsibility? Power was given to the popular branch of the Legislature
to pass measures for the public good. But, no matter how overwhelming
might be the majorities whereby such measures were passed, there was no
obligation on the other branches of the Legislature to accept or act
upon them. In the words of one of our own writers: "the Legislative
Councils, nominated by the Crown, held the Legislative Assemblies by the
throat, kept them prostrate, and paralyzed them."[29] As for the members
of the Executive Council, they were to all intents and purposes
independent of public opinion, and could override a unanimous vote of
the Assembly without incurring any responsibility whatever. By reference
to the correspondence between successive colonial Governors and the Home
Office, it appears to have been tacitly recognized by the magnates on
both sides of the Atlantic that it was unnecessary for a colonial
Executive to defer to a Parliamentary majority. The right of appointment
to office was considered to be the exclusive prerogative of the
representative of the Sovereign, and it was regarded as a badge of
colonial dependence that the people should have no voice in such
matters.

It seems to have been assumed that certain Imperial interests were
involved in this great question, and that to give way to the popular
demand would be to render the colonies free from Imperial control. What
those particular interests were which required to be protected by so
jealous and anomalous a doctrine does not appear to be anywhere
specified with precision. But nothing is more certain than that
confusion and chaos must be the inevitable outcome of any attempt to
reduce to practice such opposite principles as are involved in
Representative Government and Executive irresponsibility. Such an
attempt in England would very soon produce revolution. Such an attempt
in France did actually produce revolution in 1830, when Charles the
Tenth was deposed for his persistent endeavours to maintain an unpopular
ministry in power. No country in the world would long continue to
tolerate a Parliamentary system which was free and representative in
theory, but tyrannous and despotic in practice. Upper Canada was indeed
long-suffering, but a time arrived when it became evident that there was
a limit to her powers of endurance.

As the years rolled by, and the country steadily advanced in wealth and
population, abuses grew apace.[30] The Executive became rapacious and
tyrannical. Commanding, as they did, the entire administrative and
official influence of the Province, they ordered all things according to
their own pleasure. They could count upon the support of every member of
the Legislative Council. Indeed, through their pliant tool, the
Lieutenant-Governor for the time being, they controlled the membership
of the latter body, and took care that no man was appointed a
Legislative Councillor unless he was either one of themselves or wholly
subject to their influence. The Assembly soon found that it was
deliberately and systematically deprived of the privileges which of
right belonged to it, and that it was little better than a nullity. It
might meet and go through the form of passing such measures as it saw
fit, but if the measures so passed were not acceptable to the
Legislative and Executive Councils they were contumeliously vetoed when
they reached the Upper House. This brought the two deliberative branches
of the Legislature into direct and perpetual conflict. The Assembly,
however, in early years, was always largely made up of such men as Isaac
Swayze--subservient creatures of the Administration, who opposed their
influence to that of the tribunes of the people, and prevented any
collision between the two Houses from assuming a very serious
constitutional aspect. It was not till the third decade of the century
that the conflict assumed such a character as to threaten the
foundations of the constitution itself; and it was not till the fourth
decade that any actual attempt was made to subvert those foundations.

The Province was about fifteen years old before the inhabitants of Upper
Canada generally began to realize what an intolerable burden they had to
bear in this irresponsible Executive. Before that time some of the
better educated and more intelligent among them recognized its existence
as an evil with which they or their descendants would at some future
time be called upon to deal. But such persons were comparatively few in
number, and as the burden did not lie with special heaviness upon their
own backs, they did not feel called upon to involve themselves in what
might prove a ruinous quarrel with persons who would not tamely submit
to interference. As for the inhabitants generally, they were too busily
occupied in clearing their lands, in hewing out homes for themselves and
their families in the vast wilderness, and in reducing the soil to a
state fit for cultivation, to give themselves much concern about public
affairs. There was no newspaper press to stimulate them to enquiry. The
only sheet published in the Province which by any license of language
could be called a regular newspaper was _The Upper Canada Gazette_,
which was the official mouthpiece of the Administration. _The Canada
Constellation_, which was a quaint long folio, published at the old
capital, Niagara, had but a brief existence, and expired during the
very early years of the century. The _Upper Canada Guardian_, to be
hereafter referred to, did not come into being till 1807. Editorial
articles, except of the briefest and crudest sort, were a still later
development. The bucolic mind had no intellectual stimulant whatever
except such as was to be obtained from contact with other bucolic minds
through the medium of conversation. It was no wonder, then, that for the
first fifteen years after the creation of Upper Canada, the Provincial
Government should have been permitted to do very much as it chose,
without being subjected to any formidable criticism on the part of the
community.

The Legislative Council, as has been said, was composed of members
nominated by the Sovereign's representative. By the sixth section of the
Constitutional Act provision had been made for the creation of a
hereditary nobility, with the hereditary right of being summoned to the
Legislative Council. Happily this authority was not exercised;
otherwise, as Gourlay has remarked, "we should have seen, perhaps, the
Duke of Ontario leading in a cart of hay, my Lord Erie pitching, and Sir
Peter Superior making the rick; or perhaps his Grace might now have been
figuring as a pettifogging lawyer, his Lordship as a pedlar, and Sir
Knight, as a poor parson, starving on five thousand acres of Clergy
Reserves."[31] We were spared the spectacle of such absurdities, and
life members of the Legislative Council were the nearest approach to a
nobility vouchsafed to us. Some of the first appointees were men of
intelligence and probity, but few of those subsequently created could
with any show of truthfulness be so characterized. They were for the
most part dependants of the Government, with no fitness, educational or
otherwise, for the discharge of grave legislative functions, and with no
motive but to do the bidding of those who had clothed them with the
dignity of office. All things considered, this condition of things was
to be looked for; but the inevitable result followed. The few upright
members either died off in the course of time, and were succeeded by
sycophantic placemen, or, finding themselves outnumbered, ceased to
attend the sittings of the branch of the Legislature to which they
belonged. In one way and another, those who really wished to preserve
the public interests were weeded out, and nothing was left but a rump
devoted to the Executive will. Instead of answering the purpose for
which it was originally intended, the Legislative Council became a mere
instrument in the hands of the oligarchy for stemming back the tide of
public opinion. Instead of forming a seasonable and wholesome check upon
extravagance and inconsiderate legislation in the Lower House, it
contributed to the impoverishment of the Provincial revenue by assisting
to keep the control of public affairs in the hands of selfish and
unprincipled men. Instead of preserving the "happy balance of our
glorious Constitution"--a phrase constantly placed in the mouths of
Lieutenant-Governors, and embodied in their addresses to our Canadian
simulacrum of the House of Lords--it tended to keep the balance all on
one side, and that side was the one most prejudicial to the public good.
It became a mere stop-gap interposed by the Government between itself
and the Assembly. The Assembly passed measure after measure with careful
deliberation, only to find that their time had been thrown away, for
upon reaching the Upper House these measures were ignominously thrust
aside. One who had himself been a member of the Assembly, and who had
had personal experience of the evils whereof he wrote, has left the
following description of the manner in which Bills from the Lower
Chamber were treated in the Upper: "Sitting for a short time each day,
the Bills of the Assembly are despatched under the table with unexampled
celerity. Deputations, conveying up popular measures, no sooner have
their backs turned than the process of strangulation commences. Bills
that have undergone discussion for days in the other House, and that
have been amended and perfected with the greatest care, no sooner arrive
in their august presence than their fate is sealed."[32] He adds: "Of
those who attend to their duties, two-thirds are dependent on the
Government for either salaries or pensions. It is not harsh to say that
they become the willing tools of the hand that feeds them, instead of
looking to the interests of those from whom they indirectly derive their
support. Such gratitude may be very amiable, but it is no qualification
for an independent legislator."[33] These lines were written as late as
the year 1837, and their author informs us that within the preceding
eight years the Council had rejected no fewer than three hundred and
twenty-five Bills passed by the Assembly, being an average of more than
forty for each session[34]--a statement which is fully confirmed by
reference to the official journals of the respective Houses.

Such a method of procedure, leading to inevitable conflicts between the
two Houses, caused the public business to be impeded and the public
interests to be very inefficiently conserved. The whole administrative
system of the Province was disorganized. The contest was very unequal,
for the Government could frequently command a majority of votes in the
Assembly. The minority in that House smarted under a sense of tyranny
and injustice, and felt that they were of no weight in the body politic.
That sense of dignity which is imparted by a consciousness of
contributing to the formation of public policy and opinion was wanting.
Not only were the benefits arising from a proper organization of labour
altogether lost, but the antagonism between the two factors in political
life was so great that they to a large extent neutralized each other.
The Upper House had no weight with the people; the Lower House had no
weight with the Crown.

One of the greatest drawbacks to the country's prosperity was the method
of granting public lands. It had been the policy of Governor Simcoe to
encourage immigration from the United States, as well as from Great
Britain and continental Europe. He had offered great inducements, in the
shape of free grants of wild lands, to persons settling in Upper Canada,
and his offer had produced the expected results in the shape of a full
tide of immigrants. He had, however, exercised a rigid personal
supervision over these grants, and had done his utmost to prevent the
abuse of his bountiful regulations. His successors were less scrupulous,
and being, as has been seen, under the control of greedy and selfish
persons, they permitted the public lands to be used as means of
enriching and corrupting the favourites of the Administration. The
land-granting department was honeycombed by jobbery and corruption.
Grants of five thousand acres were made to each member of the Executive
Council, and of twelve hundred acres to each of their children. Similar
grants were made to certain favoured members of the Legislative Council
and their children.[35] Numerous other personages who could command
sufficient influence at Court obtained grants of twelve hundred acres
each. The extent of an ordinary grant was two hundred acres. From the
creation of the Province down to 1804 these donations were unattended by
any cost whatever to the grantees beyond trifling fees to the officials
for their trouble in passing the entries through the office books. The
privilege of obtaining landed estates for nothing was abused to such an
extent, however, that the Home Office interfered, and in the year last
named a scale of fees proportionate to the extent of the grant was
introduced; but U. E. Loyalists, officers, soldiers, Executive
Councillors and their children were exempt even from this trifling
burden. In 1818 the performance of certain settlement duties was imposed
upon all persons receiving grants, without any exemptions, and in after
years several other scales of fees were introduced from time to time.
The public lands were committed to the care of an official called the
Surveyor-General, and it was not until 1827 that a Commissioner of Crown
Lands was appointed. During the first thirty-five years of the
Province's history grants of land were entirely subject to the
discretion of the Governor-in-Council, not merely as to the quantity and
situation of the land itself, but also as to whether the applicant
should receive any grant at all.[36] Under such a system it was
inevitable that the grossest partiality should prevail, and it was but
seldom that any one succeeded in obtaining a grant until those in
authority had satisfied themselves that he was to be relied upon to
uphold any policy which they might see fit to dictate. Official
dignitaries granted lands to their servants and other dependants, and,
as soon as certain requisite forms had been complied with, these lands
were transferred to themselves or their children. In other cases persons
were actually hired by the month to draw land and perform the settlement
duties, after which the land was conveyed to their employers. Having the
run of the official books, these cormorants contrived in one way and
another to acquire for themselves and their creatures all the best lands
in the Province, either wholly for nothing or at a price which was
merely nominal. "The keys of office," says a writer already quoted from,
"were held by themselves or friends, and no admittance to their secrets
was allowed except to the initiated, whose favourable out-of-door
statements could be relied on. Never since the Norman invasion of
England was there such a wholesale partition of plunder."[37] Many
persons owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, entire
townships.[38] Others owned thousands of acres which they had never
seen. As the taxes imposed on unsettled lands were trifling, these
immense tracts were no appreciable expense to their owners, who could
hold them from year to year, until the progress of settlement rendered
them of immense value. Such progress was inevitable, for though these
huge reservations tended to keep back the country, settlers obtained
grants of adjoining lands, and their labours could not fail to increase
the value of all contiguous territory. The Home District, including the
most valuable portion of Upper Canada, was especially afflicted by these
wholesale reservations, but every part of the Province was more or leas
crippled by them.

The ruling faction and their favourites, not satisfied with the enormous
direct and indirect grants of lands which they managed in one way and
another to obtain, availed themselves of every opportunity to buy up
land which had been granted to persons who had expended their little all
on their properties, and had thereby become impoverished. Among these
latter were many half-pay officers and others of good birth but limited
means, who had sought homes for themselves in the Canadian wilderness.
Not a few had been compelled to sell their commissions in order to
obtain the wherewithal to settle themselves and their families on the
lands granted to them. Finding themselves cut off from society, and
ill-suited to face the privations of pioneer life, they became
discouraged, and sold their lands for whatever meagre price they could
get. The land-jobbers were ever on the alert to buy up these tracts at a
few shillings an acre, not with any intention of settling upon or
improving them, but solely for the purpose of holding them for an
increased value. The grants to the children of U. E. Loyalists were the
constant subjects of bargain and sale, and wrought great evil to the
Province without producing any corresponding benefit to the recipients.
Very few of the lots so granted were ever occupied by the grantees, most
of whom were young persons of both sexes who resided with their parents,
and had no inclination to set up for themselves in the wilderness. These
grants were frequently sold at ridiculously low prices. From two to five
pounds was an ordinary price for a lot of two hundred acres. Mr. John
Radenhurst, who was Chief Clerk in the office of the Surveyor-General
for many years, is entitled to speak on this subject with authority. In
his evidence taken before Lord Durham's Commissioner, in 1838, he states
that the general price paid by speculators for the two-hundred-acre lots
granted to sons and daughters of U. E. Loyalists was "from a gallon of
rum up to perhaps six pounds." In answer to another question, he states
that while millions of acres were granted in this way, the settlement of
the Province was not advanced, nor the advantage of the grantee secured
in the manner that may be supposed to have been contemplated by
Government. He mentions the Honourable Robert Hamilton, a member of the
Legislative Council, and the two Chief Justices, Elmsley and Powell, as
among the largest purchasers of these lands. Mr. Hamilton's acquisitions
amounted to about a hundred thousand acres.[39] Elmsley and Powell, in
addition to the five thousand acres which each of them had obtained for
nothing as members of the Executive Council, managed to acquire
quantities of land which, had they been brought together in one spot,
would have made a township of average size. Thus was monopoly
perpetuated and increased from year to year, and thus were large tracts
of the Provincial territory maintained in a state of primitive
wilderness.

Intimations of the gigantic abuses existing in the land-granting system
of Upper Canada were more than once sent across the Atlantic to the
Colonial Secretary, who instructed the Lieutenant-Governor to impose
certain regulations with a view to preventing the continuous repetition
of injustice. The Colonial Office, however, was more than three thousand
miles away, and means were easily found for evading any restrictions
imposed at such a distance. Some idea of the extent which the evil had
attained in the year 1818 may be derived from the two passages in that
very petition to the Prince Regent for which Mr. Gourlay was indicted at
Kingston and Brockville, as related in the preceding chapter. "The lands
of the Crown in Upper Canada," proceeds the petition, "are of immense
extent, not only stretching far and wide into the wilderness, but
scattered over the Province, and intermixed with private property
already cultivated. The disposal of this land is left to ministers at
home, who are palpably ignorant of existing circumstances, and to a
council of men resident in the Province, who, it is believed, have long
converted the trust reposed in them to purposes of selfishness. The
scandalous abuses in this department came some years ago to such a pitch
of monstrous magnitude that the Home ministers wisely imposed
restrictions upon the Land Council of Upper Canada. These, however, have
by no means removed the evil; and a system of patronage and favouritism,
in the disposal of the Crown Lands, still exists; altogether destructive
of moral rectitude and virtuous feeling in the management of public
affairs. Corruption, indeed, has reached such a height in this Province
that it is thought no other part of the British Empire witnesses the
like, and it is vain to look for improvement until a radical change is
effected. It matters not what characters fill situations of public trust
at present--all sink beneath the dignity of men--become vitiated and
weak, as soon as they are placed within the vortex of destruction.
Confusion on confusion has grown out of this unhappy system; and the
very lands of the Crown, the giving away of which has created such
mischief and iniquity, have ultimately come to little value from abuse.
The poor subjects of His Majesty, driven from home by distress, to whom
portions of land are granted, can now find in the grant no benefit; and
Loyalists of the United Empire--the descendants of those who sacrificed
their all in America in behalf of British rule--men whose names were
ordered on record for their virtuous adherence to your Royal Father--the
descendants of these men find now no favour in their destined rewards;
nay, these rewards, when granted, have in many cases been rendered worse
than nothing, for the legal rights in the enjoyment of them have been
held at nought; their land has been rendered unsaleable, and, in some
cases, only a source of distraction and care. Under this system of
internal management, and weakened from other evil influences, Upper
Canada now pines in comparative decay; discontent and poverty are
experienced in a land supremely blessed with the gifts of nature; dread
of arbitrary power wars, here, against the free exercise of reason and
manly sentiment; laws have been set aside; legislators have come into
derision; and contempt from the mother-country seems fast gathering
strength to disunite the people of Canada from their friends at home."
Notwithstanding these long, involved, awkwardly-constructed sentences,
there is no more accurate picture to be found anywhere of the effect of
the pernicious administration of affairs in the Public Lands Office at
York in 1818. Twenty years later Lord Durham found it not much
improved.[40]

Another hydra-headed monster which ate into the very vitals of the
commonwealth was the provision for the clergy, known as the Clergy
Reserves. This was perhaps the greatest of all the curses imposed upon
Upper Canada by the Constitutional Act, for its ill effects were both
direct and incidental. It not only tended to stop the march of progress,
but it created a degree of sectarian animosity and hatred little
calculated to inspire respect for Christianity in the breasts of the
secular portion of the community, and it disturbed the public
tranquillity for nearly two generations.

By the thirty-sixth section of the Act of 1791, power was given to
reserve out of all future grants of land in Upper and Lower Canada, as
well as in respect of all past grants, an allotment for the support of
"a Protestant Clergy." It was provided that this allotment should be
"equal in value to the seventh part of the lands so granted." By the
thirty-seventh section, the rents, profits and emoluments arising from
the lands so appropriated were to be applicable solely to the
maintenance and support of a Protestant Clergy. By subsequent sections
provision was made for the erection and endowment by the
Lieutenant-Governor, under instructions from the Crown, of parsonages or
rectories, one or more in every township or parish, according to the
establishment of the Church of England, and for the presentation of
incumbents, subject to the bishop's right of institution. By section
forty-two it was enacted that no Provincial statute varying or repealing
these provisions should receive the royal assent until thirty days after
it had been laid before both Houses of Parliament in Great Britain.
These famous enactments were destined to produce more discord and
heartburning than all the other clauses of the Constitutional Act
combined. They were destined to make the Church of England more
cordially detested in this Province by persons without the pale of her
communion than she has ever been in any other part of the world. They
were destined to set one Legislative faction against another in such
fierce array that the public business frequently had to be suspended.
They were destined to divide the Provincial population into two hostile
camps, each filled with envy, malice and all uncharitableness towards
the other. They were destined to be the key-note of general elections,
and to shape the policy of successive Administrations. They were
destined to be the chief factor in bringing about a Rebellion which for
a time seriously disturbed the industries of the Province; which filled
the Provincial jails with suffering prisoners; which consigned a number
of persons to a premature and ignominous death; which brought sorrow
and ruin to many a once happy fireside; which bequeathed a legacy of
hatred to the children of those who took part in it; and which seriously
disturbed the international amity between Great Britain and the United
States.

It may be doubted whether all the ill effects of these appropriations
were foreseen by their promoters in the early years of our history. It
was at all events some time before those effects began to be apparent to
the people generally. In making the appropriations, care was taken that
the reserved lands should be intermixed with grants to actual settlers,
whereby they were spread over a large area; the manifest intention being
to increase their value by their proximity to cultivated farms, and at
the same time to create a tenantry in the settled townships, with a view
to the creation of parishes and the endowment of rectories. In several
portions of the Province, however, it was impossible to follow this
plan. Much of the Niagara peninsula had been granted to Butler's Rangers
before the passing of the Constitutional Act. In like manner, certain
townships along the north bank of the St. Lawrence, as well as several
portions of the Western District, had been granted to other United
Empire Loyalists. In none of these cases had any reservations been made,
and the lands had already become vested in the grantees. The
appropriators accordingly set apart large tracts of aggregated
reservations in contiguous townships which were yet unsettled. The
prejudicial results soon began to appear. Huge tracts of reserves
interposed themselves between one settler and another, enhancing the
difficulties of communication and transportation, and hindering or
altogether preventing that coöperation of labour which is essential to
the prosperity of pioneer settlements. The inhabitants, instead of being
drawn together, were isolated from one another, and combination for
municipal or other public purposes was rendered all but impracticable.
They were kept remote from a market for the sale of their produce, cut
off from the privileges of public worship and public education for their
children; deprived, in a word, of the blessings of civilization.
Settlement was seriously obstructed, and the industrious immigrant was
to a great extent paralyzed by his surroundings.

The evils arising out of these Clergy Reserves were intensified by the
unfair and illegal manner in which the appropriations were made. It has
been seen that by the Act of 1791 the land reserved for the clergy was
to be equal to one-seventh of all grants made by the Crown. One-seventh
of all grants would obviously be one-eighth of the whole. Yet, instead
of acting on this self-evident proposition, it was the practice of those
to whom the duty of reservation was entrusted to set apart for the
clergy one-seventh of _all_ the land, which was equal to a sixth of the
land granted. The surplus thus unjustly appropriated on behalf of the
clergy had in 1838 footed up to a total of three hundred thousand acres.
The excess was confined to about two-thirds of the surveyed townships,
from which circumstance, as well as from the obvious construction of the
statute, it is to be inferred that the excessive reservations were made
deliberately, and not from mere oversight or inadvertence.[41]

As the Province increased in population, and as land advanced in value,
the grievance became more and more manifest. The growl of discontent
began to be heard, and the people began to combine against the
intolerable evil. This, at first, was chiefly due to the purely secular
reasons above indicated. By degrees, however, the sectarian element was
developed, and the growl of discontent became a roar of opposition. A
dominant church was not acceptable to the Dissenters[42] who composed
the bulk of the population; yet it was contended by those in
authority--all of whom were Episcopalians--that the Clergy Reserves were
the exclusive domain of the Church of England. It must be conceded that
there was some ground for this contention, and that the question was not
quite free from doubt. The Act authorizing the setting apart of the
Reserves had appropriated them for the maintenance and support of "a
Protestant Clergy." The word "clergy" was not commonly applied in those
days to dissenting ministers of religion. It had never been used in any
English statute to designate any ministers except those of the Church of
Rome and the Church of England. The Church of Rome being excluded by the
term "Protestant," it was contended that the provision had been for the
exclusive benefit of the Church of England, more especially as the
creation and endowment of parsonages and rectories--which are
institutions peculiar to the Church of England--had been expressly
provided for by the same Act. Such was the plea put forward on behalf of
the Church of England. Dissenters took a different view. They argued
that the term "Protestant Clergy" had been used in the Act in mere
contradistinction to the clergy of the Church of Rome. They further
urged that the limited construction sought to be put upon the term by
the Anglicans was plainly negatived by the thirty-ninth section of the
Act, wherein the words "incumbent or minister of the Church of England"
were expressly employed. Such terms, it was said, would not have been
used by the framers of the Act if they had regarded them as synonymous
with "Protestant Clergy," as used in other clauses. "The manifest
intention of the Act," said the Dissenters, "was to provide for a
_Protestant_--as distinguished from a _Roman Catholic_--clergy. The
provision for the establishment of parsonages and rectories is a mere
matter of detail, which cannot be allowed to override the larger
intention so plainly evidenced by other sections." The Presbyterian
body took higher ground than their non-Anglican brethren. The Church of
Scotland had been expressly recognized as a Protestant Church by the Act
of Union of England and Scotland in 1707. It was therefore contended
that the ministers of that church were entitled to be considered as
"Protestant Clergy;" and this contention was sustained by the English
law officers of the Crown in 1819. The opinion expressed by those
learned officials was acted upon, and the Presbyterians of Upper Canada
put forward claims to a share of the Reserves. Their claims were
allowed; whereupon other Protestant denominations followed their
example, and demanded, as "Protestant Clergy," to participate in the
provision made for them. The private and public quarrels which ensued
between leaders of the different sects kept the country in a state of
chronic disturbance; while the greed displayed by professed ministers of
religion furnished a striking practical commentary upon the doctrines
taught by the Founder of all Christian faiths. Opinions were obtained
from eminent lawyers as to the respective rights of the various sects,
and as to the true meaning of the Constitutional Act. The most opposite
conclusions were arrived at by different lawyers, and it became manifest
that no apportionment satisfactory to all the claimants could be made by
any tribunal. The Church of England meanwhile contrived to secure the
great bulk of the spoils. According to a return to the House of Assembly
of lands set apart as glebes in Upper Canada during the forty-six years
from 1787 to 1833, it appears that 22,345 acres were so set apart for
the Clergy of the Church of England, 1160 acres for Ministers of the
Kirk of Scotland, 400 for Roman Catholics, and "none for any other
denomination of Christians."[43]

But there was a broader and stronger argument than any of these purely
technical contentions: an argument founded on experience and practical
utility. No matter what had been the intent of the original framers of
the Constitutional Act, the fact had become patent to all Dissenters,
and even to many liberal-minded lay members of the Anglican Church, that
the Clergy Reserves were a curse to the Province--a mill-stone about her
neck, which dragged her down in spite of all exertions to raise her to
the surface. Not long after this fact had become generally recognized,
an agitation arose in favour of the total abolition of State aid to
religious bodies. The plan advocated by Reformers was the sale of the
Reserves, and the application of the proceeds to public education and
municipal improvements. The agitation was kept up until long after the
period covered by this work, and the object sought to be attained by it
was not fully accomplished until the year 1854. Meanwhile, however, it
was the most important question before the country, and it occupied the
attention of the Legislature during a large part of almost every
session. Here was where the conflict between the two Houses was felt
with most pernicious effect. The advocates of abolition and
secularization clearly had the country with them, and the Assembly
passed Bill after Bill to effect those objects. Their efforts were
utterly nullified by the Upper House, which would not listen to any such
proposals, and which threw out as many Bills relating to this important
subject as the Assembly thought proper to send up for its consideration.
Such were the merits of the long and fiercely-contested question of the
Clergy Reserves.

Another serious obstacle to Upper Canadian prosperity was the continual
interference of the Colonial Office in our domestic concerns. Bills
passed by the Provincial Legislature for the regulation of our own
internal affairs were disallowed with vexatious frequency, and
sometimes, apparently, from mere caprice. Sometimes the irresponsible
Executive, unwilling that their obedient servants in the Upper House
should incur popular odium by opposing the will of the Assembly,
permitted Bills to pass both Houses, and then, through their tool the
Lieutenant-Governor, had these identical measures disallowed. Advice,
the compliance with which could not fail to be prejudicial to the
interests of the colony, was also sent across the Atlantic through the
Lieutenant-Governor, to whom it came back by return post in the shape of
Imperial instructions to be acted upon. The Colonial Minister, whoever
he might for the time happen to be, knew little and cared little about
the British North American colonies, and did not generally concern
himself with despatches to colonial Governors any further than to sign
his name to them. He was thus the unconscious means of furthering
Executive tyranny, and to some extent of alienating the loyalty of the
colonists.

Among other drawbacks, sufficiently serious in themselves and in their
ulterior consequences, but of minor importance when compared with the
all-permeating grievances already referred to, may be mentioned the
quartering of military men upon the colony in the capacity of
Lieutenant-Governors; the unequal representation of the people in the
Assembly; the exorbitant salaries of certain public officials; the union
of judicial and legislative functions in the same persons; the
appointment of judges, sheriffs, magistrates, and other officials during
the pleasure of the Executive, and not during good behaviour.

The evils attendant upon placing the local administration of the
colonies in the hands of military officers, who were inexperienced in
constitutional government, and unfitted by training for such duties as
were demanded of them, have already been glanced at.[44] Such persons
naturally enough found themselves altogether out of their proper element
upon their arrival in the colony, and looked to the Executive
Councillors for advice and instruction. That they should follow the
instruction received, and that they should surrender themselves to the
judgment of those enemies of the public weal, followed almost as a
matter of course. In this way the strength of the oligarchy was
consolidated and enlarged, and its members rendered more and more
independent of public opinion. All that can be urged on behalf of the
Home Ministry, by way of excuse for committing the direction of our
affairs to such persons, is that the position of Lieutenant-Governor of
Upper Canada was not a sufficient inducement to make it sought after by
really capable men. The office, in at least one instance to be hereafter
recorded, went a-begging.

Unequal representation was a fruitful source of discontent, though Upper
Canada was no worse off in that respect than the mother-country prior to
the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. For years before the Rebellion,
the little district towns of Niagara, Brockville and Cornwall each
enjoyed the privilege of sending a representative to the Assembly. All
three of them were notoriously rotten boroughs--as rotten as Gatton,
Grampound or Old Sarum--and always returned Tory members prepared to do
the bidding of the Executive. By such means was the Assembly corrupted,
and the elective franchise turned into an instrument of oppression. Some
of the salaries of public officials were altogether out of proportion
to the state of the revenue, and to the nature and extent of the duties
performed. Certain highly-paid offices were the merest sinecures, and
had been created for no other purpose than to provide for serviceable
tools of the Administration. The practice of permitting judges to sit
and vote in the Legislature needs no comment. Whatever justification
there might have been for such a union of functions in the first infancy
of the Province, when educated men were few in the land, there was
certainly none in the days when Chief Justice Robinson was Speaker of
the Legislative Council. The effect of making the tenure of office of
judges and other dignitaries dependent on the will of the Executive was
such as has attended upon such a system in all countries where it has
been in vogue. The officials were selected almost entirely from one
political party, and had always an eye upon the nod of their
taskmasters, who had the power to make or unmake them. Whenever it was
desirable, in the supposed interests of the Executive, that the
authority of the courts should be strained to the perversion of
judgment, the dispensing of even-handed justice was altogether a
secondary consideration. Mr. Gourlay's case, to say nothing of that of
Bartemus Ferguson, affords a sufficient illustration of the extent to
which the traditions of the Star Chamber were revived in Upper Canadian
practice, when it was thought desirable to crush a champion of popular
liberty and equal rights.

Such were a few of the burdens which the people of Upper Canada were
compelled to bear in the by-gone epoch when tyranny reigned supreme
throughout the Province: when

                       "the law's delay,
   The insolence of office, and the spurns
   That patient merit of the unworthy takes,"

were the all too frequent portion of such of the inhabitants as dared to
call in question the righteousness of existing ordinances. There was a
further intolerable grievance which was closely bound up with, and
which, so to speak, grew out of or sustained all the rest: which
comprehended within itself all the evils affecting the body politic, and
which left traces of its existence that have survived down to the
present time. This was the Family Compact--a phrase which is in
everybody's mouth, but the significance whereof, I venture to think, is
in general but imperfectly understood. The subject deserves a chapter to
itself.

FOOTNOTES:

[24] Being somewhat doubtful as to the truth of this oft-repeated story,
I have taken the trouble to consult the records in the Crown Lands
Office, where I find that Mr. Russell on several occasions made grants
of land to himself. Among other such grants I may mention lot number
twenty-two, in the third concession of the township of York, which was
made on the 16th of July, 1797. See Liber A., folio 382, Provincial
Registry Office. He also granted various tracts of land to his sister,
Miss Elizabeth Russell, the first of which bears date the 15th of
December, 1796. See Liber B., folio 334. So that the President appears
to have begun to "do good unto himself" and his family before he had
been three months in office as Administrator of the Government. Further
investigation would doubtless prove that he kept up the practice until
the arrival of Governor Hunter.

[25] See his speech at the close of the first session of the First
Parliament of Upper Canada, on the 15th of October, 1792.

[26] The property qualification for a voter was, in counties, the
possession of lands or tenements of the yearly value of forty shillings
sterling or upwards, over and above all rents and charges; and in towns
or townships, the possession of a dwelling house and lot of the yearly
value of five pounds sterling or upwards, or the having been a resident
for twelve months, and the having paid a year's rent at the rate of ten
pounds sterling or upwards. See the twentieth section of the
Constitutional Act.

[27] The latter part of this clause has no application to Brock, who was
made of manlier stuff. Brock, however, was not Lieutenant-Governor, but
merely Provisional Administrator of the Province.

[28] _Report on the Affairs of British North America_, English folio
edition, p. 29.

[29] _The Constitutional History of Canada_, by Samuel James Watson,
Vol. I., p. 128.

[30] The abuses specified in the present chapter were not confined to
Upper Canada. They existed, with certain local variations, throughout
all the British North American colonies, and produced similar results in
each; viz., ever-recurring conflicts between the Executive and the
popular branch of the Legislature, followed by more or less alienation
of loyalty to the mother country on the part of the more radical element
in the community. In the Maritime Provinces the alienation was not
sufficiently widespread to manifest itself in actual rebellion, though
the conflict between the oligarchy and the popular tribunes sometimes
produced a very disturbed state of feeling. In Lower Canada, where the
element of race-hatred was added to all other sources of disturbance,
the conflict attained an intensity far beyond what was reached in any of
the other colonies, and left traces behind it which are not even yet
wholly obliterated.

[31] _Statistical Account_, Vol. II., p. 296.

[32] _Canadiana_, by W. B. Wells, p. 103.

[33] Ib.

[34] Ib., p. 104.

[35] These grants of five thousand acres to members of the Executive
Council were in direct violation of the instructions framed by the Home
Government for the regulation of land-granting in Upper Canada. They
continued to be made down to 1807, when they were stopped by a
peremptory order to that effect from the Colonial Secretary. There is
one instance on record of a reserve being applied for and made on behalf
of the child of a member of the Legislative Council, though the child
was not three days old. See the evidence of John Radenhurst, Chief Clerk
in the office of the Surveyor-General, in Appendix B. to Lord Durham's
_Report on the Affairs of British North America_.

[36] Most of these facts with reference to the granting of public lands
may be obtained from the archives of the Crown Lands Office in Toronto,
and from the newspapers and official reports of the period. They may
also be found, together with a vast accumulation of other important
facts bearing on the same subject, in Charles Buller's Report on Public
Lands and Emigration, forming Appendix B. to Lord Durham's _Report on
the Affairs of British North America_.

[37] _Canadiana_, p. 130.

[38] In 1796 or thereabouts the Executive offered to grant entire
townships to persons who would undertake to settle them with a certain
number of colonists within a specified time. The number of colonists
required was made proportionate to the extent of territory to be
settled. This offer was taken advantage of by ten different individuals.
The grants were not actually made, but the respective townships were
allocated in the official books to the various persons concerned. Upon
the faith of the pledge of the Executive, several of the ten assignees
proceeded to carry out the conditions imposed. Among them was Mr.
William Berczy, who, having obtained an assignment of the township of
Markham, went to great expense in bringing over a number of German
families, whom he settled according to the conditions of the
contemplated grant. After he had spent a sum of money variously stated
at from twenty to thirty thousand pounds sterling, the Executive coolly
announced that they had determined to abandon the township system, and
that they did not even intend to carry out the grants to those who had
complied with the conditions. The compensation offered for this
unparalleled breach of faith was a grant of twelve hundred acres to each
assignee. Nine of the individuals concerned assented to those terms, but
Mr. Berczy refused to accept any such inadequate recompense, and he
remained for the rest of his life a ruined man. He shook the dust of
Upper Canada from his feet, and took up his abode in Montreal, whence he
subsequently repaired to New York, where he died in the year 1813.

[39] See Appendix B. to Lord Durham's _Report_, folio edition, p. 99.
Mr. Charles Rankin, Deputy-Surveyor in the Western District, in his
evidence before the Commission (_ib._ pp. 120, 121), says:--"The system
of making large grants to individuals who had no intention of settling
them has tended to retard the prosperity of the colony by separating the
actual settlers, and rendering it so much more difficult, and in some
cases impossible, for them to make the necessary roads. It has also made
the markets more distant and more precarious. To such an extent have
these difficulties been experienced as to occasion the abandonment of
settlements which had been formed. I may mention, as an instance of
this, the township of Rama, where after a trial of three years, the
settlers were compelled to abandon their improvements. It should be
noticed that the settlers in this instance were not of a class fitted to
encounter the privations of the wilderness, being half-pay officers. In
the township of St. Vincent almost all the most valuable settlers have
left their farms from the same cause, the townships of Nottawasaga and
Collingwood, the whole of the land in which had been granted, and which
are almost entirely unsettled (Collingwood, I believe, has only one
settler), intervening between them and the settled township, and
rendering communication impossible. There have been numerous instances
in which, though the settlement has not been altogether abandoned, the
most valuable settlers, after unavailing struggles of several years with
the difficulties which I have described, have left their farms." This
witness further states his belief that nine-tenths of the lands in the
Western District were still--in 1838--in a state of wilderness.

[40] See his _Report, passim_; also see the portion of Appendix B.
relating to Upper Canada.

[41] See the Special Report of Mr. R. Davies Hanson, Assistant
Commissioner of Crown Lands and Emigration, forming the commencement of
Appendix A. to Lord Durham's _Report on the Affairs of British North
America_.

[42] I use this word for want of a better, though it is not strictly
accurate as applied to Upper Canada, where there were no clearly
prescribed standards of religious faith from which non-supporters of
Episcopacy could be said to dissent. The word "Nonconformist" is
objectionable for a similar reason.

[43] See _Seventh Grievance Committee's Report_, p. 164.

[44] _Ante_, p. 51.



CHAPTER III.

THE FAMILY COMPACT.


What was the nature and origin of this powerful organization--this
informally-constituted league, the name whereof has been familiar to the
ears of Upper Canadians during the whole, or nearly the whole, of the
present century; which is referred to in nearly all books dealing with
the political and social life of this Province before the Union of 1841;
which for forty years regulated the public policy of the colony, and
ruled with an iron hand over the liberties of the inhabitants?

Immediately after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, in 1763,
whereby Canada was ceded by France to Great Britain, it became necessary
for the British Government to appoint a considerable number of officials
to fill the public offices in the country so ceded. It did not suit the
policy of the conquerors to leave much power in the hands of the
conquered. The introduction of the English language and laws was
moreover a practical disqualification for most of the native inhabitants
of the colony, and the new officials were nearly all sent over from
England. Some of the principal personages among them were men of probity
and brains. Others, though possessed of a full share of brains, had but
a younger brother's portion of the other commodity. The underlings,
generally speaking, had but a slender allowance of either. They were for
the most part appointed on the recommendation of various supporters of
the Government of the day, who were thus able to provide for a number of
their needy relatives and dependants--a matter of vastly greater
importance in their eyes than the proper administration of the affairs
of a distant and newly-acquired colony. The Conquest thus proved a boon
to many servile hangers-on of public men in Great Britain, and scores of
the waifs and strays of British aristocracy began to turn their eyes
towards Canada as a possible resource in the last emergency. It was said
to be a cold and comfortless land, but it was surely preferable to the
Fleet Prison or the Marshalsea, with the alternative of starvation or
enlistment in the army. Many of these pimps and panders to the whims or
the passions of those in high station found their way to Quebec and
Montreal, and were provided for at the public expense by being installed
in places of greater or less emolument.[45]

When Upper Canada was set apart as a separate Province, in 1791, the
field of operations was considerably extended. Indeed, the Upper
Province soon came to be regarded with special favour by intending
aspirants to office, as it was in all respects an English colony;
whereas Lower Canada, in spite of all attempts to Anglicize it, remained
much more French than English. Lower Canada, indeed, remained in some
respects more French than any other part of the world, not even
excepting France itself, for in that country the Great Revolution had
swept away many effete institutions which were still retained in all
their decrepitude among the Frenchmen of the New World. Now, the French
Canadians, though most of the avenues to power and office were closed to
them, composed a vast majority of the population. They did not take
kindly to the British colonists, and declined to fraternize with them.
The latter could bear this isolation, as they were comforted by the
spoils of office, but their lives were rendered much less agreeable than
they would have been in a colony where no such disturbing elements were
known. Upper Canada was precisely such a colony. No part of Britain was
more British in sentiment. In no part of the world would an expatriated
Englishman find himself more entirely in harmony with his environment,
from a purely patriotic point of view. What wonder, then, that Upper
Canada was regarded by place-hunting emigrants from England with
wistful eyes? What wonder that an appointment to a public office in
Upper Canada should have been regarded by such persons as a thing
greatly to be coveted? Such aspirants were regarded with but little
favour by Governor Simcoe. His great object was to launch the Province
successfully on its career, and to lay the foundations of good
government. He brought with him his own staff, selected by himself with
a single eye to their fitness for the positions which they were
respectively intended to fill. During his day there was little or no
favouritism in public appointments, and but little, if anything, to find
fault with in the conduct of the administration. His demission of office
was almost immediately followed by a relaxation of discipline, and by a
looseness in the management of the public business. As the years passed
by, the Province became the resort of numerous office-seekers from
beyond sea--half-pay officers and scions of good English, Scotch and
Irish families, who sought to better their fortunes by expatriation. As
they were, generally speaking, men of some education, and of manners
more polished than were ordinarily found among the colonists, they
naturally assimilated, and were drawn towards each other. They likewise
coalesced, to some extent, with a few United Empire Loyalist families of
exclusive pretensions, in whose veins the blood was supposed to possess
an exceptionally cerulean tint. Several persons who had rapidly gained
wealth by trade and speculation, and who had thereby acquired influence
in the community, were also admitted. In an inconceivably short space of
time this union of several influential cliques was followed by important
results. They acquired a strength and influence which, in the then
primitive state of the colony, carried all before them. They wormed
themselves into all the more important offices, directed the Councils of
the Sovereign's representative, and, in a word, became the power behind
the Throne. In the early years of their domination they organized their
forces with much tact and judgment, and did not develop their plans
until they had been carefully matured. They may be said to have
practically absorbed the Executive and Legislative Councils, as those
bodies were entirely made up of persons either selected from among them
or entirely subservient to their influence. No man, whatever his
abilities, could hope to succeed in any profession or calling in Upper
Canada if he dared to declare himself in opposition to them. A few made
the attempt, and failed most signally.

Such was the Family Compact. "For a long time," says Lord Durham,[46]
writing in 1838, "this body of men, receiving at times accessions to its
members, possessed almost all the highest public offices, by means of
which, and of its influence in the Executive Council, it wielded all the
powers of Government; it maintained influence in the Legislature by
means of its predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of
the large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the
Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as they came in
their turn, are said to have either submitted quietly to its influence,
or, after a short and unavailing struggle, to have yielded to this
well-organized party the conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy,
the high offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal
profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by grant or
purchase they have acquired nearly the whole of the waste lands of the
Province; they are all-powerful in the chartered banks, and, till
lately, shared among themselves almost exclusively all offices of trust
and profit."

The influences which produced the Family Compact were not confined to
Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, similar causes led to similar results, and the term "Family
Compact" has at one time or another been a familiar one in all the
British North American colonies. But in none of them did the
organization attain to such a plenitude of power as in this Province,
and in none of them did it wield the sceptre of authority with so
thorough an indifference to the principles of right and wrong. Its name
is a rather indefinite, but not inapt characterization. Lord Durham
refers to the term "Family Compact," as being not much more appropriate
than party designations usually are; "inasmuch as," he writes, "there
is, in truth, very little of family connexion among the persons thus
united.[47]" "Much" is a saving clause, but if his Lordship had thought
it worth his while to enquire minutely into the relations subsisting
between the members of this body, he would have found that there had
been a good many intermarriages between them, and that the pecuniary
interests which bound them together had been welded by the most powerful
of social bonds.[48] The designation "Family Compact," however, did not
owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists, but was
borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe. By the treaty signed at
Paris on the 15th of August, 1761, by representatives on behalf of
France and Spain, the contracting parties agreed to guarantee each
other's territories, to provide mutual succours by sea and land, and to
consider the enemy of either as the enemy of both. This treaty, being
contracted between the two branches of the House of Bourbon, is known to
history as the Family Compact Treaty, and the name was adopted in the
Canadas, as well as in the Maritime Provinces, to designate the
combination which enjoyed a monopoly of power and place in the
community, and among the members whereof there seemed to be a perfect,
if unexpressed, understanding, that they were to make common cause
against any and all persons who might attempt to diminish or destroy
their influence.

The members of the Family Compact, with very few exceptions, were
members of the Church of England, which, owing to the before-mentioned
provisions in the Constitutional Act, they regarded as the State Church
of Upper Canada, established by law, and entitled to the special
veneration of the inhabitants. They accounted all persons as members of
the Church of England who were not actual members of some other
religious body, and in enumerating the people for statistical purposes
they sometimes even went so far as to include the infant children of
Dissenters as Episcopalians. They sought to defend the alleged
establishment of a State Church in Canada by arguments which it is
astonishing to think that men of education and intelligence should ever
have stooped to employ. "There should be in every Christian country an
established religion," said Dr. Strachan, in his evidence before the
Select Committee on Grievances, in 1835, "otherwise it is not a
Christian but an infidel country."[49] According to their theory, one of
the principal ends of the Government of Upper Canada was the propagation
of religious truth as set forth in the doctrines of the Church of
England. True, the arguments on the subject were not so well understood
then as now. Mr. Gladstone's little volume on "The State in its
Relations with the Church," and Macaulay's answer thereto in the
_Edinburgh Review_, had not then been published. But some of the most
conclusive arguments adduced by Macaulay were as old as the world
itself; and even Mr. Gladstone, in all his youthful exuberance, did not
venture to take so preposterous a stand as was assumed by the upholders
of a State Church in this Province. Their bigotry and intolerance were
utterly out of keeping with the times in which they lived, and were
better suited to the days of Archbishop Laud or Sir Robert Filmer. Of
that heaven-born charity which suffereth long, and is kind; which
vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up; which seeketh not her own,
and is not easily provoked; which thinketh no evil; which rejoiceth not
in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; which beareth all things,
believeth all things, endureth all things--of the spirit which impels to
such a state of mind as this, we find few traces in the lives and
writings of the upholders of State-Churchism in Upper Canada in those
days. We find, on the contrary, much unkindness, much vaunting of
themselves, much selfish conceit, much seeking, not only of their own,
but of that which of right belonged to their neighbours. The champions
of ecclesiastical monopoly were easily provoked to anger, and to
thinking and speaking all manner of evil of those who differed from them
as to the distribution of the Clergy Reserves. Roman Catholicism they
contemplated with a certain amount of toleration, as the Roman Catholic
hierarchy yielded the Government an unwavering support in return for the
freedom and privileges which they enjoyed. But their toleration was not
broad enough to cover any other form of religious belief. Dissent, in
all its multiform phases, they looked upon with mingled abhorrence and
contempt--as a thing to be shunned and tabooed by all right-minded
persons. Dissenting ministers of religion were regarded as "low
fellows," whom it was no sin to persecute, and, if possible, drive out
of the country. Comparatively few of the latter were permitted to
solemnize matrimony during the first forty years of the Province's
history. By the statute 38 George III., chapter 4, passed in 1798, the
privilege of doing so was accorded to ministers of "The Church of
Scotland, or Lutherans or Calvinists;" but it was hedged about with
cumbrous restrictions which must have been felt as humiliating and
unnecessary. No person was to be regarded as a minister under the Act
until he had appeared before the Justices of the Peace in Quarter
Sessions, and had produced satisfactory credentials of his ordination.
He was also compelled to take the oath of allegiance. Even after
complying with all formalities, his functions were restricted to cases
where one or both of the parties to be joined together belonged to his
own religious society. Ministers of other denominations, including those
of the Methodist body, which was the most numerous religious community
in the Province, were not allowed the privilege of solemnizing marriage
rites till the year 1831. The ignominous disqualification was removed
by the statute 11 George IV., chapter 36, which was passed in 1830, but
which did not receive the royal assent until the following year. A
similar measure had repeatedly been passed by the Assembly in former
sessions, but had as often been rejected by the Upper House. Before the
law was finally and equitably settled as above mentioned, several
ministers of religion had been tried and banished from the Province for
having ventured to solemnize matrimony without legal authority. It is
said that in one case where a minister was tried on a charge of this
kind, the accused protested against his sentence, alleging that the
Chief Justice, who presided at the trial, had himself sanctioned the
performance of the ceremony. The Chief Justice, being called upon to
descend from the judgment seat and give evidence as to this fact,
declined to do so; but he afterwards procured a pardon for the
prisoner.[50]

The Compact always contained within its ranks a few persons of more than
average ability. Some of them doubtless believed that the course pursued
by their organization was for the advantage of the colony, though,
reasoning by the light of present knowledge, it is difficult to
comprehend how men of even moderate perspicacity and judgment could have
brought themselves to such a conclusion. It was, however, inevitable
that persons of such narrow and contracted views--persons to whom self
and pelf were the mainsprings of life--should degenerate, mentally as
well as morally. The persons composing the second generation were, with
very few exceptions, striking illustrations of the doctrine of the
descent of man. Their sires had been men of energy and force of
character. They themselves were--to borrow a phrase from the acting
drama--the mere walking gentlemen of the colony. The sires had
originated a bold and determined policy, and had from first to last
pursued it with consistent vigour. The sons had neither brains to
conceive nor discretion to carry out the conceptions of others. The
sires had been persons whom it had been possible for the commonalty to
respect. The sons were persons whom it was impossible not to despise.
Surely a more superlatively commonplace and contemptible race of human
beings has seldom been seen on the earth than four-fifths of the second
generation of this bastard aristocracy of Upper Canada. It bore no
resemblance to any other aristocracy whereof history has preserved any
record. The old Roman commonalty, while they groaned beneath the iron
heel of tyranny, were one and all conscious of a secret pride in their
imperial oppressors. For the Roman aristocracy was an aristocracy of
nature. The Roman patricians made foreign rulers to crouch and tremble
at the name of Rome. Their triumphs were the triumphs of the nation.
Caius of Corioli, Furius Camillus, Titus Capitolinus, were names the
mere utterance of which stirred the Roman blood like the blast of a
trumpet. For many a long year after one haughty dictator had slept his
last sleep beneath the walls of Præneste, and after another had taken
his final plunge beneath the yellow Tiber or from the Tarpeian rock,
their exploits furnished themes for tale and song around the Roman
camp-fires. These puissant representatives of the dominant class had
shown little sympathy for the plebeians, upon whom they had looked down
from a lofty height, and towards whom they had ever borne themselves
with haughtiness and disdain. But their pride was a something to be
tolerated by Romans of every degree, for they had achieved much glory
for the Roman name. In the words of one who has interpreted the
sentiment of those times with rare felicity, Rome could bear the pride
of him of whom herself was proud. The old French noblesse, again, were
not devoid of redeeming qualities. Their galling yoke would not have
been borne from reign to reign, and through century after century, even
by such seeming reconcilables as constituted the bulk of the French
populace during the ante-Revolutionary period, if they had all been like
the wicked St. Evrémonde of Mr. Dickens's tragic story. As a class, they
had a subtle French grace about them which rendered their most grievous
exactions less hard to bear than were the exactions of their eastern
neighbours. They were an unmistakable _haute noblesse_, ever polished
and dignified. Some of them, like Philippe Egalité, had the cunning,
when the time of trial arrived, to bend to the popular storm, and even
to affect a zeal for citizenship. Comparatively few of them were at once
_blasé_ and brainless. It may be doubted if a single one of them
combined--as did many of the rank and file of the second generation of
the Family Compact of Upper Canada--the pretensions of an aristocrat
with the sentiments of a boor and the intellectual development of a
child. Yet further. The feeling of veneration with which the English
commonalty have for centuries regarded the House of Lords is easy enough
to understand. That feeling seems to be rapidly passing away, if,
indeed, it has not already departed. But it would not have endured from
the time of the Plantagenets to the time of Queen Victoria if it had not
had some substantial foundation to rest upon. The House of Lords has
always contained a number of men of high integrity and ability. Take it
for all and all, it is probably the most just-minded and intellectual
aristocratic assembly the world has ever seen. This may not be very high
praise, but it may at least be taken for what it is worth. Its
individual members are seldom brought sufficiently near to the lower
order of the commonalty to enable the latter to detect their weaknesses.
Their wealth, prestige and social position give them a vast influence,
while at the same time their legislative powers are held in check by the
direct representatives of the people. Most of these conditions were
directly reversed in Upper Canada, where the members of the dominant
faction were brought into the closest relations with the people
generally, insomuch that their many deficiencies could not be concealed.
Such wealth as they had they were too often known to have obtained at
the expense of the rest of the community. The Lower House formed no
efficacious check upon them, for they either managed to return a
sufficient number of their tools to control the vote in that body, or
else they rendered the Assembly's operations of no avail by means of
their influence in the Legislative Council. They had none of the
graceful suavity of the Lower Canadian seigneurs. Nor could they boast
of the superiority derived from a liberal education. Many of them--even
including some of those who held high public offices--were so illiterate
that they were unable to write a simple business letter without
committing errors of orthography of which any one but Artemus Ward or
Jeames de la Pluche might well feel ashamed.

Nearly all the leading spirits of this strangely-assorted oligarchy were
either wealthy or on the direct road to wealth. Being comfortably
provided for at the public cost, in the form of fat offices or wild
lands, or both, they assumed a swelling port, and aped, as best they
knew how, the manners and customs of the upper classes in Great Britain.
They built their dwellings in imitation of old-fashioned English
manor-houses, with a variety of wings and gables, and with broad
entrance halls which in an emergency might have served the purpose of
presence-chambers. They dined long and late, and with much old-world
pomp and ceremonial. They drove out in coaches emblazoned with heraldic
bearings, and attended by broad-calved flunkeys in family livery.
Certain social observances of the early Georgian era, long since effete
and worn out in England, flourished in the social life of Little York
down to a period within the memory of many persons who are still living.
The aristocratic clique which preserved these customs was in the highest
degree rigid and exclusive. No outsider was admitted into the charmed
circle unless he came duly ticketed and accredited. The attempt to
transplant the usages of an old and advanced state of society into the
primitive streets and lanes of such places as York, Kingston, and
Woodstock was for a time more successful than might be supposed. Such of
the families as had been to the manner born carried off these
observances with considerable grace. They had brought their traditions
with them across the Atlantic, and though such traditions were not well
suited to the genius of a young and sparsely-settled colony, they were
at least maintained with some regard to the sources whence they had been
derived. With the pretenders who formed a portion of the clique, and who
had been admitted into it for special political reasons, the attempt to
copy the habits of their social superiors was, generally speaking, less
satisfactory. There was, in truth, an inner social circle which these
latter were never invited to join. They, however, enjoyed all the
political and pecuniary advantages arising from their connection, and
were not easily distinguishable by outsiders from the very head and
front of the organization.

So far as to the wealthy members of the ruling faction. But there were a
good many of them who not only were not wealthy, but who were in
positively indigent circumstances. These, for the most part, were
members of old country families who had sent them to Canada with the
sole object of getting rid of them. Others were half-pay officers who
had spent their whole fortunes in settling on land, after which they had
found themselves unable to make a livelihood, and had then sold their
property for as much--or as little--as they could manage to get. These
latter, after having disposed of their lands, generally repaired to the
towns, and most of them sooner or later found their way to the
Provincial capital. There they became obedient slaves of those in
authority, and picked up a precarious livelihood by making themselves
useful in various ways. The Executive could always find a certain amount
of work for such persons, though, if the truth must be told, the supply
was often greater than the demand. The code of social ethics in vogue
among this class was such as might have been expected from persons who
had been reared to regard themselves as the objects of a special
dispensation of fortune. They looked upon manual labour as degrading.
Any person, no matter what his abilities, who earned a livelihood by the
sweat of his brow, or even by honest trade, was considered as no fit
company for the brood of parasites who hung on to the heels of the
Compact, and who nevertheless did not hesitate to perform tasks from
which the average costermonger would have shrunk in disgust. Their
employers occasionally admitted them to their tables, and even to some
degree of social intimacy. More frequently they presented them with
their cast-off clothing, with new gowns for their wives at Christmas,
or--when things were at a remarkably low ebb--with a hundredweight of
flour or half a barrel of mess pork. Yet the recipients of these favours
piqued themselves upon their good birth and high connexions, and would
have felt themselves insulted if anyone had ventured to hint that they
should visit, upon terms of equality, with the grocer or the butcher in
the next street.

The reader now has before him a sufficient array of facts to enable him
to form a pretty accurate conception of the state of social life in
Upper Canada during ante-Rebellion times. It was a matter of course that
such a monopoly of power as was possessed and exercised by the ruling
faction should excite envy and opposition on the part of those who did
not revel in its smiles or share in its plunder. Loud murmurings began
to make themselves heard against the delay and partiality in the
land-granting department, and against the corrupt manner in which the
public affairs of the Province generally were carried on. Before the
close of Governor Hunter's _régime_ these murmurings had become loud
enough to occasion no little disquiet to some of the officials who had
most reason to dread enquiry and investigation. The abuses were greater
in some branches of the service than in others, but peculation prevailed
to a greater or less extent almost everywhere. The Indian department was
notorious for the corruption of its officials. A sum of sixty thousand
pounds sterling was annually granted by the Imperial Government for
distribution among the various tribes, and for the payment of agents and
interpreters. The distribution among the Indians chiefly took the form
of commodities which had a particular fascination for the mind of the
noble savage--such commodities, for instance, as muskets, powder,
bullets, knives, tomahawks, hatchets, blankets, spangles, pocket
mirrors, and--last, but by no means least--fire-water. The opportunities
which this grant afforded for peculation and plunder were too tempting
to be resisted. The agents and their subordinates, from highest to
lowest, owed their positions to their servility and usefulness to those
in authority. So long as they proved serviceable and obedient to their
masters, there was not much likelihood of their being called to serious
account for any iniquities they might commit towards Mohawk or Seneca,
Oneida or Mississauga. By way of consequence, the Indians were robbed and
the Government was robbed; and the robbers, feeling secure of protection
from their superiors, plied their nefarious traffic with impunity.[51]
There were equally culpable but less notorious abuses of power in other
branches of the service. Probably not one in ten of these ever came to
light, but from time to time there were awkward revelations which could
not be suppressed. All these things combined to beget a widespread lack
of confidence in the official clique. The want of confidence, not
without good reason, extended even to the administrators of the law. The
judges, as already mentioned, held office at the will of the Executive,
and, at least in some instances, were shamelessly servile and corrupt.
This led to their dicta being disregarded by sturdy juries who cared
less for the letter of the law than for its spirit. Mr. John Mills
Jackson, in his "View of the Political Situation of the Province of
Upper Canada," published in 1809, speaks of an instance where the people
became tumultuous, and broke the public stocks in the presence of the
Chief Justice.[52] The public distrust of the administrators of the law
does not seem to have been confined to the judges of the Superior
Courts. It extended to the rural magistrates, some of whom turned their
offices to commodity in a manner which would have excited the admiration
of Falstaff himself. "The shop-keepers," writes Mr. Jackson, "are
Justices of Peace. They have the means of extortion, and the power of
enforcing payments. They are first the criminals, then the judges; and
the court of appeal seems to be so constructed as to prevent an honest
verdict from passing into effect. The practice of the court is unjust,
oppressive, and influenced. Favourite attorneys were made deputy clerks
of the peace, so that process might be entered and writs obtained most
partially. The crown lawyer is allowed nearly seven pounds sterling for
every criminal prosecution! an inducement to listen to trifling
complaints, and prefer frivolous indictments, when, if power was
gratified and independence harassed, it was a sufficient excuse for an
inflated contingent account." The author of this scathing philippic
against petty oppression proceeds to recount a case wherein an action
was brought against a magistrate who had exerted his authority in an
illegal and oppressive manner. A verdict was obtained against him for a
hundred pounds. An application was made to the Court of King's Bench to
set the verdict aside, which was rejected; whereupon the clerk of the
court in which the judgment had been obtained was ordered by the Crown
lawyer not to issue execution. The clerk knew better than to disobey an
order from such a source, and the plaintiff accordingly took nothing by
his verdict. The unrighteous magistrate escaped the penalty of his
misdeeds, and furnished a sort of standing precedent for magisterial
iniquity. Other equally flagrant perversions of justice are recorded by
the same authority. An illegal and unjustifiable extent issued, at the
suit of the Crown, against one of the civil officers. It lasted for
years; yet the officer dared not resist oppression by applying for
justice. "When [the extent] was as imperiously taken off as it was
arbitrarily laid on," writes Mr. Jackson, "the sheriff dared not apply
for fees expended in holding possession under the writ, or the printer
sue for the money voted him by the House of Assembly for printing their
journals. The surveyors could not obtain the money they had actually
expended in the public service, nor the people find redress for extorted
fees. Therefore, when there was neither substance nor shadow of law or
justice, but the will of power was the rule of decision, the public mind
was agitated in the extreme, and universal gloom pervaded the Province."

The discontent produced by official tyranny was however almost impotent
as against the wrong-doers, who were so strongly entrenched in their
places that it seemed as though nothing could shake them. Many of them,
conscious of their misconduct, doubtless felt secret misgivings whenever
any specially significant outburst of popular dissatisfaction occurred.
But for many years they were able to present a united and brazen front,
and to crush anyone who dared to so much as wag a finger against them.
It was intimated on a former page that Robert Gourlay was not the first
victim of Executive tyranny. The first conspicuous victim of whom any
record has been preserved was Mr. Robert Thorpe, an English barrister of
much learning and acumen, who in 1805 was appointed a puisne judge of
the Court of King's Bench for Upper Canada. Previous to his arrival in
this country Mr. Thorpe had never been remarkable for any specially
liberal opinions, but he was a man of enlightened mind, and actuated by
an honest desire to do his duty. He was not long in perceiving that the
administration of justice in this Province was little better than a
hollow mockery. He resolved to do what one man could to restore public
confidence in the judicial bench, and his court erelong became a popular
forum for honest litigants, for it was evident to all that he held the
scales of justice with an even hand, and was not to be either cajoled or
bullied into perverting the law. Before he had been a twelvemonth in the
country he was known far and wide as an upright judge, and as a sort of
champion of popular rights. Grand juries took him into their confidence,
and tabulated their grievances before him. These were laid by him
before the authorities at York, upon his return from circuit; a
proceeding which was quite sufficient to bring down upon his head
the opposition of the faction which flourished by reason of those very
grievances. The whole of the Family Compact influence arrayed itself
against him in deadly enmity. Francis Gore arrived in the capacity of
Lieutenant-Governor in the summer of 1806. He was informed by his
Councillors that Judge Thorpe was a dangerous and revolutionary
personage. It was certain that the past year had been signalized by a
decided propensity on the part of the people to assert themselves
against the intolerable exactions of their oppressors, and that a spirit
of opposition was on the increase throughout the land. Governor Gore and
his Councillors reversed the inductive process, and attributed the
popular discontent to the influence of the new judge. This seeming
conviction on their parts was strengthened by certain remarks of Judge
Thorpe himself, made in reply to an address from the Grand Jury of the
London District. "The art of governing," said he, "is a difficult
science. Knowledge is not instinctive, and the days of inspiration have
passed away. Therefore, when there was neither talent, education,
information, nor even manners in the Administration, little could be
expected, and nothing was produced." The reference here is manifestly to
the _régime_ of Governor Hunter and Commodore Grant; and the intimation
is that better things are to be hoped for under the recently-arrived
Governor. "But," continued the judge, "there is an ultimate point of
depression, as well as of exaltation, from whence all human affairs
naturally advance or recede. Therefore, proportionate to your
depression, we may expect your progress in prosperity will advance with
accelerated velocity." He also in the course of his address, inveighed
against the Alien Act of 1804. When he reached York, at the close of the
circuit, he laid before the new Lieutenant-Governor the various
recapitulations of grievances which had been entrusted to him. They were
received by Mr. Gore and his Councillors with a very ill grace. The
complaints from the London District were stated with great vigour and
lucidity, and as they had got into print they could not be suppressed or
wholly ignored. An attempt was made to show that the chapter of
grievances had been presented by the jurors, not because there was
really anything of importance to complain of, but because Judge Thorpe
himself had instigated them to such a course. As this charge was openly
made, Mr. Thorpe in his capacity of a Justice of the King's Bench,
caused a proceeding of the nature of _scandalum magnatum_ to be
instituted. His brother judges, however, some of whom were members of
the Executive Council, and all of whom were subject to strong influences
from that quarter, ruled that the proceeding could not be maintained,
and it accordingly fell through. An attempt was also made, first to
intimidate, and afterwards to corrupt the Grand Jury. A letter was sent
to them from the office of the Lieutenant-Governor, requesting them to
state the grounds of their complaints more specifically. The recipients
responded by preparing and forwarding a stronger case than before. A
recantation was then drawn up by a skilful hand, and presented to each
individual member of the Jury, a reward being at the same time offered
as an inducement to sign it. The jurymen, however, were not prepared to
barter away their liberties in this manner, and the attempt wholly
failed. While the Executive were deliberating as to how they could most
effectually strike Judge Thorpe, a vacancy occurred in the
representation of one of the constituencies in the Home District. In
those times, as has already been seen, a judgeship was no
disqualification for political life, and a deputation waited on Mr.
Thorpe with a numerously signed address, requesting him to become their
representative. He replied that he would not become a partisan, but that
if he were returned to Parliament he would not hesitate to do his duty.
No sooner did it become known that "the Radical Judge," as he was
called, was a candidate for the Assembly than the leading spirits of the
Compact aroused themselves to defeat him. This was natural enough. That
they should employ against him every means which their ingenuity could
devise--among others, bribery, vilification and deliberate slander--that
also was natural, when the time and persons are considered. "Every
engine within the reach of authority," writes Mr. Jackson, "was used for
the purpose of defeating the wishes of the people on this occasion. All
interests were required to yield in favour of the candidate most likely
to succeed as against Mr. Thorpe. Any person in employment, in
expectation of, or entitled to land, was gratified, promised, or
threatened; magistrates were made and unmade, as best suited the
purposes of electioneering; grants were given; fees excused, or promised
to be paid by those high in authority. Even domestics were bribed with
places, land, and money, to vilify and accuse, by direct falsehoods, the
most upright, serviceable and esteemed persons in the Province." For
once public opinion proved too strong for Family Compact influence.
Judge Thorpe was returned, and great things were hoped for from his
career in Parliament. But the triumph of freedom was short-lived. The
Compact was too strong to be opposed by the multitude with impunity.
Lieutenant-Governor Gore was subservient to its wishes, and besides he
had by this time come to hate the popular judge on his own account, and
his mind was fully made up to solicit from the Colonial Secretary Judge
Thorpe's recall. One of his private letters, written from Kingston,
during a journey from York to Montreal, several months after the Judge's
election to the Assembly, announces this resolution in unmistakable
terms. "The object of Mr. T.'s [Thorpe's] emissions," he writes,
"appears to be to persuade the people to turn every gentleman out of the
House of Assembly. However, keep your temper with the rascals, I beseech
you. I shall represent everything at St. James'." He was as good as his
word, and in October, 1807, the announcement was made in the _Gazette_
that the Lieutenant-Governor had been instructed to suspend Mr. Thorpe
from his judgeship, which we may be quite sure was done without
unnecessary loss of time.

Thus did might continue to triumph over right. There was not the
slightest imputation of any sort against the Judge's character. His
professional attainments were high; his personal character without a
stain. His continued presence in Canada would have been a blessing to
all but the race of tyrants who trampled on popular liberty. Yet he was
removed because he respected himself and his office too highly to
pervert judgment, and because he bade fair to abridge the rule of
corruption. Upon his return to England the Colonial Office urged nothing
whatever against him, and merely suggested, by way of justification for
his recall, that his stay in Upper Canada would have led to perpetual
disturbance of the public tranquillity. He instituted proceedings in one
of the English courts against Mr. Gore, who was convicted of libel, but
who escaped much more easily than he deserved with a fine of trifling
amount. By way of recompense for his recall from Upper Canada, Judge
Thorpe was appointed Chief Justice of Sierra Leone. There he remained
for two years, by which time his constitution had become so much broken
by the climate that he was compelled to return home. At the request of a
number of the inhabitants he carried with him to England a petition
complaining of certain abuses of power there. For this he was discarded
by the Ministry of the day. His appointment as Chief Justice was
cancelled, and another judge was sent out to West Africa in his stead.
The rest of his life was passed in obscurity and neglect, and when he
died his family were left without any provision for their future. Such
was the untoward fate of an honourable and high-minded man, whose only
fault was that he was too pure for the times in which he lived, and for
the people among whom his lot was cast.

Another early victim, whose life record seems to contradict the adage
that honesty is the best policy, was Surveyor-General Wyatt. There is no
need to go minutely into the particulars of his case. He was universally
recognized as a competent and honest official, insomuch that it was
currently said of him that he was too good for the masters whom he
served. But he ventured to interfere on behalf of one of the
subordinates in his office, who had been refused a stipend to which Mr.
Wyatt considered him entitled. Then, he presumed to oppose the Council
in respect of an irregular purchase of a large tract of land from the
Mississauga Indians. Finally, he went so far as to profess a high degree
of respect for the manly and independent conduct of Judge Thorpe. The
secret conclave speedily pronounced his doom. No one ventured to allege
any fault against him, yet he was deprived of his situation by the
Lieutenant-Governor, and a pliable tool was installed in his office.

Joseph Willcocks had a more bitter experience still. He was an Irishman,
of liberal education, and of much energy of character, whose influence
in official circles was wide enough to obtain for him the post of
Sheriff of the Home District. For several years no occasion for any
difference of opinion arose between him and his superiors. He was known
as a competent officer, who discharged his duties with great
consideration for the impecunious and unfortunate. But his frequent
official peregrinations through the Home District enabled him to see
with his own eyes the disastrous effects of the Clergy Reserves, of the
land-granting system, and of Family Compact domination generally; and on
several occasions he had sufficient courage to express his opinions
thereupon. Attempts were made to silence him, first by remonstrances,
and afterwards by threats, but all to no purpose. When Judge Thorpe
began to figure as a sort of popular tribune, Willcocks declared himself
as being also on the side of the people. When the Judge became a
candidate for Parliament, the Sheriff, who had a vote in the
constituency, recorded it in his favour. For this he shared the fate of
the Surveyor-General, and was promptly dismissed from office by the
Lieutenant-Governor. But he came of a fighting stock, and was not to be
suppressed by the mere circumstance of being deprived of an official
income. He started a newspaper called _The Upper Canada Guardian, or
Freeman's Journal_. In this sheet, which was edited by Mr. Willcocks
himself, various desirable measures of reform were advocated, and the
dominant faction were from time to time referred to in opprobrious, but
certainly not untruthful or unmerited language. The paper obtained a
considerable circulation, and soon made its editor an object of bitter
hatred on the part of the authorities. The vilest abuse was poured out
upon him, and he was subjected to a course of persecution well-nigh as
grievous as subsequently fell to the lot of Robert Gourlay. Governor
Gore himself, in a letter still extant, written in 1807, refers to him
as "that execrable monster who would deluge the Province with blood."
The execrable monster's influence, however, continued to grow, and upon
Judge Thorpe's retirement from Upper Canada, he was returned to the
Assembly in his stead, for the West Riding of the County of York, the
First Riding of the County of Lincoln, and the County of Haldimand. As
he was a ready and powerful speaker, as well as a vigorous writer, it
was felt that he would soon become intolerable if his career were not
effectively checked. He was accordingly tried before the Assembly on a
frivolous charge of having, in a private conversation held at the house
of a Mr. Glennan, in York, spoken disrespectfully of some of the
members. The proceedings were the veriest travesty of the forms of
justice. The accused was found guilty, and committed to the common jail
of the Home District, there to remain during the sitting of
Parliament.[53] This indignity he was compelled to suffer, being
confined for many weeks in a small close cell, which he was not
permitted to leave for a single moment. He was further wrought upon by
informations for libel, as well as by secret inquisitions into his
private affairs. After his enlargement he continued to publish his
paper, but he was so tortured by the incessant persecutions to which he
was subjected that he could accomplish little or nothing in the way of
reform. From some of his votes in the Assembly it would appear that he
made tacit overtures towards reconciliation with his enemies,[54] but he
had offended too deeply to be forgiven, and their rancour was not to be
appeased. Eventually he was compelled to relinquish the publication of
the _Guardian_ for want of funds to carry it on. Notwithstanding all
that he had endured, his loyalty remained unshaken, and when the War of
1812[55] broke out he responded to the call for volunteers by
shouldering his musket and doing his devoirs like a man at the battle of
Queenston Heights. Even this obtained for him neither complaisance nor
immunity from abuse. He found himself ruined in fortune, opposed and
hated by those in authority, without any prospect before him but
starvation. It is not singular that a man subjected to such conditions
should become disheartened. In a moment of exasperation he deserted the
ranks where he had been held as of so little account. Accompanied by a
small body of Canadian volunteers, he repaired to the camp of the enemy,
where he offered his services, and obtained a colonel's commission. He
served under Major-General Brown at the siege of Fort Erie, where he was
slain while planting a guard.

Such are three of the most notable examples of ministerial tyranny in
comparatively early times. As before mentioned, they attracted less
widespread attention than did Mr. Gourlay's case some years later,
because, though they were signal instances of the abuse of power, they
were not marked by such refinement in cruelty, and because they appealed
to the political sympathies of comparatively few. In the time of Judge
Thorpe, Wyatt and Willcocks, the dominating class not only held a
monopoly of power, but they and their adherents were numerically in the
ascendant. At the time of Gourlay's persecution the population was much
more evenly divided. The oligarchy still had control of all the avenues
to power, but there was a large and steadily-increasing class in the
community who recognized the fact that many changes were necessary
before Upper Canada could become a prosperous and well-governed colony,
and a satisfactory place of abode for the average British immigrant.

In closing this hasty review of the nature and effects of Family Compact
domination in Upper Canada, I would not be understood as pronouncing a
sweeping condemnation upon all the individual members of that body. John
Beverley Robinson, for instance, though he lent himself to many
high-handed acts of oppression, was a man of undoubted ability, and of a
character which inspired respect. His descendants are to-day among the
most respected and influential members of society in our Provincial
capital. Several others were men of high personal character, and of
abilities above the average. They acted in accordance with time and
circumstance, and must be supposed to have done so conscientiously. But
such persons as these composed but a very slender proportion of the
Compact's entire membership. The rank and file were of a totally
different complexion. The characteristics of the more poverty-stricken
among them have already been hinted at; but, independently of these,
there were many who were well-to-do, and who held their heads high in
the air, who were nevertheless very ill qualified to win admiration for
the caste to which they belonged. To state the simple truth, most of
them were very ordinary commonplace personages, respectable, sapless,
idealess--what Dr. Johnson would have characterized as exceedingly
barren rascals. Some were of obscure origin, and would have been hard
put to it if required to trace their ancestry beyond a single
generation. Of these latter, a few, as has already been seen, had
amassed wealth by trade or speculation, and had made their way into the
exclusive circle by a fortunate combination of circumstances.

Among the Compact, then, the number of persons of good birth and
descent, possessed of sufficient qualifications to justify their
aristocratic predilections, and of sufficient capacity to enable them to
direct the colonial policy, was small. And it must by no means be
supposed that all the good blood in the Province was confined to the
Compact. There were many persons among the pioneers of Upper Canada of
gentle nurture and breeding, who nevertheless scorned to pose in the
character of aristocrats in a land where such assumptions were
altogether out of place, and who manfully accommodated themselves to
their primitive surroundings. As has been well remarked by Mr.
MacMullen,[56] "While they learned to wield the axe and swing the cradle
with the energy and skill of the roughest backwoodsman, they retained
their polished manners, their literary tastes, their love for the
beautiful and the elegant; and thus exercised the most beneficial
influence upon their rustic neighbours. In the absence of schools, of
churches, of most of the refining influences of civilized society, this
class of the early settlers of Upper Canada were foremost in usefulness.
Their superior education, their well-bred manners, their more refined
habits, raised them in the estimation of the rural population, who soon
tacitly admitted a superiority which would never have been conceded [had
it been] more directly asserted." Most, though not all, of these
gentlemen were Tories, and, with hardly an exception, preserved their
loyalty through all chances and changes. During the War of 1812-15, and
again during the agitation arising out of the Rebellion, they proved
true to their Tory instincts, and rallied to the side of the Government
with ready fervour. Their social proclivities were equally removed from
the rude boorishness of the ordinary settler as from the pretence and
ceremonial of the clique of self-constituted aristocrats. They generally
preserved a modicum of state in the regulation of their household
affairs, though they kept aloof from the Compact and its practices, and
devoted themselves to various branches of industry--among others, to the
education of youth; to the practice of the learned professions; to the
opening and cultivating of new avenues of commerce; and to reducing the
pathless forests to arable and smiling fields.

One other fact it is essential to bear in mind, in estimating the
effects of the Compact's _régime_. In seizing upon all the official and
other spoils within their reach, and in trampling upon the liberties of
the people, the magnates of Upper Canada were merely treading in the
footsteps of the Tite Barnacles of Great Britain. The period was one of
transition, all over the civilized world. Popular rights were but
imperfectly understood, and the idea that good government is best served
by the extension of justice and equal rights to all classes was only
beginning to dawn upon the minds of public men, even in old and
long-established communities. That Canada was not in advance of the
times is not to be wondered at; but the ordeal through which she was
compelled to pass on the way to full and assured liberty forms an epoch
highly necessary to be understood and frequently remembered by all who
appreciate the blessings which are the birthright of every Canadian of
the present day. A knowledge of the principles and practices of the
Family Compact in the olden days constitutes the most effectual
guarantee that such days can never return, and that neither our children
nor our children's children will ever be compelled to fight over again
the battle which was so long and so patiently waged by their ancestors.

FOOTNOTES:

[45] It may perhaps be thought by some readers that the closing
sentences of this paragraph are pitched in too high a key. Those who
entertain that opinion will receive light on the subject by a careful
perusal of various official reports issued just prior to the passing of
the Quebec Act in 1774, and more especially of _A Cry from Quebec_,
published at Montreal in 1809.

[46] _Report on the Affairs of British North America_, English folio
edition, p. 53.

