PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
For several years before this time a quiet and almost imperceptible
change had been taking place in Upper Canadian politics. On one side was
the old High Tory or Family Compact party, who revelled in the spoils of
office, and held the representative of Majesty in the hollow of their
hands. The policy of this body was unchanged and unchangeable. The
Reform party, though it had not been in existence more than six years,
already began to show symptoms of want of cohesion. The men of moderate
views, like the Rolphs, the Baldwins and the Bidwells, composed fully
two-thirds of the entire number. The ultra-Radicals, composed for the
most part of unlettered farmers and recently-arrived immigrants, began
to show evidence of a desire to rally themselves under the banner of
Mackenzie, who, through the combined influence of his paper and his
election to Parliament, had of late come prominently before the public.
A large and intelligent body of electors had however grown up within the
last few years who, while they professed Conservative principles, were
disgusted with the greedy, self-seeking Compact, whose practices they
held in utter disdain. They held politicians of the Mackenzie stamp in
still greater abhorrence, to which was added a large modicum of
contempt. With the moderate Reformers, on the other hand, they had much
in common. Many of them approved of the doctrine of Responsible
Government, and almost all of them desired to see the end of Compact
domination. At the last general election their votes had been very much
divided. But they were now disposed to hold aloof from the Reformers in
consequence of the latter's being nominally of the same party as the
Mackenzie Radicals, who had only recently come into existence. The
exercise of a little diplomacy and mutual forbearance at this time
might, it is believed, have effected that union between these two
classes of persons which was actually accomplished about a quarter of a
century later. Such an union would have made the united party all
powerful. It would have swept away the Compact, together with the
long-standing abuses which had grown up under their rule, and the united
party would quietly have assumed the reins of power with an overwhelming
majority at its back. There would thus have been no _raison d'etre_ for
the Radical element, which would necessarily have been absorbed, or
would at least have ceased to be an important factor in political life.
These things, however, were not to be. Neither of the parties primarily
interested made any advances to the other, and each was left to pursue
its own line of policy. As a consequence the moderate Conservatives
henceforth voted as one man. They saw the Radical element assuming an
importance which, as they believed, was fraught with far greater danger
to the commonwealth than was likely to arise from the continued
ascendency of the Compact. They gave the official party a qualified
support, merely because they regarded them as the less of two evils, and
their votes at the general election of 1830 resulted in the return of a
considerable majority of candidates favourable to the official body.
[Sidenote: 1831.]
The Reformers could no longer hope to obtain justice, even in the
Assembly, where they had exerted a predominating influence during the
last two Parliaments. So long as they had had control of the Lower House
they had possessed the shadow of power without the reality. Even the
shadow had been better than nothing; but of this shadow they were
henceforth to be deprived. They had not only sustained numerical defeat.
Some of their most trusted leaders had been beaten at the polls, and
were no longer able to raise their voices in Parliament. Robert
Baldwin's defeat in York has already been mentioned.[148] His father had
suffered a similar fate in Norfolk. In Middlesex John Rolph and Captain
Matthews had been succeeded by Colonel Mahlon Burwell and another
adherent of the Compact. Lennox and Addington had again returned Bidwell
and Perry, but, owing to the changed complexion of the House, there was
no possibility of the former's re-election to the Speaker's chair. Among
other triumphs scored by the official party were the return of the
Solicitor-General, Christopher A. Hagerman, for Kingston; of the
Attorney-General, H. J. Boulton, for Niagara; of William B. Robinson
(brother of the Chief Justice) for Simcoe, and of Allan N. MacNab for
Wentworth. York still remained true to Mackenzie, and, as will presently
be seen, his presence in a House composed mainly of political opponents
was destined to lead to serious complications. Upon the assembling of
the Legislature early in the following year, Archibald McLean, the
official candidate for the Speakership, was elected by a majority of
twelve votes. No adherent of the official party could have been more
acceptable to the Reformers than Mr. McLean, who was a gentleman of high
standing at the bar, and who personally enjoyed great popularity. He sat
for the County of Stormont, which he had represented for many years,
during all of which period he had maintained friendly personal relations
with the members of the Opposition. Great confidence was felt in his
personal integrity, and in his earnestness for the country's welfare. He
had special claims to consideration, for he was a Canadian by birth, and
had fought and bled in defence of his native land during the War of
1812. Still, he represented political principles which the Reform
members had been expressly returned to combat, and the mere fact of his
election to the Speaker's Chair by a majority of twelve votes in a House
which numbered fewer than fifty members was in itself a sufficient
indication that those principles were for the time unmistakably in the
ascendant in Upper Canada. The proceedings of the House during the
session furnished an apt and conclusive commentary upon this fact.
The session of 1831 was chiefly memorable for two things: the passing of
the Everlasting Salary Bill, as it was called by those opposed to it;
and the commencement of the agitation which had for its object the
exclusion of Mr. Mackenzie from the Legislature.
