DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
Mackenzie remained in England much longer than he had anticipated, and
did not return to Canada until towards the end of August, 1833. He was
absent in all nearly sixteen months, which was considerably longer than
was necessary for the accomplishment of the objects of his mission. He
doubtless enjoyed life in the metropolis, and was loth to relinquish
it.[165] His mission had not been wholly fruitless, for his
representations at the Colonial Office had led to the writing of Lord
Goderich's despatch already referred to, by which the faction in Upper
Canada were led to see that they would for the future be compelled to
act with somewhat more of circumspection. Several much-needed
suggestions were made in the despatch on subjects of practical
importance--among others as to the remuneration of members of the
Assembly representing Town constituencies; as to the extension of the
franchise to persons who, by reason of their religious scruples, could
not conscientiously take the prescribed oath; as to the repeal of the
law disqualifying British subjects from voting at elections till the
expiration of seven years after their return from a residence in a
foreign country; and as to the interference of ecclesiastical
Legislative Councillors in secular matters.[166] Mackenzie was also
entitled to claim credit for obtaining important reforms in the
management of the Provincial Post Office. He had brought the affairs of
the Province conspicuously before the minds of several eminent public
men, whose interest in Canada had thus been aroused, and who were
thenceforth able to display some familiarity with Canadian questions as
they came up for discussion in the House of Commons. During his stay in
London he had published a duodecimo volume, extending to 504 pages,
entitled "Sketches in Canada and the United States," in which a good
many Provincial abuses had been specified. The information contained in
this work had been thrown together in a higgledy-piggledy fashion, and
it could not be said to have much real value, more especially as many of
its statements were inaccurate, and must have been known to be so when
they were written.[167] Still, it probably had some effect in seconding
the author's efforts to attract attention to himself and the interests
which he represented. He had moreover acquainted the Colonial Secretary
with matters which could not possibly have been clearly explained
otherwise than orally. It was tolerably certain that information
furnished by him had led to the dismissal of Boulton and Hagerman, a
proceeding which had wonderfully exhilarated his mind; and his
depression had been correspondently deep upon learning that the one had
been promoted and the other reinstated. He had hoped to see Mr. Rolph
appointed to the Solicitor-Generalship, and, if his word is to be
credited, he really seems to have had some grounds for believing that
such an appointment would be made.[168] He afterwards declared that he
had "good reasons for believing" that Mr. Rolph's appointment had
actually been made out and transmitted to Canada, but that Sir John
Colborne and Chief Justice Robinson had prevented it from taking
effect.[169]
As has already been seen,[170] Mackenzie, during his absence in England,
had once more been elected to represent the County of York in the
Assembly. Upon the first meeting of Parliament after his return he
presented himself as a member. There was however a persistent
determination that he should not be permitted to take his seat. The
hostile majority in the House professed to believe that they had a right
to exercise a discretion as to who should be permitted to sit therein.
Mackenzie, they alleged, had libelled the House by libelling a majority
of its members, and he had neither made nor attempted to make any
reparation or apology. The Clerk, acting most probably on instructions,
refused to administer the oath to him. A resolution was adopted that he
should not be permitted to sit or vote as a member during the session,
and a writ for a new election was ordered. Again did he return to his
constituents, and again was he returned without opposition. The electors
of York were by this time heartily tired of the farce, the perpetual
re-enactment whereof had the effect of partly disfranchising them by
leaving them with only one representative in the Assembly instead of
two. They were nevertheless fully resolved not to yield their undoubted
rights without some further assertion of them. The member of their
choice was under no legal disability. They were advised that there was
no constitutional justification for the action of the Assembly. They
declared that they owed it to themselves and those who were to come
after them not to submit tamely to injustice of such a nature. The
election being over, a considerable body of them escorted him to the
Houses of Parliament. But a short time had elapsed since the last
expulsion, and the Legislature was still in session. The members of the
Assembly stared in astonishment at the sudden and altogether
unlooked-for incursion of strangers, who poured into the gallery and
into the space below the bar, where they were permitted to intrude
themselves, and where Mackenzie presented himself to take the oath.