[47] _Ib._

[48] How far Lord Durham was justified in saying that there was "little
of family connexion" among the members of the Compact will appear from
the following "curious but accurate statement," prepared by Mr. W. L.
Mackenzie for his _Sketches of Canada and the United States_, published
in England in 1833. It will be found on pp. 405-409 of that work. "When
I left Upper Canada last year," writes Mr. Mackenzie, "some of the
offices, sinecures, and pensions of the Government were divided as
follows:--No. 1. D'ARCY BOULTON, senior, a retired pensioner, £500
sterling. 2. HENRY, son to No. 1, Attorney-General and Bank Solicitor,
£2400. 3. D'ARCY, son to No. 1, Auditor-General, Master in Chancery,
Police Justice, etc. Income unknown. 4. WILLIAM, son to No. 1, Church
Missionary, King's College Professor, etc., £650. 5. GEORGE, son to No.
1, Registrar of Northumberland, Member of Assembly for Durham, etc.
Income unknown. 6. JOHN BEVERLEY ROBINSON, brother-in-law to No. 3,
Chief Justice of Upper Canada, Member for life of the Legislative
Council, Speaker of ditto, £2000. 7. PETER, brother to No. 6, Member of
the Executive Council, Member for life of the Legislative Council, Crown
Land Commissioner, Surveyor-General of Woods, Clergy Reserve
Commissioner, etc. £1300. 8. WILLIAM, brother to Nos. 6 and 7,
Postmaster of Newmarket, Member of Assembly for Simcoe, Government
Contractor, Colonel of Militia, Justice of the Peace, etc. Income
unknown. 9. JONAS JONES, brother-in-law to No. 2, Judge of the District
Court in three districts containing eight counties, and filling a number
of other offices. Income about £1000. 10. CHARLES, brother to No. 9,
Member for life of Legislative Council, Justice of the Peace in twenty
seven counties, etc. 11. ALPHEUS, brother to Nos. 9 and 10, Collector of
Customs, Prescott, Postmaster at ditto, Agent for Government Bank at
ditto, etc. Income £900. 12. LEVIUS P. SHERWOOD, brother-in-law to Nos.
9, 10, 11, one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench. Income
£1000. 13. HENRY, son to No. 12, Clerk of Assize, etc. 14. JOHN ELMSLEY,
son-in-law to No. 12, Member of the Legislative Council for life, Bank
Director, Justice of the Peace, etc. 15. CHARLES HEWARD, nephew to No.
6, Clerk of the District Court, etc. Income £100. 16. JAMES B. MACAULAY,
brother-in-law to Nos. 17 and 19, one of the Justices of the Court of
King's Bench. Income £1000. 17. CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER HAGERMAN,
brother-in-law to No. 16, Solicitor-General. £800. 18. JOHN MCGILL, a
relation of Nos. 16 and 17, Legislative Councillor for life. Pensioner,
£500. 19 and 20. W. ALLAN AND GEORGE CROOKSHANKS, connexions by marriage
of 16 and 17, Legislative Councillors for life, the latter President of
the Bank. £500. 21. HENRY JONES, cousin to Nos. 9, 10, etc., Postmaster
of Brockville, Justice of the Peace, Member of Assembly for Brockville,
Income unknown. 22. WILLIAM DUMMER POWELL, father of No. 24, Legislative
Councillor for life, Justice of the Peace, Pensioner. Pension, £1000.
23. SAMUEL PETERS JARVIS, son-in-law to No. 22, Clerk of the Crown in
Chancery, Deputy-Secretary of the Province, Bank Director, etc. Income
unknown. 24. GRANT, son to No. 22, Clerk of the Legislative Council,
Police Justice, Judge Home District Court, Official Principal of Probate
Court, Commissioner of Customs, etc. Income £675. 25. WILLIAM M.,
brother to 23, High Sheriff Gore District. Income from £500 to £800. 26.
WILLIAM B., cousin to Nos. 23 and 25, High Sheriff, Home District,
Member of Assembly. Income £900. 27. ADIEL SHERWOOD, cousin to No. 12,
High Sheriff of Johnstown, and Treasurer of that district. Income from
£500 to £800. 28. GEORGE SHERWOOD, son to No. 12, Clerk of Assize. 29.
JOHN STRACHAN, their family tutor and political schoolmaster, archdeacon
and rector of York, Member of the Executive and Legislative Councils,
President of the University, President of the Board of Education, and
twenty other situations. Income, on an average of years, upwards of
£1800. 30. THOMAS MERCER JONES, son-in-law to No. 29, associated with
No. 19, as the Canada Company's Agents and Managers in Canada. This
family connexion rules Upper Canada according to its own good pleasure,
and has no efficient check from this country to guard the people against
its acts of tyranny and oppression. It includes the whole of the judges
of the supreme civil and criminal tribunal (Nos. 6, 12, and 16)--active
Tory politicians. Judge Macaulay was a clerk in the office of No. 2, not
long since. It includes half the Executive Council or provincial
cabinet. It includes the Speaker and other eight Members of the
Legislative Council. It includes the persons who have the control of the
Canada Land Company's monopoly. It includes the President and Solicitor
of the Bank, and about half the Bank Directors; together with
shareholders, holding, to the best of my recollection, about 1800
shares. And it included the crown lawyers until last March, when they
carried their opposition to Viscount Goderich's measures of reform to
such a height as personally to insult the government, and to declare
their belief that he had not the royal authority for his despatches.
They were then removed; but, with this exception, the chain remains
unbroken. This family compact surround the Lieutenant-Governor, and
mould him, like wax, to their will; they fill every office with their
relatives, dependants, and partisans; by them justices of the peace and
officers of the militia are made and unmade; they have increased the
number of the Legislative Council by recommending, through the Governor,
half a dozen of nobodies and a few placemen, pensioners, and individuals
of well-known narrow and bigoted principle; the whole of the revenues of
Upper Canada are in reality at their mercy;--they are Paymasters,
Receivers, Auditors, King, Lords, and Commons!"

[49] See his evidence annexed to the Committee's Report, p. 86.

[50] Gourlay, commenting upon this episode, remarks: "Who pardoned all
the poor sinners that for years had been getting bastards, and who
legitimized these, was not determined when I bade farewell to Upper
Canada."--_Statistical Account_, Vol. 2, p. 348.

[51] Those who wish to gain an insight into some of the most revolting
features of this traffic may consult _Claws and the Clauses_, a pamphlet
published at Buffalo in 1818; also _Gourlay_, vol. 2, pp. 486, 487;
together with Jackson's pamphlet referred to in the text.

[52] This must have been Chief Justice Thomas Scott, after whom Scott
Street, Toronto, was called. He was Chief Justice from August, 1806, to
Michaelmas Term, 1816. He is referred to by Dr. Scadding in _Toronto of
Old_, p. 51, as "a man of fine culture, spoken of affectionately by
those who knew him." A picture of him in his decline is presented on
page 130 of the same work.

[53] For a full account of these infamous proceedings, the reader is
referred to _The Upper Canada Guardian_ of February 6th and March 18th,
1808, quoted by Gourlay in his _Statistical Account_, Vol. 2, pp.
655-662.

[54] See an extract from the minutes of the proceedings in the Assembly,
10th March, 1810, quoted by Gourlay, Vol. 2, pp. 328, 329. See also
Gourlay's remarks thereon, Vol. 2, pp. 334, 335.

[55] There is reason to believe that the discontent begotten of the
abuse of power in Canada was one of the inducements to this attempt on
the part of the United States, the Government of which was led to
believe that Canadians generally would welcome any relief from the yoke
which the Compact had placed upon their necks.

[56] _History of Canada_, p. 243.



CHAPTER IV.

FATHERS OF REFORM.


The history of Upper Canada, from the time of Mr. Gourlay's banishment,
in 1819, down to the actual outbreak of rebellion, is largely made up of
a succession of abuses on the part of the Executive, and of more or less
passive endurance on the part of the great body of the people. As has
been intimated, the Gourlay prosecutions and their attendant
circumstances aroused much popular indignation, and led to the formation
of an organized Opposition. During the session of 1820 the "Gagging
Bill," as it was called, which had been introduced and carried through
the Assembly under the auspices of Mr. Jonas Jones[57] two years before,
was repealed,[58] and the holding of conventions was no longer
prohibited by law. It is a fact worth mentioning that Attorney-General
Robinson was the only member who recorded his vote against the repealing
statute, whereas at the time of the enactment of the original repressive
law in 1818 only one vote had been given against it. Such a change of
opinion among the members of the Assembly within so brief a space of
time is in itself significant of the progress of liberal views among the
people generally.

The vote on this repealing statute was somewhat of a surprise to the
authorities. It was evident that Reform sentiment was growing, and that
many persons who had never been classed as Reformers were weary of the
long reign of tyranny. It was not the policy of the Compact, however, to
yield anything to popular demands, and they held on their course with
dogged pertinacity, as though animated by a fixed resolve that the
public indignation which had been aroused by the Gourlay prosecutions
should not be permitted to subside. Erelong a new opportunity for
applying the thumb-screw presented itself, and it was taken advantage of
to the fullest practicable extent. During the recess following the close
of the first session of the Eighth Provincial Parliament, which was
prorogued on the 14th of April, 1821, a vacancy occurred in the
representation of the constituency of the United Counties of Lennox and
Addington. The local Reformers took advantage of the opportunity thus
afforded of bringing out a candidate who had rendered much service to
Liberal principles in Upper Canada, and who was eminently fitted to
impart strength to the Opposition in the Assembly. His name was Barnabas
Bidwell, and he was known far and wide as one of the keenest intellects
and as one of the best public speakers in the country. His past history
had been unfortunate, and as it was soon to be made the subject of
strict Parliamentary enquiry, a few leading facts in connection with it
may as well be set down here.

He was a native of Massachusetts, where he was born in the old colonial
days before the Revolution. He came of a Whig family which espoused the
colonial cause with ardour, but he was himself too young to take any
part in the great struggle which gave birth to the United States. Having
completed his education at Yale College, he studied law, and at an early
age rose to eminence at the Massachusetts bar. He became
Attorney-General of the State, and, though he had for his rivals some of
the ablest men known to American history, he was regarded by his
countrymen as one whose future was in his own hands. His manners were
courtly and refined, and his scholastic attainments wide and various. He
soon found his way to Congress, where his brilliant eloquence caused him
to be listened to with attention and respect.

Up to this time his career had been an uninterrupted success. But in
achieving his political eminence he had been unfortunate enough to make
for himself a good many bitter enemies. His political course seems to
have been somewhat arbitrary and uncompromising, insomuch that his
opponents regarded him with more rancorous feelings than are commonly
entertained among public men where there are no personal grounds for
enmity. Whether such personal grounds existed in the case of Barnabas
Bidwell cannot now be readily ascertained. It is however certain that he
was regarded by a host of clever and unscrupulous persons with a
bitterness of enmity almost amounting to ferocity. He seems to have made
no attempt to conciliate his foes, but treated them with a sort of
haughty contempt. In the year 1810 the weight of their anger descended
upon him like an avalanche. He was then, and he for some years
previously had been, Treasurer of the County of Berkshire,
Massachusetts. An accusation of a very serious nature was brought
against him. He was charged with having applied the public funds to his
own use, and with having falsified entries in his books in order to
cover up his malversations. It is difficult to get at the exact truth in
the matter. Mr. Bidwell's attention to public affairs had caused him to
neglect his private and professional business, which consequently had
not flourished. He was far from wealthy, and it is not improbable that
he was sometimes financially embarrassed. Whether he succumbed to
temptation, and dipped his hands into the treasury without leave, cannot
now be certainly declared. His own version of the matter was that he was
entirely free from blame, but that his enemies had deliberately woven a
subtle web about him from which he was unable to extricate himself, as
it would have been impossible for him, under the existing state of
things, to obtain justice. At all events, he seems to have felt himself
to be unable to face the situation. Learning that an indictment had been
laid, and that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension, he fled
from his native country, and took refuge in Upper Canada.

Accompanied by his family, consisting of a son and daughter, he settled
at the village of Bath, in the County of Addington, on the Bay of
Quinté. He soon obtained employment as a school teacher, and encountered
no difficulty in gaining a livelihood, though the humble role he was
compelled to play comported ill with his past experience and present
ambition. There is little doubt that he was an admirer of republican
institutions, and that he so remained to the end of his life, though his
admiration was thrown away in this country, and it was impossible for
him to return to his own. He was a useful man in the little community
where he resided, and his education and intelligence caused him to be
looked up to by people of all classes. He did not intrude his political
views further than to proclaim himself an advocate of Liberal ideas, and
upon the breaking out of the War of 1812 he took the oath of allegiance
to His Majesty. His ordinary pursuits were altogether insufficient for
his enthusiastic nature, and after the lapse of several years he removed
to Kingston, and took up his abode there. He found an outlet for his
superabundant energy through the medium of frequent contributions to the
press. Among the best known of his writings are a series of letters on
practical agriculture and political economy, originally contributed to a
Kingston newspaper, and subsequently republished in pamphlet form under
the title of "The Prompter." The series of historical and topographical
sketches forming the first half of the first volume of Gourlay's
"Statistical Account of Upper Canada" are also from Mr. Bidwell's pen,
and they are upon the whole the most valuable portion of the entire
work. He espoused Mr. Gourlay's cause with great fervour, and by his
written and spoken words did much to arouse public sympathy for that
unfortunate man, as well as to awaken abhorrence for the cruelty and
selfishness of his persecutors. From that time forward he began to take
a more conspicuous part in politics than he had been accustomed to take
since his arrival in Canada. From the hustings and elsewhere he
thundered against the Compact domination with an eloquence which
thrilled his audiences. He soon made himself felt as a power in the
land, and as one from whom the ruling faction had good reason to
apprehend more serious antagonism than they had ever had to encounter.

Such was the man chosen by the Reform element in Lennox and Addington,
during the summer of 1821, to represent its interests in the Provincial
Assembly. The ensuing campaign was an exciting one, but at its close
Barnabas Bidwell was the undoubted choice of a large majority of the
electors. This was a heavy blow to the Executive party. The Reformers
would now have a representative in the House who could not be cajoled or
bullied. His eloquence, aggressiveness, intelligence and shrewdness
could not fail to produce a decided impression on the House and on the
country. Would it not be well if he could be got rid of, as Thorpe and
Gourlay had been got rid of before him?

During the progress of the election campaign, some of the main facts
connected with Mr. Bidwell's migration from Massachusetts to Upper
Canada had become known to his opponents. The pretext afforded by these
disclosures was too good to be neglected. An emissary was despatched to
Berkshire County, where there was no difficulty in ascertaining that he
had been Treasurer of the municipality; that he had been indicted for
misapplying public funds; that a warrant had thereupon been issued for
his apprehension; and that he had then fled beyond the jurisdiction.
Certified copies of the indictment and of several other important
documents bearing on the matter were obtained by the agent, and by him
brought over to Upper Canada. On the strength of the information and
documents thus obtained a petition was filed against the election of Mr.
Bidwell, upon the ground that he was an alien and a fugitive from
justice, who had moreover taken an oath of allegiance to the Government
of the United States. The accused notwithstanding appeared in his place
in the Assembly upon the opening of the session, and when the matter of
the petition came up for discussion he defended himself before the House
with an eloquence and pathos which stirred every heart. He declared, in
language and tones which left no doubt of his sincerity, that he was
guiltless of the embezzlement with which he had been charged, and that
the accusation had been solely due to the machinations of a powerful
clique of enemies. He further urged that, whatever might be the facts as
to the charge, he had never been tried or convicted, and that the
Assembly had no right to assume his guilt in the absence of positive
proof. He admitted having taken the oath of allegiance to the Government
of the United States, but urged that such an oath was required of every
man assuming a public office in all civilized countries; that it applied
only to the period of his actual residence, and was no legitimate bar to
his advancement in another country. Since his arrival in Canada he had
taken an oath of allegiance to the King of Great Britain. That his
loyalty was not open to suspicion was sufficiently manifest from the
mere fact of his having been returned to Parliament by a constituency
the inhabitants whereof were largely composed of United Empire Loyalists
and their immediate descendants. Such was the course of his argument,
which from beginning to end was singularly lucid and clear. But all was
unavailing. He was assailed by the Government party in language such as
is rarely to be met with in the annals of Parliamentary debate in this
country. Mr. Attorney-General Robinson went beyond any former effort of
his life in the way of vituperation, and overleapt the bounds of the
commonest decency. He proclaimed himself to be the son of a United
Empire Loyalist who had fought and bled for his country, and as
therefore being no fit company for runaway felons and pickpockets. His
sympathy with himself was so great that the tears chased one another
down his cheeks as he was speaking. All the amiability which commonly
marked his intercourse with his fellowmen seemed to have utterly
departed from him, and he towered above his seat in a perfect whirlwind
of rage and fiery indignation. Mr. Bidwell's calm and temperate reply
was in striking contrast to the levin bolts which had been hurled at
him, and produced a marked effect upon his hearers. But the Compact
commanded a majority in the Assembly,[59] which sustained a motion for
his expulsion. And as it was well known that the electors of Lennox and
Addington would again return him, and that he could not be permanently
excluded by any ordinary means, it was determined to disqualify him by
special legislation. An Act was accordingly passed intituled "An Act to
render ineligible to a seat in the Commons House of Assembly of this
Province certain descriptions of persons therein mentioned."[60] Among
the persons declared ineligible were those who had held any of the
principal public offices in a foreign country, which was of course an
effectual disqualification for Barnabas Bidwell, who, as already
mentioned, had been Attorney-General of Massachusetts. It was a
veritable Act of Exclusion, aimed at a particular person, and it served
its purpose by keeping the obnoxious individual perpetually out of
public life.[61]

In consequence of Mr. Bidwell's expulsion a new election for Lennox and
Addington became necessary. The writ was issued, and, to the chagrin and
disgust of the supporters of the Government, a new champion of popular
rights appeared in the field in the person of Marshall Spring Bidwell,
the only son of the recently-expelled member. The new candidate was a
young man of twenty-three years of age. He was a native of
Massachusetts, and had accompanied his parents to Canada at the time of
their migration in 1810. At an early age he had given proofs of the
possession of splendid abilities. His father, who was exceedingly proud
of the bright boy, had cultivated his faculties to the utmost, and by
the time that Marshall Spring Bidwell had attained his majority he was
regarded by all who knew him as having a brilliant future before him. A
year before his candidature he had been called to the Provincial bar. He
now presented himself before the electors of Lennox and Addington in
opposition to the Tory candidate, a gentleman named Clark. The combined
modesty and assurance displayed by young Bidwell throughout the contest
gained for him many warm friends, while at the same time his earnestness
and flowing eloquence proved that he was a true son of his father. He
conducted the campaign with signal ability, and laid the foundation of a
lasting reputation in the constituency. At the close of the poll the
returning-officer declared Mr. Clark to have been duly elected, but, as
it was notorious that corrupt practices had been resorted to, a protest
was entered by the friends of the Reform candidate, who himself appeared
in person at the bar of the House to conduct the argument. The result of
the enquiry was that the return was set aside and a new election
ordered. Young Bidwell so distinguished himself by his argument before
the House that the official party perceived that he was likely to be no
less formidable as an opponent than his father would have been. When the
new election was held he again presented himself as a candidate, but
found that the returning-officer had received instructions to accept no
votes for him, upon the ground that he was an alien. The Tory candidate,
Mr. Ham, was accordingly returned; but another protest was filed, with a
similar result. The election was once more set aside, and Lennox and
Addington still remained without a Parliamentary representative. It had
by this time become notorious that the whole power of the Executive was
exerted to keep the Bidwells out of public life, and the conviction that
such was the fact gave rise to a counter-movement on the part of the
victims. The friends of Reform bestirred themselves to such purpose that
during the session of 1823-24 an Act was passed[62] repealing the
measure of two years before, and relaxing the conditions under which
persons who had resided in or taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
state should be eligible for election to the Provincial Parliament. It
was provided that a residence in the Province of seven years next before
election should render such persons eligible for membership in the
Assembly. This clause removed all existing disqualifications from young
Mr. Bidwell; but his father still remained disqualified, for it was
expressly re-enacted that no person who had been a member of the Senate
or House of Representatives of the United States, or who had held office
in any of the executive departments of "the United States of America, or
any one of the said United States," should be capable of being elected
to the Assembly. Under this clause the elder Bidwell was doubly
disqualified, for he had not only been Attorney-General of
Massachusetts, but had also sat in Congress. It was much, however, that
the son was rendered eligible. A general election took place during the
summer of 1824, at which he was returned for the constituency which he
then contested for the third time. He continued to sit in Parliament
for eleven successive years. He is properly regarded as one of the
founders of the Reform party in Upper Canada, and by his eloquence, tact
and discretion, no less than by the high respect in which his character
was held, he did much to advance the progress of Reform principles.

The general election of 1824 resulted in the return of a number of
prominent Reformers who now for the first time came forward to take part
in public affairs. It was evident that a spirit of Reform had been
awakened, and that from this time forward every important public
question was likely to have two sides to it.

The most conspicuous of all the new members was Mr. John Rolph, who had
been returned as one of the representatives for the County of Middlesex.
As he played an important part in the event which forms the subject of
this work, and as he was one of the ablest men who have ever taken part
in public affairs in this country, it is desirable to give some fuller
account of him than is to be found in the various books relating to the
place and times in which he lived.

John Rolph was unquestionably one of the most extraordinary
personalities who have ever figured in the annals of Upper Canada. He
possessed talents which, under favouring circumstances, would have made
him a marked man in either professional or public life in any country.
Chief among his qualifications may be mentioned a comprehensive, subtle
intellect, high scholastic and professional attainments, a style of
eloquence which was at once ornate and logical, a noble and handsome
countenance, a voice of silvery sweetness and great power of modulation,
and an address at once impressive, dignified and ingratiating. His
keenness of perception and his faculty for detecting the weak point in
an argument were almost abnormal, while his power of eloquent and subtle
exposition had no rival among the Canadian public men of those times.
His famous speech--to be hereafter more particularly referred
to--delivered in the Assembly, in 1836, on the subject of the Clergy
Reserves, was one of the most powerful indictments ever heard within the
walls of a Canadian Parliament. His arraignment of Sir Francis Bond Head
before the same body early in the following year was hardly less
impressive. He was of a full habit of body, even in comparative youth,
and though he was rather under than above the middle height, there was
a dignity and even majesty in his presence that gave the world assurance
of a strong man, while it at the same time effectually repelled unseemly
familiarity. A pair of deep clear blue eyes, surmounted by rather heavy
eyebrows, glanced out from beneath his smooth and expansive forehead. He
had light brown hair, a well-moulded chin, a firmly-set nose, and a
somewhat large and flexible mouth, capable of imparting to the
countenance great variety of expression. Such, according to the
universal testimony of those who knew him, and according to portraits
painted from life and preserved in his family, was the John Rolph of
fifty to sixty years ago.

There was unquestionably a _per contra_. Though he was a man of many
friends, and was the repository of many familiar confidences, there was
probably no human being--not even the wife of his bosom--who ever
possessed John Rolph's entire confidence. There was about him no such
thing as self-abandonment. This was not because he was devoid of natural
passions or affections, or even of warm friendship, for he was a kind,
if not a tender husband and father, and there were many persons whom he
held in very high esteem, and for whom he cheerfully made great
sacrifices. But the quality of caution seems to have been
preternaturally developed within his breast. No man was ever less open
to the imputation of wearing his heart upon his sleeve. He had a
temperament of great equableness, and doubtless felt much more deeply
than was suspected, even by those who were constantly about him. To the
outer world he was ever self-possessed, calm and dignified, of pleasant
and amiable manners, and not deficient in good-fellowship, but seldom or
never abandoning himself to frolicsomeness or fun. His smile had a
winsome sweetness about it, but it was a very rare occurrence indeed for
him to indulge in anything approaching to hearty laughter. His
self-control was marvellous. He was never surprised or startled, never
dismayed by unexpected intelligence, never taken off his guard. Yet he
possessed great dramatic talent, and in his addresses to juries and
public audiences could successfully simulate the most contradictory
feelings and emotions. One who judged him simply from such exhibitions
as these might well have set him down for an emotional and impetuous
man, apt to be led away by the fleeting passions and weaknesses of the
moment. Yet no one coming to such a conclusion would have had any
conception of his real character and idiosyncrasies. He certainly never
acted without motive, but his motives were sometimes dark and
unfathomable to everyone but himself. Not one among his contemporaries
was able to take his moral and intellectual measure with anything
approaching to completeness; and throughout the entire length and
breadth of Canadian biography there is no man of equal eminence
respecting whose real individuality so little is known.

Mr. Rolph's peculiarities were probably inherent, for the facts of his
early life, so far as known, afford no clue to the reading of the
riddle. He was the second son in a family consisting of eighteen
children, and was born at Grovesend, in the market town of Thornbury,
Gloucestershire, England, on the 4th of March, 1793. His father, Thomas
Rolph, was a physician of some local repute, who seems to have been
impelled to emigrate in consequence of the impossibility of making any
suitable provision in England for so numerous a progeny. The ascertained
facts with reference to John Rolph's early life in England are
singularly meagre. He accompanied his parents to Canada some time prior
to the War of 1812, for he served as a volunteer during the early part
of that conflict, and was for some months a paymaster of militia. During
the progress of the war he was taken prisoner by the enemy, and was
detained in custody for a short time at Batavia, in the State of New
York. An exchange of prisoners having been effected, he was set at
liberty. After his liberation he returned to England, where he entered
one of the colleges of the University of Cambridge; and, though he seems
to have left there without taking a degree, he was recognized as a young
man of very remarkable and precocious intellectual powers, likely to
become conspicuous in after-life. He absorbed knowledge with marvellous
facility, and never forgot anything he had learned. After leaving
college he repaired to London, where he was entered as a student-at-law,
and was in due time called to the bar of the Inner Temple. Like Bacon,
he seems to have taken all knowledge to be his province, for, not
satisfied with having acquired what, in so young a man, was accounted a
wide knowledge of jurisprudence, he studied for some time under Sir
Astley Cooper, and was enrolled as a member of the Royal College of
Surgeons. He soon afterwards returned to Canada, and took up his abode
on a lot of land in the Township of Charlotteville, about midway between
the villages of Turkey Point and Vittoria, in what is now the County of
Norfolk, but which then and for long afterwards formed part of the
Talbot District. In Michaelmas Term of 1821 he was called to the bar of
Upper Canada, and for some years thereafter he appears to have practised
the two professions of law and medicine concurrently. His great
acquirements and pleasant manners made him a favourite with all classes
of the people, and caused him to be regarded as a genuine acquisition to
the district in which he resided. He became the professional adviser and
familiar friend of Colonel Thomas Talbot, founder of the Talbot
Settlement, and was one of the originators of the Talbot Anniversary,
established in 1817, and kept up for more than twenty years thereafter,
in honour of the day of the Colonel's arrival at Port Talbot--the 21st
of May, 1803. The Colonel was not, in the strict sense of the term, a
politician, but he was a member of the Legislative Council, and
naturally supported the official party; whereas Rolph, though a man of
equable mind, and by no means constitutionally inclined towards
Radicalism, had much better opportunities for mixing with the people
than had Colonel Talbot, and his keen eye revealed to him many official
abuses which did not commend themselves to his sense of justice. It is
probable that differences of opinion on public questions led to their
ultimate estrangement. At all events, Rolph espoused the side of the
people, and declared himself a foe to the Family Compact policy, and
from that time forward the intimacy between him and Colonel Talbot seems
to have grown less and less. The Gourlay prosecutions aroused Rolph's
hot indignation, which he did not hesitate to express with much freedom
whithersoever he went. Being a brilliant and eloquent talker, strong in
opinion and logical in argument, he made many converts to his views, the
number of whom was not lessened by the course of treatment adopted
towards the Bidwells. It seems to have been about this time that he took
up his abode at Dundas, where he subsequently resided for many years.
When the general elections of 1824 took place the Reformers of Middlesex
brought out John Rolph and Captain John Matthews, both of whom were
returned at the head of the poll.

Rolph made his presence felt in the Assembly from the time of taking his
seat there. He was then thirty-one years of age, and of a compact,
well-built figure, inclining to portliness. His face was at once
handsome and intellectual, and his presence carried with it a suggestion
of undoubted power. He spoke comparatively seldom during his early
Parliamentary sessions, but when he did speak it was always with effect.
His diction was singularly luminous and expressive, and would have
attracted attention in any public assembly in the world. There was a
clear metallic ring in his voice which did full justice to the language
employed, and there were few empty benches in the House when it was
known that Rolph was to speak.

His colleague from Middlesex, though a staunch Reformer, was a man of
very different cast. Captain Matthews was a retired officer of the royal
artillery, who had seen twenty-seven years' service. At a very early
period of his residence in Upper Canada he had become disgusted with
Family Compact rule, and had spoken his mind on the subject with much
freedom. Being a resident of the County of Middlesex, and being held in
much esteem there among the adherents of Liberal principles, he was
induced to offer himself along with Dr. Rolph at the general election of
1824 as one of the candidates for the county. His candidature was
successful, and he became very popular in the House, though the texture
of his mind was somewhat light and airy, and he was not well fitted,
either by nature or by training, to deal with such grave constitutional
questions as were continually forcing themselves upon public attention.

Another prominent Reformer who now took his seat in Parliament for the
first time was Peter Perry, who had been returned as young Marshall
Bidwell's colleague in the representation of Lennox and Addington.
Although thirty-four years have elapsed since his death, Mr. Perry is
still well remembered by the older generation of our politicians. During
the twelve years succeeding his entry into public life he was one of the
most conspicuous Reformers in the Province. Though not possessed of a
liberal education, and though his demeanour and address were marred by a
sort of impetuous coarseness, he was master of a rude, vigorous
eloquence which under certain conditions was far more effective than the
most polished oratory would have been. He was certainly the ablest stump
orator of his time in this country, and there was no man in the Reform
ranks who could so effectively conduct a difficult election campaign.
No man was more dreaded by his opponents, more especially by those who
had to encounter him while a contest was pending. It may here be added
that he continued to take an active part in politics down to a short
time before his death in 1851, and that he rendered great services to
the cause of Reform, but in the years following the Union of the
Provinces he was overshadowed by Robert Baldwin, whose social position,
spotless reputation and disinterestedness of purpose combined to place
him on a pedestal beyond the reach of ordinary politicians. Peter Perry,
however, while yielding a loyal support to Mr. Baldwin, continued to the
end of his life to fight his political battles in his own way. The
sincerity of his convictions was beyond any sort of question, and his
shrewdness, experience and hard common sense caused his opinions to be
regarded with respect, even by such men as Rolph, Baldwin and the
Bidwells.

Mr. Perry was a native Upper Canadian, having been born at Ernestown in
1793, during the early part of Governor Simcoe's administration of
affairs. He was the son of a U. E. Loyalist, and was brought up on a
farm, at a time when public schools were few and far between in the
rural districts. He grew to manhood without having acquired much in the
way of education, but the quickness of his parts and the soundness of
his judgment did much to atone for his want of regular school training.
He began to take an active interest in public affairs at an early age,
and before he was thirty he had acquired wide notoriety as a
strongly-pronounced Reformer. Living in the same part of the country as
the Bidwells, he took a warm interest in their candidature. As his
political ideas coincided with theirs, and as his rough eloquence had
already made him well known throughout the constituency, he espoused
their side in the successive election contests, and at the general
election of 1824 was himself returned to the Assembly as the colleague
of the brilliant young lawyer.

In addition to John Rolph, Marshall Spring Bidwell, Captain John
Matthews and Peter Perry, a number of other advocates of Reform
principles were returned at the general election of 1824. For the first
time in Upper Canadian annals, it was manifest not only that the
Reformers had a majority in point of numbers in the Assembly, but that
they had a decided preponderance of ability. No adherent of the official
party--not even the Attorney-General, John Beverley Robinson--was a
match for Rolph or Bidwell, to say nothing of Perry, whose oratory was
of an altogether different complexion, though scarcely less effective.
Upon the meeting of the Houses the numerical strength of the respective
parties was fairly tested by the vote on the Speakership. The Reformers
nominated as their candidate John Willson, one of the members for
Wentworth. Mr. Willson was an unpretending farmer, of strong political
convictions, but of good sense and calm judgment, who had allied himself
with the Reformers, and who might safely be depended upon to discharge
the duties incidental to the Speakership with judicial impartiality. The
vote stood twenty-one to nineteen, the majority of two being in Mr.
Willson's favour. The Reformers felt that they had achieved a triumph,
and were accordingly jubilant; but they soon found that the mere control
of the Assembly signified very little in the absence of Executive
responsibility. The Legislative Council interposed its dead weight, and
vetoed one bill after another sent up by the Assembly.

The Reform preponderance in the Assembly, however, and the bringing
together of the leading supporters of Liberal principles, led to the
establishment of an organized body of Reformers, which from that time
forward made its existence felt throughout the constituencies, and
presented an obstacle to the continued rule of the Compact. Conspicuous
among the Fathers of Reform, in addition to John Rolph, Peter Perry,
Captain Matthews and the two Bidwells, were Doctor William Warren
Baldwin, his son Robert, and William Lyon Mackenzie. None of the three
last-named gentlemen was at this time in Parliament, but they were
nevertheless all able to render very valuable services to Reform
principles--the first two by reason of their wealth and high social
position, and the third from the fact that he was the publisher of a
newspaper, and that he was a man of strong opinions and superabundant
energy in giving expression to them.

The elder Baldwin was a gentleman of high character and social position,
resident at York. He had emigrated from Ireland to Canada towards the
close of the last century, and, like Mr. Rolph, had for some time
practised law and medicine concurrently. He achieved considerable
success, both pecuniarily and otherwise, and, notwithstanding his
political principles, which were of a decidedly advanced character, he
was respected by the entire community of the little Provincial capital.
The family to which he belonged were well known in Ireland for their
adherence to advanced political doctrines, and he himself remained true
to family traditions. At a time when it required no slight courage to
espouse the Liberal side in York, Dr. Baldwin was always to be found in
the ranks of Reform. He was wealthy, as, in addition to the property
which he had personally accumulated, he had succeeded, by bequest, to
the bulk of the large possessions of the Honourable Peter Russell--whose
method of doing good unto himself has already been glanced at--and of
that gentleman's maiden sister Elizabeth. Miss Russell resided in Dr.
Baldwin's family during the last few years of her life, and survived
until 1822. The Russells and the Baldwins were remotely connected by
ties of relationship, and as neither the Administrator nor his sister
ever married, there was nothing strange in the disposition made by them
of their property.

High as Dr. Baldwin stood in the Reform ranks, however, he was destined
to be eclipsed by his more distinguished son. It is safe to say that no
public man in Canada has ever gained so enviable a reputation as
attaches to the name of Robert Baldwin. As was intimated two or three
pages back, he stood upon a lofty pedestal, and was a very man _per se_.
And this high position he attained, not by means of brilliant oratory,
keenness of perception, or subtle comprehensiveness of judgment. No one
has ever pretended to claim for him any special intellectual greatness
of any kind. He was a plain man, of abilities not much above the
average, who possessed strong convictions, and whose high principles,
sterling honesty and disinterestedness of purpose were unimpeachable.
Had he been a member of the British House of Commons during Sir Robert
Walpole's régime, the proverbial dictum of that high priest of
corruption would never have been uttered, for certainly no man would
ever have dreamed of offering a bribe to Robert Baldwin. He has been in
his grave for more than a quarter of a century; thirty-four years have
elapsed since his withdrawal from public life; yet he is still referred
to by adherents of both political parties in Canada as a statesman of
unblemished integrity, whose character was without spot, and in whose
bosom was no guile. He more than once occupied the foremost position in
the public eye. During much of his career a fierce light beat upon him,
yet failed to disclose anything whereof the most august character in
history would have had any cause for feeling ashamed. As I have said
elsewhere: "We can still point to him with the admiration due to a man
who, during a time of the grossest political corruption, took a foremost
part in our public affairs, and who yet preserved his integrity
untarnished. We can point to him as the man who, if not the actual
author of Responsible Government in Canada, yet spent the best years of
his life in contending for it, and who contributed more than any other
person to make that project an accomplished fact. We can point to him as
one who, though a politician by predilection and by profession, never
stooped to disreputable practices, either to win votes or to maintain
himself in office. Robert Baldwin was a man who was not only incapable
of falsehood or meanness to gain his ends, but who was to the last
degree intolerant of such practices on the part of his warmest
supporters. If intellectual greatness cannot be claimed for him, moral
greatness was most indisputably his. Every action of his life was marked
by sincerity and good faith, alike toward friend and foe. He was not
only true to others, but was from first to last true to himself....
Robert Baldwin was neither a bigot nor a fanatic, but he was in the best
and truest sense of the word a Christian. He was strict in his
observance of religious duties, and brought up his children to seek
those things which make for righteousness, rather than the things of
this world. His piety was an ever-present influence in his life, and was
practically manifested in his daily walk and conversation. As we
contemplate the fifty-four years which made up the measure of his
earthly span, we cannot fail to be impressed by its uniform consistency,
its thorough conscientiousness, its devotion to high and noble objects.
It is a grand thing to acquire a famous name, but it is a much grander
thing to live a pure and noble life; and in estimating the character of
Robert Baldwin it should be remembered that he was not merely a
statesman and a lawyer, but was, over and above all else, a man and a
Christian."[63]

The foregoing account, be it understood, applies to a later period. At
the date of the general election in 1824 Robert Baldwin was still a
young man, whose reputation, professional and political, was yet to be
made. He had not even been called to the bar, and was still a student in
his father's office. Notwithstanding his youth, however--he was only in
his twenty-first year--he had given some thought to the political
questions of the time, and had even begun to look forward to the
possibility of an ultimate political career. His father, from whom he
had learned many political lessons, had recently become very wealthy
through the death of Miss Russell, as already mentioned. Much of his
wealth consisted of landed property. Robert was the first-born child of
his parents, and, as the law of primogeniture was then in force in Upper
Canada,[64] it was to be anticipated that he would succeed to large
possessions, and would be independent of any income arising from his own
exertions. He bore an honoured name, and it was tolerably certain that,
under such a combination of circumstances, he would sooner or later find
his way to Parliament. He had already imbibed what were in those days
considered as advanced Liberal views, and was in full accord with his
father, who had to a large extent moulded his opinions. He was present
at the meetings of the Reform members held during the first session
following the elections of 1824, for the purpose of organization. It was
then that a distinct Reform Party, with common objects and a specific
policy, may be said to have been formed in this Province. There had been
Upper Canadian Reformers from the very foundation of the Province, but
no Reform Party can strictly be said to have had an existence prior to
the latter part of the year 1824.

No man was more conspicuous in contributing to the founding of the
Reform Party than was William Lyon Mackenzie, whose personality yet
remains to be considered. Owing in some measure to the force of
circumstances, but chiefly to his own energy, impulsiveness and love of
notoriety, Mr. Mackenzie's name and achievements have become more widely
known than have those of many abler and wiser men. He was the only
child of humble parents, and was born at Springfield, a suburb of
Dundee, in Forfarshire, Scotland, on the 12th of March, 1795. When he
was four weeks old his father died, leaving him and his mother wholly
unprovided for, insomuch that they were dependent upon the bounty of
relatives. To adopt his own language, poverty and adversity were his
nurses, and want and misery were his familiar friends. "It is among the
earliest of my recollections," wrote he in 1824, "that I lay in bed one
morning during the grievous famine in Britain in 1800-1, while my poor
mother took from our large kist the handsome plaid of the tartan of our
clan, which in her early life her own hands had spun, and went and sold
it for a trifle, to obtain for us a little coarse barley meal, whereof
to make our scanty breakfast; and of another time during the same famine
when she left me at home crying from hunger, and for (I think) eight
shillings sold a handsome and hitherto carefully preserved priest-gray
coat of my father's, to get us a little food." His mother, from whom he
inherited his most salient peculiarities, was a woman of strongly-marked
character. She was endowed by nature with a high temper, and with a
tendency to act from impulse rather than from reason. To these qualities
were added great energy and strength of will. She brought up her son in
the straitest of theological creeds, which left a certain permanent
mental impress upon him, though during the last quarter of a century of
his life he wandered far afield from the religious teachings of his
childhood. He seems to have been born with a genuine love for knowledge,
for, notwithstanding the inauspicious surroundings of his youth, he
contrived to acquire a better education than was commonly obtainable by
lads in his rank of life in Scotland in those times. The education thus
acquired was almost to the end of his days supplemented by reading and
study. As soon as he was old enough to enter upon employment he became
an assistant in a draper's shop, after which he filled various temporary
situations which led to nothing. When only nineteen he opened a small
store on his own account at Alyth, a village about twenty miles from
Dundee. This he conducted for about three years, by which time it had
become apparent that the business could not be successfully carried on,
so he abandoned it and removed to England. There he spent more than two
years, during some part of which he acted as clerk to a coal company.
In the spring of 1820 he sailed for Canada, where he was destined to
gain great notoriety, and to become an important factor in the moulding
of public opinion.

In a new country like Canada a young man of Mackenzie's energy was soon
able to make his presence felt. After being employed for a short time on
the survey of the Lachine Canal, he opened a store at York, whence he
removed to Dundas, and entered on a more extensive mercantile business
in partnership with Mr. John Lesslie, the style of the firm being
"Mackenzie & Lesslie." His mercantile venture in Dundas was fairly
successful. During his residence there he married Miss Isabel Baxter, a
native of Dundee, after a brief courtship of three weeks. In the spring
of 1823 the firm of Mackenzie & Lesslie was dissolved, and for a few
months thereafter the senior partner carried on business by himself. In
the autumn of the same year he removed to Queenston, where he embarked
in business by opening a general store. The store had not been many
months in operation before its proprietor abandoned commercial pursuits
and embraced the life of a journalist. This change seems to have been
the result of some deliberation, and it must be admitted that Mr.
Mackenzie possessed considerable aptitude for the new field of labour
which he had chosen. His writing, though very unequal, and sometimes
exceedingly verbose and amateurish in point of style, was almost always
direct and easy to understand. His observation was keen, and he had
taken a warm interest in politics ever since his arrival in the country.
Though many of his views were what would now be considered Toryish and
out of date, they were then classed by the Compact and their adherents
as ultra-Radical and revolutionary. He had formed the acquaintance of
Rolph, Perry, the Bidwells, and other prominent Reformers, by all of
whom the sincerity of his political professions were regarded as being
beyond question. The first number of his newspaper, which was christened
_The Colonial Advocate_, made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1824.
It consisted of thirty-two pages, and, although its owner had neither
received nor sought a single subscriber, he issued an edition of twelve
hundred copies. Whether he embarked in newspaper life at this particular
time with a view to influencing votes during the impending general
election cannot now be known with certainty. Probably enough this may
have been one of his motives, which were doubtless of a mixed nature.
That he was sincere in his advocacy of Reform must in all fairness be
conceded, though his itch for notoriety must always be considered in
reviewing and estimating his actions. This tendency of his mind would
readily lead him to select journalism as his vocation in life, more
especially as he found that his opinions were regarded as having some
value. As compared with his life in Britain, his career in Canada had
been an undoubted success. He had acquired some property, and was in
fair pecuniary circumstances. From the inner side of his counter he had
been in the habit of holding forth to his customers on the political and
other questions of the day, and had found that his arguments were
accepted by a majority of the unlettered yeomen of Wentworth as being
unanswerable. He was looked up to as a man of weight and influence in
the community, and the consciousness of this was naturally gratifying to
the whilom shop-boy of Dumfries. He felt incited to address larger
audiences than any which had hitherto listened to him. The time seemed
propitious for the establishment of a Reform newspaper. There was a
general awakening in the direction of Reform, extending over the greater
part of the Province. There could be no sort of doubt that public
opinion was in a state of transition: that many people had begun to look
forward to a time when Responsible Government would be conceded, and
when the domination of the Compact would be no more. When that
much-wished-for epoch should arrive, those who had been the means of
bringing it about, or of hastening its advent, would stand high among
the Reformers of Upper Canada. Who would be likely to stand higher than
a clever and aspiring man who was at once editor and proprietor of the
leading organ of Liberal opinion in the Province? Such a personage might
command anything within the power of his party to grant. That he would
soon be able to write his way into Parliament was a foregone conclusion;
and a seat in Parliament appeared a very proud distinction in the eyes
of one whose past surroundings had been so far removed from such a
sphere.

That these, or something like these, were among the chief motives
whereby Mr. Mackenzie was actuated in establishing _The Colonial
Advocate_ seems tolerably certain. Nor is there anything unusual or
censurable in such an ambition. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and
no labourer is better entitled to a full recompense than is the man who,
through long and weary years, struggles to win success for a depressed
and righteous cause. That he was not devoid of a spirit of sincere
patriotism is evident, alike from his words and his deeds. He had
amassed a few hundreds of pounds, and was in no dread of poverty, being
sanguine and self-confident to an uncommon degree. He ardently longed to
see this fair colony rescued from the thraldom under which it groaned.
In a letter[65] written many years afterwards, when he was an outlaw and
an exile, he gives his own version of the motives which impelled him to
embark upon what he calls "the stormy sea of politics." "I had long," he
writes, "seen the country in the hands of a few shrewd, crafty, covetous
men, under whose management one of the most lovely and desirable
sections of America remained a comparative desert. The most obvious
public improvements were stayed; dissension was created among classes;
citizens were banished and imprisoned in defiance of all law; the people
had been long forbidden, under severe pains and penalties, from meeting
anywhere to petition for justice; large estates were wrested from their
owners in utter contempt of even the forms of the courts; the Church of
England, the adherents of which were few, monopolized as much of the
lands of the colony as all the religious houses and dignitaries of the
Roman Catholic Church had had the control of in Scotland at the era of
the Reformation; other sects were treated with contempt and scarcely
tolerated; a sordid band of land-jobbers grasped the soil as their
patrimony, and with a few leading officials, who divided the public
revenue among themselves, formed the Family Compact, and were the avowed
enemies of common schools, of civil and religious liberty, of all
legislative or other checks to their own will. Other men had opposed,
and been converted by them. At nine-and-twenty I might have united with
them, but chose rather to join the oppressed, nor have I ever regretted
that choice, or wavered from the object of my early pursuit."

A man entertaining such views as these, more especially a man of energy
and intelligence, with a newspaper at his back, could not fail to be
acceptable to the little knot of politicians who formed the nucleus of
the Reform Party of Upper Canada. Mr. Mackenzie was cordially welcomed
into the ranks, and was soon recognized as a most useful and valuable
acquisition thereto. He could make no pretence to the various learning,
fine presence, subtle intellect or polished eloquence of Rolph, nor even
to the high but less marked qualities of the Bidwells, but the time was
at hand when he was to prove that he possessed the power to move
audiences, by his voice as well as by his pen. In person he would have
been pronounced by a casual passer-by to be rather insignificant, being
exceedingly short in stature, and not well proportioned as to his
figure, which was slight, wiry, and--owing to a restless habit and a
highly-strung nervous system--seldom in repose. Still, no one who
contemplated his features with attention would ever have dreamed of
pronouncing him commonplace. His intellectual vigour and determination
were attested by his large head, massive brow, keen, light-blue eyes and
firmly-set mouth. His physical energy was placed equally beyond doubt by
the nervous activity above mentioned. Until he was long past the prime
of his manhood he was never still for many consecutive moments during
his waking hours. When labouring under any unusual excitement his frame
seemed to be set on steel springs. As his temper was easily aroused, it
was no uncommon thing to see him in one of these phases of excitement.
But though he was thus quickly moved to anger, it could not with justice
be said that his temper was bad, for, so far from being implacable, he
was readily appeased, and always quick to forget and forgive.
Altogether, he had an active but ill-balanced organization. His
sympathies were too quick and strong for his judgment, and he frequently
acted from impulse and hot blood. From his cradle to his grave he was
never fit to walk alone and without guidance through any great
emergency.

No two human beings could well be more unlike than were William Lyon
Mackenzie and John Rolph. They were compelled to work together in a
common cause for many years, but the two entities were thoroughly
antagonistic, and there was never much personal liking between them. The
structure of their bodies was not more dissimilar than was that of their
minds. The one, slight, wiry, and ever in motion, seemed as though it
might be blown hither and thither by any strong current. The other,
solid almost to portliness, was suggestive of fixity--of
self-dependence, and unsusceptibility to outside influences. The one was
suggestive of being in a great measure the creature of circumstances;
the other of being a law unto himself--one who would be more likely to
influence circumstances than to be influenced by them. Mackenzie's
nature, though it could not strictly be called a shallow one, at any
rate lay near the surface, and its characters were not hard to decipher,
even upon a brief acquaintance. There were depths in Rolph's nature
which were never fathomed by those nearest and dearest to him--possibly
not even by himself. Mackenzie seems to have long regarded Rolph with a
sort of distant awe--as a Sphinx, close, oracular, inscrutable. Rolph
evidently estimated Mackenzie correctly, as one whose politics were
founded upon deeply-rooted convictions, and not upon mere opinions,
although he would probably have found it difficult to subject those
opinions to a rigid analysis; as one whose energy and journalistic
resources might be turned to good account in the cause of Reform, but
whose discretion was not always to be relied on. This estimate, indeed,
was sufficiently obvious to any one who maintained frequent or familiar
relations with Mackenzie, and was concurred in by most, if not all, of
his friends. His earnestness and good faith, however, were manifest to
all who knew him, and these were sufficient to cover much more culpable
weaknesses than any which he had hitherto displayed.

Having now become acquainted with some of the FATHERS of Reform, it is
desirable to cast a momentary glance at the material which went to the
composition of the Reform Party generally. That material was of the most
heterogeneous character imaginable. It included a few U. E. Loyalists of
advanced opinions, and their descendants; but the bone and sinew were
made up of more recent immigrants from Great Britain and the United
States. The organization of the party, such as it was, was of too recent
a date at this time to admit of any absolute unanimity of opinion on all
questions of public policy having been arrived at among so numerous a
body. On one cardinal point, however, all were agreed: it was in the
highest degree desirable that the Canadian constitution should be more
closely assimilated to that of the mother-country, and that the
Executive Council should be made responsible to the popular branch of
the Legislature. True, there was a small element--almost entirely made
up of immigrants from across the border--who held republican theories,
but no class of the community clamoured more loudly for Responsible
Government than did the advocates of republicanism, very few of whom
regarded their opinions as coming within the domain of practical
politics in Upper Canada. On the question of the Clergy Reserves there
was less uniformity of sentiment. Many sincere Reformers disapproved of
the voluntary principle, and believed in a State provision for the
Clergy,[66] though very few of them went so far in that direction as to
defend the exclusive pretensions of the Church of England. On this and
other important public questions, however, the diversity of opinion
henceforth became less and leas from year to year. In point of numbers
the adherents of Reform principles constituted a majority of the
inhabitants of the Province.

The _Advocate_ was only six months old when its proprietor removed to
York. If any good service was to be done to Reform by his means it was
clear that the Provincial capital must be the seat of his operations.
The removal took place in November, 1824, and in the following January
the new Parliament met for the first time. Much of the interval was
spent by the Reformers in preparations for organization. In all these
proceedings Mr. Mackenzie took an active and prominent part. He also
assumed, to a greater extent than he had previously done, the _role_ of
a public censor, and, in the columns of his paper, opened a hot fire
upon the official party and their myrmidons. His writing was "personal
journalism," with a vengeance, for he usually expressed himself in the
first person singular, and directed his animadversions against any one
who, for the time being, happened to have attracted his notice. He wrote
very erratically, and from the impulse of the moment; in one number
lauding some particular personage in extravagant terms, and in
subsequent numbers assailing the self-same individual in language which
certainly reflected no credit upon the writer. Sometimes he even
extended his attacks to the friends and relatives of those who had
become obnoxious to him. In all this he merely followed the example of
his opponents, from whom better things might have been expected, but he
certainly lessened his influence, even among his friends and
fellow-labourers, by his onslaughts upon particular individuals. There
can be no manner of doubt, however, that he achieved his object of
holding some of his opponents up to public ridicule, and that in at
least one or two instances he was the means of affecting votes in the
Assembly thereby. To what extent, if at all, his efforts in this
direction contributed to the election of Mr. Willson, the Reform
candidate for the Speakership in the Assembly, already referred to, is
not easy to say. That his deliverances may have produced an effect upon
one or two waverers, and thereby have brought about the desired
result--the vote, it will be remembered, was a close one, standing
twenty-one to nineteen[67]--is possible enough. It is at all events
certain that the combined action of the Reform Party in and out of
Parliament produced early and specific consequences. On a number of
questions the Government found themselves confronted by a hostile
majority considerably greater than they had encountered on the
Speakership. But these seeming triumphs were of no immediate advantage
to the Opposition. Let the majority against the Government be ever so
great in the Assembly, the official policy remained the same. The Upper
House rejected Bill after Bill which had been passed by the Lower, and
the Executive clung to their places in undisturbed serenity.

FOOTNOTES:

[57] _Ante_, p. 44.

[58] The repealing statute is 1 Geo. IV. chapter 4. The statute repealed
is 59 Geo. III., sess. 1, chapter 2.

[59] It was however a bare majority, the vote standing 17 to 16.

[60] See Stat. 2 Geo. IV. chapter 4, passed 17th January, 1822.

[61] Six years later Francis Collins, editor of _The Canadian Freeman_,
lay in York jail for having charged Attorney-General Robinson with
"native malignancy." During his incarceration he addressed several open
letters to his prosecutor, in one of which may be found the following
comments upon the episode referred to in the text:--

"In the next place, a most respectable portion of the colony returned
the venerable Mr. Bidwell, Sen., to Parliament, and upon this occasion I
think you displayed more 'native malignancy' than I ever witnessed, in a
political way, in the colony. A hired pimp was despatched to Boston to
hunt up slanders, originating in political feuds there. Mr. Bidwell was
put on his trial before a corrupt House, and when thus you saw your
innocent victim within your reach, then it was you lifted up the
flood-gates of your loyal wrath, and let your vengeance fall upon his
devoted head. Then it was that the overflowings of your 'native
malignancy' hurled the tears of loyalty down your pallid cheeks. Then it
was that your natural flippancy gave rapid birth to the most gross,
unqualified and unjustifiable abuse I ever heard heaped, not only upon a
member of Parliament, but even upon the commonest member of society. 'Am
I,' said you, 'the son of a U. E. Loyalist, who fought and bled for his
country, to sit within these walls with disloyal runaway felons,
pickpockets and murderers from the United States?'--(the loyal tears
flowing.) Yes, Sir, you coaxed, you threatened, you argued, you wept,
until you prevailed upon a corrupt and cringing House, as I have before
remarked, to turn Mr. Bidwell out of his seat, unconstitutionally,
illegally and unjustly; and the next day you were obliged to get one of
your tools to bring in a Bill to cover this illegal proceeding, and
prevent his re-election, thus forever depriving the country of the
valuable services of a man better qualified for a legislator, in point
of learning, talent and experience than yourself, or any other man,
perhaps, in Upper Canada. Now, Sir, if you viewed it as a disgrace to
sit in the same House with the father, although in every respect your
superior, how will it suit you to bend your outrageously loyal neck to
his son in the Speaker's chair, who, it is my opinion, is the most fit
person in the new House to fill it, and who, I doubt not, will be
elected?"

The letter from which the foregoing extract is taken bears date December
25th, and appears in the _Freeman_ of that date. The prediction in the
concluding sentence was verified. Mr. M. S. Bidwell was elected Speaker
at the opening of the session in January, 1829.

[62] See 4 Geo. IV., sess. 2, chapter 3, passed 19th January, 1824.

[63] _Canadian Portrait Gallery_, Vol. I., pp. 17, 46.

[64] It is to the exertions of Robert Baldwin himself that we owe the
abolition of the doctrine of primogeniture as applied to real estate in
Upper Canada. He it was who, while Attorney-General for the Western
Province, introduced and carried through the measure of 1851.

[65] Quoted by Mr. Lindsey, in his _Life and Times of William Lyon
Mackenzie_, Vol. I., pp. 40, 41.

[66] Among those who approved of such a provision no one was more
outspoken than was Mr. Mackenzie himself. In the very first number of
the _Advocate_ he clearly laid down his platform on this question. "In
no part of the constitution of the Canadas," he writes, "is the wisdom
of the British Legislature more apparent than in its setting apart a
portion of the country, while yet it remained it wilderness, for the
support of religion." He expressed himself in favour of a law whereby
the ministers of every body of professing Christians, being British
subjects, should receive equal benefits from the Reserves. On this, as
on many other subjects, however, the editor of the _Advocate_
subsequently saw fit to alter his opinions. The instability of his
opinions, indeed, was one of his most dangerous characteristics, and
this alone marked him out as unfit to be trusted with the guidance of
others.

[67] _Ante_, p. 110.



CHAPTER V.

A "FREE AND UNFETTERED" PRESS.


Mr. Mackenzie's newspaper devoted much space to the advocacy of
Responsible Government, which for many years constituted the main plank
in the Liberal platform. He pointed out the injustice and absurdity of
the existing state of things, where the people were beguiled with a
mockery of representation in Parliament without having any voice in the
nomination of the persons composing the Government of the day. There was
no attempt on the part of the official body to distort the real facts of
the case. They straightforwardly avowed their independence of public
opinion, and sneered at arguments founded on the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility. They proclaimed their immunity from all outdoor
influence whatever, and smiled pleasantly when taunted across the floor
of the Assembly with repeated violations of the constitution. Rolph,
Bidwell, and other Reform members in the House were sufficiently masters
of themselves to argue this and other questions on purely public
grounds, and without gross violations of the laws of Parliamentary
discipline. This, however, Mr. Mackenzie's impetuous temperament
prevented him from doing, and as he was not in the House he felt at
liberty to give full rein to his impetuosity. He made every important
question a personal matter between himself and each individual supporter
of the Government who contradicted him. Through the columns of his paper
he poured out much bitter invective. What he said was for the most part
undeniably true, but he had such an offensive way of expressing himself
that the amenities of journalism were constantly violated. By this means
he brought down upon his head the rancorous hatred of those whom he made
the objects of attack.

The feelings entertained towards him by the members of the Government,
and by the Tory party generally, were largely personal and independent
of politics. The conflict between them may be said to have begun before
the removal from Queenston to York, and indeed almost before the ink was
dry upon the first number of the _Advocate_. In that number Sir
Peregrine Maitland, the Lieutenant-Governor, was accused of indolence,
and of being the cause why Upper Canada was less progressive than her
enterprising republican neighbour. He was referred to as one who, after
spending his earlier days in the din of war and the turmoil of camps,
had gained enough renown in Europe to enable him to enjoy himself, like
the country he governed, in inactivity; whose migrations were, by water,
from York to Queenston and from Queenston to York, like the Vicar of
Wakefield, from the brown bed to the blue, and from the blue bed to the
brown. Such comparisons as these could not be expected to find much
favour with Sir Peregrine, more especially as they notoriously contained
more than a _soupçon_ of truth. The faction naturally sympathized with
the Lieutenant-Governor, and only waited a suitable opportunity to give
adequate expression to their abhorrence of Mackenzie and his doctrines.
As for Sir Peregrine, he was ready enough to coöperate with his
supporters in any proceeding for the suppression of this free-spoken and
most objectionable little Radical, who dared to wag his plebeian tongue
against the son-in-law of a Duke. An occasion for the first overt act of
hostility was afforded by certain rites connected with the erection of
the monument on Queenston Heights to the memory of Major-General Sir
Isaac Brock. The construction of the monument having been determined
upon, and considerable sums of money having been granted by Parliament
for the purpose, commissioners were appointed to superintend the work,
which was duly proceeded with. The second funeral of the dead hero, and
the removal of his remains from Fort George, had been fixed for the 18th
of October (1824), being the twelfth anniversary of the battle; but in
the interim some of the local magnates of the Niagara District resolved
that the foundation-stone should be laid with masonic honours. The 1st
of June was appointed for this ceremonial, and on that date a
considerable number of persons assembled on the Heights to witness it.
Mr. Mackenzie, who, it will be remembered, then resided at Queenston,
seems to have taken an active part in the proceedings, and this with the
full consent and approval of the committee of management. A glass
vessel, hermetically sealed, and enclosing a number of coins and a copy
of _The Upper Canada Gazette_, together with the recently-issued first
number of _The Colonial Advocate_, was produced for the purpose of being
placed within the hollow of the foundation-stone. The vessel and its
contents, enveloped in an otter's skin, were placed by Mr. Mackenzie in
the cavity, the spectators looking on in quiet approval. The stone was
then touched with the trowel, the deposit was covered up, and the rite
was complete. An account of the proceedings found its way into the
newspapers, and Sir Peregrine Maitland learned, to his intense disgust,
of the part which Mackenzie had been permitted to take in the ceremony.
He sent for Colonel Thomas Clark, one of the commissioners appointed by
Parliament to superintend the construction of the column, and, in a
voice of undisguised passion, gave orders to that gentleman that the
glass vessel should forthwith be disinterred, and the copy of the
_Advocate_ removed therefrom. The mandate was of course obeyed. As the
column had by this time reached a considerable height, the excavation
was no slight task. Mr. Mackenzie himself, who personally attended at
what he called the "premature resurrection," claimed and obtained
possession of the number of the paper which had caused so much
unnecessary labour and ill-temper.

From this time forward there was almost incessant warfare between Mr.
Mackenzie and the official party: warfare sometimes suppressed,
sometimes altogether concealed for a brief season, but always ready to
break out upon the slightest pretext--sometimes, indeed, without any
apparent pretext at all.

Soon after the _Advocate's_ removal to York, and not long before the
opening of the Legislature, the Honourable D'Arcy Boulton, one of the
puisne judges, laid himself open to attack by conduct of the most
reprehensible kind. In a case tried before him, in which his son, the
Solicitor-General, appeared on behalf of the Crown, the Judge displayed
such gross partiality that one cannot read the report of the
proceedings, even as chronicled by one of the organs of the Government,
without mingled feelings of wonder and disgust. At the present day such
conduct on the part of an occupant of the judicial bench would bring
down upon his head the animadversions of the press of the whole country.
Sixty years ago it passed without editorial remark from any of the
journals of the time, with the single exception of the _Advocate_, which
certainly used some very plain words in characterizing the Judge's
behaviour. It appealed to the Legislature to address the Governor on the
subject, with a request to dismiss from office the whole of the Boulton
race, root and branch. "If a Government emanating from England," wrote
Mr. Mackenzie, "can cherish such a corrupt, such a Star Chamber crew,
then the days of the infamous Scroggs and Jeffries are returned upon us;
and we may lament for ourselves, for our wives and for our children,
that the British Constitution is, in Canada, a phantom to delude to
destruction, instead of being the day-star of our dearest liberties."

Such language as this, which was a mild specimen of the writer's
trenchant style, was not, upon the whole, too strong for the occasion.
In other instances he was roused to greater fury on less provocation,
and used phrases unbefitting the columns of any paper which aspires to
be a public instructor. But he was not alone in his scurrility. Some of
the persons attacked in the _Advocate_ retorted upon the editor through
the official press in language far less defensible than his own. He was
denounced as an upstart and a demagogue, whose low origin placed him far
beneath the notice of gentlemen. This language, be it understood, was
used by at least one wealthy and influential personage whose own origin
was such that Mr. Mackenzie's might have been pronounced aristocratic by
comparison. To all such vapourings Mr. Mackenzie responded in the
_Advocate_ in kind. He had a large vocabulary of Billingsgate at his
command, and as his temper became thoroughly aroused he proved that he
could fully hold his own in this sort of wordy warfare. He followed the
example of his antagonists, invaded the sanctities of private life, and
descended to outrageous personalities. The persons thus placed in the
journalistic pillory were merely paid back in their own coin, but they
had never been accustomed to yield to others the privileges they claimed
for themselves, and could not understand how "this fellow" dared presume
to retort the foulness hurled at him. His paper meanwhile enjoyed a
fair circulation, and his enemies periodically saw themselves held up
before the people of the Province in a light well calculated to bring
down public execration upon them. They winced, and hated their aggressor
with a hatred which knew no bounds.

Before the close of the first session of the Ninth Parliament, in 1825,
the struggle between the two political parties had assumed a distinct
form. The Opposition contended for a responsible Executive; the
Government repudiated the contention with sarcastic contempt. There were
various other grounds of dispute, but this great question overshadowed
and practically included all. It cannot truly be said that there was
much perceptible progress in reform during the session; indeed material
progress was impossible so long as the Government controlled the
Legislative Council, and while the Executive Councillors held on to
office in spite of the hostile votes of the Assembly. The way towards
reform was however paved by the debates. Never before had the Government
of Upper Canada been subjected to the incessant criticism of a watchful
and vigorous phalanx of censors within the walls of Parliament. They
were not wise enough to read the signs of the times, and would yield
nothing to the demands of their opponents. They still believed in the
efficacy of repression, and the next few years were marked by a series
of high-handed persecutions which did more to speed the progress of
reform than all the eloquence of Rolph and Bidwell could have effected
in half a century.

As for Mackenzie, he would doubtless have been dealt with as Gourlay had
been, could such a course have been adopted towards him with safety.
Isaac Swayzes in abundance might no doubt have been found to swear that
the obnoxious personage had not been a resident of the Province for the
preceding six months. Doubtless, also, phrases had been used in the
_Advocate_ which, isolated from the context, might have been tortured
into something like sedition. But the party in power were not so dull as
to be unable to perceive that _that_ experiment must not be repeated.
The Liberal schoolmaster had been actively at work within the last few
years, and any attempt to re-enact that glaring iniquity would, to say
the least, be attended with serious risk to the actors. The most
feasible method of disposing of the noisy little firebrand presented
itself in the shape of successive indictments for libel, to which his
aggressive and unguarded mode of writing would be certain to expose him.
It is of course impossible to obtain direct evidence of an express
conspiracy on the part of the Government to destroy him by such means. A
conspiracy of that nature would not be likely to take the shape of a
written contract which might be produced against the contracting parties
in the future. Nor would the parties to such a conspiracy be likely to
leave any written traces of it behind them. Still, anyone who has the
opportunity and inclination to go minutely into the question will be
irresistibly driven to the conclusion that there was some sort of
understanding among the chiefs of the official party that the
publication of the _Advocate_ was to be stopped, and that its editor was
to be either driven out of the country or reduced to silence.

In the meantime Mr. Mackenzie himself had serious difficulties to
contend with. The _Advocate_, notwithstanding its considerable
circulation, did not yield any appreciable income. Subscribers were
backward in their payments, and the cost of making collections reduced
the profit to little or nothing. The postage to country subscribers had
to be paid in advance by the publisher, which was in itself a
considerable drain upon his resources. The issue of the paper was
moreover necessarily attended by a good deal of expense. It did not
appear regularly, and the intervals between successive numbers were
sometimes of considerable duration. This irregularity was a serious
drawback to its prosperity, and a source of much dissatisfaction to its
patrons. Such a combination of discouragements could have but one
result. By the beginning of June, 1826, Mr. Mackenzie had been reduced
to serious pecuniary embarrassment, and had temporarily withdrawn
himself from the jurisdiction, pending an arrangement with his
creditors. It is in the highest degree improbable that another number of
the paper would ever have been issued. It was moribund, if not already
dead. But when matters had arrived at this pass, the violence of
Mackenzie's enemies led them to commit an act of lawless ruffianism
which gave the _Advocate_ a new lease of life. The act moreover aroused
much popular indignation against the perpetrators, and a proportionate
degree of sympathy for their victim, to whom it gave additional
importance, while it at the same time materially improved his financial
condition.

During the spring of the year 1826 the _Advocate's_ criticisms upon
certain members of the oligarchical faction were marked by exceptional
acerbity. The persons attacked, however, sought in vain throughout the
closely-packed columns for any material upon which a criminal
prosecution might be founded; for Mr. Mackenzie, whether by prudence or
good fortune, contrived for some weeks to say very acrid things without
rendering himself liable to an indictment. Among the persons who were
compelled to pass through the fire of his criticism was the Honourable
James Buchanan Macaulay, a gentleman who in after years attained the
honour of knighthood, and became Chief Justice of the Court of Common
Pleas for Upper Canada. At the period under consideration he was a
member of the Executive Council, and occupied a high position at the
local bar. The language employed by the _Advocate_ with respect to him
was comparatively mild, and did not even mention him by name. Moreover,
the editor's remarks appear to have been entirely in accordance with
facts. At any rate they were altogether insufficient to account for the
state of ferocity into which Mr. Macaulay allowed himself to be lashed.
He prepared and published a pamphlet, in which he gave vent to such
scurrility as it seems incredible that any man of education, or even of
decent social training, could ever have descended to write. Truly, no
man is ever so effectually written down as when he himself holds the
pen. Those readers who wish to be better acquainted with the depths to
which an angry man can lower himself, and who have not access to Mr.
Macaulay's pamphlet, can obtain some inkling of the truth by reference
to Mr. Lindsey's "Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie."[68] As Mr.
Lindsey very justly remarks:--"The cause of the quarrel was utterly
contemptible, and Mr. Macaulay showed to great disadvantage in it." It
seems probable enough that one main object of the publication of the
pamphlet was to goad Mr. Mackenzie into a retort which would render him
amenable to the law of libel. In one sense this plan--if such there
were--succeeded. The _Advocate_ came out with a long reply which
contained an abundance of scandalous matter, a great part of which, as
the writer must have been well aware, had no shadow of foundation in
truth. The matter related not only to persons occupying public
situations, but to individuals altogether unconnected with public life,
including respectable married women and persons who had long been dead.
But most of the statements and insinuations, even those which were
unsupported by a tittle of evidence--nay, even those which were
notoriously groundless--related to and were interwoven with
circumstances which, as the persons involved well knew, would not bear
discussion. It would never do to permit such matters to become the
subject of judicial investigation. Anything in the shape of an enquiry
would inevitably lead to disclosures seriously affecting the honour of
more than one member of the Compact. An indictment, therefore, was out
of the question.

It has often been asserted that the oligarchy are to be held accountable
for the display of ruffianly violence which followed Mackenzie's retort
to Macaulay's pamphlet. In one sense this is true, for it was in
consequence of their long abuse of the supremacy which they enjoyed that
feelings of hatred and enmity were begotten between one stratum of
society and another; and it was this hatred which gave rise to violent
measures. But if it is meant to be implied that the oligarchy, as a
body, conceived the design, or that it was carried out under their
auspices, the implication is too absurd to stand in need of serious
rebuttal. To carry the argument no farther, the body was too numerous to
admit of any general secret coöperation between them for such a purpose.
As simple matter of fact, all knowledge of the contemplated violence was
confined to the breasts of those who took part in it. No one familiar
with the circumstances, however, can doubt that it met with the fullest
approval of the ruling faction after it had been effected, and that, so
far as such a thing was possible, the wrong-doers were protected by them
from the consequences of the outrage. To this charge they must perforce
plead guilty; but there are degrees in guilt, and the endorsation, or
even the approval of an act after it has been committed, is a different
thing from the original conception and carrying out of it. The
respective weight of culpability, in the case under consideration, is a
matter which the reader may very well be left to estimate according to
his own judgment.

And now for the outrage itself.

[Sidenote: 1826.]

The office of the _Advocate_ was situated on the north-west corner of
Frederick and Front[69] streets, in a building which had been the
birthplace of Robert Baldwin, and in which the Cawthras subsequently
carried on a large and very successful mercantile business.[70] Readers
acquainted with the neighbourhood will not need to be informed that this
site is in close proximity to the bay. Mr. Mackenzie, with his aged
mother--who had long before followed him to Canada--and the rest of his
family, resided in the building, which was therefore his home, as well
as his place of business. At about half-past six o'clock in the
afternoon of Thursday, the 8th of June, 1826, in broad daylight, and
while the proprietor was absent in the United States,[71] a raid was
made upon the printing establishment, which, in the course of a few
minutes, was reduced to a state of confusion and chaos. The door was
broken open, the press partly demolished, the imposing-stone overturned,
and a quantity of type battered and thrown into the adjacent bay. The
contents of some of the cases were "pied" and scattered around the
floor. Frames, chases, galleys, composing-sticks and office furniture
were thrown together in one confused heap. In a word, the entire office
was turned topsy-turvy. Mr. Mackenzie's mother, who was then in her
seventy-eighth year, stood and watched the proceedings in a state of
great fear and agitation from a corner of the office.[72]

The most remarkable feature about the whole of this extraordinary
transaction was that there appeared to be no attempt at concealment. It
was carried out as though it had been the most legitimate and ordinary
business enterprise, to which no one could reasonably offer any sort of
objection. The raiders did not think it necessary to wait for darkness,
nor did they resort to any disguises. If they did not court publicity,
they at least took no care to avoid it. They chose a time of day when
the journeymen and apprentices connected with the establishment were
almost certain to be absent, and when there would be no one to oppose
their entrance; though, according to the printed admission of the prime
mover and instigator of the affair, they were prepared, if necessary, to
oppose force to force in order to effect their purpose. As there was
nobody in the office, any such display of force was happily uncalled
for. Having made their way inside, the work of destruction was proceeded
with coolly and calmly, as though there was no necessity for
extraordinary haste. When they had fully worked their will, they
departed as quietly as they had arrived.

The actual perpetrators of this unique act of ruffianism were nine in
number. They were none of them ruffians by profession, and were not
commonly rated as blackguards. They could not even plead the poor excuse
that they were under the influence of strong drink. Most of them were
young men, and nearly all of them were closely identified, either by
interest or by close relationship, with prominent members of the
oligarchy. They were, in short, with few exceptions, the flower of the
aristocracy of the little capital. Chief among them was Samuel Peters
Jarvis, barrister, the slayer of poor young John Ridout, mentioned on a
former page.[73] He, at least, could not plead in extenuation of his
share in the transaction that he had been carried away by the
uncontrollable effervescence of youth, for he was at this time not far
short of thirty-four years of age[74]. His acquittal on a more serious
charge nearly nine years before might well have led him to believe that
he could with impunity set the law at defiance. His identification with
the ruling faction is easily traced, for he was a son of Mr. William
Jarvis, who was for many years Secretary of the Province; and he was
moreover son-in-law to ex-Chief Justice Powell.[75] He himself held a
situation under Government at this time--being Clerk of the Crown in
Chancery--and stood high in the favour of Sir Peregrine Maitland,
towards whom he sometimes acted in the capacity of private secretary. He
was the chief offender, for it was by him that the outrage was planned,
and he was the directing spirit throughout, as well as the most noisy
and impudent apologist for it afterwards. Another active participant in
the raid was Captain John Lyons, a confidential clerk in the
Lieutenant-Governor's office. A third was Henry Sherwood, student at law
in the office of Attorney-General Robinson, and Clerk of Assize. He was
a son of the Honourable Levius Petere Sherwood, one of the puisne
judges, and was also connected with other leading members of the ruling
faction. It is due to him to say that he eventually outgrew the follies
of his youth, and became an able lawyer, a prominent politician, and a
useful member of society. He alone, of all the participators in this
shameful business, attained to anything like honourable distinction. A
fourth member of the gang of kid-gloved housebreakers was Charles
Heward, a son of Colonel Stephen Heward, who, in addition to being an
active spirit among the Compact, was a magistrate, Clerk of the Peace in
and for the Home District, and Auditor-General of Land Patents. The
others were Charles Richardson, a student in the office of
Attorney-General Robinson; James King, a student in Solicitor-General
Boulton's office; Peter McDougall, a well-known shopkeeper in York in
those times; and two sons of the Honourable James Baby,
Inspector-General, and member of the Executive Council. These were all
the active participants in the outrage. While it was in progress a
number of other persons appeared upon the scene, but did not take any
part therein otherwise than as spectators.

It is of course not to be supposed that this incursion was attributable,
either directly or indirectly, to the Government as a body, or that it
had formed a subject of deliberation at the Council Board. The charge
that it was attributable to the entire oligarchy has already been
disposed of.[76] But it is at least fairly to be inferred that, after
the thing had been done, the Government considered themselves as being
under obligations to the misguided persons concerned in it. Several of
the latter received appointments to positions of public trust and
emolument, such as are usually conferred by Governments upon deserving
supporters. Jarvis was successively appointed to various posts, the most
important of which was that of Indian Commissioner, in which capacity he
became a defaulter to the Government, and was involved in serious
pecuniary and other difficulties. The avenging ghost of John Ridout
pursued him, and his subsequent career was not one to be contemplated
with admiration. Richardson, again, was appointed Clerk of the Peace for
the Niagara District. Sir Peregrine Maitland could not pretend to
overlook the dereliction of his confidential clerk, Captain Lyons, who
was accordingly dismissed from that position. But this was not the end
of the story. Many readers are doubtless familiar with Halifax's remark
when Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, was removed from the post of
First Lord of the Treasury and installed in that of Lord President. "I
have seen people kicked downstairs," remarked the great Trimmer, "but my
Lord Rochester is the first person that I ever saw kicked
up-stairs."[77] In like manner the Lieutenant-Governor's clerk was soon
afterwards kicked up-stairs, by being appointed Registrar of the Niagara
District.

It really seemed as though this wanton and most reprehensible invasion
of private rights was regarded by those in authority as a high and
meritorious action. It was certainly so regarded by "the best society"
of York at the time. The young men, who ought to have been made to
suffer social ostracism, were petted and caressed as heroes who had done
some grand service to the State; and, as will presently be seen, they
were not even permitted to suffer any considerable pecuniary loss by
reason of their breach of the law. Finding that their conduct led to
their being made the subjects of a sort of hero-worship, it is not
surprising that they soon came to pique themselves upon what they had
done, and, so far from feeling any consciousness of shame or regret, to
openly court publicity for their proceedings. Jarvis was especially
culpable in this respect, and was not ashamed to write letters to the
papers on the subject, in one of which he avowed himself as the author
and originator of the outrage. He admitted having led on his band of
semi-official desperadoes, determined to "persevere, if resistance had
been made." As to the morality or immorality of the act, he professed
himself "easy on that head." Such language as this, coming, as it did,
from one who had shed the blood of a fellow-creature upon very slight
provocation; who had been tried for murder, and acquitted because the
crime was sanctioned by the usages of society; and who, moreover, in the
estimation of many people, richly deserved the hangman's noose--such
language, under the circumstances, was not merely injudicious and
unfeeling, but positively revolting. The only conceivable excuse that
can be made for it arises from the fact that Jarvis was at the time
irritated by a succession of attacks in the newspapers, in which his
conduct, bad as it had been, was held up in even a more odious light
than it deserved. The excuse may be taken for what it is worth. It is at
least certain that had the transgressor been imbued with feelings of
ordinary delicacy he would not have permitted himself to be goaded into
using such expressions as are to be found in his "Statement of Facts,"
published at York nearly two years after the type riot.[78] His
callousness stirred the hot blood of Francis Collins, of _The Canadian
Freeman_, to speak his mind editorially on the subject:--"We view it,"
he wrote, "as the greatest misfortune that could happen to any man in
this life to imbrue his hands in the blood of a fellow-man. But as this
barbarous practice has, by long usage, become familiar to the mind of
civilized society, we think it is a misfortune that might occur to an
otherwise virtuous and well-disposed man, and therefore ought not
(unless under aggravated circumstances) to be a reproach either to
himself or to his children; provided that, during the remainder of his
life he will show that caution which becomes his delicate situation, and
prove by his subsequent benevolence that he regrets his misfortune. But
if, after once having stained his hands with human blood, he will act
the desperado, and become a leader in such outrages as may end in a
repetition of his former act--then, we say, he is worthy of reproach,
and ought to be viewed as the common enemy of mankind."[79]

News of the aggression soon found its way to Mr. Mackenzie at
Lewiston.[80] He at once returned to York, and lost no time in
instituting proceedings against eight of the aggressors who had
constituted themselves a vigilance committee at his expense. He brought
a civil action for damages, and erelong these incipient "Regulators of
Upper Canada" began to realize that they had acted with some
precipitation and foolhardiness. It seemed probable that they would be
mulcted in heavy damages; and even these would be no bar to a criminal
prosecution. The aforementioned James Buchanan Macaulay was appointed to
conduct their defence. The plaintiff's attorney was James Edward Small,
a rising young lawyer who afterwards made some figure in political life,
and who belonged to a well-known family in York. Overtures in the
direction of a compromise were made on behalf of the raiders, who
offered first two hundred pounds and afterwards three hundred by way of
full compensation. The smaller amount would have been an abundant
recompense for the actual loss,[81] but Mackenzie felt that public
sympathy was with him, and he was desirous that the facts should go to a
jury. The offer of the defendants was rejected, and the case came on for
trial before Chief Justice Campbell and a special jury in the following
October. Associated with the Chief Justice were the Honourable William
Allan and Mr. Alexander McDonnell, as Justices of the Peace. The
plaintiff's counsel were Marshall Spring Bidwell, J. E. Small, and
Alexander Stewart, of Niagara. The defendants were represented by J. B.
Macaulay and Christopher Alexander Hagerman. These names afford
sufficient evidence that full justice was done to the case on both
sides. Hagerman was a counsel of remarkable ability, and he fought very
hard. His argument was a masterpiece of clever, specious reasoning, well
calculated to produce an effect upon uneducated or half-educated
jurymen. He took an enlightened stand, admitting the advantage to a
community of a free and unfettered press. He then proceeded to argue
away all the consequences of the admission, alleging that the career of
the _Advocate_ had been one of license, and not of mere freedom. But the
evidence of the outrage was clear and unassailable, and the defence did
not venture to call any witnesses. It was proved on behalf of the
plaintiff that three members of the ruling faction, two of whom were
magistrates, had been in close proximity to the scene of the raid at the
time when it took place; and there appears to be very little doubt that
all three must have been eye-witnesses of the outrage. One of these was
the Honourable William Allan, who, at the very moment when this evidence
was given, sat on the bench to the right of the Chief Justice as an
associate judge on the trial. Colonel Heward, whose son Charles was one
of the delinquents, was the other magistrate compromised by the
evidence. The third person alleged to have witnessed the transaction was
Mr. Macaulay, leading counsel for the defence. The utter incongruity and
unseemliness of the whole affair from first to last seems
incomprehensible at the present day. All sense of the fitness of things
seems to have been wanting.

