MR. HUME'S "BANEFUL DOMINATION" LETTER.
Mackenzie's repeated expulsions, unjust as they were, and humiliating as
were some of the attendant circumstances, were not wholly without
compensation. For one thing they caused him to be more talked about than
any other man in Upper Canada. This, of itself, would have gone far
towards reconciling him to the indignities which had been heaped upon
him, for notoriety was very dear to his heart. But a more substantial
reward, and one altogether unlooked for, was in store for him.
Within a month after the scene in the Assembly described towards the
close of the last chapter, the town of York ceased to exist, having
exchanged its name for the old Indian appellation which it has ever
since borne. An Act of incorporation had been obtained during the
session, whereby it was enacted that York should be constituted a body
corporate and politic by the name of the City of Toronto. The city was
to be divided into wards, with two aldermen and two common councilmen
for each ward, to be elected by the inhabitants; and with a mayor, to be
elected by the aldermen and councilmen from among themselves. This Act,
like the rest of the measures passed during the session, was assented to
on the day of adjournment--the 6th of March, 1834. On the 15th of the
same month an official proclamation appeared whereby Thursday, the 27th,
was appointed for the first election of municipal representatives. A
campaign of active canvassing was forthwith set on foot throughout the
city. As has often happened in more recent times, the contest assumed a
political complexion. The Act of incorporation had been procured by Tory
influences, and had been carried through the Assembly under the auspices
of Sheriff Jarvis, the local member. In his speeches on the subject in
the House Mr. Jarvis had taken the reasonable and legitimate ground that
the Provincial capital had attained dimensions which rendered a separate
government necessary to the efficient management of its affairs. This
view was participated in by Tory residents generally. The Reformers, on
the other hand, had all along been opposed to incorporation. York, they
argued, was the main fortress and stronghold of the official party, who
would be almost certain to acquire a pernicious ascendency in municipal
affairs, to the detriment of the rest of the community. The Province at
large had already suffered enough from Compact domination, and it was
far from desirable to afford an opportunity for its exercise in a more
restricted field. Again, it was urged that the expense of a separate
administration for the city would more than counterbalance any
advantages to be derived therefrom. These views were put forward with
much vehemence by reformers, both in Parliament and through the medium
of the press. From all which it was evident that the impending elections
would afford a pretty accurate test of the strength of the respective
political parties in the city.
Generally speaking, the Tory vote in the capital had been largely in
excess of that polled by the Reformers. That it was not so in the spring
of 1834 was due in no small degree to public indignation at the unfair
treatment to which Mackenzie had been subjected. Persons who had never
recorded a Reform vote before now came forward to support candidates who
were known to be strong Reformers. It was not so much that these persons
sympathized with Mackenzie, who was by many of them held in detestation
and abhorrence; but they felt that gross injustice had been done,
against which it behooved them to record their formal protest. The
result was that the sanguine calculations of the Tories were altogether
falsified, and that a majority of Reform candidates were returned to the
first Council of the City of Toronto. Among the latter were Mackenzie
himself, who was elected as one of the aldermen for St. David's Ward,
and John Rolph, who was elected for the Ward of St. Patrick.
A few words of explanation are necessary in this place with regard to
Mr. Rolph. It will be remembered that he and the two Baldwins had
divested themselves of their gowns during the progress of the Willis
dispute, and had declined to transact any further business in a court
which they believed to be illegally constituted.[181] They did not again
present themselves before the court during Term until after the decision
of the Privy Council had set their minds at rest on the subject. There
was no longer anything to prevent them from resuming their practice. The
Baldwins did so, and Rolph for a time followed their example, albeit in
a half-hearted manner. He had long been profoundly disgusted with the
partiality displayed by the judges, and by their complete subserviency
to the wishes of the Executive, as expressed by their forensic
mouthpiece, Attorney-General Robinson. On account, as he believed, of
his political opinions, he had been forced to contend against the
persistent hostility of the judiciary. His triumphs at the bar had been
won by reason of his power over juries, and in spite of one-sided
charges from the bench. Of the understanding and judicial integrity of
Mr. Sherwood he had formed a very low estimate. Hagerman, who
temporarily succeeded Judge Willis, was an abler man, but his political
feelings were so strong that Rolph would not imperil the interests of
his clients by appearing before him. Upon the accession of
Attorney-General Robinson to the bench the state of affairs from Rolph's
point of view was not much improved. Mr. Robinson and he had so long