Those who could not find room inside remained without in the lobbies. In
a few moments a lull occurred in the proceedings of the House, whereupon
burly Peter Perry rose in his place and announced that he had a petition
to present on behalf of the inhabitants of the County of York. The
contents of the petition were not of a nature to render it acceptable to
a majority of the members. It referred to Mackenzie's expulsion, and
prayed that that indignity might not be repeated. There was a very
general feeling among the supporters of the Government that the House
ought not to receive such a petition, and several of them gave utterance
to their opinions on the subject. Allan MacNab expressed himself to this
effect with his customary emphasis, and was greeted with a storm of
hisses from the York electors in the gallery. Ominous sounds! The House
could not be expected to tamely brook such a manifestation, and an order
was given to clear the gallery. While the order was being obeyed, the
Sergeant-at-Arms approached Mackenzie where he stood below the bar, and
directed him to leave. Mackenzie replied to the effect that he had a
right to be there, and that he intended to remain. The door was then
opened by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who proceeded to eject Mackenzie by
force; but before he could carry out his purpose a rush was made from
the adjacent lobby. The door was promptly closed and barricaded, but not
until several of the invaders had effected an entrance. The excitement
was intense, and for some minutes the proceedings of the House were
suspended. When quiet had been in some measure restored, the Speaker
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the space below the bar of
strangers. That functionary again ordered Mackenzie to leave, and he
received the same reply as before. This was communicated to the Speaker,
who decided that, as Mackenzie had not taken the oath, he was not a
member of the House, and was not entitled to remain. Mackenzie was
there, ready and anxious to take the oath; but he was nevertheless
removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Assembly was once more purged
of his presence. On the next day he was again formally expelled by a
vote of the House[171]--an anomalous proceeding in view of the Speaker's
decision that he was not a member! He had thus been thrice expelled from
the House, and once excluded therefrom upon the ground that he was not a
member.
[Sidenote: 1834.]
It was by this time clear that from a House so constituted Mackenzie
could not expect to meet with fair play. Mr. Bidwell, Mr. Perry, and
others of his friends had all along spoken manfully on his behalf
whenever an opportunity of doing so had presented itself, but their
arguments had simply been thrown away. His pugnacious spirit was however
fully aroused, and he determined to exhaust every means before
abandoning his endeavours to take the seat to which he was entitled. He
applied to the Lieutenant-Governor for permission to take the oath
prescribed for members of the Legislature before his Excellency, or
before some one specially appointed for the purpose, under the
twenty-ninth section of the Constitutional Act of 1791.[172] The
question involved in this application was submitted to the
Attorney-General, Mr. Jameson, who pronounced the opinion that Mackenzie
was entitled to the privilege asked for. The matter was nevertheless
allowed to remain in abeyance for some weeks, as the hostile members of
Assembly had been worked up to a great pitch of excitement by the
incursion of the rural population, and were in no humour to tolerate
Mackenzie's presence. Meanwhile petitions to the Lieutenant-Governor
were sent in from various parts of the County of York, as well as from
other places. The language in some of these was of the most unmistakable
kind, and it was evident that endurance had nearly reached its limits.
On Monday, the 10th of February, Mackenzie, having taken the oath before
the Clerk of the Executive Council, and having obtained a duly attested
certificate of the ceremonial, ventured once more to present himself in
the Chamber of the Assembly.
The House was in Committee on the question of improving the navigation
of the St. Lawrence when he entered. The gallery was crowded with
spectators, most of whom were sympathizers with Mackenzie, and had
assembled there to impart to him a sort of outside numerical support. He
walked to the seat which he had once been accustomed to occupy, and
quietly sat down in it. Ere many minutes the Sergeant-at-Arms[173]
approached and requested him to withdraw. This he declined to do,
alleging that he was a member legally elected, duly sworn, and charged
with no offence or irregularity which could disqualify him from sitting
and voting.[174] He produced the attested copy of the oath, and bade the
Sergeant-at-Arms interfere at his peril. The following is Mackenzie's
own account of what ensued; and, unlike most of his narratives, it is in
all substantial respects confirmed by several eye-witnesses. "He [the
Sergeant-at-Arms] said he must use force, and he did so in as gentle a
manner as was consistent with the act. Although his proceedings were
illegal, his whole conduct in carrying them into effect was marked by a
discretion wisely adopted in the excited state of the minds of the dense
audience by whom he was surrounded. I almost immediately returned to the
seat I had occupied, and while on my way was seized hold of by Colonel
Frazer, Collector of Customs at Brockville, and obliged to change my
route. Before I had got well seated, one of the members, I think Mr.