The trespass had been flagrant and bold, and the only question which the
jury had to consider was the amount of damages. There were conflicting
elements among the jurors, who were long in coming to a decision. After
much deliberation they returned a verdict of £625, which sum, together
with costs of suit, was soon afterwards paid over to the plaintiff's
attorney.[82] But the rioters themselves were not suffered to sustain
this loss. Prominent adherents of the official party did not hesitate to
say that by the attack upon Mr. Mackenzie's press and type, and by the
consequent stoppage of publication of his paper,[83] the perpetrators of
the outrage had rendered an essential service to society, by abating an
intolerable nuisance. Under such circumstances it was only just that
society should bear harmless those who had thrown themselves into the
breach and vindicated her rights. It was resolved that a subscription
should be set on foot with this laudable object.

Among the few high Tories resident at York in those days upon whose
characters it is possible for one of modern ideas to look with sympathy,
and even with a considerable degree of admiration, was Colonel James
Fitz Gibbon. The Colonel was a gallant veteran who had fought the
battles of his country on two continents, at Copenhagen and the Helder,
at Fort Erie and the Beaver Dams. His military career was not yet quite
at an end, for he was destined to play an important part in the
putting-down of the Upper Canadian Rebellion; a circumstance which
furnishes a sufficient justification for a somewhat more extended
reference to him in this place than his mere connection with the press
riot would have rendered necessary. He was an Irishman of humble origin,
who had enlisted as a private soldier at the age of seventeen, and who,
by sheer force of energy, bravery and aptitude for his profession, had
fought his way to military rank and honour. After seeing much service on
the continent, and passing through as many adventures as a knight-errant
of old, he was transferred to British North America. His gallant
services in this country are imperfectly recorded in various accounts of
the War of 1812, and in Tupper's "Life of Brock." Every Canadian is, or
ought to be, familiar with the circumstances attending the capture by
him of a force of 450 infantry, fifty cavalry, and two guns, he himself
being at the time in command of only forty-eight men. After the close of
the war he was placed on half pay, and took up his abode at York. He
attached himself to the Provincial militia, whence he derived his rank
of Colonel. He likewise obtained a post in the Adjutant-General's
office, and subsequently became Deputy Adjutant-General, which position
he held at the period at which the narrative has arrived. He was also in
the Commission of the Peace, and frequently sat in Quarter Sessions.
His share in suppressing the revolt in 1837 will be narrated in its
proper place. For the rest it may be added that he was always
impecunious, for, apart from the fact that he was no financier, and
never knew how to take care of money when he had any, the expenses of
his outfit when promoted to the rank of Adjutant, in 1806, formed the
nucleus of a debt which hampered him from youth to old age. His
indigence often subjected him to straits which must have been hard to
bear; but he was of a sanguine, joyous disposition, and poverty, though
it might temporarily overcloud his happiness, had no power to break his
indomitable spirit. During his long residence in Canada he was a
persistent seeker after office, because he was almost always in
pecuniary straits; but he fully earned all the emoluments he ever
received from the Government, and if his income had been five times as
large as it ever was he would probably have been neither more
comfortable nor less impecunious. It seemed as though no experience
could lead him to take thought for the morrow. His chief characteristics
were such as are not uncommon among his fellow-countrymen. He was
generous and open-hearted to a fault, ever ready to bestow his last
shilling upon anybody who needed it, or who even made a plausible
pretence of needing it. He was rash, impetuous and indiscreet, but the
ranks of the British army held no braver or more loyal heart than his.
In his simple and gentle soul there was no room for envy or guile. He
seems, indeed, to have been in many respects a sort of Irish reflection
of Colonel Newcome; and the parallel even extended to the outward
circumstances attending the close of their respective lives. Colonel
Newcome, when all his worldly possessions had gone from him, retired to
Grey Friars--the Charterhouse--a retreat for "poor and decayed
brethren," when the world seemed to afford no other asylum. There he
passed the remainder of his days, and there he said "Adsum" when his
name was called for the last time in this world. In like manner Colonel
Fitz Gibbon, when all other resources failed him, was able, through the
kindness of Lord Seaton, to obtain a place in an asylum of somewhat
similar character. At Royal Windsor there is an institution which
provides a retreat from the cares and storms of life for a limited
number of depleted old military officers. The members are styled
Military Knights of Windsor, and the abodes provided for them are
situated "within the precincts." Hither, in 1850, when he had entered
upon his seventieth year, the battered old hero of many fights retired
to pass in quiet the evening of an active life. He survived for more
than ten years, during which period he succeeded in obtaining for
himself and his brother knights certain important privileges of which
they had theretofore been deprived.

Though he was not, in the proper sense of the word, a politician, both
his interests and his superabundant loyalty impelled him to the side of
those in power. No one in the Province had less respect for radicals of
the Mackenzie stamp. It was sufficient for him to reflect that the
official party reflected the might and majesty of the Crown of Great
Britain. His whole nature, fostered by his military training, revolted
at the idea of opposition to those in authority. He was moreover
dependent upon the Government for his place in the Adjutant-General's
office, and would naturally espouse the side of his patrons. The Compact
had no more faithful adherent, and by no one were "low radicals" held in
more profound abhorrence. He was roused to a high pitch of fervour by
the trial of the press rioters, who, in his opinion, had acted in the
most patriotic and praiseworthy spirit. When the verdict had been
rendered, and when it had become manifest that the defendants must pay
the penalty of their acts, the Colonel regarded them as martyrs. He
promptly volunteered to canvass the town for subscriptions to a fund for
discharging the liability, and thus saving "the boys," as he called
them, from loss. He was as good as his word, and the requisite sum was
soon forthcoming. Who the contributors to this fund were has never been
fully revealed, and the secret is likely to be well kept, for the list
was burned by Colonel Fitz Gibbon immediately after it had served its
purpose, and there is probably no man now living who can throw any light
upon the subject. Mr. Lindsey observes[84] that "it is believed the
officials of the day were not backward in assisting to indemnify the
defendants in the type-riot trial, for the adverse verdict of an
impartial jury"--a belief which, under the circumstances, is certainly
not an extravagant one. It was commonly rumoured that several heads of
departments had contributed twenty pounds each to the fund, and Francis
Collins gave currency to the rumour through the columns of his paper.
The controversy to which this gave rise was the indirect means of
furnishing almost the only evidence now obtainable as to the signatures
to the subscription list. Collins asserted that Sir Peregrine Maitland's
own name was understood to be at the head of the list, opposite to a
large contribution. Colonel Fitz Gibbon was so indiscreet as to write a
reply, in which he distinctly declared that the latter's assertion was
wholly untrue, _so far as the Lieutenant-Governor was concerned_. From
this letter, which was duly given to the public in the _Freeman_, it was
not unfairly to be inferred that the assertion, so far as it related to
the heads of departments, could not be truthfully denied. That some, at
least, of the members of the official body contributed to the fund was
matter of notoriety in York at the time, and, so far as I am aware, has
never been denied. The Honourable James Baby, indeed, who was then or
shortly afterwards the senior member of the Executive Council, and who,
as before mentioned, was the father of two of the young men concerned in
the raid, contributed his share with great reluctance. He was at this
time advanced in life--he was in his sixty-fifth year--and he had ceased
to carry much weight in the Great Council of the Province, having been
to a large extent superseded by younger and more energetic men. His
opinions were no longer deferred to as they had once been, and on one or
two occasions he had, as he conceived, been treated with inadequate
respect by some of his junior colleagues. He felt his position keenly,
and there is reason for believing that he would have resigned his office
of Inspector-General and his seat at the Council Board, had it not been
that there were many demands upon his purse, and that he was largely
dependent upon his official salary for the support of his family. On a
subsequent page a notable instance will be given of the degradation to
which his poverty compelled him to submit at the hands of the
Lieutenant-Governor. Under the circumstances, however, he could not
refuse to contribute to Colonel Fitz Gibbon's list; and it is recorded
that when one of his sons called upon him for the amount which he had
subscribed, he handed over the sum with justifiable petulance, saying:
"There, go and make one great fool of yourself again."[85] Such of the
rioters as were possessed of means contributed to the fund according to
their respective ability, but the others were not allowed to bear more
than a very small share of the loss.

The only other documentary evidence to be had on the subject of the
subscribers to the fund is to be found in the "Statement of Facts" of
Samuel Peters Jarvis himself. "I have on my part to assure the public,"
he writes, "that so far from being indemnified by the contributions
which from various motives were made for our relief, the burthen fell
heavily upon such of us as had the means of paying anything; and I
affirm that the share of the verdict which I myself had to defray, from
no very abundant means, was such that if Mr. Mackenzie had made as much
clear profit by his press during the whole time he has employed it in
the work of detraction, he would not have found it necessary to leave
the concern, and abandon it to his creditors." To which statement it may
be added that a gentleman now living in Toronto distinctly remembers
hearing Mr. Jarvis say that his own contribution to the fund was
precisely £109; that that of Peter McDougall was about the same; and
that none of the rest of the rioters paid anything, except through their
parents or relatives.

The civil liability having been discharged, the public looked forward to
a criminal prosecution, for it seemed outrageous that the perpetrators
of such an offence against society should escape without any greater
penalty than had thus far been exacted from them. Mr. Mackenzie himself
seems to have been desirous of proceeding to extremities, although the
amount which he had recovered was far more than compensation for any
loss he had sustained, whether direct or incidental. But the brains of
his professional advisers were cooler than his own, and saved him from
the consequences of his want of judgment. Mr. Bidwell dissuaded him from
taking any steps which might seem to be dictated by a feeling of
revenge. It was represented to him that he was a decided gainer by the
raid, not only in pocket but in popularity. The public sympathy had been
with him from first to last. A policy of war to the knife on his part
would certainly cool, and in some cases altogether alienate that
sympathy. The jury's liberal verdict bad placed him "in funds," and he
was thus in a position to resume the publication of the _Advocate_
under favourable circumstances. The transaction had distinctly
increased his prestige in the rural constituencies, and he might
reasonably hope to be a successful candidate for Parliament when a
suitable vacancy should occur. Such being the position of affairs, he
was strongly advised to let well alone. Contrary to his habit, he proved
amenable to advice, and refrained from a criminal prosecution.

The issue fully justified the advice of Mr. Mackenzie's counsellors.
Several of the newspapers in the Province commended his forbearance, and
contrasted his conduct with that of his enemies. But, it was asked, what
was the Attorney-General about? How was it that he, who never failed to
stretch his authority to the utmost when a Reformer rendered himself
amenable to the law--how was it that he permitted such an outrage as
this to pass without notice? Surely it was his duty to officially
proceed against the wrong-doers. But the Attorney-General was deaf to
all such remonstrances, and did not concern himself with the matter
further than to maintain the most cordial relations with the persons
implicated. How far his conduct in this respect was consistent will
hereafter appear. Colonel Fitz Gibbon was rewarded for his zeal in a bad
cause by receiving the appointment of Clerk to the Legislative Assembly,
and the additional income thus afforded him left him neither better off
nor worse than before.

The participators in perhaps the grossest outrage ever committed in the
Provincial capital thus escaped, for the time, all due penalty for their
misconduct. It may almost be said, indeed, that they escaped altogether,
for though, as will hereafter be seen, seven of them were eventually
brought to trial and convicted at the instance of another person, they
received no adequate punishment, and were thus able to boast that
gentlemen in their station of life in York were above the law.

Rash deeds often produce unlooked-for consequences. So it was in the
case under review. The attempt to suppress the _Advocate_ was the means
of re-establishing it on a fairly satisfactory financial basis, and of
extending its life for about seven years. The indignity to which the
printing-office had been subjected, and the trial resulting therefrom,
had furnished the best advertisements that could possibly have been
desired. With a portion of the sum recovered from the hands of the
spoilers Mr. Mackenzie was able to satisfy the most pressing of his
creditors. With the balance he provided himself with new printing
material, and the _Advocate_ soon made its appearance under more
favourable auspices than ever. It continued to be marked by the same
characteristics as during the first epoch of its existence. It was not
conducted with more discretion, and there were as many gross
personalities in its columns. It however contributed much to the spread
of Reform doctrines, and during much of its life it rendered undoubted
service to the party to which it yielded its support. Had the editor's
judgment been commensurate with his energies, his journal would
undoubtedly have been a great power for good. Even as it was, it
probably acted to some extent as a check upon Executive aggression, and
thus served a beneficial purpose in spite of its many weaknesses and
shortcomings.

As for Mr. Mackenzie, his persecutions were by no means at an end. They
had, in fact, only begun. Of the many other shameful indignities to
which he was subjected--indignities which finally drove him into
rebellion, and involved him in overwhelming disaster--the narrative will
hereafter take full account. It is at present desirable to advert to a
number of other pregnant examples of abuse of power in which Mr.
Mackenzie had no special concern.

FOOTNOTES:

[68] Vol. I., p. 89, et seq.

[69] This portion of Front Street was then and for many years afterward
known as Palace Street. It had been so named, in the early years of
York's history, from the circumstance that it led down to the Parliament
Buildings in the east end of the town, and because it was believed that
the official residence or "palace" of the Lieutenant-Governor would be
built there.

[70] This historic landmark was burned down during the winter of 1854-5.

[71] He had, as previously mentioned in the text, withdrawn from the
Province with a view to a settlement with his creditors. He was at
Lewiston, in the State of New York. In the beginning of the second part
of his pamphlet, published at York in 1826, giving an account of the
affair, he represents himself as having been at Queenston when he
received news of the raid.

[72] The statement to be found in various books--among others in Wells's
_Canadiana_, p. 164, and Roger's _Rise of Canada from Barbarism to
Civilization_, Vol. I., p. 405--that Mr. Mackenzie's mother was grossly
maltreated by the rioters is wholly without foundation. The affair was
disgraceful enough, in all conscience, and needs no fictitious
embellishments.

[73] _Ante_, p. 13.

[74] According to a contemporary pamphlet giving an account of the duel,
which took place in 1817, he was then twenty-five years of age. He would
therefore be at least in his thirty-fourth year at the time of the press
riot in 1826. By reference to the Barristers' Roll I find that he was
called to the bar in Trinity Term, 55 Geo. III., 1815, at which time he
must have been at least twenty-one years old, so that the statement in
the text cannot be far from the fact. It is from him that Jarvis Street,
Toronto, derives its name.

[75] The Hon. W. D. Powell ceased to be Chief Justice during the
previous year (1825), when he was succeeded by Mr. (afterwards Sir
William) Campbell.

[76] _Ante_, p. 129.

[77] Macaulay's _History of England_, Vol. I., Chapter 2.

[78] _Statement of Facts relating to the Trespass on the Printing Press
in the Possession of Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie, in June, 1826.
Addressed to the Public generally, and particularly to the Subscribers
and Supporters of the Colonial Advocate._ York, 1828.

[79] See the _Freeman_ for Thursday, Feb. 21st, 1828.

[80] See note to p. 130 _ante_.

[81] Mr. Mackenzie, when taken before the Grand Jury to give evidence in
support of a criminal prosecution of the type rioters, admitted that his
actual, as distinguished from his incidental loss by the riot, did not
exceed £12 10_s._ sterling.

[82] It was the policy of the official party to suppress, as far as was
practicable, all reference in the public newspapers to the misdoings of
themselves and their adherents. This was but natural. No one likes to
see his transgressions preserved to future ages in all the pitiless
coldness of type, which may rise up against his descendants long after
he himself is forgotten. The following is a complete transcript of the
contemporary report of the trial of these rioters, as published in _The
U. E. Loyalist_, a sheet issued as a sort of supplement or rider to the
official _Gazette_. It appears in the _Loyalist_ for October 21st, 1826:

"_Court of King's Bench._--In the suit of MacKenzie _vs_ Jarvis,
McDougall, and others, for Trespass, the Jury, after a consultation of
twenty-four hours, returned into Court--Verdict for the Plaintiff £625."

This is absolutely the only information obtainable from the contemporary
number of the official organ on a subject which was _par excellence_ the
topic of the time. It may be added that the organ contained no reference
whatever to the type riot until many weeks after its occurrence.

[83] Apparently they were not then aware that the publication had
actually ceased before the riot took place.

[84] _Life of Mackenzie_, Vol. I., p. 99.

[85] See Dr. Scadding's _Toronto of Old_, p. 38. Mr. Baby's idiom was
due to his French origin and training.



CHAPTER VI.

THE CASE OF CAPTAIN MATTHEWS.


Captain Matthews, who, it will be remembered, had been returned to the
Assembly for the County of Middlesex, gave great umbrage to the official
party by allying himself with the Opposition. His birth and social
standing, it was said, unfitted him for such companionship. The Captain
himself was apparently conscious of no incongruity, and bent all his
energies to the advancement of the Reform cause. Upon his first arrival
in the country he could not be said to have had any political
convictions at all. He had been bred a Tory, and his military career had
been such as might naturally have led him to seek his allies in the
ranks of those in authority. But his own experience of the abuses in the
Land Office had impelled him to consider the political situation of
affairs in Upper Canada generally, and the upshot of his deliberations
had been his alliance with the new movement in the direction of Reform.
Being a man of much local influence, his example had won to his side a
number of the Middlesex farmers, more especially in the Township of
Lobo, in which he resided. During his first session in Parliament he
attracted considerable attention to himself, for he spoke frequently and
well, and generally with a humorous eloquence which made him a favourite
with those who were not bitter partisans on the other side.

It was to be expected that Captain Matthew's defection from the
political faith of his ancestors would render him specially odious to
the High Tories of Upper Canada. It was shameful, they thought, that an
officer deriving an income from His Majesty's Government should
entertain, much less give utterance to, such vile democratic opinions as
were constantly heard from his lips. The Captain was indiscreet, and
became more and more outspoken the oftener he was charged with
radicalism; but on no occasion did he utter anything savouring of
disloyalty, for the very sufficient reason that there was no disloyalty
in his heart. It was apparent to the Compact that his influence was most
pernicious to them; yet no feasible plan for getting rid of him
presented itself. Would it not be possible, by a little extra exertion,
to deprive him of his pension? Could this laudable object be
accomplished, the obnoxious Captain, who was of an impetuous
temperament, would probably be goaded into saying or doing something
really culpable--something which would place weapons in the hands of his
enemies whereby he might be effectually silenced. The plan was at any
rate worth trying. A system of espionage was accordingly adopted towards
him.[86] During the sitting of the Legislature, myrmidons of the
Executive dogged his footsteps wherever he went, in order to obtain some
grounds for a hostile accusation against him.

The spies did not have long to wait, for any shallow pretext was
sufficient to serve as a peg upon which to hang an imputation of
disloyalty, and the doomed man himself was unsuspicious of any design
against him. The pretext actually resorted to was so utterly
contemptible that one feels almost ashamed to record the attendant
circumstances.

A company of theatrical performers from the United States visited York
during the session which assembled in the autumn of 1825. The actors met
with little encouragement, and became, in stage parlance, "stranded."
Being reduced to extremity, they resolved upon giving a special
performance for the delectation of the members of the Legislature, whose
patronage was solicited for the occasion. Sixteen or eighteen of the
members--among whom was Captain Matthews--complied with the
solicitation, and the performance took place at the little York theatre
on the night of December 31st. During the intervals between the acts the
orchestra played the national airs, "God Save the King," "Rule
Britannia," and "The British Grenadiers." Several persons in the
audience--Captain Matthews among the number[87]--apparently out of
compliment to the actors, all of whom were from across the lines, called
out for "Yankee Doodle" and "Hail Columbia." The demand was complied
with, at least in part. The orchestra were unable to play "Hail
Columbia," but the audience were regaled with the lively strains of
"Yankee Doodle." Captain Matthews joined in the applause which followed,
and removed his hat, calling upon others to do the same. The weight of
evidence would seem to favour the idea that he was not the first to
raise his hat, or to request the removal of the hats of his
fellow-members. At all events the request was generally complied with.
And this was the gist of the story. Captain Matthews's share in the
events of the evening was the having joined in the demand for the two
objectionable airs, in the applause which ensued upon the rendering of
one of them, and in the request for the uncovering of heads. These dire
offences sealed the doom of a gallant officer who had served his king
for more than a quarter of a century, and whose acquiescence in the call
for the national airs of the republic was probably due, at least in
part, to the effervescence of feeling begotten of a good dinner.

It is difficult to trace, step by step, the progress of the measures
adopted against him. Distorted and exaggerated accounts appeared in _The
Kingston Chronicle_ and _The Quebec Mercury_. But it is hardly likely
that any _ex officio_ notice would have been taken of the affair if the
newspaper reports had not been backed by a specific charge. Captain
Matthews appears to have been secretly accused to the military
authorities. He soon afterwards received a letter from the military
secretary to the Earl of Dalhousie, Commander of the Forces in Lower
Canada, stating that that dignitary's attention had been attracted by a
report in the public prints of a representation that Captain Matthews
had, in a riotous and outrageous manner, in the theatre at York, called
for the national airs and tunes of the United States, "urging the
audience there assembled to take off their hats, as is usual in the
British Dominions in honour of 'God Save the King.'" The letter went on
to say that "finding the statement corroborated, upon inquiry," the
Commander of the Forces called upon Captain Matthews to explain conduct
which was pronounced to be "utterly disloyal and disgraceful." Even this
was not all. By a subsequent letter, received from the Board of
Ordnance, the Captain was directed to repair forthwith to Quebec, and
there remain until he could, by the first vessel in the spring, proceed
to England, there to give an account of his conduct. This order was
stated to have been made in consequence of a communication from the
authorities in Canada to Lord Bathurst, the Colonial Secretary, and by
him transmitted to the Master-General and Board of Ordnance.

Mr. Mackenzie asserts that the object of the authorities was to get the
Captain out of the Province, and thus deprive the Opposition of his
vote, "in order to give the local Government a preponderance in the
Legislature against the people's rights."[88] This, however, can hardly
be accepted as a full or true explanation, as the Captain's absence at
the time would not have given such a preponderance to the Government on
any test vote. The weakening of the Opposition may or may not have been
one of the objects sought to be achieved by the Captain's accusers. If
so, it signally failed. Captain Matthews, be it understood, was not in
receipt of half-pay, but of a pension. He had served twenty-seven years,
and, on his corps being totally disbanded, he had settled in Upper
Canada with the approbation of the Government. Having since been elected
a member of the Provincial Assembly, his first duty was to that body,
and it was necessary that he should obtain its leave before proceeding
to obey the order of the Master-General. Accordingly, on Thursday, the
28th of December, 1826, he rose in his place and made a motion involving
an application for leave of absence. He explained the circumstances,
and, in the course of the debate which ensued, expressly stated that he
asked for leave, not with any desire of its being granted, but merely in
order that the House might do its duty. The Opposition stood faithfully
by him in this emergency. The House felt that the honour of one of its
members was concerned. It refused the application for leave, and, on
motion of Mr. Rolph, set on foot an inquiry into the circumstances on
its own behalf.

The inquiry was searching and minute, and the witnesses were not
examined in presence of each other. Much of the evidence was beyond
measure ludicrous and absurd. The scene at the theatre was described by
one witness after another in endless variety. The merits of "Yankee
Doodle" and "Hail Columbia," philologically and aesthetically, were made
the subjects of the gravest investigation. It appeared that with the
exception of Mr. John Beikie, Clerk of the Executive Council, and a very
few of the townspeople, the audience was entirely made up of members of
the Legislature. There were no ladies present, and, as it was New Year's
Eve, the audience generally felt a considerable freedom from restraint.
Many of the members had partaken freely of the cup that
cheers--assuredly not the cup indicated by Cowper--and were in the
blissful condition of Tam O'Shanter upon a certain memorable occasion to
which no more specific reference is necessary. In plain English, some of
them were so drunk as to be unable to recall anything that occurred. All
were full of mirth and jollity, and the scene enacted was of the most
uproarious description. Three grave legislators "danced while 'Yankee
Doodle' was played." Several others had reached the quarrelsome stage of
inebriety, and, in the language of one of the witnesses, "showed fight."
Mr. Philip Vankoughnet, one of the members for Stormont, was constrained
to admit that he had stripped off his coat, and threatened to knock
somebody down. Captain Matthews, among others, called for "Hail
Columbia" and "Yankee Doodle," but the general opinion among the more
sober of the party appeared to be that he had done so "in derision." It
was a bibulous age, and sobriety was the exception rather than the
rule. The whole affair was little better than a bar-room orgy, and
could properly be regarded in no other light.

When the Assembly's report made its appearance, early in 1827, Captain
Matthews was fully exonerated, so far as that body was concerned, from
everything savouring of disloyalty. "The circumstances of the
transaction"--thus ran the report--"as they are related without the
contradiction of a single witness, irresistibly bespeak the absence of
that disloyalty with which it has been basely attempted to sully the
character of a most honourable man." The report moreover read a sharp
lesson to the promoters of the accusation against him. It declared that
"If every effervescence of feeling upon every jovial or innocent
occasion is, in these Provinces, to be magnified into crime by the
testimony of secret informers--if there can longer exist a political
inquisition which shall scan the motives of every faithful servant of
the public--if the authorities in Canada shall humble the independence
of the Legislature by scandalizing its members and causing them to be
ordered to Quebec, and thence to England, to sustain a fate which, under
such corroboration as Lord Dalhousie received, might cover them with
ignominy, or bring them, however innocent, to the block--or if the
members of our community shall be awed into political subserviency by
fear of oppression, or lured by the corrupt hope of participating guilty
favours, then, indeed, will the prospect before us four, and this fine
Province become a distant appendage of a mighty empire, ruled by a few
aspiring men with the scourge of power."[89]

The Committee professed their inability to learn by whom the pernicious
representations had been made to the newspapers, or to the authorities
in Canada, or from what source Lord Dalhousie had obtained his
"corroboration." They expressed their conviction that there was no
ground for the charge preferred against Captain Matthews, the malignity
and falsity of which they believed to have derived their origin and
support from political hostility towards him.

The United States press was loud in its expressions of contempt. "Behold
how great a matter a little fire kindleth;" said _The New York
Enquirer_--"truly, there is something very undignified in such
vexatious stretches of authority"--referring, of course, to the attempt
to drag Captain Matthews across the Atlantic on a charge depending on
such ridiculous evidence. Attention was drawn to the fact that the
national airs of Great Britain, "God Save the Queen," and "Rule
Britannia," are often heard at theatres and elsewhere in the republic
without any such momentous consequences, and without being received
either with laughter, dancing or contempt. "The evidence," continued the
_Enquirer_, "does not speak very strongly in favour of the amenity and
decorum of the M. P.'s of Upper Canada. If calling for one of our
national airs, in a time of profound peace, within a few miles of the
frontiers, is regarded as an unpardonable crime by the British
Government, who shall wonder or complain that the British people are
full of prejudice against us." The Liberal press of the Maritime
Provinces harped to the same tune. "Really," remarked _The Halifax
Recorder_, "we think people must have their wits about them now-a-days,
if such things as these are to be construed into disaffection."

But though Captain Matthews had been cleared by the Legislature, he had
still to run the gauntlet of the military inquisition. They could not
compel his attendance during the existence of the Parliament then in
being, but they possessed an effectual means of reducing him to ultimate
submission. This power they exercised. His pension was stopped--a very
serious matter to a man with a large family and many responsibilities.
He continued to fight the battles of Reform with dogged courage and
pertinacity as long as his means admitted of his doing so, but he was
soon reduced to a condition of great pecuniary distress, and was
compelled to succumb. Broken-hearted and worn out, he resigned his seat
in the Assembly, and returned to England, where, after grievous delays,
he succeeded in getting his pension restored. He never returned to
Canada, and survived the restoration of his pension but a short time.
Thus, through the malignity of a selfish and secret cabal, was Upper
Canada deprived of the services of a zealous and useful citizen and
legislator, whose residence among us, had it been continued, could not
have failed to advance the cause of freedom and justice.

FOOTNOTES:

[86] That spies were employed by Sir Peregrine Maitland and his Council,
and that certain Government officials were encouraged to act in that
capacity, are facts which will be denied by no one who familiarizes
himself with the local legislative, official and newspaper literature of
the time. An apparently well-informed contributor to _Blackwood's
Magazine_ for September, 1829, in an article headed "Colonial
Discontent," comments on this retrograde system in the following
terms:--"A system of espionage assumes that there is something which
ought to be watched and to be prevented; and as the existence of such a
system probably did exist in Upper Canada during the administration of
Sir Peregrine Maitland, it may be said that so far his Government was
led to act on false principles.... We do not suppose that there was
anything like an organized system, but only that tales to the personal
disadvantage of the Anti-Ministerial party were too readily listened to.
No doubt the members of that party were as credulous in listening to
tales to the prejudice of the adherents of Government, but then they had
it not in their power, like them, to inflict punishment. It is
unnecessary to explain in what manner a system of espionage begets
heart-burnings. It is to the public what tattle and malicious gossip are
to private society, with this essential difference, however, that the
tale of the slanderer is in time forgotten or refuted, whereas the
report of the spy is received in secret, placed in the confidential
archives of office, and referred to as a testimonial of character, in
which such set of testimonials can be applied with effect when the
occasion arises."

[87] Mr. Mackenzie, in his _Sketches of Canada and the United States_,
p. 419, denies that Captain Matthews called for these airs, as stated in
the text. But anyone who carefully examines into the Provincial events
of those times will not be long in arriving at the conclusion that Mr.
Mackenzie's unsupported testimony, more especially as to matters in any
way coming within the scope of politics, is of very little value. The
evidence as to the Captain's having called for "Yankee Doodle" is
conclusive. That his doing so constituted a serious offence is another
matter, as to which there will, at the present day, be very little
difference of opinion.

[88] _Sketches of Canada_, etc., p. 419.

[89] See Journal of Assembly for 1826-7, Appendix P. See also Journal
for 1828, p. 122.



CHAPTER VII.

THE NIAGARA FALLS OUTRAGE.


The case of William Forsyth--commonly known in the chronicles of the
time as the Niagara Falls outrage--differed materially from that of
Captain Matthews, not only in kind, but in degree. In the latter case
there was no gross violation of the decencies of life, or of the outward
forms of law. The mischief was effected by means of spies and secret
information, and the damage inflicted was incidental rather than direct.
The Forsyth case, on the contrary, was more in the manner of the type
riot. It was a violent and utterly unjustifiable exercise of brute
force. But in one important respect it was worse than the type riot.
_That_ display of ruffianism had been accomplished without the open
approbation of the authorities. The Niagara Falls outrage was committed
not only with the full assent, but by the express command, of the
Lieutenant-Governor himself. Not even the poor excuse that it was done
in a moment of anger or irritation could be made for it. It was done
deliberately, in cold blood, and was as deliberately repeated. It was a
simple case of Might _versus_ Right.

A few words of explanation are necessary by way of prologue.

In the year 1786, before the setting apart of Upper Canada as a separate
Province, and just after the commencement of the settlement of the
Niagara Peninsula by Butler's Rangers, the territory contiguous to the
west bank of the Niagara River was surveyed and laid out into lots by
Augustus Jones, a surveyor whose name is familiar to all students of the
early history of this Province. In pursuance of instructions received
from the Government, Mr. Jones, in laying out these lots, made a
reservation of a chain in width--sixty-six feet--along the top of the
bank.

The reservation was made partly with a view to the military defence of
the Province, and partly for the purpose of preserving a convenient
communication.[90] It was expressly specified in the Crown Patents to
the owners of adjoining lands, and embodied in all subsequent deeds upon
successive transfers. It may therefore be conceded that the Crown's
title to the reserved land was indisputable.

In the year 1827, and for some time previously, the principal inn on the
Canadian side of the river at Niagara Falls was owned and kept by one
William Forsyth. The man and his establishment were well known to
travellers, and "Forsyth's" had a high reputation as one of the most
comfortable houses of public entertainment in the country. During the
heat of summer, many residents of York paid more or less frequent visits
to the Falls, not more to enjoy the change of air and the majestic
scenery, than to partake of "mine host" Forsyth's hospitality. The inn
was in close proximity to the great cataract, and was known as the
Niagara Falls Pavilion. It was built on ground that bordered upon and
ran up to the Government's reservation, which alone intervened between
it and the top of the bank.

[Sidenote: 1827.]

Mr. Forsyth drove a flourishing business, but, like some of his
successors at the same spot, his greed grew with his increasing gains,
and he was not content to grow rich by degrees. He determined to augment
his income by the erection of a high post and rail fence, placed so as
to shut out visitors from approaching near to the Falls, and rendering
it necessary for them to pass through his house before the desired view
could be obtained. It should be mentioned that Mr. Forsyth, in addition
to the Pavilion and its immediate grounds, owned the adjoining lands for
a considerable distance, including all the points from which the great
spectacle was to be seen to advantage. By the erection of the fence,
therefore, visitors would be debarred and shut off from all that was
best worth seeing in the neighbourhood, until they had passed through
his inn; and it was of course anticipated that most of those so passing
through would spend more or less money on the premises. There was,
however, one rather serious objection to the contemplated change. It
would involve the enclosure of the Government reservation, a proceeding
which was not likely to be permanently tolerated. Forsyth was probably
ill advised by his attorney in the matter, for he seems to have been
really of opinion that the Government's title to the land was at least
open to question, and he had been permitted to occupy a portion of it
without remonstrance for about six years. Sometime during the early
spring of the above-mentioned year--in time to catch the expected influx
of summer visitors--he carried out his design, and constructed the
enclosure. His house was thus converted into a thoroughfare, which
necessarily gave rise to a greatly increased number of visitors, and to
much additional expenditure within its walls. But the public serenity
soon began to show signs of disturbance. There was a rival innkeeper
named Browne, who was not long in discovering that his own losses were
in proportion to Forsyth's gains. He bestirred himself in the matter,
and soon succeeded in arousing a good deal of indignation in the minds
of visitors. No one was allowed to either enter or pass by his door
without being importuned to sign a petition to the Government, praying
for a removal of the objectionable fence. Other persons residing in the
neighbourhood took umbrage at the innovation, and also made appeals to
the Government on the subject. In this way several numerously-signed
petitions were obtained and forwarded to headquarters.

Such proceedings as these were in themselves reasonable and proper
enough. Forsyth had acted in a selfish and unwarrantable manner, and it
would have been nothing more than he had a right to expect if the
Government had instituted immediate action against him. It would have
been an injustice to the public if he had been permitted to enjoy his
monopoly undisturbed. But neither the trespasser himself nor any of
those who protested against his conduct was prepared for such
high-handed measures as were actually resorted to; measures which
effectually proved the unfitness of Sir Peregrine Maitland for his high
office; which led to his being cordially hated throughout the length
and breadth of Upper Canada; and which doubtless had something to do
with his removal to another sphere of action.

One day about the middle of May, when the enclosure had been erected
about six weeks, and when the season's regular flow of tourists had
fairly set in, the landlord of the Pavilion received a call from Captain
George Phillpotts, of the Royal Engineers, who then held command in the
District. The latter demanded why Forsyth had presumed to fence-in the
Government reserve. Forsyth replied, denying that the reserve belonged
to the Government, and asserting his own title thereto, whereupon he was
informed that unless the enclosure was removed without delay, he,
Captain Phillpotts, would himself undertake its removal. Forsyth
professed to feel strong in his rights, and threatened to prosecute the
Captain or any one else who might interfere with his property. Here the
interview ended. Several days afterwards--on the 18th--the landlord was
summoned to his door by a message that a gentleman there wished to see
him. The gentleman proved to be Captain Phillpotts, who was accompanied
by a sergeant and four other soldiers in fatigue jackets, without arms.
Major Richard Leonard, Sheriff of the Niagara District, and Augustus
Jones, who had made the original survey of the property forty-one years
before, were also in attendance. The Sheriff, who had merely accompanied
the party at the Captain's request, took no part in the subsequent
proceedings, but contented himself with quietly looking on. Mr. Jones
had been brought for a specific purpose, and, at the request of Captain
Phillpotts, he then and there made a hasty re-survey of the reserve, the
limits of which he indicated by pickets. Upon the completion of this
task, the Captain demanded that Forsyth should immediately remove the
enclosing fence, and upon his refusal to do so, the soldiers, under
orders from their Captain, deliberately cut and threw down the fence,
exposing the gardens, meadows and about sixty acres of growing crops to
waste. A blacksmith's shop which had been erected on the reserve was
demolished, and the building material thrown over the bank. The Captain
avowed that he was acting under express orders from the
Lieutenant-Governor, which proved to be the fact.

Having accomplished his purpose, Captain Phillpotts and his soldiers
departed, accompanied by the Sheriff and the surveyor. They were no
sooner out of the way than Forsyth and his servants set themselves to
work to repair damages, and before nightfall the enclosure was rebuilt;
the premises, with the exception of the blacksmith's shop, being
restored to the condition in which they had been before the assault upon
them. But intelligence of the restoration was speedily conveyed to Sir
Peregrine Maitland, who again despatched the same emissary, and the
drama of demolition was re-enacted. The landlord of the Pavilion then
gave up the contest, so far as any attempt at reconstruction was
concerned, and proceeded to obtain redress by due course of law.

Now, it may perhaps be admitted that Forsyth was rightly served, or at
any rate that he deserved little or no sympathy. His enclosure of the
Crown reserve had been without any strict colour of right, and had been
due to pure greed and selfishness. But his blacksmith's shop had been
constructed on the land as far back as 1821, when he had purchased the
adjoining lot from William Dickson, and no one had ever questioned his
right to maintain it there. He seems to have thought that he had as good
a claim to the property as anybody. He had been informed, contrary to
the fact, that the Government reserve extended only to the lower bank,
and did not cover the land at the top. He might easily have discovered
that his information was misleading, but he had not chosen to take so
much trouble, and deserved to suffer the legal consequences of his
neglect. He could undoubtedly have been dispossessed by means of an
action of ejectment, with the costs of which he would justly have been
saddled. But he had a right to expect that, after being allowed to
remain so many years in undisturbed possession, he should only be
dispossessed by civil process. It was not a case where an arbitrary
removal was justifiable, such as may lawfully take place when it becomes
necessary to abate a nuisance. But it was above all things intolerable
that the military should have been employed for such a purpose. Sir
Peregrine Maitland, in sending Captain Phillpotts on the expedition, had
acted, not in his capacity of Lieutenant-Governor, but in that of
Major-General Commanding the Forces in Upper Canada. This it was that
wrought up the public pulse to such a pitch of excitement. This it was
that created a dangerous antagonism between the people and the soldiery,
and led to frequent quarrels and bickerings between them. The Committee
subsequently appointed by the Assembly to investigate the subject echoed
the popular sentiment when they reported that "a person long in
possession of land, like the petitioner, ought to have been ejected by
the law of the land, which is ample, when impartially administered, for
securing the rights of property, but the interference of the military,
by such acts of violence, for maintaining supposed or contested rights,
is justly regarded with jealousy in all free countries, and ought to be
seriously regarded in a colony where the most unprecedented outrages
have been perpetrated without prosecution, and even followed by the
patronage of the local Government upon the wrong-doers."[91] The
presence of the civil power on the occasion, in the person of the
Sheriff, had been even an aggravation of the offence, for the Sheriff
had thus been made to lend his countenance to the proceeding. As for the
Lieutenant-Governor's action in the matter, he himself was solely to
blame, for his intentions were not made known to the Executive Council,
or, so far as appears, to any member of that body. It was simply and
solely a barefaced and most impudent abuse of authority, the
responsibility for which rests upon no shoulders but his own.

Forsyth had no success in his appeals to the law. He brought two actions
of trespass, one of which was against Sheriff Leonard and Captain
Phillpotts jointly, for removing the fence and blacksmith's shop; and
the other of which was against Captain Phillpotts alone for removing the
fence the second time. Sir Peregrine instructed Attorney-General
Robinson to defend both these suits, and to vindicate the Crown's title
to the reserved land.[92] To effect the latter object in the most formal
and decisive manner, the Attorney-General filed an information for
intrusion against Forsyth, upon which a verdict was rendered in favour
of the Crown. The plaintiff altogether failed in his action against
Phillpotts and the Sheriff, and the decision in that case rendered it
useless for him to proceed with the action against Phillpotts alone.[93]

[Sidenote: 1828.]

While those suits were in progress, Forsyth, finding that public
opinion, if not in his favour, was at least hostile to the
Lieutenant-Governor, sent in a petition to the Assembly, setting forth
the circumstances, and praying for redress. This was during the session
of 1828. The Assembly entertained the petition, and appointed a
Committee of Inquiry. The Committee proceeded to inquire accordingly.
While their investigations were in progress they resolved to examine two
of the Government officials, who, as there was reason to believe, could
throw light upon Sir Peregrine's reasons for such arbitrary conduct as
that of which he had been guilty. The officials whose evidence it was
thought desirable to obtain were Colonels Coffin and Givins, both of
whom were heads of departments. The former occupied the position of
Adjutant-General of Militia for Upper Canada; the latter was
Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Both of these gentlemen were summoned
to attend before the Committee at a specified time. In this there was
nothing strange or unusual. It was a matter of frequent occurrence for
officials of the Government, high and low, to be summoned before
Parliamentary committees while the Legislature was in session; and there
was no question as to the right of such committees to require such
attendance. In this instance, however, the persons summoned were not
permitted to obey the behests of the Committee, and in the attendant
circumstances there were pretty plain indications of crookedness and
collusion between the Crown officers and Sir Peregrine Maitland. Each of
the two officers concerned, immediately upon receiving his summons,
caused the fact to be communicated to the Lieutenant-Governor, and each
wrote a shuffling letter to the Chairman of the Committee. Later in the
day the Lieutenant-Governor positively declined to permit the attendance
of the persons summoned, assigning as a reason that he had not been made
acquainted with the facts as to which it was desired to interrogate
them. Now, when one considers all the facts and circumstances of the
case, one is driven to the conclusion that Colonels Coffin and Givins
were in possession of certain information which the Executive, or at any
rate the Lieutenant-Governor, had a strong interest in keeping secret.
Why else were they forbidden to attend? The reason assigned was
certainly not a sufficient one. In the first place it was not founded
upon fact. That the Committee had been appointed for the specific
purpose of investigating the circumstances connected with the Niagara
Falls outrage was matter of common notoriety. When the two Government
officers were summoned to give evidence before that Committee there
could be no doubt that the intention was to examine them touching their
knowledge of the matter in hand.[94] Some years before this time, when
the Compact were all-powerful in the Assembly, as well as in the Upper
House, a custom had been introduced of notifying the Lieutenant-Governor
whenever it was proposed to examine any of the Government officials as
witnesses before a Parliamentary committee. It had been customary to
specify, in the address of notification, the subject on which it was
intended to take evidence. This, however, had been a mere matter of
courtesy and conventionality, upon which nobody had any right to insist;
and the practice had not been uniform or consistent, various instances
having occurred where Crown officers had been summoned and examined as
witnesses without any such notification having been given. Upon such a
flimsy pretext, however, did Sir Peregrine Maitland base his refusal to
permit the two witnesses to attend for examination in the Forsyth case.

The Chairman of the Committee duly reported to the Assembly the
non-attendance of the witnesses, and that body determined that its
authority should not thus be defied and set at naught with impunity. The
chief offender, the Lieutenant-Governor--or the Commander of the Forces,
if he was to be considered as acting in that capacity--was of course
beyond reach, but proceedings were forthwith instituted against the
recalcitrant witnesses. Warrants were issued against them by the
Speaker, in order that they might be brought up before the House, in
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to answer for their contempt. Acting
under legal advice, they declined to submit to such authority unless
compelled to do so by force; and they boldly threatened that in case of
force being resorted to they would prosecute the Speaker. It is to be
presumed that the warrants would in any case have been acted upon, but
this impudent threat left the Assembly no alternative. If Government
officers, paid out of the public purse, were to be allowed to defy that
branch of the Legislature which alone represented the popular voice--if
they were to be permitted to treat its mandates with contempt, and to
threaten its representative with ulterior consequences in the event of
those mandates being enforced--then, indeed, liberty and equal rights
were at a low ebb in Upper Canada. The warrants were promptly executed,
the house in which the two officials had ensconced themselves being
forcibly entered for the purpose. Being brought to the bar of the House,
and charged with their contempt, they sought to vindicate themselves by
pleading the action of the Lieutenant-Governor in refusing to sanction
their attendance. The House then adopted a resolution under which they
were handed over to the custody of the Sheriff, and committed to the
common jail of the Home District. They formally notified the
Lieutenant-Governor, through his private secretary, of the calamity
which had come upon them through obedience to his behests, and requested
that the advice and assistance of the Crown officers--that is to say, of
the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General--might be vouchsafed to them.
They however remained in confinement only three days, for the
Lieutenant-Governor, in accordance with an intimation previously given,
prorogued the Legislature on the 25th of March--they had been committed
on the 22nd--and the power of the Assembly to commit did not extend
beyond the time when it was actually in session.

Colonels Coffin and Givins carried out their threat, and sued the
Speaker for damages for false imprisonment. The right of the Assembly to
commit for contempt was however a matter too well established, and was
confirmed by the Court of King's Bench in another cause then pending. So
that the Adjutant-General of Militia and the Superintendent of Indian
Affairs, in addition to their respective bills of costs, had their three
days' imprisonment as a reward for their fealty to Sir Peregrine
Maitland, and for their disloyalty to the Canadian people.

Sir Peregrine appears to have felt a little dubious as to how his
proceedings would be regarded at the Home Office. It was quite certain
that the Colonial Secretary would hear of the affair, but that
dignitary's approval was open to question. It would at all events be
well that the official mind should receive its first impression on the
subject from Sir Peregrine himself, who accordingly lost no time in
sending over his own version of the transaction. His despatch, which
bears internal evidence of having been written or revised by
Attorney-General Robinson, is dated the 29th of March--the fourth day
after the prorogation. Under the pretext of asking for advice as to how
he should act in the future in case of any of the officials being
summoned before Parliamentary committees without any notification having
been made to himself, he recounts the story of the Niagara Falls
outrage. His narrative, it is almost needless to say, is from first to
last garbled and one-sided. Forsyth is referred to therein as "a person
notoriously of indifferent character;" and the Assembly and its
committees are maligned in language highly improper to be employed in a
confidential communication from the Lieutenant-Governor of a colony to
his superiors at home.[95] The Colonial Secretary, however, was shrewd
enough to penetrate the veil of misrepresentation in which the despatch
was enveloped, and to arrive at a pretty just appreciation of the merits
of the case. He officially expressed his opinion that there had been
adequate grounds for inquiry by the Assembly. "I cannot but consider,"
he wrote, "that Sir Peregrine Maitland would have exercised a sounder
discretion had he permitted the officers to appear before the Assembly;
and I regret that he did not accomplish the object he had in view in
preventing Forsyth's encroachments by means of the civil power, which is
said to have been at hand, rather than by calling in military aid." This
despatch, however, was written, not to Sir Peregrine Maitland himself,
but to his successor, Sir John Colborne. The Forsyth case, coming, as
it did, in the wake of other ill-advised proceedings on the part of Sir
Peregrine, determined the Home Government to withdraw him from Upper
Canada, where it was quite evident that his usefulness--if he had ever
had any--was gone. He was transferred to Nova Scotia, whither it is not
necessary that this narrative should follow him.

With respect to Forsyth, it may he added that, being unable to obtain
any recompense for the Phillpotts invasion, and being harassed by
protracted litigation, he sold his property at Niagara Falls at a price
considerably below its value, and removed from the spot. It cannot be
said that he deserved much sympathy, for he had brought his losses on
himself by his own selfishness. He took advantage of the situation to
pose in the character of a martyr to Executive tyranny, and he succeeded
in deceiving many of his contemporaries into the belief that he was a
much injured man. The historical interest, however, centres not in him,
but in the consequences arising out of the employment of soldiers to do
the Sheriff's work in a time of profound peace, and without any
initiatory civil process having been issued. The popular excitement
consequent on the outrage encouraged Forsyth to petition the Assembly.
The petition led to the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry, which
in its turn led to the summoning of witnesses and the conflict between
the Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor. The conflict led to the
latter's removal, and, from that point of view, is not to be regarded in
the light of an unmixed evil.

FOOTNOTES:

[90] See the letter from Chief Justice Robinson to Lieutenant-Colonel
Rowan, Secretary, etc., etc., dated at York, 31st December, 1832, and
appended to the Report of the Committee of the House of Assembly on the
Petition of William Forsyth, dated April 1st, 1835. In one part of this
letter the Chief Justice says that the laying out of the lots took place
"some time between the years 1785 and 1790, and while General Haldimand
administered the Government of Canada." General Haldimand did not
administer the Government of Canada during any part of the time thus
specified--a fact of which Chief Justice Robinson ought to have been
aware. In a subsequent part of the same letter he properly gives the
date as 1786.

[91] See the report, p. iv., appended to the _Seventh Report of the
Grievance Committee_.

[92] The defence of these two suits would seem to have been the means of
considerably augmenting the Attorney-General's already ample income.
From certain accounts sent down to the Assembly it appears that a sum of
_£127 6s. 6-3/4d._ sterling were paid to him during the year 1834 for
"expenses incurred by him in defending two suits with costs in reference
to the military reserve near the Falls of Niagara."

[93] There was a very general belief throughout the Niagara District at
the time that Major Leonard, who was an obedient servant to the
Executive, had manipulated the lists from which the jurors in those
cases were selected. The truth or falsity of the belief cannot now be
pronounced upon, the circumstances upon which it was founded being
buried in oblivion.

[94] "He [Sir Peregrine Maitland] must have inferred that the Committee
proposed to examine these officers respecting the employment of a
military force for the ejecting of Forsyth from the land."--See Despatch
from the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, to Major-General Sir
John Colborne, dated 20th October, 1828, appended to the Report on
Forsyth's petition.

[95] See the despatch, appended to the Report on the Forsyth Case, at
end of Grievance Committee's Report. The Colonial Secretary's despatch
quoted in the text will be found appended to the same Report.



CHAPTER VIII.

THE "AMOVAL" OF MR. JUSTICE WILLIS.


The Forsyth embroilment extended over a long period, and from time to
time during several years it continued, at longer or shorter intervals,
to thrust itself upon public attention. Meanwhile it was not the only
instance of abuse of power on the part of the Executive to which the
people of Upper Canada were constrained to submit. Several other notable
contemporaneous examples shared with it in the unenviable work of
widening the breach between the Government and the people, and in
destroying popular confidence in the impartial administration of
justice. It is a rather singular fact that of all the many high-handed
measures resorted to during the existence of the Ninth Parliament, the
one which aroused the greatest indignation was perhaps the least
blameworthy of them all. It has been the fashion with writers who have
dealt with this period of our history to represent the amoval of Justice
Willis as being upon the whole the most glaring iniquity of the time.
This view is not borne out by the facts. In the Willis affair Sir
Peregrine Maitland had recourse to the espionage system, and certainly
went to the utmost verge of his authority, but he cannot be said to have
run violently in the teeth of precedent and good sense, as was done, for
instance, in the Forsyth case. Nor can it be said that he acted with
despotic rashness or precipitation. His decade of misrule in Upper
Canada was characterized by many cruel, tyrannical and shameful deeds:
deeds which stare out from the pages of the past with lurid
distinctness. He has enough to answer for at the bar of history; and it
is quite unnecessary to load the formidable indictment against him with
surplusage or dubious matter. A careful and dispassionate examination of
all the circumstances in the Willis case must convince the inquirer that
the faults were not all on one side, and that the Judge himself is
bound to at least share with Sir Peregrine the responsibility for the
bitterness arising out of the "amoval."

John Walpole Willis, whose name was destined to win considerable
celebrity in the judicial annals of this Province; was a lawyer of good
standing at the English Chancery bar. He came of a respectable county
family, but had no hereditary expectations, and from his earliest youth
had applied himself to study with a zeal begotten of the conviction that
he would be compelled to depend upon his own exertions for a livelihood.
He devoted himself with assiduity to studying the literature pertaining
to the equity branch of the law. By the time he reached manhood he had
acquired considerable erudition, and it was predicted of him that he
would make a mark in his profession. He did his utmost to justify the
prediction, for he had no sooner been called to the bar than he came
before the world as an author. His first publication was a work bearing
upon the law of Evidence. In 1820 he issued a work on Equity Pleading;
and in 1827 appeared his treatise "On the Duties and responsibilities of
Trustees." These works obtained a fair share of recognition, and
doubtless tended to promote his professional success. He enjoyed the
reputation of being an industrious and painstaking lawyer, and a
brilliant and accomplished member of society.

In 1823, when he had reached the age of thirty-one years, he was applied
to for professional advice by the Earl of Strathmore. This event was
destined to have important consequences. The advice led to important
professional employment extending over several months, during which the
clever lawyer was a frequent guest in the Earl's household, and on terms
of intimate social intercourse with the family. In an unhappy hour for
his future peace of mind he formed an attachment to Lady Mary Isabella
Bowes Lyon Willis, one of his lordship's daughters. His attachment was
reciprocated by the young lady, who was possessed of great personal
attractions, and who might doubtless have looked forward to a more
ambitious match; but her noble father had little to offer in the shape
of dowry, and did not oppose her wishes. The marriage took place at
Marylebone Church, in August, 1824. The bridegroom was then thirty-two
years of age, and the bride had just completed her twenty-second year.
This disparity was not sufficient to excite any remark, for Lady Mary
was mature for her age, and the bridegroom had scarcely taken leave of
his youth. For about three years after the marriage the pair resided
with Mr. Willis's mother, at Hendon, a pleasant suburb lying to the
north-west of London; he meanwhile continuing the practice of his
profession in town. All these circumstances materially contributed to
the shaping of the young barrister's future career.

[Sidenote: 1827.]

Mr. Willis enjoyed the social advantages which his union with a
nobleman's daughter was certain to confer. These advantages were fully
appreciated, but they involved certain inevitable consequences, the
principal of which was a material increase in the domestic expenditure.
As neither Lady Mary nor her husband was possessed of much property, and
as the latter's income was almost entirely derived from his profession,
he resolved to try for some public appointment whereby his pecuniary
condition might be improved. Early in 1827 the project of establishing a
Court of Equity in Upper Canada was for a short time under some sort of
consideration at the Colonial Office. Through the influence of his
father-in-law, Mr. Willis was mentioned as a most suitable man to
undertake that important duty. His heart responded to the idea. He felt
that he was well fitted for such a responsibility, and that a congenial
sphere of usefulness would thus be presented to him. His vanity also
seems to have been flattered by the prospect of being raised to the
bench--even the colonial bench--at so early an age. Visions of social
and intellectual supremacy among the magnates of Upper Canada doubtless
presented themselves in alluring shapes before his mind. He had no
difficulty in obtaining a promise that in the event of the contemplated
appointment being made it should be offered to him. The project,
however, was still in embryo, and--as the event proved--was not fully
carried out until about ten years later. It was meanwhile desirable that
a puisne judge of the Court of King's Bench for Upper Canada should be
appointed without delay, and that position was offered to Mr. Willis. It
was at the same time represented to him that his acceptance would in no
wise interfere with the scheme of the establishment of a Court of
Chancery, and that he would be none the less fitted, to carry out such a
scheme from his having resided for some time in the Province, and from
his having become to some extent familiar with local laws and
institutions. After mature reflection he accepted the offer, and set
out for Canada towards the end of the summer, accompanied by his wife,
mother, sister and infant son.

His marriage had not proved in all respects a felicitous one. Lady Mary
was imbued with patrician ideas, and bore herself towards her husband's
family with considerable hauteur. She was very particular in exacting
certain observances in which she considered herself entitled. There were
doubtless faults on both sides. Mrs. and Miss Willis took umbrage at the
patronizing airs of Lady Mary, who, in her turn, complained that she was
made a cipher in her own house. There were also petty jealousies on the
part of Lady Mary, which led to disputes between herself and her
husband. Altogether the domestic establishment at Hendon was not a
harmonious one, but the means of the family were insufficient to admit
of the keeping up of two separate households. The true remedy for such a
state of things lay in the exercise of a spirit of mutual
forbearance--an exercise to which Lady Mary, at least, seems to have
been little accustomed. Under such ominous auspices was the Willis
household transferred from Hendon to Upper Canada.

The Willises reached the Upper Province on the 17th of September, and on
the following day the new judge proceeded to Stamford Cottage, the
summer residence of the Lieutenant-Governor, in the Niagara District.
Having presented the royal warrant for his appointment, together with
certain other documents, he was cordially received by Sir Peregrine. He
dined and spent the evening at the Cottage. In the course of
conversation he referred to the project of establishing a Court of
Equity--which by this time was no secret--and was surprised to find that
the theme was distasteful to his host, who, in a tone not to be
misunderstood, remarked: "Sir, you have not got your Court of Equity
yet." "The words," wrote Mr. Willis,[96] "made some impression at the
time, and subsequent events tended to throw further light upon their
meaning."

Upon his arrival at York, on the 20th, Mr. Willis was welcomed with
apparent cordiality by the judiciary, the bar, and society generally.
The leaders of local fashion vied with each other in their attentions
to the ladies of the family, more especially to Lady Mary, who was
almost overwhelmed with civilities. The new judge was sworn in on the
11th of October. He entered with avidity upon the duties of his office,
and also made himself conspicuous in society, where he was from the
first regarded in the light of a decided acquisition. He entered with
keen zest into plans for party-giving and entertaining, and evidently
derived heartfelt pleasure from receiving and dispensing courteous
hospitalities. He attended several public meetings which had been called
for charitable and other purposes, at all of which he spoke with what
was considered a somewhat perfervid eloquence. In a word, he not only
took the rank to which he was entitled by virtue of his office, but
jumped at once into the position of a leader of society and social
movements. His name was on everybody's lips. Persons to the manner born,
who had been accustomed to fill the foremost places in the public eye,
found themselves, for the time, almost superseded and ignored. Judge
Willis duly appreciated the homage which was rendered to him, and
exhibited himself to society in his brightest and most amiable colours.
To a few great personages, however, it seemed as if the new-comer
carried himself with wonderful _sang-froid_, and contemplated himself
and his position with too much complacency. To them it appeared as if he
regarded all the eager admiration which was lavished upon him as being
nothing more than his transcendent qualifications entitled him to look
for at the hands of the little world of York. He seemed, they thought,
to accept it all as his just due. And the belief was not unreasonable on
their part, for the Judge seems to have been in a measure carried off
his feet by the attentions paid to him on every hand. His position was
one calling for the exercise of calm judgment and discretion. It was not
surprising that leading members of the bench and bar, who had long
served the Government with zeal and acceptance, should entertain some
jealousy at the appointment of an outsider to a place of high honour and
emolument. Attorney-General Robinson, for instance, had filled his
responsible office for many years, and the Crown had certainly no reason
to complain that he had favoured liberty at the expense of prerogative.
Hagerman and Boulton, too, had for years lent themselves to the purposes
of the Executive. It was not singular that these persons should feel as
though their own claims to preferment had been passed over in favour of
Judge Willis, a stranger to Canada, her institutions and her polity. Nor
was it wonderful that their deportment towards the stranger should, in
spite of themselves, be influenced by the feeling. Judge Willie was not
long in discovering that some sentiment of this sort was in the air, but
he does not appear to have made sufficient allowance for it, and
manifested a disposition to carry things with a high hand. He
entertained a poor opinion of the Attorney-General's professional
attainments, and did not sufficiently conceal this opinion. He was at
first disposed to think highly of Judge Sherwood's abilities, but erelong
came to the conclusion that he had greatly overestimated them,[97] and
plainly showed, by his conduct, that he attached little weight to his
brother judge's decisions. This course was the very opposite to what
would have been adopted by a discreet and really able man. Such a man
would have made due allowance for jealousies which, under the
circumstances, were almost inevitable. Such a man would have adopted a
policy of friendly conciliation. Such a man would have refrained from
making himself specially conspicuous, at least until he had been some
time settled in his new career, and had become accustomed to the novel
atmosphere. Judge Willis's conduct was the very reverse of all this. In
his intercourse with his brother judges--one of whom, it must be
remembered, was Chief Justice--he adopted a tone of superiority, and
even, to some extent, of dictation. He was of course not to be blamed
for dissenting from their opinions--which he very frequently
did--provided that he was honest in his dissent; but he acted very
cavalierly on such occasions, and in pronouncing his own judgments
seldom thought it necessary to make any reference to the decisions of
his brethren on the bench. It was impossible for the latter to ignore
the fact that he despised, or affected to despise their legal
attainments; and their recognition of this necessarily gave rise to
irritation and anger on their part. They felt his conduct to be all the
more disrespectful to them in consequence of his admitted want of
familiarity with Common Law, his own reading and practice having been
almost exclusively confined to the Equity branch of the profession.

In the very first judgment ever rendered by him, he gave utterance to
sentiments which, to put the matter mildly, were very much out of place.
The case was one brought by George Rolph, of Dundas, against T. G.
Simons and others, for a gross outrage which had been perpetrated on the
plaintiff, who was a brother of the Attorney-General's great political
rival. The outrage had arisen out of private complications, and no
political question arose in the course of the trial. In concluding his
judgment Mr. Willis took occasion to remark that he had formed his
opinion of the case on its intrinsic merits, unbiased by any political
considerations. He added that he was totally devoid of party feelings,
and that it would ever be his most earnest desire to render to every one
impartial justice. It goes without saying that these are very proper
sentiments on the part of an occupant of the judicial bench. Such
principles were especially required in Upper Canada, where there had
long been much judicial partiality and frequent miscarriages of justice
by reason of political differences. But a judge should at least assume
that his integrity is taken for granted, and should deem it beneath his
dignity to attempt any vindication of his rectitude while an occupant of
the bench. Moreover, there were no circumstances to call forth such
expressions as were used by Judge Willis. No hint of any partiality had
ever been heard against him. There had been no opportunity for any
display of partiality by him, for he then took his seat on the bench for
the first time. Saith the proverb: "He who makes unnecessary excuses
accuses himself." In this case the Judge certainly indulged in wholly
unnecessary self-vindication. And there were reasons why any such
vindication by him was especially indelicate. The Radical newspapers had
heralded his arrival as the dawn of a new era, when judicial corruption
would cease in the land. It is pretty evident that he had been flattered
by the eulogy, and that he now went out of his way to administer a
covert reproof to his colleagues on the bench. His remarks were
undoubtedly taken in that sense, and tacitly resented by them. It may
have been that they were all the more ready to take the remarks as
applying to themselves from their consciousness of past shortcomings;
but it was not from a brother on the bench--one, too, who had been only
a few weeks in the country--that they should have been subjected to
reproof.

To the feelings of his colleagues, however, Mr. Willis paid little
consideration. His heart was specially set upon the establishment of a
court of equitable jurisdiction, and to this end he bent much of his
energy. He forced the matter upon the attention of the Attorney-General,
who, he found, differed from him in respect of certain important
details. He also prepared and submitted a scheme to the
Lieutenant-Governor. He found great difficulty in inducing any member of
the Government to discuss the matter with him. He was informed that an
Act of the Provincial Legislature was considered necessary to the
creation of such a court as the one contemplated by him. In this opinion
he did not coincide, but by way of expediting matters he bestirred
himself with a view to bringing about the necessary legislation. After a
Bill, originally prepared by his own hand, had been introduced into the
Assembly, he attended to hear the debates, and fraternized with Rolph,
Bidwell, and other members of the Opposition--a circumstance which was
afterwards very strongly urged against him at the Colonial Office. The
Bill did not run smoothly, and was denuded of certain clauses which he
deemed to be essential to the successful carrying out of the scheme. He
vainly endeavoured to bring the Attorney-General round to his view of
the matter. Mr. Robinson had too long been supreme in all legal affairs
to submit to any dictation, more especially from one towards whom he
bore no good will. Judge Willis found himself opposed and thwarted at
every turn; and he erelong discovered that the Government were averse to
the scheme, although the aversion was not directly avowed. He then
recalled the Lieutenant-Governor's remark on the subject made to him
some months before at Stamford Cottage. Certain dubious expressions
which had from time to time fallen from the lips of the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Judges, and other prominent
officials also recurred to his mind. As for Attorney-General Robinson,
"I at length discovered," wrote Judge Willis, "that any proposition that
did not originate with himself was not generally attended with his
approbation."[98]

A despatch from the Colonial Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor was
promulgated about this time, from which it appeared that the project of
establishing a Court of equitable jurisdiction was in abeyance, or had,
for the time, been abandoned. Judge Willis was greatly disappointed at
this abandonment, which, in conversation, he openly ascribed to the
influence of Sir James Scarlett, the English Attorney-General, with whom
he had once had some unpleasantness while on circuit. But it also became
known about the same time that Chief Justice Campbell was about to
retire from the bench, and that his office would accordingly soon be
vacant. Judge Willis lost no time in making application for the post.
Neither did Attorney-General Robinson, whose application was backed by
the entire influence of the Upper Canadian Executive. Here was a fresh
ground of rivalry, whereby the unpleasant relations between these two
officials were intensified. It soon became impossible for the new Judge
and the Attorney General to come into contact without feelings and
expressions indicative of personal hostility. The hollow friendship
which had at first seemed to subsist between them was cast to the winds,
and all social intercourse between them was at an end. Any proposition
emanating from Judge Willis was systematically opposed by the
Attorney-General. The Judge in his turn availed himself of several
opportunities of showing how little weight he attached to the
Attorney-General's opinions. Worse still, he brought upon himself the
lasting indignation of the Lieutenant-Governor. It would perhaps be more
correct to say that his wife brought this calamity upon him, for the
origin of the trouble was a hot dispute between Lady Mary Willis and
Lady Sarah Maitland on a question of rank and precedence. In this
quarrel it is quite clear that Lady Mary was in the wrong, but the whole
affair was utterly contemptible on both sides. The ladies dragged their
respective liege-lords into the dispute, and each of the latter espoused
the side of his helpmeet. Sir Peregrine necessarily got the better of
his adversary, whom he never forgave. It is impossible to say how far
this unseemly women's wrangle contributed to the humiliation which Judge
Willis was subsequently compelled to endure, but it is pretty clear that
from that time forward Sir Peregrine was bent upon getting his adversary
removed from his position. Unhappily the Judge, by his want of
discretion, made this resolution comparatively easy of accomplishment.
He constituted himself a sort of general censor of judicial and official
shortcomings, and from his seat on the bench gave utterance to petulant
and unbecoming strictures on various transactions with which he had no
need to concern himself.

[Sidenote: 1828.]

At the York Assizes held in April, 1828, Judge Willis came into such
serious public collision with the Attorney-General that the affair was
bruited abroad, and made considerable noise throughout the Province. On
Thursday, the 10th of the month, Francis Collins, editor of the
_Freeman_, was brought up on certain indictments for libel preferred
against him by Attorney-General Robinson, under circumstances which will
be detailed in a subsequent chapter. The bench was occupied by Mr.
Justice Sherwood. The Clerk was just about to proceed to arraign the
accused, when a postponement was asked for on the latter's behalf. The
application was granted, and there the matter ended for the day. Next
morning--Friday, the 11th--the bench was occupied by Justice Willis, who
then for the first time in his life presided at an Assize. He had no
sooner taken his seat than Collins rose at the bar. "May it please your
Lordship," said he, "I have a motion or two to make in Court, if I, not
being a lawyer, am in order in so doing."

"Certainly," replied the Judge; "step forward, that the Court may hear
you."

Collins then stepped forward, and addressed the Court in a speech which
had evidently been prepared for the occasion.[99] "My Lord," said he, "I
am the humble conductor of a public press in this town. I come forward
to accuse His Majesty's Attorney-General of vindictiveness and foul
partiality in the discharge of his duty as prosecuting officer for the
Crown. He has sent his nephews and apprentices as spies into my office
in order to hunt up imaginary offences. He has preferred bills of
indictment against me on supposition of libel, and I have been dragged
from my business by a common constable, and obliged to give bail in this
Court, while he, the Attorney-General, has allowed the most infamous
crimes to pass in review before him, without taking any notice whatever
of them." And so on, with much more to the same purport.

The speaker was interrupted by the Attorney-General, who had been
conferring with a member of the bar in an adjoining room, but who had
been specially summoned into Court by his clerk, Henry Sherwood, who had
informed him that Collins was making a long harangue to the Judge.
Observing that the Judge showed no disposition to put a stop to the
proceedings, Mr. Robinson requested to be informed what was the
defendant's object in addressing the Court, and whether he had made any
motion. "If Mr. Collins is allowed to proceed," replied Judge Willis, "I
dare say his object will appear." Collins accordingly proceeded:--

"My Lord, while I have been dragged into this Court, on the mere
suspicion of libel, by His Majesty's Attorney-General, I hold in my hand
the printed confession of His Majesty's Solicitor-General, Henry John
Boulton Esquire, of a crime that the law of England calls murder,
committed ten or eleven years ago.[100] Yet no indictment has been
brought against him, and this confession is attested by James Fitz
Gibbon Esquire, a magistrate of this District, and by the Sheriff of
this Court. I hold also in my hand the printed history of an outrage of
the grossest character, where a number of young official gentlemen in
this town assembled together and committed a noonday burglary, by
breaking into the private house of William Lyon Mackenzie, and
destroying his property. This atrocious outrage, please your Lordship,
was proved on the floor of this Court, in the presence of His Majesty's
Attorney-General. The perpetrators were identified and sworn to, yet no
indictment has ever been brought against them, while the
Attorney-General is busying himself in sending spies and informers into
my printing office to bring me up for imaginary offences."

The Attorney-General could hardly be expected to sit quietly under such
accusations as these, made in open Court, and listened to by the bench
without any expression of disapprobation. He rose in some heat, and
remarked that he hoped the Court would not allow the public business to
be thus interrupted. "The defendant," said he, "is not upon his trial,
nor has he ever been arraigned. He seems merely to be indulging himself
in an attack upon me as Attorney-General--an attack which could not have
any bearing upon his own case, even if it were now before a jury; but
which at present is nothing but a most improper interruption of the
business of the Court, by an harangue intended to prejudice the public
mind before he shall be put upon his trial. As to the matters of which
he has spoken, I am not to be called to account by him, or by any other
defendant, for the discharge of my official duties with respect to other
parties not now before the Court. I am at all times ready to account for
my proceedings as Attorney-General to the Government for whom I act, and
to whom I am responsible; but I trust that the Court will not suffer a
person whom I merely know as defendant upon bills for libels of the most
disgraceful kind, and whose arraignment upon these charges has been
postponed, as an indulgence, at his own request--I trust that such a
person will not be allowed to address the Court in this irregular
manner, for the mere object of calumniating me, whose duty it is to
conduct the prosecutions against him."

A brief silence followed these words, after which Collins resumed, and
was allowed to proceed without further interruption.

"The object of my present motion, then, my Lord, is to compel the
Attorney-General to do that duty which he has so long neglected when his
own friends were concerned; and as I think his present proceedings
against me are both partial and unjust, I shall press the criminal
prosecution of his friends, Henry John Boulton Esquire, for murder, and
Samuel P. Jarvis and others for riot. In the latter case, please your
Lordship, the rioters were sued in a civil action, and damages to a
considerable amount recovered from them; yet I feel it my duty to press
the criminal prosecution, because James Fitz Gibbon Esquire, a
magistrate of this District, begged the amount of the fine from door to
door in this town, and the rioters have so far gone wholly unpunished.
All I ask, please your Lordship, is justice and impartiality, and from
your Lordship's character I doubt not I shall receive them at your
hands."

After a moment's consideration, during which silence reigned supreme in
the Court-room, Judge Willis remarked:--"If the Attorney-General has
acted as you say, he has very much neglected his duty. Go you before the
Grand Jury, and if you meet with any obstruction or difficulty I will
see that the Attorney-General affords you every facility."

This was, beyond doubt, very unbecoming language to be used by a Judge
under such circumstances. It must be understood that Judge Willis had
not properly before him any facts upon which to base his opinion as to
the Attorney-General's having neglected his duty. That that official had
much to answer for; that his practice had been one-sided and
inconsistent; that much of his life had been spent in endeavouring to
smother public opinion and to maintain the supremacy of a selfish and
corrupt caste--this must be conceded at the bar of history. But no such
allegations were before Judge Willis in an official form, and he had no
right to assume anything against the Attorney-General in the absence of
the most irrefragable evidence. Instead of evidence, he had merely heard
the _ex parte_ statements of an alleged libeller. This was the legal
aspect of the matter, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that
the Judge permitted himself to be influenced, by his personal dislike to
Attorney-General Robinson.

The Attorney-General sat for a moment as if thunderstruck. He had so
long been accustomed to having his own way in Courts of Justice, and to
seeing his opinions deferred to by the bench, that he could scarcely
credit what was passing before his eyes. That a Judge should dare to
censure him in this irregular way, before the bar and the public, was
almost beyond belief. A contemporary account says that he turned to "a
rich cream colour."[101] He was at all events labouring under suppressed
rage as he deliberately arose to address the Court. He denied that he
had neglected his duty in not preferring indictments against persons in
cases where no formal complaint had been laid, and he utterly repudiated
the idea that his office imposed upon him the _role_ of a thief-catcher.
"It is not my business," said he, "to play the part of a detective, or
to hunt about the country for evidence in support of voluntary
prosecutions. I have now discharged the duties of a Crown officer for
nearly thirteen years, and this is the first time that a failure in my
duty has been imputed to me. I have always conceived it to be my duty to
take official cognizance of offences against the State. As to other
cases, I have been accustomed to proceed only upon informations and
complaints placed in my hands by justices of the peace, and upon
presentments of Grand Juries. In cases of injuries to individuals and
their properties, such as assaults and riots, where a double remedy is
afforded by action and indictment, I have not been accustomed to set the
law in operation on my own motion."

"That," interrupted Judge Willis, "merely proves that your practice has
been uniformly wrong, and I take leave to remark that you have neglected
your duty. Why are you placed here, as prosecuting officer? To prevent
the violation of the public peace, or, when it has been violated, to
punish the offenders, whoever they may be, or whatever may be your
private feelings with respect to them. The moment a violation of the
public peace was proved before you, as in the case mentioned by Mr.
Collins, it was your duty to proceed against the offenders. Do you not
consider that the Solicitor-General and yourself have the exclusive
right to conduct all criminal prosecutions; or do you admit them to be
open to the bar in general, as in England?"

The Attorney-General's feelings were by this time worked up to a
tremendous pitch of excitement. To think that a Judge--a junior Judge,
who had been only a few months in the country--should presume to lecture
him in this manner, and to instruct him in his duties as though he were
a petty juryman! "My Lord," he burst forth, in a tone of hot anger, "I
know my duty as well as any Judge on the bench. I have always acted in
the way I have indicated, in which respect I have followed the practice
of all my predecessors in this Province; and I shall continue to act in
the same manner as long as I am prosecuting officer for the Crown."

"Then, Sir," retorted Judge Willis, "if you know your duty you have
wilfully neglected it; and as you say you will continue to act as you
have done hitherto, I shall feel it to be my duty--holding, as I do,
His Majesty's commission on this bench--to make a representation of
your conduct to His Majesty's Government."

This far from edifying scene was without precedent in the annals of
Upper Canadian courts of justice, and was for some days the talk of the
town, more especially among the members of the legal profession. The bar
generally sided with the Attorney-General, and were loud in their
aspersions upon Judge Willis. Some of the leading members, however,
among whom were Rolph, Bidwell and the two Baldwins, took a different
view, so far, at least, as the legal aspect of the dispute was
concerned. As for public opinion generally, it was largely in favour of
Judge Willis. On Monday, the 14th, before the public pulse had had time
to cool, there was a scarcely less notable interchange of asperities
between the same personages. The Attorney-General, in a criminal case in
which he was officially concerned, took occasion to reiterate, in
effect, the views to which he had given expression on the previous
Thursday as to the duties of a Crown prosecutor. When he had finished
his remarks Judge Willis expressed himself to the same effect as before.
"The practice in this country," said the Judge, "as stated by the
Attorney-General, does not agree with my notions as to the duty of that
officer, and I have laid a statement of the question before His
Majesty's Government here for the purpose of having it transmitted to
England, where it will be decided how far the Attorney-General is right
in expressing his sentiments as he has done." Mr. Robinson hereupon
remarked that he was Attorney-General to His Majesty, and not to Judge
Willis, and that he would act as he believed to be right, even though he
should differ in opinion from his Lordship.