fought each other at the bar and on the floor of the Assembly that they
had come to regard each other as personal enemies. Rolph, rightly or
wrongly, came to the conclusion that he could no longer hope to obtain
any measure of justice. The necessary consequence of such a conclusion
was a resolve to abandon the practice of law, and to resume that of
medicine, which latter, indeed, he had never wholly abandoned. This
resolution was not fully carried out until more than two years after it
had been formed, though he meanwhile accepted no new suits, and steadily
prepared himself for the impending change. The decisive step does not
appear to have been taken until 1832, when he transferred his legal
practice to his brother George. Thenceforward John Rolph never again
appeared in a Court of justice in the capacity of an advocate. It was a
momentous decision, for he had a fine legal practice, and enjoyed the
reputation of being the most eloquent man at the Upper Canadian bar. He
had outlived the exuberance of youth, and was at this time nearly forty
years old--an age at which few men would have had the courage to abandon
a pursuit which had been followed with signal success for many years. He
resumed the practice of medicine and surgery, and was thenceforward
known as "Doctor" Rolph. For some years before this time he had resided
at Dundas. He now removed to the capital, where he was well known, and
where he continued to reside until the breaking out of the Rebellion
towards the close of 1837. He soon won a distinguished place in the
ranks of his new calling, and reached a preeminence therein as great as
he had ever attained at the bar. There was no regularly-organized
medical college in Upper Canada, and the facilities for acquiring a
competent medical training were few. In response to urgent requests from
a number of influential persons in Toronto he established a private
medical class, and gave instruction to a limited number of students. His
teaching was eminently successful, and he made himself greatly beloved
by his students. He seemed to have the whole round of medical literature
at his fingers' ends, and his marvellous knowledge and graphic power of
expression kindled in the breasts of the young men a love of knowledge
for its own sake.[182] By no one were his attainments held in higher
respect than by the Lieutenant-Governor. Sir John urged him to found a
permanent medical college, and promised that Government aid for such an
enterprise should not be wanting. But Dr. Rolph had other views. He had
for several years been out of public life, but with no idea of so
remaining. He was resolved to re-enter Parliament at the first suitable
opportunity, and did not allow his professional pursuits to absorb all
his attention. Unlike Robert Baldwin, who to a great extent held himself
aloof from politics at this time, Rolph took a leading part at Reform
meetings and caucuses, and did his utmost to give practical shape to the
Reform policy. Baldwin, notwithstanding his undoubted zeal for Liberal
principles, was imbued with somewhat exclusive social ideas, and was
not in active sympathy with the Reformers at this period. He regarded
Mackenzie as very much of a demagogue, and as a person with whom he
could not hold any very intimate relations. The sentiments entertained
by Baldwin for Mackenzie seem to have been closely akin to those
entertained by Sir John Falstaff for the troops with whom he declared
that he would not march through Coventry. Mackenzie's noisy verbosity
and self-assertion offended the patrician instincts of Mr. Baldwin, to
whom, indeed, the little proletarian was altogether distasteful and
repulsive. This feeling, however, seems to have been due to the
antipathetic natures of the two men, rather than to any mere feeling of
exclusiveness on the part of Mr. Baldwin. They had as little in common
as two persons very well could have. Without entering any further into
the question, it will be sufficient to say that the one had a judgment
under strict discipline, while the judgment of the other was always
subordinate to the circumstances or prejudices of the moment--a fatal
defect in one who aspires to be a leader of men. Mr. Baldwin made no
secret of his conviction that no substantial progress could be made by
the Reform party so long as one like Mackenzie was permitted to have any
commanding voice in its counsels, or at any rate to have any hand in the
shaping or directing of its policy. Rolph took a broader view, and while
he admitted the notoriously weak points in Mackenzie's character, did
not feel disposed either to throw him overboard altogether or to deprive
him of a share in the direction of party affairs. He naturally felt and
spoke strongly on the subject of the expulsions. For Mackenzie
personally he had never felt much liking, but he hated injustice, and
did not hesitate to give the expelled member all the support, moral and
otherwise, which he could command. He was wont to say that Mackenzie
might yet do much good work for Reform, if he could only be kept in his
proper place. Mackenzie, on his side, never wearied of sounding Rolph's
praises, and he sometimes did so in extravagant terms. Wherever he went
he proclaimed the Doctor as the one man in Upper Canada capable of
leading the Reform party to triumph and permanent power. Bidwell and
Perry were well enough in their way, but to neither of them would he pin
his faith if Rolph questioned the wisdom of their counsels.
