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 _soupcon_ 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 cooeperate 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 cooeperation 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 L625, 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 L109; 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 L12 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 L625."
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.