The Salary Bill was simply a measure granting to the Provincial
Government a permanent Civil List, in return for the cession by the
Crown of the control of the Imperial duties. It was introduced in
accordance with a suggestion from the King, but the Provincial
Executive concealed certain facts in connection with it, of which the
Opposition did not become aware until some time afterwards.[149]
By this Bill provision was made for the salaries of the
Lieutenant-Governor, the three Judges of the Court of King's Bench, the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, five Executive Councillors, and
the Clerk of the Executive Council. Reformers were strenuously opposed
to the measure, which they regarded as another blow at the
constitutional rights of the Assembly. It of course had the effect of
rendering the Executive more independent of the Assembly, and more
indifferent to its opposition, than ever. Hagerman and Boulton, whose
official salaries were thereby provided for, were conspicuous above all
other persons in the House in defending this measure, and in browbeating
those who ventured to raise their voices against it. The Reform members
found Attorney-General Boulton an infliction specially hard to bear. His
predecessor, Mr. Robinson, had been a sufficiently galling yoke, but his
abilities had made him respected, and he had seldom attempted to play
the bully. In cases where no important party interests were at stake he
had generally been amenable to reason, and had not gone out of his way
to needlessly exacerbate the feelings of those who disagreed with him.
Now, a different order of things prevailed. Boulton was simply
unendurable. His capacity was barely such as to enable him to discharge
his official functions, and what he lacked in ability he made up for in
bluster. He had an abominable temper, and a haughty, overbearing manner.
He was always committing blunders which he refused to acknowledge, and
he roared and bullied his way through one complication after another
in a fashion which disgusted even those with whom he acted. During the
discussion on the Salary Bill he shrieked and raved himself hoarse in
denouncing what he called the "factious insolence" of the Opposition. Of
his own factious insolence he seems to have been altogether oblivious.
The Bill was passed, but he was not destined to a long enjoyment of the
provision thereby made for the Attorney-General.
The Mackenzie persecution was a matter of greater moment than the Salary
Bill, and was fated to produce results altogether unexpected by those
who set it on foot. The session was not many days old when Mr. Mackenzie
once more began to make himself conspicuous in Opposition. He moved a
resolution denying the authority of the Executive to prescribe the
religious observances of the Assembly, and affirming the right of the
latter body to appoint its own chaplain. He made a forcible but
exasperating speech in support of his motion, which, by vote of the
House, was not submitted. He then moved that the ministers of religion
of various denominations resident in York should be requested to say
prayers in the House during the session. This motion was equally
unsuccessful. During the debate, the Assembly was favoured with a
characteristic specimen of Attorney-General Boulton's oratory. He
stigmatized the assumption that the House was entitled to appoint its
own chaplain as of a piece with the assumption of an assassin that he
has a right to shoot down a man in the street--the right of brute force.
This nonsensical tirade he shrieked out by way of peroration to a speech
intended as a defence of the right of the Government in the matter of
the chaplaincy. It is strange that the House should have listened to
such balderdash, not only with patience, but even with apparent
submission. Solicitor-General Hagerman spoke in a similar strain, but
with less of irascibility. He warned the House that the Government was
too powerful for them; that the Lieutenant-Governor had strong feelings
on this subject, and that if they persisted in opposing his wishes
confusion would ensue, and an end would be put to their proceedings.
But Mackenzie was not to be dismayed by the want of success of his
exertions to popularize the religious ceremonial of the Assembly. He
next moved for an inquiry into the state of the representation. Such an
inquiry was urgently needed, for the House was full of postmasters,
county registrars, inspectors of licenses, and other placemen who held
office at the will of the Executive, and who therefore could not be
expected to be honest exponents of public opinion in their respective
constituencies. Mackenzie, in the course of a vigorous speech, presented
such an array of facts that a committee of inquiry was appointed. This
success he followed up by a motion for an inquiry into certain pensions,
fees and salaries. Then he instituted a crusade against the management
of the Bank of Upper Canada, of which institution Attorney-General
Boulton was solicitor. Each of these motions afforded opportunities for
inflammatory speeches, in the course of which the Government and its
official favourites were handled with scant consideration. The
Attorney-General was several times lashed into a state of almost insane
fury, and on one occasion seemed to be on the point of rushing across
the floor and making a personal onslaught upon Mr. Mackenzie. The
"little mannikin from York," as he was called, always had the courage of
his opinions, and rather courted such an attack than otherwise. That he
had many and grave faults cannot be denied, but certainly cowardice was
not among the number. No more certain means of intensifying his
opposition could have been found than an attempt to put him down by the
strong hand. He continued to make motion upon motion and speech upon
speech, and before the session was half over he had managed to cause an
amount of annoyance to the Government such as they had never before
known. And all this time the party to which he belonged was in an
insignificant minority in the Assembly. What then was to be anticipated
when the chances and changes of time should once more place that party
in the ascendant there?
In former times it had been possible for the official party to rid
themselves of a troublesome opponent upon any slight pretext. Why not
now, when the Assembly was well-nigh as obedient as the Upper House, and
when some of the ablest members of the Reform party had ceased to occupy
themselves with public affairs? Certainly there had never been a time
when suppression was more imperatively required, for did not this man
Mackenzie spout something very much like democracy in their very faces?
Had he not made several speeches in the House which had aroused a
spirit of inquiry? If he were allowed to continue, was it not inevitable
that some of his waspish stings must take serious effect?