Such was the state of affairs at the time of the election of the first
Council of the City of Toronto. In that Council, as already mentioned,
there was a preponderance of Reform members. According to the provisions
of the Act of incorporation the aldermen and councilmen were to hold
their first meeting on Thursday, the 3rd of April, when they were to
proceed to the election of a mayor. As the Reform members were able to
command the situation, they held a caucus on the evening of Monday, the
31st of March, to concert a scheme of action, and to take steps to turn
their numerical superiority in the Council to the best account. An
understanding had already been arrived at as to the mayoralty. Dr. Rolph
had been pitched upon by common consent to fill the chair of the chief
magistrate. He was upon the whole better fitted to grace the position
than any other man in the city, and the Reform members contemplated
their candidate with pride. But at the caucus held on the evening of the
31st matters took an altogether unexpected turn. Dr. Rolph did not
attend, being kept away by professional duties. It was suggested by
James Lesslie, one of the aldermen from St. David's Ward, that the
Doctor was indifferent as to the mayoralty, and that he would be quite
willing to waive any claims to the position which he might be supposed
to have. It was further suggested that the interests of the Reformers
would be best promoted by the elevation of the editor of the _Advocate_
to the chief magistracy. Mackenzie, it was urged, had been treated with
shameful indignity by the Assembly, and had been held up to contempt by
the official party generally. He had been maligned at the Home Office as
a personage whom the Secretary could not admit to his presence
consistently with due respect to himself and his office. He had been
represented as a snarling little upstart who, by the votes of the lowest
and most rascally section of the Radicals, had been placed in a position
unsuited to his character and belongings. It had been especially urged
against him in England that the better class of Reformers held aloof
from and thoroughly despised him. There could be no doubt that by such
representations as these Mackenzie had been subjected to much unmerited
obloquy and annoyance during his sojourn in the old country. The present
conjuncture of affairs, it was said, afforded an excellent opportunity
for atoning to him for what he had endured, and at the same time for
scoring a double victory for Reform principles. His elevation to the
chief magistracy of the capital city of Upper Canada would furnish the
most conclusive answer that could possibly be made to the abuse and
slander wherewith he had been assailed. The position was one of high
honour and dignity. It would be impossible to represent the occupant of
that position as the mere tool and mouthpiece of a low Radical clique,
or as a person whom no gentleman could admit to a conference. There was
much plausibility about these arguments, and they had the more weight
inasmuch as Dr. Rolph was said to be personally indifferent about the
matter. Dr. Rolph, moreover, needed no accession of dignity. He could
certainly derive none from being elected to the mayoralty, and could
very well afford to waive his claims. This view of the matter finally
prevailed, and it was agreed, before the adjournment of the caucus,
that, provided Dr. Rolph were a consenting party, Mackenzie should be
the first mayor of Toronto.
When the matter was submitted to Dr. Rolph he expressed some surprise at
the action of the caucus. He appears to have felt convinced that no
credit to the Reform cause was to be won by placing Mackenzie in a
prominent position. He knew Mackenzie to be a man who could not stand
prosperity, and whose want of mental ballast was such that he was not
fit to be trusted with power. He was moreover very much disposed to
suspect that the little man himself was at the bottom of the movement in
his favour, which was probably the fact. Still, the Doctor was compelled
to admit that there was much force in the arguments put forward, and he
was by no means disposed to press his own claims. He therefore gave his
assent; and from that moment the question was to be regarded as
practically settled, although the matter was kept a profound secret
among the persons most immediately concerned.
The Conservative members of the Council also held a caucus before the
day appointed for the election of a mayor. Their purpose was to organize
their forces, and to present the best front which their numerical
inferiority would admit of. They had assumed that Dr. Rolph would as a
matter of course be the choice of the Reform members for the chief
magistracy, and this assumption had been confirmed by common rumour, so
that they entertained no doubt on the subject. The selection met with
their full approval. In fact, unless a mayor was to be chosen from their
own number--a thing out of the question with such a preponderance of
Reform members--no man would have been so acceptable to them as Dr.