JUSTICE WILLIS.--Mr. Attorney-General, I am one of His Majesty's Judges
in this Province. As such, it is my place to state to the Crown officers
what their duties are, and it is for them to perform those duties
according to direction. If the interests of the Crown had not been
concerned I would not have permitted any discussion on the question. But
I am sure His Majesty's Government will protect me from insult in the
exercise of my judicial functions, and in stating to any public officer
what I conceive to be his duties.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ROBINSON.--And will also protect His Majesty's officers
in the execution of their duty.

JUSTICE WILLIS.--Mr. Attorney-General, I beg that you will not reply to
the bench in that manner.

The unseemliness of thus discussing, in open Court, how far the
Attorney-General had proved to be an effective public servant, must be
apparent to everybody. And it must be admitted that the discussion was
provoked by Justice Willis, who had made something very like an attack
upon the Attorney-General--an attack based upon the unsworn statements
of an indicted libeller. He had moreover permitted Collins to go a most
unwarrantable length in his onslaught upon the Crown prosecutor, more
especially as no affidavits had been produced in support of the motion.
A layman who comes before the Courts _inops consilii_ is allowed more
latitude in the conduct of his case than is generally conceded to a
counsel whose professional business it is to plead at the bar; but the
latitude permitted in the case under consideration was beyond all
legitimate bounds. The Judge's dislike to the Attorney-General seems to
have predisposed him to believe that all Collins's allegations were
true. In reality they were exaggerated presentations of notorious facts.
That they were largely founded upon facts Judge Willis probably knew
from common hearsay. But while sitting on the bench he had nothing to do
with common hearsay. _A fortiori_, he was not justified, upon the mere
assumption of a hypothetical case,[102] in admonishing the
Attorney-General in the presence of his accuser, and in humiliating him
in the presence of the bar of which he was the rightful head. An English
judge would be considered as departing widely beyond the sphere of his
duty if he were thus openly to arraign the conduct of the
Attorney-General, especially in a matter clearly lying, as in the case
under consideration, within that officer's discretion. English judges,
on the contrary, are much more likely to interpose on behalf of the
officers of the Crown, and to prevent their acts and motives from being
called in question in open Court by persons against whom proceedings
have been instituted by them. Judge Willis seems to have been wrong in
his law, wrong in his etiquette, wrong in his temper, and wrong in his
construction of judicial amenities.

Henceforth the Judge's "amoval" was only a matter of time, for the
entire influence of the Executive, direct and indirect, was arrayed
against him. From the Lieutenant-Governor down to the most insignificant
clerk in the departments there arose a howl of indignation against the
man who had dared to set up his wife in opposition to Lady Sarah
Maitland; who had dissented from the judgments of Chief Justice Campbell
and Mr. Sherwood, and sneered at their legal acumen; who consorted with
the leading members of the Opposition; who had even gone the
inconceivable length of berating Attorney-General Robinson for
neglecting his duty. Such a man was not to be tolerated. He must surely
be a Radical, who had got himself sent over to this colony in order that
he might stir up dissatisfaction among the people. To go over all the
interminable squabbles which took place between Judge Willis, on the one
hand, and the various judicial and official dignitaries on the other,
would be alike wearisome and profitless. Judge Willis availed himself of
every opportunity which presented itself for officially and publicly
animadverting upon the conduct of those who were opposed to him. He
added to his enormities by announcing, through the newspapers, that he
was preparing for publication a work on Upper Canadian jurisprudence,
and it appeared that the title-page was to bear the deprecatory motto
_Meliora sperans_.[103] _Meliora sperans_, indeed! What manner of
personage was this outsider, who arrogated to himself the responsibility
of ameliorating the rigours of Upper Canadian laws?[104] It was not long
before an opposition announcement appeared, being an exact counterpart
of the other, except that the motto was _Deteriora timens_. The
authorship of the latter, whether rightly or wrongly, was very generally
attributed to Attorney-General Robinson. Judge Willis's announcement
gave great offence to the official guardians of the law, from the
highest to the lowest. The motto, which in reality had been adopted by
him prior to his coming to Canada, was believed to have been specially
assumed for the occasion, and was regarded as a covert sneer at existing
institutions in the Province. As a consequence, it was taken as
additional evidence of disrespect. Owing to the Judge's "amoval" the
projected treatise was never issued, though several chapters of it had
actually been written. A small portion of it was incorporated in a work
published by the author in England twenty-two years afterwards.[105]

In an elaborately-worded despatch to the Colonial Secretary, dated the
6th of June, 1828, Sir Peregrine Maitland called the attention of that
official to Judge Willis's announcement and the accompanying motto,
which he declared to be, in his opinion, neither discreet nor delicate,
as emanating from a Judge upon the bench, who had been but a few months
in the Province. The laws of Upper Canada, in Sir Peregrine's
estimation, were highly satisfactory, and needed nothing so much as to
be let alone. "I have been ten years in this government," he wrote, "and
as I have never received any representation against the laws, or the
manner in which they have been administered, I must conclude that the
people are content with both." Content with laws which prescribed
capital punishment for the killing of a cow! Content with laws which had
been conceived in an iron age, and under a state of society which was
now happily passing away! Content with the laws! When a majority of the
population, through their representatives in the Assembly, had for years
been using their utmost endeavours to procure the repeal of the Sedition
Act of 1804! When a Select Committee of the British House of Commons had
directed the attention of Government to this mediævally-conceived
statute, and had expressly recommended its repeal! Content with the
manner in which the laws had been administered, when the trial of Robert
Gourlay was yet fresh in the public memory! When a score of almost
equally vile but less conspicuous perversions of justice were matters of
yesterday! When no obscure litigant could sue a member of the Family
Compact with any assurance of obtaining his rights! When the Reform
newspapers had for years been filled to overflowing with complaints
about the imperfect administration of justice! When a very
strongly-worded complaint of neglect in the administration of justice
had only a few weeks before been made in open court to Judge Willis when
he first took his seat in a Court of Assize! When a large proportion of
the population had ceased to have any confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary! When this want of confidence was shared by several leaders of
the Provincial bar, who certainly had exceptional opportunities for
forming a correct opinion on the subject! The time was not far distant
when one of the most eminent and successful lawyers in the country was
to abandon his profession, owing to this very want of confidence. Truly,
a wonderful manifestation of content with the laws and the manner in
which they were administered. Sir Peregrine thought and acted as other
opponents of reform have acted from time immemorial. He refused to
believe in the existence of discontent which he did not share. He
refused to believe that he himself was not an object of adoration to the
great body of the people, because the official lickspittles by whom he
was surrounded vied with each other in flattering his imbecile vanity.
Had he been left to his own devices he would have been like the doomed
king who refused to believe that his people were hungry until thirty
thousand starving _sans-culottes_ were thundering at his palace gates.

It soon became generally known throughout the country that strained
relations existed between Judge Willis and the whole race of officialdom
at the capital. The new Judge was known to have given expression to a
desire for a reform of the law; and it was commonly assumed that it was
to his liberal ideas that he was indebted for the hostility with which
he was regarded by the ruling faction. The Reform Party warmly espoused
his cause, and their organs devoted much space to extolling his wisdom,
moderation and other high qualities. Addresses to him were circulated
throughout some of the rural constituencies, and there was a manifest
disposition to cater for his favour and patronage. Had he been endowed
with discretion and good judgment he might, without any dereliction from
his judicial duty or integrity, have rendered incalculable service to
the cause of freedom and good government. Doubtless the rendering of
such service would sooner or later have involved him in complications
with the official party, but if he had kept his head it is doubtful if
they could have prevailed against him. Unfortunately he proved to be too
weak for his position, and allowed himself to be completely
out-manoeuvred. He ruined himself, without accomplishing anything for
the cause which he wished to serve. The time was rapidly drawing near
when, by means of a judicial decision, he was to shut the door forever
upon any prospect of his advancement in this country, and when he was to
be made the subject of official communications resulting in his
permanent removal therefrom.

As has already been mentioned, there had been frequent differences of
opinion between Mr. Willis and his colleagues, almost from the beginning
of the former's assumption of judicial functions. The acting justices of
the Court of King's Bench were at that time three in number, and
consisted of the Hon. William Campbell, Chief Justice, the Hon. Levius
Peters Sherwood, senior puisne judge, and Mr. Justice Willis himself.
During the first Term which ensued after Mr. Willis's arrival in this
country--which was Michaelmas Term, 1827--he had occupied the bench
along with the other two judges. In Hilary Term of 1828 the Court had
been presided over by the same three judges, except that Chief Justice
Campbell had occasionally been absent from his seat in consequence of
infirm health. Immediately after the close of the last-named Term the
Chief Justice, having obtained from the Lieutenant-Governor six months'
leave of absence, departed for England, whence he did not return until
after a long holiday. The Court of King's Bench was thus left with only
the two puisne judges, who accordingly presided by themselves during the
following Easter Term. They had by this time come to dislike each other
most cordially, insomuch that it taxed their powers to the utmost to
treat each other with becoming respect. Sometimes the effort was beyond
their power, and they snapped and snarled at one another upon the bench
like two querulous old women. They now differed in opinion upon almost
every case which came before them, and it is impossible to doubt that
their differences were in large measure due to their personal hostility.
This was a serious matter, for, as no third judge was at hand to give
the preponderance of authority to either side, there was a practical
dead-lock in much of the business of the Court. Suitors were put to
serious delay, inconvenience, and consequent expense. Counsel were
profoundly disgusted, and of course took sides for and against. Judge
Willis was so sensible of the deplorable consequences of such a state of
things that, as soon as Term was over, he entered into a minute and
searching investigation of the constitution and power of the Court of
King's Bench as established in Upper Canada.[106] He was desirous of
finding some way out of the difficulty, or at all events of knowing
precisely upon what ground he stood. But a still more serious evil soon
began to loom up before his mind, for the result of his investigations
was a conviction that the Court could not legally sit in Term, unless
the full court--_i.e._, the Chief Justice and the two puisne
Justices--were present.

This conviction was a momentous one, for, if sustained, it would nullify
much that had been done in the Court ever since its establishment in
1794. The frequent practice had been for two Judges, and sometimes even
for only one, to sit during Term; and, as has been seen, Judge Willis
himself had so far acquiesced in this practice as to sit during a part
of the preceding Hilary Term, and during the whole of Easter Term, with
Justice Sherwood as his only colleague. He had however assumed the
prevailing practice to be justified by the constitution of the Court,
and had not examined the matter on his own account until impelled to do
so by the reasons already indicated. He now discovered, as he believed,
that the practice was altogether unwarranted, and that all that had been
done under it was liable to be upset. The first section of the
Provincial Statute under which the Court had been created[107] enacted
that "His Majesty's Chief Justice, together with two puisne justices,"
should preside therein. All the subsequent sections except those
relating to appeals had been repealed by a later Provincial Act,[108]
and although power was given to the senior puisne Judge, in the absence
of the Chief Justice, to _teste_ the process, and to _any_ of the Judges
to sit at _Nisi Prius_, there was no authority to sit _in Banco_,
unless the Court were full. Having arrived at a conclusion on the
subject, Judge Willis at once communicated the fact to the Colonial
Secretary, the communication being made by letter, forwarded through the
Lieutenant-Governor, and left purposely unsealed in order that that
dignitary might possess himself of the contents, to which his attention
was specially called by a separate note. Sir Peregrine could not refuse
to transmit the Judge's missive, but he took good care to malign him in
an accompanying despatch. "It is with pain" he wrote, "I am compelled to
observe that, having presided as a Judge for the first two terms after
his arrival, without finding more occasion than all the respectable
Judges who have preceded him to make the administration of justice
subservient to popular excitement, Mr. Willis has been either unable or
unwilling within the last few months to avoid making his proceedings,
either in the Civil or Criminal Court, the prominent subject of
political discussion, and the pretence of attacks _from the vilest
quarters_, and of the grossest kind, upon those who were associated with
him in the administration of justice, and of whom I shall speak only
justly when I say that the measure of respect and esteem in which their
public conduct has ever hitherto been held, and is now held, by their
Government, and by every person except by Mr. Willis, and by a party
with whom I have lamented to find him associate himself, and _who are
not very respectable in any sense_, is not to be attained but by a long
period of correct and honourable service." The italics are not Sir
Peregrine's, but they are deserving of all the emphasis which
distinguishing type can give them, as exemplifying the way in which the
representative of Majesty in those days was not ashamed to secretly
vilify persons who opposed his policy: persons who, whether contemplated
from a moral or an intellectual point of view, were elevated so far
above him that it is impossible to institute any comparison between
them. Will it be believed that the gentlemen who were "not very
respectable in any sense" were John Rolph, Marshall Spring Bidwell, Dr.
William Warren Baldwin, and Robert Baldwin? Was it not an honour to be
disreputable in such company? Some of these, at least, were men whom no
pressure of outward circumstances could have induced to stab their
bitterest foe in the dark, as this eminently respectable vice-regal
assassin was in the frequent habit of doing in his despatches, and as
he did when he wrote the mendacious words above quoted. Judge Willis
doubtless associated with these men because he found them more to his
taste than anyone else with whom he became acquainted in York. And his
doing so was made much more of than the facts warranted. His
acquaintance with the persons named was not of such a nature as to be
called intimate. In his "Narrative," already quoted from, he has
recorded that to the best of his recollection he never conversed with
Dr. Baldwin, Mr. Rolph, Mr. Bidwell, "or any other person politically
opposed to Mr. Robinson" a dozen times in the course of his life; and in
a separate defence of his conduct written at Bath in December, 1828, he
says: "From what I know of Dr. Baldwin and his family, I must always
sincerely regret that I have not known more."[109]

Having arrived at such a decision as to the constitution of the Court,
and having apprised the Colonial Secretary thereof, he took the earliest
feasible opportunity of making it known to the Provincial bar. At ten
o'clock in the forenoon of the opening day of Trinity Term--which was
Monday, the 16th of June--he repaired to the Court House at York. While
robing himself in the Judge's chamber he was joined by his colleague,
Justice Sherwood, and a few moments afterward they both proceeded to the
Court room, attended by the Sheriff in the usual manner. The Court
having been formally opened, Judge Willis arose and addressed the
audience, standing all the while, after the manner of a counsel at the
bar. In the course of his remarks, which occupied nearly an hour in
delivery, he expressed himself in very positive terms as to the
constitution of the Court. He declared it to be his decided opinion that
the Court could not be legally held without the presence of the Chief
Justice and two puisne Judges; that everything which had theretofore
been done in the Court by two Judges only was null and void; that the
Lieutenant-Governor had no authority to grant leave of absence to a
Judge without the express approbation of the Executive Council; that he
(Judge Willis) had made enquiry at the office of the Executive Council,
and had found that leave had always been granted by the
Lieutenant-Governor alone, in pursuance of which leave Chief Justice
Campbell was now absent from the Province. The manner in which the leave
of absence to the Chief Justice, as well as to many other persons
holding situations under the Provincial Government, had been granted by
the Lieutenant-Governor, was pronounced to be, in Judge Willis's
opinion, not only irregular but illegal, whereby the incumbents had
forfeited their several offices. During the preceding Term an order of
the Court had been passed by Judge Sherwood and himself. That order he
now rescinded, so far as his authority was concerned, and he expressed
his regret that he had entered upon the discharge of his judicial
functions without having previously acquainted himself with the state of
the law. He added that he had felt it to be his imperative duty to
declare his opinion as to the incapacity of the Court to legally proceed
with the business before it; and that, holding that opinion, he had
resolved to decline to sit any longer upon the bench, though he would
remain at hand to attend to any functions which he could legally
discharge.

This extraordinary address, it may be presumed, was not altogether a
surprise to Justice Sherwood, as Justice Willis had previously notified
the Lieutenant-Governor of his intention to give currency to his views
at the commencement of Term, and Sir Peregrine would be certain to
discuss the matter with the Attorney-General, through which medium the
facts would be tolerably sure to find their way to Justice Sherwood. The
latter seemed to take the matter very coolly. He informed the bar that
he would not take upon himself to pronounce an opinion on the subject of
the constitution of the Court, as there was nothing before him which
rendered it necessary for him to do so. He added that he would adhere to
the practice which had uniformly prevailed, and that he would not
hesitate to proceed with the ordinary business of the Court, adjourning
it from day to day as occasion required. Judge Willis, still standing,
then said: "You cannot adjourn a Court that does not exist. The Court is
not legally constituted. Its functions cannot be exercised, and any
proceedings you may take will be void." "I am aware," replied Mr.
Sherwood, "that such is your opinion; but I have a right to mine and I
shall pursue the course I have indicated. If that course,
notwithstanding the practice which has hitherto prevailed, should prove
to be wrong, I shall extremely regret it; but I feel it to be a matter
of too much importance to the business of the country to take upon
myself to vary from it, without the interference of a higher authority."
Judge Willis then briefly repeated his protest, and retired from the
bench. His colleague, after transacting some unimportant routine
business, adjourned the Court until the following day. Throughout the
rest of the Term he was the sole occupant of the Bench.

Judge Willis's conduct on this occasion does not admit of much diversity
of opinion. For one thing, as was subsequently decided by the Privy
Council, he was wrong in his view of the law. This is of itself an
important consideration. But even if his view had been a sound one,
admitting of no doubt, he incurred a very serious responsibility in
giving currency to it at such a time, and in such a manner. His conduct
was certain to produce great excitement and disturbance in the public
mind. It was certain to create an increased distrust of long-settled
institutions, which it was highly essential for the well-being of
society that the public should regard with confidence and respect.
Besides, the rendering of the past and present proceedings of the Court
liable to doubt and uncertainty could not fail to seriously affect the
business interests of the country. If the practice of the Court had been
wrong, and if many of its proceedings were invalid, the wisest course
would have been to quietly take steps to bring about remedial
legislation, whereby all defects might have been cured, without the
serious risk of reviving old animosities and long-settled disputes. But
such a course as Judge Willis saw fit to adopt was wholly uncalled for,
no plea to the jurisdiction having been pleaded in any case before the
Court. It was certain to produce ill, without any possibility of good.
He moreover placed in the hands of the Executive a rod for his own
back--an implement of which they speedily availed themselves to inflict
grievous punishment.

On the following day, which was Thursday, the 17th, Judge Willis
formally notified the Lieutenant-Governor of the public delivery of his
opinion, adding that he was nevertheless most desirous of discharging
such duties as he could legally perform consistently with his view of
the law. Judge Sherwood meanwhile continued to sit on the bench alone,
and to transact such business as came before him. Some influential
members of the bar found themselves in a quandary. After Judge Willis's
decision, they entertained grave doubts as to the legality of the Court,
and hesitated as to the advisability of taking any further proceedings
in cases committed to them, until the vexed question should be settled.
Judge Sherwood, though he had dissented from his colleague's view, and
though he plainly testified by his persisting in sitting and holding
Court that he still continued to dissent, had not given any formal
judgment, nor had he even verbally stated any grounds for his opinion.
With a view to obtaining light for their guidance in this perplexing
emergency, Dr. Baldwin, his son Robert, and Mr. Simon Washburn, another
prominent member of the bar, addressed a written application to the
Court, in the person of Justice Sherwood, requesting to be favoured with
his opinion on the matter. The application was made on Thursday, the
17th, and replied to by Mr. Sherwood in writing next day. The
phraseology of the reply made it quite clear that the Judge felt by no
means strong in his position. "You are desirous," he wrote, "that I
should express an opinion from the bench on the present state of this
Court, but it appears to me any opinion of that sort would be
extra-judicial. No one but His Majesty's Representative has any right to
ask for the opinion of a Judge where no cause or regular motion,
according to the practice of the Court, is pending before him." There
was more to the same no-purport. It was clear that the applicants were
not to receive much assistance from Justice Sherwood in resolving their
doubts. The Judge's response was no sooner communicated from the bench
than the two Baldwins and Mr Rolph then and there threw off their gowns
and left the Court, declaring that they concurred in opinion with Judge
Willis, and that they could not continue to transact business in a Court
which they believed to illegally constituted.

The emergency brought about by Judge Willis's decision, and by his
consequent withdrawal from the bench, was one for which the Executive
deemed it essential to provide without unnecessary delay. It was
manifestly impossible that matters should remain _in statu quo_. The
time for holding the annual circuits was approaching. Mr. Sherwood was
the only Judge remaining on the bench, and a Court composed of a single
Judge is not a satisfactory tribunal for all purposes of justice. The
Council took the opinions of the law officers of the Crown as to the
soundness of the Judge's views with respect to the constitutionality of
the Court of King's Bench. Those opinions were in direct opposition to
the conclusion at which Judge Willis had arrived. The Attorney-General's
was a remarkably exhaustive and lucid exposition of the law bearing upon
the question. It was also free from ambiguity, and left little room for
doubt. These opinions were strengthened by that of Justice Sherwood,
who, at the request of the Executive, also prepared an elaborate paper
on the subject, in which he expressed precisely similar views to those
enunciated by the Attorney-General. The question was then submitted to
the Crown officers whether the Lieutenant-Governor could legally remove
Judge Willis from office and appoint a successor. The answer prepared by
the Attorney-General, and signed both by him and Solicitor-General
Boulton, came with remarkable promptitude. "Upon the points submitted to
us," it ran, "we are of opinion, 1st: That the power to remove an
officer depends on the tenure of his office. In this, as in other
colonies, the appointment of a judge is during pleasure; and we conceive
that in law any person holding an office on such a tenure is removable
at pleasure: that is, at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor, acting
in the name and on behalf of the King. The reasons for such removal are
to be rendered to His Majesty by the Lieutenant-Governor, who is
responsible for their sufficiency.... 2nd: We are of opinion that a
removal of a Judge of the Court of King's Bench necessarily vacates the
office, and that another person may be appointed to fill the vacancy,
subject to be confirmed or disallowed by His Majesty."

The Executive acted with great circumspection. Fortified as they were by
these strongly-worded opinions, and assured as they felt of the legality
of their contemplated proceedings, they did not permit themselves to be
betrayed into indiscretion. On the 25th of the month they addressed a
letter to Judge Willis, referring to his communication to the
Lieutenant-Governor on the 17th, in which he had professed willingness
to discharge such duties as he could legally perform. He was asked what
explanation he had to offer, and what duties he was prepared to
undertake. On the 26th he replied that he did not feel at liberty to
pronounce an extra-judicial opinion, and that he could only define the
precise nature of his duties when the matter should come judicially
before him. The Executive thereupon pronounced his doom, and a writ was
issued whereby he was removed from office until His Majesty's pleasure
should be known. The Lieutenant-Governor, through his Secretary,
notified him that the Council had felt it incumbent upon them to advise
this step.[110] The "amoval" was now an accomplished fact. A vacancy was
thus created on the bench, which was filled on the 2nd of July by the
appointment of Christopher Alexander Hagerman to a puisne judgeship.

The news of Judge Willis's "amoval" spread rapidly through the Province,
and produced widespread excitement. The circumstance that his course had
met with the approval of Rolph and the Baldwins led to the belief among
non-professional people that he was sound on the legal question, and
that he had been driven from the bench because he would not stoop to
corruption. The case of Judge Thorpe was exhumed from the dust of twenty
years, and the amoval of Judge Willis was believed to be a mere
re-enactment of that forgotten iniquity. As for Judge Willis himself, he
determined to proceed at once to England to present his side or his
case, in the form of an appeal from the order of amotion, at the
Colonial Office. Before his departure he received addresses of
condolence from various parts of the Province. Numerously-signed
petitions in his favour were transmitted to the king, and to the several
other branches of the Imperial and Provincial Legislatures. A long
requisition from a number of influential persons in the County of
Lincoln entreated him to represent their constituency in the Assembly.
People who were usually sensible appear to have lost their heads for a
time during this exciting period. A large meeting of the Judge's
sympathizers was held in Toronto, at which Dr. Baldwin and Mr. John
Galt,[111] with their wives, were appointed a Committee to watch over
the interests and insure the protection of Lady Mary and her family
during the absence of her lord; and Robert Baldwin was added to the
Committee as her Ladyship's solicitor.

Judge Willis took his departure from York on the 11th of July. As he
expected that he would very soon be able to procure from the Colonial
Office a reversal of his "amoval," and that he would be reinstated in
his judgeship, to the great discomfiture of the Lieutenant-Governor and
his satellites, he did not think it necessary that his family should
accompany him to England. The suitable disposal of the members of his
household was an embarrassing problem for him. In good sooth, he was in
a situation somewhat analogous to the man in the familiar old story, who
came to the bank of a wide stream, having in his possession a fox, a
goose, and a bag of corn. The application is easy. Mrs. Willis and Lady
Mary could by no means be left to keep house together unless the head of
the establishment was near at hand to keep the peace between them. The
relations between Lady Mary and Miss Willis, though far from amicable,
were somewhat less strained. Mr. Willis accordingly took with him his
mother only, leaving his wife, child and sister behind him; though it is
to be presumed that the above-mentioned Committee had a sinecure, so far
as any special attendance upon or protection over Lady Mary was
concerned.

A series of acrimonious despatches from the Lieutenant-Governor preceded
Mr. Willis across the Atlantic. For weeks--probably for months--before
the delivery of his unfortunate decision, the espionage system had been
put in full operation against him, and measures had been taken to watch
his personal habits and pastimes. There had been a firm determination to
effect his ruin,[112] and the strong suspicion that such was the case
had done much to array a majority of the inhabitants on his side. "It is
my duty to state to you in the most decided terms," wrote Sir Peregrine
Maitland to the Colonial Secretary, on the 6th of July, "that his [Mr.
Willis's] restitution to office, while it would be received by the most
portion of the population as a triumph over the Government which Mr.
Willis has ungratefully and wantonly insulted, would be most pernicious
to the peace of this colony, and an act of the most aggravating
injustice to those faithful servants of the Crown against whom he has,
for unworthy purposes, dishonourably laboured to excite the prejudice
and hatred of the ignorant and malicious." It is worth while to note
that this extract contains a clear admission by the Lieutenant-Governor
that his Government was regarded with disfavour by "the most portion of
the population:" an admission directly at variance with many statements
made by him in former despatches, as well as in speeches to the
Provincial Parliament.

Upon reaching England Mr. Willis put himself into immediate
communication with the Colonial Office. He took up his quarters at the
house of his brother, the Reverend W. D. Willis, at Bath. There he
prepared an elaborate statement of his case, which was duly forwarded to
the Colonial Secretary. After some delay he succeeded in obtaining
copies of the several despatches of Sir Peregrine Maitland in which the
charges against him were formulated with wearisome reiteration. These
indictments against him, which, though signed by Sir Peregrine, were
doubtless in reality prepared by Mr. Willis's arch-enemy,
Attorney-General Robinson, were certainly of the most formidable
character. They went over the whole course of the Judge's procedure,
from the time of his arrival in the Province down to his departure
therefrom. To the serious grounds of complaint which had unquestionably
been given were added numerous delinquencies of the most petty and
trifling nature. It was stigmatized as "a great indecency" that Judge
Willis had been seen in a dress "but little according with his
situation."[113] In view of the interests involved, and of the grave
nature of the questions to be decided, it seems ludicrous that the
appellant should have been called upon to reply to an accusation of this
nature.[114] A perusal of these despatches, however, rendered necessary
a supplementary statement and narrative, wherein every count in the
indictment was either traversed, or, in legal parlance, confessed and
avoided. But Mr. Willis soon found that he was not to gain so easy a
triumph over his enemies as he had previously allowed himself to suppose
would be the case. The question to be decided was a purely technical
one, and after the matter had been for some time under consideration at
the Colonial Office it was referred for decision to the Privy Council,
where it was not disposed of for nearly a year. The conclusion finally
arrived at was that Mr. Willis had been wrong in his view of the
question in dispute, and that the Executive Council, in amoving him from
office, had not acted in excess of their authority. Under such
circumstances his return to Upper Canada was of course out of the
question; but as his conduct was attributed to error of judgment rather
than to any serious dereliction from duty, he received an appointment to
a judgeship in the South American colony of Demerara.

From all the circumstances, then, it is clear that Judge Willis, though
he was in some sense a victim of Executive intolerance in Upper Canada,
was himself largely to blame for his downfall, to which he contributed
by his want of caution and calm good sense. But many of the
circumstances detailed in the present chapter were unknown to the bulk
of the Canadian people, by whom he was regarded as a martyr to his
upright and liberal principles. His amoval produced a wider excitement
than any event since Gourlay's time. It tended greatly to embitter
public opinion, and was unquestionably a strong factor in producing the
discontent which ultimately found expression in open rebellion. For this
reason it has been thought desirable to go somewhat minutely into
details which are in themselves fraught with instruction, and as to
which the people of Canada, even at the present day, are very
inadequately informed.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

Mr. Willis felt his defeat very keenly, more especially as he had
confidently looked forward to a successful termination of his appeal. At
his instigation the subject was brought before the attention of the
House of Commons by Lord Milton, on Tuesday, the 11th day of May,
1830.[115] Sir George's Murray's explanation, which involved a narrative
of the circumstances in detail, proved satisfactory to the House, and
the matter was allowed to drop. But the amoved Judge was fated to have
greater reasons still for deploring that he had ever taken up his abode
in Canada, as his residence there led to the rupture of his family ties
and the total wreck of his domestic happiness. It will be remembered
that Lady Mary and her child, together with Miss Willis, had remained at
York. Upon learning the decision of the Privy Council in his case, Mr.
Willis wrote to his wife and sister, requesting them to dispose of his
house there, and to return home as speedily as possible. During the long
interval which had elapsed since the ex-Judge's departure for England,
the two ladies had been left to amuse themselves as best they could in
the little capital. They occasionally went into society, and received a
certain amount of attention from that portion of it which had been
favourable to Judge Willis, as well as from some of the military
officers stationed there. Among others whose acquaintance they formed
was a certain Lieutenant Bernard, an officer of the 68th Light Infantry,
whose regiment was then in Canada. He occasionally rode out with Miss
Willis, who was an accomplished equestrienne, but he did not appear to
be on specially intimate terms with Lady Mary. On the 16th of May, 1829,
Lady Mary set out for England by way of Montreal, Miss Willis remaining
behind for a week to make a final disposition of the house. On reaching
Kingston, Lady Mary was met by Lieutenant Bernard, who accompanied her
to Montreal, whence the pair several months afterwards fled together to
England, Lady Mary leaving her child behind her in the care of one of
her maids. Mr. Willis brought an action against Bernard, who had by that
time succeeded to a Captaincy. The case was tried in the Court of Common
Pleas at Westminster on Thursday, the 9th of February, 1832, when the
plaintiff recovered £1000 by way of damages. A report of the proceedings
will be found in _The Times_ of the following day.[116]

[Sidenote: 1832.]

It may be of interest to Canadian readers to learn that Mr. Willis was
some years afterwards appointed to a seat on the bench of the Supreme
Court of New South Wales. On the 8th of February, 1841, he was under a
local statute appointed resident Judge for the District of Port Philip.
While officiating in that capacity he came into conflict with Sir
George Gipps, Governor of the Colony, and the Executive Council, by whom
he was once more "amoved" from office. The order of amotion, which was
made on the 17th of June, 1843, was however reversed by the Imperial
Privy Council for irregularity. The Lords of the Judicial Committee,
before whom the case was heard in June and July, 1846, reported that in
their opinion the Governor-in-Council had power in law to amove Mr.
Willis, and that the facts were sufficient to justify his amoval, but
that an opportunity ought to have been afforded him of being previously
heard. The requisite notice not having been given, the omission was held
to vacate the order of amotion, and judgment was rendered
accordingly.[117]

FOOTNOTES:

[96] See his "Narrative of Occurrences in Upper Canada," written from
Bath to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, dated 5th
December, 1828, and included in pp. 273-288 of the blue book on the
subject issued by the Imperial Government in 1829.

[97] There is a covert irony in the portion of Judge Willis's
_Narrative_ which refers to this subject. "I wished to think," he
writes, "and from the attention he seemed to pay to business I actually
worked myself up into the belief, which I frequently expressed, that Mr.
Justice Sherwood was a _hard-headed_ sensible man; but I became
convinced that, though right in the former conjecture, yet so far as
legal knowledge or abilities were concerned, I was mistaken in the
latter part of my conclusion." The italics are Judge Willis's own.

[98] See Judge Willis's _Narrative_, ubi supra.

[99] So far as mere diction is concerned I have here chiefly followed
Collins's own report of this episode, as published in the _Freeman_, but
I have also before me the Attorney-General's account, as well as the
more elaborate one of Judge Willis himself, and the three do not
materially differ in this respect.

[100] _Ante_, p. 13.

[101] The _Freeman_, April 17th, 1828.

[102] The case, as put by the Judge, was purely hypothetical. "_If_ the
Attorney-General has acted so and so, he has neglected his duty." See
_ante_, p. 174.

[103] The announcement ran as follows:--"Preparing for publication.--A
View of the Present System of Jurisprudence in Upper Canada; by an
English Barrister, now one of His Majesty's Judges in this
Province.--_Meliora sperans._"

[104] It was time for some one to undertake the duty of ameliorating the
criminal law of Upper Canada, which was that of England as it stood on
the 17th of September, 1792, except in so far as it had been altered by
subsequent legislation. At the Assizes for the Home District, held at
York in the autumn of 1827, within a few weeks after Judge Willis's
arrival in the Province, a boy was capitally convicted and sentenced to
death for killing a cow.

[105] _On the Government of the British Colonies._ London, 1850.

[106] The investigation, according to Judge Willis's own testimony, was
entered into partly in consequence of a suggestion which he received on
the subject. See the text of his written opinion, embodied in pp. 66-74
of the Imperial blue book issued in 1829, entitled "Papers relating to
the Removal of the Honourable John Walpole Willis from the Office of One
of His Majesty's Judges of the Court of King's Bench of Upper Canada."
It seems probable that the suggestion emanated from Dr. Baldwin.

[107] 34 Geo. III., c. 2. This statute was framed by the Hon. William
Osgoode, first Chief Justice of Upper Canada, a gentleman of great
learning, who had been sent out from England for the express purpose of
organizing the Courts of the Province.

[108] 2 Geo. IV., c. 1.

[109] See pp. 249-267 of the Imperial Government's blue book on the
subject, _ubi supra_.

[110] The notification was dated the 26th of June, whereas the formal
document issued by the Council was not signed until the 27th. Mr. Willis
attached a good deal of weight to this irregularity, which however was
of less importance than might at first sight be supposed. The Council
had fully made up their minds on the 26th, and the notification was
despatched accordingly, though the order of amotion was not actually
ready for signature until the day following.

[111] The well-known author, who was then in Canada as representative of
the Canada Land Company.

[112] "Cabot," in _Blackwood's Magazine_ for September, 1829.

[113] See despatch marked "Separate," from Major-General Sir Peregrine
Maitland to Mr. Secretary Huskisson, dated 6th July, 1828.

[114] His reply will be matter of surprise to the staid and
decorously-attired judges of the present day. "On all ordinary
occasions," he wrote, "I usually wore a _black velvet coat and
waistcoat_. The first time I saw the Chief Justice he had on a black
kalimanco or camlet jacket, which I have seen him wear even on the
bench. I have met the Lieutenant-Governor frequently walking through the
streets with an olive-coloured square-cut velveteen jacket and
waistcoat; and a few days before I left York I beheld Mr. Justice
Sherwood in a grass-green cloth jacket with white metal buttons. I
merely mention these 'extravagancies' to show that my dress was neither
improper nor extraordinary."--See the _Narrative_, ubi supra.

[115] See Hansard's _Parliamentary Debates_, N. S., Vol. xxiv., 551-555.

[116] Some further particulars may be found in 8 Bingham, 376; also in 5
C. & P., 342.

[117] See the case of John Walpole Willis, Appellant, _versus_ Sir
George Gipps, Knt., Respondent, 5 Moore's Reports of Privy Council
Cases, 379. From an _obiter dictum_ of one of the judges in the case it
would appear that the order of amotion from the bench of this Province
was finally set aside on technical grounds, owing to the appellant's not
having been heard in Canada. After diligent search, I have been unable
to find any report of this decision, either in the official reports of
the Privy Council or in any of the newspapers or periodicals of the
time.



CHAPTER IX.

THE CASE OF FRANCIS COLLINS.


In the foregoing pages mention has several times been made of Francis
Collins, editor, proprietor and publisher of _The Canadian Freeman_, a
Radical weekly newspaper issued at York. Mr. Collins was an enthusiastic
young Irish Roman Catholic, who had immigrated to Canada a short time
before the excitement arising out of the Gourlay persecution reached its
height, and when he himself was barely twenty years of age. He was a
printer by trade, and for some time after his arrival worked as a
compositor in the office of _The Upper Canada Gazette_, published at
York by the King's Printer, Dr. Robert Charles Horne. Finding that he
possessed much intelligence and a fair education, his employer deputed
him to report the debates in the Assembly during the sessions of
Parliament. In 1821 he reported certain proceedings which the Government
were annoyed at seeing in print, more especially as the version given
was not strictly accurate. For this offence Dr. Horne was summoned to
the bar of the House, where he sought to evade responsibility by
pleading that the debates had not been reported by himself, but by
Francis Collins. The Doctor further offered a humble apology, and was
glad to escape with a sharp reprimand, accompanied by a caution from the
Speaker that he would thereafter be held responsible for the reports in
the _Gazette_.[118]

Within a short time after receiving this admonition Dr. Horne ceased to
be King's Printer, whereby the post became vacant. As Collins was
familiar with the nature of the work, and was naturally desirous of
bettering his condition, he applied for the appointment. The office was
at the disposal of the Lieutenant-Governor, and was held entirely at his
pleasure. Collins was curtly checked for his presumption by a leading
official, who informed him that the office would be conferred upon "no
one but a gentleman." It would be interesting to know whence the
official who was guilty of this wanton insult had derived his ideas of
courtesy and good breeding. If his statement were to be credited, any
application on his part for the post of King's Printer would most
assuredly have been made in vain. The appointment was given to Mr.
Charles Fothergill, who belonged to a good Yorkshire family, and was
therefore fully entitled to rank as a gentleman.[119]

Collins was excusably indignant at the gross insult which had been
hurled at him. He considered himself as at least the social equal of any
member of the Government, for he claimed descent from the old Irish
kings, and on one or two occasions when more than ordinarily exhilarated
he had even been known to refer to his ancestor, Brian Boru. Yet, for
all this mendacious and vainglorious boasting, Collins was a man of
unquestionable ability, and when fully aroused could write a paragraph
well calculated to make the ears of his enemies to tingle. His
nationality was clearly indicated by his personal appearance, his
features being rough-hewn and unmistakably Celtic; while his red hair
and beard, usually not very well cared for, gave him an aspect of
uncouth wildness. Up to this time he had not taken any very conspicuous
part in politics since his arrival in Canada; but henceforward the
Executive had no more bitter or sleepless foe. He continued to report
the proceedings in Parliament, and kept his eyes ever open for an
opportunity to strike the Government with effect. In 1825 he succeeded
in establishing the _Freeman_, which was thenceforth to some extent a
rival of Mackenzie's _Advocate_. It was from the first conducted with
great energy, and the editorials, which were often set up without being
committed to paper, displayed exceptional vigour, but they were
frequently disfigured by a coarseness and bad taste equal to anything of
Mackenzie's production. For some time the better class of Liberals
fought shy of the enterprise, but the editor steadily forced his way
into general recognition.

The _Freeman_ was permitted to continue its course unchecked for nearly
three years. During that time it followed up the shortcomings of the
Executive with ceaseless vigilance. To Sir Peregrine Maitland and
Attorney-General Robinson it was a veritable thorn in the flesh. There
was abundant occasion for criticism, and it was seldom, if ever, that
Collins resorted to pure invention for the purpose of attacking the
innumerable abuses of the time. There was always a sufficient substratum
of truth in his accusations to render it inexpedient to prosecute him
for libel. The punishment of what was false would have involved the
public exposure of what was true. The official party realized the force
of the laureate's dictum, not then propounded, that

   "A lie that is all a lie may be met with and fought outright,
   But a lie that is part of a truth is a harder matter to fight."

[Sidenote: 1828.]

They of course did not present the matter in this aspect to the world at
large. On the contrary, their organs claimed for them a spirit of
generous and Christian forbearance. But this could not go on for ever.
Collins continued to pour in his chain-shot from week to week with
never-failing pertinacity, and with seeming impunity from the law. The
Executive in the first place tried to check his career by crippling him
financially. The Assembly had for some years previously been accustomed
to vote him an annual sum by way of remuneration for reporting their
proceedings. The paying over of this sum, however, was a matter entirely
within the control of the Lieutenant-Governor. As it was known that
Collins was poor, and that his resources were sometimes taxed to the
uttermost to enable him to bring out his paper, it was hoped that, by
withholding payment for his services as reporter to the Assembly, he
might be compelled to suspend publication. He was accordingly informed,
when he applied for his money in the early spring of 1828, that the
funds were not forthcoming. The sum in question was £118 10s., and was a
matter of serious importance to him; but he well understood the object
of the Executive, and spurred himself up to fresh effort. His paper
appeared with the most provoking regularity, and its tone was, if
possible, intensified by the withholding of the sum due to its editor.
He told the story to the public, his account being garnished with
profuse comments in his bitterest vein. The Executive found that they
had miscalculated his resources, and that his press was conducted with
renewed vigour. It was finally resolved that a dead-set should be made
upon him, and that he should be overwhelmed by a shower of
contemporaneous indictments. On Thursday, the 10th of April, 1828, as
mentioned in the preceding chapter,[120] two bills of indictment for
libel were found against him. One of these was for having, in his paper,
charged the Lieutenant-Governor with partiality, injustice and fraud, in
not paying over the money voted by the Assembly. The other was on the
information of the Solicitor-General, Henry John Boulton, for
animadversions on his conduct in connection with the duel, in 1817,
between Samuel Peters Jarvis and John Ridout.[121] Upon the strength of
these indictments Collins was forthwith arrested, and compelled to
appear and give the required bail. On the following morning two other
bills were found, upon which he also gave bail. It was at this time that
he made his extraordinary attack upon the Attorney-General, before
Justice Willis, as already narrated at length.[122] It will be
remembered that he was instructed by the Judge to go before the Grand
Jury and prefer his complaints. These instructions he followed without a
moment's unnecessary delay. He appeared before the Grand Jury, and
charged H. J. Boulton and J. E. Small with being accessary to murder in
the killing of young Ridout. He next laid a charge of rioting against S.
P. Jarvis and six other persons who had figured as defendants in the
action brought by Mackenzie. The Grand Jury speedily returned a true
bill against Boulton and Small. Both those gentlemen were then in Court
with their gowns on. They were immediately put under arrest, and they so
remained until late in the afternoon, when Judge Willis, upon the
application of Mr. Macaulay, admitted them to bail. As Jarvis had been
tried for the offence and acquitted, shortly after the duel in 1817, the
Grand Jury now returned "No bill" as to him. On the following Monday a
true bill was returned by the Grand Jury against the seven persons
charged with riot. They were promptly arrested and held to bail.

Collins, having no faith in Attorney-General Robinson's integrity, was
very unwilling that the prosecution of these cases should be conducted
by him. Boulton was not only the Attorney-General's colleague as a law
officer of the Crown, but was his warm personal friend, as well as a
connexion by marriage. Boulton, in fact, was a profound admirer and
faint _umbra_ of the Attorney-General, in whose professional sunshine he
basked, and at whose feet he may in an intellectual sense be said to
have grovelled. Even the most Spartan of Crown prosecutors could hardly
be expected to do his utmost to secure a conviction under such
circumstances; and Attorney-General Robinson had nothing of the Spartan
in his composition where the interests of his friends were concerned.
Collins accordingly applied to Robert Baldwin to conduct the prosecution
for murder. But the prosecution of criminal cases was not then open to
the bar as a matter of course, and without the consent of the Crown. Mr.
Baldwin applied to the Court for the necessary permission, which was
granted with the Attorney-General's consent. The trial was proceeded
with before Justice Willis at the opening of the Court on the morning of
Monday, the 14th. The defendants, upon being arraigned, pleaded "Not
guilty." The proceedings extended over two days, during which the same
evidence was given that had been adduced at the trial in 1817. All the
horrible details of the duel were revived for the edification of a
crowded Court-room. Many of the spectators, as well as the Judge
himself, were affected to tears. The custom of society was once more
successfully pleaded in extenuation of a cruel and dastardly murder. As
the chief offender had himself escaped scot-free, however, it would have
seemed anomalous to punish the accessaries. The charge from the bench
was eloquent and judicial, and the jury were absent from the box only
ten minutes, when they returned into Court with a verdict of acquittal.

The trial of the type-rioters next required consideration. Collins's
counsel moved for leave to the prosecutor to conduct this case also by
private counsel, but to this the Attorney-General firmly refused to
consent. It was urged that one of the accused was his nephew, and that
two others had been clerks in his office at the time of the outrage. No
matter; he was determined to withstand any further interference with
Crown prosecutions on the part of the bar. There was no telling, he
remarked, where such interference would end. There had already been too
much of it. He was about to proceed with the prosecution, when Mr. Rolph
arose on behalf of Collins, and expressed a wish that, as the painful
investigation of the murder case had been finished, the prosecutions for
libel might be discontinued. Judge Willis warmly seconded the proposal,
and further suggested that the prosecution of the type-rioters might
also be dropped. The type-rioters, however, were ready and waiting for
their trial, and, through their counsel, objected to any abandonment so
far as they were concerned. It was urged on their part that they had
never wished to avoid prosecution, but had rather courted it; that they
would accept of no compromise of a proceeding which had been maliciously
and vexatiously instituted, not by the person injured, but by one who,
being brought into Court for libel, had been received as a sort of
public prosecutor, and allowed to harass them by raking into old
transactions which had long since been investigated and atoned for. They
insisted upon the matter being there and then finally disposed of, so
that it might no longer be in the power of any malicious person wholly
unconnected with the case to prosecute them at his pleasure.

The trial was then proceeded with. The persons charged were of course
found guilty. Judge Willis was very lenient, and sentenced them to a
nominal fine of five shillings each, expressly stating as a reason for
this slight punishment that more than ample recompense had already been
obtained in the civil action.[123]

With respect to the indictments against Collins, the Judge's appeal to
the Attorney-General was not altogether without efficacy,
notwithstanding the ill blood between them. The fact is that the latter
was glad enough of any excuse for abandoning the two prosecutions
instituted by Boulton and Jarvis, feeling well assured that there was no
likelihood of securing a conviction in either case. He could subserve
his own and his friends' interests, and at the same time assume the
appearance of deferring to the suggestion from the bench. The consent of
the prosecutors having been obtained, he therefore announced in open
Court that he would proceed no further upon those indictments. He added,
however, that there were further indictments against Collins which had
emanated from the Grand Jury, and that he could not with proper
deference to them at once relinquish proceedings therein. "But I have no
objections to state," said the Attorney-General, "that I will forbear
any further action during the present Assizes, and that in proceeding or
not hereafter, I shall be governed in a great measure by the sense which
the defendant shall show of his duty and obligations as the conductor of
a public newspaper." Bail was accordingly furnished by Collins on one of
the presentments. The other was tacitly allowed to lapse; and there, for
the time, the matter ended.

The editor of the _Freeman_ certainly gave the Attorney-General no
excuse for leaving him unmolested. In each successive issue of his paper
he lashed the whole race of officials, to some of whom he applied the
most opprobrious epithets. The Government organs pursued a similar
course on their side, and characterized Collins and his friends in
language too gross for quotation. The Attorney-General probably repented
that he had not proceeded on at least one of the indictments during the
late Assizes, and resolved that another opportunity should not pass
unimproved. The autumn Assizes opened during the second week in October,
when he attempted to press one of the old charges against Collins. The
defendant appealed to Judge Sherwood, who occupied the bench,
representing that his counsel was not in Court, and that he had never
been arraigned. The Attorney-General replied that the absence of the
defendant's counsel was not the fault of the Crown, and that he had been
arraigned at the spring Assizes. The latter statement was denied by the
defendant, and upon referring to the Clerk of Assize it appeared that
there had been no arraignment. Next day the Attorney-General again
attempted to force on the trial, but as it was clear that the defendant
had not been arraigned the latter now claimed the right to traverse. As
this right was indisputable it was conceded by the Court, the result
being that the defendant was entitled to have the trial held over until
the next sittings, which would not take place until the following
spring. The Attorney-General, however, was entitled to demand that the
defendant should find security, and promptly urged his demand. Collins
knew that were he to find the required security it would embarrass him
in the conduct of his paper, and stated that he would prefer to be tried
at once rather than adopt such an alternative. He was accordingly tried,
and, though the prosecution was pressed against him with all the vigour
at the Attorney-General's command, he was acquitted by the jury.

But the Attorney-General was not the man to allow his prey to escape him
while any chance remained of securing a conviction. A fresh indictment
was laid against him for a personal libel upon the Attorney-General
himself. Collins, in reporting the trial which had just resulted in his
acquittal, had accused the Attorney-General of "open palpable
falsehood," and "native malignancy," and had referred to Judge Hagerman
as "our old customer." This report had been published at full length in
the _Freeman_, and it was the ground of the prosecution now instituted.
The defendant laboured under the same compulsion with regard to security
as before, and elected to stand his trial at once, which was precisely
what the Attorney-General desired. The indictment, which may still be
seen among the records at Osgoode Hall, was a truly formidable
instrument, and set out the offence with great prolixity. The trial took
place on Saturday, the 25th, before Mr. Justice Sherwood, who, in
charging the jury, inveighed against the defendant with nearly as great
vehemence as did the Crown prosecutor, stigmatizing him as "a wholesale
retailer of calumny." He pronounced the _Freeman's_ report to be "a
gross and scandalous libel."[124] It was plainly evident that Mr.
Sherwood's mind was not equable, and that he was influenced by
considerations not properly before him. The fact that his son Henry, and
his brother-in-law, H. J. Boulton, had respectively been prosecuted for
riot and murder at Collins's instigation was too clearly held in
remembrance, insomuch that every point was strained to the utmost
against the defendant. Judge Sherwood, however, was absent from the
bench when the jury returned into Court with their verdict, his place
being taken by Judge Hagerman, who had many times been subjected to the
arrows of Collins's satire, and who was referred to with bantering
contumely in the very report which formed the subject of the present
prosecution. The jury, after deliberating about five hours, brought in a
verdict of "Guilty of a libel on the Attorney-General." The Clerk
recorded a general verdict of "Guilty," which was read to the jury. The
defendant's counsel objected to the recording of the verdict in this
form, inasmuch as the jury had found his client guilty of libel on the
Attorney-General only. A brief argument on the subject ensued, whereupon
the Judge charged the jury to the effect that such a verdict as they had
found could not be received. He informed them that if they found the
defendant guilty of any part of the alleged libel, they ought to return
a general verdict of "Guilty;" but that they might, if they thought
proper, suggest to the Court on what particular part of the publication
their verdict was founded, in which case the Court would confine the
punishment to that part only. The jury thereupon retired a second time,
but soon returned with a general verdict of "Guilty." On being asked by
the Judge whether they adhered to their former opinion as to the
libellous part of the publication, they answered in the affirmative.

The sentence of the Court was not pronounced until sufficient time had
elapsed to admit of a conference on the subject between Justices
Sherwood and Hagerman. That such a conference really took place is clear
enough from a letter of Judge Sherwood himself, to be presently referred
to. The sentence, when it came, created much surprise, not only in the
bosom of the individual who was directly concerned, but among the public
at large. It condemned the defendant to pay a fine of fifty pounds, to
be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, to find securities for his
good behaviour for three years after his liberation, himself in four
hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, and to
stand committed until all these conditions should be complied with.

Certainly it was no wonder that the little world of upper Canada opened
its eyes at such a Star Chamber sentence as this, pronounced in the year
of Grace 1828. It seemed as if the whirligig of time had brought back
the days of Bartemus Ferguson and _The Niagara Spectator_.[125] It was
an open question with many persons, even among those who were upon the
whole favourable to the measures of the Government, whether the
prosecution should have been sustained at all or not. A charge of
"native malignancy" was not likely to seriously affect the character or
standing of Attorney-General Robinson, who was ready enough to apply
much stronger epithets to his enemies. But, however that might be, there
could be no sort of doubt that the punishment awarded was wholly
disproportionate to the offence, more especially when the defendant's
circumstances were considered. If persisted in, the sentence really
involved the latter's perpetual imprisonment, for no two men of
substance were likely to be found who would feel safe in guaranteeing
the good behaviour of such a turbulent spirit as Francis Collins for so
long a period as three years. Throughout the whole of this infamous
persecution the Attorney-General showed to very little advantage. As
previously mentioned, he had showered four indictments upon the
defendant within the brief space of two days. Three of these he had
withdrawn, and upon the fourth the defendant had been acquitted. He had
then gone out of his way to lay a personal information upon a very
insignificant pretext. Poor Collins was his enemy, and must not be
allowed to characterize his conduct as "native malignancy," whereas the
editors of newspapers under the patronage and pay of the Government were
permitted to pursue a deliberate system of malicious vilification with
impunity. The latter were allowed to publicly malign not only individual
members of the Opposition, but to circulate the grossest libels upon the
House of Assembly itself. With these offences the Attorney-General did
not think fit to meddle. They were committed by his personal and
political friends, and, unless common rumour seriously belied him, were
not seldom committed at his own instigation. At any rate he maintained
the most amicable relations with the libellers, and allowed no
opportunity of serving their material interests to pass unimproved. Such
inconsistency forced itself upon public attention. People who up to that
time had supported the official party began to ask where this
one-sidedness was to end. The Attorney-General had no right, it was
said, to reward his friends for doing precisely the same things as those
for which he punished and imprisoned his enemies. It was remembered
against him how, when disputing with Judge Willis as to the nature of
his official duties, he had with scorn repudiated the suggestion that he
should proceed in the absence of instructions, even against notorious
evil-doers. It was remembered that he had declined to take any official
cognizance of so serious an offence against the public peace as the
type-riot, which had been committed by his own friends and protégés. Yet
he had here gone out of his way to prosecute to his ruin a poor wretch
who, certainly not without great provocation, had merely accused him of
falsehood and native malignancy. A man who accommodated his conduct to
his inclinations in this way might perhaps be much beloved by his
friends, but he certainly had no claim to be considered either good or
great. The faction, from Dr. Strachan downwards, had for years been
holding up John Beverley Robinson to the admiration of Upper Canadians.
By many he had been accepted at their valuation. The Selkirk and Gourlay
episodes, together with a score of others less noteworthy, had been
slurred over. As the worst of these had occurred some years before, they
had been partly forgotten by the existing generation. But the
remorseless vindictiveness and cruelty displayed throughout the Collins
prosecution were patent to everybody. They did much to lower the
Attorney-General in popular estimation, and to destroy public confidence
in the integrity of the Judges. They gave rise to an uneasy feeling of
discontent, and doubtless had their share in bringing about the troubles
of 1837-38.

Collins went to jail, where, in spite of great exertions on his behalf,
he was compelled to remain for many months. The fine was paid, like the
damages in the type-riot case, by public subscription. Appeals from
various quarters to the Lieutenant-Governor on the prisoner's behalf
were made in vain. The incumbent of that office was no longer Sir
Peregrine Maitland, whose torpid and nerveless administration had
come to an end some weeks before,[126] when, as previously mentioned,
he had taken his departure for Nova Scotia. His successor as
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was Major-General Sir John Colborne,
a distinguished officer of the 52nd Regiment, who had done gallant
service in the Peninsula, and had fought at Waterloo. He is described by
Napier, the historian of the Peninsular War, as having developed "an
extraordinary genius for war." After the return of peace he had had some
experience in diplomacy, having for some time been placed in charge of
the Government in the island of Guernsey. His appointment to the more
onerous and responsible post of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was
heralded as the precursor of better times. It was announced that he had
come over charged with instructions to reverse the fatuous policy of his
predecessor, and to conduct the administration in accordance with the
well understood wishes of the people. It seems tolerably certain that
some such general directions as these had actually been given, but great
latitude was necessarily left to Sir John himself; and, as after events
proved, he was ill fitted for the discharge of such duties as had been
entrusted to him. He was destined to furnish, in his own person, a
sufficient argument against the absurd system pursued by the Home
Government of saddling the colonies with military rulers. That Sir John
was an excellent soldier goes without saying. It is certain, too, that
he was in the main actuated by upright and honourable motives. But he
had been "a man of war from his youth," and his early training and long
military career had made him stern and unbending. He had no sympathy
with the aspirations of a people who were just beginning to grasp the
principles of constitutional liberty, and who saw many things in the
body politic which called aloud for reform.

It did not take long for the people of Upper Canada to gauge the
character of the new Governor, for he had not been a fortnight in the
Province before he had practically allied himself with the Compact.
Hardly had he assumed the functions of his office ere a petition,
signed by a number of influential inhabitants of York and its
neighbourhood, was presented to him by a Committee on behalf of Collins.
The facts were set out in detail, and his Excellency was asked to
exercise the royal clemency by releasing the prisoner from his
melancholy situation. Sir John's reply was non-committal, but not wholly
discouraging. It conceded the advantages resulting from a free and
well-conducted press, but expressed reverence for trial by jury, and
referred to the danger of interfering with the verdicts of juries or the
opinions of Judges unless their illegality could be clearly
demonstrated. It added, however, that if his Excellency; after inquiring
into the case, should come to the conclusion that his interposition was
called for, a communication to that effect would be made to the person
chiefly concerned.

In the face of this reply, it behooved the prisoner and his friends to
wait a reasonable time before taking any further steps. Within the next
few days a number of facts came to light which certainly went to show
that there were at least good grounds for a new trial. It appeared that
John Hayden, one of the jurymen, had been ignorant of the true meaning
of the word "malignancy," and had sent out to the Court for Johnson's
Dictionary, in order to arrive at a true definition. This indulgence was
refused by the Court, and Hayden was constrained to accept the
definition of another juror, whereby he was led to believe that the word
in question has a much more serious significance than really attaches to
it. By this means he had been induced to give his voice for the
conviction of the defendant. Two other jurymen,[127] who were servile
tools of the Attorney-General, had been actuated by undue prejudice,
insomuch that they had expressed a strong pre-determination to convict
the defendant. Then, the conduct of Mr. Hagerman, in sitting as a Judge
in a case wherein he was personally concerned--it will be remembered
that he had been derisively referred to in the report which formed the
subject of the indictment--was an infringement of decency, to say
nothing of its being a perversion of the letter and spirit of the law.
He had also conferred with the Judge by whom the sentence was
pronounced as to the measure of punishment to be awarded. But he had
not only sat in judgment in his own cause: he had refused to record the
finding of the jury, whom he had misled and coerced into bringing in a
verdict contrary to what they really intended. Judge Sherwood's conduct
had been little better. He had delivered a charge to the jury which
practically left them no alternative but to convict, unless they
altogether disregarded his counsels. John Carey, editor of the York
_Observer_, who was present on the occasion, testified that the Judge's
charge appeared to him to outrage law and common sense.[128] Then, the
sentence itself was so grossly out of proportion to the offence as to
shock all ideas of justice, and to form a standing menace against the
liberty of the press in Upper Canada. Yet Judge Sherwood, in pronouncing
it, had expressly stated that it should be light, in consequence of its
being awarded for a first conviction. It would be curious to know what
punishment he would have awarded if the defendant had been previously
convicted on a similar charge.

All these circumstances went far to prove that the defendant had met
with considerably more or less than justice. And there were other facts
which had an ugly look. The defendant, as already mentioned, was a Roman
Catholic; yet, out of a large and respectable population professing the
same religious faith, not one was to be found on the panel, although at
the Quarter Sessions, held a few days later, the number of Roman
Catholics summoned to serve on juries was exceptionally large. The
Sheriff who empanelled the jury was a political enemy of the accused. So
was each individual member of the Grand Jury who found the true bill
against him. So were a large majority of the petty jury by whom he was
tried. So was the Attorney-General who prosecuted him. So were the two
Judges who presided at the trial. Taken in connection with the specific
facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, these matters gave rise to
many unpleasant conjectures, and it was no wonder that the public voice
exclaimed against the verdict as an unrighteous one. It was no wonder
that public meetings were held in some of the rural districts to protest
against what was almost universally pronounced to be a tyrannical abuse
of the process of the Courts. It was no wonder that hisses and groans
were sometimes heard from quiet nooks and corners when the
Attorney-General passed along the streets of York. And it was no wonder
that, coming, as it did, on the heels of other trials that differed with
it only in degree, the case of Francis Collins caused many theretofore
loyal subjects to ask themselves whether their loyalty demanded that
they should forever continue to bend their necks to the yoke of the
oppressor. What was Collins's case to-day might possibly be theirs or
their sons' on the morrow.

On the 26th of November Collins sent in to the Lieutenant-Governor a
pathetically-worded petition, in which the desolate condition of his
young and helpless family was alluded to in brief but moving terms. It
set out that, in consequence of his imprisonment, the business whereby
he had supported his family was all but ruined, as its success depended
solely on his personal exertions. Finally, he prayed to be restored to
his liberty. Accompanying the petition were affidavits setting forth the
admitted ignorance of one of the jurymen, and the pre-determination of
the other two to convict. But the prisoner knocked at the gates of Sir
John Colborne's heart in vain. The Lieutenant-Governor was by this time
as completely hand and glove with the official party as his predecessor
had ever been. Dr. Strachan and John Beverley Robinson managed him with
great skill, and, by dint of much seeming deference, had him under
complete control. Without being in the least aware of it, he was clay in
the hands of the potter, who moulded him at will. As well might poor
Collins have appealed for mercy to a half-famished tiger of the jungle
as to these two Provincial representatives of law and gospel. His
memorial, dated "York Gaol, November 26th, 1829," was not replied to
until more than three weeks had elapsed, and when the answer came its
contents indicated perfect callousness to the prisoner's unhappy
condition. He was curtly informed that the Lieutenant-Governor could not
think it right to comply with the petition, but that on the expiration
of the specified term of imprisonment, any application which he might
desire to make would be taken into consideration.

From this time forward the prisoner seems to have resigned himself to
his fate, although his friends did not relax their exertions on his
behalf. It seemed useless to apply for a new trial, as the application
would have to be made to either Sherwood or Hagerman, from neither of
whom could he hope to obtain justice. The _Freeman_ continued to make
its appearance, although its publication was necessarily carried on
under great disadvantages. The editor's spirit was by no means broken,
and he sent forth from his place of confinement a succession of
editorials as bitterly vigorous as any previous efforts of his pen. He
also wrote a series of open letters addressed to the Attorney-General,
in which that official's career, from his infancy onwards, was reviewed
with caustic bitterness.[129] These letters were published in successive
numbers of the _Freeman_, and must be presumed to have been a source of
great annoyance to the gentleman to whom they were directed. Though many
of the statements therein were perverse and wilful distortions of facts,
there was a large element of truth, and it would not have been easy to
expose the falsehood without admitting much that could not be denied.
The Attorney-General contemplated another prosecution, but thought
better of it--not, it is to be presumed, from any want of
vindictiveness, but because he felt that there was a limit to the public
endurance, and that that limit had pretty nearly been reached.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

In January, 1829, the Collins case was taken into consideration by the
Assembly. A Committee was appointed, and a rigid inquiry instituted into
some of the most interesting features. Attorney-General Robinson was
examined at considerable length. Judges Sherwood and Hagerman were
summoned before the Committee, but both of them declined to answer any
questions. A good many important facts were elicited, upon the strength
of which an Address to his Excellency was passed, recapitulating the
circumstances, and praying for a remission of the sentence. The reply
was of the same inexorable character as that previously made to
Collins's own petition. "It is my anxious wish," was the response of the
Lieutenant-Governor, "to render service to the Province, by concurring
with the Legislature in everything that can promote its peace,
prosperity and happiness; and I regret exceedingly that the House of
Assembly should have made an application to me which the obligation I am
under to support the laws, and my duty to society, forbid me, I think,
to comply with." For the information of the House, his Excellency
forwarded a copy of a letter addressed by Justice Sherwood to the
Governor's Secretary, embodying certain reasons for the judgment of the
Court in the case. The Judge, it will be remembered, refused to assign
any such reasons when questioned on the subject by the Committee of the
House of Assembly. As to his right to so refuse there can hardly be much
difference of opinion, but he would have been more consistent if he had
also refused when applied to by the Lieutenant-Governor. After admitting
the right to publish fair and candid opinions on the Government and
constitution, the Judge declared that if a publisher "steps aside from
the high road of decency and peaceable deportment, and adopts a course
of public calumny and open abuse against the officers of Government
generally, or particularly against the principal law officer of the
Crown, in the legal discharge of his duty in the King's Courts, as the
defendant did," then it was the Judge's conviction that the publisher so
offending should be "punished to that extent which, in human
probability, would prevent a recurrence of the offence." And yet this
same Judge, in pronouncing sentence, had expressly declared that the
sentence should be a light one, as it was the defendant's first offence.
The conclusion of the letter showed plainly enough that a conference had
taken place between Justices Sherwood and Hagerman before the imposition
of the penalty. It proved, indeed, that the sentence was to be
considered as the joint sentence of the two Judges. "Taking all the
circumstances of the case into consideration," it ran, "Mr. Justice
Hagerman and myself deemed the sentence which we passed on the defendant
both proper and necessary for the public good, and what the case itself
required."

Two or three further appeals were made to the Lieutenant-Governor on the
prisoner's behalf, all of which proved ineffectual. The matter was
really in the hands of the Attorney-General himself, who was inexorable,
and would be satisfied with nothing short of the fullest expiation. The
Assembly meanwhile did not relax its efforts to obtain a commutation of
the sentence. On the 12th of March an address to the King was passed by
that body, whereby His Majesty was entreated "to extend to Francis
Collins the royal clemency, by remitting the residue of his punishment."
Not much was hoped for from this proceeding, as it was felt that the
whole influence of the Executive would be put forward against it. The
prisoner himself made up his mind to accept the inevitable, and to serve
out at least the full term of the sentence imposed. He continued to
supply editorial articles for his paper, couched in a strain which
seemed to indicate his superiority to circumstances. But his buoyant
spirit was measurably tamed by his long imprisonment, and it was
remarked that he was never again quite the same man as before. Contrary
to his anticipations, the address of the Assembly finally proved
effective, and he was permitted to walk forth from the jail a free man.
His paper came forth from week to week, but its tone was evidently
modified and subdued. Something of the old spirit occasionally flashed
forth, but fitfully and transitorily only, like the flicker of a lamp
before its extinction. It was clear that the editor had not forgotten
the indignity and mental suffering he had undergone, and throughout the
remaining years of his life he always dwelt more or less in the shadow
of the cold and solitary cell. The records of the jurisprudence of
civilized countries contain few modern instances of the exaction of so
severe a penalty for so insignificant an offence.

The narrative has no further concern with Francis Collins, except to
record that he continued to edit and publish the _Freeman_ down to 1834,
when he fell a victim to the cholera invasion by which the Provincial
capital was ravaged during that year. He died on the 2nd of September,
and the _Freeman_ thenceforth ceased to exist.

FOOTNOTES:

[118] The Attorney-General, John Beverley Robinson, was ever valiant on
the stronger side. He tried to induce the Assembly to compel Dr. Horne
to insert in the next issue of the _Gazette_ a paragraph in the
following words: "From the incompetence or negligence of our reporter,
the debates of the House of Assembly inserted in the last number of this
paper were so imperfect and so untruly reported that no dependence can
be placed in their accuracy." The Assembly, however, were satisfied with
the humiliation to which the Doctor had been subjected, and would not
compel him to further self-abasement.

[119] Mr. Fothergill held the office barely three years, when he was
dismissed for voting with the Opposition in the Assembly against the
Government. It was an anomaly to permit the King's Printer to hold a
seat in the Legislative Assembly, and the Government could hardly be
expected to tolerate opposition from such a quarter. Mr. Fothergill was
the first incumbent of the office to develop liberal opinions. He was
sufficiently deep in the secrets of the Administration to make him a
dangerous opponent if he had felt disposed to wage war to the knife. Of
this fact the Administration seem to have taken a sort of oblique
cognizance. He had overdrawn his account by £360, and in settling with
him this sum was not taken into consideration. In other words, the
Government made him a present of £360. His successor in the office of
King's Printer was Mr. Robert Stanton.

[120] _Ante_, p. 171.

[121] _Ante_, p. 13.

[122] _Ante_, pp. 171-174.

[123] _Ante_, p. 136.

[124] The charge, as reported by Collins, will be found in the Appendix
to the _Journals of Assembly_ for 1829, pp. 27, 28.

[125] _Ante_, p. 42 et seq.

[126] Sir Peregrine was gazetted to be "Lieutenant-Governor of Nova
Scotia and its dependencies" on the 14th of August, 1828. On the same
date Sir John Colborne was gazetted as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper
Canada, but he did not reach the seat of his Government until late in
the autumn, and Sir Peregrine did not actually demit office until the
arrival of his successor.

[127] William Davenish and Andrew A. Thompson. The former stated that in
the event of his being called as a juror he would "put it on to"
Collins. See the _Freeman_ for Thursday December 25th, 1828.

[128] See Appendix to _Journals of Assembly_ for 1829.

[129] _Ante_, pp. 101, 102, note.



CHAPTER X.

LIGHTS--OLD AND NEW.


In the preceding five chapters an attempt has been made to reduce to
narrative form a great mass of heterogeneous material bearing upon the
"Story" which it is the purpose of these volumes to relate. A
considerable proportion of this material is to all practical intents
inaccessible to the general reading public, being scattered here and
there through old and long-forgotten newspapers, blue-books, pamphlets
and unedited manuscripts. Yet some acquaintance with it is absolutely
necessary to a clear comprehension of the deplorable state of things
which existed in this Province during the régime of Sir Peregrine
Maitland and his successor. No one who is ignorant of it is capable of
expressing an intelligent opinion as to the merits or demerits of the
Rebellion and those who took part therein. The principal facts and
circumstances attendant upon some of the most flagrant exhibitions of
Family Compact oppression which mark the fourth decade of Upper Canadian
history have therefore been set forth in consecutive order, and with
considerable minuteness. The picture thus afforded of Provincial-society
and Government, though pregnant with instruction, is by no means an
attractive one, and any person contemplating it for the first time may
well be excused for questioning its perfect accuracy. The drawing, at
times, seems to be too wavy in outline, and some of the details have the
appearance of being painted in colours too glaring to be natural. But a
strict examination of the properties will correct all such impressions.
Varying themes require varying methods of treatment. There are certain
features of landscape which must not be drawn with absolute sharpness of
outline, and there are subjects to which neutral tints altogether fail
to do justice. Of such a character are more than one of the scenes here
reproduced. Independently of the mere method of treatment, the
historical evidence is so clear and explicit that it can be questioned
by no one who takes the trouble to examine it. As to mere matters of
fact, there will be little or no difference of opinion among those who
consult and compare the various authorities cited in the notes.[130]

The cases hitherto recorded are merely a few out of many, but they
suffice to tell the story of Executive cruelty and selfishness during
the period referred to more effectively than it could possibly be told
without their aid. To set forth with equal fulness of detail the
circumstances attendant upon the persecution of Jonah Brown, Robert
Randal, Hugh Christopher Thompson, and a round score of minor victims,
would be to extend this work to an interminable length. The materials
for a work written on such a plan are abundant, as they include all the
facts arising out of the stupendous iniquity sought to be perpetrated
under the guise of the Alien Bill. The particulars connected with the
attempt to force this infamous measure upon the people of Upper Canada
cannot be inquired into in these pages. Sufficient to say that it was a
most dishonest and unstatesmanlike attempt on the part of the Executive
to get rid of political opponents by repudiating the well-understood
obligations of their predecessors in office: an attempt to dispossess
persons who, relying upon the faith of the Government of the day, had
settled in the country and taken up lands, to which they had received
titles, and upon which they and their parents had in many cases resided
ever since Governor Simcoe's time. The attempt failed through the
vigilance of the Opposition and the interference of the Imperial
Government, but it proved the length to which the official party were
prepared to go in order to maintain the existing order of things. It was
of a piece with the rest of the Executive policy, which seemed to wax
more and more exacting and one-sided with lapse of time. It was
abundantly clear to many persons unconnected with the Reform party that
there was no justice in the land for a Reformer, and that the oligarchy
by whom the country was dominated cared nothing for its best interests.
Constitutional liberty was systematically trampled under foot. The
oft-quoted boast of the Founder of the Province about the Upper Canadian
constitution being "the very image and transcript of that of Great
Britain"[131] seemed the hollowest mockery when viewed in the light of
events which had become a matter of frequent occurrence.

It was not only to the thumbs of political opponents that the Executive
screw was applied. When occasion arose it was applied with surprising
energy and vigour to the thumbs of those who had long been obedient
slaves of the Administration. Nothing more clearly shows the shameless
exercise of power on the part of the faction: nothing more clearly
proves the complete subordination of their tools, and the depths of
degradation to which public men could be made to stoop: than an episode
which occurred during the Parliamentary session of 1828. The persons
chiefly involved were the Hon. James Baby, who was himself
Inspector-General of Public Accounts and senior member of the Executive
Council, and ex-Chief Justice Powell. It has already been explained that
the first-named personage had for some time past ceased to carry any
great weight at the Council Board, where he had been to a considerable
extent superseded by his juniors.[132] His seniority was merely in point
of time, and his influence on the policy of the Government was as
insignificant as it possibly could be, consistently with the position
which he held. He keenly felt his having been, so to speak, thrust into
the background, and in several instances showed a disposition to assert
himself by acting independently. A similar feeling, but milder in
degree, animated the breast of the ex-Chief Justice, whose place as
principal lay adviser of the Lieutenant-Governor had long since been
taken by Attorney-General Robinson. During the session of 1823-4 he had
seen fit to protest against a School Bill passed by the Assembly, under
which Dr. Strachan was intended to and did actually derive a sinecure
salary of three hundred pounds a year. His protest, at his own urgent
request, was entered on the journal, where it seemed likely to remain a
perpetual memento of his independence and of the servility of his
colleagues. But this was by no means desired by the Lieutenant-Governor
and the Attorney-General. Pressure was brought to bear upon the
recalcitrant member, under the influence of which he was forced to
succumb. He consented that the protest should be erased from the
journal, and it was erased accordingly.[133] But a still more sickening
humiliation was in store for him, as well as for the venerable Mr. Baby.

During the session of 1828 several petitions were received by the
Assembly praying for relief against a law passed in 1825, whereby
certain taxes had been imposed on wild lands.[134] Among other
grievances complained of was the manner in which the law had been
passed. It was distinctly alleged in one of the petitions that the
measure had been pushed through both Houses with too great rapidity, and
that most culpable means had been employed in order to procure the
assent of certain members to whom it was objectionable. The Assembly
entertained the petitions, and appointed a Committee to inquire into the
matter. A number of witnesses were examined, and some astounding facts
elicited. The allegations as to undue influence were proved by the
clearest evidence, and by witnesses who had generally been accustomed to
act with the Government. One of these was our somewhile acquaintance,
the Hon. William Dickson, who, as has previously been seen, was the
owner of an immense tract of land,[135] and was consequently seriously
affected by the law enacted in 1825. His evidence, as printed in the
Appendix to the Journals of the Assembly,[136] stands as a perpetual
indictment against Sir Peregrine Maitland and the venal clique by whom
he was surrounded. It appears that from the time when the Bill relating
to the taxation of wild lands was first introduced into the Upper House
it was an unpopular measure, and that it was opposed by a majority of
the members. Most of the latter were large landholders by virtue of
their membership, and some of them had acquired additional blocks by
purchase. The obnoxious Bill was opposed at every stage, and there
seemed to be no possibility of its becoming law. Its defeat being
regarded as inevitable, its opponents to some extent relaxed their
efforts, and congratulated each other upon their apparent success. On
the third reading, however, Mr. Dickson found, to his supreme
astonishment and disgust, that some of the members upon whom he had
relied for votes presented an entire change of front, and appeared in
the _role_ of supporters of the measure. It was noticeable that all the
converts, or perverts, held offices under the Government. The Hon. John
Henry Dunn, Provincial Receiver-General, took a different course. He had
been among the most determined opponents of the Bill, and had declared
that it would never pass.[137] He had too much self-respect, after
taking such a stand, to give the lie to all his protestations by voting
for the measure, so he quietly staid at home on a pretence of
sickness.[138] Referring to those who took a more determined stand, by
voting contrary to their pledges, Mr. Dickson says: "This change, I am
satisfied, arose from intimidation by the Local Government, who seemed
determined to carry the measure at any sacrifice. It was most painfully
manifest from their countenances and demeanour that the change was not
from conviction, but from coercion. The business of the Legislative
Council was suspended for two hours for a meeting of the Executive
Council. And I do believe that at that Council the members of the
Legislative Council holding offices were constrained at the peril of
their situations to vote for the measures they had a week before
decidedly opposed. Upon those members returning that day to their
legislative duties there was a change of voting, and one of those who
staid away on pretence of sickness was, to my knowledge, able to
attend." The reference here is presumably to Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dickson's
evidence then goes on to say that about ten minutes before the vote was
taken, a message was delivered to the Hon. James Baby that Major Hillier
wished to speak to him. Major Hillier was the Lieutenant-Governor's most
confidential secretary, and was employed in numberless little
transactions requiring the exercise of coolness and tact. In response to
the message Mr. Baby left his place in the House, and did not return for
some time. Upon his return from the interview to his accustomed seat he
was evidently much confused and agitated. Being spoken to by Mr. Dickson
he found it impossible to conceal his agitation, but told his
interlocutor, to that gentleman's great astonishment, that he must vote
for the Bill. When the time came he accordingly voted with the
Government, and the Bill was carried by a small majority, Messieurs
Dickson and Clark entering a determined protest against it. "After the
passing of the Bill," continues Mr. Dickson, "the Hon. Mr. Baby, after
leaving the House, put his hand upon his heart, and, with reference to
his change of conduct on the measure, said something about his children,
expressive of his regret at the necessity which drove him to the
abandonment of the course he had pursued."

Mr. Powell, who was then Speaker of the Legislative Council, was
evidently subjected to similar influences. Like Mr. Baby, he had been
strenuous in his opposition to the Bill, and had even gone so far as to
speak harshly of some of those who promoted it. But he was speedily made
to know his place, and the tenure by which he held it. During a portion
of the two hours when the business of the Legislative Council was
suspended he was in secret conference with Major Hillier and one or more
members of the Executive Council.[139] When he took his seat upon the
resumption of the business of the day, it was noticeable that he, as
well as Baby, was labouring under undue embarrassment and agitation. It
was beyond any reasonable doubt that they had been shamelessly coerced,
and had been compelled to choose between voting as they were commanded
or being dismissed from their respective offices. Upon being questioned
by Mr. Dickson, Powell admitted that he had changed his opinion, and
added, in seeming sincerity, that he had received new light on the
matter within the last ten minutes. Such an exchange of an old lamp for
a new one must surely have been the work of some malignant and monstrous
genie at the Council Board.