Prosecutions for libel had become unpopular. The case of Francis Collins
had aroused such a clamour that it was not deemed wise to try further
experiments in that direction. In April, 1828--about the same time when
measures had been instituted against Collins--an indictment for libel
had actually been laid against Mackenzie for a paragraph published in
the _Advocate_, in which the Crown lawyers and other supporters of the
Government had been referred to in contumelious terms, and wherein a
hope had been expressed that the constituencies returning certain Tory
members to Parliament would clear the Assembly of "the whole of that
ominous nest of unclean birds."[150] But the Attorney-General, after
keeping the prosecution impending over the defendant's head for many
months, had seen fit to abandon it. The times, in fact, had ceased to be
propitious for libel prosecutions, and some other way out of the
difficulty had to be found. The device actually hit upon to get rid of
Mackenzie's opposition in the Assembly was worthy of the minds which had
plotted the ruin of Captain Matthews, Justice Willis and Francis
Collins. Mackenzie, who had the contract for printing the journals of
the House, and who generally had a number of copies of those journals on
hand, had distributed a hundred and sixty-eight of them throughout some
of the constituencies just prior to the last general election. This had
been done at his own expense, and in the interest of the Reform
candidates; for he believed that no more effective campaign document
could be devised than a truthful record of the proceedings in the House.
But as strict matter of Parliamentary law he had been guilty of a breach
of privilege, no one having a right to publish reports of the
proceedings of the Houses without authority. The existence of such a
rule is perhaps salutary, as there are conceivable cases in which it
would be inexpedient to allow such publication. But, as everybody knew,
Parliament had long been accustomed to wink at perpetual violations of
this rule. Newspapers all over the world had been permitted, and even
encouraged, to transgress it. Some of the leading organs of public
opinion in different parts of the world had built up their reputations
mainly by the fulness and accuracy of their reports of Parliamentary
proceedings. Nothing can be more certain than that there would have been
no talk about enforcing the obsolete rule at this time but for the fact
that it seemed to afford a pretext for punishing the man whom the
Government party wished to destroy. The attempt to enforce it was not a
success. The motion to that end was made by Allan MacNab, and was to the
effect that Mackenzie had abused the trust reposed in him as the printer
of the journals, by distributing portions of the same for political
purposes, and among persons not entitled to copies thereof, thereby
committing a breach of the privileges of the House. The junior member
for Wentworth thundered with tremendous vehemence in support of his
motion. To judge from his language, his soul had been stirred to its
nethermost depths by this lamentable violation of Parliamentary
privilege, which he characterized as a species of treason. Hagerman and
Boulton followed in the same strain, the latter waxing almost pathetic
in his expressions of devotion to the British constitution. But their
exertions were ineffectual. The House, subservient though it was, was
not to be coerced into supporting a motion which, if carried, would
almost certainly be converted into a basis of attack on persons who were
favourable to the Administration. A majority of the members foresaw that
if Mackenzie were punished on such a pretext, his fellow-workers in the
Assembly would not fail to institute measures against the publishers of
various newspapers throughout the land who had been in the constant
habit of reporting the proceedings in Parliament without leave. Only
fifteen members voted for MacNab's motion, while twenty recorded their
votes against it, and among the latter were several of the most
redoubtable Tories in the House. The organizers of the attack perceived
that they had made a false move, and withdrew their forces for a fresh
assault in a different quarter.
The opportunity for a fresh attack did not present itself until the
following session. Meanwhile, Mackenzie occupied himself in turning his
notoriety to account, and in developing his policy of agitation. He
resolved upon getting up a series of petitions to the King and the
Imperial Parliament, calling attention to the various grievances
wherewith the inhabitants of the Province were burdened, and praying
for redress. During the summer he carried out his project by organizing
a series of public meetings in some of the most populous cities and
towns of the Province, at each of which a petition was adopted and
numerously signed. It is said that the aggregate number of signatures
obtained exceeded 24,500. The agitator's success encouraged him to
persevere in the course he had adopted, and when Parliament re-assembled
in November he was ripe and ready for the fray that was sure to follow.
The assault against him now took the shape of a charge of gross,
scandalous and malicious libel, intended and calculated to bring the
House and the Government of the Province into contempt, and to excite
groundless suspicion and distrust in the minds of the inhabitants,
thereby constituting a breach of privilege. The matter complained of was
embodied in two articles published in the _Advocate_ subsequent to the
opening of the session, and both publication and authorship were
admitted by Mackenzie. One of the articles was a sharp criticism on the
manner in which the House had treated a petition from certain
inhabitants of Vaughan. The other was a well-merited tirade against the
local Executive, which was unfavourably contrasted with that of the
sister Province. Neither of them was grossly abusive, nor even unfair.
They were indeed exceptionally favourable specimens of the Mackenzie
style of journalism, and were incomparably milder than articles which
may constantly be seen in the Canadian party journals of the present
day.
Being called upon for his defence, Mackenzie addressed the House with
more than his wonted ability. He exposed the flimsiness of the charges
against him, and the gross partiality of the proceedings. But the House
was in search, not of justice, but of a victim, and neither the
eloquence of a Demosthenes nor the reasoning powers of a Pascal would
have availed aught with that hostile majority. Attorney-General Boulton,
in the course of the discussion, delivered himself of a tempest of
characteristic abuse against the accused, to whom he referred as a
reptile. Solicitor-General Hagerman could always be depended upon as a
good second in such emergencies, and followed up by referring to Mr.