Rolph. He was known to and respected by them all, and it was felt that
he would fill the chair with credit to the city. They accordingly
resolved to give him their support, and one of their number, Mr. Thomas
Carfrae, Jr., wrote to him on the subject. But, Dr. Rolph had meanwhile
given his assent to the project of Mackenzie's election, and was not in
a position to accept support from any quarter. After careful
consideration he had determined to resign his seat in the Council. He
foresaw that Mackenzie would render himself unpopular, and deemed it
probable that he would be guilty of indiscretions which no public
representative of a political party could properly defend. The course of
subsequent events was such as to fully justify this forecast. Dr. Rolph
replied to Mr. Carfrae, thanking him for his offer of support, but
announcing that he was about to resign his seat. He also wrote to his
friend Dr. Morrison, one of the representatives of St. Andrew's Ward, to
the same effect. The contents of these two letters did not become known
until the meeting of the Council on the 3rd of April, otherwise steps
would unquestionably have been taken to prevent Mackenzie's election;
for the Reformers, with two or three exceptions, were not sufficiently
anxious to elect him to oust Dr. Rolph for his sake; and as for the
Conservatives, the idea of Mackenzie's elevation to the highest seat in
the Council would at all times have been simply intolerable to them. At
the appointed time all the aldermen and councilmen were in their places
except Dr. Rolph. The chair was temporarily taken by John Doel, one of
the representatives from St. Andrew's Ward. It was moved by Franklin
Jackes, councilman from St. David's Ward, and seconded by James Lesslie,
Mackenzie's colleague as aldermanic representative from the same ward,
"that William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire, be the mayor of this city." The
motion took the Conservative members completely by surprise, and they
did not attempt to conceal their dissatisfaction, and even disgust.
Several of them arose in succession, and spoke in favour of Dr. Rolph.
Dr. Morrison then announced Dr. Rolph's decision, and read his letter by
way of confirmation. Mr. Carfrae intimated that he had received from
the Doctor a letter to the same purport. There was thus no room for
further discussion. The pre-concerted programme was carried out.
Mackenzie received ten votes in support of his candidature, which
constituted a majority. He was declared duly elected, and took the chair
of honour. During the afternoon of the same day he took the prescribed
oath, and his authority was complete. He could boast that he was the
first mayor of Toronto, and also the first mayor ever elected in Upper
Canada.
Scarcely had he been installed in office ere he began to furnish
examples of that perverse and almost inconceivable want of judgment
which attended upon him from the beginning of his life to its end.
Knowing the light in which he was regarded by the Conservative members
of the Council, it might have been supposed that he would be specially
circumspect in his demeanour towards them, and careful not to give
gratuitous offence. On the contrary, he conducted himself like a
veritable Jack-in-Office, and disgusted not only the Conservatives but
some of his own friends. He was constantly intruding his personal
antagonisms upon the Council, and trying to induce the members to take
sides. His indiscretion in the matter of the famous "baneful domination"
letter is absolutely incomprehensible. The particulars can only be given
very briefly in these pages.
During the month of May, Mr. Mackenzie received from Joseph Hume, the
Radical member for Middlesex in the British House of Commons, an
extraordinary letter--a letter which, for violence of tone and
intemperance of language, might almost have been written by the editor
of the _Advocate_ himself. It referred to the Reverend Egerton Ryerson,
a leading minister of the Methodist Church and editor of _The Christian
Guardian_, in terms which it is astonishing to think that a gentleman in
Mr. Hume's position should have permitted himself to employ. Now,
Mackenzie had quarrelled with Mr. Ryerson not long before, and had
devoted much space in the _Advocate_ to maligning him. He saw here an
opportunity for a further attack, with which view he deliberately
published "copious extracts"[183] from the letter in the issue of his
paper dated the 22nd of May. The effect was electrical, for the
references to Mr. Ryerson, bad as they were, were not the portions of
the letter most calculated to excite astonishment in the public mind.
The phrase which called forth prompt execration from all classes of the
community was one in which the writer, referring to Mackenzie's last
election to the Assembly and his expulsion therefrom, characterized
those proceedings as events which must hasten the crisis that was fast
approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, and which would "terminate in
independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother
country." These extraordinary words--extraordinary as proceeding from a
British statesman to a colonist who was likewise a public
character--were printed in the _Advocate_, like the rest of the letter,
in large type. It was subsequently urged[184] on Mr. Hume's behalf that
he had not meant to imply _separation_ from the mother country, but only
an end to the false and pernicious system of governing the colony; and
this explanation was admitted by him[185] to express what he had
intended to signify. But if Mr. Hume could write so indiscreetly on such
a subject, what is to be thought of the newspaper editor and the
politician who had no better sense than to give such a production to the
world of Upper Canada, more especially while he himself occupied the
position of mayor of its most important city?
No sooner was the number of the _Advocate_ containing this letter in the
hands of the public than an outcry arose on every hand. The Tories saw
their advantage, and made the most of it. Now, it was said, the real
designs of Mackenzie and those who acted with him were no longer masked.