It should be mentioned that Dickson's evidence, so far as "extraordinary
and undue influence by the Local Government" is concerned, is fully
confirmed by the evidence of the Hon. Thomas Clark, who was also a
member of the Upper House, and was present at the proceedings above
described.

There could not well be any more conclusive proof of the
unconstitutional and corrupt manner in which the Government was carried
on during Sir Peregrine Maitland's time than is afforded by the
circumstances just narrated. They read like a chapter out of the
political history of England during the last century. The methods
employed by Walpole exhibit nothing baser or more repulsive than these.
His aphorism about "every one of them" having his price might well have
been echoed by Sir Peregrine, so far as the Legislative Council was
concerned, with the addition that the price in Upper Canada was
sometimes ridiculously low. The persons who were guilty of these gross
violations of the constitution, to say nothing of the commonest
principles of honesty, were incessantly prating of their devoted loyalty
to the Crown. Yet it is plain enough that their fealty was always
subservient to what they deemed to be their personal interests. This was
as clearly apparent in 1837 as it had been in 1828. When, a few years
later,[140] a crisis arose in which they were compelled to choose
between those interests and their devotion to the Crown, it was once
more abundantly manifest that theirs was the veriest lip-loyalty. The
burning of the Parliament Buildings at Montreal was as direct an act of
treason as was the affair at Montgomery's Farm.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

In 1828 there was a general election, in the course of which the
Executive party made tremendous exertions to regain a predominating
influence in the Assembly. They perceived plainly enough that a hostile
majority in the Lower House must in the end prove fatal to them. They
might temporarily set it at naught, through their control over the
Legislative Council and the absence of ministerial responsibility, but
they could not hope to keep up such a farce for all time. This knowledge
impelled them to adopt every means which their ingenuity could devise to
secure the return of candidates who might be relied upon to support
their policy. Their success was by no means proportionate to their
efforts. When the returns were all in it appeared that the Opposition
had rather gained than lost by the contest. Two staunch members of the
Compact were defeated in what had theretofore been regarded as safe Tory
boroughs, and Attorney-General Robinson's majority in the Town of York
was greatly diminished. All the most prominent Reformers were returned,
and at the opening of the session on the 8th of January, 1829, Rolph,
Bidwell, Perry, Matthews and Dr. Baldwin took their seats on the
Opposition benches. To their number was now added William Lyon
Mackenzie, who had been returned for the County of York. His election
was a surprise to the Government party, and was pronounced by them to be
an everlasting disgrace to the intelligent and populous constituency
which had returned him. He repaid such compliments as these with others
of a like character, and gave back as much as he received, if not with
usury, at least with fair interest.

Mr. Bidwell was elected to the Speaker's chair by the new Assembly, and
on every test question the Government were left in a hopeless minority.
The vote on the Address in Reply will afford some clue to the political
complexion of the House. It referred to the Lieutenant-Governor's
advisers as having deeply wounded the feelings and injured the best
interests of the country; yet it was carried with only one dissentient
vote--that of J. H. Samson, one of the members for Hastings. Reform was
evidently in the ascendant throughout the Province; but, as during the
preceding Parliament, the exertions of the majority in the Assembly
could do little for Reform under the existing state of the constitution.
The Lieutenant-Governor responded with curt ambiguity to the Assembly's
Address, and cemented his alliance with the Compact by refusing to grant
the prayer of the petition for the release of Collins. The Government
submitted to one defeat after another with dogged sullenness, but with
undiminished contempt for the idea that successive defeats imposed upon
them any obligation to resign.

The session of 1829 was a noisy and quarrelsome one. Hardly had
Mackenzie taken his seat before he began that system of inquiry and
agitation which he thenceforward pursued throughout the whole of his
career as a member of Parliament. He instituted an investigation into
the management of the Provincial Post Office, conducted an inquiry as to
the privileges of members of the Assembly, and as to the behaviour of
certain returning officers, and generally busied himself with important
matters of detail. He displayed precisely the same characteristics as a
legislator that he had displayed as the conductor of a newspaper--great
energy and vigilance, accompanied by a critical and fault-finding
spirit, and an almost entire absence of tact and discretion. He gave
wanton and unnecessary offence to those who differed from him in
opinion, not only on important political questions, but even on
comparatively insignificant matters of every-day occurrence. His
coadjutors found that, independently of the sincerity or insincerity of
his intentions, his judgment was not to be trusted. He could be misled
by any _ignis fatuus_ that displayed a bright light, and was led into
many a Serbonian bog from which he was not extricated without serious
difficulty. Some men have an unerring instinct which, even in the
absence of calm judgment or mature reflection, commonly leads them in
the right path. Mackenzie's first conceptions, on the contrary, were
almost invariably erroneous; and he had a perverse habit of frequently
clinging to an idea once formed, even when experience and deliberation
had proved it to be unsound.[141] At other times his opinions were as
changeable as the hue of the chameleon. In short, he was a creature of
impulse, and too often acted upon the motto of "First fire--then
inquire." This was perhaps a misfortune rather than a fault, and under
ordinary circumstances would have merited lightness of touch on the part
of the historian. But Mr. Mackenzie is identified with a movement which
forms a conspicuous and dramatic passage in Upper Canadian chronicles,
and in justice to others it becomes highly necessary to form a correct
estimate of his personality. This is all the more essential from the
fact that he himself at different times gave various and conflicting
accounts of the episode with which his name is inseparably blended,
which accounts have hitherto been the only sources of information drawn
upon by so-called historians. All the references to the Upper Canadian
Rebellion to be found in current histories are traceable, directly or
indirectly, to Mackenzie himself, and all are built upon false
hypotheses and perverted representations of events. To Mackenzie, more
than to any other person, or to all other persons combined, are to be
attributed all the worst consequences which flowed from that
feebly-planned and ill-starred movement. All the facts point to the
conclusion that if he had been content to play the patient and
subordinate part properly belonging to him, the whole course of his
subsequent life might have been shaped much more smoothly, and he might
have been saved the most serious of the privations which he was
compelled to undergo. Much sorrow and suffering would also have been
spared to others. The injury that may be done in a primitive community
by a man who combines good intentions and great energy with excessive
obstinacy, misguided ambition, and perversity of judgment, is simply
incalculable. The subsequent course of the narrative will be found to
fully bear out these reflections, and to point a moral even where there
is no intention to moralize.

Beyond the perpetual friction which was kept up between the Executive
body and the Opposition, the session of 1829 was barren of events of
permanent political importance. The Executive was tolerably independent
of the popular branch of the Legislature, for it retained the casual and
territorial revenues, and could get along without an annual vote for
supplies. No fewer than twenty-one Bills passed by the Assembly were
rejected by the Legislative Council during the session. "The Province,"
says Mr. MacMullen,[142] "presented the unconstitutional spectacle of a
Government requiring no moneys from the Assembly, and a Legislative
Council of a totally different political complexion from the popular
branch of the Legislature. No restraint could now be imposed on the
Executive by an annual vote of supplies. It was completely independent
of the people." And it declared its independence in the most emphatic
manner by inserting in one of the Lieutenant-Governor's messages a
direct intimation that the Assembly would not be asked to trouble itself
about ways and means.

Certain episodes occurred during this session which are deserving of
something more than passing reference, not only as indicative of the
manners of those times, but because they concern personages whose
achievements were fated to occupy much space in the annals of our
country. The Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Colborne, had not long been
installed in office before he was exhibited in effigy in the streets of
Hamilton. Certain Tories who were believed to have taken part in the
exhibition openly asserted that the Hamilton Reformers were responsible
for it. It was at the same time alleged that there was a plot on the
part of the Reformers to release Francis Collins from York jail by force
of arms. The two stories emanated from a common source, and as they were
without any foundation in truth the Reform leaders in the Assembly
deemed it proper to institute an inquiry into the matter. Upon motion of
Mr. John Rolph a Committee of Investigation was appointed, with power to
send for persons and papers. It was known that Allan Napier MacNab, who
was then an impecunious young lawyer in Hamilton, could give certain
important information about the affair, and he was summoned to appear
before the Committee during the second week in February. He obeyed the
summons, so far as presenting an appearance was concerned, but he
refused to reply to certain questions put to him, and conducted himself
with great insolence and want of discretion. Being again summoned before
the Committee, to answer for his conduct, he read a written defence
which had been prepared for him, and which rather aggravated his offence
than otherwise. Accordingly, on motion of Dr. Baldwin, seconded by
George Rolph, the future baronet was committed to York jail, under
warrant of the Speaker, during the pleasure of the House. After
remaining in custody about ten days, Mr. MacNab addressed a letter to
the House which reads very much like a repetition of his former
contempt, but which the Assembly seem to have construed very charitably,
as on the 3rd of March a motion was carried for his discharge, and he
was set at liberty.

This brief term of imprisonment, which in all lasted less than a
fortnight, was the turning point in the reckless young lawyer's career.
Up to that time he had been nobody, and had had no apparent prospect of
ever attaining to any importance. But from this time forward the
official party regarded him in the light of a martyr who had suffered in
the good cause. They feasted and lionized him, and did their utmost to
advance his fortunes. At the elections which took place during the
following year they returned him as one of the representatives of the
County of Wentworth in the Assembly, where, though he lacked sufficient
ballast to display anything like statesmanship, he made considerable
noise, and erelong became a notable personage. He was voluble, and made
many verbose speeches, the matter of which never rose above the veriest
commonplace, but as it was always charged with emphatic High Toryism it
was applauded to the echo by the official party. Eventually, as every
Canadian knows, he obtained high distinction and eminence, and had
abundant reason to bless the discipline which he had received at the
hands of a Parliamentary Committee. But for that discipline he might
have lived and died an obscure country lawyer. To that discipline he was
indebted for all the honours which subsequently descended upon him. By
its aid he successively became a member of the Upper Canadian
Parliament, Speaker of the Assembly, Commander-in-Chief of the Upper
Canadian land forces during the Rebellion, Knight, Queen's Counsel,
member of the United Parliament of Canada, leader of the Tory Party in
the Canadian Legislature, Premier, President of the Council and Minister
of Agriculture, Baronet, honorary Colonel in the British Army,
Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, Speaker of the Legislative Council. He also
became father-in-law to a peer of the realm, and died Sir Allan MacNab
of Dundurn. Certain passages of his life will form the subject of future
consideration. Meanwhile it will be sufficient to remark that each
successive link in the long chain of his triumphs may be distinctly
traced to his supposed martyrdom at the hands of the Reform majority in
the Upper Canadian Assembly in 1829.

Another personage cited to appear before the Assembly's Committee on the
same investigation was the Hon. H. J. Boulton, Solicitor-General. He
displayed the same reticence as young MacNab, and refused to reply to
certain questions put to him by the Chairman. He was soon taught that
the high position which he occupied, backed, as it was, by the support
of the party in power, could not shield him from the consequences of his
refusal. Upon motion of Dr. Baldwin a resolution was adopted that the
Solicitor-General had been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the
privileges of the House. He was placed at the bar, where he showed more
sense of propriety than had been shown by his predecessor. He had no
desire to wear a crown of martyrdom, and did his utmost to purge himself
of his contempt. He pleaded that he had intended no disrespect to the
Committee, nor any breach of the privileges of the Assembly, and
concluded by saying that he stood ready to answer, if the House so
desired. The House acted magnanimously, not choosing to humiliate a
beaten man any farther than was necessary for the due vindication of its
own authority. John Rolph, seconded by Dr. Ambrose Blacklock, one of the
members for Stormont, moved that the Solicitor-General be admonished by
the Speaker, and discharged on payment of fees to the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The motion was carried, and it only remained for the culprit to submit
to the mild discipline which he had been adjudged to bear.

But there was reason for believing that that discipline would be a
trying ordeal for the Solicitor-General. The Speaker who was to
pronounce the admonition was no commonplace piece of clay, trained to
the set phrase of office, like the previous occupant had been. He was no
less a personage than Marshall Spring Bidwell, who, with perhaps the
single exception of John Rolph, was the most eloquent and powerful
speaker in the Province. When moved to righteous anger, he was capable
of administering a scorching reproof, and if a man is ever justified in
taking his antagonist at a disadvantage, ample justification was to be
found in the present instance. Mr. Bidwell had reason to hate the very
name of Boulton, and might well be expected to avail himself of such an
opportunity of darting the hot iron into his enemy's soul. There was a
feud of long standing between the Bidwells and the Boultons. The
Bidwells had sustained serious wrong and insult at the hands of the
Boultons, and the Boultons hated the Bidwells with the hatred which
small natures always feel towards higher natures which they have
wronged. It was a Boulton who had been despatched to Massachusetts in
1821, to hunt up evidence as to the alleged misconduct of the elder
Bidwell.[143] It was this same Henry John Boulton who had joined with
his friend the Attorney-General in abusing and maligning the elder
Bidwell during the election campaign of 1821, and afterwards. It was he
who had put forth all the little strength that was in him to assist his
party in bringing about the expulsion of the elder Bidwell from the
Assembly.[144] He had done his utmost, and successfully, to induce
members of Parliament to vote for the statute which had forever closed
the doors of the Upper Canadian Legislature to the ex-member of
Congress.[145] He had opposed the return of the younger Bidwell to the
Assembly, and more recently, though he was not then a member of the
House, he had done what he could to keep him out of the Speaker's Chair
by influencing members in favour of John Willson. He had lost no
opportunity of making himself personally offensive to Mr. Bidwell, whose
abilities he envied, and whose character he was utterly incapable of
appreciating. It will thus be seen that all the attendant circumstances
combined to make Mr. Bidwell hate and contemn his adversary. If he
failed to do so the explanation was to be found in his own gentle
nature, and not in the lessons of humiliation which the Boultons had
endeavoured to impose upon him.

It was a memorable scene when the Solicitor-General stood up, on the
20th of February, to receive the admonition which he had been adjudged
to endure. He was in a state of tremor, for he was conscious of the
disadvantage of his position, and he dreaded the power of the Speaker's
tongue. His friends also felt much solicitude on his account, for they
knew how little consideration he deserved at the hands of the man who
now had him in his power. For some moments a solemn silence reigned
supreme. Then the Speaker's voice was heard; low at first, but steadily
rising into clear and impressive tones which made every word sink deep
into the hearts of the listeners. And the words themselves: how
different from what the expectant personage at the bar had looked for!
Nothing of malice or revenge there. Nothing but quiet dignity and
forbearance. No mere spectator could have told whether the offender was
a personal friend or an enemy of the Speaker. The voice was full of
feeling, but utterly devoid of passion or malevolence. The power of
Parliament was fully vindicated, yet the transgressor escaped without
any unnecessary laceration of his pride. "By every member of the
community," proceeded Mr. Bidwell, "a ready and cheerful respect should
be shown towards the House of Assembly, who represent the people of the
Province, whom the constitution has entrusted with important privileges
for the benefit of their constituents, and who are amenable to them for
all that they do. But it might in a peculiar degree have been expected
of you, whose duty it is to enforce submission to the laws and respect
for the institutions of the country." Here Mr. Boulton bowed his head as
if in mute assent. He was then informed that the House could not permit
this formal and gratuitous denial of its authority to pass unnoticed.
"It is important," continued the Speaker, "that by its proceedings
against you a warning should be given, before others are led by the
influence of your sentiments and conduct to dispute an authority which
the House is bound to vindicate and enforce. It is necessary that it
should go thus far; but it gives me great satisfaction to observe that
its duty does not compel, nor its inclination induce it, in your case,
to go any farther than is requisite to attain this object; and, finding
from your answer that you are now disposed to treat its privileges with
just and becoming respect, and to defer your own private opinion to the
judgment of that body whose constitutional right it is to decide upon
its own privileges, it is willing to dismiss you with no other
punishment than this admonition from its Speaker. This moderation is a
proof that these privileges have been safely lodged by the constitution
in its hands, and that they will never be used in a wanton or oppressive
manner. It is by the order and in the name of the House that I thus
admonish you, and direct that the Sergeant-at-Arms do now discharge you
from custody." He was discharged accordingly, and left the house
profoundly affected by the magnanimity of the man whom he had so
grievously injured. One who seems to have watched him as he took his
departure has recorded that the Boulton crest never hung so low as at
that hour.[146] Nothing could have more clearly proved the greatness of
soul of Mr. Bidwell than this episode; nothing could have more
effectually illustrated his capacity to rise superior to all merely
personal considerations when entrusted with the discharge of a public
duty. The London _Times_ published a full report of his admonition,
which it pronounced to be the best paper of the kind on record.

During the following summer an event took place which removed
Attorney-General Robinson from the atmosphere of the Assembly, and was
the indirect means of introducing Robert Baldwin to public life. This
was the appointment of Mr. Robinson to the place of Chief Justice of
Upper Canada. The office had just become vacant through the retirement
of Chief Justice Campbell, who had received the honour of knighthood
during his absence in England. Mr. Robinson thus obtained the reward
which he had long coveted, and which his devotion to successive
Lieutenant-Governors had richly earned. There was some doubt as to the
strict legality of his passing directly from the office of
Attorney-General to that of Chief Justice. To remove the doubt he
accepted the position of Registrar of the County of Kent, which he
resigned after holding it a few days. His appointment to the Chief
Justiceship was made on the 13th of July, but owing to the delay
occasioned by his acceptance of the inferior office it was confirmed and
re-dated on the 3rd of August following. He then took his seat on the
bench, and was destined to remain there for more than thirty-three
years. As Chief Justice he succeeded to the Presidency of the Executive
Council, and at the opening of the session in the beginning of 1830 he
was nominated Speaker of the Upper House. His removal from the Assembly
therefore did not remove him from the political arena, and for years
afterwards he continued, in conjunction with his friend and quondam
tutor Dr. Strachan, to direct the policy of the Government as completely
as he had done for some years previously. He was succeeded in the office
of Attorney-General by Henry John Boulton. The temporary purpose for
which Mr. Hagerman had been appointed to the bench, in place of Mr.
Justice Willis, having been fully effected, that gentleman now
threw off his official robes and succeeded his friend Boulton as
Solicitor-General.

Mr. Robinson's elevation to the bench left a vacancy in the
representation of the Town of York. This vacancy young Robert Baldwin
successfully aspired to fill. At the last general election, in
conjunction with J. E. Small, he had unsuccessfully contested the County
of York with W. L. Mackenzie and Jesse Ketchum. He was now opposed in
the town by the same individual who had so lately been his coadjutor in
the county. Mr. Small was defeated, but, at his instance, the return was
declared void, the writ for the election having inadvertently been
issued by the Lieutenant-Governor instead of by the Speaker of the
Assembly, as in strictness it should have been. A new writ was issued,
and Mr. Baldwin again contested the seat, his opponent now being the
Sheriff of the County, William Botsford Jarvis. The Sheriff naturally
enjoyed many advantages in such a contest, but he was defeated by a
considerable majority, and on the opening of the session in the
following January, Robert Baldwin, then in his twenty-sixth year, took
his seat in Parliament for the first time. He however did not make any
conspicuous figure during the session. He had already fully imbibed the
idea that a responsible Executive was the great want of Upper Canadian
polity, and took comparatively little interest in the subordinate
questions of the day. He could see no good purpose to be served by
recording successive majorities against the Government, so long as the
members of that Government could retain their offices, together with the
favour of the Lieutenant-Governor, in spite of any vote which the
Assembly might see fit to record. He made no remarkable speeches, and
seemed rather disposed to remain in the background. It so happened that
he did not again have an opportunity of winning honours in the
Legislature for many years, as, in consequence of the death of the king,
a dissolution of Parliament took place before the time had arrived for
the meeting of another session, and Robert Baldwin was one of the many
Reform candidates who were beaten at the general elections which ensued.

There are few facts worthy of record in connection with the session of
1830. In the Speech from the Throne the Lieutenant-Governor was able to
announce that the revenue at the disposal of the Crown had been found
sufficient to meet the requirements of the civil list, and that there
still remained a considerable surplus in the Provincial Treasury. The
Assembly's Address in Reply once more drew his Excellency's attention to
the want of confidence felt in the advisers by whom he was surrounded.
"We still feel unabated solicitude about the administration of public
justice," it ran, "and entertain a settled conviction that the
continuance about your Excellency of those advisers who from the unhappy
policy they pursued have long deservedly lost the confidence of the
country, is highly inexpedient, and calculated seriously to weaken the
expectations of the people from the impartial and disinterested justice
of His Majesty's Government." The response to this intimation is
probably the briefest official deliverance of the kind on record.
Divested of the formal commencement, it contained exactly six short
words: "I thank you for your Address." The number of Bills passed by the
Assembly and rejected by the Upper House during the session was
twenty-seven. In addition to these there were several Bills which
originated in the Assembly, but were afterwards rejected by that House
by reason of amendments made to them by the Legislative Council.[147]

FOOTNOTES:

[130] It has not been thought desirable to incumber the text with
footnotes except where they seemed to be needed for purposes of
elucidation; but in every matter of real importance, where the reader of
average information and intelligence may reasonably be supposed to be in
doubt as to the source of the narrative, care has been taken to indicate
the authority.

[131] _Ante_, p. 48.

[132] _Ante_, p. 140.

[133] See _Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_, p. xxxvii. The School
Act referred to was 4 George IV. cap. 8, passed on the 19th of January,
1824. John Henry Dunn, Receiver-General of the Province, seems also to
have protested against the measure, and to have consented, under
pressure, to the erasure of his protest. See the evidence of the Hon.
William Dickson and the Hon. Thomas Clark, referred to in the ensuing
paragraph of the text.

[134] The royal assent to this Act was promulgated by a proclamation
bearing date April 4th, 1825.

[135] _Ante_, p. 14.

[136] See _Report on Petitions against Wild Lands Assessment Law_, in
Appendix to _Journals of Assembly_ for 1828, p. 107 _et seq._

[137] See _The Split in the Legislative Council_, by F. C. [? Francis
Collins], p. 7.

[138] _Ib._, p. 8.

[139] _The Split in the Legislative Council_, ubi supra, p. 10.

[140] In 1849.

[141] Such, as far as I have been able to learn, was the conviction of
all Mackenzie's contemporaries, even of those most favourably disposed,
including those who were thrown into the most intimate relations with
him, and were bound to him by close ties. One of the foremost of these,
in a conversation with me a short time since, remarked: "Mackenzie
generally meant well, but he was unpractical and unmanageable. I knew
him intimately from his boyhood, and I am compelled to say that whenever
he was in the least excited he acted like a spoiled child. He underwent
no change in this respect, and was the same in youth, manhood and old
age. A more unfit person to be entrusted with the management of any
great enterprise, or with the control of his fellow-creatures, I can
hardly conceive." I have abundant written testimony to the same effect.

[142] _History of Canada_, p. 370.

[143] _Ante_, p. 100.

[144] _Ante_, p. 101.

[145] _Ib._

[146] _The Hamilton Outrage_, by "Vindex," p. 9. York, 1829.

[147] For the titles of these measures, see the _Seventh Report of
Grievance Committee_, pp. 266, 267.



CHAPTER XI.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.


For several years before this time a quiet and almost imperceptible
change had been taking place in Upper Canadian politics. On one side was
the old High Tory or Family Compact party, who revelled in the spoils of
office, and held the representative of Majesty in the hollow of their
hands. The policy of this body was unchanged and unchangeable. The
Reform party, though it had not been in existence more than six years,
already began to show symptoms of want of cohesion. The men of moderate
views, like the Rolphs, the Baldwins and the Bidwells, composed fully
two-thirds of the entire number. The ultra-Radicals, composed for the
most part of unlettered farmers and recently-arrived immigrants, began
to show evidence of a desire to rally themselves under the banner of
Mackenzie, who, through the combined influence of his paper and his
election to Parliament, had of late come prominently before the public.
A large and intelligent body of electors had however grown up within the
last few years who, while they professed Conservative principles, were
disgusted with the greedy, self-seeking Compact, whose practices they
held in utter disdain. They held politicians of the Mackenzie stamp in
still greater abhorrence, to which was added a large modicum of
contempt. With the moderate Reformers, on the other hand, they had much
in common. Many of them approved of the doctrine of Responsible
Government, and almost all of them desired to see the end of Compact
domination. At the last general election their votes had been very much
divided. But they were now disposed to hold aloof from the Reformers in
consequence of the latter's being nominally of the same party as the
Mackenzie Radicals, who had only recently come into existence. The
exercise of a little diplomacy and mutual forbearance at this time
might, it is believed, have effected that union between these two
classes of persons which was actually accomplished about a quarter of a
century later. Such an union would have made the united party all
powerful. It would have swept away the Compact, together with the
long-standing abuses which had grown up under their rule, and the united
party would quietly have assumed the reins of power with an overwhelming
majority at its back. There would thus have been no _raison d'être_ for
the Radical element, which would necessarily have been absorbed, or
would at least have ceased to be an important factor in political life.

These things, however, were not to be. Neither of the parties primarily
interested made any advances to the other, and each was left to pursue
its own line of policy. As a consequence the moderate Conservatives
henceforth voted as one man. They saw the Radical element assuming an
importance which, as they believed, was fraught with far greater danger
to the commonwealth than was likely to arise from the continued
ascendency of the Compact. They gave the official party a qualified
support, merely because they regarded them as the less of two evils, and
their votes at the general election of 1830 resulted in the return of a
considerable majority of candidates favourable to the official body.

[Sidenote: 1831.]

The Reformers could no longer hope to obtain justice, even in the
Assembly, where they had exerted a predominating influence during the
last two Parliaments. So long as they had had control of the Lower House
they had possessed the shadow of power without the reality. Even the
shadow had been better than nothing; but of this shadow they were
henceforth to be deprived. They had not only sustained numerical defeat.
Some of their most trusted leaders had been beaten at the polls, and
were no longer able to raise their voices in Parliament. Robert
Baldwin's defeat in York has already been mentioned.[148] His father had
suffered a similar fate in Norfolk. In Middlesex John Rolph and Captain
Matthews had been succeeded by Colonel Mahlon Burwell and another
adherent of the Compact. Lennox and Addington had again returned Bidwell
and Perry, but, owing to the changed complexion of the House, there was
no possibility of the former's re-election to the Speaker's chair. Among
other triumphs scored by the official party were the return of the
Solicitor-General, Christopher A. Hagerman, for Kingston; of the
Attorney-General, H. J. Boulton, for Niagara; of William B. Robinson
(brother of the Chief Justice) for Simcoe, and of Allan N. MacNab for
Wentworth. York still remained true to Mackenzie, and, as will presently
be seen, his presence in a House composed mainly of political opponents
was destined to lead to serious complications. Upon the assembling of
the Legislature early in the following year, Archibald McLean, the
official candidate for the Speakership, was elected by a majority of
twelve votes. No adherent of the official party could have been more
acceptable to the Reformers than Mr. McLean, who was a gentleman of high
standing at the bar, and who personally enjoyed great popularity. He sat
for the County of Stormont, which he had represented for many years,
during all of which period he had maintained friendly personal relations
with the members of the Opposition. Great confidence was felt in his
personal integrity, and in his earnestness for the country's welfare. He
had special claims to consideration, for he was a Canadian by birth, and
had fought and bled in defence of his native land during the War of
1812. Still, he represented political principles which the Reform
members had been expressly returned to combat, and the mere fact of his
election to the Speaker's Chair by a majority of twelve votes in a House
which numbered fewer than fifty members was in itself a sufficient
indication that those principles were for the time unmistakably in the
ascendant in Upper Canada. The proceedings of the House during the
session furnished an apt and conclusive commentary upon this fact.

The session of 1831 was chiefly memorable for two things: the passing of
the Everlasting Salary Bill, as it was called by those opposed to it;
and the commencement of the agitation which had for its object the
exclusion of Mr. Mackenzie from the Legislature.

The Salary Bill was simply a measure granting to the Provincial
Government a permanent Civil List, in return for the cession by the
Crown of the control of the Imperial duties. It was introduced in
accordance with a suggestion from the King, but the Provincial
Executive concealed certain facts in connection with it, of which the
Opposition did not become aware until some time afterwards.[149]

By this Bill provision was made for the salaries of the
Lieutenant-Governor, the three Judges of the Court of King's Bench, the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, five Executive Councillors, and
the Clerk of the Executive Council. Reformers were strenuously opposed
to the measure, which they regarded as another blow at the
constitutional rights of the Assembly. It of course had the effect of
rendering the Executive more independent of the Assembly, and more
indifferent to its opposition, than ever. Hagerman and Boulton, whose
official salaries were thereby provided for, were conspicuous above all
other persons in the House in defending this measure, and in browbeating
those who ventured to raise their voices against it. The Reform members
found Attorney-General Boulton an infliction specially hard to bear. His
predecessor, Mr. Robinson, had been a sufficiently galling yoke, but his
abilities had made him respected, and he had seldom attempted to play
the bully. In cases where no important party interests were at stake he
had generally been amenable to reason, and had not gone out of his way
to needlessly exacerbate the feelings of those who disagreed with him.
Now, a different order of things prevailed. Boulton was simply
unendurable. His capacity was barely such as to enable him to discharge
his official functions, and what he lacked in ability he made up for in
bluster. He had an abominable temper, and a haughty, overbearing manner.
He was always committing blunders which he refused to acknowledge, and
he roared and bullied his way through one complication after another
in a fashion which disgusted even those with whom he acted. During the
discussion on the Salary Bill he shrieked and raved himself hoarse in
denouncing what he called the "factious insolence" of the Opposition. Of
his own factious insolence he seems to have been altogether oblivious.
The Bill was passed, but he was not destined to a long enjoyment of the
provision thereby made for the Attorney-General.

The Mackenzie persecution was a matter of greater moment than the Salary
Bill, and was fated to produce results altogether unexpected by those
who set it on foot. The session was not many days old when Mr. Mackenzie
once more began to make himself conspicuous in Opposition. He moved a
resolution denying the authority of the Executive to prescribe the
religious observances of the Assembly, and affirming the right of the
latter body to appoint its own chaplain. He made a forcible but
exasperating speech in support of his motion, which, by vote of the
House, was not submitted. He then moved that the ministers of religion
of various denominations resident in York should be requested to say
prayers in the House during the session. This motion was equally
unsuccessful. During the debate, the Assembly was favoured with a
characteristic specimen of Attorney-General Boulton's oratory. He
stigmatized the assumption that the House was entitled to appoint its
own chaplain as of a piece with the assumption of an assassin that he
has a right to shoot down a man in the street--the right of brute force.
This nonsensical tirade he shrieked out by way of peroration to a speech
intended as a defence of the right of the Government in the matter of
the chaplaincy. It is strange that the House should have listened to
such balderdash, not only with patience, but even with apparent
submission. Solicitor-General Hagerman spoke in a similar strain, but
with less of irascibility. He warned the House that the Government was
too powerful for them; that the Lieutenant-Governor had strong feelings
on this subject, and that if they persisted in opposing his wishes
confusion would ensue, and an end would be put to their proceedings.

But Mackenzie was not to be dismayed by the want of success of his
exertions to popularize the religious ceremonial of the Assembly. He
next moved for an inquiry into the state of the representation. Such an
inquiry was urgently needed, for the House was full of postmasters,
county registrars, inspectors of licenses, and other placemen who held
office at the will of the Executive, and who therefore could not be
expected to be honest exponents of public opinion in their respective
constituencies. Mackenzie, in the course of a vigorous speech, presented
such an array of facts that a committee of inquiry was appointed. This
success he followed up by a motion for an inquiry into certain pensions,
fees and salaries. Then he instituted a crusade against the management
of the Bank of Upper Canada, of which institution Attorney-General
Boulton was solicitor. Each of these motions afforded opportunities for
inflammatory speeches, in the course of which the Government and its
official favourites were handled with scant consideration. The
Attorney-General was several times lashed into a state of almost insane
fury, and on one occasion seemed to be on the point of rushing across
the floor and making a personal onslaught upon Mr. Mackenzie. The
"little mannikin from York," as he was called, always had the courage of
his opinions, and rather courted such an attack than otherwise. That he
had many and grave faults cannot be denied, but certainly cowardice was
not among the number. No more certain means of intensifying his
opposition could have been found than an attempt to put him down by the
strong hand. He continued to make motion upon motion and speech upon
speech, and before the session was half over he had managed to cause an
amount of annoyance to the Government such as they had never before
known. And all this time the party to which he belonged was in an
insignificant minority in the Assembly. What then was to be anticipated
when the chances and changes of time should once more place that party
in the ascendant there?

In former times it had been possible for the official party to rid
themselves of a troublesome opponent upon any slight pretext. Why not
now, when the Assembly was well-nigh as obedient as the Upper House, and
when some of the ablest members of the Reform party had ceased to occupy
themselves with public affairs? Certainly there had never been a time
when suppression was more imperatively required, for did not this man
Mackenzie spout something very much like democracy in their very faces?
Had he not made several speeches in the House which had aroused a
spirit of inquiry? If he were allowed to continue, was it not inevitable
that some of his waspish stings must take serious effect?

Prosecutions for libel had become unpopular. The case of Francis Collins
had aroused such a clamour that it was not deemed wise to try further
experiments in that direction. In April, 1828--about the same time when
measures had been instituted against Collins--an indictment for libel
had actually been laid against Mackenzie for a paragraph published in
the _Advocate_, in which the Crown lawyers and other supporters of the
Government had been referred to in contumelious terms, and wherein a
hope had been expressed that the constituencies returning certain Tory
members to Parliament would clear the Assembly of "the whole of that
ominous nest of unclean birds."[150] But the Attorney-General, after
keeping the prosecution impending over the defendant's head for many
months, had seen fit to abandon it. The times, in fact, had ceased to be
propitious for libel prosecutions, and some other way out of the
difficulty had to be found. The device actually hit upon to get rid of
Mackenzie's opposition in the Assembly was worthy of the minds which had
plotted the ruin of Captain Matthews, Justice Willis and Francis
Collins. Mackenzie, who had the contract for printing the journals of
the House, and who generally had a number of copies of those journals on
hand, had distributed a hundred and sixty-eight of them throughout some
of the constituencies just prior to the last general election. This had
been done at his own expense, and in the interest of the Reform
candidates; for he believed that no more effective campaign document
could be devised than a truthful record of the proceedings in the House.
But as strict matter of Parliamentary law he had been guilty of a breach
of privilege, no one having a right to publish reports of the
proceedings of the Houses without authority. The existence of such a
rule is perhaps salutary, as there are conceivable cases in which it
would be inexpedient to allow such publication. But, as everybody knew,
Parliament had long been accustomed to wink at perpetual violations of
this rule. Newspapers all over the world had been permitted, and even
encouraged, to transgress it. Some of the leading organs of public
opinion in different parts of the world had built up their reputations
mainly by the fulness and accuracy of their reports of Parliamentary
proceedings. Nothing can be more certain than that there would have been
no talk about enforcing the obsolete rule at this time but for the fact
that it seemed to afford a pretext for punishing the man whom the
Government party wished to destroy. The attempt to enforce it was not a
success. The motion to that end was made by Allan MacNab, and was to the
effect that Mackenzie had abused the trust reposed in him as the printer
of the journals, by distributing portions of the same for political
purposes, and among persons not entitled to copies thereof, thereby
committing a breach of the privileges of the House. The junior member
for Wentworth thundered with tremendous vehemence in support of his
motion. To judge from his language, his soul had been stirred to its
nethermost depths by this lamentable violation of Parliamentary
privilege, which he characterized as a species of treason. Hagerman and
Boulton followed in the same strain, the latter waxing almost pathetic
in his expressions of devotion to the British constitution. But their
exertions were ineffectual. The House, subservient though it was, was
not to be coerced into supporting a motion which, if carried, would
almost certainly be converted into a basis of attack on persons who were
favourable to the Administration. A majority of the members foresaw that
if Mackenzie were punished on such a pretext, his fellow-workers in the
Assembly would not fail to institute measures against the publishers of
various newspapers throughout the land who had been in the constant
habit of reporting the proceedings in Parliament without leave. Only
fifteen members voted for MacNab's motion, while twenty recorded their
votes against it, and among the latter were several of the most
redoubtable Tories in the House. The organizers of the attack perceived
that they had made a false move, and withdrew their forces for a fresh
assault in a different quarter.

The opportunity for a fresh attack did not present itself until the
following session. Meanwhile, Mackenzie occupied himself in turning his
notoriety to account, and in developing his policy of agitation. He
resolved upon getting up a series of petitions to the King and the
Imperial Parliament, calling attention to the various grievances
wherewith the inhabitants of the Province were burdened, and praying
for redress. During the summer he carried out his project by organizing
a series of public meetings in some of the most populous cities and
towns of the Province, at each of which a petition was adopted and
numerously signed. It is said that the aggregate number of signatures
obtained exceeded 24,500. The agitator's success encouraged him to
persevere in the course he had adopted, and when Parliament re-assembled
in November he was ripe and ready for the fray that was sure to follow.
The assault against him now took the shape of a charge of gross,
scandalous and malicious libel, intended and calculated to bring the
House and the Government of the Province into contempt, and to excite
groundless suspicion and distrust in the minds of the inhabitants,
thereby constituting a breach of privilege. The matter complained of was
embodied in two articles published in the _Advocate_ subsequent to the
opening of the session, and both publication and authorship were
admitted by Mackenzie. One of the articles was a sharp criticism on the
manner in which the House had treated a petition from certain
inhabitants of Vaughan. The other was a well-merited tirade against the
local Executive, which was unfavourably contrasted with that of the
sister Province. Neither of them was grossly abusive, nor even unfair.
They were indeed exceptionally favourable specimens of the Mackenzie
style of journalism, and were incomparably milder than articles which
may constantly be seen in the Canadian party journals of the present
day.

Being called upon for his defence, Mackenzie addressed the House with
more than his wonted ability. He exposed the flimsiness of the charges
against him, and the gross partiality of the proceedings. But the House
was in search, not of justice, but of a victim, and neither the
eloquence of a Demosthenes nor the reasoning powers of a Pascal would
have availed aught with that hostile majority. Attorney-General Boulton,
in the course of the discussion, delivered himself of a tempest of
characteristic abuse against the accused, to whom he referred as a
reptile. Solicitor-General Hagerman could always be depended upon as a
good second in such emergencies, and followed up by referring to Mr.
Mackenzie as a spaniel dog. The House seemed to accept these choice
Parliamentary epithets with approval. They came from an official
source, and it is so easy to be strong upon the stronger side. Little
chance was there for the maimed and bleeding under dog in the fight
among that crowd of venal and merciless sycophants, some of whom had
libelled the late Assembly in terms thrice as gross as any that had been
employed in the articles in question. The _tu quoque_ argument is not
generally admissible in legal investigations, but surely it might have
been permitted to have some weight with the judges--who were likewise
the jurors--in this case. Neither that nor any argument appears to have
been seriously considered. The usual forms were gone through, in order
to preserve some appearance of conventional propriety, but a verdict of
guilty was altogether certain and beyond peradventure from the moment
when the indictment was laid. By a vote of twenty-seven to fifteen it
was resolved that Mackenzie was guilty of the libel charged against him.
By a vote of twenty-six to fourteen it was resolved that he was guilty
of a high breach of the privileges of the House. And by a vote of
twenty-four to fifteen, it was resolved that he be expelled therefrom.

To characterize these proceedings as a series of shameful abuses of
power is certainly not to exceed the bounds of moderation. The persons
responsible for them must stand tainted at the bar of history for all
time to come. It is far from desirable to perpetuate the bitterness of
the past, but it is possible for oblivion to be too charitable. It is
well that those who are accustomed to speak of "the rebels" of 1837 with
contumely and indignation should bear in mind against whom and what it
was that they rebelled. The expulsion of Mackenzie from the Assembly was
not the greatest act of tyranny to which the people of Upper Canada were
compelled to submit in the far-away days that are gone; but the nature
of the abuse was such that it awoke widespread alarm, and gave rise to
ominous forebodings. It indicated that constitutional opposition to the
Government was no longer safe in the Assembly, as it had been during the
two preceding Parliaments. It indicated that nothing approaching to a
fair trial was to be had, even from the High Court of Parliament, for a
politician who dared to criticize the official methods of transacting
the public business. Growls of discontent were heard from all over the
County of York, whose representative was treated with such ignominy.
People were heard to express an opinion that Upper Canada was no longer
a fit place of abode for free men and women.

The public indignation found expression in several petitions, addressed
to the Lieutenant-Governor by electors in York and elsewhere, in which
his Excellency was asked to "dismiss a House tainted with the worst
vices of judicial partiality." A deputation, consisting of more than
nine hundred persons, called at Government House to present one of these
manifestations of popular sentiment. His Excellency could not well
refuse to receive a respectfully-worded petition, but his reply was so
curt and unsatisfactory as to amount to positive insolence. "Gentlemen,"
said he, "I have received the petition of the inhabitants." And with
this wholly unnecessary item of information the deputation was compelled
to withdraw. So utter a disregard for the expression of the opinion of a
considerable body of the inhabitants was without precedent in the annals
of the Province. That the prayer of the petition would be granted, or
even that it would be taken into serious consideration, was hardly to be
expected. Its very nature forbade any such expectation. But, considering
the number of names appended to it, it certainly merited a serious
response, in which light the actual rejoinder could not be regarded. The
proceeding showed not merely indifference, but contempt; and
thenceforward Sir John Colborne was as cordially hated by the Reformers
of Upper Canada as ever Sir Peregrine Maitland had been.[151]

The efforts of the faction to ruin and humiliate Mackenzie had the
effect which such treatment always produces in communities where the
inhabitants have been indoctrinated with ideas of fair play and equal
rights. It made a popular hero of one who, if the truth must be told,
had very little of the heroic in his composition. Had the Government
been wise enough in their own interests to let him have his say in the
Assembly, he would soon have found his proper level, and would have
ceased to carry any weight there.[152] He would undoubtedly have raised
a good deal of temporary excitement by unearthing abuses, and by
vituperating persons whom he disliked. But he could never have seriously
threatened the supremacy of the Compact, for the very sufficient reason
that he could not command the sympathies or respect of the leading
spirits of his own party. Rolph, the Bidwells and the Baldwins had by
this time come to rate Mackenzie at about his true value. They
recognized his talents, which were many and considerable. He had a clear
head for accounts, and was full of suggestive ideas about matters of
finance. Some of these ideas were unpractical, and even chimerical, but
anyone capable of separating the wheat from the chaff could learn much
from him, and could render his suggestions available. He was an
excellent subordinate, useful on committees, and active in the
management of details. He also had his uses as the conductor of a public
press, though, owing to the erratic and ill-balanced mind of its editor,
the _Advocate_ was in some respects a source of weakness rather than of
strength. His influence was pretty much confined to the farmers and
mechanics of that portion of the country where his paper was chiefly
circulated; and even there his influence would never have been anything
like so great as it actually became had it not been for the persecution
to which he was subjected. Over and beyond, he could not be said to
have any distinctive _locus standi_ in the Reform party. Of
statesmanship, properly so called, he had nothing beyond the most misty
conception. The structure of his mind prevented him from seeing a
question in its various aspects, and in judging of future political
events he was much more often wrong than right. That he was honestly
desirous of advancing the cause which he had espoused there seemed no
good reason to doubt, but it was evident to those who were brought into
intimate relations with him that the fiery zeal which he displayed was
made up at least as much of hatred of his foes as of any overpowering
enthusiasm for Reform. Another quality which seriously interfered with
his usefulness was his exceeding want of discretion. He seemed to be
utterly incapable of keeping his own counsel, and a secret once told to
him was a secret no longer. His rashness and impetuosity were
proverbial, and were perpetually involving him in disputes, not only
with enemies but with friends.

[Sidenote: 1832.]

It was surely a short-sighted policy which gave to a man so constituted
a factitious importance, and which made him for some years the most
notorious personage in Upper Canada. The treatment he had received
aroused popular sympathy on his behalf, and preparations were made to
return him again for the County of York by an increased majority. When
the new election was held, on the 2nd of January in the following year,
a long procession of sleighs escorted him to the polling-place, which
was the Red Lion Tavern, on Yonge Street. Two thousand persons assembled
to witness the triumph of "the people's friend." An Oppositionist was
nominated, but as he received only one vote during the hour and a half
which elapsed after the opening of the poll, he abandoned the contest,
and Mackenzie's triumph was assured. The close of the poll was followed
by the presentation of a gold medal by his constituents, as a token of
their approbation. A number of sleighs were then formed in line and
paraded down Yonge Street, and thence past Government House and down to
the Parliament Buildings. The foremost sleigh was decorated with
enthusiastic mottoes painted on calico, and cheers for the successful
candidate rent the air as the procession passed along the principal
thoroughfares. All this popular adulation was grateful to Mackenzie's
soul. He was in his element. There is no need to linger over this part
of the narrative. Parliament was still in session, and the Assembly were
resolved that, no matter what the electors of York might think proper to
do, Mackenzie should not sit in the House. A new pretext for his
expulsion was found in an article of which he avowed himself to be the
author, and which appeared in the _Advocate_ of the 5th of January. This
article was a true and by no means intemperate recital of certain
well-known facts as to certain measures which had been passed by the
Assembly. It was notwithstanding adjudged, by a vote of twenty-seven to
nineteen, to be a libel on the House, and a high breach of its
privileges; and it was further resolved that Mr. Mackenzie be expelled
the House, and declared unfit and unworthy to hold a seat therein during
the existing Parliament. But his constituency stood loyally by him, and
again re-elected him by an overwhelming majority within a few weeks
after this second expulsion. His popularity reached a higher point than
ever. Public meetings were held all over the Province to protest against
the measures which had been adopted towards him, and petitions to the
King and the Imperial Parliament were again circulated and signed by
great numbers of the inhabitants. These meetings proved so successful
that the Government party deemed it wise to take some steps of a similar
character on their own behalf, with a view to checkmating the operations
of the Reformers. Nothing is more easy than to obtain signatures to
petitions, which are frequently signed without being read. Opposition
meetings were held by supporters of the Government, at which excuses
were attempted to be made for the expulsions of Mackenzie, and at which
counter petitions to the King and Parliament of Great Britain were
signed by many thousands of persons. One of the meetings was held at
Hamilton on the 19th of March, and Mackenzie attended it by special
invitation. That same night an attack was made upon him by certain
myrmidons of the official party, who kicked and beat him severely. At
another meeting held at York four days later the proceedings became so
riotous that the Sheriff professed himself unable to preserve the peace.
An attack was made upon the office of the _Advocate_, the windows of
which were broken. The town remained in a very disturbed state
throughout the ensuing night, and a large proportion of the inhabitants
did not venture to seek repose. Mackenzie deemed it prudent to retire
into the country for several weeks; and almost immediately after his
return to town he set off on an important mission to England. It was
considered that the most effectual method of impressing the
subject-matter of the various Reform petitions upon those to whom they
were addressed would he to send Mackenzie himself across the Atlantic to
present them, and to urge the many much-needed colonial reforms upon the
attention of members of the British House of Commons. It was believed
that he could accomplish the various objects of his mission and return
in time to take his seat in the Assembly at its opening towards the
close of the year. He deputed the editing and publication of the
_Advocate_ to other hands, and sailed from New York on the 1st of May.
In due course he reached his destination, and put himself into
communication with Hume, Roebuck, Cobbett, O'Connell, and other eminent
persons of Liberal proclivities, including Lord Goderich, the Colonial
Secretary.

The reader hardly needs to be informed that this was a momentous period
in the history of England. It was the epoch of Reform, and the nation
was in a state of ferment. During the brief space while Mackenzie had
been crossing the Atlantic great events had taken place. Earl Grey's
ministry had resigned; Sir Robert Peel had refused to join the Duke of
Wellington in an attempt to form a Government; and Earl Grey had resumed
office, armed with the King's written authority to Lord Brougham and
himself to create as many peers as might be necessary to ensure the
passing of the Reform Bill. This authority it did not become necessary
to exercise. The titled aristocracy bowed to the unconquerable will of a
great and thoroughly-aroused people, and Mackenzie reached London in
time to hear the third reading of the Great Bill in the House of Lords.
He was soon afterwards received at the Colonial Office, not as the
representative of any particular class of Canadian politicians, but as a
person interested in Canadian affairs, and able to afford much valuable
information concerning them.[153] He then found that the efforts of the
official party in Upper Canada to render his mission inoperative had not
been barren of results. Petitions had been received at the Colonial
Office in which entire satisfaction was expressed with the existing laws
and institutions of the Province; and the signatures thereto slightly
exceeded in number those appended to the petitions of which he himself
had been the bearer. He however devoted himself with characteristic
energy to the presentation of his case, and prepared a memoir wherein
all the most serious grievances of the Upper Canadian people were set
forth in detail. In this document the writer adopted a discursive and
rhetorical style which, as the Colonial Secretary justly remarked, were
"singularly ill adapted to bring questions of so much intricacy and
importance to a definite issue." The facts were nevertheless pretty
comprehensively embodied, and were generally speaking of such a
character as to tell their own story. The perusal of the memoir seems to
have produced an impression upon the Colonial Secretary's mind. He wrote
a long and elaborate despatch to Sir John Colborne, in which the weak
points of Mackenzie's arguments were exposed with cutting severity, and
wherein it was evident that very little weight had been attached to most
of his representations; but at the same time certain concessions to
popular opinion were plainly hinted at. When this despatch was submitted
to the Legislative Council and Assembly of Upper Canada at the ensuing
session it was treated with scant respect. The Upper House formally
declared that it did not regard it as calling for serious attention, and
returned it to the Lieutenant-Governor. The Assembly discussed the
propriety of sending it back, but finally resolved not to do so. Both
the Crown Law Officers made hot-headed speeches on the subject, and
referred to the Colonial Secretary in the most contemptuous terms.

Meanwhile, Mackenzie, who still remained in England, was in his absence
expelled from the Assembly a third time. On this occasion there was no
preliminary attempt to convict him of any fresh libel or breach of
privilege. The Law Officers of the Crown simplified the proceedings by
declaring that the House had a right to determine as to the eligibility
of members, and a resolution to that effect was moved and carried. It
was then resolved that the person returned for York was the same William
Lyon Mackenzie who had been twice expelled the House and declared unfit
to hold a seat therein; and that by reason thereof the said Mackenzie
could not sit or vote in the House as a member thereof. He was then
expelled for the third time, and a new writ was issued for the County of
York. The inhabitants of that constituency felt so much aggrieved, and
gave such loud-mouthed expression to their dissatisfaction, that no
candidate hostile to Mackenzie dared to present himself at the ensuing
election, and the choice of the people was returned by acclamation.

[Sidenote: 1833.]

The part taken by the Law Officers of the Crown in these repeated
expulsions was not acceptable to the Colonial Office. Neither was the
contemptuous manner in which they had seen fit to refer to the
Secretary's despatch written after the perusal of Mackenzie's memoir. A
missive on the former subject had been sent to Sir John Colborne some
months before the commencement of the session of 1832-3, the contents of
which seem to have been promptly communicated to Messieurs Boulton and
Hagerman.[154] Notwithstanding that communication, those gentlemen had
seen fit, soon after the opening of the session, to take a leading part
in another expulsion, and to make contemptuous references to the conduct
of the Colonial Secretary himself. The Attorney-General had expressed an
opinion that the Secretary might have found something better to do than
to sit down and answer "Mackenzie's rigmarole trash." Solicitor-General
Hagerman had remarked that the Secretary had stultified himself by
noticing statements which rested on no better authority than that of a
person who had been twice expelled the Assembly, and who had been
declared unfit to sit therein in consequence of his having "fabricated
and reiterated libels of the grossest description." Lord Goderich
signified his disapprobation of this conduct in the most emphatic manner
by dismissing the two virulent critics from office. Their dismissal was
effected by a despatch to Sir John Colborne dated March 6th, 1833. "By
the accounts I have lately received of the proceedings of the
Legislature of Upper Canada," wrote his Lordship, "I have learnt that
the Attorney and Solicitor-General of that Province have, in their
places in the Assembly, taken a part directly opposed to the avowed
policy of His Majesty's Government. As members of the Provincial
Parliament, Mr. Boulton and Mr. Hagerman are of course bound to act upon
their own view of what is most for the interest of their constituents,
and of the colony at large. But if, upon questions of great political
importance, they unfortunately differ in opinion from His Majesty's
Government, it is obvious that they cannot continue to hold confidential
situations in His Majesty's service without either betraying their duty
as members of the Legislature, or bringing the sincerity of the
Government into question by their opposition to the policy which His
Majesty has been advised to pursue." It was intimated that the Law
Officers of the Crown could not be permitted to impede the Government
policy, and that in order that those gentlemen might be at full liberty
to follow their own judgment, they were to be relieved from their
offices.[155]

When this despatch reached York, towards the end of April, its contents
were communicated to Attorney-General Boulton. Mr. Hagerman had started
for England a short time before on a mission connected with the Clergy
Reserves, and, as was said,[156] in order to obtain a permanent
appointment to a judgeship. He learned of his dismissal immediately upon
his arrival in London, and lost no time in putting himself in
communication with the Colonial Minister. An important change had
recently taken place at the Colonial Office. Lord Goderich had vacated
the Secretaryship, and had become Lord Privy Seal, being at the same
time created Earl of Ripon. He was succeeded as Colonial Secretary by
Mr. Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby, who had been Secretary for
Ireland, but had aroused such hostility against himself among
O'Connell's followers by his stand on the Irish question[157] that it
had been deemed prudent to find another portfolio for him. He now
admitted Mr. Hagerman to an audience, and was so won upon by that
gentleman's specious representations that he restored him to his
stewardship. Accordingly, although he had been only moderately
successful in carrying out the specific objects of his mission, Mr.
Hagerman returned to Upper Canada in triumph; and he was greeted, upon
his arrival, with a tempest of acclamation from the Tory press.

Mr. Boulton, upon receiving from the Lieutenant-Governor's secretary an
intimation of his dismissal, raised a howl of indignation against Lord
Goderich and the Imperial Government generally. It was notorious that he
controlled the columns of _The Upper Canada Courier_, a newspaper
published at York in the interests of the official party, and edited by
Mr. George Gurnett. That paper, in its next issue, contained an article
more scurrilous and abusive than had been either of those articles in
the _Advocate_ on the pretext whereof Mackenzie had been expelled from
the Assembly. It reeked with scurrility and disloyalty from beginning to
end. It alleged that the well-affected people in the country were more
than half alienated from the Home Government, and that they began to
cast about in their mind's eye for some new state of political
existence. There was more to the same purport. Some new state of
political existence! This was a pretty strong suggestion of rebellion!
And it emanated from the organ of a faction in whose mouths the word
"loyalty" was ever present; whose "loyalty" had for years been vaunted
from every hustings, and who, so long as the tide ran in their favour,
had preached doctrines worthy of the middle ages about submission to the
higher powers. How changed was the tone now that there seemed to be some
prospect of their being placed upon the same footing, and judged by the
same standard as their neighbours. If they did these things in the green
tree, what would they do in the dry? What might have been expected from
them if they had been subjected to such injustice and ignominy as the
party to which they were opposed? Here was a faction professedly ready
to throw off their allegiance because two of their number had been
deprived of offices which they had notoriously prostituted and
disgraced.[158] Here was a "well-affected" people "casting about" in
their "mind's eye" for a new state of political existence, because two
of the most corrupt, brazen and audacious officials in the colony were
no longer to be allowed to pervert legislation under the mantle of
Imperial countenance. And they were as little disposed to brook
interference with their pecuniary interests by the Colonial Office.
Early in the following year they gave utterance to rank treason in
consequence of the threatened disallowance by the Imperial Government of
certain Bank Charter Acts passed by the Provincial Parliament.[159] A
pearl is proverbially uncomely in the snout of a swine; and truly the
word "loyalty" was never more absurdly out of place than when pronounced
by such lips.

The ex-Attorney-General followed the ex-Solicitor-General to England,
where he represented his case to the new Colonial Minister. After giving
much attention to the matter, Mr. Stanley expressed himself as satisfied
with the explanations which had been offered. The explanations seem to
have chiefly consisted of solemn declarations on the part of Mr.
Boulton that he had been insufficiently informed of the views of the
Home Government, and that he had had no desire whatever to set up his
own will in opposition to those views.[160] He doubtless professed his
readiness to go any length in the way of sycophancy which might be
required of him for the future. It was however impossible to restore him
to the Attorney-Generalship, as a successor to that office had been
appointed in the person of Mr. Robert Sympson Jameson,[161] an English
barrister, who had actually sailed from Liverpool for Canada, and was
already well on his way thither. Mr. Boulton was informed that he should
have the first good appointment at the Secretary's disposal. His success
was even greater than that of his recent colleague, for on the 17th of
June he was notified that the King had been graciously pleased to accept
of his further services, and that the Colonial Secretary had His
Majesty's commands to offer him the appointment of Chief Justice of
Newfoundland, which situation had recently become vacant.[162] This
appointment was fully approved by the Earl of Ripon, under whose advice
he had been dismissed from the Attorney-Generalship of Upper
Canada,[163] but who had been induced to change his views after hearing
Mr. Boulton's explanations.

Mr. Boulton's triumph, however, was to be followed by a downfall more
humiliating than that which he had so narrowly escaped. He repaired to
Newfoundland in the autumn, and entered upon the performance of his
duties. He had not been long in his new position before he had aroused a
feeling of disgust and alarm on the part of a large proportion of the
public and the profession. He began by being arbitrary, tyrannical and
unjust. He proceeded from bad to worse, until it was found impossible to
permit him to retain his position.[164] There is no need to follow the
proceedings adopted against him. He was not finally got rid of until
1838, when he returned to Upper Canada, and once more entered political
life as member for Niagara. The Home Government turned a deaf ear to his
perpetual applications for employment, and would have nothing more to do
with him. Some years after the Union of the Provinces, finding that he
had nothing to hope for from the Conservative party, who refused to
elevate him to a judgeship, he abandoned them, and for some time acted
with Mr. Baldwin. It seems almost cruel to record the fact that he
supported Responsible Government and the Rebellion Losses Bill.

FOOTNOTES:

[148] _Ante_, p. 229.

[149] "When, in the year 1831, His Majesty was graciously pleased to
suggest a further provision for the Civil List, which the Colonial
Ministry required to be made either for seven years or for the life of
His Majesty, the terms of the proposition were not candidly submitted to
the Assembly, and notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of those who
desired to make no provision at variance with the spirit of our
constitution, the Executive influence in the Assembly succeeded in
carrying a measure for a permanent and extravagant supply, popularly
called 'the Everlasting Salary Bill,' while the liberal and gracious
terms proposed by His Majesty on the subject were concealed and known
only to those who, feeling themselves to be above responsibility,
consummated a measure which has spread universal dissatisfaction and
distrust. If this undue and impolitic concealment was practised from any
pretended apprehension that a just provision would not be made for His
Majesty's Government by his faithful Commons, there is nothing in the
country to justify it, and as it encroached upon the privileges of the
Legislature there is no language of censure too strong against
it."--_Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_, p. xlii.

[150] See _The Colonial Advocate_ of April 3rd, 1828.

[151] I can find no confirmation of the statement made by Mackenzie, and
re-echoed by subsequent writers, about the excessive fears of the
Government at this juncture, and the preparations made by them to resist
an uprising of the people. There were no grounds for any such fears, nor
for any anticipations of an uprising. The people were long-suffering,
and were by no means ripe for revolt.

[152] If any evidence were needed of this obvious truth, it is furnished
by Mackenzie's career in the Canadian Parliament after his return from
exile. He was there brought into contact with politicians of a
succeeding generation, most of whom knew him by tradition only. His
misfortunes, and the manifold sufferings he had been compelled to
endure, impelled most of the contemporaries to regard him with a large
measure of forbearance, and he was permitted to indulge a license of
speech which would not have been tolerated in any other member. He
adopted precisely the same _role_ as of yore, and delivered himself with
great vehemence on matters which he did not understand. The inevitable
result was that the Assembly soon ceased to attach any weight to his
opinions. He had lived long enough to repudiate many of his old
doctrines, and to eat many of his past words. His views on Tuesday were
frequently the very opposite to what they had been on Monday, and
neither were any indication of what they would be on Wednesday. Members
ceased to attach any importance to his statements, or to think of them
as calling for serious consideration. He came to be regarded as a sort
of unlicensed jester who might be permitted to amuse the House by his
antics when there was no pressing business on hand; but as to any real
influence, he had no more than the junior messenger. It took him several
years to find this out, and when it was brought thoroughly home to him
he resigned his seat. Had the Family Compact politicians of fifty to
sixty years ago been as wise in their generation as the members of the
Assembly during the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Parliaments of United
Canada, they would have ceased to defend the indefensible, and would
have let Mackenzie alone. They might then have held the reins of power
for ten--or possibly twenty--years longer; but the day of reckoning,
when it came, would probably have been a darker one.

[153] Lord Howick, writing on behalf of the Colonial Secretary, under
date of June 23rd, 1832, in reply to Mackenzie's application for an
interview, informed the applicant that although the Secretary was ready
to hear any observations which he (Mackenzie) might have to offer upon
the affairs of Upper Canada, as an individual interested in the welfare
of that Province, and as a member of the Assembly, yet that the
Secretary could not recognize him as being deputed to act for any other
person, nor could he enter into any discussion with him on measures
which His Majesty's Government might think it right to pursue. "The
views and intentions of His Majesty's Government with respect to the
affairs of the Province," wrote his Lordship, "can only be made known to
the people of Upper Canada through the medium of the Governor or of the
Legislature; it is to one or other of these authorities that any
complaints which individuals may have occasion to make should properly
be addressed; and if the course pursued by the Executive Government
should be such as to give just ground for dissatisfaction, the
inhabitants have, by their Representatives, the means of bringing their
grievances under the immediate attention of His Majesty." The full text
of the letter will be found on pp. 191, 192 of the _Seventh Report of
Grievance Committee_.

[154] Mr. Boulton denied, at least by implication, that any such
communication had been made to him. See his letter dated April 30th,
1833, and published in the _Courier_ of the following day. But it is
certain that the contents of the missive had been made known to Mr.
Hagerman, and it is hardly conceivable that he would have failed to
communicate to his colleague matters of such vital importance to their
welfare.

[155] The full text of the despatch will be found on p. 295 of the
_Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_.

[156] "We have been very credibly informed that, on account of the
extent of the settlements and consequent increase of court business, it
was thought expedient by our wise ones that a fourth judge was
necessary, and that he [Mr. Hagerman] had obtained (previous to his
leaving here) a recommend from the other judges for himself to be
appointed to the new created situation."--_Colonial Advocate_, Thursday,
May 2nd, 1833.


[157] It was at this time that Mr. Stanley, by his fiery speech against
O'Connell, won for himself the sobriquet of "the Rupert of Debate."

[158] Henry Sherwood, who had by this time attained to a prominent place
in the ranks of the official party, was especially loud in his
denunciations of the British Government for dismissing Boulton and
Hagerman. According to a correspondent of the _Colonial Advocate_, he
declared, in the course of an ordinary conversation, that if such
proceedings were to continue, he, for his part, did not care how soon
the British authority was superseded by a republican one.--See letter of
"John Bull," on first page of the _Advocate_ of December 14th, 1833.

[159] They were equally intolerant of opposition from their own
adherents when their pecuniary interests were at stake. In December,
1833, the Hon. John Elmsley, who had been called to the Executive
Council three years before, was forced to resign his seat in that body
because he could not act independently there. In his letter of
resignation, which is dated "Holland House, York, December 3rd, 1833,"
he says: "Since I have assumed the duties of that high office [_i.e._,
the office of an Executive Councillor], I find that I cannot fearlessly
express my real sentiments and opinions, if opposed to the Government
for the time being, without incurring the risk of dismissal from that
Honourable Board, which constitutes my inability to advance the public
good. I have therefore deemed it expedient most respectfully, but
reluctantly, to tender the resignation of my seat in the Executive
Council."--See evidence of the Hon. Peter Robinson, in Appendix to
_Seventh Report on Grievance_, p. 91. See also p. xxvii of the Report
itself.

[160] See _Case of the Honourable Henry John Boulton, Chief Justice of
the Island of Newfoundland_, etc.--being a report of the Case before the
Privy Council--p. 3.

[161] This was the husband of the accomplished Anna Jameson, whose
brilliant art criticisms are among the most readable things of their
kind in the English language, and whose Canadian sketches have made her
name well known in this country.

[162] _Case of the Hon. H. J. Boulton_, etc., p. 3.

[163] _Ib._, p. 4.

[164] Full particulars of his misconduct may be found in the work
already quoted from.



CHAPTER XII.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT.


Mackenzie remained in England much longer than he had anticipated, and
did not return to Canada until towards the end of August, 1833. He was
absent in all nearly sixteen months, which was considerably longer than
was necessary for the accomplishment of the objects of his mission. He
doubtless enjoyed life in the metropolis, and was loth to relinquish
it.[165] His mission had not been wholly fruitless, for his
representations at the Colonial Office had led to the writing of Lord
Goderich's despatch already referred to, by which the faction in Upper
Canada were led to see that they would for the future be compelled to
act with somewhat more of circumspection. Several much-needed
suggestions were made in the despatch on subjects of practical
importance--among others as to the remuneration of members of the
Assembly representing Town constituencies; as to the extension of the
franchise to persons who, by reason of their religious scruples, could
not conscientiously take the prescribed oath; as to the repeal of the
law disqualifying British subjects from voting at elections till the
expiration of seven years after their return from a residence in a
foreign country; and as to the interference of ecclesiastical
Legislative Councillors in secular matters.[166] Mackenzie was also
entitled to claim credit for obtaining important reforms in the
management of the Provincial Post Office. He had brought the affairs of
the Province conspicuously before the minds of several eminent public
men, whose interest in Canada had thus been aroused, and who were
thenceforth able to display some familiarity with Canadian questions as
they came up for discussion in the House of Commons. During his stay in
London he had published a duodecimo volume, extending to 504 pages,
entitled "Sketches in Canada and the United States," in which a good
many Provincial abuses had been specified. The information contained in
this work had been thrown together in a higgledy-piggledy fashion, and
it could not be said to have much real value, more especially as many of
its statements were inaccurate, and must have been known to be so when
they were written.[167] Still, it probably had some effect in seconding
the author's efforts to attract attention to himself and the interests
which he represented. He had moreover acquainted the Colonial Secretary
with matters which could not possibly have been clearly explained
otherwise than orally. It was tolerably certain that information
furnished by him had led to the dismissal of Boulton and Hagerman, a
proceeding which had wonderfully exhilarated his mind; and his
depression had been correspondently deep upon learning that the one had
been promoted and the other reinstated. He had hoped to see Mr. Rolph
appointed to the Solicitor-Generalship, and, if his word is to be
credited, he really seems to have had some grounds for believing that
such an appointment would be made.[168] He afterwards declared that he
had "good reasons for believing" that Mr. Rolph's appointment had
actually been made out and transmitted to Canada, but that Sir John
Colborne and Chief Justice Robinson had prevented it from taking
effect.[169]

As has already been seen,[170] Mackenzie, during his absence in England,
had once more been elected to represent the County of York in the
Assembly. Upon the first meeting of Parliament after his return he
presented himself as a member. There was however a persistent
determination that he should not be permitted to take his seat. The
hostile majority in the House professed to believe that they had a right
to exercise a discretion as to who should be permitted to sit therein.
Mackenzie, they alleged, had libelled the House by libelling a majority
of its members, and he had neither made nor attempted to make any
reparation or apology. The Clerk, acting most probably on instructions,
refused to administer the oath to him. A resolution was adopted that he
should not be permitted to sit or vote as a member during the session,
and a writ for a new election was ordered. Again did he return to his
constituents, and again was he returned without opposition. The electors
of York were by this time heartily tired of the farce, the perpetual
re-enactment whereof had the effect of partly disfranchising them by
leaving them with only one representative in the Assembly instead of
two. They were nevertheless fully resolved not to yield their undoubted
rights without some further assertion of them. The member of their
choice was under no legal disability. They were advised that there was
no constitutional justification for the action of the Assembly. They
declared that they owed it to themselves and those who were to come
after them not to submit tamely to injustice of such a nature. The
election being over, a considerable body of them escorted him to the
Houses of Parliament. But a short time had elapsed since the last
expulsion, and the Legislature was still in session. The members of the
Assembly stared in astonishment at the sudden and altogether
unlooked-for incursion of strangers, who poured into the gallery and
into the space below the bar, where they were permitted to intrude
themselves, and where Mackenzie presented himself to take the oath.
Those who could not find room inside remained without in the lobbies. In
a few moments a lull occurred in the proceedings of the House, whereupon
burly Peter Perry rose in his place and announced that he had a petition
to present on behalf of the inhabitants of the County of York. The
contents of the petition were not of a nature to render it acceptable to
a majority of the members. It referred to Mackenzie's expulsion, and
prayed that that indignity might not be repeated. There was a very
general feeling among the supporters of the Government that the House
ought not to receive such a petition, and several of them gave utterance
to their opinions on the subject. Allan MacNab expressed himself to this
effect with his customary emphasis, and was greeted with a storm of
hisses from the York electors in the gallery. Ominous sounds! The House
could not be expected to tamely brook such a manifestation, and an order
was given to clear the gallery. While the order was being obeyed, the
Sergeant-at-Arms approached Mackenzie where he stood below the bar, and
directed him to leave. Mackenzie replied to the effect that he had a
right to be there, and that he intended to remain. The door was then
opened by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who proceeded to eject Mackenzie by
force; but before he could carry out his purpose a rush was made from
the adjacent lobby. The door was promptly closed and barricaded, but not
until several of the invaders had effected an entrance. The excitement
was intense, and for some minutes the proceedings of the House were
suspended. When quiet had been in some measure restored, the Speaker
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the space below the bar of
strangers. That functionary again ordered Mackenzie to leave, and he
received the same reply as before. This was communicated to the Speaker,
who decided that, as Mackenzie had not taken the oath, he was not a
member of the House, and was not entitled to remain. Mackenzie was
there, ready and anxious to take the oath; but he was nevertheless
removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Assembly was once more purged
of his presence. On the next day he was again formally expelled by a
vote of the House[171]--an anomalous proceeding in view of the Speaker's
decision that he was not a member! He had thus been thrice expelled from
the House, and once excluded therefrom upon the ground that he was not a
member.

[Sidenote: 1834.]

It was by this time clear that from a House so constituted Mackenzie
could not expect to meet with fair play. Mr. Bidwell, Mr. Perry, and
others of his friends had all along spoken manfully on his behalf
whenever an opportunity of doing so had presented itself, but their
arguments had simply been thrown away. His pugnacious spirit was however
fully aroused, and he determined to exhaust every means before
abandoning his endeavours to take the seat to which he was entitled. He
applied to the Lieutenant-Governor for permission to take the oath
prescribed for members of the Legislature before his Excellency, or
before some one specially appointed for the purpose, under the
twenty-ninth section of the Constitutional Act of 1791.[172] The
question involved in this application was submitted to the
Attorney-General, Mr. Jameson, who pronounced the opinion that Mackenzie
was entitled to the privilege asked for. The matter was nevertheless
allowed to remain in abeyance for some weeks, as the hostile members of
Assembly had been worked up to a great pitch of excitement by the
incursion of the rural population, and were in no humour to tolerate
Mackenzie's presence. Meanwhile petitions to the Lieutenant-Governor
were sent in from various parts of the County of York, as well as from
other places. The language in some of these was of the most unmistakable
kind, and it was evident that endurance had nearly reached its limits.
On Monday, the 10th of February, Mackenzie, having taken the oath before
the Clerk of the Executive Council, and having obtained a duly attested
certificate of the ceremonial, ventured once more to present himself in
the Chamber of the Assembly.

The House was in Committee on the question of improving the navigation
of the St. Lawrence when he entered. The gallery was crowded with
spectators, most of whom were sympathizers with Mackenzie, and had
assembled there to impart to him a sort of outside numerical support. He
walked to the seat which he had once been accustomed to occupy, and
quietly sat down in it. Ere many minutes the Sergeant-at-Arms[173]
approached and requested him to withdraw. This he declined to do,
alleging that he was a member legally elected, duly sworn, and charged
with no offence or irregularity which could disqualify him from sitting
and voting.[174] He produced the attested copy of the oath, and bade the
Sergeant-at-Arms interfere at his peril. The following is Mackenzie's
own account of what ensued; and, unlike most of his narratives, it is in
all substantial respects confirmed by several eye-witnesses. "He [the
Sergeant-at-Arms] said he must use force, and he did so in as gentle a
manner as was consistent with the act. Although his proceedings were
illegal, his whole conduct in carrying them into effect was marked by a
discretion wisely adopted in the excited state of the minds of the dense
audience by whom he was surrounded. I almost immediately returned to the
seat I had occupied, and while on my way was seized hold of by Colonel
Frazer, Collector of Customs at Brockville, and obliged to change my
route. Before I had got well seated, one of the members, I think Mr.
Boulton[175] moved that the Speaker take the chair. He did so, and I
addressed him, stating the insult I had received while in the
performance of my duty as a member. To this he made no reply, but said
that the Sergeant-at-Arms must know his duty. He then left the chair;
the Committee resumed, and I was a second time forced from my seat by
violent means. After a little reflection I decided to resume my seat;
was a third time forced from it by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and when the
Speaker had returned I was placed at the bar, charged by the
Sergeant-at-Arms with refusing to leave the House."[176] The
Sergeant-at-Arms then reported to the Speaker that he had taken into
custody William Lyon Mackenzie for disorderly conduct, and that he had
him in charge at the bar; whereupon it was moved by Mr. Samson, and
seconded by Mr. Vankoughnet, member for Stormont, that William Lyon
Mackenzie, having been brought to the bar of the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms for disorderly conduct, be called upon to state what he
might have to say in his defence. To this motion Mr. Perry moved an
amendment to the effect that Mackenzie was under no legal
disqualifications, and had a right to sit and vote in the House. Then
followed a long debate which lasted nearly six hours,[177] and which
left the question at issue pretty nearly where it had been. Mr. Perry's
motion was lost by a vote of twenty-one to fifteen. A dense crowd
occupied the gallery until far into the night, but good order was
preserved, the only demonstration being a subdued hiss while Mr. William
B. Robinson, member for Simcoe, and brother of the Chief Justice, was
speaking. Much rancour was exhibited by some of the Tory speakers,
several of whom approved their loyalty by inveighing loudly against the
Lieutenant-Governor for permitting the Clerk of the Executive Council to
administer the oath to Mackenzie. Allan MacNab declared his intention to
vote for committing Mackenzie to the common jail. Casting his eyes up to
the gallery, he scowled at the occupants, to whom he referred as a band
of ruffians who had come there to intimidate the House. The
Lieutenant-Governor, he said, had interfered very improperly, and in a
manner no way creditable to himself. He had acted like the Vicar of
Bray, and might yet find, like that individual, that by taking both
sides of a question he might fall through between. Mr. Samson, member
for Hastings, spoke to a similar purport, declaring himself to be in
favour of sending Mackenzie to jail without a hearing, and referring to
the Lieutenant-Governor in terms of strong censure. "His Excellency,"
remarked Mr. Samson, "knew perfectly well that Mr. Mackenzie had been
expelled by us, and for him to allow the oath to be administered under
such circumstances was a most unwarrantable proceeding. He had no right
whatever to interfere. I do say he acted a most improper part, and I do
not know but this House ought to take it up." When Mackenzie attempted
to speak at the bar, William Hamilton Merritt, member for Haldimand,
rose in much anger, and exclaimed: "Drown his voice. He ought to be put
out of the House, and two men stationed continually at the door to keep
him out." Absalom Shade, of Galt, member for Halton, was of the same
opinion. The speech of the member for Simcoe, which evoked the hiss from
the gallery as already mentioned, was perhaps the most violent of all.
He advocated that Mackenzie should be punished and consigned to jail
without being allowed to utter "one single word" in defence of his
outrageous proceedings. "Mackenzie," said he, "would never have dared to
show himself in this House again if he had not had his Excellency's
sanction for doing so in his pocket. His Excellency's conduct, I
maintain, has been utterly unjustifiable. Indeed, I could not have
believed it possible that his Excellency should have thought of taking
such a step without consulting the Speaker of this House. He had no
right whatever to do so, and now that he is told that we do not
recognize such a right on the part of the Executive, I trust he will not
persevere."[178] For milder language than this, many of the Reformers
had been branded as "traitors," "disaffected," and "republicans," by the
very person who now gave utterance to it. The beam in one's own eye is
so much harder to perceive than the mote in the eye of one's brother.

The plain fact of the matter is, that no sentiment of either loyalty or
disloyalty had anything whatever to do with the treatment to which
Mackenzie was subjected at the hands of the Compact and their
supporters. It was simply this: Mackenzie was a thorn in their sides. He
watched them closely, and exposed their conduct in language which was
telling and vigorous, albeit often ill-considered and unbecoming. They
felt that their supremacy was menaced, and largely by his
instrumentality. His expulsions were due to a fixed determination to
keep him out of Parliament, irrespective not only of what was
constitutional or unconstitutional, but even of what was right or wrong.
To carry out this determination they resorted to all the party devices
which a majority in the Assembly placed at their disposal. "From first
to last," as Mr. Lindsey remarks,[179] "the proceedings against Mr.
Mackenzie were conceived in a party spirit, and carried by party votes.
No worse description or condemnation of them could be given, seeing
that they were in their nature judicial."

The debate, as has been said, came to nothing. Mackenzie was not
permitted to take his seat, and did not again attempt to do so during
the session. No new writ was issued for the election of a member by the
County of York. Mackenzie's supporters opposed the issue of a writ
because such a proceeding would have assumed that the expulsion had been
legal, and that there was a legal vacancy in the representation. Others,
who were not friendly to Mackenzie, felt that a new election would only
lead to fresh complications. York would undoubtedly return the expelled
member, and he would again be refused a seat in the House. The session
accordingly dragged on to its close without any writ having been issued:
a matter of little practical importance, inasmuch as there was to be a
general election in the course of a few months. It will thus be seen
that the County of York underwent a partial disfranchisement for three
years, during which three sessions were held. Before another session
came round a new Parliament had come into being, and the political
situation had undergone a complete metamorphosis.

During the session of 1833-4, which witnessed the tumultuous scene just
described, the Provincial Parliament made one important concession to
public opinion by passing an Act to render the Judges of the Court of
King's Bench independent of the Crown. It is right to state, however,
that this was done in consequence of pressure from the Imperial
Government,[180] and not from any wish to remove an abuse of long
standing. The Act provided that "the Judges of His Majesty's Court of
King's Bench for this Province shall hold their offices during their
good behaviour, notwithstanding the commissions which have been
heretofore granted to them, or either of them, may specify that the
office is to be held during the pleasure of His Majesty; and that from
and after the passing of this Act the commissions to the Judges of the
said Court shall be made to them respectively to hold during their good
behaviour, and that the commissions of Judges of the said Court for the
time being shall be, continue, and remain in full force during their
good behaviour, notwithstanding the demise of His Majesty, or of any of
his heirs and successors." Thus were the Judiciary rendered independent
of the humours of the Executive, whereby a long step was taken towards
securing a pure administration of justice in the Superior Court of the
Province. Had a similar policy been pursued with respect to other gross
abuses, the effect upon the public mind would have been most
pacificatory. Standing, as it did, alone, the Act exhibited a striking
contrast to every other feature of the Executive policy, and it may be
doubted whether a solitary inhabitant of the Province was conciliated
thereby.