Mackenzie as a spaniel dog. The House seemed to accept these choice
Parliamentary epithets with approval. They came from an official
source, and it is so easy to be strong upon the stronger side. Little
chance was there for the maimed and bleeding under dog in the fight
among that crowd of venal and merciless sycophants, some of whom had
libelled the late Assembly in terms thrice as gross as any that had been
employed in the articles in question. The _tu quoque_ argument is not
generally admissible in legal investigations, but surely it might have
been permitted to have some weight with the judges--who were likewise
the jurors--in this case. Neither that nor any argument appears to have
been seriously considered. The usual forms were gone through, in order
to preserve some appearance of conventional propriety, but a verdict of
guilty was altogether certain and beyond peradventure from the moment
when the indictment was laid. By a vote of twenty-seven to fifteen it
was resolved that Mackenzie was guilty of the libel charged against him.
By a vote of twenty-six to fourteen it was resolved that he was guilty
of a high breach of the privileges of the House. And by a vote of
twenty-four to fifteen, it was resolved that he be expelled therefrom.
To characterize these proceedings as a series of shameful abuses of
power is certainly not to exceed the bounds of moderation. The persons
responsible for them must stand tainted at the bar of history for all
time to come. It is far from desirable to perpetuate the bitterness of
the past, but it is possible for oblivion to be too charitable. It is
well that those who are accustomed to speak of "the rebels" of 1837 with
contumely and indignation should bear in mind against whom and what it
was that they rebelled. The expulsion of Mackenzie from the Assembly was
not the greatest act of tyranny to which the people of Upper Canada were
compelled to submit in the far-away days that are gone; but the nature
of the abuse was such that it awoke widespread alarm, and gave rise to
ominous forebodings. It indicated that constitutional opposition to the
Government was no longer safe in the Assembly, as it had been during the
two preceding Parliaments. It indicated that nothing approaching to a
fair trial was to be had, even from the High Court of Parliament, for a
politician who dared to criticize the official methods of transacting
the public business. Growls of discontent were heard from all over the
County of York, whose representative was treated with such ignominy.
People were heard to express an opinion that Upper Canada was no longer
a fit place of abode for free men and women.
The public indignation found expression in several petitions, addressed
to the Lieutenant-Governor by electors in York and elsewhere, in which
his Excellency was asked to "dismiss a House tainted with the worst
vices of judicial partiality." A deputation, consisting of more than
nine hundred persons, called at Government House to present one of these
manifestations of popular sentiment. His Excellency could not well
refuse to receive a respectfully-worded petition, but his reply was so
curt and unsatisfactory as to amount to positive insolence. "Gentlemen,"
said he, "I have received the petition of the inhabitants." And with
this wholly unnecessary item of information the deputation was compelled
to withdraw. So utter a disregard for the expression of the opinion of a
considerable body of the inhabitants was without precedent in the annals
of the Province. That the prayer of the petition would be granted, or
even that it would be taken into serious consideration, was hardly to be
expected. Its very nature forbade any such expectation. But, considering
the number of names appended to it, it certainly merited a serious
response, in which light the actual rejoinder could not be regarded. The
proceeding showed not merely indifference, but contempt; and
thenceforward Sir John Colborne was as cordially hated by the Reformers
of Upper Canada as ever Sir Peregrine Maitland had been.[151]
The efforts of the faction to ruin and humiliate Mackenzie had the
effect which such treatment always produces in communities where the
inhabitants have been indoctrinated with ideas of fair play and equal
rights. It made a popular hero of one who, if the truth must be told,
had very little of the heroic in his composition. Had the Government
been wise enough in their own interests to let him have his say in the
Assembly, he would soon have found his proper level, and would have
ceased to carry any weight there.[152] He would undoubtedly have raised
a good deal of temporary excitement by unearthing abuses, and by
vituperating persons whom he disliked. But he could never have seriously
threatened the supremacy of the Compact, for the very sufficient reason
that he could not command the sympathies or respect of the leading
spirits of his own party. Rolph, the Bidwells and the Baldwins had by
this time come to rate Mackenzie at about his true value. They
recognized his talents, which were many and considerable. He had a clear
head for accounts, and was full of suggestive ideas about matters of
finance. Some of these ideas were unpractical, and even chimerical, but
anyone capable of separating the wheat from the chaff could learn much
from him, and could render his suggestions available. He was an
excellent subordinate, useful on committees, and active in the
management of details. He also had his uses as the conductor of a public
press, though, owing to the erratic and ill-balanced mind of its editor,
the _Advocate_ was in some respects a source of weakness rather than of
strength. His influence was pretty much confined to the farmers and
mechanics of that portion of the country where his paper was chiefly
circulated; and even there his influence would never have been anything
like so great as it actually became had it not been for the persecution
to which he was subjected. Over and beyond, he could not be said to
have any distinctive _locus standi_ in the Reform party. Of
statesmanship, properly so called, he had nothing beyond the most misty
conception. The structure of his mind prevented him from seeing a
question in its various aspects, and in judging of future political
events he was much more often wrong than right. That he was honestly
desirous of advancing the cause which he had espoused there seemed no
good reason to doubt, but it was evident to those who were brought into
intimate relations with him that the fiery zeal which he displayed was
made up at least as much of hatred of his foes as of any overpowering
enthusiasm for Reform. Another quality which seriously interfered with
his usefulness was his exceeding want of discretion. He seemed to be
utterly incapable of keeping his own counsel, and a secret once told to
him was a secret no longer. His rashness and impetuosity were
proverbial, and were perpetually involving him in disputes, not only
with enemies but with friends.
[Sidenote: 1832.]