What they wanted was not constitutional Reform, but separation from the
Empire, and the establishment of a republic. And it was not only Tories
who spoke and felt thus. Persons who cordially hated the domination of
the Compact, and who had condemned the treatment of Mackenzie as
unconstitutional, tyrannical and unjust, now felt that such a man
deserved no sympathy. He was evidently a rebel at heart.[186] He had
brought reproach not only on himself, but upon the party to which he
belonged. Reform journals hastened to signify their repudiation of the
sentiments of the objectionable letter. "We profess ourselves Radical
Reformers," said the _Freeman_, "and willing to go any reasonable length
in correcting abuses, because we know extensive grievances have existed
both in the mother country and in these colonies.... but we cannot bring
ourselves to support violent and unprincipled factions." "It has often
been the misfortune," said _The British Whig_, of Kingston, "for those
who have laboured to emancipate the people of this colony from Tory
misrule to be accused of disaffection to the mother country, and of a
design to effect the substitution of a republican mode of Government for
their present monarchical form. That no accusation is more generally
false we are thoroughly satisfied; and yet, owing to the indiscreetness
of certain writers, the enemies of political change have had too many
opportunities afforded them to ground their assertions on something like
proof. Here is a letter published by a leading Reformer, without one
single remark in detestation of the doctrine it promulgates.... Does Mr.
Mackenzie sincerely believe that the independence of this Province
would be beneficial to its inhabitants; or is he of opinion that the
domination of the mother country is baneful? If he answer in the
negative, as we think he will, why in the name of common sense did he
afford his enemies so much occasion to brand him with disloyalty?" Said
_The Free Press_, of Hamilton, "It is not the domination of the mother
country that Reformers complain of; it is only the tyrannical conduct of
a small and despicable faction in the colony. The domination of the
mother country is as necessary to our present happiness and future
greatness as the mother's breast is to the infant." "There can be but
one opinion," said _The British American Journal_, of St. Catharines,
"in the minds of honest men, relative to the sentiments contained in
this letter. That they are seditious and revolutionary is painfully
evident; besides the language in which it is couched, the brief
reference to the important subjects treated of, and the peculiar manner
of its appearance before the Canadian public, irresistibly force the
conclusion upon our mind that it is the premature disclosure of a plan
long premeditated to separate the Canadas from the empire of Great
Britain, and either annex them to the confederated union of the States,
or establish separate independent republic Governments; as far as the
author or publisher of the letter is concerned, it is immaterial which."
Mackenzie himself was characterized as a man who was doing his best to
drive the people headlong and blindfold into rebellion. Such being the
tone of the Liberal press, that of the Tory journals may readily be
conceived. Some of them demanded that the Government should institute an
immediate prosecution of Mackenzie. Indignation meetings were held all
over the Province, at which loyal addresses to His Majesty were passed.
The Methodist Conference and other bodies, secular as well as religious,
hastened to pass resolutions condemnatory of Mr. Hume's sentiments, and
to forward the same to the Lieutenant-Governor. The excitement in
Toronto was tremendous. Before noon of the day on which the offensive
letter appeared in print a public meeting had been called to protest
against the disloyal sentiments embodied in it. It was numerously
attended, and, though a good many Reformers were present, a vote of
censure on Mackenzie was passed without a dissentient voice. The matter
was brought up in the City Council, and, though the support of the
Reform members enabled him to escape the official censure of that body,
he was compelled to submit to a series of criticisms which must have
been exceedingly galling to his feelings. By this one misguided act he
had contrived to do enough harm to far more than counterbalance any good
which had been effected through his mission to England; and there were
many Reformers who, in spite of all his protestations, never again felt
any confidence in him, politically or otherwise.
In his capacity of mayor he was fairly assiduous in his attention to
his duties. The city was subjected to a visitation of Asiatic cholera
during the year, and he appears to have done his utmost to stay the
progress of the pestilence, as well as to provide for the treatment of
the stricken patients. He was nevertheless guilty of a number of
indiscretions which rendered him odious to a large proportion of the
population. His pettiness of spirit was incessantly asserting itself. No
person in the community, however insignificant, was beneath his wrath
when his sense of personal dignity was wounded. On one occasion a
wretched woman of intemperate habits and loose character was brought
before him in the Mayor's Court. She was loquacious and abusive, and
Mackenzie, in a rage, ordered her to be placed in the public stocks.