Boulton[175] moved that the Speaker take the chair. He did so, and I
addressed him, stating the insult I had received while in the
performance of my duty as a member. To this he made no reply, but said
that the Sergeant-at-Arms must know his duty. He then left the chair;
the Committee resumed, and I was a second time forced from my seat by
violent means. After a little reflection I decided to resume my seat;
was a third time forced from it by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and when the
Speaker had returned I was placed at the bar, charged by the
Sergeant-at-Arms with refusing to leave the House."[176] The
Sergeant-at-Arms then reported to the Speaker that he had taken into
custody William Lyon Mackenzie for disorderly conduct, and that he had
him in charge at the bar; whereupon it was moved by Mr. Samson, and
seconded by Mr. Vankoughnet, member for Stormont, that William Lyon
Mackenzie, having been brought to the bar of the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms for disorderly conduct, be called upon to state what he
might have to say in his defence. To this motion Mr. Perry moved an
amendment to the effect that Mackenzie was under no legal
disqualifications, and had a right to sit and vote in the House. Then
followed a long debate which lasted nearly six hours,[177] and which
left the question at issue pretty nearly where it had been. Mr. Perry's
motion was lost by a vote of twenty-one to fifteen. A dense crowd
occupied the gallery until far into the night, but good order was
preserved, the only demonstration being a subdued hiss while Mr. William
B. Robinson, member for Simcoe, and brother of the Chief Justice, was
speaking. Much rancour was exhibited by some of the Tory speakers,
several of whom approved their loyalty by inveighing loudly against the
Lieutenant-Governor for permitting the Clerk of the Executive Council to
administer the oath to Mackenzie. Allan MacNab declared his intention to
vote for committing Mackenzie to the common jail. Casting his eyes up to
the gallery, he scowled at the occupants, to whom he referred as a band
of ruffians who had come there to intimidate the House. The
Lieutenant-Governor, he said, had interfered very improperly, and in a
manner no way creditable to himself. He had acted like the Vicar of
Bray, and might yet find, like that individual, that by taking both
sides of a question he might fall through between. Mr. Samson, member
for Hastings, spoke to a similar purport, declaring himself to be in
favour of sending Mackenzie to jail without a hearing, and referring to
the Lieutenant-Governor in terms of strong censure. "His Excellency,"
remarked Mr. Samson, "knew perfectly well that Mr. Mackenzie had been
expelled by us, and for him to allow the oath to be administered under
such circumstances was a most unwarrantable proceeding. He had no right
whatever to interfere. I do say he acted a most improper part, and I do
not know but this House ought to take it up." When Mackenzie attempted
to speak at the bar, William Hamilton Merritt, member for Haldimand,
rose in much anger, and exclaimed: "Drown his voice. He ought to be put
out of the House, and two men stationed continually at the door to keep
him out." Absalom Shade, of Galt, member for Halton, was of the same
opinion. The speech of the member for Simcoe, which evoked the hiss from
the gallery as already mentioned, was perhaps the most violent of all.
He advocated that Mackenzie should be punished and consigned to jail
without being allowed to utter "one single word" in defence of his
outrageous proceedings. "Mackenzie," said he, "would never have dared to
show himself in this House again if he had not had his Excellency's
sanction for doing so in his pocket. His Excellency's conduct, I
maintain, has been utterly unjustifiable. Indeed, I could not have
believed it possible that his Excellency should have thought of taking
such a step without consulting the Speaker of this House. He had no
right whatever to do so, and now that he is told that we do not
recognize such a right on the part of the Executive, I trust he will not
persevere."[178] For milder language than this, many of the Reformers
had been branded as "traitors," "disaffected," and "republicans," by the
very person who now gave utterance to it. The beam in one's own eye is
so much harder to perceive than the mote in the eye of one's brother.
The plain fact of the matter is, that no sentiment of either loyalty or
disloyalty had anything whatever to do with the treatment to which
Mackenzie was subjected at the hands of the Compact and their
supporters. It was simply this: Mackenzie was a thorn in their sides. He
watched them closely, and exposed their conduct in language which was
telling and vigorous, albeit often ill-considered and unbecoming. They
felt that their supremacy was menaced, and largely by his
instrumentality. His expulsions were due to a fixed determination to
keep him out of Parliament, irrespective not only of what was
constitutional or unconstitutional, but even of what was right or wrong.
To carry out this determination they resorted to all the party devices
which a majority in the Assembly placed at their disposal. "From first
to last," as Mr. Lindsey remarks,[179] "the proceedings against Mr.
Mackenzie were conceived in a party spirit, and carried by party votes.
No worse description or condemnation of them could be given, seeing
that they were in their nature judicial."