It was surely a short-sighted policy which gave to a man so constituted
a factitious importance, and which made him for some years the most
notorious personage in Upper Canada. The treatment he had received
aroused popular sympathy on his behalf, and preparations were made to
return him again for the County of York by an increased majority. When
the new election was held, on the 2nd of January in the following year,
a long procession of sleighs escorted him to the polling-place, which
was the Red Lion Tavern, on Yonge Street. Two thousand persons assembled
to witness the triumph of "the people's friend." An Oppositionist was
nominated, but as he received only one vote during the hour and a half
which elapsed after the opening of the poll, he abandoned the contest,
and Mackenzie's triumph was assured. The close of the poll was followed
by the presentation of a gold medal by his constituents, as a token of
their approbation. A number of sleighs were then formed in line and
paraded down Yonge Street, and thence past Government House and down to
the Parliament Buildings. The foremost sleigh was decorated with
enthusiastic mottoes painted on calico, and cheers for the successful
candidate rent the air as the procession passed along the principal
thoroughfares. All this popular adulation was grateful to Mackenzie's
soul. He was in his element. There is no need to linger over this part
of the narrative. Parliament was still in session, and the Assembly were
resolved that, no matter what the electors of York might think proper to
do, Mackenzie should not sit in the House. A new pretext for his
expulsion was found in an article of which he avowed himself to be the
author, and which appeared in the _Advocate_ of the 5th of January. This
article was a true and by no means intemperate recital of certain
well-known facts as to certain measures which had been passed by the
Assembly. It was notwithstanding adjudged, by a vote of twenty-seven to
nineteen, to be a libel on the House, and a high breach of its
privileges; and it was further resolved that Mr. Mackenzie be expelled
the House, and declared unfit and unworthy to hold a seat therein during
the existing Parliament. But his constituency stood loyally by him, and
again re-elected him by an overwhelming majority within a few weeks
after this second expulsion. His popularity reached a higher point than
ever. Public meetings were held all over the Province to protest against
the measures which had been adopted towards him, and petitions to the
King and the Imperial Parliament were again circulated and signed by
great numbers of the inhabitants. These meetings proved so successful
that the Government party deemed it wise to take some steps of a similar
character on their own behalf, with a view to checkmating the operations
of the Reformers. Nothing is more easy than to obtain signatures to
petitions, which are frequently signed without being read. Opposition
meetings were held by supporters of the Government, at which excuses
were attempted to be made for the expulsions of Mackenzie, and at which
counter petitions to the King and Parliament of Great Britain were
signed by many thousands of persons. One of the meetings was held at
Hamilton on the 19th of March, and Mackenzie attended it by special
invitation. That same night an attack was made upon him by certain
myrmidons of the official party, who kicked and beat him severely. At
another meeting held at York four days later the proceedings became so
riotous that the Sheriff professed himself unable to preserve the peace.
An attack was made upon the office of the _Advocate_, the windows of
which were broken. The town remained in a very disturbed state
throughout the ensuing night, and a large proportion of the inhabitants
did not venture to seek repose. Mackenzie deemed it prudent to retire
into the country for several weeks; and almost immediately after his
return to town he set off on an important mission to England. It was
considered that the most effectual method of impressing the
subject-matter of the various Reform petitions upon those to whom they
were addressed would he to send Mackenzie himself across the Atlantic to
present them, and to urge the many much-needed colonial reforms upon the
attention of members of the British House of Commons. It was believed
that he could accomplish the various objects of his mission and return
in time to take his seat in the Assembly at its opening towards the
close of the year. He deputed the editing and publication of the
_Advocate_ to other hands, and sailed from New York on the 1st of May.
In due course he reached his destination, and put himself into
communication with Hume, Roebuck, Cobbett, O'Connell, and other eminent
persons of Liberal proclivities, including Lord Goderich, the Colonial
Secretary.
The reader hardly needs to be informed that this was a momentous period
in the history of England. It was the epoch of Reform, and the nation
was in a state of ferment. During the brief space while Mackenzie had
been crossing the Atlantic great events had taken place. Earl Grey's
ministry had resigned; Sir Robert Peel had refused to join the Duke of
Wellington in an attempt to form a Government; and Earl Grey had resumed
office, armed with the King's written authority to Lord Brougham and
himself to create as many peers as might be necessary to ensure the
passing of the Reform Bill. This authority it did not become necessary
to exercise. The titled aristocracy bowed to the unconquerable will of a
great and thoroughly-aroused people, and Mackenzie reached London in
time to hear the third reading of the Great Bill in the House of Lords.
He was soon afterwards received at the Colonial Office, not as the
representative of any particular class of Canadian politicians, but as a
person interested in Canadian affairs, and able to afford much valuable
information concerning them.[153] He then found that the efforts of the
official party in Upper Canada to render his mission inoperative had not
been barren of results. Petitions had been received at the Colonial
Office in which entire satisfaction was expressed with the existing laws
and institutions of the Province; and the signatures thereto slightly
exceeded in number those appended to the petitions of which he himself
had been the bearer. He however devoted himself with characteristic
energy to the presentation of his case, and prepared a memoir wherein
all the most serious grievances of the Upper Canadian people were set
forth in detail. In this document the writer adopted a discursive and
rhetorical style which, as the Colonial Secretary justly remarked, were
"singularly ill adapted to bring questions of so much intricacy and
importance to a definite issue." The facts were nevertheless pretty
comprehensively embodied, and were generally speaking of such a
character as to tell their own story. The perusal of the memoir seems to
have produced an impression upon the Colonial Secretary's mind. He wrote
a long and elaborate despatch to Sir John Colborne, in which the weak
points of Mackenzie's arguments were exposed with cutting severity, and
wherein it was evident that very little weight had been attached to most
of his representations; but at the same time certain concessions to
popular opinion were plainly hinted at. When this despatch was submitted
to the Legislative Council and Assembly of Upper Canada at the ensuing
session it was treated with scant respect. The Upper House formally
declared that it did not regard it as calling for serious attention, and
returned it to the Lieutenant-Governor. The Assembly discussed the
propriety of sending it back, but finally resolved not to do so. Both
the Crown Law Officers made hot-headed speeches on the subject, and
referred to the Colonial Secretary in the most contemptuous terms.