FOOTNOTES:

[165] Prior to his departure from Canada he travelled about here and
there through the country to collect subscriptions towards the expenses
of his journey. He met with but slender success. After his return he
made further efforts in the same direction, and with similar results.
Persons who professed much zeal for Reform were slow to put their hands
in their pockets for such a purpose, and he succeeded in collecting only
about £150. It should however be remembered that most Upper Canadian
Reformers in those days were poor. Mackenzie's actual disbursements
during his absence are stated by Mr. Lindsey to have been £676 (_Life of
Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 287), but a considerable part of this sum was
expended on a visit to Scotland. It is probable, too, that the amount
stated includes the cost of publishing _Sketches in Canada and the
United States_, which must have been considerable. It is fairly to be
inferred from Mr. Lindsey's account that Mackenzie was himself compelled
to pay the difference between £150, the amount collected from
subscribers, and £676, the amount actually expended. "The people's
agent," he informs us, "was left to bear the greater part of the
expense." This, no doubt, was Mr. Lindsay's belief when his book was
written; but nothing could be further from the fact. It would be much
nearer the truth to say that Mackenzie enjoyed a sixteen months' holiday
at the expense of his political friends, for all, or nearly all the
money expended over and above the £150 was contributed by Dr. Morrison,
Dr. Rolph, David Gibson, the Lesslies, Shepards, and others; and as no
portion of the money so contributed was ever repaid, they, and not
Mackenzie, were compelled to bear the loss. The implied slur upon the
Reform party is therefore wholly undeserved.

[166] His Lordship expressed himself with much clearness on this
subject. "Whether," he wrote, "even under this restriction [_i.e._, the
restriction of non-interference in secular affairs], their holding such
seats is really desirable, is a question upon which I am fully prepared
to listen with the utmost attention to any advice which I may receive
from yourself, from the House of Assembly, or from any other competent
authority. I have no solicitude for retaining either the Bishop
[McDonnell] or the Archdeacon [Strachan] on the list of Councillors, but
am, on the contrary, rather predisposed to the opinion that by resigning
their seats they would best consult their own personal comfort and the
success of their designs for the spiritual good of the people. But any
such resignation must be voluntary, since the office is held for life;
and were it otherwise, no consideration could induce me to advise His
Majesty to degrade the Bishop or the Archdeacon from the stations they
occupy, except upon the most conclusive proof of misconduct." One might
not unreasonably construe these words into a pretty broad hint to Bishop
McDonnell and Dr. Strachan that they ought to resign.

[167] The London _Morning Herald_ of July 11th, 1833, correctly
characterized it as "the oddest mixture of slander and truth, of
knowledge and ignorance, of bold assertion and vacillating opinion."

[168] "Mr. Rolph will, we have no doubt, have the offer of the
Solicitorship, but whether he will accept it is a matter more doubtful;
though we think he possibly may, provided he is to be associated in the
administration with men of a liberal policy; otherwise we are of opinion
he will decline. Such an appointment would certainly do credit to our
country, and we hope he (Mr. Rolph) will accept the appointment if
offered--that is, if he can consistently do so."--_Colonial Advocate_,
Thursday, May 2nd, 1833. See also the _Advocate_ for October 3rd, 1833.

[169] See _An Account of the Dismissal of the Attorney and
Solicitor-General from Office, and of the Re-appointment of Mr.
Hagerman_, written by Mackenzie for the General [Reform] Committee at
York, and published in the _Advocate_ for Thursday, August 29th, 1833.

[170] _Ante_, p. 247.

[171] As the resolution recited the facts relating to the two former
expulsions, as well as the grounds of the present one, it may not be
amiss to transcribe it in full. It was voted upon on Tuesday, the 17th
of December (1833). Its mover was William Morris, member for Lanark. It
was in the following words: "That this House, on the thirteenth day of
December, 1831, in consequence of a false and scandalous libel published
against a majority of its members by William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire,
one of the members then representing the County of York, of which he
avowed himself the author and publisher, was induced to expel him, the
said William Lyon Mackenzie, from this House: That notwithstanding the
gross and scandalous nature of the said libel, this House, in the hope
that the said William Lyon Mackenzie would abstain from a continuance of
the offensive conduct for which he had been expelled, permitted him to
take his seat on the third day of January following, as a member for the
County of York, after being re-elected: That in this hope, so important
to the deliberate transaction of public business, so essential to the
respectability of the Legislature and peace of the country, a few days'
experience convinced this House there was so little reason to rely, that
on the seventh day of the same month of January, it was by a large
majority again deemed necessary to expel the said William Lyon
Mackenzie, for a repetition and aggravated reiteration of the aforesaid
false and scandalous libel; and in doing so, this House, in order to
support the dignity which ought to belong to a Legislative body,
considered it just and proper to declare the said William Lyon Mackenzie
unfit and unworthy to hold a seat in this House during the continuance
of the present Parliament: That as the said William Lyon Mackenzie has
never made reparation to this House for the gross injuries which he has
attempted to inflict on its character and proceedings, there is no
reason to depart from the resolution of the said seventh day of January,
1832." In amendment, Mr. MacNab, seconded by Mr. Robinson, moved that
the following words be added to the original resolution: "And therefore
he, the said William Lyon Mackenzie, again elected and returned to
represent the County of York in this present Parliament, is hereby
expelled." The amendment, as well as the original motion, was carried by
a vote of 22 to 18.

[172] This section provides for the taking of the oath before the
Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or person administering the Government,
or "before some person or persons authorized by the said Governor or
Lieutenant-Governor," etc.

[173] The Sergeant-at-Arms was Allan MacNab, Sr., father of the junior
member for Wentworth.

[174] See the _Advocate_ of Thursday, February 13th, 1834.

[175] Not H. J. Boulton, who had several months before departed for
Newfoundland, but George Strange Boulton, one of the members for Durham.

[176] See the _Advocate_ of February 13th, 1834.

[177] Mackenzie, in the _Advocate_, says "full seven hours," but he did
not reach the Assembly Chamber until nearly half-past three in the
afternoon, and the House adjourned at 9.30 for want of a quorum. See the
sessional journal. The three removals of Mackenzie from his seat must
have occupied some minutes, and the entire debate could not possibly
have extended over quite six hours. The matter is of no particular
importance, but it shows how carefully all unsupported statements of
Mackenzie ought to be scrutinized before being admitted as evidence.

[178] "It is probable," says Mackenzie (_Colonial Advocate_, Feb. 13th),
"that the provoking language of some of the members would have ended in
a disturbance had I not warned the people through the press, personally
at many of their dwelling houses, and in the House before I took my
seat, to preserve perfect silence whatever the members said or did. They
were very orderly, and it is creditable to them that they were so. If
public opinion will not avenge our cause, violence and tumult will not
help us." The irony of fate had decreed that this admirable sentiment
should not find a permanent lodgement in the writer's breast.

[179] _Life and Times of Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 311.

[180] See Lord Goderich's despatch of 8th November, 1832.



CHAPTER XIII.

MR. HUME'S "BANEFUL DOMINATION" LETTER.


Mackenzie's repeated expulsions, unjust as they were, and humiliating as
were some of the attendant circumstances, were not wholly without
compensation. For one thing they caused him to be more talked about than
any other man in Upper Canada. This, of itself, would have gone far
towards reconciling him to the indignities which had been heaped upon
him, for notoriety was very dear to his heart. But a more substantial
reward, and one altogether unlooked for, was in store for him.

Within a month after the scene in the Assembly described towards the
close of the last chapter, the town of York ceased to exist, having
exchanged its name for the old Indian appellation which it has ever
since borne. An Act of incorporation had been obtained during the
session, whereby it was enacted that York should be constituted a body
corporate and politic by the name of the City of Toronto. The city was
to be divided into wards, with two aldermen and two common councilmen
for each ward, to be elected by the inhabitants; and with a mayor, to be
elected by the aldermen and councilmen from among themselves. This Act,
like the rest of the measures passed during the session, was assented to
on the day of adjournment--the 6th of March, 1834. On the 15th of the
same month an official proclamation appeared whereby Thursday, the 27th,
was appointed for the first election of municipal representatives. A
campaign of active canvassing was forthwith set on foot throughout the
city. As has often happened in more recent times, the contest assumed a
political complexion. The Act of incorporation had been procured by Tory
influences, and had been carried through the Assembly under the auspices
of Sheriff Jarvis, the local member. In his speeches on the subject in
the House Mr. Jarvis had taken the reasonable and legitimate ground that
the Provincial capital had attained dimensions which rendered a separate
government necessary to the efficient management of its affairs. This
view was participated in by Tory residents generally. The Reformers, on
the other hand, had all along been opposed to incorporation. York, they
argued, was the main fortress and stronghold of the official party, who
would be almost certain to acquire a pernicious ascendency in municipal
affairs, to the detriment of the rest of the community. The Province at
large had already suffered enough from Compact domination, and it was
far from desirable to afford an opportunity for its exercise in a more
restricted field. Again, it was urged that the expense of a separate
administration for the city would more than counterbalance any
advantages to be derived therefrom. These views were put forward with
much vehemence by reformers, both in Parliament and through the medium
of the press. From all which it was evident that the impending elections
would afford a pretty accurate test of the strength of the respective
political parties in the city.

Generally speaking, the Tory vote in the capital had been largely in
excess of that polled by the Reformers. That it was not so in the spring
of 1834 was due in no small degree to public indignation at the unfair
treatment to which Mackenzie had been subjected. Persons who had never
recorded a Reform vote before now came forward to support candidates who
were known to be strong Reformers. It was not so much that these persons
sympathized with Mackenzie, who was by many of them held in detestation
and abhorrence; but they felt that gross injustice had been done,
against which it behooved them to record their formal protest. The
result was that the sanguine calculations of the Tories were altogether
falsified, and that a majority of Reform candidates were returned to the
first Council of the City of Toronto. Among the latter were Mackenzie
himself, who was elected as one of the aldermen for St. David's Ward,
and John Rolph, who was elected for the Ward of St. Patrick.

A few words of explanation are necessary in this place with regard to
Mr. Rolph. It will be remembered that he and the two Baldwins had
divested themselves of their gowns during the progress of the Willis
dispute, and had declined to transact any further business in a court
which they believed to be illegally constituted.[181] They did not again
present themselves before the court during Term until after the decision
of the Privy Council had set their minds at rest on the subject. There
was no longer anything to prevent them from resuming their practice. The
Baldwins did so, and Rolph for a time followed their example, albeit in
a half-hearted manner. He had long been profoundly disgusted with the
partiality displayed by the judges, and by their complete subserviency
to the wishes of the Executive, as expressed by their forensic
mouthpiece, Attorney-General Robinson. On account, as he believed, of
his political opinions, he had been forced to contend against the
persistent hostility of the judiciary. His triumphs at the bar had been
won by reason of his power over juries, and in spite of one-sided
charges from the bench. Of the understanding and judicial integrity of
Mr. Sherwood he had formed a very low estimate. Hagerman, who
temporarily succeeded Judge Willis, was an abler man, but his political
feelings were so strong that Rolph would not imperil the interests of
his clients by appearing before him. Upon the accession of
Attorney-General Robinson to the bench the state of affairs from Rolph's
point of view was not much improved. Mr. Robinson and he had so long
fought each other at the bar and on the floor of the Assembly that they
had come to regard each other as personal enemies. Rolph, rightly or
wrongly, came to the conclusion that he could no longer hope to obtain
any measure of justice. The necessary consequence of such a conclusion
was a resolve to abandon the practice of law, and to resume that of
medicine, which latter, indeed, he had never wholly abandoned. This
resolution was not fully carried out until more than two years after it
had been formed, though he meanwhile accepted no new suits, and steadily
prepared himself for the impending change. The decisive step does not
appear to have been taken until 1832, when he transferred his legal
practice to his brother George. Thenceforward John Rolph never again
appeared in a Court of justice in the capacity of an advocate. It was a
momentous decision, for he had a fine legal practice, and enjoyed the
reputation of being the most eloquent man at the Upper Canadian bar. He
had outlived the exuberance of youth, and was at this time nearly forty
years old--an age at which few men would have had the courage to abandon
a pursuit which had been followed with signal success for many years. He
resumed the practice of medicine and surgery, and was thenceforward
known as "Doctor" Rolph. For some years before this time he had resided
at Dundas. He now removed to the capital, where he was well known, and
where he continued to reside until the breaking out of the Rebellion
towards the close of 1837. He soon won a distinguished place in the
ranks of his new calling, and reached a preeminence therein as great as
he had ever attained at the bar. There was no regularly-organized
medical college in Upper Canada, and the facilities for acquiring a
competent medical training were few. In response to urgent requests from
a number of influential persons in Toronto he established a private
medical class, and gave instruction to a limited number of students. His
teaching was eminently successful, and he made himself greatly beloved
by his students. He seemed to have the whole round of medical literature
at his fingers' ends, and his marvellous knowledge and graphic power of
expression kindled in the breasts of the young men a love of knowledge
for its own sake.[182] By no one were his attainments held in higher
respect than by the Lieutenant-Governor. Sir John urged him to found a
permanent medical college, and promised that Government aid for such an
enterprise should not be wanting. But Dr. Rolph had other views. He had
for several years been out of public life, but with no idea of so
remaining. He was resolved to re-enter Parliament at the first suitable
opportunity, and did not allow his professional pursuits to absorb all
his attention. Unlike Robert Baldwin, who to a great extent held himself
aloof from politics at this time, Rolph took a leading part at Reform
meetings and caucuses, and did his utmost to give practical shape to the
Reform policy. Baldwin, notwithstanding his undoubted zeal for Liberal
principles, was imbued with somewhat exclusive social ideas, and was
not in active sympathy with the Reformers at this period. He regarded
Mackenzie as very much of a demagogue, and as a person with whom he
could not hold any very intimate relations. The sentiments entertained
by Baldwin for Mackenzie seem to have been closely akin to those
entertained by Sir John Falstaff for the troops with whom he declared
that he would not march through Coventry. Mackenzie's noisy verbosity
and self-assertion offended the patrician instincts of Mr. Baldwin, to
whom, indeed, the little proletarian was altogether distasteful and
repulsive. This feeling, however, seems to have been due to the
antipathetic natures of the two men, rather than to any mere feeling of
exclusiveness on the part of Mr. Baldwin. They had as little in common
as two persons very well could have. Without entering any further into
the question, it will be sufficient to say that the one had a judgment
under strict discipline, while the judgment of the other was always
subordinate to the circumstances or prejudices of the moment--a fatal
defect in one who aspires to be a leader of men. Mr. Baldwin made no
secret of his conviction that no substantial progress could be made by
the Reform party so long as one like Mackenzie was permitted to have any
commanding voice in its counsels, or at any rate to have any hand in the
shaping or directing of its policy. Rolph took a broader view, and while
he admitted the notoriously weak points in Mackenzie's character, did
not feel disposed either to throw him overboard altogether or to deprive
him of a share in the direction of party affairs. He naturally felt and
spoke strongly on the subject of the expulsions. For Mackenzie
personally he had never felt much liking, but he hated injustice, and
did not hesitate to give the expelled member all the support, moral and
otherwise, which he could command. He was wont to say that Mackenzie
might yet do much good work for Reform, if he could only be kept in his
proper place. Mackenzie, on his side, never wearied of sounding Rolph's
praises, and he sometimes did so in extravagant terms. Wherever he went
he proclaimed the Doctor as the one man in Upper Canada capable of
leading the Reform party to triumph and permanent power. Bidwell and
Perry were well enough in their way, but to neither of them would he pin
his faith if Rolph questioned the wisdom of their counsels.

Such was the state of affairs at the time of the election of the first
Council of the City of Toronto. In that Council, as already mentioned,
there was a preponderance of Reform members. According to the provisions
of the Act of incorporation the aldermen and councilmen were to hold
their first meeting on Thursday, the 3rd of April, when they were to
proceed to the election of a mayor. As the Reform members were able to
command the situation, they held a caucus on the evening of Monday, the
31st of March, to concert a scheme of action, and to take steps to turn
their numerical superiority in the Council to the best account. An
understanding had already been arrived at as to the mayoralty. Dr. Rolph
had been pitched upon by common consent to fill the chair of the chief
magistrate. He was upon the whole better fitted to grace the position
than any other man in the city, and the Reform members contemplated
their candidate with pride. But at the caucus held on the evening of the
31st matters took an altogether unexpected turn. Dr. Rolph did not
attend, being kept away by professional duties. It was suggested by
James Lesslie, one of the aldermen from St. David's Ward, that the
Doctor was indifferent as to the mayoralty, and that he would be quite
willing to waive any claims to the position which he might be supposed
to have. It was further suggested that the interests of the Reformers
would be best promoted by the elevation of the editor of the _Advocate_
to the chief magistracy. Mackenzie, it was urged, had been treated with
shameful indignity by the Assembly, and had been held up to contempt by
the official party generally. He had been maligned at the Home Office as
a personage whom the Secretary could not admit to his presence
consistently with due respect to himself and his office. He had been
represented as a snarling little upstart who, by the votes of the lowest
and most rascally section of the Radicals, had been placed in a position
unsuited to his character and belongings. It had been especially urged
against him in England that the better class of Reformers held aloof
from and thoroughly despised him. There could be no doubt that by such
representations as these Mackenzie had been subjected to much unmerited
obloquy and annoyance during his sojourn in the old country. The present
conjuncture of affairs, it was said, afforded an excellent opportunity
for atoning to him for what he had endured, and at the same time for
scoring a double victory for Reform principles. His elevation to the
chief magistracy of the capital city of Upper Canada would furnish the
most conclusive answer that could possibly be made to the abuse and
slander wherewith he had been assailed. The position was one of high
honour and dignity. It would be impossible to represent the occupant of
that position as the mere tool and mouthpiece of a low Radical clique,
or as a person whom no gentleman could admit to a conference. There was
much plausibility about these arguments, and they had the more weight
inasmuch as Dr. Rolph was said to be personally indifferent about the
matter. Dr. Rolph, moreover, needed no accession of dignity. He could
certainly derive none from being elected to the mayoralty, and could
very well afford to waive his claims. This view of the matter finally
prevailed, and it was agreed, before the adjournment of the caucus,
that, provided Dr. Rolph were a consenting party, Mackenzie should be
the first mayor of Toronto.

When the matter was submitted to Dr. Rolph he expressed some surprise at
the action of the caucus. He appears to have felt convinced that no
credit to the Reform cause was to be won by placing Mackenzie in a
prominent position. He knew Mackenzie to be a man who could not stand
prosperity, and whose want of mental ballast was such that he was not
fit to be trusted with power. He was moreover very much disposed to
suspect that the little man himself was at the bottom of the movement in
his favour, which was probably the fact. Still, the Doctor was compelled
to admit that there was much force in the arguments put forward, and he
was by no means disposed to press his own claims. He therefore gave his
assent; and from that moment the question was to be regarded as
practically settled, although the matter was kept a profound secret
among the persons most immediately concerned.

The Conservative members of the Council also held a caucus before the
day appointed for the election of a mayor. Their purpose was to organize
their forces, and to present the best front which their numerical
inferiority would admit of. They had assumed that Dr. Rolph would as a
matter of course be the choice of the Reform members for the chief
magistracy, and this assumption had been confirmed by common rumour, so
that they entertained no doubt on the subject. The selection met with
their full approval. In fact, unless a mayor was to be chosen from their
own number--a thing out of the question with such a preponderance of
Reform members--no man would have been so acceptable to them as Dr.
Rolph. He was known to and respected by them all, and it was felt that
he would fill the chair with credit to the city. They accordingly
resolved to give him their support, and one of their number, Mr. Thomas
Carfrae, Jr., wrote to him on the subject. But, Dr. Rolph had meanwhile
given his assent to the project of Mackenzie's election, and was not in
a position to accept support from any quarter. After careful
consideration he had determined to resign his seat in the Council. He
foresaw that Mackenzie would render himself unpopular, and deemed it
probable that he would be guilty of indiscretions which no public
representative of a political party could properly defend. The course of
subsequent events was such as to fully justify this forecast. Dr. Rolph
replied to Mr. Carfrae, thanking him for his offer of support, but
announcing that he was about to resign his seat. He also wrote to his
friend Dr. Morrison, one of the representatives of St. Andrew's Ward, to
the same effect. The contents of these two letters did not become known
until the meeting of the Council on the 3rd of April, otherwise steps
would unquestionably have been taken to prevent Mackenzie's election;
for the Reformers, with two or three exceptions, were not sufficiently
anxious to elect him to oust Dr. Rolph for his sake; and as for the
Conservatives, the idea of Mackenzie's elevation to the highest seat in
the Council would at all times have been simply intolerable to them. At
the appointed time all the aldermen and councilmen were in their places
except Dr. Rolph. The chair was temporarily taken by John Doel, one of
the representatives from St. Andrew's Ward. It was moved by Franklin
Jackes, councilman from St. David's Ward, and seconded by James Lesslie,
Mackenzie's colleague as aldermanic representative from the same ward,
"that William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire, be the mayor of this city." The
motion took the Conservative members completely by surprise, and they
did not attempt to conceal their dissatisfaction, and even disgust.
Several of them arose in succession, and spoke in favour of Dr. Rolph.
Dr. Morrison then announced Dr. Rolph's decision, and read his letter by
way of confirmation. Mr. Carfrae intimated that he had received from
the Doctor a letter to the same purport. There was thus no room for
further discussion. The pre-concerted programme was carried out.
Mackenzie received ten votes in support of his candidature, which
constituted a majority. He was declared duly elected, and took the chair
of honour. During the afternoon of the same day he took the prescribed
oath, and his authority was complete. He could boast that he was the
first mayor of Toronto, and also the first mayor ever elected in Upper
Canada.

Scarcely had he been installed in office ere he began to furnish
examples of that perverse and almost inconceivable want of judgment
which attended upon him from the beginning of his life to its end.
Knowing the light in which he was regarded by the Conservative members
of the Council, it might have been supposed that he would be specially
circumspect in his demeanour towards them, and careful not to give
gratuitous offence. On the contrary, he conducted himself like a
veritable Jack-in-Office, and disgusted not only the Conservatives but
some of his own friends. He was constantly intruding his personal
antagonisms upon the Council, and trying to induce the members to take
sides. His indiscretion in the matter of the famous "baneful domination"
letter is absolutely incomprehensible. The particulars can only be given
very briefly in these pages.

During the month of May, Mr. Mackenzie received from Joseph Hume, the
Radical member for Middlesex in the British House of Commons, an
extraordinary letter--a letter which, for violence of tone and
intemperance of language, might almost have been written by the editor
of the _Advocate_ himself. It referred to the Reverend Egerton Ryerson,
a leading minister of the Methodist Church and editor of _The Christian
Guardian_, in terms which it is astonishing to think that a gentleman in
Mr. Hume's position should have permitted himself to employ. Now,
Mackenzie had quarrelled with Mr. Ryerson not long before, and had
devoted much space in the _Advocate_ to maligning him. He saw here an
opportunity for a further attack, with which view he deliberately
published "copious extracts"[183] from the letter in the issue of his
paper dated the 22nd of May. The effect was electrical, for the
references to Mr. Ryerson, bad as they were, were not the portions of
the letter most calculated to excite astonishment in the public mind.
The phrase which called forth prompt execration from all classes of the
community was one in which the writer, referring to Mackenzie's last
election to the Assembly and his expulsion therefrom, characterized
those proceedings as events which must hasten the crisis that was fast
approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, and which would "terminate in
independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother
country." These extraordinary words--extraordinary as proceeding from a
British statesman to a colonist who was likewise a public
character--were printed in the _Advocate_, like the rest of the letter,
in large type. It was subsequently urged[184] on Mr. Hume's behalf that
he had not meant to imply _separation_ from the mother country, but only
an end to the false and pernicious system of governing the colony; and
this explanation was admitted by him[185] to express what he had
intended to signify. But if Mr. Hume could write so indiscreetly on such
a subject, what is to be thought of the newspaper editor and the
politician who had no better sense than to give such a production to the
world of Upper Canada, more especially while he himself occupied the
position of mayor of its most important city?

No sooner was the number of the _Advocate_ containing this letter in the
hands of the public than an outcry arose on every hand. The Tories saw
their advantage, and made the most of it. Now, it was said, the real
designs of Mackenzie and those who acted with him were no longer masked.
What they wanted was not constitutional Reform, but separation from the
Empire, and the establishment of a republic. And it was not only Tories
who spoke and felt thus. Persons who cordially hated the domination of
the Compact, and who had condemned the treatment of Mackenzie as
unconstitutional, tyrannical and unjust, now felt that such a man
deserved no sympathy. He was evidently a rebel at heart.[186] He had
brought reproach not only on himself, but upon the party to which he
belonged. Reform journals hastened to signify their repudiation of the
sentiments of the objectionable letter. "We profess ourselves Radical
Reformers," said the _Freeman_, "and willing to go any reasonable length
in correcting abuses, because we know extensive grievances have existed
both in the mother country and in these colonies.... but we cannot bring
ourselves to support violent and unprincipled factions." "It has often
been the misfortune," said _The British Whig_, of Kingston, "for those
who have laboured to emancipate the people of this colony from Tory
misrule to be accused of disaffection to the mother country, and of a
design to effect the substitution of a republican mode of Government for
their present monarchical form. That no accusation is more generally
false we are thoroughly satisfied; and yet, owing to the indiscreetness
of certain writers, the enemies of political change have had too many
opportunities afforded them to ground their assertions on something like
proof. Here is a letter published by a leading Reformer, without one
single remark in detestation of the doctrine it promulgates.... Does Mr.
Mackenzie sincerely believe that the independence of this Province
would be beneficial to its inhabitants; or is he of opinion that the
domination of the mother country is baneful? If he answer in the
negative, as we think he will, why in the name of common sense did he
afford his enemies so much occasion to brand him with disloyalty?" Said
_The Free Press_, of Hamilton, "It is not the domination of the mother
country that Reformers complain of; it is only the tyrannical conduct of
a small and despicable faction in the colony. The domination of the
mother country is as necessary to our present happiness and future
greatness as the mother's breast is to the infant." "There can be but
one opinion," said _The British American Journal_, of St. Catharines,
"in the minds of honest men, relative to the sentiments contained in
this letter. That they are seditious and revolutionary is painfully
evident; besides the language in which it is couched, the brief
reference to the important subjects treated of, and the peculiar manner
of its appearance before the Canadian public, irresistibly force the
conclusion upon our mind that it is the premature disclosure of a plan
long premeditated to separate the Canadas from the empire of Great
Britain, and either annex them to the confederated union of the States,
or establish separate independent republic Governments; as far as the
author or publisher of the letter is concerned, it is immaterial which."
Mackenzie himself was characterized as a man who was doing his best to
drive the people headlong and blindfold into rebellion. Such being the
tone of the Liberal press, that of the Tory journals may readily be
conceived. Some of them demanded that the Government should institute an
immediate prosecution of Mackenzie. Indignation meetings were held all
over the Province, at which loyal addresses to His Majesty were passed.
The Methodist Conference and other bodies, secular as well as religious,
hastened to pass resolutions condemnatory of Mr. Hume's sentiments, and
to forward the same to the Lieutenant-Governor. The excitement in
Toronto was tremendous. Before noon of the day on which the offensive
letter appeared in print a public meeting had been called to protest
against the disloyal sentiments embodied in it. It was numerously
attended, and, though a good many Reformers were present, a vote of
censure on Mackenzie was passed without a dissentient voice. The matter
was brought up in the City Council, and, though the support of the
Reform members enabled him to escape the official censure of that body,
he was compelled to submit to a series of criticisms which must have
been exceedingly galling to his feelings. By this one misguided act he
had contrived to do enough harm to far more than counterbalance any good
which had been effected through his mission to England; and there were
many Reformers who, in spite of all his protestations, never again felt
any confidence in him, politically or otherwise.

In his capacity of mayor he was fairly assiduous in his attention to
his duties. The city was subjected to a visitation of Asiatic cholera
during the year, and he appears to have done his utmost to stay the
progress of the pestilence, as well as to provide for the treatment of
the stricken patients. He was nevertheless guilty of a number of
indiscretions which rendered him odious to a large proportion of the
population. His pettiness of spirit was incessantly asserting itself. No
person in the community, however insignificant, was beneath his wrath
when his sense of personal dignity was wounded. On one occasion a
wretched woman of intemperate habits and loose character was brought
before him in the Mayor's Court. She was loquacious and abusive, and
Mackenzie, in a rage, ordered her to be placed in the public stocks.
There were still a public pillory and stocks within the city, but, like
those in Squire Hazeldean's parish, they had long been disused.
Mackenzie had probably never heard of the maxim _Quieta non movere_. At
any rate, the greater part of his life was spent in efforts in an
opposite direction. His sentence was carried out, and the culprit was
placed in the stocks. Had this been the act of a fossilized member of
the Compact it would not have appeared very incongruous, but in
Mackenzie it seemed ludicrously out of keeping with his professions. It
aroused the popular indignation against him to a higher pitch than ever;
but it had one good effect: it led to the removal and destruction of the
barbarous relics of mediævalism. To Mackenzie belongs the questionable
credit of reviving their use when Tory magistrates had become ashamed to
employ them any longer. He is entitled to the further distinction of
being the last magistrate in Upper Canada to sanction their use; and
that, too, in the case of a poor and defenceless woman, whose
wretchedness ought to have removed her far from the possibility of his
vengeance.

A considerable part of the summer was spent by both the political
parties in the Province in preparing for the general election contest
which was to take place before the close of the year. It was held in
October. Had it been held some months earlier, while the public sympathy
with Mackenzie in consequence of his repeated expulsions was at its
height, an overwhelming preponderance of Reform members would have been
returned. The publication of Mr. Hume's letter in the interval had
alienated many sympathies and lost many votes to the Reform cause.
Still, there was a strong tendency throughout the greater part of the
Province in the direction of Reform, and the Reformers made
unprecedented exertions. They succeeded in winning to their side a large
number of the Roman Catholic electorate, and they absorbed most of the
recent arrivals from beyond sea. Bidwell and Perry were re-elected for
Lennox and Addington. William Benjamin Wells, a young lawyer of
twenty-five, who afterwards made some mark as a newspaper writer on the
Reform side, and from whose "Canadiana" several extracts have already
been made in these pages, was returned for the County of Grenville. He
was an Upper Canadian by birth, of U. E. Loyalist stock, and the
grandson of a volunteer who fought at the siege of Louisbourg. Oxford
returned for one of its members Dr. Charles Duncombe, who was destined
to take a conspicuous part in the insurrectionary events of two years
later. He was a medical practitioner of great intelligence and wide
influence, an eloquent and forcible speaker, and an ardent Reformer. He
resided on the Burford Plains, near the present village of Bishopsgate,
a few miles west of Brantford. The two members returned for the County
of Simcoe represented very nearly the two extremes of political opinion.
William Benjamin Robinson, a brother of the Chief Justice, was, as
became one of his race, the incarnation of Family Compact Toryism. His
colleague was Samuel Lount, whose name, owing to his untimely fate and
the melancholy circumstances attending it, arouses a host of sad
memories. It may safely be said that of all the victims of the rising of
1837 none has been so sincerely and generally mourned. His execution is
justly regarded in the light of a judicial murder and a stain upon our
country's annals. As a peculiar interest has ever since attached to his
name, and as but little is generally known with respect to him, it may
be proper to record a few particulars. He was born on the banks of the
Susquehanna River, in the State of Pennsylvania, on the 24th of
September, 1791. His father, Gabriel Lount, was an Englishman, and a
native of Bristol, who settled in the United States after the close of
the Revolutionary War, and married an American lady of English descent.
Gabriel Lount never lost his British proclivities during his residence
in the republic, and in the spring of the year 1811, accompanied by his
son and the rest of his family, he removed to Upper Canada. He settled
in the township of Whitchurch, where he practised as a surveyor, and in
the course of the nest few years laid out many official surveys for the
Provincial Government. Samuel, prior to his removal to Canada, had
learned the trade of a blacksmith, which he carried on for some years at
Holland Landing. He had a farm in the same neighbourhood which he
cultivated with much pecuniary success. Being a man of great industry
and intelligence, he gradually amassed considerable property, and became
what for those days might be regarded as wealthy. Better still, he
acquired the respect and confidence of the people around him, for he was
kind-hearted and generous, and spent much of his time in ministering to
the necessities of those incoming settlers who were less advantageously
situated than himself. To this day the neighbourhood abounds with
traditions of his noble unselfishness, and there are old men and women
who, after the lapse of half a century, cannot speak of Samuel Lount
without a dimness of vision and a huskiness of the voice.[187] Though a
zealous loyalist, he was an enthusiastic Reformer, and vehemently
opposed to the domination of the faction whose selfishness went far to
paralyze the life of the Province. He was an excellent speaker, and
during election contests did much to awaken public opinion on the
fruitful subject of Executive abuses. He now, in response to pressing
solicitations, allowed himself to be nominated as a candidate for the
representation of Simcoe in the Assembly, and, as has been seen, was
returned for that constituency along with an ultra-Tory. In personal
appearance he was considerably above the medium height, and of robust
figure; of dark complexion, and with a pleasant, intelligent expression
of countenance.

[Illustration: I am your obt Servant
David Gibson][TR: Handwritten.]


The County of York, smarting under a sense of indignity and partial
disfranchisement, rendered itself specially conspicuous in the contest.
During the preceding year an Act[188] had been passed extending and
readjusting the representation of the County, and dividing it for
electoral purposes into four Ridings, designated respectively the First,
Second, Third and Fourth. Each of these now returned a Radical Reformer.
The First Riding returned David Gibson, a land surveyor who resided on
Yonge Street, about eight miles north of the city, near the present
village of Willowdale. He was of Scottish nationality, having been born
in the parish of Glammis, Forfarshire, on the 9th of March, 1804. Within
legitimate bounds there was no more pronounced Reformer in the Province
than Mr. Gibson, whose house was a sort of rendezvous or place of
meeting for party caucuses. He was an honourable and high-minded man,
much esteemed by his neighbours, and in high favour with his party. The
Second Riding chose Mackenzie. Many of the voters disapproved of some of
his acts, but his paper was largely read among them, and it was felt
that some recompense was due to him for the indignities which he had
suffered. The Third Riding returned Dr. Thomas David Morrison, of
Toronto, who has already been referred to in connection with the
municipal affairs of the city. He was a physician enjoying a good
practice; a man of good sense and wise counsels, and a prominent
personage in the ranks of Reform. For the Fourth Riding was returned
John Mackintosh, a resident of Toronto, and a connexion, by marriage, of
Mackenzie. He was a steady Reformer, of no remarkable abilities, who a
few months previously had been elected President of the Metropolitan
District Reform Convention, and was known to be to a large extent under
Mackenzie's control. Such were the four York representatives.

At the close of the contest the Reformers of the Province had secured a
certain majority, which led them to look eagerly forward to the meeting
of Parliament, although, with the exception of Bidwell and Perry, their
best and most trusted chiefs had no seats therein. Rolph and the
Baldwins had positively refused to stand for any of the constituencies,
although strongly urged to do so. They seem to have felt that the
political pulse was not healthy, and that no credit was to be won,
either for themselves or for the Reform cause, while the morbid symptoms
continued. The worst symptom of all in their eyes was the ascendency of
Mackenzie and his satellites among the rural and uneducated part of the
community.[189] With this ascendency they were wholly out of accord, and
they awaited the time when he should find his proper level in public
opinion. Dr. Rolph had brought himself to acquiesce in this estimate of
Mackenzie with great reluctance; and it is probable that his strong
suspicions of double-dealing in the matter of the mayoralty election had
something to do with his change of views.

By this time Mackenzie had become tired of publishing the _Advocate_,
which was not a commercial success. Early in November the last number
published under his auspices made its appearance, and the editor was at
liberty to devote his chief energies to his legislative duties.[190]
During the second week in December he and a number of his political
friends formed what they called the Canadian Alliance Society, for the
promotion of Responsible Government, the abolition of the law of
Primogeniture, the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, and other
needful reforms, most of which have since been conceded. At the
beginning of the new year (1835) Mackenzie again offered himself as a
candidate for the representation of St. David's Ward in the City Council
of Toronto, but he was defeated by Robert Baldwin Sullivan, a brilliant
Toronto lawyer, and a kinsman of Robert Baldwin. The Council elected the
successful candidate as mayor for the ensuing year.

FOOTNOTES:

[181] _Ante_, p. 187.

[182] "To his instruction, and the love of knowledge which he never
failed to inspire in those who came within the magic of his eloquence,
many men who have since made their mark on the history of Canada owe
their first start in intellectual progress. Notable among these is the
present Chief Superintendent of Education, who has acknowledged that if
he has achieved any distinction, it is mainly due to the love of
knowledge with which he was inspired by the eloquence and example of Dr.
Rolph." Such was the late Dr. Ryerson's own testimony, as published in
the _Journal of Education_, upon Dr. Rolph's death in 1870.

[183] The phrase is Mackenzie's own. See his remarks preceding the
extracts in the _Advocate_ of May 22nd.

[184] By Dr. Morrison in the Toronto City Council. See the report of the
proceedings of that body at the meeting held on Monday, June 9th, 1834.
On the subject generally, see the pamphlet published in Toronto in 1834
entitled _The Celebrated Letter of Joseph Hume_, etc.

[185] In a letter dated 14th July, 1834, and published in the _Advocate_
of September 25th. Mr. Hume there states his meaning to have been "that
the misrule of the Government in Canada, and the monopolizing selfish
domination of such men as had lately (though but a small faction of the
people) resisted all improvement and reform, would lose the countenance
of the authorities in Downing Street, and leave the people in freedom to
manage their own affairs."

[186] The following extract is from a cleverly-written letter signed "O.
P. Q.," which appeared in the _Courier_ of June 5th, 1834. It spoke the
sentiments of nearly all the newspapers in the country, of whatsoever
shade of politics: "But for that letter the people of this Province
might long remain in ignorance of the real motives by which your conduct
has been actuated. They might long regard you as a persecuted
patriot.... But your imprudence or your vanity has been the means of
completely unmasking and placing you before the people of this country
in all the naked deformity of an acknowledged traitor. Henceforth you
must be content to be regarded as the secret abettor of a heartless
conspiracy.... Do not think, Sir, that these are the sentiments of a
violent political opponent who approves of the measures adopted towards
you by the House of Assembly.... These views, Sir, are the views of a
man who has ever denounced the course your adversaries have pursued
towards you as unwise, unjust and unconstitutional. They are the
sentiments of a man who, if he had the power to punish the persons who
first rose you from poverty, ignominy and ruin, to comparative affluence
and popular notoriety, would have sent the destroyers of your press to
less favoured regions. They are the sentiments of one who had up to the
publication of the letter ... regarded you as a man attached to the
institutions of your country.... It is an old adage, 'Give him rope
enough,' etc. You have a moderate quantity, and if the avowal of such
sentiments as you have lately promulgated do not afford you a few yards
more, you may regard yourself as infinitely more fortunate than many
better and bolder men."

[187] "To the many poor settlers who came from Europe, and obtained
grants of lands from the government, he was a friend and adviser, and in
cases of necessity their wants were supplied from his purse or his
granaries. Many is the time, said some of our fellow-prisoners, that we
have seen him, after the toils of the day were over, leave his home to
carry provisions for miles through the pathless forest, to the shanty of
some poor and destitute settler, who with wife and family were rendered
by want and sickness utterly destitute. Those acquainted with the
history of new settlements need not be told how often those who have
been accustomed to better days are obliged to embark in a new career of
life, the duties of which they are totally ignorant and wholly unfitted
for, nor how often sickness is engendered by their great bodily
exertions, by neglect and deprivation. In a country like that in which
Mr. Lount was settled, the inhabitants resided far apart, and consisted
generally of old, worn, and superannuated British officers, who, at the
close of the war, pitched their tents, for the last time, in the
wilderness. The sums which they obtained from the sale of their
half-pay, almost expended in the transportation of their little
families, before arriving on the lands assigned them by
government--unfitted, from their former pursuits, to bear the drudgery
their new course of life required, it was frequently the case, that
before they could raise anything from their lands, they became perfectly
destitute of the necessaries of subsistence. Too proud to seek
assistance, they would starve rather than communicate their situation;
but in Lount, their generous neighbour, they found one quick to discover
and prompt in affording relief, and he would minister to their wants
with such delicacy that the most sensitive would experience a pleasure
rather than the pang of wounded pride."--Theller's _Canada in 1837-38_,
vol. i., pp. 233, 234. I transfer these remarks, not because I have any
respect for Theller's personal testimony on any subject, but because in
the present instance his language clearly expresses the general
sentiment of the period with regard to Samuel Lount, and is confirmed by
the remembrance of many persons still living in and near Holland
Landing.

[188] 3 Wm. IV., c. 15, passed 13th February, 1833.

[189] In the preceding February Dr. Baldwin had thus written in reply to
a notification to attend as a delegate at the District Convention: "This
honour I beg leave to decline, and for this reason: that having
heretofore served the country to the utmost of my humble abilities as
their representative in Parliament, with the sincerest integrity of
purpose in maintenance of popular rights, unspotted, I trust, by one
single vote of a contrary tendency, I, together with many others of the
staunchest friends of those rights, experienced such extreme fickleness
of popular opinion that this conclusion has long been formed in my mind:
that the great body of the people of this Province (without doubt there
are many honourable exceptions), in no wise ignorant of their rights or
the great value of them, are nevertheless shamefully indifferent into
whose hands they commit their preservation and due exercise. Experience
alone must teach the people. This experience is coming to them by
painful lessons.... Under these circumstances I beg you will make my
apology," etc. The letter appears in the _Advocate_ of March 13th, 1834,
following one to a similar purport from Dr. Rolph.

[190] It was continued for some time after by another hand, under the
name of _The Correspondent and Advocate_.



CHAPTER XIV.

SEE, THE CONQUERING HERO COMES!


[Sidenote: 1835.]

Parliament met on the 15th of January, 1835, when the Reform majority in
the Assembly were able to once more elect Mr. Bidwell to the
Speakership. The vote stood thirty-one to twenty-seven. Among the
minority were five or six Conservative members who repudiated the name
of Tory, and were opposed to the policy of the official party, to whom,
as has been seen,[191] they merely yielded a qualified support as the
less of two evils. Such being the state of affairs in the Assembly, the
Compact party were of course precluded from making any further serious
attempts to keep Mackenzie out of the House. The proceedings of previous
sessions relative to the several expulsions were upon motion of
Mackenzie himself expunged from the journals of the House. The baneful
domination letter was made the subject of a long discussion, in the
course of which Mackenzie received some exceedingly hard hits from
Solicitor-General Hagerman; but as he had been manifestly in the wrong
in giving publicity to that letter, and as he had been disciplined by
members of his party to keep silence in the event of an attack on that
score, he sat quietly through the Solicitor-General's onslaught.

The most important proceedings of the session, and the only ones of
which it is necessary to take cognizance in these pages, were those
relating to the Seventh Report of the Grievance Committee, to which
frequent reference has already been made. On Friday, the 23rd of
January, Mackenzie moved for and obtained the appointment of a Special
Committee on Grievances, with power to send for persons, papers and
records, and with authority to report to the House from time to time by
bill, address or otherwise. Mackenzie himself acted as Chairman of the
Committee, the other members of which, as finally struck, were Dr.
Morrison, David Gibson and Charles Waters, one of the members for
Prescott. The famous Seventh Report, which did more to arouse the Home
Government on the subject of Upper Canadian affairs than all previous
efforts in that direction, was completed and presented to the Assembly
on Friday, the 10th of April. It was a truly formidable indictment. It
recapitulated the various grievances under which the Province laboured,
and which called loudly for remedy. These have been already set forth in
former chapters of the present work, and need not here be enlarged upon.
The prevailing tone of the Report was temperate and calm, and there is
little or nothing in it to which serious exception can be taken,
although, as may easily be discerned from internal evidence, the
compilers felt strongly the importance of a vivid presentation of their
case. The Report proper occupies only fifteen folio pages of the
appendix to the official journals of the session; but the evidence taken
by the Committee, and the various letters, papers and documents which go
to make up the mass of valuable information submitted to the Assembly,
extend to voluminous dimensions. In addition to the copies printed for
insertion in the appendix to the journal, two thousand copies of the
complete work were issued separately in octavo form for distribution. It
thus obtained a considerable circulation throughout the Province; and a
copy was also sent to each member of the British House of Commons. The
first copy that left the binder's hands was forwarded to the Colonial
Secretary. All the most pressing grievances were dealt with in greater
or less detail, but special prominence was given to the necessity for a
responsible Government--a Government responsible to public opinion,
which must cease to exist when it ceases to command popular confidence.
The wished-for settlement of this important question would necessarily
comprehend and include the removal of many of the most glaring abuses to
which the people of the Province had long been subject and the Reform
party were keenly alive to the importance of obtaining the concession.
More than a third of the Report proper was devoted to dealing with the
question in its various aspects, and it was shown that the Provincial
Executive were not only impervious to public opinion, but were also
ready enough to disregard the views of the Home Government itself when
those views failed to coincide with their own plans for
self-aggrandizement. Some of the evidence taken was of the most
compromising character, while the refusal of leading members of the
Compact to answer certain questions propounded to them did not tend to
place matters in a more favourable light. Archdeacon Strachan's response
to many of the questions put to him amounted to a practical contempt of
the Committee. "I do not answer that question."--"I have no answer to
give."--"I refer you to the Constitutional Act."--"I cannot answer that
question, owing to its assumptions, which I do not admit." Such are a
few of his replies. The whole of his examination is worth reading, as
exemplifying how far an intelligent man will sometimes permit bigotry
and intolerance to gain possession of his soul. Indeed, the evidence of
all the witnesses may be read with profit by those who wish to gain a
full insight into the state of the Province at that time, and to fully
appreciate the necessity which existed for a change in the mode of
conducting public affairs.

The report, though presented to the Assembly as above intimated, does
not appear to have been formally adopted during the session, but the
passing of the order for the printing of it, together with two thousand
extra copies, amounted to a practical adoption, and was probably so
considered. The Committee could easily have secured its adoption, for
the vote on the Speakership had not fully represented the strength of
the Opposition, who on several questions were able to command a majority
of from ten to eleven. But the fact was again brought vividly home to
the Reform party that mere success at the polls had availed them little.
Notwithstanding the numerical minority of the official party in the
Assembly, they continued to exercise supreme power, and to strengthen
themselves by the constant dispensing of patronage. They controlled the
Legislative Council, and could thus control the legislative powers of
the Assembly, independently of any question of the numerical strength or
weakness of the Opposition in that House. The Legislative Council now
assumed an attitude of determined antagonism to the popular voice, and
would entertain no legislation of a liberal character. The vivid
realization of these facts gave a keen edge to the remarks on
Responsible Government in the Grievance Committee's Report. An Address
setting forth these various discouragements was forwarded to His Majesty
by the Assembly. The language was respectful but firm, and it was hinted
that, if a remedy were not provided, resort would have to be had to the
extreme measure of withholding the usual supplies. Earnest petitions to
His Majesty were at the same time sent across the Atlantic from some of
the rural districts, praying that the principles of the British
constitution might be applied to Canadian affairs.

The Address and petitions were accompanied by the fullest documentary
and other evidence, and, in conjunction with the Grievance Committee's
Report, they stirred the Home Government to action. The Colonial
Secretaryship had changed hands more than once since Mr. Stanley's
tenure of office. The incumbent at this time, and for several years
afterwards, was Lord Glenelg. His Lordship gave much consideration to
the Report, and laid it before the King in person. The Home Government
had by this time fully realized that there was much well-grounded
discontent in the Canadas, and that something must be done to allay it.
It was clear that the Reformers were justified in at least some of their
demands, and that reasonable concessions should be made to them. This
conviction led to an ungracious correspondence between the Colonial
Office and Sir John Colborne,[192] who, owing, as is to be presumed, to
the advice of Chief Justice Robinson and Archdeacon Strachan, was very
reluctant to make concessions as suggested. As this reluctance was made
manifest in the course of the correspondence, the Colonial Secretary
resolved upon His Excellency's recall. Sir John had been appointed by a
Tory Government, the traditions of which had been pretty well swept away
by the effect of the Reform Bill. His mode of conducting the Provincial
Administration may perhaps be to some extent palliated by the
circumstances attending his appointment. But a Whig Government had now
been for some time in power, and an effete colonial policy could not be
permitted to be maintained to the detriment of colonial loyalty. If Sir
John Colborne was not amenable to Whig discipline he must make way for
some one of a more plastic mind. He was meanwhile instructed to delay
the assembling of the Legislature until the Home Government could fully
consider the aspect of affairs, and take such steps for the redress of
the Provincial grievances as might seem advisable.

Having arrived at this conclusion, the Colonial Secretary began to look
about him for a successor to Sir John Colborne. It was not easy to find
one in all respects suitable, for the appointment was not a prize of
such magnitude as to attract persons of really first-rate abilities.
There seems good reason to believe that the place was offered to at
least two fairly competent public servants, both of whom declined
it.[193] In view of his subsequent conduct, it is fair to assume that
Lord Glenelg was sincerely anxious to do his best for Upper Canada, and
to confer the appointment upon the best man within his reach. How
ignominously he failed to carry out his wishes in this particular is
known to every student of Upper Canadian history; but what is not known,
either to students of history or anyone else, is--What was the motive
power which directed his choice? By what whimsical combination of
circumstances it came about that the appointment was finally offered to,
and accepted by, one of the most unlikely men in the three kingdoms, is
one of those official riddles which appear to defy solution. The fact
remains, that the post of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was
conferred upon Sir Francis Bond Head, a Knight of the Royal Hanoverian
Guelphic Order, a retired half-pay Major, an Assistant Poor-Law
Commissioner for one of the Kentish districts, and the author of several
entertaining but exceedingly superficial books of travel. To no one was
the appointment a greater surprise than to Sir Francis himself. He must
have felt the utter absurdity of the thing--that he had no claim to such
a post, and was disqualified from filling it with credit. He neither
knew nor cared anything about Canada. He was altogether ignorant of
politics. He had never joined any political party; never attended a
political discussion; never even voted at an election or taken any part
in one.[194] So far as any knowledge of the British constitution was
concerned, he had as little as any Englishman of decent education could
possibly have. He had no claim upon the Government; was not acquainted
with any member of it; and had never so much as seen Lord Glenelg in his
life.[195] It is certainly not strange that he should have been, as he
says,[196] "altogether at a loss to conceive" why this appointment
should have been offered to him.

From that day down to the present time the circumstance has puzzled
wiser heads than his, and there have been various attempts to solve the
mystery. A tradition is said to be current in the Colonial Office that
the appointment was the result of a singular misapprehension of
identity, and the late Mr. Roebuck assured Sir Francis Hincks that such
was really the fact.[197] A "distinguished Imperial statesman" also
assured Sir Francis that he had heard the same statement,[198] which was
to the effect that the person for whom the appointment was really
intended was the kinsman of Sir Francis, afterwards Sir Edmund Walker
Head, Governor-General of Canada. It is said that at a meeting of the
Cabinet, while the selection of a successor to Sir John Colborne was
under consideration, one of the Ministers suggested that "young Head"
would be a likely man for the position--the person meant being Edmund
Walker Head, who was even then known as possessing wide political
knowledge, in so far, at least, as such knowledge can be obtained from
books. Edmund was moreover known to many public men in Great Britain as
an able writer on political subjects, and was a protégé of the Marquis
of Lansdowne, who was at this time President of the Council, and, by
consequence, a colleague of Lord Glenelg. Edmund, as well as Francis,
was a Poor-Law Commissioner, though he occupied a more exalted position
than his kinsman. Thus, it is argued, there was some show of excuse for
confusing the one with the other. Lord Glenelg, so the story goes, took
the suggestion of his colleague as applying to Sir Francis, and acted
upon it; and before the error was discovered the appointment had been
offered to and accepted by the wrong man.[199] How much truth there may
be in this account of the matter it is not easy to say. Such a blunder
would imply an amount of carelessness barely conceivable in the
management of an important Department of the State. Sir Francis Hincks,
however, who has enjoyed exceptional opportunities of discussing the
story with leading English statesmen, is strongly disposed to believe
it.[200] Whatever opinion may be formed as to its truth or falsity,
certain it is that Sir Francis Bond Head received the appointment, and
that his conduct in Upper Canada did more to alienate the minds of the
colonists generally than anything which had been done by either Sir John
Colborne or Sir Peregrine Maitland. There is this to be said on his
behalf: that he came to Canada at a very critical time--at a time when
diplomatic shrewdness and statesmanlike sagacity were imperatively
demanded of one occupying the position of Lieutenant-Governor. Injustice
had so long borne sway in the land that many of the inhabitants had
ceased to hope for better times. Many despaired of the future, and a
few, whose natural element was opposition, had little desire to be
conciliated.[201] Even a born statesman would have found his task by no
means a sinecure.

To statesmanship no shadow of pretence could be made on behalf of Sir
Francis Head. The texture of his mind was light and airy. He was
inordinately vain and self-conscious; and, as has been seen, he was
devoid of political knowledge and experience. The whole course of his
previous life had been of a character to render him unfit for such
greatness as was now thrust upon him. A considerable part of it had been
spent in travel and adventure, and very little of it in study. He had
left school at an early age, since which time he had encountered
innumerable moving accidents by flood and field in various parts of the
world. He had received a certain amount of training at the Military
Academy at Woolwich, and had obtained a commission in the Royal
Engineers in his nineteenth year. He had seen some active service in
Spain towards the close of the Peninsular War; had been present at
Quatre Bras and Waterloo, and had fought at Fleurus under the Prussian
General Ziethan, where he had had his horse shot under him. After the
restoration of peace he had for some time been engaged in making a
trigonometrical survey of the island of Lampedoza, in the Mediterranean.
Thence he had embarked in a Greek vessel for Tripoli; had been nearly
wrecked through the skipper's intemperance, and had finally been put
ashore at Malta. He had also been Byron-smitten, and had followed in the
wake of the author of "Childe Harold" to the Levant; had contemplated
"the Niobe of nations" among the ruins of Rome; had witnessed the dance
of the dervishes amid the fallen temples of Athens; and had "felt his
patriotism gain force upon the plain of Marathon."[202] He had twice
visited South America as the agent of a company formed for the working
of certain gold and silver mines, and known as the Rio de la Plata
Mining Association. During one of these expeditions he had ridden on
horseback from the port of Buenos Aires across the pampas to the silver
mines of Upsallata, near the foot of the Andes, whence, without any
companion whatever, he had galloped back to Buenos Aires--a distance of
nearly a thousand miles--in the brief space of eight days. Then he had
retraced his course across the pampas, and, collecting a party of miners
at Mendoza, had conducted them over the Andes to Santiago, the capital
of Chili. After "prospecting" the country in various directions, he had
ridden back across the Andes and the pampas to Buenos Aires, having
traversed six thousand miles on horseback in an inconceivably short
time. His "Rough Notes" contains a graphic account of this expedition,
and is very interesting reading. It won for him wide notoriety, and led
to his being commonly referred to in the current literature of the time
as "Galloping Head." His adventurous career had left an indelible stamp
upon his character. He was rash, impetuous, inconsiderate and
superficial, fond of producing dramatic effects, and ever with an eye to
some _coup de théâtre_. He had not been a Poor-Law Commissioner long
enough to have become thoroughly settled down when a king's messenger
arrived at his Kentish abode about midnight, with a missive offering him
the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada. He seems to have
at first had sufficient good sense to decline the proffered honour; but
he allowed himself to be talked into accepting it by Lord Glenelg and
his under-secretary, Mr. Stephen. As I have said elsewhere: "The result
of an appointment made under such circumstances was disaster to the
Province, and something nearly approaching ignominy to himself. As a
civil administrator in a disturbed and grievance-ridden colony, he was
altogether out of his proper element, and furnished a signal instance of
the round peg in the square hole. His administration extended over
little more than two years, but during that period he contrived to
embroil himself with his own Executive, with the Home Government from
which he had received his appointment, and with pretty nearly every one
who was desirous of promoting the cause of political liberty in Upper
Canada. He also contrived to do an amount of mischief which left traces
behind it for many years after he had ceased to have any control over
Canadian affairs. And yet it would be most unjust to represent him as a
deliberately bad or ill-intentioned man. He was simply a weak man out of
his proper sphere."[203] That a man of such mental endowments should
have been sent out to stem the tide of Upper Canadian discontent, and to
conciliate noisy Radicals of the Mackenzie stamp, is in itself
sufficient proof that a huge official blunder of some sort was
committed. What was wanted was a statesman, and a man of Liberal
political views. Had there been any, even the slightest inquiry, it
would have been ascertained that Sir Francis hardly knew the meaning of
the word statesman, and that he had no political views whatever. It is
hardly going too far to say that on all current political subjects,
whether pertaining to the colonies or the mother country, his mind was
little more than a blank. Lord Glenelg had an elaborate paper of
instructions prepared for the new Lieutenant-Governor, This was intended
as the Imperial response to the strong representations which had been
received from Upper Canada in the course of the year. Sir Francis was
directed to communicate the substance of his instructions to both Houses
of the Provincial Parliament. Having been schooled for a few days by Mr.
Stephen, and having gone down to Brighton and been presented to the
King, he set sail, with his suite, from Liverpool for Canada, by way of
New York. While crossing the Atlantic he devoted some time to studying
his instructions, together with the Seventh Report of the Grievance
Committee, with which he had been provided at the Colonial office.[204]
Upon arriving at New York he pushed on to his final destination. "There
would be no end to this chapter," he writes, in the third chapter of his
"Narrative," "were I to describe the simplicity of mind, ill-naturedly
called ignorance, with which I approached the city of Toronto. With Mr.
Mackenzie's heavy book of lamentations in my portmanteau, and with my
remedial instructions in my writing case, I considered myself as a
political physician, who, whether regularly educated or not, was about
to effect a surprising cure; for, as I never doubted for a moment either
the existence of the 553 pages of grievances, nor that I would
mercilessly destroy them, root and branch, I felt perfectly confident
that I should very soon be able proudly to report that the grievances of
Upper Canada were defunct--in fact, that I had veni-ed, vidi-ed and
vici-ed them." Infatuated man, to compare himself to Caesar, even in this
half-jocular manner, at such a time, and to suppose that the bitter
animosities which had been accumulating for the best part of a
generation could be swept out of existence at the mere wave of the hand
of such a weak substitute for "the mighty Julius" as he!

[Sidenote: 1836.]

He reached Toronto on the 23rd of January, 1836. Sir John Colborne was
just ready to take his departure, to the great regret of the official
party, and very much to the delight of the Reformers, who had been led
to believe that the incoming Lieutenant-Governor was a thorough-going
Liberal, sent over expressly to redress their grievances, and to hurl
the Compact from the seat of power which they had so long usurped.
Parliament had been assembled on the 14th of the month, and had ever
since been expecting the arrival of the King's new representative. As
for Sir John Colborne, he was in no good humour with the Imperial
Government, although his rigid ideas as to discipline prevented him from
giving utterance to his displeasure except to some of the members of the
Executive, and even to them his views were imparted with great caution,
and in the strictest secrecy.[205] In consequence of his unsatisfactory
communications from the Colonial Office, he had for some time felt his
position growing more and more uncomfortable, and had solicited his
recall; but his deposition had been fully resolved upon before the
receipt of his request by the Colonial Secretary. He had served out his
full term of six years, and somewhat more, so that his removal did not
imply any reflection upon him. His nature and training unfitted him to
carry out the projects of Reform which it had been determined to set on
foot, but, in his proper sphere, he was recognized as a valuable public
servant, who had all his life done his duty according to the light which
had been vouchsafed to him. The leading spirits of the ruling party in
the Province contemplated his departure with gloomy forebodings. They
also had been led to suppose that Sir Francis Head was a Reformer of
wide experience, who was coming among them to introduce a new order of
things. They resolved to put forth one great effort while the chance
remained to them. They induced Sir John, before his departure, to
perpetrate what may fitly be characterized as the most unstatesmanlike
act of his life: an act which aroused a perfect transport of public
indignation, and caused the name of the perpetrator to be execrated
throughout the length and breadth of the Province.

It will be remembered that[206] provision had been made by the
Constitutional Act for the creation and endowment, out of the lands
reserved for the support of a Protestant Clergy, of parsonages or
rectories, according to the establishment of the Church of England. The
discussion to which the Clergy Reserves had repeatedly given rise had
prevented any advantage being taken of this authority. Nearly half a
century had elapsed since the passing of the Constitutional Act, and as
the power had been allowed to remain unexercised during all that time,
there was good reason to believe that there would be no attempt to put
it in operation, more especially in view of the strong feeling
entertained with regard to the Reserves, and of the fact that the
Provincial Parliament had been requested by the Imperial Government to
legislate on the subject. Previous Colonial Secretaries, Lord Goderich
among the number, had given what might fairly be construed as pledges on
the part of the Imperial Government that no steps would be taken with
respect to the disposal of any part of the Reserves, unless in accord
with the views of a majority of the Upper Canadian people. Yet Sir John
allowed himself to be persuaded into creating and endowing forty-four
rectories[207] with more that 17,000 acres of land, giving an average of
about 386 acres to each. These were put in possession of clergymen, who
were thus enabled to acquire such a personal vested and possessory
interest in the lands as, it was believed, would enable them to make
good their titles thereto in a court of law.

This most reprehensible "clerical land grab" was made on the 15th of
January, eight days before the arrival of Sir John Colborne's successor,
and while Sir Francis was actually _en route_ for Toronto. It was thus
one of Sir John's last official acts. It is said that he was with
difficulty brought to accede to the advice of his Council on the
subject. He at all events seemed to feel that his creation of the
rectories was an extraordinary act, and he took care to say nothing
about the matter to the Imperial Government, who did not discover the
facts until Sir Francis Head had been for some time in office. That the
creation and endowment of the rectories were the means of greatly
intensifying the general discontent throughout the Province, and that
they were thus factors in bringing about the Rebellion, is beyond
question; though to say, as has been said by Mackenzie and others, that
they were the _prime_ factors, is to talk nonsense. The sequel of the
story may as well be briefly outlined here. The Executive Council kept
the matter secret as long as they could, but it was of such a nature
that its early disclosure was inevitable. The transaction became public
property in the course of the spring, soon after the close of the
session of Parliament. No sooner did it become known than the public
indignation began to manifest itself in lurid speeches and newspaper
articles. Meetings were held to denounce Sir John Colborne and those who
had prompted him to this high-handed iniquity. The Wesleyan Methodist
Conference and the Synod of the Church of Scotland in Upper Canada, if
agreeing on no other subject, were of one mind as to this, and
officially pronounced upon it with a vehemence which commended itself to
popular opinion. Petitions without number were sent over the sea. "The
Imperial Government," says Mr. Lindsey,[208] "was besieged with
petitions, praying for the annulment of the rectories. The temper of the
public mind became imbued with that sullenness which a sense of injury
begets, and which forebodes the approach of civil commotion. It was the
idea of violated Imperial faith; of a broken compact between the
Sovereign and his Canadian subjects, that constituted the sting of the
injury. The people recurred to the promise of Lord Goderich that their
wishes should be the Sovereign's guide in the matter, and regarded
themselves as the victims of a deception which brought dishonour on the
Crown and distrust on Imperial faith." The Home Government were in two
minds about repudiating the transaction. The right of the
Lieutenant-Governor to create and endow without the express assent of
the King was not perfectly clear, and the Law Officers of the Crown were
consulted on the question. Those gentlemen, on the case submitted for
their consideration, pronounced the opinion that there had been an
excess of authority, and that the creation and endowment were invalid.
Dr. Strachan, upon becoming acquainted with this circumstance, prepared
a report embodying certain facts and documents which had not been before
the Law Officers, to whom the case was now submitted a second time. The
additional data placed a different face upon the question, and the Law
Officers arrived at a conclusion contrary to that which they had
formerly expressed. The grantees were accordingly permitted to retain
their property undisturbed, but the name of Sir John Colborne continued
to be execrated in Upper Canada for his share in the transaction for
many a year.[209]

FOOTNOTES:

[191] _Ante_, pp. 231, 232.

[192] See _Report of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly on the
Political State of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada_, p. 25.
Toronto, 1838.

[193] See _Rough Notes on Head's Narrative_, by a Liberal, p. 17.
London, 1840.

[194] See his _Narrative_, Chapter III.

[195] _Narrative_, Chapter II.

[196] _Ib._

[197] See _Reminiscences of his Public Life_, by Sir Francis Hincks,
K.C.M.G., C.B. p. 14. Montreal, 1884.

[198] _Ib._, p. 15.

[199] See _The Canadian Portrait Gallery_, vol iv., p. 172.

[200] _Reminiscences_, etc., pp. 14, 15.

[201] The Colonial Office could not even plead, in extenuation of such a
fatal blunder as the appointment of Sir F. B. Head, that it was unaware
of the importance of the crisis in colonial affairs. In the beginning of
the instructions prepared for Sir Francis, dated "Downing Street,
December 15th, 1835," the following words may be found: "I have the
honour herewith to transmit to you a Commission, under His Majesty's
sign-manual, appointing you Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Upper
Canada. You have been selected for this office at an era of more
difficulty and importance than any which has hitherto occurred in the
history of that part of His Majesty's dominions. The expression of
confidence in your discretion and ability which the choice implies would
only be weakened by any more formal assurance which I could convey to
you." What a commentary upon such language was furnished by the mere
fact of the appointment of such an one as Sir Francis Head!

[202] See a brief account of Sir F. B. Head's life published in _The
Courier of Upper Canada_ of June 11th, 1836, written by Alan Fairford
(John Kent), and prefixed, with notes, to the collection of his
Excellency's _Speeches, Messages and Replies_, published at Toronto
during the same year.

[203] _Canadian Portrait Gallery_, Vol. II., p. 169, where the sentences
above quoted form part of a tolerably full sketch of the life of Sir F.
B. Head.

[204] He seems to have been provided with a duplicate copy by Joseph
Hume. See that gentleman's letter to Mackenzie, dated 5th December,
1835, and included in the third chapter of Head's _Narrative_.

[205] See _Report of a Select Committee of the Assembly_, etc., 1838.
See also _The Rectory Question_, p. 2. Toronto, 1836.

[206] _Ante_, p. 63.

[207] The intention was to create fifty-seven rectories, and patents for
that number were actually made out, but thirteen of them were left
unsigned by the Lieutenant-Governor, and the authorities refused to
complete them or to admit their validity. See _The Rectories of Upper
Canada, being a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of
Commons_, etc. Colonial Office, Downing Street, 1839. See also _The Last
Forty Years_, vol. ii., p. 199: _Religious Endowments in Canada; a
Chapter of Canadian History_, by Sir Francis Hincks, K.C.M.G., C.B.;
London, 1869.

[208] See _The Clergy Reserves, their History and Present Position_, by
Charles Lindsey, pp. 30, 31. Toronto, 1851.

[209] It has not been deemed necessary to go very fully into the Rectory
question in these pages. Anyone desiring to do so will find very full
details in the various authorities above cited.



CHAPTER XV.

"A TRIED REFORMER."


Sir Francis Head, upon reaching Toronto on Saturday, the 23rd of
January, temporarily took up his quarters at a hotel, where apartments
had been engaged for him. He was not a little surprised, as he rode
along the streets, to see himself placarded in large letters on the
walls as "Sir Francis Head, a Tried Reformer." What a farce the thing
must have appeared in his eyes, knowing, as he did, that up to the date
of receiving the king's messenger, he had never read a page of practical
politics; that he had never recorded a political vote, and that he was
at this present moment, to use his own frank expression, no more
connected with human politics than the horses that were drawing him! How
he must have marvelled at Fate for playing him such a trick! On the same
day, at the urgent request of Sir John Colborne, he removed to
Government House. On Monday, the 25th, he was sworn into office as
Lieutenant-Governor; and on Tuesday Sir John and his family took their
departure for Montreal. The Compact took care that their staunch friend
should not leave the seat of his Government without some mark of what
might pass for popular favour. A crowd of persons was got together to
cheer as Sir John passed along the streets on his way eastward, and a
stranger might have been excused for believing that the
ex-Lieutenant-Governor was regarded by the populace with feelings of the
warmest affection. He proceeded to Montreal, and had arranged to sail
from New York for England, when he received a despatch appointing him
Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Canada. He accordingly repaired to
Quebec, the capital of the Lower Province, which was already in a state
of ferment, and preparing for the outburst which ensued towards the
close of the following year.

Sir Francis being now formally installed in office, an era of Reform was
commonly supposed to have begun. His manner and address were in the
highest degree pleasing, and he at first produced a most favourable
impression upon all who came within the immediate circle of his
influence. The Reform press sang paeans in his praise. He held no sooner
received his appointment than Joseph Hume had written to Mackenzie
congratulating the Province on the circumstance, and stating that the
conduct and principles of Sir Francis had been much approved of. "My
anxiety is," wrote Mr. Hume, "that you and all the Reformers should
receive Sir Francis in the best possible manner, and do everything
consistent with principle to meet his views and wishes."[210] The fact
was that Mr. Hume was in precisely the same condition as Lord Glenelg
himself with respect to Sir Francis: that is to say, he knew nothing
whatever about him. He seems to have very unwisely taken it for granted
that the new Lieutenant-Governor was a good man for the position because
he had been appointed under Whig auspices. His letter found its way into
all the Reform newspapers in Upper Canada, and Sir Francis had no reason
to complain of the treatment he received at their hands. He was welcomed
as the "Tried Reformer" for whom they had so long prayed in vain. The
Tories and Conservatives, on the other hand, naturally regarded him with
considerable apprehension. They entertained no doubt that his advent
boded their downfall; but they were too wise to betray any solicitude,
and quietly waited the march of events. Parliament being in session, he
received from both Houses congratulatory addresses upon his assumption
of the Government. On the 27th he went down to the Council Chamber, and
made a brief and rather meaningless speech to the Legislature.[211] "As
regards myself," said he, "I have nothing either to promise or profess,
but I trust I shall not call in vain upon you to give me that loyal,
constitutional, unbiased and fearless assistance which your King
expects, and which the rising interests of your country require." He had
been directed by Lord Glenelg to communicate to the Provincial
Legislature the substance of his instructions. He not only communicated
the substance, but a verbatim copy of the letter itself, together with a
copy of the appendix, to each of the Houses. By this injudicious
proceeding he caused no little embarrassment to the Colonial Secretary,
and proved his utter want of experience in diplomatic affairs.[212] Lord
Glenelg, in common with the official world of Great Britain generally,
felt and expressed strong disapprobation of this extraordinary conduct
on the part of the Lieutenant-Governor, who ought to have been recalled
for this act alone, and probably would have been but for the difficulty
of finding a competent man to succeed him.

A certain space must be devoted to an examination of these instructions.
Speaking generally, it may be premised that they showed a disposition to
conciliate the discontent of the colonists, but only after a partial and
piecemeal fashion, such as might be exercised towards persons in a state
of tutelage. It was evident that the Home Government regarded the
colonists as persons who had not reached full political stature, who
were not in all cases able to judge as to what was best for themselves,
and who needed the constant supervision of calmer and loftier
intelligences than their own. In reply to the allegation that the number
of public offices in the colony was in excess of the people's needs, it
was said that in Upper Canada, as in other new countries, the number of
public employments was necessarily larger in proportion than in older
and more densely-peopled states. "In the early stages of such a
society," wrote Lord Glenelg, "many duties devolve upon the Government
which, at a more advanced period, are undertaken by the better educated
and wealthier classes, as an honourable occupation of their leisure
time." He went on to say that His Majesty's Government were not
solicitous to retain more patronage than was necessary for the people's
welfare, but that the selection of public officers must be entrusted to
the head of the local Government, and could not wisely be exercised in
any form of popular election, or committed to any popular body. Such
exercise or transfer, it was suggested, would be destructive of
responsibility and discipline. This doctrine was laid down as a general
rule of action, but any wish to urge it beyond its just and necessary
limits was expressly disclaimed, and it was even suggested that there
were cases in which the doctrine might be contravened. There was no
attempt to go into details as to specific cases, but it was stated as a
general principle that whatever patronage was necessary to maintain
perfect subordination to the prerogatives of the Crown must be retained,
and that whatever was unnecessary for that purpose should be abandoned.
His Excellency was directed to review and consider the subject with
diligence, and to report the result of his investigation. Should he
meanwhile deem it wise to reduce the number of offices, either by
abolition or consolidation, he was authorized to exercise his discretion
in that respect, but any appointment made under such circumstances was
to be merely provisional, and subject to cancellation by the Home
Government. In the selection of persons for public offices his
Excellency was to be guided exclusively by the comparison of the claims
of the candidates by reason of past services or personal qualifications;
and as a general rule no person was to be appointed to office who was
not either a native of the Province or a settled inhabitant of it.
Exceptions to this latter rule were admitted where a knowledge of some
particular art or science was demanded, and where no Provincial
candidate could be found possessing the necessary qualifications. His
Excellency was also left free from restriction in the choice of those
officers immediately attached to his own person. There were various
other directions, not necessary to be specified, on the subjects of
patronage and pensions, salaries and fees, and the Provincial Post
Office. The Clergy Reserves question was dealt with in the most general
manner, no definite course being suggested; and the instructions on this
subject are absolutely devoid of historical or other value. With regard
to the Land-Granting Department, it was assumed that some of the
grievances had been remedied. Reference was made to a despatch of Lord
Ripon's on the subject, and it was stated that any ambiguity therein was
to be removed, while prompt obedience to the instructions embodied
therein was inculcated. Upper Canada College, established by Sir John
Colborne only five years before this time, had already become a ground
of offence to many Reformers. The Assembly, in their Address to His
Majesty, had declared that it was upheld at great public expense, with
high salaries to its principal masters. They had expressed the opinion
that the Province in general derived very little advantage from it, and
that it might be dispensed with. On this subject Lord Glenelg remarked
that there was no desire to retain any charge for the establishment more
than sufficient to suitably provide for the effective performance of the
teachers; but the advantages of such an institution, it was said, ought
to be great, and if the Province derived no benefit from it the
explanation was to be found in some error of management susceptible of
remedy. His Lordship remarked that he should deeply lament the abolition
of a college "of which the defects would appear so remediable, and of
which it does not seem easy to exaggerate the benefits." As for King's
College, which was another educational bone of contention between the
two branches of the Provincial Legislature, it was intimated that His
Majesty would cheerfully resume the consideration of the charter,
provided the assent of both Houses to his doing so could be obtained,
but that, as the subject had been committed to the local Legislature, he
could not withdraw it from their cognizance at the instance of one
branch only. The system of auditing the public accounts had been
complained of as being insufficient for ensuring the proper application
of the revenue. As a remedy, the establishment of a Board of Audit, the
regulation of which should be secured by well-considered legislation,
had been suggested. In this suggestion the Colonial Secretary expressed
his concurrence, and he transmitted various documents explanatory of the
system of auditing the public accounts of the Kingdom. The Assembly
having expressed its belief that the Legislative Council would not
assent to any efficient legislation on the subject, the
Lieutenant-Governor was empowered, in case of that belief being
realized, to constitute a provisional Board of Audit. To remedy another
evil which had been complained of--the withholding of public accounts
from the Assembly--it was proposed that a statute should be passed
providing the time and manner of making periodical returns, and naming
the officers who should render them to the Legislature. Then followed
brief instructions to be observed by the Lieutenant-Governor in his
intercourse with the Assembly. "You will always," wrote his Lordship,
"receive the addresses of the Assembly with the most studious attention
and courtesy. As far as may be consistent with your duty to the King,
you will accede to their wishes cheerfully and frankly. Should that duty
ever compel you to differ from their opinion, or to decline compliance
with their desires, you will explain in the most direct, and of course
in the most conciliatory terms, the ground of your conduct." His
Excellency was instructed to adopt Lord Goderich's despatch to Sir John
Colborne of the 8th of November, 1832,[213] as a rule for the guidance
of his conduct. He was directed to select Justices of the Peace without
reference to political considerations. In the Grievance Committee's
Report, as well as in the Address from the Assembly to the King, great
stress had been laid on the mode of appointing members of the
Legislative Council. It had been represented that that body had utterly
failed to answer the ends for which it had been created, and that the
restoration of legislative harmony and good government required its
reconstruction on the elective principle.[214] The inhabitants of the
Lower Province felt still more strongly on this subject than did their
fellow-colonists in Upper Canada, and had made urgent representations to
His Majesty thereupon in ninety-two resolutions which had been adopted
by the local Assembly during the session of 1834. "The greatest defect
in the constitution of Canada," said they, "is the right of nomination,
by the Crown, of the Legislative Councillors." These resolutions had led
to the appointment by the Imperial Government of a commission of
investigation into the affairs of Lower Canada, and as the principles
bearing upon the question of an elective Legislative Council were the
same in both Provinces, Lord Glenelg now contented himself with
appending the instructions issued to the commissioners, and referring to
the views therein contained as having received the deliberate sanction
of the King. A similar device was adopted with respect to the demand for
the control by the Assembly of the territorial and casual revenues of
the Crown.