There were still a public pillory and stocks within the city, but, like
those in Squire Hazeldean's parish, they had long been disused.
Mackenzie had probably never heard of the maxim _Quieta non movere_. At
any rate, the greater part of his life was spent in efforts in an
opposite direction. His sentence was carried out, and the culprit was
placed in the stocks. Had this been the act of a fossilized member of
the Compact it would not have appeared very incongruous, but in
Mackenzie it seemed ludicrously out of keeping with his professions. It
aroused the popular indignation against him to a higher pitch than ever;
but it had one good effect: it led to the removal and destruction of the
barbarous relics of mediaevalism. To Mackenzie belongs the questionable
credit of reviving their use when Tory magistrates had become ashamed to
employ them any longer. He is entitled to the further distinction of
being the last magistrate in Upper Canada to sanction their use; and
that, too, in the case of a poor and defenceless woman, whose
wretchedness ought to have removed her far from the possibility of his
vengeance.
A considerable part of the summer was spent by both the political
parties in the Province in preparing for the general election contest
which was to take place before the close of the year. It was held in
October. Had it been held some months earlier, while the public sympathy
with Mackenzie in consequence of his repeated expulsions was at its
height, an overwhelming preponderance of Reform members would have been
returned. The publication of Mr. Hume's letter in the interval had
alienated many sympathies and lost many votes to the Reform cause.
Still, there was a strong tendency throughout the greater part of the
Province in the direction of Reform, and the Reformers made
unprecedented exertions. They succeeded in winning to their side a large
number of the Roman Catholic electorate, and they absorbed most of the
recent arrivals from beyond sea. Bidwell and Perry were re-elected for
Lennox and Addington. William Benjamin Wells, a young lawyer of
twenty-five, who afterwards made some mark as a newspaper writer on the
Reform side, and from whose "Canadiana" several extracts have already
been made in these pages, was returned for the County of Grenville. He
was an Upper Canadian by birth, of U. E. Loyalist stock, and the
grandson of a volunteer who fought at the siege of Louisbourg. Oxford
returned for one of its members Dr. Charles Duncombe, who was destined
to take a conspicuous part in the insurrectionary events of two years
later. He was a medical practitioner of great intelligence and wide
influence, an eloquent and forcible speaker, and an ardent Reformer. He
resided on the Burford Plains, near the present village of Bishopsgate,
a few miles west of Brantford. The two members returned for the County
of Simcoe represented very nearly the two extremes of political opinion.
William Benjamin Robinson, a brother of the Chief Justice, was, as
became one of his race, the incarnation of Family Compact Toryism. His
colleague was Samuel Lount, whose name, owing to his untimely fate and
the melancholy circumstances attending it, arouses a host of sad
memories. It may safely be said that of all the victims of the rising of
1837 none has been so sincerely and generally mourned. His execution is
justly regarded in the light of a judicial murder and a stain upon our
country's annals. As a peculiar interest has ever since attached to his
name, and as but little is generally known with respect to him, it may
be proper to record a few particulars. He was born on the banks of the
Susquehanna River, in the State of Pennsylvania, on the 24th of
September, 1791. His father, Gabriel Lount, was an Englishman, and a
native of Bristol, who settled in the United States after the close of
the Revolutionary War, and married an American lady of English descent.
Gabriel Lount never lost his British proclivities during his residence
in the republic, and in the spring of the year 1811, accompanied by his
son and the rest of his family, he removed to Upper Canada. He settled
in the township of Whitchurch, where he practised as a surveyor, and in
the course of the nest few years laid out many official surveys for the
Provincial Government. Samuel, prior to his removal to Canada, had
learned the trade of a blacksmith, which he carried on for some years at
Holland Landing. He had a farm in the same neighbourhood which he
cultivated with much pecuniary success. Being a man of great industry
and intelligence, he gradually amassed considerable property, and became
what for those days might be regarded as wealthy. Better still, he
acquired the respect and confidence of the people around him, for he was
kind-hearted and generous, and spent much of his time in ministering to
the necessities of those incoming settlers who were less advantageously
situated than himself. To this day the neighbourhood abounds with
traditions of his noble unselfishness, and there are old men and women
who, after the lapse of half a century, cannot speak of Samuel Lount
without a dimness of vision and a huskiness of the voice.[187] Though a
zealous loyalist, he was an enthusiastic Reformer, and vehemently
opposed to the domination of the faction whose selfishness went far to
paralyze the life of the Province. He was an excellent speaker, and
during election contests did much to awaken public opinion on the
fruitful subject of Executive abuses. He now, in response to pressing
solicitations, allowed himself to be nominated as a candidate for the
representation of Simcoe in the Assembly, and, as has been seen, was
returned for that constituency along with an ultra-Tory. In personal
appearance he was considerably above the medium height, and of robust
figure; of dark complexion, and with a pleasant, intelligent expression
of countenance.