Meanwhile, Mackenzie, who still remained in England, was in his absence
expelled from the Assembly a third time. On this occasion there was no
preliminary attempt to convict him of any fresh libel or breach of
privilege. The Law Officers of the Crown simplified the proceedings by
declaring that the House had a right to determine as to the eligibility
of members, and a resolution to that effect was moved and carried. It
was then resolved that the person returned for York was the same William
Lyon Mackenzie who had been twice expelled the House and declared unfit
to hold a seat therein; and that by reason thereof the said Mackenzie
could not sit or vote in the House as a member thereof. He was then
expelled for the third time, and a new writ was issued for the County of
York. The inhabitants of that constituency felt so much aggrieved, and
gave such loud-mouthed expression to their dissatisfaction, that no
candidate hostile to Mackenzie dared to present himself at the ensuing
election, and the choice of the people was returned by acclamation.
[Sidenote: 1833.]
The part taken by the Law Officers of the Crown in these repeated
expulsions was not acceptable to the Colonial Office. Neither was the
contemptuous manner in which they had seen fit to refer to the
Secretary's despatch written after the perusal of Mackenzie's memoir. A
missive on the former subject had been sent to Sir John Colborne some
months before the commencement of the session of 1832-3, the contents of
which seem to have been promptly communicated to Messieurs Boulton and
Hagerman.[154] Notwithstanding that communication, those gentlemen had
seen fit, soon after the opening of the session, to take a leading part
in another expulsion, and to make contemptuous references to the conduct
of the Colonial Secretary himself. The Attorney-General had expressed an
opinion that the Secretary might have found something better to do than
to sit down and answer "Mackenzie's rigmarole trash." Solicitor-General
Hagerman had remarked that the Secretary had stultified himself by
noticing statements which rested on no better authority than that of a
person who had been twice expelled the Assembly, and who had been
declared unfit to sit therein in consequence of his having "fabricated
and reiterated libels of the grossest description." Lord Goderich
signified his disapprobation of this conduct in the most emphatic manner
by dismissing the two virulent critics from office. Their dismissal was
effected by a despatch to Sir John Colborne dated March 6th, 1833. "By
the accounts I have lately received of the proceedings of the
Legislature of Upper Canada," wrote his Lordship, "I have learnt that
the Attorney and Solicitor-General of that Province have, in their
places in the Assembly, taken a part directly opposed to the avowed
policy of His Majesty's Government. As members of the Provincial
Parliament, Mr. Boulton and Mr. Hagerman are of course bound to act upon
their own view of what is most for the interest of their constituents,
and of the colony at large. But if, upon questions of great political
importance, they unfortunately differ in opinion from His Majesty's
Government, it is obvious that they cannot continue to hold confidential
situations in His Majesty's service without either betraying their duty
as members of the Legislature, or bringing the sincerity of the
Government into question by their opposition to the policy which His
Majesty has been advised to pursue." It was intimated that the Law
Officers of the Crown could not be permitted to impede the Government
policy, and that in order that those gentlemen might be at full liberty
to follow their own judgment, they were to be relieved from their
offices.[155]
When this despatch reached York, towards the end of April, its contents
were communicated to Attorney-General Boulton. Mr. Hagerman had started
for England a short time before on a mission connected with the Clergy
Reserves, and, as was said,[156] in order to obtain a permanent
appointment to a judgeship. He learned of his dismissal immediately upon
his arrival in London, and lost no time in putting himself in
communication with the Colonial Minister. An important change had
recently taken place at the Colonial Office. Lord Goderich had vacated
the Secretaryship, and had become Lord Privy Seal, being at the same
time created Earl of Ripon. He was succeeded as Colonial Secretary by
Mr. Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby, who had been Secretary for
Ireland, but had aroused such hostility against himself among
O'Connell's followers by his stand on the Irish question[157] that it
had been deemed prudent to find another portfolio for him. He now
admitted Mr. Hagerman to an audience, and was so won upon by that
gentleman's specious representations that he restored him to his
stewardship. Accordingly, although he had been only moderately
successful in carrying out the specific objects of his mission, Mr.
Hagerman returned to Upper Canada in triumph; and he was greeted, upon
his arrival, with a tempest of acclamation from the Tory press.
Mr. Boulton, upon receiving from the Lieutenant-Governor's secretary an
intimation of his dismissal, raised a howl of indignation against Lord
Goderich and the Imperial Government generally. It was notorious that he
controlled the columns of _The Upper Canada Courier_, a newspaper
published at York in the interests of the official party, and edited by
Mr. George Gurnett. That paper, in its next issue, contained an article
more scurrilous and abusive than had been either of those articles in
the _Advocate_ on the pretext whereof Mackenzie had been expelled from
the Assembly. It reeked with scurrility and disloyalty from beginning to
end. It alleged that the well-affected people in the country were more
than half alienated from the Home Government, and that they began to
cast about in their mind's eye for some new state of political
existence. There was more to the same purport. Some new state of
political existence! This was a pretty strong suggestion of rebellion!