The one great overshadowing question of Executive responsibility was
dealt with by Lord Glenelg in a most perfunctory and unsatisfactory
manner. It was apparent that he either wholly failed to grasp the real
significance of the theme, or that he fenced with it for the mere
purpose of beguiling the colonists with a counterfeit presentment.
"Experience would seem to prove," he wrote, "that the administration of
public affairs in Canada is by no means exempt from the control of a
sufficient practical responsibility. To His Majesty and to Parliament
the Governor of Upper Canada is at all times most fully responsible for
his official acts. That this responsibility is not merely nominal, but
that His Majesty feels the most lively interest in the welfare of his
Canadian subjects, and is ever anxious to devote a patient and laborious
attention to any representations which they may address to him, either
through their representatives or as individuals, is proved not only by
the whole tenor of the correspondence of my predecessors in this office,
but by the despatch which I am now addressing to you. That the Imperial
Parliament is not disposed to receive with inattention the
representations of their Canadian fellow-subjects is attested by the
labours of the committees which have been appointed by the House of
Commons during the last few years to inquire into matters relating to
those Provinces." It was declared to be the Lieutenant-Governor's duty
to vindicate to the King and the Imperial Parliament every act of his
administration. In the event of any complaint being preferred against
him, his conduct was to receive the most favourable construction. The
Assembly, it was said, were at all times able to invoke the
interference of the King and Parliament. Every public officer was
to depend on the King's pleasure--_i.e._, upon the pleasure of the
Lieutenant-Governor--for the tenure of his office. Certain rules were
then laid down, the observance of which, it was said, would produce a
system of perfect responsibility. As these rules differed in no
essential respect from those which had consistently been acted upon by
Francis Gore, Sir Peregrine Maitland and Sir John Colborne, it was
evident that the system of responsibility contemplated by Lord Glenelg
was not identical with that desired by Upper Canadian Reformers. Lord
Glenelg certainly made good his asseveration that the Upper Canadian
Executive were "practically responsible." But to whom were they
responsible? To the Upper Canadian people? Not at all. The
responsibility was to the King and Parliament of Great Britain--that is
to say, to Downing Street, several thousand miles away. Of what avail
was such responsibility, guarded, as it was, by secret despatches, "like
a system of espionage"?[215] Had this responsibility to Downing Street
ever saved "a single martyr to Executive displeasure"?[216] Had it been
of any avail for the protection of Robert Gourlay, Captain Matthews,
Francis Collins or Robert Randal? Had it preserved from the dry pan and
the slow fire any one of a score of individuals whose only offence
against the State was that they would not willingly sacrifice their
rights, and become the tools of venality and corruption? In not one
solitary instance had it served any such purpose. Such responsibility
was a mockery, "a broken reed, which it would be folly ever again to
rest upon."[217] Of real, constitutional responsibility to the people
there was not so much as a pretence. "All the powers of the Government,"
says Mr. Lindsey, "were centralized in Downing Street, and all the
colonial officers, from the highest to the lowest, were puppets in the
hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the same time, the
outward trappings of a constitutional system, intended to amuse the
colonists, served no other end than to irritate and exasperate men who
had penetration enough to detect the mockery, and whose self-respect
made them abhor the sham."[218]

In an early paragraph of these instructions, Lord Glenelg had objected,
on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to any resort on the part of the
Assembly to that ulterior measure--the stoppage of the supplies--to
which allusion had been made in the Address of that body, and had
referred to it as a proceeding to be justified only by an extreme
emergency. He concluded with an expression of earnest hope that the
representatives of the Upper Canadian people would receive with
gratitude and cordiality this renewed proof of His Majesty's paternal
solicitude for the welfare of his loyal subjects in the Province, and
that, laying aside all groundless distrusts, they would cheerfully
coöperate with the King and the Lieutenant-Governor in advancing the
prosperity of "that interesting and valuable portion of the British
Empire."

As already mentioned, the full text of the instructions was communicated
by the new Lieutenant-Governor to the Upper Canadian Assembly. Apart
from the fact that this proceeding was not warranted either by usage or
express permission, it was short-sighted and unwise, for the
instructions were not such as to be by any means satisfactory, either to
the official party or the Opposition. The Opposition perceived that,
under a cover of many fair words and specious phrases, there was very
little substantial concession. To the official party it seemed that the
spirit of concession was manifested much too strongly, and as the
appointment of Sir Francis Head had been hailed by the Reformers as a
triumph, anything in the nature of concession, filtered through such a
medium, was naturally regarded with strong suspicion. As for Sir Francis
himself, his mind seems to have been for some weeks in a chaotic state.
He had not been installed in office many days before he had a succession
of private interviews with several leading members of the Reform party.
In the course of a conversation with Mr. Bidwell, who, it will be
remembered, was Speaker of the Assembly, he for the first time became
aware that the Report of the Grievance Committee was not recognized by
the Reform party as being a complete exposition of the case as between
the Home Government and themselves.[219] He soon after had an interview
with Mackenzie, who, in conjunction with Dr. Morrison, was chiefly
responsible for the existence of the Report. "I thought," writes Sir
Francis,[220] "that of course he would be too happy to discuss with me
the contents of his own book, but his mind seemed to nauseate its
subjects even more than Mr. Bidwell's. Afraid to look me in the face, he
sat, with his feet not reaching the ground, and with his countenance
averted from me, at an angle of about seventy degrees; while, with the
eccentricity, the volubility, and indeed the appearance of a madman, the
tiny creature raved about grievances here and grievances there, which
the Committee, he said, had not ventured to enumerate." This was a
revelation to the Lieutenant-Governor, and set him thinking. He
attempted to discuss the merits of the Report with various persons, but
encountered what was to him an inexplicable reluctance to talk about it.
All were ready to discuss the grievances themselves, but no leading
Reformer was disposed to admit the Report into the discussion. The
reason of this was doubtless because the Report had been chiefly
fathered by Mackenzie, and they were unwilling to accept him as their
mouthpiece. As for Mackenzie's own disinclination to enter into a
discussion of the matter, it probably arose from a feeling that it would
be unwise for him to tie himself down to a particular record, beyond
which he would not be permitted to travel. Sir Francis, writing three
years afterwards, declares that "the light of truth" at once burst upon
his mind, and that he perceived that the Grievance Report was a mere
pretext for Rebellion.[221] It is quite clear that he perceived nothing
of the kind, and that "the light of truth" was a mere after-thought with
him. It is impossible for one in his sober senses to see what does not
exist, and at this time there was no purpose of rebellion in the heart
of anyone with whom the Lieutenant-Governor came in contact--not even in
the heart of Mackenzie himself, who might easily have been conciliated
by wisdom and prudence. Had Sir Francis been half as clever and astute
as he professed to believe himself to be--nay, had he even been fairly
honest and truthful, and possessed of the most ordinary good
sense--there would probably have been no such thing as an Upper Canadian
Rebellion.

He had not been a fortnight in the country when suggestions began to be
made to him from various quarters as to the membership of the Executive
Council. That body, for the nonce, consisted of only three persons,
namely, Peter Robinson, Commissioner of Crown Lands; George Herchmer
Markland, Inspector-General; and Joseph Wells, Bursar of King's
College. The presence of all three of these persons was necessary to the
formation of a quorum, and in case of the illness or unavoidable absence
of any one of them the public business would have been interrupted and
delayed. Mr. Robinson, moreover, was not only an Executive Councillor,
but, as just mentioned, was also Commissioner of Crown Lands. In the
former capacity the duty was imposed upon him of taking part in the
auditing of his own accounts. This invidious necessity would no longer
exist if additional members were appointed, as a quorum could easily be
obtained without Mr. Robinson's presence being required at the Council
Board. These facts were indisputable, and the argument to be deduced
therefrom was unanswerable. Additional Councillors must be appointed.
But from what class of the community should they be selected? Sir
Francis, the "Tried Reformer," had begun to conceive a distaste for the
Reformers of Upper Canada. There seemed to be a natural antagonism
between him and them. The reason is not far to seek. Persons of the
social grade of Mackenzie were inconceivably odious to this "diner-out
of the first water;" while men like Bidwell and Baldwin made him
painfully conscious of his own littleness and insufficiency for the task
which he had undertaken. Yet he could not venture to call to his Council
any of the remnant of the Tory Compact, and thereby utterly ignore the
Liberal principles which were presumed to have dictated his appointment.
The Tories, moreover, had seen fit to petition the King against his very
first administrative act--the appointment of a Surveyor-General. As for
the Conservatives, as distinct from the Tories, they had not yet
formulated a distinct policy, and none of their leaders had come very
conspicuously to the front.

It seemed clear, then, that the choice must be made from the Reform
ranks. After much deliberation and inquiry,[222] the Lieutenant-Governor
came to the conclusion that approaches should be made to Robert Baldwin,
a gentleman to whom he refers as "highly respected for his moral
character, being moderate in his politics, and possessing the esteem and
confidence of all parties."[223] His Excellency's resolve on this
subject was approved of by the Speakers of the two Houses, as well as
by the three members of the Council, to all of whom the project was
submitted before any attempt was made to carry it out. When the proposal
was made to Mr. Baldwin it was received by him with becoming respect,
but with a coolness of demeanour which was far from flattering to the
vanity of Sir Francis, who seems to have expected that the recipient
would be well-nigh overwhelmed by the honour. The latter stated that he
was very reluctant to again embark in public life, and he explained his
views on the political situation with great frankness. There were
several interviews, in the course of which Sir Francis did his utmost to
induce Mr. Baldwin to accede to his wishes. Mr. Baldwin required time
for consideration, an indulgence which was of course accorded. The
Lieutenant-Governor being anxious to carry his point, sent for Mr.
Baldwin's father, Dr. W. W. Baldwin, for the purpose of securing his
influence in the negotiations. Father and son were both of one mind.
There was little or nothing in common between the political sentiments
of the three members of the existing Executive Council and the man whom
it was proposed to add to their number. How, then, could it be expected
that they would agree as to the policy of the Administration. If they
did not agree, what would Mr. Baldwin's single voice avail against the
other three? And, even admitting that this anomaly could be got rid of,
it was deemed necessary that there should be some understanding on the
subject of Executive responsibility before Mr. Baldwin could consent to
accept a seat in the Council. He and his father, from whom his political
ideas had been chiefly derived, had for years contended that Responsible
Government already existed in Upper Canada by virtue of the
Constitutional Act, and that when a Government failed to command a
majority of votes in the Assembly it was legally bound to resign. It was
of course notorious that this principle had never been recognized by the
Provincial Administration, but Mr. Baldwin was of opinion that the
constitution had been systematically violated in this particular. In
talking over the matter with the Lieutenant-Governor he now discovered
that the latter was entirely unacquainted with constitutional questions,
and that he had no ideas on the subject whatever, beyond such as he had
picked up within the past few days. Still, his Excellency's good temper,
and his seeming anxiety to do his duty, won upon the sympathies of Mr.
Baldwin, who naturally felt desirous to be of service to a man who had
come to Canada in the guise of a tried Reformer, and who professed to be
actuated by a sincere desire to govern the colony on Liberal principles.
After several courteous refusals, and after much consideration and
repeated consultations with his friends, Mr. Baldwin consented to accept
office, provided that seats in the Council were at the same time offered
to his father, and to Dr. Rolph and Mr. Bidwell. Dr. Baldwin was so
unwilling to accept the cares of office that his name was dropped by
common consent. To Dr. Rolph no objection was felt, but his Excellency
had conceived an antagonism towards Mr. Bidwell, with whom he had had
frequent interviews, and who had not scrupled to express himself with
much freedom on the necessity for a regular system of Provincial Reform.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed that John Henry Dunn, the
Provincial Receiver-General, should be substituted for Mr. Bidwell. Mr.
Dunn was not a member of any political party, nor had he any special
aptitude for political life; but he was a man of high character and
moderate views, and was held in much public estimation. On Saturday the
20th of February the three new Councillors were sworn into office and
gazetted, "until the King's pleasure be known."[224] The three old
members retained their places.

This manifestation of a resolve to carry on the Government of the
Province by means of Councillors possessing the public confidence was
hailed with great favour by the Reform party, and indeed by the
Conservatives as well, for Messieurs Baldwin, Rolph and Dunn were
persons for whom the highest respect was felt by all classes of the
community, and were regarded as being altogether above suspicion. Even
the members of the Compact were disposed to favour the arrangement, for,
in consequence of rumours which had reached their ears, they had dreaded
that the Lieutenant-Governor might possibly ally himself with the
Radicals, who, if placed in power, would have done their utmost to exact
a reckoning for past abuses. Upon the whole, then, Sir Francis had
materially strengthened his position. But the strength was fictitious
rather than real, and the baseless fabric which he had reared with such
pains quickly tottered and fell. The three new Councillors were not long
in discovering that their places were sinecures. His Excellency wanted
none of their counsel, and had no intention of permitting them to have
any real voice in the carrying-on of the Government. To one person only
did he apply for advice in every emergency. That person was not a member
of the Government, and was therefore an unsworn counsellor, under no
semblance of responsibility to anybody. He was a power behind the
throne, with all the privileges and none of the disabilities attaching
to such a position. The gentleman elevated to this anomalous dignity was
Chief Justice Robinson, Speaker of the Legislative Council, the
master-spirit of the Family Compact, and the life-long champion of those
very abuses which the "Tried Reformer" was currently supposed to have
been sent out to remove. The Councillors, old as well as new, were
treated as mere figure-heads. They were consulted about land matters and
insignificant questions of detail, but the policy and measures of the
Government seldom passed under their review, or were submitted to them
for advice.[225] Some of these measures were such as they could not
approve or sanction. His Excellency nominated two adherents of the old
official party to vacant offices upon which they had no sort of claim.
He refused the royal assent to the Felons' Counsel Bill, a measure
"demanded by justice and humanity, and passed for more than ten years,
almost unanimously, by repeated and different Houses of Assembly."[226]
The Councillors were thus made to seem responsible for acts over which
they had no control, and of which some of them, at least, highly
disapproved. The Reform party were astonished to see such things done
under the auspices of a Government of which Robert Baldwin and Dr. Rolph
were members. They however acquitted both those gentleman of having
advised such acts. It was believed by Reformers generally that the three
new Councillors were not consulted, or else that the old members, with
the umpirage of the Lieutenant-Governor, predominated.[227]

This state of things could not be allowed to continue. The Executive
Councillors consulted together, and determined upon a remonstrance with
the Lieutenant-Governor. This remonstrance was formally prepared in
writing, and sent in to his Excellency on Friday, the 4th of March. The
three old members concurred in it, and it was signed by all the six in
order of seniority. The mere fact of this concurrence affords strong
evidence of the growth of the power of public opinion in the Province.
In past times members of the Executive Council had been content to pose
as figure-heads year after year, while John Beverley Robinson and one or
two others manipulated and directed the whole course of public affairs.
It is probable, however, that in the present instance the three senior
Councillors may have been influenced by the arguments of Baldwin and
Rolph, who felt very strongly on the question at issue.

The Lieutenant-Governor's reply, every paragraph of which bears evidence
of the Chief Justice's cunning hand, is dated on the following day, but
was not actually communicated until the next regular Council day, which
was Thursday, the 10th. It contained a firm but courteous expression of
his Excellency's dissent from the opinions expressed by the Executive
Councillors as to their privileges and duties. It was contended that the
Lieutenant-Governor was the sole responsible minister, and the
difference between the constitution of the mother-country and the colony
was referred to as being highly advantageous to the latter. His
Excellency, it was said, was only bound to consult his Council when he
felt the need of their advice, and to do so on the innumerable subjects
upon which he was daily compelled to decide would be "as utterly
impossible as for any one but himself to decide upon what points his
mind required or needed" advice. The position taken by the Councillors
was declared to be unconstitutional, but his Excellency informed them
that his estimation of their talents and integrity, as well as his
personal regard for them, remained unshaken, and that he was not
insensible to the difficulties to which he would be exposed should they
deem it necessary to resign. He added, however, that should they be of
opinion that their oaths required them to retire from office, he begged
that they would not on his account hesitate to do so. As they were very
strongly of that opinion, they waited on his Excellency on Saturday, the
12th, and tendered their resignations, which were accepted. They had
held office precisely three weeks.

The clue to this puzzle is easily found. Sir Francis had conceived an
utter distaste for the persons and political principles of the Reformers
of Upper Canada. There was an inherent antagonism between the nature of
this shallow, feather-brained sketcher by the wayside and the natures of
men like Rolph, Bidwell and the Baldwins, whose quiet earnestness and
fixity of purpose had been intensified by the long course of injustice
to which they, in common with their party, had been subjected. The
earnestness of these gentlemen presented itself to him in the light of
importunity, if not of impertinence. He could hardly be expected to
sympathize very strongly with their unconquerable zeal for principles
which he did not understand: which he was perhaps incapable of
understanding. Then, Sir Francis was an eminently social personage, and
the social qualities of the leaders of Upper Canadian Reform were not of
a high order. To them, small talk across the walnuts and the wine seemed
utterly incongruous in view of the momentous public questions which were
urgently pressing for a solution. In this particular they presented a
marked contrast to the leading spirits of the Compact. The Robinsons,
Hagermans and Sherwoods, one and all, could not only advise the
Lieutenant-Governor on the affairs of the Province, but could be
pleasant and entertaining companions. They were not very different from
the county magistrates and other officials with whom he had been
accustomed to confer in his capacity of a poor-law commissioner. They
were moreover exceedingly diplomatic. They saw the importance of winning
him to their side, and governed themselves accordingly. They lost no
opportunity of making themselves agreeable to him. Instead of boring him
with what, to his understanding, seemed abstruse speculations on
executive responsibility and an elective Legislative Council, they
scouted such doctrines as myths begotten in the moody brains of
unpractical and discontented men. The wide knowledge, long experience
and specious eloquence of the Chief Justice enabled him to present the
Tory side of these arguments with much plausibility. Sir Francis soon
became convinced that the issue was not merely between two sides of
colonial politics, but between monarchy and republicanism, between
loyalty and disloyalty, between Great Britain and the United States. As
he afterwards declared, he believed that he was "sentenced to contend on
the soil of America with Democracy,[228]" and that if he did not
overpower it, he would himself be compelled to succumb. Having brought
himself to this conclusion, he not unnaturally preferred the _role_ of
the hammer to that of the anvil. It was surely better to strike than to
be struck. Acting on this principle, he made a complete surrender of
himself to the Family Compact, and from that time forward was in all
essential respects guided by their counsels. His rashness and
impetuosity sometimes led him to act on his own motion, and without
waiting to take counsel from any quarter; but in all ordinary affairs of
administration he was guided by Sir John Robinson quite as effectually
as Sir John Colborne had ever been.

No sooner was it announced that the Executive Councillors had all
resigned office than the public pulse began to beat at an accelerated
pace. The excitement was greatly intensified upon the publication of a
letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, in which, by the
Lieutenant-Governor's special permission, all the attendant
circumstances were set forth in detail. This letter, having been written
for the express purpose of being read by Mr. Perry from his place in the
Assembly, and of being afterwards published in the newspapers, is
somewhat formal and official in its tone, but it presents the
subject-matter in a clear light, and must be regarded as an important
contribution to the history of Responsible Government in Upper Canada.
It is the chief, indeed the only trustworthy original authority for the
facts as to the precise dispute between Sir Francis and his Council, for
the former's account[229] is more than usually incomplete and one-sided
when dealing with this episode. The essential portions of Mr. Baldwin's
presentation of the case have been embodied in the foregoing narrative.
The Lieutenant-Governor lost no time in providing himself with a new
Council. On the 14th of March, when the resignation was only two days
old, an extraordinary issue of the _Gazette_ announced that Robert
Baldwin Sullivan, John Elmsley, Augustus Baldwin and William Allan had
been appointed members of the Executive Council of the Province. The
reader has already made the acquaintance of all these gentlemen with the
exception of Augustus Baldwin, who was a retired naval officer of high
character, but of no particular politics; a brother of Dr. Baldwin, and
by consequence an uncle of Robert Baldwin. All four of the new
Councillors were persons of character and position, but they were not in
sympathy with the Liberal sentiments of the period, and the people
generally were not disposed to place any political confidence in them.
Elmsley and Allan were consistent, old-fashioned Tories. Baldwin's
leanings, so far as he had any, were in the same direction. Sullivan's
youth and early life had been passed amid more or less Liberal
influences, but of late he had shown a retrogressive tendency in
political matters. This was largely due to personal rivalry between
Mackenzie and himself in municipal affairs. As previously mentioned, he
had defeated Mackenzie at the municipal elections for St. David's Ward,
and had been elected mayor of Toronto in the beginning of 1835. The
contest had been waged between them with unseemly rancour. Sullivan had
denounced Mackenzie as a noisy upstart and demagogue; while Mackenzie
had characterized Sullivan as an oily-tongued, unprincipled lawyer, who
would lie the loudest for the client who had the longest purse. All
Mackenzie's supporters during the contest had been Radicals, or at least
persons of strong Reform proclivities. This had arrayed the whole Tory
and Conservative vote on the side of Sullivan, who was thus in a measure
brought under anti-Reform influences. His social tastes also inclined
him in the same direction, so that he soon came to be classed as a
Conservative. Reformers were disposed to look askance at him as a
political renegade, and this disposition was increased upon his
acceptance of office under Sir Francis Head at the present juncture. He
alone, of all the new Councillors, was a man of exceptional ability. He
was not inaccurately described, a few years later, as "an Irishman by
birth, and a lawyer by profession; a man who, if he had united
consistency of political conduct and weight of personal character with
the great and original talents which he unquestionably possessed, might
have taken a conspicuous part in the public affairs of any
country."[230]

These transactions--the resignation of the Councillors and the
appointment of their successors--produced a tremendous effervescence of
feeling among the Opposition in the Assembly, who had already conceived
strong suspicions of the Lieutenant-Governor's motives. But the
excitement was not confined to the Opposition. It was participated in by
the Conservatives, and, even, for a time, by most of the ultra-Tories.
On the 14th of March, the House, by a vote of fifty-three to two,
adopted a resolution unequivocally assertive of the principles which the
ex-Councillors had endeavoured to maintain. Ten days later an address to
the Lieutenant-Governor, based on this resolution, was passed by a vote
of thirty-two to nineteen. It expressed deep regret that his Excellency
had consented to accept the resignation of his late Council. It declared
the Assembly's entire want of confidence in the new appointments, and
humbly requested that immediate steps might be taken to remove the new
Councillors from office. Meanwhile, petitions on the all-engrossing
subject poured into the Assembly from all over the Province.[231] Public
meetings were called in Toronto, as well as in some other of the
principal towns, at which resolutions were passed echoing the Assembly's
address, imploring the Lieutenant-Governor to dismiss his present
advisers, and to call to his Council gentlemen possessing public
confidence.

One of these gatherings tended in an especial manner to widen the
irreparable breach between Sir Francis Head and the Reform party. On the
25th of March a meeting was held in the City Hall, Toronto, at which an
Address to his Excellency of exceptional significance was passed. It
dealt at considerable length with the constitutional question at issue;
referred to Responsible Government as having been introduced by the
Constitutional Act; expressed surprise and sorrow at the resignation of
the late Councillors, and an entire want of confidence in their
successors. It deplored the apparent fact that his Excellency was acting
under the influence of evil and unknown advisers. In conclusion, it
claimed all the rights and privileges of the British constitution, and
that the representative of the Crown should be advised by men known to
and possessing the confidence of the people. When the deputation called
at Government House to present this Address, they were treated with an
off-hand abruptness and _brusquerie_ which gave them much offence. The
reply of his Excellency was wordy and unsatisfying in tone; but its most
objectionable feature was the air of assumed superiority by which it was
pervaded. It referred to the meeting represented by the deputation as
having been composed principally of "the industrious classes," but
added, with a seeming loftiness of condescension, that the Address
should be replied to with as much attention as if it had proceeded from
either of the branches of the Legislature--"although," said his
Excellency, "I shall express myself in plainer and more homely
language." This was bad enough, but its effect was intensified by the
demeanour of the Lieutenant-Governor and several military officers who
were in attendance upon him. It seemed to the deputation that those
gentlemen regarded them with supercilious impertinence; as a something
which viceroyalty must be content, for the nonce, to endure, but as
being altogether beyond the pale of their sympathies or interests.
Nothing could have been in worse taste than such conduct as this, though
it is possible enough that more sensitiveness was displayed than was
called for by the actual circumstances. The deputation withdrew, cut to
the quick by the indignities which they, rightly or wrongly, conceived
themselves to have sustained. On the succeeding evening a meeting of
themselves and some of their friends was held at the house of Dr.
Morrison--who was now mayor of the city--at which a bitterly sarcastic
rejoinder was prepared. It thanked his Excellency for replying to an
Address from "the industrious classes" with as much attention as if it
had proceeded from either branch of the Legislature, and acknowledged
his condescension in expressing himself in plain and homely
language--language presumed to be brought down to the level of the plain
and homely understandings of his interlocutors, whose deplorable want of
education was accounted for by the maladministration by former
Governments of the endowments of King's College, and by the
impossibility of obtaining a sale of the Clergy Reserves and the
appropriation of the proceeds to educational purposes. "It is,"
proceeded this cutting rejoinder, "because we have been thus maltreated,
neglected and despised, in our education and interests, under the system
of Government that has hitherto prevailed, that we are now driven to
insist upon a change that cannot be for the worse." Reference was made
to the desire to bring about a system of Responsible Government, and the
utter futility of mere responsibility to Downing Street was pointed out
with a pointed eloquence which proved that the signatories were in
deadly earnest. The misgovernment of Dalhousie and Aylmer in Lower
Canada, and of Gore, Maitland and Colborne in Upper Canada, was touched
upon in a few brief, vitriolic sentences. It was shown that, though
these gentlemen had been responsible to Downing Street, they had not
only met with no punishment, but had actually been promoted to higher
honours. "We do not mean," said they, "in our plain and homely
statement, to be discourteous, by declaring our unalterable conviction
that a nominal responsibility to Downing Street, which has failed of any
good with the above gentlemen of high pretensions to honour, character
and station, cannot have any magic operation in your Excellency's
administration, which, should it end as it has unhappily begun, might
make us drink the cup of national misgovernment to the very dregs,
without (as experience proves) redress on our part, or retribution on
yours." There was much more of the same sort. The document concluded by
stating that if the Lieutenant-Governor would not govern upon sound
constitutional principles he would violate the charter, virtually
abrogate the law, and justly forfeit submission to his authority.

This was beyond doubt the most vigorously-written protest that had ever
been presented to an Upper Canadian Lieutenant-Governor. It was signed
by Jesse Ketchum, James Hervey Price, James Lesslie, Andrew McGlashan,
James Shannon, Robert McKay, M. McLellan, Timothy Parsons, William
Lesslie, John Mills, E. T. Henderson, John Doel, John E. Tims, and
William J. O'Grady. All these were ardent Radicals, and coadjutors of
Mackenzie. Two of them--Jesse Ketchum and James Lesslie--delivered the
rejoinder at Government House, without waiting for a reply. It was
already in type, and during the next day was widely read and commented
upon. The Lieutenant-Governor was not insensible to its cutting irony,
but it did not admit of any sur-rejoinder, and after the first transient
ebullition of his wrath, the matter, so far as he was concerned, was
quietly permitted to drop out of sight. The document, however, acted as
an additional stimulus to the public excitement, and it continued to be
quoted against Sir Francis from time to time so long as he remained in
the colony.

While these events were occurring the Provincial Legislature still
remained in session. A Committee having been appointed by the Assembly
to consider the correspondence between the Lieutenant-Governor and the
ex-Councillors, it proceeded to deal with the question in the usual
manner. The report was presented to the Assembly on the 18th of April.
In the course of the debate which ensued, several eloquent speeches were
made on the Tory side. The most effective Tory arguments were founded
upon the assumption that the concession of Responsible Government would
be a mere preliminary to separation from the mother country. The speech
made by Mr. Hagerman on this occasion was one of the most brilliant
efforts of his life. Mere verbal eloquence, however, exhausted itself in
vain. The report was adopted by a vote of thirty-two to twenty-one. It
was even more directly condemnatory of the Lieutenant-Governor than the
rejoinder above referred to had been. It expressed the Committee's
belief that the appointment of the three ex-Councillors had been a
deceitful manoeuvre to gain credit with the country for Liberal
feelings and intentions where none really existed. The question of
Executive responsibility was gone into at considerable length, and the
conduct of the ex-Councillors was approved of in every particular. There
is no need to analyze the entire report, which was long and exhaustive.
It distinctly recommended the withholding of the annual supplies. The
Assembly, by adopting the report, and by committing itself to this
extreme measure, proved that, in the language of Lord Glenelg's
instructions,[232] it regarded the present in the light of "an
emergency." The supplies, however, were not entirely withheld. Money
was granted for the construction of roads, for schools, for the
improvement of navigation, and other useful purposes; but all these
grants were nullified by the Lieutenant-Governor, who signified his
disapprobation of the Assembly's conduct by refusing his assent to the
money-bills of the session. He afterwards stated as one of his reasons
for this refusal that he had good grounds for believing a portion of the
money would have been spent by the Assembly in sending an agent to
England[233]--which was probably the fact.

The Assembly, feeling that some reason should be assigned for their
action in the matter of the supplies, which were now withheld for the
first time in the history of Upper Canada, passed an Address to the
King, in which the Lieutenant-Governor's conduct was painted in no
neutral tints. He was directly charged with being despotic, tyrannical,
unjust and deceitful. His conduct was declared to have been "derogatory
to the honour" of his Majesty, and "demoralizing to the community." A
memorial to the House of Commons was also adopted, in which his public
acts were referred to as having been arbitrary and vindictive, and
wherein he was charged with mis-statements, misrepresentations, and
"deviations from candour and truth." This bitterly-worded memorial was
formally signed by Mr. Bidwell as Speaker of the House--a circumstance
which was long remembered against him by the person implicated.

It must have been gall and wormwood to Sir Francis to be compelled to
forward these documents to the Colonial Office. It was the first time
that clear and undisguised charges of so humiliating a nature had been
officially laid against a colonial Lieutenant-Governor, and one must
needs confess that nothing short of the most unassailable evidence could
have justified the employment of such terms in a communication between
two representative bodies respecting a trusted servant of the Crown,
more especially in the case of one occupying so lofty a position.
Something is due to the proprieties, and to accuse a man of deviations
from candour and truth is of course merely a slightly periphrastic
method of charging him with falsehood. The Assembly, however, had become
convinced, not without reason, that Sir Francis's word was not to be
trusted. Other persons who had been brought into more or less intimate
relations with him had been driven to the same conclusion.[234] The fact
is that when his feelings were much stirred he knew not how to speak the
language of truth and soberness. He talked so much and so thoughtlessly
that he very frequently gave utterance to the thing which was not. Some
excuse might perhaps be made for one who, in the heat or haste of verbal
controversy, gives currency to erroneous statements. But Sir Francis's
mis-statements were not confined to verbal controversy. He had been
distinctly convicted of "a deviation from candour and truth" in a
deliberate official communication. The Assembly had requested that they
might be furnished with copies of any bond or agreement between him and
his Councillors respecting the administration of the Government in the
event of his Excellency's death or removal. To this request Sir Francis
had replied, explicitly denying the existence of any document of such a
nature. Yet upon the examination of certain of the Councillors it had
been proved that an agreement on the subject had actually been made, and
that it had been reduced to writing by his Excellency's own hand. The
devices to which he had had recourse in his attempts to prove that he
had merely been guilty of tergiversation instead of downright lying,
were such as positively to aggravate the original offence, and to fully
justify the Assembly in refusing to attach any weight to his unsupported
statement upon any subject.[235] As the weeks passed by, the quarrel
between him and the Assembly waxed positively ferocious. On the 20th of
April he prorogued Parliament, making a speech on the occasion which
must have occupied a full hour or more in delivery, and wherein he
reviewed, in his own inimitable fashion, and from his own point of view,
the various events by which his Administration had up to this time been
characterized. Any attempt to analyze it here is altogether out of the
question. It should be read in its entirety in the official Journal of
the session.

During the weeks following the prorogation the public excitement
continued to increase, until it had reached a height without precedent
in the history of the Province. The Reformers felt that they had been
wofully deceived in the Lieutenant-Governor, and many of them placed no
bounds to their censure. Some of the Reform newspapers hinted pretty
strongly that no people could be expected to remain permanently loyal
when they were deprived of their rights year after year, and when all
their petitions were set at naught. The political atmosphere was charged
with electricity. The outlook was lurid and ominous. Some of the
loyalists began to dread an actual uprising of the people. Such an
uprising, they thought, would be a legitimate sequel to so extraordinary
a proceeding as the stoppage of the supplies. To not a few well-meaning
but old-fashioned people the mere act of refusing to vote the supplies
was in itself a species of treason. To more practical people this act
presented itself in a different aspect. It seemed to them indicative of
a niggard and ruinous parsimony. They gazed with ill-concealed envy at
the marvellous prosperity of the neighbouring State of New York. Any one
crossing the Canadian frontier in that direction at once became aware
that he had passed from a land of comparative stagnation to a land of
activity and progress. This contrast had been largely brought about by
the construction of great public works, and a lavish policy on the part
of the State Legislature. There seemed no reason to doubt that the
adoption of a similar policy would bring about similar results in Upper
Canada, where large and costly public works were urgently needed for the
proper development of the resources of the colony. But, instead of
liberal grants of money for such purposes, the Assembly had cut down the
supplies to meet the barest works of necessity. The colony could never
hope to hold up its head by the side of its enterprising neighbour while
such a cheese-paring system prevailed.

The Lieutenant-Governor's advisers were shrewd enough to make the most
of this unpromising state of affairs. The cheese-paring policy went for
something, but it was almost lost sight of in the much more effective
imputation of disloyalty to the Empire. Nothing was so certain to turn
the scale of public opinion in favour of his Excellency as an apparently
well-founded stigma of disloyalty cast upon his opponents. The official
party accordingly set themselves deliberately to work to disseminate the
belief that the bulk of the Opposition were ripe for treason, and that,
under the guise of agitation for Reform, they concealed a design of
effecting the separation of the colony from Great Britain. It is not
improbable that many of those who industriously circulated the report
did so in good faith, for the language of some of the Reformers, used in
moments of irritation, was of a nature to lead to such a conclusion. No
sooner did this report gain credence than there was a very perceptible
turning of the scale of popular opinion. Many who had grumbled loudly at
Sir Francis's conduct now declared themselves as being on his side. They
favoured the doctrine of a responsible Executive, but devotion to the
mother country was as the breath of their nostrils. Whatever tended to
relax the tie which bound the colony to the Empire was a thing to be
utterly opposed and stamped out. The domination of the Compact was bad,
but even at its worst it was better than separation. So argued many
persons who had always been conspicuous for the moderation of their
political views. The official party of course turned such sentiments as
these to the utmost account. The cry of disloyalty was heard on every
side. The state of the Lower Province, which was rapidly gliding into
insurrection, was triumphantly pointed to as evidence of what was to be
looked for if democratic ideas were allowed to make headway. Twice
within the last four years had the Lower Canadian Assembly resorted to
the extreme measure of refusing to grant supplies to the Government. By
so doing they had embroiled themselves with the Imperial Ministry, and
drawn down upon themselves the indignation of persons of moderate views.
It was no secret that the Upper Canadian Reformers generally were in
sympathy with the projects of Reform entertained by the Lower Canadian
agitators; and it suited the Tories to assume that the sympathy extended
not only to legitimate projects of Reform, but to less openly-avowed
schemes of rebellion. Just before the prorogation Mr. Bidwell had laid
before the Assembly a letter written by Louis Joseph Papineau, Speaker
of the Lower Canada Assembly, wherein the great agitator had given
utterance to sentiments which, read in the light of subsequent events,
cannot be construed otherwise than as treasonable. Several members of
the Reform party had publicly spoken enthusiastically of M. Papineau,
and had even gone so far as to express approbation of his most
indiscreet and objectionable language. This circumstance was now urged
to show that the objects of the anti-Executive party in both Provinces
were identical. There was no attempt to discriminate between
constitutional Reformers of the Baldwin stamp and advanced Radicals like
Mackenzie. All were included in one sweeping verdict as "disloyal"
persons, against whom it was necessary for right-minded citizens to
organize in self-defence.

Early in May these sentiments began to find expression in outward acts.
A number of Tory gentlemen of Toronto formed themselves into what they
called the British Constitutional Society, with the fundamental
principle and object of perpetuating the connection between Upper Canada
and the United Kingdom. A society bearing the same name had been formed
upon the breaking out of the War of 1812, and this of 1836 professed to
be a reorganization of the former one. In reality, however, it was to
all intents and purposes a new society, started for the specific purpose
of opposing the cry for Responsible Government, and of gaining support
for Sir Francis Head. During the previous year, Colonel Fitzgibbon had,
under Sir John Colborne's auspices, formed a drill corps for such young
men of Toronto as desired military instruction. A handful of
well-connected young men had availed themselves of the opportunity. The
Colonel now devoted himself with redoubled ardour to preparations for
the insurrection which he declared would burst forth before the next
winter. He got together a rifle corps to the number of seventy, and
drilled them twice a week with tireless enthusiasm, declaring that when
the hour of trial should come, he and "his boys" would be found in their
places, however the rest of the community might see fit to demean
themselves.

Notwithstanding these preparations, and the prevailing sentiments which
inspired them, it is doubtful whether the idea of rebellion had up to
this time taken definite possession of the mind of a single human being
in Upper Canada. There seems abundant reason for believing that the time
for wise concession was not past, and that a prudent and discreet
Administrator might have restored tranquillity to the land without
going an iota beyond the scope of Lord Glenelg's instructions. But Sir
Francis Head acted in no such spirit. He set his mind firmly against
concession, feeling convinced, as he said, that the more he yielded the
more would be demanded of him. In this respect he--no doubt
unconsciously--emulated the example of James the Second, who was of
opinion that his father owed the loss of his head to his concessions to
the House of Commons. That this opinion was altogether erroneous does
not admit of argument. Sir Francis was equally wrong, and equally
stubborn in maintaining his opinion. His conduct was the last straw
heaped upon the back of the much-enduring camel, and the outbreak which
followed must in large measure be attributed to his misgovernment.

FOOTNOTES:

[210] See the letter, in Head's _Narrative_, chap. iii.

[211] This proceeding was not relished by the Assembly. Sir John
Colborne had already delivered one Speech from the Throne at the opening
of the session, and this delivery of a second one was resented as a
breach of privilege. After much time had been wasted in discussion, a
precedent for the Lieutenant-Governor's action was found under date of
December, 1765, and this matter was allowed to drop.

[212] In the third chapter of his _Narrative_ Sir Francis attempts to
excuse himself for this senseless act. The reader who thinks it worth
while to consult the rhetorical plea there attempted to be set up will
recall Pembroke's dictum, in _King John_, that

      "----oftentimes excusing of a fault
Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse."

[213] This is the despatch referred to _ante_, p. 246, which had been
treated with such contempt by the Law Officers of the Crown, and which
had been returned by the Provincial Legislative Council to the
Lieutenant-Governor.

[214] See the 8vo edition of the Report, p. xxxix.

[215] See the rejoinder of certain citizens of Toronto to the reply of
the Lieutenant-Governor to their address, dated 25th March, 1836.

[216] _Ib._

[217] _Ib._

[218] _Life of Mackenzie_, vol i., pp. 345, 346.

[219] _Narrative_, chap. iii.

[220] _Ib._

[221] _Narrative_, chap. iii.

[222] See Head's despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated February 22nd, 1836, in
_Narrative_, chap. iv.

[223] _Ib._

[224] See the extra number of the _Gazette_ issued on that date. A very
full account of the negotiations and conferences which led to this
result will be found in a letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter
Perry, dated "Front Street, 16th March, 1836," and published in the
papers of the time. See _post_, p. 312.

[225] See the representations of the Councillors to the
Lieutenant-Governor, dated Friday, 4th March, 1836.

[226] See _Report of the Select Committee to which was referred the
Answer of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor to an Address of the
House of Assembly, relative to a Responsible Executive Council_, p. 6.
Toronto, 1836.

[227] _Ib._, p. 7.

[228] _Narrative_, chap. v.

[229] _Narrative_, chapters iv., v.

[230] Kaye's _Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe_, vol.
ii., p. 339. Revised edition, 1858.

[231] It is fair to say that some of these were due to the efforts of
the Radicals in the Assembly, who had sent out blank petitions to local
friends, with instructions to obtain signatures and fill in the name of
the constituency.

[232] _Ante_, pp. 303, 304.

[233] See his despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated April 28th, 1836, in
_Narrative_, chap. v.

[234] Sir Francis himself has gravely recorded that certain militia
officers publicly declared him to be "the d----dest liar and d----dest
rascal in the Province." See despatch of 6th February, 1837, in
_Narrative_, chap. ix.

[235] The evidence will be found in appendix to Journal of 1836, 2nd
Session, Twelfth Parliament, vol. iii., No. 106, pp. 57, 58.



CHAPTER XVI.

THE TRIUMPHS OF A TRIED REFORMER.


While the public excitement continued unabated, the Lieutenant-Governor
resolved upon a step which was little calculated to allay it. This step
was the dissolution of the existing Parliament. He and his advisers,
sworn and unsworn, believed that the time was opportune for a general
election. If the numerical majority of the Opposition in the Assembly
were reversed, the Government could afford to laugh at what they called
"low-bred democracy." Such a reversal, it was thought, might now be
effected. The disloyalty cry might safely be trusted to do its work, not
only by clearing the Assembly of the chief members of the Opposition,
but by giving the Government party an easy working majority. In order,
however, that his Excellency might seem to be following public opinion
in this matter instead of guiding it, the official party caused
petitions to be sent in from various quarters, praying that a
dissolution and a general election might take place. This not only
served the intended purpose of misleading the public as to the designs
of the Executive, but also afforded Sir Francis an opportunity of
pouring out oceans of words in the form of replies. The concluding
sentence of his reply to an address from certain electors of the Home
District is eminently characteristic of the man. Portions of the
already-mentioned letter from Papineau to Bidwell had seemed to point to
a possible invasion of the Province by inhabitants of the United States.
This idea was eagerly seized upon by Sir Francis, as indicative of
concerted action between the hypothetical invaders and the Upper
Canadian Radicals. "In the name of every regiment of militia in Upper
Canada," said he--"_Let them come if they dare!_"[236] Nothing but
actual perusal of his despatches will afford any accurate idea of his
blatant self-confidence at this time. It is quite evident that he
regarded the above-quoted reply as a master-stroke of vigorous
diplomacy. He drew special attention to it in a communication to Lord
Glenelg, in the course of which he made use of language which must have
almost stunned the conventional and decorous Colonial Secretary. "I am
aware," he wrote, "that the answer may be cavilled at in Downing Street,
for I know it is not exactly according to Hoyle. _Mais, man seigneur,
croyez-vous done qu'on fasse des revolutions avec de l'eau de
rose?_"[237] The tone of his despatches is from first to last
extraordinary. It would seem as if they ought to have told their own
miserable tale of superficiality and unfitness to the Colonial
Secretary. In announcing the probability of an early dissolution of the
Provincial Parliament, Sir Francis requests his Lordship to send him no
orders on the subject, but to allow him to work the matter in his own
way.[238] The Opposition are constantly referred to in such phrases as
"the republicans in the House of Assembly," and "the revolutionists of
Upper Canada."[239] His Lordship is warned that if the demands of the
Opposition be complied with in the matter of Executive responsibility,
"democracy, in the worst possible form, will prevail in our
colonies."[240] "In South America," he remarks, "truth and justice
carried me through difficulties even greater than those I have now to
contend with, and I have the firmest reliance they will again be
triumphant."[241] In another despatch[242] his Lordship is notified that
Robert Baldwin, who is referred to as an agent of "the revolutionary
party," is about to start for London. "It is stated," writes Sir
Francis, "that he goes there for the recovery of his health, but it is
acknowledged by his party that he will be prepared to answer any
questions which the Government may feel disposed to put to him." This
intimation is followed by the expression of a confidence that his
Lordship will discountenance "the system of sending agents from the
British North American colonies, and their being received by the
Government." A hope is expressed that should Mr. Baldwin directly or
indirectly communicate with the Colonial Office during his stay in
England, he may be effectually sat upon, and that he may receive "that
style of answer," a copy of which may be transmitted to Sir Francis, and
published in the Canadian papers, as a means of deterring further
"left-handed attacks upon the constitution." It may be added that the
expression of confidence above referred to was justified by the result,
as Mr. Baldwin, during his stay in England, was not admitted to an
interview with Lord Glenelg, though a written statement of his views was
received by his Lordship, and submitted to the Cabinet.

The Reformers, moderate and radical, were brought closer together by the
agitated state of the public mind, and by the efforts of the official
party to destroy their influence. Several weeks before the dissolution
actually took place it became known that such a step was imminent, and
quiet preparations were made for the general election which was to
follow. The formation of the Canadian Alliance Society by the Radicals,
towards the close of 1834, has already been referred to.[243] Neither
the platform of this society nor the mode of conducting it was such as
to commend it to Reformers generally, and it was now deemed advisable to
organize a new association on a broader basis, with a special eye to
coöperation with Reformers who resided in the rural districts. This was
accordingly done under the auspices of some of the leading Reformers of
Toronto. In contradistinction to the British Constitutional Society
mentioned towards the close of the last chapter, the new association was
called the Constitutional Reform Society. Dr. Baldwin accepted the
Presidency, and Francis Hincks, who was then engaged in commercial life
in Toronto, was appointed Secretary. Steps were taken to counteract the
misrepresentations of the official party, and generally for the
efficient maintenance of the impending election campaign. The Reformers
seem to have greatly underestimated the efforts of their opponents. As
the event proved, they were also hopelessly astray in gauging the public
opinion of the Province, for they looked forward to the approaching
contest with the utmost confidence in the result. The new society, it
was thought, would accomplish wonders in the way of thorough
organization, and it was confidently believed that the existing Reform
majority in the Assembly would be fully maintained, if not increased.
The efforts of the official party to spread a belief prejudicial to the
patriotism of the Reformers were laughed to scorn. So also was the
attempt of the Lieutenant-Governor to imbue the inhabitants with a
belief in the probability of a foreign invasion. Upon the promulgation
of the challenge to the imaginary invader, a number of the Toronto
Reformers, with Mr. Hincks at their head, amused themselves by
perpetrating a practical joke. Having taken counsel together, they
formed themselves into a deputation, and called upon his Excellency in a
state of well-assumed perturbation. In a formal address they expressed
much solicitude on the subject of the contemplated invasion. They
professed to re-echo his unbounded confidence in the Provincial militia,
but begged to be informed of the quarter whence the attack was
anticipated. "We do not doubt," said they, in their Address, "the
readiness with which would be answered upon any emergency your appeal to
the militia, which appeal we are satisfied would not have been made
without adequate cause. In a matter so seriously affecting the peace and
tranquillity of the country, and the security of its commerce, we beg to
learn from your Excellency from what quarter the invasion is alleged to
be threatened." To this not unreasonable demand the Lieutenant-Governor
was unable to make any definite reply. The absurdity of his challenge
was for the first time fully brought home to him. According to the
testimony of eye-witnesses, he "did not sit, but stood with that
personal oscillation which you witness in a man so situated as not well
to know what to say or what to do."[244] When at last his reply came,
it proved to be the briefest and most sensible of all his replies.
"Gentlemen," said he, "I have no further observations to make to you on
this subject." The deputation, struggling with suppressed laughter,
withdrew.

The Provincial Parliament was dissolved on the 28th of May, and as it
was thought desirable to strike while the iron was hot, the elections
were hurried on with unseemly haste. They began on the 20th of June, and
all the returns were in during the first week in July. The issue was an
exciting, but not a doubtful one, for the official party entered upon
the contest with loaded dice and a determination to win. Numerous
attempts have been made to explain and excuse their conduct during this
eventful epoch; but it is impossible to blink the fact that the result
was a foregone conclusion from the very moment of the issue of the
writs. The whole weight of the Government was put forward to ensure the
return of Tory candidates, and this was done in the most direct and
shameless manner. The Lieutenant-Governor openly made himself a party to
the contest. His replies to the various addresses which he had himself
promoted were one and all set to the same tune.[245] The issue was
presented in such a light that no inconsiderable part of the population
were led to believe that the maintenance of British connection depended
upon the result of the contest. Owing to the representations of
Government emissaries, backed by the Tory press, and reinforced by the
inflammatory speeches and addresses of the Lieutenant-Governor, it was
widely believed that should the Reformers succeed there would be a
speedy uprooting of cherished institutions, followed by separation from
the mother country and ultimate annexation to the United States. The
indiscreet language of Mackenzie and some other Radicals had been such
as to lend colour to misrepresentations of this nature, and the spirit
thereby aroused was decisive of the result. Not only professed Tories,
but most of the moderate-minded of the population, rallied to the side
of the Lieutenant-Governor, to uphold British connection, and to oppose
the encroachment of republican and revolutionary ideas. Loyalty was
rampant, and patriotic fervour was aroused to a height which it had not
reached in Upper Canada since the War of 1812. "Down with democracy!"
"Down with republicanism!" "Hurrah for Sir Francis Head and British
connection!" Such were the legends inscribed on the dead-walls in the
principal towns of the Province.[246] Tory votes were manufactured by
wholesale, and Tory funds were squandered with reckless profusion. For
the first time in the history of Upper Canada, Government agents were
sent down to the polling-places armed with patents for land, to be
distributed among the electors. It is open to doubt whether some of
these were not conferred upon persons who had no title to them.[247]
Reform votes were rejected by partisan returning-officers upon the most
frivolous pretexts. Gangs of ruffians were stationed at the polls to
intimidate those who ventured near to record their votes in favour of
anti-Government candidates. In at least one instance, the
Lieutenant-Governor presented himself in person at the polling-place
while the contest was at its height, and remained there for some time on
horseback, in close proximity to the spot where votes were
recorded.[248] As for the Reformers, they were soon aroused from their
dreams of confidence. But their rude awakening, early as it was, came
all too late. They perceived that the seed had been well sown, and that
the crop would have to be reaped. They found themselves looked upon with
suspicion and dislike among their neighbours and others from whom they
had been accustomed to receive confidence and respect. They needed all
the courage of their opinions to support them against the obloquy which
official slander had aroused. The courageous among them faced the polls
in the spirit of a forlorn hope. The more timid quietly remained at home
and refrained from voting, rather than subject themselves to certain
insult and probable physical violence.

It may perhaps be urged, in reply to some of the foregoing allegations,
that a Committee of the Assembly subsequently inquired into the various
matters complained of, and that their report acquitted the Governor of
all culpability. But anyone who is familiar with the proceedings of
election committees in those days, and even in times much more recent,
will not need to be informed how much--or how little--weight should be
attached to a verdict from such a source. In the case under
consideration, the proceedings were conducted with exceptional disregard
to propriety, and the verdict of acquittal cannot be considered as of
any value whatever. Only one member of the Committee heard the whole of
the evidence upon which the report was based. Three of the members
declared that the report was adopted without their knowledge or consent.
Of the other five members who prepared the document, one attended only
two meetings out of fourteen; while another attended four, and another
five. A fourth member attended twelve meetings, and one only of the five
attended all the fourteen. The inquiry was from first to last conducted
in a spirit of partisanship, and the report, in the language of Dr.
Rolph, was "the offspring of untempered zeal, insufficient evidence,
hasty conclusions, and executive devotion."[249] As a general rule, it
is a difficult matter to convict a Government of actual, direct
interference with the freedom of election. But in the case of the
general election of 1836, there is unfortunately no room for doubt. That
patents were issued in great numbers by the Commissioner of Crown Lands,
and despatched by the hands of trusted agents of the Government to the
polling-places, to be used by the voters, is as well established as is
the fact of the election itself. Nay, the fact is admitted by Sir
Francis Head in the supplemental chapter to his "Narrative," as well as
by the Committee appointed by the Assembly to investigate the matter,
and the attempts to explain it away are of the weakest kind. The number
of patents issued was so great as to require a special staff of extra
clerks to get them ready by the time they were wanted. In some cases the
patents covered only a quarter of an acre of wild, uncultivated land,
upon which no buildings had been erected. Many of them were issued
between the date of the dissolution of Parliament and the close of the
election a month later,[250] and in some instances they were issued
after the actual opening of the poll. They were distributed openly at
the places where the elections were held, to persons who had not applied
for them, and who, at least in some instances, received them without
paying the usual fees, merely that they might thereby be enabled to
vote. Whether the issue of the patents affected the result of the
election in any single instance is altogether beside the question. It
would be absurd to pretend, in the face of such tactics as these, that
there was any real freedom of choice offered to the people in the matter
of Parliamentary representation. Freedom of election was paralyzed.
Reform voters were literally overwhelmed, and their franchise rendered
of no avail. All this was done with the cognizance and assent of the
Lieutenant-Governor, who thereby wilfully violated the instructions
which he had received from the Home Office.[251]

The result of an election contest conducted on these lines was such as
to fully realize the expectations of Sir Francis and his advisers. Not
only were all the old Tory members returned--and this, in several cases,
without any opposition--but a number of new adherents of that side found
seats. Hagerman was returned for Kingston by acclamation, McLean was
returned for Stormont, George S. Jarvis for the Town of Cornwall, Jonas
Jones and Ogle B. Gowan for Leeds, A. N. MacNab for Wentworth, W. B.
Robinson for Simcoe, Mahlon Burwell for the Town of London, Henry
Sherwood for Brockville, and William Henry Draper for Toronto. The
last-named gentleman, known to later times as Chief Justice Draper, now
entered public life for the first time. He was a very decided
acquisition to the ranks of Upper Canadian Toryism, and was destined to
exert a wide and far-reaching influence upon successive representatives
of the Crown in this colony. But the triumphs of the official party were
not confined to mere numerical successes. They wrested some important
constituencies from the hands of their opponents. The Reformers were not
only left in an insignificant minority, but nearly all their ablest
members were defeated in what had long been regarded as safe Reform
constituencies. Bidwell and Perry suffered defeat in Lennox and
Addington; Lount underwent a similar fate in Simcoe; and Mackenzie was
signally worsted in the Second Riding of York by a man of no political
standing. Gibson, Morrison and Mackintosh gained their respective
elections in the other three Ridings of York, but none of them possessed
much Parliamentary ability, or was to be depended upon in any great
emergency. The one significant gain to the Reform party arose out of the
election of Dr. Rolph. The Doctor, after having allowed himself to be
talked into accepting a seat in the Executive Council whose resignation
had been the beginning of the contest between the Reformers and the
Lieutenant-Governor, had not felt himself at liberty to reject the
overtures of his friends. He had been put in nomination for the County
of Norfolk, and his candidature had been successful. He was a host in
himself, and his return was the one streak of bright light which
appeared in the Reform horizon at the close of the campaign.

Perhaps the most unsatisfactory feature about the whole unsatisfactory
business, from the Reform point of view, was that the ignominous
discomfiture of the Reformers had been brought about by defections from
their own ranks. Moderate-minded Reformers had come to think, with the
Conservatives, that even Family Compact domination was preferable to the
ascendency of such men as Mackenzie. The publication of the baneful
domination letter, followed, as it had been, by Tory misrepresentation,
had led thousands of persons to believe that the Radicals secretly
favoured the separation of the colony from Great Britain. The Wesleyan
Methodists, a numerous body, were doubly impelled to oppose Mackenzie
and all who favoured his cause. The quarrel between Mackenzie and the
Rev. Egerton Ryerson has already been referred to.[252] Mr. Ryerson was
in those days one of the most prominent figures in Upper Canadian
Methodism, and in conjunction with his brothers, exerted a predominant
influence among the members of that body. At the time of the general
election of 1836 he was absent from the Province on a mission to
England, whither he had gone to obtain a charter for the Upper Canada
Academy, and to solicit subscriptions for the establishment and
maintenance of that institution, which subsequently developed into the
University of Victoria College. But the reverend gentleman's arm was
far-reaching, and stretched across the broad expanse of the Atlantic. In
common with a large and respectable portion of the Upper Canadian
population, he cherished a feeling of personal contempt for Mackenzie,
whose character he thoroughly despised, and whose projects he regarded
as prejudicial to the welfare of the colony. The publication of the
baneful domination letter had convinced him that rebellion and
separation were among the cherished schemes of the Radicals. To all such
schemes he was prepared to oppose his firmest resistance, for his
loyalty was of the perfervid order, and his dislike of Mackenzie
probably imparted additional zeal to his opposition. As has been seen,
Mackenzie, with the aid of Hume, Roebuck and other British statesmen,
had succeeded in creating in the minds of the English public
considerable sympathy for Canadian Reform. To counteract this influence
Mr. Ryerson, under the signature of "A Canadian," contributed a series
of letters to the London _Times_. They were vigorously written, and
attracted much attention, not only in England but in Canada, where they
were republished in the columns of the Tory newspapers, and where they
were circulated in pamphlet form as a campaign document. Mr. Ryerson
also wrote to leading members of the Methodist body in Canada, urging
them to cast all their influence for Government candidates, and against
the revolutionary policy of the Radicals. His appeals served their
purpose, and the great bulk of the Wesleyan Methodists of Upper Canada,
who had theretofore supported Reform members, went over to the side of
the Government. In many constituencies--notably so in Lennox and
Addington--they held the balance of power, and their secession from the
Reform cause decided the fortunes of the candidates.[253] A few remained
unaffected by Mr. Ryerson's lucubrations, and some even went so far as
to denounce his conduct and reply to his arguments, but these were too
few in number to affect the general result. Some of the successful
candidates were compelled to pledge themselves in advance to the
Methodists and other Nonconformists to take immediate steps for the
settlement of the Clergy Reserves question, but the pledges were
neglected or forgotten during the turbulent epoch which ensued.

It will thus be seen that, as is clearly pointed out in the Report of
Lord Durham,[254] the contest which had been commenced on the question
of a responsible Executive Council had afterwards been adroitly turned
by the official party, and had been decided on very different grounds.
The question of a responsible Executive, as well as the question of the
Clergy Reserves, had for the time sunk out of public notice. All other
matters had given way to a resolve to return candidates who would "rally
round the throne." The triumph of the Government went far beyond what
several members of it had ventured to anticipate. On the 8th of July,
Sir Francis was able to report to Lord Glenelg that "the
Constitutionists"--by which name he designated the official party and
all who supported them--had a majority of twenty-five,[255] whereas in
the preceding Assembly they had been in a minority of eleven. In the
same despatch he availed himself of the opportunity to malign Mr.
Bidwell, whom he characterized as the "twin or Siamese companion of Mr.
Speaker Papineau." He descanted upon the powerful reaction which had
been brought about, and exultingly informed his Lordship that of the
four candidates who had contested the constituency of Lennox and
Addington Mr. Bidwell had polled the fewest votes.

The Colonial Minister must have been sore puzzled to know what to make
of this gushing and galloping Lieutenant-Governor, who was so evidently
devoid of the peculiar qualifications supposed to be requisite for one
in his station, and who framed his official despatches upon the model of
a sensation novel. Here was a man who had been selected for an elevated
and honourable post because be had been supposed to be an adept in the
science of politics, but who, as it now turned out, was utterly
unacquainted with the principles and practice of Government; who was
ignorant of the proprieties and amenities of official intercourse; who,
in what were intended for grave official despatches, indulged in
extracts from French vaudevilles, and referred to certain methods of
procedure as not being _according to Hoyle_! By all known theory and
precedent, the accession to office of such a man ought to have been
attended by immediate and ignominous failure. Yet, so far as could be
judged, he had by no means failed. Nay, he actually appeared to have
scored a marvellous success, and to have brought about what men of
greater ability and wider experience had been utterly unable to
accomplish. Such a success was an inscrutable mystery to the official
mind, and Lord Glenelg, after the first few weeks, appears to have
abandoned all attempts to penetrate it. The entire demeanour of this
unconventional Lieutenant-Governor was incomprehensible. He had
expressed his total dissent from the policy of the Commissioners of
Inquiry in Lower Canada, who had reported in favour of a responsible
Executive.[256] He had even gone so far as to tender his resignation in
consequence of his inability to concur in the liberal measures of Reform
advocated by the Commissioners.[257] But the Home Government had by no
means been disposed to accept his resignation just at that time. They
had no available person to put in his place, and it had been thought
desirable that he should be permitted to try his hand a little longer.
And now this news as to the result of the elections seemed to fully
justify their determination to retain him in office. If he had really
inaugurated a new and improved order of things in Upper Canada, it was
only fair that he should enjoy the prestige of his success.

But the ill effects of Sir Francis's superficial and disastrous policy
were already beginning to be apparent to those whose eyes were keen
enough to look below the surface of things. The Reformers felt that they
had been out-manoeuvred. That they could have borne, for they had
often been compelled to bear a similar infliction in past times. But
they considered that they had been cheated out of their rights by one
whose especial duty it was to watch over and preserve those rights
inviolate. They had endured much at the hands of a Gore, a Maitland and
a Colborne. But Gore, Maitland and Colborne had not presented themselves
before them in the garb of tried Reformers. They had been the Tory
emissaries of Tory superiors beyond sea, whose instructions they had
generally carried out. All this had been changed; but the change, so
far as Upper Canada was concerned, had been for the worse. The Reformers
of the Province felt that the man who had been placed at the helm of
State--the man who had been sent over by an ostensibly Liberal
Government to redress the accumulated wrongs of the past--was in some
respects far more dangerous than any of his predecessors had been.
Carlyle had not then delivered his celebrated discourse on fools, but
the idea that a fool may sometimes be far more dread-inspiring than a
wise man is sufficiently obvious, and had presented itself in vivid
shape before the minds of a good many of the Reformers of Upper Canada.
They had by this time come to know something of Sir Francis Head. They
had brought themselves to regard him as not only a fool, but a fool
devoid of right feeling or principle; a fool who would stop at no
injustice or iniquity the perpetration whereof would conduce, in however
small a degree, to his own glorification. He evidently regarded his
personal interference in the elections as a thing upon which he ought to
plume himself. Such a state of things was not to be borne. It was clear
that life, for Canadian Reformers, would very soon be not worth living.
They despaired of the future, which, to their depressed vision, seemed
to be overhung by a sky of unrelieved blackness. Their despair was
accompanied by a smarting sense of defeat and injustice proportionate to
the circumstances. Such feelings were not confined to defeated
candidates and their immediate friends, but were participated in by
Reformers generally. Some of them began to weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of removal from the Province. Others, after the first
effervescence of disappointment had expended itself, determined to
endure in patience and to hope for the best. A comparatively small
number, yielding to the influence of mingled despair and exasperation,
began to contemplate armed resistance to authority as among the
possibilities of the near future. Constitutional resistance, they
thought, had had a fair trial. Might it not be worth while to try a more
drastic remedy?

Conspicuous among the personages who were strongly influenced by such
thoughts as those last indicated was William Lyon Mackenzie, who, as
previously mentioned, had lost his election in the Second Riding of
York. It might have been supposed that if any constituency in the
Province was beyond the reach of Tory influence, the Second Riding was
entitled to that distinction. It was notoriously the most Radical
constituency in the colony. It had stood loyally by Mackenzie all
through the troubled epoch of the successive expulsions. Yet it had now
thrown him overboard on behalf of a political nobody. The explanation is
to be found in the fact that the Riding had been the scene of some of
the moat scandalous abuses committed during the campaign. The Tories had
resolved that Mackenzie should be defeated at any cost, and had resorted
to the most reprehensible means to secure that end. To elect a professed
Tory would have been an impossibility, so the person fixed upon to
oppose him was one whom the author of "Middlemarch" might have had in
her eye when she described Sir James Chettam as "a man of acquiescent
temper, miscellaneous opinions and uncertain vote."[258] His name was
Edward William Thomson, and he professed to be a moderate Reformer. His
moderation was acceptable to a considerable proportion of the electors,
many of whom were tired of Mackenzie. The official party, however, did
not choose to rely upon legitimate means for defeating the Radical
candidate. Money was spent freely, and brawny bullies were hired for
purposes of intimidation. Good votes were rejected on one side, and bad
ones accepted on the other. Patents were sent down to the polling place,
certain recipients whereof voted for Thomson. Sheriff Jarvis attended,
and by his language and demeanour did what he could to discourage
Mackenzie's supporters. Not a stone was left unturned to effect the
desired object. Such means as Mackenzie had at his command were
altogether insufficient to counteract the devices employed against him.
He was beaten, and by a majority of a hundred votes.

This result took Mackenzie completely by surprise. It came upon him in
the form of a revelation. He had not permitted himself to entertain any
doubt of his success, and the conviction that he had lost his
popularity cut him to his inmost soul. He retired to the house of one of
his supporters in the neighbourhood, where he completely broke down, and
wept with a bitterness which evoked the active sympathy of those
present. But this mood did not last. It was succeeded by a sullenness
and stolidity such as had never before been observed in him. He knew
that he had been beaten unfairly, and resolved to petition against the
election. Meanwhile his rage against the party which had been concerned
in his defeat was ungovernable, and must have vent. He resolved that he
must again have control of a newspaper. He accordingly established _The
Constitution_, a weekly paper, the first number of which made its
appearance in Toronto on the sixtieth anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence of the United States--namely, the 4th of July, 1836. Its
tone was such as might have been anticipated from the mood of its
editor. It was more outspoken than the _Advocate_ had ever been under
his management, and might from the first have been styled a
revolutionary organ. In its columns every phase of discontent found
utterance, and some of its editorial articles were marked by a spirit of
bitterness and implacability such as had not commonly been supposed to
belong to Mackenzie's nature. Means would doubtless have been taken for
its suppression, had not the Government felt that they had achieved a
signal triumph, and that they could afford to ignore its attacks.

Many others of the Radicals felt little less rancour towards the
Government party than did Mackenzie. Indeed, the conduct of the party in
power had been such as to make temporary Radicals of not a few persons
who had theretofore been known as moderate Reformers. It may be said
indeed that nearly all the moderates had either made common cause with
the Government party for fear of the Radicals, or had coalesced with the
Radicals from a sense of official tyranny and injustice. Public meetings
were held, at which the Lieutenant-Governor and his myrmidons were
subjected to the most vehement denunciations. At a meeting of the
Constitutional Reform Society Dr. Baldwin, George Ridout, James E. Small
and others referred to his Excellency's conduct in terms which public
audiences had never before heard from their lips. An official address
issued by the Society on the subject of the resignation of the
Executive Councillors also contained some severe but well-merited
strictures. The Lieutenant-Governor marked his condemnation of the
language employed by promptly dismissing the three gentlemen above named
from certain offices which they held.[259] As will hereafter be seen,
this proceeding eventually led to serious complications between the Home
Office and Sir Francis. Meantime, the latter was permitted to have his
own way, but not without stubborn attempts at resistance on the part of
some of his opponents. A number of the most pronounced Radicals resolved
to make a strong representation of election and other abuses to the
British House of Commons, and to that end sent Dr. Charles Duncombe to
England. Dr. Duncombe had been re-elected for Oxford, but had had to
contend against similar influences to those which had been employed in
other constituencies, and was thus able to speak of the partisan conduct
of the Lieutenant-Governor's emissaries from personal observation. He
prepared a statement of the case against Sir Francis, which was laid
before the House of Commons by Mr. Hume. The Colonial Secretary
despatched a copy of it to Sir Francis for explanations. It is unlikely
that Dr. Duncombe's mission would have been a successful one under any
circumstances, but he made the mistake of protesting too much. The
greater part of the indictment could easily have been substantiated
before any impartial tribunal, but it also contained charges which,
whether true or not, the prosecutor was unable to prove. As mentioned on
a former page[260], the matter was referred to a Committee of the
Provincial Assembly, by whom the Lieutenant-Governor was completely
exonerated. A further reference to the matter will be made in connection
with the proceedings of the following session.

The Lieutenant-Governor was meanwhile engaged in a voluminous
correspondence with the Colonial Secretary. The subjects dealt with
therein were many and various. Perhaps the most important of all was
the Lower Canadian Commission of Inquiry. The Commissioners had made a
report in which they had recommended the concession of Responsible
Government, and other much-needed Reforms. As previously mentioned, Sir
Francis had no sympathy with these views, and distinctly repudiated the
policy thus recommended. The idea of a responsible Executive was utterly
repugnant to him. He erelong perceived that the Imperial Government
would sooner or later yield to the imperative demand made on behalf of
the different British North American colonies, but he determined to
fight against it as long as opposition was possible, and his despatches
teem with what he doubtless regarded as arguments on the negative side.
He predicted the most serious results if the policy of the Commissioners
was adopted. The language of the Ninety-two resolutions of the Lower
Canada Assembly he pronounced to be not only insulting to the British
Government, but traitorous. He proposed various measures for
establishing the power of the Crown in the Canadas on a firm basis.
Among these were the repeal of the Act surrendering the revenue, the
annexation of the District of Gaspé to the Province of New Brunswick,
and the annexation of Montreal to Upper Canada. It may safely be assumed
that these ideas were not his own, and nobody who has read "Canada and
the Canada Bill,"[261] published several years later, will entertain
much doubt as to the individual from whom he derived his inspiration.

FOOTNOTES:

[236] Sir Francis afterwards denied that this challenge was addressed to
the Americans. See his despatch to Lord Glenelg dated 6th November,
1836, embodied in his _Narrative_, chap, vi. But it is quite evident
that the denial, as well as the construction there sought to be put upon
his language, was an after-thought. If, as he there asserts, "the
Americans had no more to do with the subject than the Chinese," there
was no appropriate significance whatever in his doughty defiance.

[237] See despatch of May 28th.

[238] See despatch of 21st April.

[239] _Ib._

[240] _Ib._

[241] Despatch of May 28th.

[242] Of April 28th.

[243] _Ante_, p. 281.

[244] See Dr. Rolph's _Speech to the House in Committee on the Report of
the Select Committee on the Petition of Dr. Charles Duncombe to the
British House of Commons_, delivered on Monday, January 30th, 1837.

[245] It was afterwards urged by Sir Francis that his replies to
addresses were made before, and not during the election. The plea will
not bear a moment's examination. The mischief was done by the
inflammatory and menacing tone of the replies, and the mere question of
the time of their delivery in of no importance whatever. An English
writer thus effectually disposes of this attempted defence: "Surely he
[Sir F. B. Head] must have some glimmering perception that this is not a
question of time, and that, if promises or threats are addressed to the
electoral body with regard to their exercise of the electoral franchise,
it is a matter of no importance whether this is done before or at the
time of the election. Illogical as he has proved himself, we cannot
suppose him to be so utterly destitute of the reasoning faculty as a
sincerity in this defence would imply; and we must therefore believe
that he knows the charge to be well founded, and has recourse to this
shuffling evasion in pure despair."--See _London and Westminster
Review_, vol. xxxii., No. 2, article vi.

[246] During the contest people on the hustings actually demanded of the
candidates: "Do you vote for the House of Assembly or for Sir Francis
Head?"--a question which, as Sir Francis himself remarks, amounted in
plain terms to this: "Are you for a republican government, or are you
not?"--See _Memorandum on the Present Political State of the Canadas_,
in _Narrative_, chap. vi.

[247] Lord Durham, reasoning from such evidence as he had before him,
proceeds upon the assumption that no patents were issued except to
persons entitled to the land. But, as his Lordship admits, the granting
of patents at all under such circumstances was an act of official
favouritism which no Lieutenant-Governor with a proper sense of his duty
would have permitted. See _Report_, U.C. folio edition, p. 51.

[248] This was at Streetsville, while the contest for the Second Riding
of York was in progress between William Lyon Mackenzie and Edward
William Thomson.

[249] See his speech in the Assembly on January 30th, 1837.

[250] From official returns it appears that 1,478 patents passed the
Great Seal between the 20th of April (the date of the prorogation) and
the close of the contest in June. Of this number 1,245 were issued in
pursuance of Orders in Council made prior to Sir Francis Head's arrival
in the Province. Between his arrival and the close of the election 233
were issued, whereof only 150 were issued under Order in Council on his
authority. But that the entire 1,478 were passed under Sir Francis's
régime within a very brief period; that a special staff of clerks was
employed for the purpose; that for the first time in the history of the
Province these patents were distributed at the polling-booths by
Government agents who were strong adherents of the official party, and
who were moreover dependent upon the Government for their
situations--these are circumstances which admit of but one brief
explanation. The only one of these agents whom the Committee of Inquiry
ventured to summon before them was Mr. Welsley Richey, of Barrie, who,
on his examination, deposed that he mentioned to the Lieutenant-Governor
that the persons who wanted their deeds were entitled to them, and that
_he thought they would vote for Constitutional candidates_; that Sir F.
B. Head strictly commanded witness not in any manner to interfere as
Government agent, or to use any influence which his situation gave him
at the election; that out of a number not exceeding 130 patents which
persons residing in the County of Simcoe were entitled to, and which
were in witness's possession for them, only about thirty were called
for, and only part of that thirty voted. This is mere petty evasion. As
pointed out in the text, the extent to which such tactics as these
affected the result is not the chief question to be decided. The mere
fact that they were employed is sufficient to settle the question of
culpability. Richey was directed not to interfere with the elections as
_Government agent_. How was it possible for an official known to be
connected with the Government to divest himself of the influence
inseparable from such a connection, more especially when his strong
political bias was well known, and when he presented himself at the poll
as a distributor of deeds among the voters? The mere fact of a
conference on such a subject between the head of the Government and a
subordinate is in itself a suspicious circumstance.

[251] In Lord Goderich's despatch to Sir John Colborne, dated 8th
November, 1832, referred to _ante_, p. 246, the following language is
employed: "His Majesty expects and requires of you neither to practise,
nor to allow on the part of those who are officially subordinate to you,
any interference with the rights of his subjects to the free and
unbiased choice of their representatives;" and, as previously
mentioned, Lord Glenelg had expressly instructed Sir Francis Head to
adopt that despatch as a rule for the guidance of his conduct. See
_ante_, p. 301.

[252] _Ante_, p. 272.

[253] Sir Francis Hincks, who, as previously mentioned in the text, then
resided in Toronto, and was identified with the Reform party, has, in
his _Reminiscences_, recorded his views on this subject, and as they are
founded upon personal experience and recollection they are worth
quoting. "Bearing in mind," he writes, "that there are exceptions to all
general rules, I think that I am not wrong in my belief that the members
of the Church of England and the Presbyterians generally voted for the
Tory candidates, while the Roman Catholics and the Baptists,
Congregationalists, etc., voted as uniformly for the Reformers. The
Wesleyan Methodists held the balance of power in a great many
constituencies, and I believe that it has been generally acknowledged
that the elections in 1836 were carried against the Reformers by their
votes." Again: "I believe that I am correct in asserting that Sir
Francis Head carried the elections in 1836 against the Reformers mainly
through the influence of the Rev. Egerton Ryerson, who, though
absent from Canada at the time, had, by his published impressions,
induced those who confided in him to abandon the Reform
cause."--_Reminiscences_, etc., pp. 17, 18.

[254] U.C. folio edition, p, 49.

[255] The House contained in all only sixty-two members, so that a
majority of twenty-five constituted what might be called absolute
control. The actual majority was twenty-six, as there were but eighteen
Reform representatives as against forty-four supporters of the
Government.

[256] See his despatch of 1st June.

[257] _Ib._

[258] This language aptly characterizes Mr. Thomson, for afterwards, in
the Assembly, it was impossible to predict how he would vote on any
conceivable question. His "Reform" principles must have been very
"moderate," for he frequently supported the measures of the Compact. His
votes seem to have been dictated by chance or caprice, rather than
political conviction of any kind.

[259] Dr. Baldwin was Judge of the Surrogate Court of the Home
District. His dismissal was probably due quite as much to the fact
that he was President of the Society as to his remarks about the
Lieutenant-Governor, or to the official address. Mr. Ridout was Judge of
the Niagara District Court, Justice of the Peace, and Colonel of the
Second Regiment of East York Militia. He was dismissed from all three
offices, although he was not a member of the Reform Society. Mr. Small
was Commissioner of the Court of Requests in Toronto, and also
Lieutenant-Colonel of the First East York Militia.

[260] _Ante_, p. 330.

[261] Written by Chief Justice Robinson, in opposition to the project
for uniting the two Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.



CHAPTER XVII.

REACTION.


The closing weeks of the summer and a part of the early autumn were
spent by the Lieutenant-Governor in an informal tour through some of the
most interesting and picturesque districts of the Province. A great part
of the tour, which occupied in all about two months, was performed on
horseback, and with only two attendants. A pleasantly-written account of
some of the experiences encountered during this invigorating holiday may
be found in "The Emigrant," a light, sketchy, and most readable little
volume put forth by Sir Francis ten years afterwards. Soon after his
return to the Seat of Government his self-complacency received a check
in the form of a despatch from the Colonial Office, enclosing copies of
instructions which had been sent to Sir Archibald Campbell,
Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick. It appeared that the strenuous
exertions of the Reformers of that Province had been crowned with
success. Sir Archibald had been directed to surrender to the Assembly
the casual and territorial revenues of the Crown, and to concede a
responsible Executive. This was not all. Sir Francis was himself
distinctly informed that what had been conceded in one British North
American Province could not be withheld from the rest. Scarcely had this
piece of intelligence been chewed and digested ere he received another
despatch which added to his discomfiture by confirming the previous one,
and by seating the obnoxious doctrine at his very door. He was
instructed that the Executive Councils in the various North American
colonies were thenceforward to be composed of individuals possessing the
confidence of the people. This, though not altogether unexpected, was
almost past bearing. He saw the house of cards which he had constructed
with such pains about to crumble before him. If this course were
persisted in, all his efforts to pack a House of Assembly would erelong
prove to have been made in vain; for no Assembly would permanently
uphold a clique of Councillors in whose appointment they themselves had
had no voice, and in whose principles they had no confidence. Sir
Archibald Campbell and he were entirely of one mind as to the vexed
question at issue, and they were both firmly determined to resist such a
policy to the last ditch. Of Sir Archibald's proceedings it is
unnecessary for this work to present any detailed account. It will be
sufficient to say that he preferred to resign his office rather than
obey the instructions he had received, and that he carried out this
resolve during the following year, when he was succeeded by Sir John
Harvey. Sir Francis Head meanwhile contented himself as best he could
with vehement protests addressed to the Home Office. "The more seriously
I contemplate the political tranquillity of this Province," he
wrote,[262] "the more steadfastly am I confirmed in my opinion that cool,
stern, decisive, un-conciliating measures form the most popular
description of government that can be exercised towards the free and
high-minded inhabitants of the Canadas." The style of his despatches did
not improve with time. It was wordy, bombastic and slangy. The
despatches themselves were largely made up of inflated, impertinent
phraseology, and quotations from the light literature of the period.
Lord Glenelg, however, had become accustomed to the unconventional
methods of his protégé, and was by no means disposed to judge him with
severity. On the 8th of September he wrote to him to the effect that his
"foresight, energy and moral courage" had been approved of by the King.
"It is peculiarly gratifying to me," wrote his Lordship, "to be the
channel of conveying to you this high and honourable testimony of His
Majesty's favourable acceptance of your services." From all which it is
sufficiently apparent that the real state of Upper Canadian affairs was
not much more clearly understood by the Colonial Office than by Sir
Francis Head.