[Illustration: I am your obt Servant
David Gibson][TR: Handwritten.]
The County of York, smarting under a sense of indignity and partial
disfranchisement, rendered itself specially conspicuous in the contest.
During the preceding year an Act[188] had been passed extending and
readjusting the representation of the County, and dividing it for
electoral purposes into four Ridings, designated respectively the First,
Second, Third and Fourth. Each of these now returned a Radical Reformer.
The First Riding returned David Gibson, a land surveyor who resided on
Yonge Street, about eight miles north of the city, near the present
village of Willowdale. He was of Scottish nationality, having been born
in the parish of Glammis, Forfarshire, on the 9th of March, 1804. Within
legitimate bounds there was no more pronounced Reformer in the Province
than Mr. Gibson, whose house was a sort of rendezvous or place of
meeting for party caucuses. He was an honourable and high-minded man,
much esteemed by his neighbours, and in high favour with his party. The
Second Riding chose Mackenzie. Many of the voters disapproved of some of
his acts, but his paper was largely read among them, and it was felt
that some recompense was due to him for the indignities which he had
suffered. The Third Riding returned Dr. Thomas David Morrison, of
Toronto, who has already been referred to in connection with the
municipal affairs of the city. He was a physician enjoying a good
practice; a man of good sense and wise counsels, and a prominent
personage in the ranks of Reform. For the Fourth Riding was returned
John Mackintosh, a resident of Toronto, and a connexion, by marriage, of
Mackenzie. He was a steady Reformer, of no remarkable abilities, who a
few months previously had been elected President of the Metropolitan
District Reform Convention, and was known to be to a large extent under
Mackenzie's control. Such were the four York representatives.
At the close of the contest the Reformers of the Province had secured a
certain majority, which led them to look eagerly forward to the meeting
of Parliament, although, with the exception of Bidwell and Perry, their
best and most trusted chiefs had no seats therein. Rolph and the
Baldwins had positively refused to stand for any of the constituencies,
although strongly urged to do so. They seem to have felt that the
political pulse was not healthy, and that no credit was to be won,
either for themselves or for the Reform cause, while the morbid symptoms
continued. The worst symptom of all in their eyes was the ascendency of
Mackenzie and his satellites among the rural and uneducated part of the
community.[189] With this ascendency they were wholly out of accord, and
they awaited the time when he should find his proper level in public
opinion. Dr. Rolph had brought himself to acquiesce in this estimate of
Mackenzie with great reluctance; and it is probable that his strong
suspicions of double-dealing in the matter of the mayoralty election had
something to do with his change of views.
By this time Mackenzie had become tired of publishing the _Advocate_,
which was not a commercial success. Early in November the last number
published under his auspices made its appearance, and the editor was at
liberty to devote his chief energies to his legislative duties.[190]
During the second week in December he and a number of his political
friends formed what they called the Canadian Alliance Society, for the
promotion of Responsible Government, the abolition of the law of
Primogeniture, the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, and other
needful reforms, most of which have since been conceded. At the
beginning of the new year (1835) Mackenzie again offered himself as a
candidate for the representation of St. David's Ward in the City Council
of Toronto, but he was defeated by Robert Baldwin Sullivan, a brilliant
Toronto lawyer, and a kinsman of Robert Baldwin. The Council elected the
successful candidate as mayor for the ensuing year.
FOOTNOTES:
[181] _Ante_, p. 187.
[182] "To his instruction, and the love of knowledge which he never
failed to inspire in those who came within the magic of his eloquence,
many men who have since made their mark on the history of Canada owe
their first start in intellectual progress. Notable among these is the
present Chief Superintendent of Education, who has acknowledged that if
he has achieved any distinction, it is mainly due to the love of
knowledge with which he was inspired by the eloquence and example of Dr.
Rolph." Such was the late Dr. Ryerson's own testimony, as published in
the _Journal of Education_, upon Dr. Rolph's death in 1870.
[183] The phrase is Mackenzie's own. See his remarks preceding the
extracts in the _Advocate_ of May 22nd.
