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 regime 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.