And it emanated from the organ of a faction in whose mouths the word
"loyalty" was ever present; whose "loyalty" had for years been vaunted
from every hustings, and who, so long as the tide ran in their favour,
had preached doctrines worthy of the middle ages about submission to the
higher powers. How changed was the tone now that there seemed to be some
prospect of their being placed upon the same footing, and judged by the
same standard as their neighbours. If they did these things in the green
tree, what would they do in the dry? What might have been expected from
them if they had been subjected to such injustice and ignominy as the
party to which they were opposed? Here was a faction professedly ready
to throw off their allegiance because two of their number had been
deprived of offices which they had notoriously prostituted and
disgraced.[158] Here was a "well-affected" people "casting about" in
their "mind's eye" for a new state of political existence, because two
of the most corrupt, brazen and audacious officials in the colony were
no longer to be allowed to pervert legislation under the mantle of
Imperial countenance. And they were as little disposed to brook
interference with their pecuniary interests by the Colonial Office.
Early in the following year they gave utterance to rank treason in
consequence of the threatened disallowance by the Imperial Government of
certain Bank Charter Acts passed by the Provincial Parliament.[159] A
pearl is proverbially uncomely in the snout of a swine; and truly the
word "loyalty" was never more absurdly out of place than when pronounced
by such lips.
The ex-Attorney-General followed the ex-Solicitor-General to England,
where he represented his case to the new Colonial Minister. After giving
much attention to the matter, Mr. Stanley expressed himself as satisfied
with the explanations which had been offered. The explanations seem to
have chiefly consisted of solemn declarations on the part of Mr.
Boulton that he had been insufficiently informed of the views of the
Home Government, and that he had had no desire whatever to set up his
own will in opposition to those views.[160] He doubtless professed his
readiness to go any length in the way of sycophancy which might be
required of him for the future. It was however impossible to restore him
to the Attorney-Generalship, as a successor to that office had been
appointed in the person of Mr. Robert Sympson Jameson,[161] an English
barrister, who had actually sailed from Liverpool for Canada, and was
already well on his way thither. Mr. Boulton was informed that he should
have the first good appointment at the Secretary's disposal. His success
was even greater than that of his recent colleague, for on the 17th of
June he was notified that the King had been graciously pleased to accept
of his further services, and that the Colonial Secretary had His
Majesty's commands to offer him the appointment of Chief Justice of
Newfoundland, which situation had recently become vacant.[162] This
appointment was fully approved by the Earl of Ripon, under whose advice
he had been dismissed from the Attorney-Generalship of Upper
Canada,[163] but who had been induced to change his views after hearing
Mr. Boulton's explanations.
Mr. Boulton's triumph, however, was to be followed by a downfall more
humiliating than that which he had so narrowly escaped. He repaired to
Newfoundland in the autumn, and entered upon the performance of his
duties. He had not been long in his new position before he had aroused a
feeling of disgust and alarm on the part of a large proportion of the
public and the profession. He began by being arbitrary, tyrannical and
unjust. He proceeded from bad to worse, until it was found impossible to
permit him to retain his position.[164] There is no need to follow the
proceedings adopted against him. He was not finally got rid of until
1838, when he returned to Upper Canada, and once more entered political
life as member for Niagara. The Home Government turned a deaf ear to his
perpetual applications for employment, and would have nothing more to do
with him. Some years after the Union of the Provinces, finding that he
had nothing to hope for from the Conservative party, who refused to
elevate him to a judgeship, he abandoned them, and for some time acted
with Mr. Baldwin. It seems almost cruel to record the fact that he
supported Responsible Government and the Rebellion Losses Bill.
FOOTNOTES:
[148] _Ante_, p. 229.
[149] "When, in the year 1831, His Majesty was graciously pleased to
suggest a further provision for the Civil List, which the Colonial
Ministry required to be made either for seven years or for the life of
His Majesty, the terms of the proposition were not candidly submitted to
the Assembly, and notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of those who
desired to make no provision at variance with the spirit of our
constitution, the Executive influence in the Assembly succeeded in
carrying a measure for a permanent and extravagant supply, popularly
called 'the Everlasting Salary Bill,' while the liberal and gracious
terms proposed by His Majesty on the subject were concealed and known
only to those who, feeling themselves to be above responsibility,
consummated a measure which has spread universal dissatisfaction and
distrust. If this undue and impolitic concealment was practised from any
pretended apprehension that a just provision would not be made for His
Majesty's Government by his faithful Commons, there is nothing in the
country to justify it, and as it encroached upon the privileges of the
Legislature there is no language of censure too strong against
it."--_Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_, p. xlii.
[150] See _The Colonial Advocate_ of April 3rd, 1828.
[151] I can find no confirmation of the statement made by Mackenzie, and
re-echoed by subsequent writers, about the excessive fears of the
Government at this juncture, and the preparations made by them to resist
an uprising of the people. There were no grounds for any such fears, nor
for any anticipations of an uprising. The people were long-suffering,
and were by no means ripe for revolt.