The new Parliament was assembled on the 8th of November. Archibald
McLean, of Stormont, was elected Speaker by a majority of fifteen, the
vote standing thirty-six to twenty-one. This vote did not by any means
indicate the full strength of the Government, which was simply
irresistible. The power of the Compact was not only completely restored,
but increased. Never had its ascendency been so great. It was absolute,
overwhelming; and any opposition to it was a bootless kicking against
the pricks. In the Speech from the Throne his Excellency congratulated
the Houses on the loyal feeling pervading the Province, and on the
stillness and serenity of the public mind. He drew attention to "the
conspicuous tranquillity of the country," and briefly referred to the
legislation contemplated by the Government, which, as thus indicated,
was of an exceedingly practical character. The Speech concluded with a
declaration of his Excellency's intention "to maintain the happy
constitution of this Province inviolate." If the Speech, as a whole,
contained a faithful reflex of the official mind, it indicated that the
Government greatly misjudged the state of opinion in the country. True,
there was little conspicuous agitation, for the Reform party had
sustained so signal a defeat that they for the time felt powerless. But
they were feverishly sensible of the crushing blow that had been dealt
them, and reeled from it in a spirit which was far removed from
"serenity." Scores of them despaired of the future, sold out their
belongings, and removed to the United States. During the months of
September and October there had been a considerable emigration of
farmers from the western part of the Province to Michigan. Such was the
"tranquillity" upon which Sir Francis plumed himself, and upon which he
continued to dilate at recurring intervals until he was roused from his
slumbers by the intelligence that "the rebels" were at Montgomery's.

The Legislature at once proceeded to pass a Bill to provide for the
support of the Civil Government for the current year, a circumstance of
which the Lieutenant-Governor hastened to apprise Lord Glenelg. Various
matters of importance occupied the attention of Parliament during the
session. Among other questions which came up for discussion was the
long-standing grievance of the Clergy Reserves. On Thursday, the 8th of
December, a Bill was introduced into the Assembly by Hiram Norton,
member for Grenville, having for its object the disposal of the Reserves
for purposes of general education. It passed the second reading on the
13th of the same month, whereupon the House, in Committee of the Whole,
after several days consideration and discussion, reported a resolution
in favour of appropriating the Clergy Reserves lands and the proceeds
arising from the sales thereof to the religious and moral instruction of
the people. This gave rise to a motion of amendment by Dr. Rolph, "That
it is expedient to provide for the sale of the Clergy Reserves, and the
application of the proceeds to the purposes of general education, as one
of the most legitimate ways of giving free scope to the progress of
religious truth in the community." In support of this amendment the
Doctor made what was unquestionably the most noteworthy speech of his
life--a speech which a well-known writer[263] has pronounced to be
without a parallel in the annals of Canadian Parliamentary debate. Its
copiousness and felicity of illustration, its fluent and harmonious
elegance of diction, could not have failed to stamp it as a great effort
if it had been delivered before any audience in the world. No higher
praise can be awarded to it than to record the simple fact that it added
to the Doctor's already high reputation as an orator, and that it evoked
the admiration of many persons who could not subscribe to the doctrines
and arguments it contained. But no oratory and no arguments would have
availed with that House. The amendment was lost, and on Friday, the
16th, the original resolution was carried by a vote of thirty-five to
twenty-one. The matter was then referred to the Upper House for its
concurrence. As the measure fell through during the session, and
ultimately came to nothing, it seems unnecessary to follow its fortunes
any farther.

[Sidenote: 1837.]

Dr. Rolph made another powerful speech during the session; a speech
which would of itself have entitled him to a high place as a
Parliamentary orator, and which was inferior in vigour only to the one
on the Clergy Reserves. It arose out of Dr. Duncombe's charges against
the Lieutenant-Governor. Having received from the Colonial Secretary a
copy of the complaint which had been submitted to the House of Commons,
his Excellency, who was of course able to rely implicitly upon the
Assembly as then constituted, handed it over to that body to be dealt
with. The result fully justified his confidence. A partisan Committee
was appointed, by whom the question was approached in a spirit very far
removed from judicial fairness. How the inquiry was conducted has
already been recorded.[264] Dr. Duncombe had made certain charges, some
of which were easily susceptible of positive proof, while others were
from their nature of a kind which admitted of nothing stronger than
indirect evidence. With regard to one or two damnatory charges, he
implicitly believed them to be true, but he failed to secure any
substantial proof whatever. He presented himself once before the
Committee, only to find, as he had expected, that he must not look to
obtain a fair or patient hearing. Under these circumstances he felt that
nothing was to be gained by any further attempt to establish the truth
of his allegations, and permitted the case to go by default. The
Committee accordingly proceeded to take evidence on their own
responsibility. The verdict arrived at was such as might easily have
been foreseen. Every charge and insinuation made against his Excellency
was declared to be "wholly and utterly destitute of truth." Not only was
his conduct vindicated in this comprehensive manner, but he was referred
to as one to whom the Province owed a large debt of gratitude. In due
course the report came before the Assembly on a motion for its adoption.
The proceeding had from the first been of the nature of a practical
impeachment of the Lieutenant-Governor, a matter which was really beyond
the jurisdiction of any Canadian tribunal. It afforded to Dr. Rolph an
opportunity for addressing the House at considerable length, and in a
speech which, as remarked by Mr. Mackenzie's biographer, "will ever be
memorable in Canadian history."[265] It was delivered on the 30th of
January, 1837. It dealt in most trenchant fashion with the various
abuses which had been practised during the elections. The serio-comic
tone which pervaded a great part of it evoked roars of laughter, while
its more earnest passages aroused the most conflicting feelings in the
minds of the auditors. True oratory is never altogether fruitless, and
it would seem as if this powerful speech must have given the spur to
feelings which, sooner or later, were bound to produce specific results.
So far, however, as any immediate effects upon the action of the House
were concerned, it might as well have remained unuttered. The report was
adopted by a vote of more than two-thirds of the members present, and
the Lieutenant-Governor stood officially exonerated from blame.

Among other matters presented for the consideration of the Assembly was
a petition from Mr. Mackenzie. Ever since the election, he had publicly
announced his determination to petition against the return in the Second
Riding of York. He was prevented by illness from filing his memorial
within the prescribed period, and an extension of time was obtained on
his behalf. He got together a great mass of evidence, some portions of
which the Government would certainly have found it hard to answer to the
public satisfaction. He was jubilant, and openly boasted that he would
expose such a mass of corruption as would make the country stare aghast.
He was however so intent on collecting evidence and on discounting his
contemplated triumph over his enemies that he failed to enter into the
necessary recognizance until the allotted period for doing so had
elapsed. The statute governing the case required that the petitioner
should enter into recognizance within fourteen days from the
presentation of the petition. In this case the petition was presented on
the 20th of December, 1836, so that the fourteen days expired on the 3rd
of January, 1837. "If at the expiration of the said fourteen days"--so
ran the statute--"such recognizance shall not have been entered into,
the Speaker shall report the same to the House, and the order for
taking such petition into consideration shall thereupon be discharged;
unless, upon matter specially stated and verified to the satisfaction of
the House, the House shall see cause to enlarge the time for entering
into such recognizance." Accordingly, on the opening of the House on
Wednesday, the 4th of January, Mr. Speaker McLean announced that the
time limited for W. L. Mackenzie, the petitioning candidate for the
representation of the Second Riding of York, to proceed upon his
petition, had expired. Mr. Boulton, one of the members for Durham, then
moved that the further consideration of the petition be discharged. Dr.
Morrison sought to obtain additional time for the furnishing of the
statutory recognizance, but the House was under no obligation to grant
any indulgence, and after a long debate declined to do so. Mr. Boulton's
motion was carried; whereupon Dr. Morrison moved that Mr. Mackenzie have
leave to present a new petition. The House negatived this motion, and
Mr. Thomson was confirmed in his seat. The matter was again brought
before the notice of the House a few days afterwards by Dr. Morrison,
who moved that Mr. Mackenzie be allowed further time to enter into the
requisite security. The motion was made in order to give Dr. Rolph--who
had not been present during the former discussion--an opportunity of
speaking on the subject. The member for Norfolk delivered himself of a
vigorous and subtle argument, in the course of which he reviewed the
English practice, as well as the practice which had generally prevailed
in similar cases in Upper Canada. The fourteen days, he argued, should
be computed from the time when the petition was read to the House, not
from the date when it was handed in. The presentation referred to in the
statute, he alleged, was not complete until the reading of the petition,
which could not take place until it had lain on the table two days.
Still further, the petitioner's delay had been in part due to the Clerk
of the House, who had led Mr. Mackenzie to believe that the fourteen
days would not begin to run against him until two days after the
delivery of the petition. The argument throughout was plausible and
powerful, but it shared the fate of many other powerful appeals in those
days. The motion was lost. There seems to have been a strong
determination on the part of the Government to burke the investigation.
This was suggestive of a fear of the result, and was so regarded by
many wholly disinterested persons. Some of the charges were of the
gravest nature, and, if the Government had felt that their skirts were
clean, it is incomprehensible that they should not have availed
themselves of such an opportunity of establishing the fact by official
record. There seems but too good reason to believe that, if the inquiry
had been proceeded with, Mackenzie would have made good his boast, and
that a disgraceful exposure of Executive corruption would have been
made.

One of the significant measures of the session was an Act to prevent the
dissolution of the Provincial Parliament upon the demise of the Crown.
The desire of the Executive for such an enactment arose in this manner.
During the brief election campaign of the preceding summer the most
tempting promises had been made to the electors on behalf of the
Government. This had been done with the full knowledge and consent--nay,
probably at the instigation--of the members of the Government
themselves. The fulfilment of some of the promises would have been
feasible enough. Others had been as absurdly impossible of fulfilment as
were Jack Cade's pledges that seven halfpenny loaves should be sold for
a penny, and that the three-hooped pot should have ten hoops. The
Government now realized that their performances were far from being
commensurate with the promises so lavishly made. In the event of a new
election taking place within the next few months it would be easy for
the Reformers to make out a strong case, and it would be hard for the
Government party to reply thereto with effect. It seemed not improbable
that a new election might erelong become necessary, for King William the
Fourth was more than three score and ten years old, and was known to be
in a state of health which rendered it unlikely that he would live much
longer. Now, his death, in the ordinary course of things, would bring
about a dissolution and a general election, and this was the contingency
against which it was thought desirable to guard. A measure was
accordingly passed whereby it was enacted "That the Parliament of this
Province shall not in any case be deemed to be determined or dissolved
by the death or demise of His Majesty, his heirs or successors; nor
shall any session of the Parliament of this Province be deemed to be
determined, or the proceedings therein pending in any manner abated,
interrupted or affected by the demise of His Majesty, his heirs or
successors; but notwithstanding such death or demise the Parliament of
this Province shall continue, and, if sitting, shall proceed to act
until dissolved or prorogued in the usual manner, or until the legal
expiration of the term of such Parliament." The Reformers fought this
Bill inch by inch on its way through the Assembly, but in vain. Upon its
coming up for its third reading, Norton, of Grenville, moved its
recommittal, and, upon the defeat of his motion, he made a final effort
by moving "That the Act shall not go into operation before the
expiration of the present Parliament." This, too, was defeated, and the
Bill was finally passed by a vote of twenty-six to eighteen. The measure
is suggestive of the English Act passed by the Long Parliament during
the reign of Charles the First, which enacted that Parliament should not
be dissolved by the King without its own consent.

There was a good deal of extravagant legislation during the session.
Large sums were voted for the construction and improvement of Provincial
highways, for surveys of the Ottawa River and the territory contiguous
thereto, for the improvement of the navigation of the Trent and Grand
Rivers, for the completion of the Welland Canal, and for the
construction of various other canals, harbours, and lighthouses.
Provision was also made for loans to several railway and other
companies. Most, perhaps of all these, were enterprises deserving of aid
and encouragement, but the aggregate sum of the moneys voted was nearly
four millions of dollars, being considerably more than the condition of
the Province and the circumstances of the people justified. This
exceeding liberality was probably to some extent due to a wish to
respond to the popular demand for the expenditure of money on public
improvements. It was during this session that an Act was passed
providing for the establishment of a Provincial Court of Chancery. Mr.
Jameson was soon after appointed Vice Chancellor, the Chancellorship
being vested in the Crown.

The session terminated on Saturday, the 4th of March, and its
termination was attended by a scene of "most admired disorder" in the
Assembly. The project of uniting the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada
had occupied a certain amount of attention on the part of both Houses,
and had been on the order of the day throughout the greater part of the
session. When the final day of deliberation arrived, the Legislative
Council sent down to the Lower House an Address embodying certain
resolutions against the proposed union. The Address was accompanied by a
request that the Assembly would concur therein, after which it was to be
despatched to the King. It reached the hands of the Clerk of the Lower
House about noon, and was at once submitted in the form of a motion of
concurrence. This was not relished by the Reformers, who were strongly
disposed in favour of an equitable union of the two Provinces, a step
which, as they believed, would go far to adjust the balance of parties.
A considerable number of the members had already left for their homes,
and Dr. Rolph took advantage of this circumstance as a plea for
postponing the further consideration of the matter until the next
session. He moved an amendment to that effect, and said a few words in
support of his motion. Dr. Morrison and Thomas Parke[266] took up the
argument, and spoke for some minutes. They were subjected to frequent
interruptions from the supporters of the Government, who were evidently
anxious to prevent discussion. Dr. Rolph then rose to speak to the
question of order, upon which the interruptions were renewed. Frequent
appeals were made to the Speaker, who soon found himself involved in an
animated discussion with Dr. Rolph. Nearly all the prominent members of
the House erelong became participants, and the situation became
critical. Hard words were freely bandied about, amid the greatest
confusion and disorder. An eye-witness compares the scene to a wasp's
nest disturbed.[267] The Speaker finally put a stop to the ebullitions
of temper, and brought the scene to a close by announcing that the time
had arrived for waiting on the Lieutenant-Governor with certain
addresses. There was no opportunity of renewing the discussion, and at
half-past three o'clock Black Rod summoned the House to the bar of the
Legislative Council. In proroguing Parliament the Lieutenant-Governor
referred in complacent terms to the legislation of the session, and
applauded the harmony which had prevailed between the two branches of
the Legislature.

By this time it began to be apparent to discerning persons that Sir
Francis's success as an Administrator had been rather apparent than
real. All through the election campaign, as well as for some time before
and after, the Tory party had sounded his praises with stentorian lungs.
He had to a large extent been accepted by the country at their
valuation. But sufficient time had now elapsed to enable the people to
judge for themselves, and it was shrewdly suspected that the current
estimate of him had been too high. He had triumphed at the elections,
and had managed to pack the Assembly with an overwhelming majority of
members pledged to support his policy; but he now began to discover that
he had raised a spirit which he could not control. Neither the majority
in the Assembly nor the members of the Legislative Council were prepared
to slavishly accept his dictation, or to follow him blindfold
whithersoever he might choose to lead them. Some of the official
utterances of these bodies during the session had been as strongly
assertive of their own dignity and independence as the deliverances of
the former Assembly had ever been. Even the Executive Council had begun
to exhibit an impatience of being indirectly dictated to by unsworn
advisers who were permitted by the Lieutenant-Governor to usurp the
functions peculiarly belonging to themselves. His Excellency's
popularity was evidently waning throughout the land. There was a decided
reaction against him, and thousands of Reformers who had voted for
Government candidates at the election were now animated by a strong
sentiment of opposition. The Lieutenant-Governor was also at issue with
the Colonial Office on several matters of importance. To the
recommendations of the Lower Canada Commissioners, as previously
mentioned, he had strenuously opposed himself. He had failed to carry
out the direction of Lord Glenelg to restore Mr. Ridout to the offices
from which that gentleman had been dismissed. He now displayed further
insubordination by neglecting to obey several minor injunctions received
from headquarters, by which course of procedure he involved himself in
much disputatious correspondence. His anxieties were increased by a
commercial crisis which set in about this time in the United States.
There had been an era of seeming prosperity but real inflation in that
favoured land, of which the present crisis was the legitimate
consequence. Specie payments were suspended, and business was all but
paralyzed. This disheartening state of things was speedily reflected in
Canada, which was ill qualified to bear such an infliction. The banks
and the mercantile community generally became alarmed. In the Lower
Province the banks suspended specie payments, and our own were much
disposed to follow the example. The directors of some of our leading
financial institutions applied to the Lieutenant-Governor for advice and
direction. As all these matters, however, belong rather to the
mercantile history of the country than to the story of the Rebellion,
there is no need to go into them with minuteness. Suffice it to say that
Sir Francis Head deemed it proper in this emergency to convene an extra
session of the Legislature, which met accordingly on Monday, the 19th of
June. As Mr. McLean had accepted a seat on the bench since the close of
the preceding session, it was necessary that a new Speaker should be
elected, and A. N. MacNab was chosen as his successor.[268] The session
lasted only three weeks, and terminated on Tuesday, the 11th of July. It
was purely a session of emergency, and the legislation was confined to
relieving the banks from certain penalties which the crisis had
threatened to impose upon them.

FOOTNOTES:

[262] See despatch of 30th December, 1836, in _Narrative_, chap. vii.

[263] Mr. Charles Lindsey, in his pamphlet on "_The Clergy Reserves:
their History and Present Position_;" appendix, p. i. He adds: "The
clear, pointed, classical diction of the speaker; the learning and
historical research he displayed; the beauty and appositeness of his
illustrations; the breadth and depth and immovable basis of his
arguments; the clearness, the syllogistic accuracy and force of his
logic, and the impressive eloquence of his delivery produced an effect
upon those who heard the speech never to be forgotten. Its publication
in the newspapers of the day aroused the people. It convinced them (for,
strange as it may seem now, there were many who needed to be convinced)
of the unscriptural, immoral and unjust character of a State religion;
while it confirmed them in their determination to rest not until they
had exterminated the curse from Canadian soil.... This noble effort of
an able, learned, bold and patriotic defender of the cause of the people
against their corrupt, unscrupulous and then powerful enemies, ought to
be printed in letters of gold, and preserved for the instruction and
warning of all future generations of Canadian freemen." This was written
in 1851, when the Clergy Reserves question yet remained unsettled, and
while it still continued to agitate the public mind almost to the
exclusion of other matters. Now that the subject has ceased to be a
practical one, the encomiums so lavishly bestowed upon Dr. Rolph's
famous speech will perhaps seem a little over-strained; but it was most
unquestionably a great oratorical and intellectual effort, such as had
never before been heard within the walls of the Provincial Legislature.
Even at this distance of time, when all interest in the subject has died
out, the speech cannot be read without arousing a feeling of admiration
for the orator.

[264] _Ante_, p. 330.

[265] Lindsey's _Life of Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 392.

[266] Member for Middlesex.

[267] See the report in the number of _The Correspondent and Advocate_
for Wednesday, March 15th.

[268] Forty-two members were present at the vote on the Speakership, all
of whom voted for Mr. McNab with the exception of David Gibson, of the
First Riding of York, who recorded his solitary vote in the negative.



CHAPTER XVIII.

THE FORGING OF THE PIKES.


It will be remembered that, during the summer of 1836, Dr. Baldwin,
George Ridout and J. E. Small had been dismissed by Sir Francis Head
from certain offices held by them at the pleasure of the Crown. Mr.
Ridout had appealed to Lord Glenelg, to whom the Lieutenant-Governor had
soon afterwards found himself called upon to defend his conduct. The
only reason which had at first been assigned by his Excellency for Mr.
Ridout's dismissal was that the latter was presumed to be a member of
the Constitutional Reform Society. This society, just before the
election, had issued and circulated a printed address wherein his
Excellency was charged with a disregard of constitutional Government,
and of candour and truth in his statements. Mr. Ridout had undoubtedly
attended and spoken at some of the meetings of the society, but he was
not a member of it, and had no difficulty in establishing the fact to
the satisfaction of the Colonial Secretary, who, after mature
consideration, conveyed to Sir Francis His Majesty's commands that Mr.
Ridout should be reinstated in the various offices from which he had
been removed. With this command, as mentioned towards the close of the
last chapter, Sir Francis did not see fit to comply. Finding himself
beaten upon the case as it stood, he proceeded to amend the record by
alleging other matters against the accused. In this course he met with
little encouragement from his Lordship, who patiently combated his
untenable positions, and repeated the injunction that Mr. Ridout should
be reinstated. While the matter was in abeyance, another difference of
opinion arose between Lord Glenelg and Sir Francis. During the spring of
1837, Mr. Jameson having been appointed Vice Chancellor, and Archibald
McLean and Jonas Jonas having been appointed Judges of the Court of
King's Bench, it became necessary for Sir Francis to submit these
appointments to his Lordship, together with those of Mr. Hagerman and
Mr. Draper respectively to the offices of Attorney-General and
Solicitor-General. His Excellency seems to have felt that it was
necessary to assign some reason for passing over Mr. Bidwell, whose
legal acquirements were certainly superior to those of any other member
of the Upper Canada bar since John Rolph had abandoned the long robe.
"That gentleman's legal acquirements," wrote Sir Francis,[269] "are, I
consider, superior to at least one of the individuals whom I have
elevated. His moral character is irreproachable. But, anxious as I am to
give to talent its due, yet I cannot but feel that the welfare and
honour of this Province depend on His Majesty never promoting a disloyal
man." His Excellency then went on to represent Mr. Bidwell as having
been desirous of effecting the separation of the colony from the parent
state, and of exchanging the British constitution for "the low,
grovelling principles of democracy." There was no allegation that any
such desire had ever been personally expressed or manifested by Mr.
Bidwell, but it was inferred _from the conduct of his associates_. This
was somewhat more than the Colonial Secretary could quietly pass over.
He pointed out[270] to the Lieutenant-Governor that the disloyalty
imputed to Mr. Bidwell's associates had not been charged against
himself, or attempted to be proved by any act of his; that he had
withdrawn himself from political strife; and that as his professional
abilities and high moral character were respected by his political
opponents, the political stand formerly taken by him ought not to
operate against his advancement. It was further urged by his Lordship
that the elevation of such a man to the bench would convince the Upper
Canadian public of the impartiality of the Executive in such matters.
Finally, his Excellency was informed that should another vacancy occur
among the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, it was the wish of His
Majesty's Government that the situation should be offered to Mr.
Bidwell.

Upon receipt of the missive containing this intimation the Tried
Reformer was almost beside himself. He had none of that magnanimity
which impels a man to admit that he is in the wrong when he has been
clearly proved to be so. Nor could he boast of that skill of graceful
concession which enables its possessor to recede without discredit from
an untenable position. He replied to his Lordship[271] in the following
blunt and explicit terms: "After very deliberate consideration, I have
determined to take upon myself the serious responsibility of positively
refusing to place Mr. Bidwell on the bench, or to restore Mr. George
Ridout to the Judgeship from which I have removed him." He went on to
deprecate the necessity for this "overt act of hostility," but added
that disobedience on the part of a Lieutenant-Governor does not
necessarily imply disaffection to the Minister. He hinted that he was
quite prepared for an immediate dismissal. A great part of the despatch
was taken up with libels upon Mr. Bidwell and his father. In order that
there might be no misunderstanding on the matter, he emphatically
repeated his refusal to elevate the former. "So long as I remain
Lieutenant-Governor of this Province," he wrote, "I will _never_ raise
Mr. Bidwell to the bench; and I think it proper to confess to your
Lordship that I have at this moment two appointments to make of King's
Counsel, neither of which can I conscientiously bestow upon that
gentleman." He declined to argue the question as to Mr. Ridout any
further, and again refused in the most explicit terms to reinstate him
in office. This language left the Colonial Secretary no other discretion
than to "accept Sir Francis's resignation," but before this
determination was officially conveyed to him the peace of the Province
was disturbed by the outbreak of the rebellion.

During the whole summer of this year Mackenzie was doing his utmost to
add to the prevalent feeling of discontent against the Government. A
superlative bitterness had possessed him ever since the elections, and
the fate of his petition had inflamed his resentment almost to madness.
He felt that he had been cheated out of his seat, and that nothing was
to be hoped for on behalf of either himself or his fellow-workers so
long as the existing Government remained in power. To subvert that
Government thenceforth became the dominant passion of his life. He was
ready to adopt any means, lawful or unlawful, to secure that end. The
tone of the _Constitution_ was not to be mistaken. The mind of the
editor had evidently run a long course since he had first begun to
concern himself with public affairs. In one of the early numbers of the
_Advocate_[272] he had boasted that disloyalty could never enter his
breast. "Even the name I bear," he had written, "has in all ages proved
talismanic, an insurmountable barrier." What a change had come over him
since giving utterance to those words. He now boasted of his "rebel
blood," which he declared would always be uppermost. "I am proud," he
wrote, "of my descent from a rebel race."[273] And, as if this were not
sufficiently specific, he added: "If the people felt as I feel, there is
never a Grant or Glenelg who crossed the Tay and Tweed to exchange
high-born Highland poverty for substantial Lowland wealth, who would
dare to insult Upper Canada with the official presence, as its ruler, of
such an equivocal character as this Mr. What-do-they-call-him--Francis
Bond Head." Ever and anon the Tory press retorted on him in a spirit by
no means calculated to soften the asperity of his heart. The most
contemptuous epithets were freely bestowed upon him, and he was from
time to time taunted with his humble origin. It seems almost unnecessary
to say that those who indulged in such taunts as these had very little
wherewith to reproach Mackenzie on the score of birth and breeding.
There must surely be some foul taint in the blood of any man who can
stoop to such methods of humiliating a beaten enemy. Still, such
insults, coming, as they did, in the wake of serious material injury,
added fuel to the flame which burned within Mackenzie's heart like a
consuming fire. All the worst part of his nature was up in arms. There
were times when he wrote and spoke like one who has lost all
self-control. But he was in such deadly earnest that he carried
conviction to many a wavering mind. In the Home District, where his
paper chiefly circulated, there were scores of people who had seen
enough of irresponsible Government to be ready to receive his
preachments with favour. His efforts were not restricted to writing
virulent articles. He openly went among the people, and disseminated
his doctrines by word of mouth. He spoke better than he wrote; and it
was only natural that he should exercise a strong influence over the
rural communities wherein the Radical element was in the ascendant. His
influence became specially conspicuous at this time throughout the
Second Riding of York, which he had represented in Parliament, and
which, as previously mentioned, had been the scene of much high-handed
corruption during the last election contest. The voters of that
constituency awoke to the fact that they had been beguiled by the
Tories, and that their representative, Mr. Thomson, was not likely to be
of much service in the role of a Reformer. They eagerly listened to
Mackenzie's tabulation of grievances, and cheered him to the echo when
he hinted that the time had arrived for the Spirit of Freedom to assert
herself.

Among those who warmly sympathized with Mackenzie was Samuel Lount, of
Holland Landing, who, it will be remembered, had sat in the last
Parliament for Simcoe, and who had been beaten, as he believed, by
corrupt methods, at the last election. He had contemplated a petition to
the Assembly, but had been discouraged by the conviction that it would
be impossible to obtain an impartial inquiry. He now made common cause
with Mackenzie in promoting the establishment of a series of "Union
meetings," as they were called, in the various townships of North York
and Simcoe. These meetings were convened at irregular intervals for the
ostensible purpose of political organization. At first they seem to have
been conducted with a good deal of craftiness, for as a general thing
nothing was said which could in strictness be regarded as treasonable.
But there can be little doubt that the intention of the original
promoter of these assemblages was the spread of revolutionary ideas,
with a view to an ultimate resort to arms, and in a short time the mask
of political organization was completely thrown off. Those who had once
put their hands to the plough did not care to draw back, and, before
they were aware of what they were doing, they found themselves committed
to projects of which at the outset they had not so much as dreamed.

Lount's example was followed by most of the leading Radicals among the
farming community where he was best known. The Lloyds, Gorhams, Doans,
Fletchers and others had long been active advocates of Radical
principles, and had marked with ever-growing hostility the tactics of
Sir Francis Head. They saw right persistently violated by might. They
saw the respectful complaints and petitions of the people disregarded
and set at naught. They saw the Government in the hands of persons who
were not only devoid of sympathy with progressive ideas, but who seemed
to have no regard for the principles of plain right and wrong. They
found themselves of no account in the commonwealth. Their cherished
principles were held up to public scorn, and their chosen candidates for
Parliament were beaten by fraudulent means. They were utterly without
weight in public affairs. After a long and hard fight with the Family
Compact, they saw that clique more strongly entrenched in power than
ever before. The Tried Reformer who, in response to their long and loud
appeals, had been sent over to administer the Government, had stooped to
a barefaced violence and tyranny in excess of anything which could be
truly charged against the Tory Sir John Colborne. All the old abuses
were maintained in full vigour. The incubus of the Clergy Reserves was
not removed. Appointments to office were still made from one political
body only. The Legislative Council still had the power to paralyze the
efforts of the Assembly. The Assembly itself was at present as
retrograde as the Upper House, and it had been formed by a corrupt and
venal race of officials against whom there was no remedy. The Act to
prevent the dissolution of Parliament would probably have the effect of
maintaining the existing Assembly for years. To all these evils was now
superadded great commercial depression. And there seemed to be no
prospect of brighter times. The future seemed overcast and hopeless. Is
it any wonder if those who were compelled to contemplate the picture
from this dark point of view were forced to the conclusion that a change
of any kind must surely be for the better?

It is impossible to say at what precise date the idea of armed
resistance to authority was adopted among the rural Reformers, but I can
find no distinct trace of it until the 30th of June, when, at a secret
meeting held at Lloydtown, a resolution was passed to the effect that
constitutional resistance to oppression having been for many years tried
in vain, it behooved every Reformer to arm himself in defence of his
rights and those of his fellow-countrymen. Within a fortnight afterwards
resolutions of a similar character were passed by small gatherings in
other parts of the Home District. As yet, however, the idea of actual
rebellion does not seem to have taken definite shape in the minds of the
supporters of Mackenzie and Lount. At most, there appears to have been a
sort of understanding that recourse to arms was justifiable, and might
some day become expedient; but even this view of the case did not meet
with universal acquiescence, and the advocates of insurrection sometimes
found themselves confronted by hostile majorities, even among assemblies
of the most trusted Radicals.

But meanwhile Reformers in the cities and towns were beginning to bestir
themselves. Toronto was the headquarters of the Reform party of Upper
Canada, and it was natural that the adherents of that party throughout
the Province generally should contemplate their proceedings with
interest. As yet the idea of an armed rising against the Government had
not been seriously hinted at among the Reformers of the capital.
Profound sympathy, however, was felt and expressed among them for the
Lower Canadians, who made no secret of their determination to rebel in
case certain resolutions adopted by the British Parliament, at the
instance of the Ministry, were acted upon. These resolutions had been
adopted in consequence of the Lower Canadian Assembly's persistent
refusal to grant supplies. They authorized the seizure of certain funds
in the hands of the Provincial Receiver-General, and the application of
them to the general purposes of the Provincial government. Papineau and
his adherents had been maddened by this proceeding, and were actively
engaged in preparations for an outbreak. The Upper Canadian Reformers
warmly sympathized with their neighbours, and passed resolutions
condemnatory of the obnoxious resolutions. On the 5th of July,
Mackenzie, in the _Constitution_, reviewed the state of affairs in the
Lower Province with exceeding boldness. He discussed the probability of
an outbreak there, and the chances of success, very clearly indicating
his own opinion in the affirmative as to both contingencies. Other
Reform papers expressed strong opinions in favour of Papineau's side of
the quarrel, but, with the exception of the _Constitution_, none of them
ventured to predict and hope for the success of the rebel arms. The fact
is, that a comparatively small number of Upper Canadian Reformers were
either ripe for or desirous of rebellion. They were aroused to hot
anger, and were prepared to advocate the most radical measures of
agitation. Their hostility, however, was not chiefly directed against
Great Britain, but against Sir Francis Head and those by whom he was
surrounded. It was felt that the Home Office had failed in its duty, but
the more intelligent were ready to make allowances for the ignorance
respecting Canadian affairs of a Minister three thousand miles away.
Such were the sentiments of Robert Baldwin and hundreds of other persons
the sincerity of whose Reform principles were equally free from doubt.
Dr. Baldwin felt and expressed less moderation than his son, though he
was not the man to venture upon what he could not have regarded
otherwise than as a hare-brained scheme of rebellion, more especially
when his chief allies would be composed of the Mackenzie element of
Radicals. Rolph and Bidwell were precisely of the same opinion as Dr.
Baldwin. They were sick and weary of all that they saw around them. They
would have cordially welcomed a bloodless revolution. As for Bidwell, he
would gladly have seen the Province quietly absorbed by the United
States, for Family Compact domination would then have been at an end,
and there would have been a chance for a man to be rated according to
his merits. One situated as he was could not be expected to be devotedly
loyal to a Government which did its utmost to keep him down, and which
raised a lawyer like Jonas Jones to the bench over his head. Like his
father before him, he was a republican in principle, and would doubtless
have been willing enough to see a republican form of Government
established in Upper Canada; but he had never permitted his
predilections to interfere with his duties as a citizen and legislator.
Moreover, he was before all things a Christian and a man of peace. It is
not by such as he that revolutions are planned or accomplished. If
questioned on the subject, he would doubtless have admitted that
rebellion, under certain circumstances, may be justifiable, but it is
hardly possible to conceive of any circumstances under which he could
have been induced to take part in such a movement. Assuredly, nothing
short of an almost absolute certainty of success would have impelled him
to such a course. The inherent probabilities of success in the case of
the Upper Canadian rebellion were from the first very few and remote.
There was a brief interval during which, owing to the stupidity and
supineness of the Government, success might have been achieved, but
whether it would have been temporary or permanent must ever remain an
open question. In any case, the contingency was one upon which no
prudent man would have allowed himself to count beforehand. As a matter
of fact Mr. Bidwell had no more to do with the rebellion than had Robert
Baldwin.[274] Dr. Rolph, Dr. Morrison, David Gibson, James Hervey Price,
Francis Hincks, John Doel, James and William Lesslie, John
Mackintosh,[275] and many other leading Reformers were full of vehemence
and indignation, ready to go any reasonable length to bring about a
state of things more satisfactory to their party; but up to the close of
summer I cannot learn that any serious thought of rebellion had taken
possession of the minds of any prominent Toronto Reformer with the
exception of Mackenzie himself. Even up in North York and Simcoe, where
the feeling of discontent was strongest, and where there was much talk
about rebellion against the Government, no one seems to have realized or
believed that there would be any actual outbreak.

There could be no doubt, however, that the Reformers in both town and
country were more thoroughly in earnest than they had ever been before.
Energetic measures were in favour among them, and the number of
advocates of passive endurance was very small. There were regular
communications between them and the opponents of the Government in Lower
Canada. They held frequent meetings, at which schemes of agitation were
discussed, and where every member was encouraged to speak his mind
without fear or favour. A very frequent place of meeting in Toronto was
Elliott's tavern, on the north-west corner of Yonge and Queen Streets. A
place for holding more secret and confidential caucuses was the brewery
of John Doel, situated at the rear of his house on the north-west corner
of Adelaide and Bay Streets.[276] Towards the end of July a number of
leading Radicals assembled at Elliott's for the purpose of discussing
the draft of a written Declaration, which was intended to embody the
platform of the local members of the party. It reads very much like a
cautious parody on the Declaration of Independence of the United States,
upon which it was evidently modelled. It set forth the principal
grievances of which the Reform party complained; declared that the time
had arrived for the assertion of rights and the redress of wrongs; and
expressed the warmest admiration of Papineau and his compatriots for
their opposition to the British Government. It further expressed the
opinion that the Reformers of Upper Canada were bound to make common
cause with their fellow-citizens in the Lower Province; and to render
their coöperation more effectual it recommended that public meetings
should be held and political associations organized throughout the
country. Finally, it recommended that a convention of delegates should
be held at Toronto to consider the political situation, "with authority
to its members to appoint commissioners to meet others to be named on
behalf of Lower Canada and any of the other colonies, armed with
suitable powers as a congress to seek an effectual remedy for the
grievances of the colonists." Mr. Lindsey,[277] doubtless upon the
authority of Mackenzie, represents this Declaration as having been the
joint work of Dr. Rolph and Dr. W. J. O'Grady, somewhile editor of _The
Correspondent and Advocate_. I can find no confirmatory evidence of
this statement, and some of Dr. Rolph's letters would seem, at least by
implication, to contradict the assertion that he had any hand in its
preparation. The question of authorship, however, is not important. The
document was discussed at considerable length. Dr. Morrison, who was
present, fully approved of its contents, but objected to sign it, as he
would thereby place himself in a dubious position as a member of
Parliament. This argument was not acquiesced in by James Lesslie, and
the Doctor finally appended his signature. His example was followed by
all the other members present except James Lesslie, who withheld his
name until the document should be signed by Dr. Rolph, who was absent
from the meeting.[278]

On the afternoon of Friday, the 28th of the same month, the Declaration
was submitted to and discussed for the second time by a number of
Reformers assembled at Elliott's. There was to be a large meeting the
same evening at Doel's brewery, at which it was thought desirable that
the platform should be adopted. Some discussion arose as to several
clauses, however, and one or two immaterial alterations were made, after
which it was thought best to postpone the final adoption of the
Declaration in its entirety until a subsequent meeting. The meeting held
during the evening at Doel's was very numerously attended. About three
hundred persons were present,[279] and a good deal of important
discussion took place. A motion expressive of sympathy and admiration
for Papineau and his compatriots was proposed by Mackenzie, and passed
without a dissentient voice, and it was resolved that "the Reformers of
Upper Canada" should make common cause with those of the Lower Province.
The persons present at this meeting of course had no authority to speak
on behalf of the Reformers of Upper Canada as a whole, but they fairly
enough represented the Radical wing of the party, which was quite large
enough to be formidable. The meeting further resolved that a convention
of delegates should be assembled at an early period in Toronto, "to take
into consideration the state of the Province, the causes of the present
pecuniary and other difficulties, and the means whereby they may be
effectually removed;" and that persons be appointed by the said
convention to proceed to Lower Canada, "there to meet the delegates of
any congress of these Provinces which may be appointed to sit and
deliberate on matters of mutual interest to the colonies during the
present year." The Declaration was not submitted, as final judgment had
not been passed upon it by those who had it in charge. After a long and
busy session, the assemblage adjourned to meet in the same place on the
evening of Monday, the 31st.

It was matter of much regret among the Radical leaders that Dr. Rolph
had not up to this time taken any active part in their deliberations. He
was known to be in sympathy with the project of a movement in concert
with the Lower Canadians for the purpose of impressing the Imperial
Government with the necessity of changing their colonial policy. He had
become the trusted counsellor of all the leading Radicals, who looked up
to him as the one man in the Province who was capable of directing any
large or wise measure of Reform. But he had not identified himself with
them by actual coöperation in their projects, and had attended none of
their secret meetings, although he was kept fully informed of all that
occurred thereat. The Radicals, recognizing how much would be gained by
securing the presence among them of Rolph and Bidwell, resolved to press
both those gentlemen into service. At the adjourned meeting on the
evening of the 31st, the movement made considerable progress. The
Declaration was formally adopted clause by clause. According to a
contemporary newspaper report,[280] it "called forth from the meeting
the most unequivocal marks of approbation." As already mentioned, one of
its clauses recommended the holding of a convention at Toronto. A
resolution was accordingly unanimously adopted appointing Rolph,
Bidwell, Dr. Morrison, James Lesslie and others as delegates to the
proposed convention. This, it was confidently believed, would have the
effect of identifying Rolph and Bidwell with the Radical cause, for it
was not thought that either of them would refuse to attend as delegates.
Other resolutions were adopted with a view to placing the party in a
state of efficient organization throughout the Province. The persons who
had previously appended their names to the Declaration[281] were
appointed "a permanent Committee of Vigilance, for this city and
liberties, and to carry into immediate and practical effect the
resolutions of this meeting for the effectual organization of the
Reformers of Upper Canada." John Elliott, a Toronto scrivener, who was
also Assistant Clerk of the City Council, was requested to continue to
act as Secretary-in-Ordinary, and Mackenzie to act as "Agent and
Corresponding Secretary." Both of these requests were assented to. A
resolution, doubtless adopted in emulation of similar resolutions at
meetings held under Papineau's auspices in Lower Canada, pledged the
members to abstain as far as possible "from the consumption of articles
coming from beyond sea, or paying duties." A sort of rider to this was
moved by Mackenzie, and adopted by the meeting: "That the right of
obtaining articles of luxury or necessity in the cheapest market is
inherent in the people, who only consent to the imposition of duties for
the creation of revenues with the express understanding that the
revenues so raised from them shall be devoted to the necessary expenses
of Government, and appointed by the people's representatives; and
therefore, when the contract is broken by an Executive or any foreign
authority, the people are released from their engagement, and are no
longer under any moral obligation to contribute to or aid in the
collection of such revenues." On Wednesday, the 2nd of August, the
Declaration was published in full, together with the names of the
committee, in _The Correspondent and Advocate_, and in Mackenzie's
_Constitution_. Each of these papers also published a report of the
proceedings at the meeting.

The part assigned to Mackenzie--that of "Agent and Corresponding
Secretary"--was an important one, and involved him in the necessity of
giving up all his time and energies to the cause. In so far as his
abilities enabled him to do so, he was to virtually play the same part
in Upper Canada that had long been enacted by Papineau in the Lower
Province. He was to be a supreme itinerant organizer, and was to go
about the country stirring up opposition to the Government. This would
involve the arranging and holding of public meetings and secret
caucuses, the selection of local correspondents, the supervision of
local reports, and various other duties not definitely specified, much
being necessarily left to his own discretion. He had been engaged in
precisely similar tasks for some weeks previously, but henceforth he was
able to carry out his designs as the accredited emissary of the
Reformers of Toronto, a fact which of course gave him additional
importance in the eyes of the Reformers generally. His appointment was
due to his own manoeuvres, but it must be confessed that he was in
many respects well qualified for the post.

He addressed himself to his tasks with redoubled assiduity. The Province
was mapped out into four districts, each of which was again subdivided
into minor divisions. Local branch societies were formed or remodelled
in all neighbourhoods where Reformers were numerous. Each of these was
directed to report regularly to a central society, and all the latter
were to report to the Corresponding Secretary, by whom the reports were
classified, digested, and laid before the central committee in Toronto.
Mackenzie at once proceeded to hold a fresh series of meetings,
beginning with the townships in which he was best known, and thence
flitting hither and thither as was deemed advisable. In this way, in the
course of the late summer and autumn he went over the whole of the Home
District, and over a great part of the adjoining country. His soul was
in the work he was doing, and he put into it all the energy which he
could command. He did not succeed in arousing such a feeling in the west
as Papineau did in the east. He had not Papineau's marvellous Gallic
eloquence, nor were the farmers of Upper Canada composed of such
inflammable material as the _habitans_ of the Lower Province. But
Mackenzie, when thoroughly aroused, as he now was, had considerable
power to move the masses, and he exerted himself to this end as he had
never done before. The manifold wrongs he had endured had exasperated
his nature almost beyond endurance, and he could lash himself into a
storm of indignation at a moment's notice. He succeeded in awakening
enthusiasm in persons who had formerly been remarkable for stolidity.
He presented few new subjects for the consideration of his auditors, but
he presented old subjects in a light which was suggestive of new ideas.
He declaimed against the iniquities of the Executive, the supineness of
the Imperial Government, and the culpable indifference of the British
Parliament. The Declaration, in fact, was the test upon which his
harangues were founded, but he presented its respective clauses in
ever-recurring novelty of aspect. The document was itself submitted to
the various meetings for approval, accompanied by Mackenzie's fiery
commentary. As a general thing the Radical element was largely in the
ascendant at the gatherings, and he had no trouble about carrying his
resolutions, frequently by very large majorities. He adapted his oratory
to his audience. Where he knew that he would encounter little or no
opposition he was much more outspoken than where the feeling was less
favourable to him. Wherever he felt that he could carry his audience
with him, he boldly advocated separation from the mother-country, and
the establishment of elective institutions under an independent
Government; though he took care to deprecate any appeal to physical
force,[282] and generally advocated a money payment to the British
Government as the price of a full release and quittance of all Imperial
claims upon the colony. He employed all the paraphernalia which he
thought likely to impress the people, and banners bearing revolutionary
inscriptions were freely displayed from the platform in neighbourhoods
where such a course was deemed safe. Lount, Gibson, Nelson Gorham and
others occasionally reinforced him by their presence and their oratory.
These gentlemen were all gifted with more than ordinary powers of
expression. The subject-matter was one which they all had deeply at
heart, and upon which they could speak with never-failing freshness and
vigour. The audiences were sometimes moved to rapturous demonstrations
of applause. Even in communities where the popular sentiment was less
enthusiastic the recommendations embodied in the Declaration were
generally assented to, and local vigilance committees were formed.
Delegates to the proposed Toronto convention were appointed, but the
date of holding it was for the time left open. About seventy of these
delegates were appointed in the Home District alone. The necessity for
making common cause with the Lower Canadian Opposition in their efforts
to establish civil and religious liberty was vehemently pressed by the
speakers, and commonly recognized by the audiences. Any reference on the
part of the speakers to what "our brethren in Lower Canada" were doing
for the cause of liberty was almost certain to evoke applause. A trusted
emissary--Jesse Lloyd of Lloydtown--acted as a medium of communication
between the Radical leaders in the two Provinces, and passed to and fro
from time to time with despatches and intelligence between Papineau and
Mackenzie. By this and other means the Lower Canadian leaders were from
first to last kept promptly informed of the progress of the movement in
the Upper Province.

Sometimes--not often--Mackenzie met with considerable opposition. The
idea of separation from Great Britain was a stumbling-block to a few
even of the ultra-Radicals, and had to be handled with extreme delicacy.
Others were chary of any concerted action with the Lower Canadians on
account of the latter's religious faith. In several instances, moreover,
the meetings were actually broken up by the Tories, in whose ears the
language used by Mackenzie and his coadjutors was neither more nor less
than treason. In other instances, though the opposition was not
effective enough to actually break up the meetings, it was found
impossible to carry any resolutions founded upon the Declaration. In
two cases the meetings were broken up in confusion by local bodies of
Orangemen, and a number of persons sustained more or less physical
violence. Such incidents as these, however, were the exception, and not
the rule. Out of all the meetings--considerably more than a hundred in
number[283]--held between the adoption of the Declaration and the actual
outbreak of rebellion, seventy-five per cent seem to have passed off
without serious disturbance or interference. Most of those who
disapproved of the meetings staid away from them, and regarded those who
promoted them with settled hostility, frequently accompanied by
contempt. Of those who attended and supported the resolutions, a very
small number had any suspicion that matters were shaping themselves, or
were being shaped by Mackenzie, towards rebellion.

As for Mackenzie himself, he seems to have been intent on mischief
during the whole summer of this eventful year. He however recognized the
necessity of moving slowly, for no one knew better than he that a very
small percentage of the Reformers of the Province could be brought to
sanction such a project as rebellion under his auspices. What they might
have been disposed to do if rebellion had been mooted by Robert Baldwin,
Bidwell, Rolph, and other eminent Reformers, it would now be idle to
inquire. It would be as profitless as to discuss what would have been
the fate of the Revolution of 1688 if James the Second had died while he
was Duke of York. The mental constitution of Baldwin and Bidwell were
such that it would have been an impossibility for them to take part in a
rebellion, and the general belief with respect to Rolph was that his
doing so was equally out of the question. All this was well known to
Mackenzie. He also well knew that the Reform press would have promptly
denounced him had his designs been known. If he had encountered such
denunciation his bubble would have burst there and then. But the Reform
press knew nothing of his designs. He was believed to be agitating for
constitutional Reform. It was of course known that he was carrying his
agitation to an unprecedented length, but it was supposed that he was
doing so for the purpose of intimidating the Government, and thereby
coercing them into concessions; and the Reform press throughout the land
was fully prepared to support him in such a course. He accordingly acted
with much greater caution than he had been wont to display in the
management of either public or private affairs. He perceived that the
machinery of vigilance committees, branch societies, public meetings and
what not, which had been so successfully set in motion under the
auspices of the Reformers, might be turned to account for
insurrectionary purposes. To a few of his friends in the country, over
whom he possessed almost unbounded influence, and who, as he knew, felt
almost as bitterly towards the Government as he himself did, he imparted
a project involving a resort to arms. Among them were Samuel Lount,
Jesse Lloyd, Silas Fletcher, Nelson Gorham and Peter Matthews. The
communication was doubtless made to the several persons at different
times, but all of those mentioned seem to have been made acquainted with
the project before the beginning of autumn. They all yielded a ready
enough acquiescence, but no thought of bloodshed was in their minds. It
was intended to get together a great body of Reformers from all over the
country, and then to advance upon the capital in the form of a monster
demonstration. This idea seems to have originated with Lount. It was at
first objected to by Mackenzie as unlikely to prove efficacious. He
urged that demonstrations had been made in his favour several years
before, and that none of them had had any effect in moderating the
policy of the Government, or in inducing the Assembly to permit him to
sit therein. He especially instanced the occasion upon which a great
crowd of the York electors had accompanied him to the House of Assembly,
and had filled the galleries and lobbies while Parliament was
sitting.[284] All this, he pointed out, had been labour in vain, and if
such a scene were to be re-enacted it must, in order to produce any
satisfactory effect, be on a very large scale indeed. His argument was
unanswerable. It was clear that any appeal to the Government's sense of
right would be made in vain, and that they could only be influenced
through their fears. If anything was to be effected by means of a
demonstration, the number of persons taking part in it must be
sufficiently numerous to overawe, and if necessary to coerce, the
Government.

Some weeks appear to have elapsed before any scheme was definitely fixed
upon and approved by all the nine or ten persons concerned, who thus
took upon themselves the responsibility of directing the future course
of our colonial polity. The understanding arrived at was that the time
of holding the proposed convention in Toronto would also be the
appropriate time for making the proposed demonstration. The convention
would afford a reasonable pretext for the assembling of great numbers of
Reformers at the capital. It will be remembered that no definite time
had been fixed upon for the holding of the convention. It was now
settled that it should be held early in the spring of the year 1838.
When the gathering should be complete, it was proposed to wait upon the
Government, as the barons waited on King John at Runnymede, and wring
from them their assent to a constitution founded upon the propositions
embodied in the Declaration. It was agreed that if this assent should be
obtained, Sir Francis Head was, at any rate temporarily, to be left
undisturbed in his position of Lieutenant-Governor, but that the
Executive Council should be altogether remodelled, and that Rolph,
Bidwell and Mackenzie should have seats therein. The Government was to
be carried on upon the principle of Executive responsibility to the
Assembly. This re-adjustment was to be followed by a general election,
after which the future of the colony would be in the hands of the
Assembly.

But how if the Government would not be coerced? What was to be done if
they refused to be dictated to? In that case there was only one course
open. The Lieutenant-Governor and his Council were to be seized with
_as_ little violence as possible. A Provisional Government was to be
formed with Dr. Rolph at its head, provided that that gentleman could be
induced to accept the position. It was not believed that the carrying
out of this project would necessarily involve any sacrifice of life, for
the force at the disposal of the Provisional Government would be such as
to render any opposition futile. Moreover, the bulk of the population of
the capital were known to be favourable to Reform principles, and it was
believed that they would readily take part in the movement if they saw
an assured prospect of success.

The conspirators were sanguine as to obtaining Rolph's coöperation, for,
unlike Bidwell, he had not repudiated the position of a member of the
convention, which had been thrust upon him by the meeting at Doel's
brewery in July. Bidwell, immediately upon becoming acquainted with what
had been done, had notified the secretary that he had withdrawn from
political life, and that he could have nothing to do with the proposed
convention. Rolph also had at first felt disposed to decline the
appointment, but he had taken time to consider, and had talked the
matter over with Dr. Baldwin, who had strongly counselled him to accept.
I can find no documentary evidence of either acceptance or rejection on
his part, but he seems to have been favourable to the holding of the
convention, which he doubtless regarded as a possible means of
consolidating the Reform party, and of rendering its opposition to the
Government more effective. It was agreed that for the present nothing
should be said to him about the contemplated subversion of the
Government by force. The boldest features of the scheme were intended to
be kept secret from nearly everyone until the time for action should be
near at hand, but no oath of secrecy was imposed, and, in spite of all
resolutions, more or less accurate hints of what was in contemplation
were conveyed to hundreds of Radicals throughout the Home District and
elsewhere.

As the autumn advanced, the conspirators proceeded to prepare their
adherents for the impressive display of the ensuing spring. It was
evident that even a very numerously-attended demonstration would not
impress the Government unless those taking part in it carried about with
them a suggestion of strength. In order to be strong they must have
arms, and they must furthermore know how to use them should the
necessity arise. A system of secret training and drill was accordingly
organized throughout the townships. People met after nightfall in the
corners of quiet fields, in the shadow of the woods, and in other
sequestered places, and there received such instruction in military
drill and movements as was possible under the circumstances. Old
muskets, pistols and cutlasses were furbished up after long disuse, and
pressed into service once more. Small quantities of rifles and
ammunition were surreptitiously obtained from the United States.
Disaffected blacksmiths in the rural districts devoted themselves to the
manufacture of rude pike-heads, which, after being fitted to hickory
handles of five or six feet in length, formed no contemptible weapons
for either attack or defence. Lount's blacksmith shop at Holland Landing
was for some weeks largely given up to this manufacture. As there was no
attempt at interference with these proceedings, the disaffected became
bolder, and began to assemble at regular periods to engage in rifle
practice, pigeon-matches, and the slaughter of turkeys. As intimated in
a previous note,[285] Mr. Bidwell was applied to for a legal opinion as
to the lawfulness of such gatherings. He advised with great caution,
specifying how far he conceived this sort of thing might be carried with
impunity. Gatherings for the slaughter of birds and for trials of skill
with the rifle he conceived to be clearly within the law.

Before the middle of October the movement had extended in all
directions. The four districts into which the Province had been mapped
out were called respectively the Toronto Division, the Midland Division,
the Western Division and the Eastern Division. The first-named consisted
of the counties of York, Simcoe, Durham, Halton, Wentworth, Haldimand
and Lincoln. The second included the counties of Northumberland,
Hastings, Prince Edward, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington. The Western
Division consisted of Oxford, Norfolk, Middlesex, Huron, Kent and Essex;
and the Eastern included all that portion of the Province to the east
and north-east of the Midland. Preparations for the demonstration were
more or less active everywhere, and there were nights when the whole
country side might be said to be in arms. In some portions of the
Western Division, which was under the direction of Dr. Charles Duncombe,
the feeling against the Government was as intense as in any part of the
Home District, and the preparations there were carried on with special
activity. Dr. Duncombe and a few leading personages among the Radicals
were entrusted with the full plan of the conspiracy, so far as it had
been matured; but in no part of the Province were the rank and file
taken into anything like full confidence. Most of those who engaged in
drill, and in the manufacture of pike-heads and handles, supposed that
they were merely getting ready for a formidable procession which was to
intimidate the Government by reason of its numerical strength. The
enquiry may not unnaturally be made: What were the Government about all
this time? Were they in total ignorance of what was going on all around
them? Not at all. They were kept regularly informed of the banners,
speech-makings, drillings, pigeon-matches and what not; and--at least in
some instances--they contrived to obtain pretty accurate reports of the
proceedings at Mackenzie's meetings. But they committed the grave error
of undervaluing their opponents. They would not believe it possible that
Mackenzie could ever again be dangerous. He had been so completely
worsted in his hand-to-hand fight with Toryism that it was not to be
credited that he would ever again be able to secure a following large
enough to be worth seriously considering. True, he threatened all manner
of dire calamities, but he had for so many years been accustomed to
indulge in loud-mouthed threats that he had lost all power to create
alarm. He was like the shepherd's boy who had cried "wolf" so often that
nobody paid heed to him. The official party spoke of him as an upstart
mannikin who had enjoyed his little day of notoriety, but whose power
for either good or ill was past and gone. Sometimes, when he published
anything of special ferocity in his paper, the attention of the
Lieutenant-Governor would be drawn to it by his supporters, who would
urge that a prosecution should be instituted. But Sir Francis's wiser
counsellors knew better than to adopt any such foolish course. They knew
that State prosecutions had done more to alienate popular sympathy and
to weaken the power of the Government in times past than any other cause
whatever. The editor of the _Constitution_, they believed, had steadily
lost his influence--an influence which he could never hope to regain
unless some imprudent act of his enemies should once more create for him
a specious sympathy and notoriety. Nothing, it was felt, would be so
certain to give him a fictitious importance as to prosecute him for
treason, at least until he should proceed to such lengths as to render a
prosecution imperative. Sir Francis Head, Chief Justice Robinson,
Attorney-General Hagerman, Judge Jones, and the whole race of
officialdom refused to believe in the possibility of an actual
rebellion. They all declared that there were not fifty men in the
Province who would consent to take arms against the Government. Plenty
of low Radicals, it was said, were ready enough to boast and bluster,
but their courage was only skin-deep. As for Mackenzie, he was admitted
to be an exception, so far as the mere disposition to rebel was
concerned, but he had lost any influence he had ever possessed, and
counted for nothing. It was tolerably certain that he would sooner or
later overstep the limits at which it would be possible to leave him
alone. Then, when he should have placed himself in such a position that
no loyal subject could defend him, would be the time to make an
effectual disposition of him. By all means, then, give him an abundance
of rope. This was the spirit in which the little man and his proceedings
were regarded by the authorities, and he availed himself of the freedom
of speech and action to the fullest conceivable extent. "First," says
Sir Francis,[286] "he wrote, and then be printed, and then he rode, and
then he spoke, stamped, foamed, wiped his seditious little mouth, and
then spoke again; and thus, like a squirrel in a cage, he continued with
astounding assiduity the centre of a revolutionary career."
Attorney-General Hagerman was instructed to report to his Excellency as
soon as Mackenzie had proceeded so far in the direction of treason that
his conviction would be certain, and meanwhile he was permitted to
invoke the Spirit of Freedom, both in prose and poetry, to his heart's
content.

In the Lower Province matters had so shaped themselves as to favour
Mackenzie's designs. Sir John Colborne was kept tolerably well informed
as to the proceedings of Papineau and the other fomenters of revolt, and
he had become aware that he would very soon be compelled to have
recourse to the strong hand. He felt perfectly secure, but at the same
time determined to neglect no precaution which might conduce to a swift
and decisive victory. He mustered all the forces at his command, and
satisfied himself, from personal supervision, as to their efficiency.
There were a few troops stationed in Toronto. Sir John shared Sir
Francis Head's confidence in the loyalty of the Upper Canadians, and
acquiesced in the opinion that an Upper Canadian rebellion was
altogether out of the question. As he believed that there was no
likelihood of the troops being needed there, he deemed it prudent to
strengthen his position by removing them to Kingston, where they would
be more readily available in case of his requiring their services to
crush the rebellion in Lower Canada. When this removal had been
effected, Toronto was left wholly unguarded by military. By command of
the Lieutenant-Governor, several thousand stand of arms which had
recently been sent from Kingston, together with a quantity of
ammunition, were committed to the custody of the municipal authorities
and deposited in the City Hall. Two constables were placed in charge,
and this was absolutely the only precaution taken against the seizure of
both arms and ammunition by any determined body of men who might think
proper to possess themselves thereof.

Mackenzie believed that the propitious time had arrived, and that the
resolve to postpone until the following spring any active measures
against the Government should be rescinded. He received an additional
impetus from certain messages which reached him through Jesse Lloyd, on
Monday, the 9th of October, from the leaders of the movement in Lower
Canada. These messages apprised him that the French Canadians were about
to make what they called a "brave stroke for liberty" without further
delay. They entreated him to coöperate with them by simultaneously
raising the standard of revolt in the Upper Province. Lloyd himself
favoured the idea, and counselled its adoption.

Such a momentous step, however, could not very well be taken without the
concurrence of others. Mackenzie, who at the time of receiving the
messages was out on Yonge Street, some miles from Toronto, hastened into
town, and summoned a small secret caucus to meet at Doel's brewery. I am
unable to fix the exact date of holding this caucus, but it must have
been on the evening of either Monday the 9th or Tuesday the 10th of
October.[287] Eleven persons were present. They were, 1. Mackenzie
himself; 2. John Doel, the owner of the brewery; 3. Dr. Morrison; 4.
John Mackintosh, who sat in the Assembly for the Fourth Riding
of York; 5. John Elliott, who, as already mentioned, acted as
Secretary-in-Ordinary to the Reform Union meetings in Toronto; 6.
Timothy Parson, who kept a straw bonnet and fancy warehouse on King
Street; 7. Robert Mackay, a grocer and wine merchant; 8. William
Lesslie, one of the firm of Lesslie & Sons, booksellers, stationers and
druggists, at number 110-1/2 King Street; 9. John Armstrong, a
manufacturer of edged tools, having a place of business at number 33
Yonge Street; 10. Thomas Armstrong, a carpenter, residing at number 11
Lot (now Queen) Street; 11. John Mills, hatter, 191 King Street. Dr.
Rolph and J. H. Price had been asked to attend, but they did not see fit
to do so. No one except Mackenzie appears to have had any idea of the
real object for which the meeting had been summoned. The other ten
merely repaired to the appointed place to hear whatever communication
the Agent and Corresponding Secretary might have to make to them. Upon
being called upon to state the purpose for which he had called them
together, Mackenzie proceeded to unfold his project. He had no sooner
entered upon it than he encountered murmurs and expressions of dissent.
He stated that he could count upon the active coöperation of at least
fifteen hundred men in the Home District alone, of whom, however, not
more than a third were supplied with arms. Beyond the limits of the Home
District he could count upon from two to three thousand, but of these
not one-fifth were properly armed. All these, he declared, might be
implicitly depended upon to support any project which might then and
there be determined upon. He proposed to send out trusty messengers in
all directions to summon these "good men and true" to repair at once to
Toronto. But there was no need, he said, to wait for the arrival of
these supporters. He had taken pains to ascertain the exact condition of
the city, and it was absolutely defenceless, owing to the sending away
of the troops. Why should not the decisive blow be struck at once? Why
not instantly send for Dutcher's[288] foundry-men and Armstrong's
axe-makers, all of whom were true to the good cause? With these men at
their backs, they might proceed straightway to Government House and
seize Sir Francis, who had just come in from his daily ride on
horseback, and who was guarded by only one sentinel. His capture having
been effected, they might proceed to the City Hall and seize the arms
and ammunition. The next thing would be to proclaim a Provisional
Government, and give Sir Francis the alternative of conceding what the
Radicals demanded or taking the consequences of refusal. There was
absolutely nothing, Mackenzie averred, to interfere with the carrying
out of this programme. Four-fifths of the citizens would join them when
they saw that success had attended their efforts, and of the other fifth
at least half would remain neutral, while the small residue of the
population would be too insignificant in point of numbers to render it
possible for them to offer any serious opposition.

Such was the astounding scheme propounded by Mackenzie. His small
audience could hardly credit the evidence of their senses. When he had
proceeded thus far, Dr. Morrison could restrain himself no longer, but
burst forth with an impetuosity and indignation which had but seldom
been observed in him. He asked if it was possible that Mackenzie could
be serious in unfolding so foolhardy a design. "This," said he, "is
treason; and if you think to entrap me into any such mad scheme, you
will find I am not your man!" He declared that if another word were said
on the subject he would forthwith leave the room. The others present
also repudiated the proposal with more or less of vehemence, but they
all regarded it as a mad freak of Mackenzie's, and hardly worth grave
consideration. Mackenzie found that nothing was to be done, and a few
minutes later the little conclave broke up.

On the following day Mackenzie called upon Dr. Rolph, who had meanwhile
heard from Dr. Morrison of the proposal of the previous evening. Dr.
Rolph questioned Mackenzie strictly respecting the accuracy of his
details as to the number of men who could be depended upon as adherents
in the event of a revolution. Mackenzie repeated his assertion that
about four thousand could easily be got together, every one of whom was
ripe and ready for taking up arms. He produced certain documentary
evidence which went to confirm the truth of his statements, and
vehemently declared that a successful revolution was not only feasible,
but inevitable. He proposed not to wait for the proposed convention, but
to speedily assemble all the men who could be got together at some
point within a few miles of the city. This he proposed to effect as
secretly as possible. The men could then advance upon the city and
proceed in a body to the City Hall, where they could possess themselves
of arms and ammunition. They would then be masters of the situation, and
could set up a Provisional Government on such terms as might be agreed
upon. Dr. Rolph was so far impressed by the documentary and other
evidence placed before him that he consented to give the matter his
consideration, and to discuss it with some of his friends.

After turning the subject over in his mind, Dr. Rolph appears to have
arrived at the conclusion that the subversion of the Government was
perfectly feasible. The capital of the Province was defenceless. The
Lieutenant-Governor had not only sent away the troops, but had
persistently refused to take any steps for the organization of the
militia. If several thousands of the people were really disposed to
assert themselves, there was nothing to prevent them from carrying out
the programme outlined by Mackenzie. They could capture Toronto and
seize the members of the Government before any measures could be taken
to successfully oppose them. This having been quietly effected without
bloodshed, it seemed probable enough that the population at large would
not refuse their support. The Reformers of the Province constituted a
large majority of the inhabitants, and there was not a Reformer in Upper
Canada but was heartily weary of Sir Francis Head and his clique. Only a
small minority would have consented to enter upon the risks and dangers
of a rebellion; but there is a great difference between a rebellion to
be encountered and one which has been successfully accomplished.
Thousands of persons who would strenuously refuse to have any connection
with the former would readily acquiesce in the latter. If the Government
were once subverted and in the hands of the Reformers, and if the entire
Reform element were in sympathy with the change, the rebellion would so
far be a success, for at this time there were comparatively few persons
in the Province who cared sufficiently for the Family Compact to risk
life or limb for the purpose of restoring them to power. But there was
another important question to be considered: What would the Imperial
Government have to say about it? If the might and majesty of Britain
were to be enlisted against the project, no Upper Canadian rebellion
could hope for permanent success, unless in the very unlikely event of
national interference on the part of the United States. But was it not
probable that the Imperial Government would be strongly impressed by
this uprising of a long-enduring and much-wronged people, and that a
sense of justice would compel them to adopt a new policy with respect to
the Canadas? Should this conjecture prove to be correct, all that was
sought to be effected by rebellion would have been accomplished. In any
case, the condition of the Reformers could hardly be altered for the
worse. The leaders of the movement would be driven to take refuge in the
States, but some of them had already begun to regard such an emigration
as desirable, for there seemed to be no future for them under Family
Compact rule.

With such thoughts as these passing through his mind, Dr. Rolph had
several conferences with Dr. Morrison, with whom Mackenzie also had some
conversation after the caucus at the brewery. Dr. Morrison was disposed
to attach great weight to any suggestion emanating from his professional
colleague, and when he had been placed in possession of the latter's
views he was able to contemplate a rising of the people with much
greater complacency than before. The idea gradually took form and shape
in his mind. At Mackenzie's urgent request he gave him a letter
introducing Jesse Lloyd to Dr. E. B. O'Callaghan, of Montreal, who was
editor of a Radical newspaper, and known to be favourable to
insurrection. Lloyd was about to start from his home in the township of
King on one of his expeditions to the Lower Province, to confer with the
leaders of the insurrectionary movements there. This was sometime during
the third week in October.

Dr. Morrison, having thus put his hand to the plough, regarded himself
as in a measure pledged to support the cause of the people, if they were
really bent on subverting the Government. One day about a fortnight
later he received an urgent message from Dr. Rolph to call at the
latter's house on Lot (Queen) Street. Upon repairing thither he found
Rolph and Mackenzie in conference with Lloyd, who _had_ just returned
from the Lower Province with a letter to Mackenzie from Thomas Storrow
Brown, one of the directors of the insurrectionary movement there. The
letter seemed, on the surface, to be a mere business communication, but
its phraseology had a secret meaning understood by Mackenzie, who
expounded it to the others. Lloyd supplemented the letter by certain
verbal communications. It appeared that the Lower Canadians were
prepared to act, but they wished the Upper Canadian Radicals to make the
first move, so as to divert attention from their proceedings. This would
involve grave consequences, and could not be resolved upon all in a
moment. After some consideration, it was agreed that Rolph, Morrison and
Mackenzie should meet at Morrison's house on Newgate (Adelaide) Street
that same evening to take serious counsel together. The meeting was held
as agreed upon. Rolph and Morrison pointed out to Mackenzie the
momentous consequences which would flow from acting on the suggestion
from Lower Canada. They expressed some doubt as to whether the people
were really sufficiently desirous of a change to risk their liberties
and lives in a rebellion, and they pointed out the disastrous
consequences of failure. Mackenzie, however, who possessed much better
opportunities for judging as to the bent of popular opinion among the
Radicals, would hardly listen to such remonstrances. For the hundredth
time he pointed out the defenceless state of the capital. Within the
last few days the troops which had been removed from Toronto to Kingston
had been withdrawn from the Province altogether by Sir John Colborne, in
order that they might be used against the rebels in Lower Canada. The
whole of the Upper Province was therefore without means of defence.
Mackenzie pledged his word that the whole Radical element were anxious
to rise in the good cause. He asserted that he had received lists signed
by thousands of persons, each one of whom had pledged himself to rise in
revolt at any moment when summoned. Rebellion, he declared, must come,
as the spirit of insurrection had been thoroughly aroused; and he
upbraided his interlocutors for their lukewarmness in the cause of the
people. After several hours of discussion and deliberation it was agreed
that Mackenzie should proceed through the country and distinctly submit
the question to the different political unions. If they really felt
ready and anxious to put down the existing Government by force of arms,
as Mackenzie declared, they should have their way. A plan was discussed
for seizing the arms in the City Hall, for taking into custody the chief
Government officials, and for establishing a Provisional Government with
Dr. Rolph at its head. All this, it was believed, could be easily
effected without firing a shot, and without the sacrifice of a single
life. It was also distinctly understood that private property was to be
respected, and that all money in the banks was to be regarded as private
property, except such as actually belonged to the Government. It was
however expressly stipulated that nobody was to be finally committed to
any definite course of procedure until Mackenzie's return from his rural
tour with the sanction of the various political unions. No authority
whatever was meanwhile given to Mackenzie, either expressly or by
implication, to stir the people up to rebellion. He was simply
authorized to ascertain their views. At his own urgent request
permission was given him to use the names of Rolph and Morrison, but
only so far as to state that if the people were really desirous of
effecting a revolution, they might depend upon receiving the countenance
of those two gentlemen. On this distinct understanding Mackenzie left
Dr. Morrison's house, and started the same night or early on the
following morning for the north.

FOOTNOTES:

[269] See his Despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated 5th April, 1837, in
Narrative, chap. ix.

[270] See his Despatch dated July 14th, 1837.

[271] On the 10th of September.

[272] See the number for June 10th, 1824.

[273] This boast seems to have been made in the columns of _The
Constitution_, but I have been unable to find it there. I make the
quotation on the authority of Mr. Lindsey's _Life of Mackenzie_, vol.
i., p. 395, note.

[274] Mr. MacMullen, writing, doubtless, from honest conviction,
endeavours to convey the impression that Bidwell was more deeply
implicated in the rebellion than he chose to acknowledge. See his
_History of Canada_, p. 446, note. But no substantial proof has ever
been offered in support of such a belief, whereas the proof on the other
side is unanswerable. There is, first of all, the character of the man.
His moral courage was great, and he could stand up for a cherished
principle with much firmness and vigour. But he fought with weapons
which were not carnal, and would have suffered almost any wrong that
could have been inflicted upon him rather than resort to physical
violence. Then, there is the fact that he always denied all knowledge of
the rising. No man who knew Marshall Spring Bidwell would have hesitated
to accept his bare word as against any but the most direct evidence to
the contrary, and in this case there can hardly be said to be any
countervailing evidence whatever. Again, there is the fact that he
declined to act as a delegate to the proposed Reform convention, as
subsequently mentioned in the text. But there is no need to resort to
circumstantial or conjectural evidence. We have the testimony of
Mackenzie himself, who, after his return to Canada, was ready enough to
betray the secrets of his somewhile coadjutors, and who would have been
only too glad if he could have pointed to Bidwell as one of the number.
In his _Flag of Truce_, published in 1853, he says; "The question is
often asked me--What part Mr. Bidwell took in 1837"--and his answer is
explicit enough: "None that I know." It is quite certain that Bidwell
could not have been concerned in the movement without Mackenzie's
knowledge. The only circumstances which might be adduced as indicating a
knowledge of the intended rising on the part of Mr. Bidwell are two in
number, and neither of them will bear a moment's examination. First, it
is true that he was consulted by the Radicals as to the lawfulness of
their assembling for drill exercise and other purposes. He advised that,
under certain restrictions, such assemblies were within the law, and
that there could be nothing culpable in rifle-matches involving mere
trials of skill. But when his advice was sought there was no intention,
even on Mackenzie's part, to rise at any definite period, and Mr.
Bidwell may very well have believed that the projects would end as most
of Mackenzie's enterprises had ended--in talk. The other circumstance
calling for explanation is his allowing himself to be frightened into
leaving the country. This will be duly considered in its proper place.
Suffice it for the present to say that, taking everything into account,
the mere fact of his expatriation affords no evidence either one way or
the other; whereas the attendant circumstances afford strong presumptive
evidence of his innocence.

In examining the papers of the late David Gibson within the last few
weeks _I_ have come upon what may not unfairly be regarded as conclusive
evidence that Bidwell was in no manner privy to the rising. Gibson,
after his escape to the State of New York, was desirous of obtaining
employment as a land surveyor, and, at Dr. Rolph's suggestion, he wrote
to Bidwell for a certificate as to his character, and for advice as to
the best means of obtaining employment. Bidwell was then in the City of
New York, casting about in his mind to what he should direct his
attention as a means of livelihood. His reply and the certificate
enclosed therein--both in his own handwriting--are now lying before me.
The latter is as follows:--

"I was acquainted with David Gibson, Esquire, until the recent
disturbance in Upper Canada, and know that by his integrity, good sense
and amiable character, he had acquired the confidence and esteem of his
neighbours and acquaintances. His services as a land surveyor were
highly valued. Since the trouble commenced in Upper Canada I have not
been in communication with him, but I have no doubt that the utmost
reliance may be placed on his industry, ability and fidelity in all his
engagements. I have seen his name mentioned with respect for his
humanity in one of the most violent newspapers published in Upper
Canada. He has my warmest wishes for his success and happiness.

"MARSHALL S. BIDWELL."

The following is the text of the letter accompanying the certificate:--

    MY DEAR SIR:

    I received to-day your letter, and have sent you a certificate. I am
    unable to refer you to any place or situation for employment. I am
    myself unsettled, and _do_ not know what I shall do or where I shall
    settle.

    I lament the recent proceedings in Upper Canada, and cannot to this
    day reflect upon them but with amazement. How men of good sense like
    you and others could be involved in so absurd and hopeless a project
    fills me with continual surprise. However, I would not upbraid you,
    though I shall perhaps be ruined in consequence of these movements.
    On the contrary, I wish you well, and have the same kind feelings
    towards you as I was wont to have. I trust you may find some
    situation where you may be happy.

    Yours truly, MARSHALL S. BIDWELL.

    David Gibson, Esq., 6th March.

After the publication of this letter--written, it will be remembered, to
one of the chief participators in the rebellion--it will hardly be
pretended that Bidwell was concerned in the enterprise. It is a
characteristic epistle, breathing Christian kindness and good will, and,
independently of its bearing upon the question at issue, is well worthy
of publication as illustrative of Bidwell's individuality.

[275] For the sake of consistency I adopt a uniform spelling of this
gentleman's name, which however is spelt indifferently "Mackintosh" and
"McIntosh," in the Journals of Assembly, in various official documents,
in the newspapers and advertisements of the time, and even in private
correspondence. Walton's Toronto Directory for 1837 gives it as
"McIntosh," which seems to have been the form commonly adopted by
members of the family.

[276] A part of this building, used as a planing-mill, is still in
existence on Bay Street, a short distance north of Adelaide Street.

[277] _Life of Mackenzie_, vol. ii., p. 17.

[278] According to Mr. Lindsey, James Lesslie induced his brother
William, who had signed the Declaration, to erase his signature. _See
Life of Mackenzie_, vol. ii., p. 18.

[279] See the evidence of John Elliott, on the trial of Dr. Morrison for
high treason, at Toronto, in the following April.

[280] _Correspondent and Advocate_ for Wednesday, August 2nd.

[281] These were nineteen in number, and consisted of Dr. Morrison, John
Elliott, David Gibson, John Mackintosh, Dr. O'Grady, E. B. Gilbert, John
Montgomery, Dr. John Edward Tims, J. H. Price, John Doel, M. Reynolds,
Edward Wright, Robert McKay, Thomas Elliott, James Armstrong, James
Hunter, John Armstrong, William Ketchum and W. L. Mackenzie.

[282] At a meeting held in the township of Caledon, however, during the
second week in August, a very outspoken resolution was discussed. After
setting out with some general principles as to the duties of kings,
governors and subjects, it ran as follows:--"If the redress of our
wrongs can be otherwise obtained, the people of Upper Canada have not a
just cause to use force. But the highest obligation of a citizen being
to preserve the community, and every other political duty being derived
from, and subordinate to it, every citizen is bound to defend his
country against its enemies, both foreign and domestic. When a
government is engaged in systematically oppressing a people, and
destroying their securities against future oppression, it commits the
same species of wrong to them which warrants an appeal to force against
a foreign enemy. The history of England and of this continent is not
wanting in examples by which the rulers and the ruled may see that,
although the people have been often willing to endure bad government
with patience, there are legal and constitutional limits to that
endurance. The glorious revolutions obstinately persisting in
withholding from their subjects adequate security for good government,
although obviously necessary for the permanence of that blessing, that
they are placing themselves in a state of hostility against the
governed; and that to prolong a state of irresponsibility and
insecurity, such as existed in England during the reign of James II.,
and as now exists in Lower Canada, is a dangerous act of aggression
against a people. A magistrate who degenerates into a systematic
oppressor, and shuts the gates of justice on the public, thereby
restores them to their original right of defending themselves, for he
withholds the protection of the law, and so forfeits his claim to
enforce their obedience by the authority of law."--For the text of this
resolution I am indebted to Mr. Lindsey. See his _Life of Mackenzie_,
vol. ii., p. 27, note.

[283] Mr. Lindsey places the number at two hundred. See _Life of
Mackenzie_, vol. ii., p. 32. I have not been able to find any trace of
more than 117. Mackenzie seems to have been present at fully half of
these.

[284] _Ante_, p. 256.

[285] _Ante_, p. 362.

[286] _The Emigrant_, p. 157.

[287] John Elliott, in his testimony on Dr. Morrison's trial, places the
date in October; and I have evidence in my possession that Mackenzie
received the intimation mentioned in the text on the second Monday in
October. The second Monday fell on the 9th. There would be no delay in
summoning the caucus, which would therefore be held on the evening of
either Monday or Tuesday.

[288] William A. Dutcher had a foundry on Yonge Street, where a good
many hands were employed, most of whom were readers of the
_Constitution_, and supporters of the Radical cause. The Armstrong whose
axe-makers it was proposed to press into service was John Armstrong, who
was himself present at the meeting.



NOTE TO CHAPTER X.

My authorities for the foregoing chapter are too numerous for citation.
In addition to printed works and official records, they consist of
manuscript letters, statements, affidavits and other documents which
have never seen the light, and the most important of which will be
given, in whole or in part, in the second volume.


END OF VOL. I.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.