The debate, as has been said, came to nothing. Mackenzie was not
permitted to take his seat, and did not again attempt to do so during
the session. No new writ was issued for the election of a member by the
County of York. Mackenzie's supporters opposed the issue of a writ
because such a proceeding would have assumed that the expulsion had been
legal, and that there was a legal vacancy in the representation. Others,
who were not friendly to Mackenzie, felt that a new election would only
lead to fresh complications. York would undoubtedly return the expelled
member, and he would again be refused a seat in the House. The session
accordingly dragged on to its close without any writ having been issued:
a matter of little practical importance, inasmuch as there was to be a
general election in the course of a few months. It will thus be seen
that the County of York underwent a partial disfranchisement for three
years, during which three sessions were held. Before another session
came round a new Parliament had come into being, and the political
situation had undergone a complete metamorphosis.
During the session of 1833-4, which witnessed the tumultuous scene just
described, the Provincial Parliament made one important concession to
public opinion by passing an Act to render the Judges of the Court of
King's Bench independent of the Crown. It is right to state, however,
that this was done in consequence of pressure from the Imperial
Government,[180] and not from any wish to remove an abuse of long
standing. The Act provided that "the Judges of His Majesty's Court of
King's Bench for this Province shall hold their offices during their
good behaviour, notwithstanding the commissions which have been
heretofore granted to them, or either of them, may specify that the
office is to be held during the pleasure of His Majesty; and that from
and after the passing of this Act the commissions to the Judges of the
said Court shall be made to them respectively to hold during their good
behaviour, and that the commissions of Judges of the said Court for the
time being shall be, continue, and remain in full force during their
good behaviour, notwithstanding the demise of His Majesty, or of any of
his heirs and successors." Thus were the Judiciary rendered independent
of the humours of the Executive, whereby a long step was taken towards
securing a pure administration of justice in the Superior Court of the
Province. Had a similar policy been pursued with respect to other gross
abuses, the effect upon the public mind would have been most
pacificatory. Standing, as it did, alone, the Act exhibited a striking
contrast to every other feature of the Executive policy, and it may be
doubted whether a solitary inhabitant of the Province was conciliated
thereby.
FOOTNOTES:
[165] Prior to his departure from Canada he travelled about here and
there through the country to collect subscriptions towards the expenses
of his journey. He met with but slender success. After his return he
made further efforts in the same direction, and with similar results.
Persons who professed much zeal for Reform were slow to put their hands
in their pockets for such a purpose, and he succeeded in collecting only
about L150. It should however be remembered that most Upper Canadian
Reformers in those days were poor. Mackenzie's actual disbursements
during his absence are stated by Mr. Lindsey to have been L676 (_Life of
Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 287), but a considerable part of this sum was
expended on a visit to Scotland. It is probable, too, that the amount
stated includes the cost of publishing _Sketches in Canada and the
United States_, which must have been considerable. It is fairly to be
inferred from Mr. Lindsey's account that Mackenzie was himself compelled
to pay the difference between L150, the amount collected from
subscribers, and L676, the amount actually expended. "The people's
agent," he informs us, "was left to bear the greater part of the
expense." This, no doubt, was Mr. Lindsay's belief when his book was
written; but nothing could be further from the fact. It would be much
nearer the truth to say that Mackenzie enjoyed a sixteen months' holiday
at the expense of his political friends, for all, or nearly all the
money expended over and above the L150 was contributed by Dr. Morrison,
Dr. Rolph, David Gibson, the Lesslies, Shepards, and others; and as no
portion of the money so contributed was ever repaid, they, and not
Mackenzie, were compelled to bear the loss. The implied slur upon the
Reform party is therefore wholly undeserved.
[166] His Lordship expressed himself with much clearness on this
subject. "Whether," he wrote, "even under this restriction [_i.e._, the
restriction of non-interference in secular affairs], their holding such
seats is really desirable, is a question upon which I am fully prepared
to listen with the utmost attention to any advice which I may receive
from yourself, from the House of Assembly, or from any other competent
authority. I have no solicitude for retaining either the Bishop
[McDonnell] or the Archdeacon [Strachan] on the list of Councillors, but
am, on the contrary, rather predisposed to the opinion that by resigning
their seats they would best consult their own personal comfort and the
success of their designs for the spiritual good of the people. But any
such resignation must be voluntary, since the office is held for life;
and were it otherwise, no consideration could induce me to advise His
Majesty to degrade the Bishop or the Archdeacon from the stations they
occupy, except upon the most conclusive proof of misconduct." One might
not unreasonably construe these words into a pretty broad hint to Bishop
McDonnell and Dr. Strachan that they ought to resign.