[152] If any evidence were needed of this obvious truth, it is furnished
by Mackenzie's career in the Canadian Parliament after his return from
exile. He was there brought into contact with politicians of a
succeeding generation, most of whom knew him by tradition only. His
misfortunes, and the manifold sufferings he had been compelled to
endure, impelled most of the contemporaries to regard him with a large
measure of forbearance, and he was permitted to indulge a license of
speech which would not have been tolerated in any other member. He
adopted precisely the same _role_ as of yore, and delivered himself with
great vehemence on matters which he did not understand. The inevitable
result was that the Assembly soon ceased to attach any weight to his
opinions. He had lived long enough to repudiate many of his old
doctrines, and to eat many of his past words. His views on Tuesday were
frequently the very opposite to what they had been on Monday, and
neither were any indication of what they would be on Wednesday. Members
ceased to attach any importance to his statements, or to think of them
as calling for serious consideration. He came to be regarded as a sort
of unlicensed jester who might be permitted to amuse the House by his
antics when there was no pressing business on hand; but as to any real
influence, he had no more than the junior messenger. It took him several
years to find this out, and when it was brought thoroughly home to him
he resigned his seat. Had the Family Compact politicians of fifty to
sixty years ago been as wise in their generation as the members of the
Assembly during the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Parliaments of United
Canada, they would have ceased to defend the indefensible, and would
have let Mackenzie alone. They might then have held the reins of power
for ten--or possibly twenty--years longer; but the day of reckoning,
when it came, would probably have been a darker one.
[153] Lord Howick, writing on behalf of the Colonial Secretary, under
date of June 23rd, 1832, in reply to Mackenzie's application for an
interview, informed the applicant that although the Secretary was ready
to hear any observations which he (Mackenzie) might have to offer upon
the affairs of Upper Canada, as an individual interested in the welfare
of that Province, and as a member of the Assembly, yet that the
Secretary could not recognize him as being deputed to act for any other
person, nor could he enter into any discussion with him on measures
which His Majesty's Government might think it right to pursue. "The
views and intentions of His Majesty's Government with respect to the
affairs of the Province," wrote his Lordship, "can only be made known to
the people of Upper Canada through the medium of the Governor or of the
Legislature; it is to one or other of these authorities that any
complaints which individuals may have occasion to make should properly
be addressed; and if the course pursued by the Executive Government
should be such as to give just ground for dissatisfaction, the
inhabitants have, by their Representatives, the means of bringing their
grievances under the immediate attention of His Majesty." The full text
of the letter will be found on pp. 191, 192 of the _Seventh Report of
Grievance Committee_.
[154] Mr. Boulton denied, at least by implication, that any such
communication had been made to him. See his letter dated April 30th,
1833, and published in the _Courier_ of the following day. But it is
certain that the contents of the missive had been made known to Mr.
Hagerman, and it is hardly conceivable that he would have failed to
communicate to his colleague matters of such vital importance to their
welfare.
[155] The full text of the despatch will be found on p. 295 of the
_Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_.
[156] "We have been very credibly informed that, on account of the
extent of the settlements and consequent increase of court business, it
was thought expedient by our wise ones that a fourth judge was
necessary, and that he [Mr. Hagerman] had obtained (previous to his
leaving here) a recommend from the other judges for himself to be
appointed to the new created situation."--_Colonial Advocate_, Thursday,
May 2nd, 1833.
[157] It was at this time that Mr. Stanley, by his fiery speech against
O'Connell, won for himself the sobriquet of "the Rupert of Debate."
[158] Henry Sherwood, who had by this time attained to a prominent place
in the ranks of the official party, was especially loud in his
denunciations of the British Government for dismissing Boulton and
Hagerman. According to a correspondent of the _Colonial Advocate_, he
declared, in the course of an ordinary conversation, that if such
proceedings were to continue, he, for his part, did not care how soon
the British authority was superseded by a republican one.--See letter of
"John Bull," on first page of the _Advocate_ of December 14th, 1833.
[159] They were equally intolerant of opposition from their own
adherents when their pecuniary interests were at stake. In December,
1833, the Hon. John Elmsley, who had been called to the Executive
Council three years before, was forced to resign his seat in that body
because he could not act independently there. In his letter of
resignation, which is dated "Holland House, York, December 3rd, 1833,"
he says: "Since I have assumed the duties of that high office [_i.e._,
the office of an Executive Councillor], I find that I cannot fearlessly
express my real sentiments and opinions, if opposed to the Government
for the time being, without incurring the risk of dismissal from that
Honourable Board, which constitutes my inability to advance the public
good. I have therefore deemed it expedient most respectfully, but
reluctantly, to tender the resignation of my seat in the Executive
Council."--See evidence of the Hon. Peter Robinson, in Appendix to
_Seventh Report on Grievance_, p. 91. See also p. xxvii of the Report
itself.
[160] See _Case of the Honourable Henry John Boulton, Chief Justice of
the Island of Newfoundland_, etc.--being a report of the Case before the
Privy Council--p. 3.
[161] This was the husband of the accomplished Anna Jameson, whose
brilliant art criticisms are among the most readable things of their
kind in the English language, and whose Canadian sketches have made her
name well known in this country.
[162] _Case of the Hon. H. J. Boulton_, etc., p. 3.
[163] _Ib._, p. 4.
[164] Full particulars of his misconduct may be found in the work
already quoted from.