[167] The London _Morning Herald_ of July 11th, 1833, correctly
characterized it as "the oddest mixture of slander and truth, of
knowledge and ignorance, of bold assertion and vacillating opinion."
[168] "Mr. Rolph will, we have no doubt, have the offer of the
Solicitorship, but whether he will accept it is a matter more doubtful;
though we think he possibly may, provided he is to be associated in the
administration with men of a liberal policy; otherwise we are of opinion
he will decline. Such an appointment would certainly do credit to our
country, and we hope he (Mr. Rolph) will accept the appointment if
offered--that is, if he can consistently do so."--_Colonial Advocate_,
Thursday, May 2nd, 1833. See also the _Advocate_ for October 3rd, 1833.
[169] See _An Account of the Dismissal of the Attorney and
Solicitor-General from Office, and of the Re-appointment of Mr.
Hagerman_, written by Mackenzie for the General [Reform] Committee at
York, and published in the _Advocate_ for Thursday, August 29th, 1833.
[170] _Ante_, p. 247.
[171] As the resolution recited the facts relating to the two former
expulsions, as well as the grounds of the present one, it may not be
amiss to transcribe it in full. It was voted upon on Tuesday, the 17th
of December (1833). Its mover was William Morris, member for Lanark. It
was in the following words: "That this House, on the thirteenth day of
December, 1831, in consequence of a false and scandalous libel published
against a majority of its members by William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire,
one of the members then representing the County of York, of which he
avowed himself the author and publisher, was induced to expel him, the
said William Lyon Mackenzie, from this House: That notwithstanding the
gross and scandalous nature of the said libel, this House, in the hope
that the said William Lyon Mackenzie would abstain from a continuance of
the offensive conduct for which he had been expelled, permitted him to
take his seat on the third day of January following, as a member for the
County of York, after being re-elected: That in this hope, so important
to the deliberate transaction of public business, so essential to the
respectability of the Legislature and peace of the country, a few days'
experience convinced this House there was so little reason to rely, that
on the seventh day of the same month of January, it was by a large
majority again deemed necessary to expel the said William Lyon
Mackenzie, for a repetition and aggravated reiteration of the aforesaid
false and scandalous libel; and in doing so, this House, in order to
support the dignity which ought to belong to a Legislative body,
considered it just and proper to declare the said William Lyon Mackenzie
unfit and unworthy to hold a seat in this House during the continuance
of the present Parliament: That as the said William Lyon Mackenzie has
never made reparation to this House for the gross injuries which he has
attempted to inflict on its character and proceedings, there is no
reason to depart from the resolution of the said seventh day of January,
1832." In amendment, Mr. MacNab, seconded by Mr. Robinson, moved that
the following words be added to the original resolution: "And therefore
he, the said William Lyon Mackenzie, again elected and returned to
represent the County of York in this present Parliament, is hereby
expelled." The amendment, as well as the original motion, was carried by
a vote of 22 to 18.
[172] This section provides for the taking of the oath before the
Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or person administering the Government,
or "before some person or persons authorized by the said Governor or
Lieutenant-Governor," etc.
[173] The Sergeant-at-Arms was Allan MacNab, Sr., father of the junior
member for Wentworth.
[174] See the _Advocate_ of Thursday, February 13th, 1834.
[175] Not H. J. Boulton, who had several months before departed for
Newfoundland, but George Strange Boulton, one of the members for Durham.
[176] See the _Advocate_ of February 13th, 1834.
[177] Mackenzie, in the _Advocate_, says "full seven hours," but he did
not reach the Assembly Chamber until nearly half-past three in the
afternoon, and the House adjourned at 9.30 for want of a quorum. See the
sessional journal. The three removals of Mackenzie from his seat must
have occupied some minutes, and the entire debate could not possibly
have extended over quite six hours. The matter is of no particular
importance, but it shows how carefully all unsupported statements of
Mackenzie ought to be scrutinized before being admitted as evidence.
[178] "It is probable," says Mackenzie (_Colonial Advocate_, Feb. 13th),
"that the provoking language of some of the members would have ended in
a disturbance had I not warned the people through the press, personally
at many of their dwelling houses, and in the House before I took my
seat, to preserve perfect silence whatever the members said or did. They
were very orderly, and it is creditable to them that they were so. If
public opinion will not avenge our cause, violence and tumult will not
help us." The irony of fate had decreed that this admirable sentiment
should not find a permanent lodgement in the writer's breast.
[179] _Life and Times of Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 311.
[180] See Lord Goderich's despatch of 8th November, 1832.