[184] By Dr. Morrison in the Toronto City Council. See the report of the
proceedings of that body at the meeting held on Monday, June 9th, 1834.
On the subject generally, see the pamphlet published in Toronto in 1834
entitled _The Celebrated Letter of Joseph Hume_, etc.
[185] In a letter dated 14th July, 1834, and published in the _Advocate_
of September 25th. Mr. Hume there states his meaning to have been "that
the misrule of the Government in Canada, and the monopolizing selfish
domination of such men as had lately (though but a small faction of the
people) resisted all improvement and reform, would lose the countenance
of the authorities in Downing Street, and leave the people in freedom to
manage their own affairs."
[186] The following extract is from a cleverly-written letter signed "O.
P. Q.," which appeared in the _Courier_ of June 5th, 1834. It spoke the
sentiments of nearly all the newspapers in the country, of whatsoever
shade of politics: "But for that letter the people of this Province
might long remain in ignorance of the real motives by which your conduct
has been actuated. They might long regard you as a persecuted
patriot.... But your imprudence or your vanity has been the means of
completely unmasking and placing you before the people of this country
in all the naked deformity of an acknowledged traitor. Henceforth you
must be content to be regarded as the secret abettor of a heartless
conspiracy.... Do not think, Sir, that these are the sentiments of a
violent political opponent who approves of the measures adopted towards
you by the House of Assembly.... These views, Sir, are the views of a
man who has ever denounced the course your adversaries have pursued
towards you as unwise, unjust and unconstitutional. They are the
sentiments of a man who, if he had the power to punish the persons who
first rose you from poverty, ignominy and ruin, to comparative affluence
and popular notoriety, would have sent the destroyers of your press to
less favoured regions. They are the sentiments of one who had up to the
publication of the letter ... regarded you as a man attached to the
institutions of your country.... It is an old adage, 'Give him rope
enough,' etc. You have a moderate quantity, and if the avowal of such
sentiments as you have lately promulgated do not afford you a few yards
more, you may regard yourself as infinitely more fortunate than many
better and bolder men."
[187] "To the many poor settlers who came from Europe, and obtained
grants of lands from the government, he was a friend and adviser, and in
cases of necessity their wants were supplied from his purse or his
granaries. Many is the time, said some of our fellow-prisoners, that we
have seen him, after the toils of the day were over, leave his home to
carry provisions for miles through the pathless forest, to the shanty of
some poor and destitute settler, who with wife and family were rendered
by want and sickness utterly destitute. Those acquainted with the
history of new settlements need not be told how often those who have
been accustomed to better days are obliged to embark in a new career of
life, the duties of which they are totally ignorant and wholly unfitted
for, nor how often sickness is engendered by their great bodily
exertions, by neglect and deprivation. In a country like that in which
Mr. Lount was settled, the inhabitants resided far apart, and consisted
generally of old, worn, and superannuated British officers, who, at the
close of the war, pitched their tents, for the last time, in the
wilderness. The sums which they obtained from the sale of their
half-pay, almost expended in the transportation of their little
families, before arriving on the lands assigned them by
government--unfitted, from their former pursuits, to bear the drudgery
their new course of life required, it was frequently the case, that
before they could raise anything from their lands, they became perfectly
destitute of the necessaries of subsistence. Too proud to seek
assistance, they would starve rather than communicate their situation;
but in Lount, their generous neighbour, they found one quick to discover
and prompt in affording relief, and he would minister to their wants
with such delicacy that the most sensitive would experience a pleasure
rather than the pang of wounded pride."--Theller's _Canada in 1837-38_,
vol. i., pp. 233, 234. I transfer these remarks, not because I have any
respect for Theller's personal testimony on any subject, but because in
the present instance his language clearly expresses the general
sentiment of the period with regard to Samuel Lount, and is confirmed by
the remembrance of many persons still living in and near Holland
Landing.
[188] 3 Wm. IV., c. 15, passed 13th February, 1833.
[189] In the preceding February Dr. Baldwin had thus written in reply to
a notification to attend as a delegate at the District Convention: "This
honour I beg leave to decline, and for this reason: that having
heretofore served the country to the utmost of my humble abilities as
their representative in Parliament, with the sincerest integrity of
purpose in maintenance of popular rights, unspotted, I trust, by one
single vote of a contrary tendency, I, together with many others of the
staunchest friends of those rights, experienced such extreme fickleness
of popular opinion that this conclusion has long been formed in my mind:
that the great body of the people of this Province (without doubt there
are many honourable exceptions), in no wise ignorant of their rights or
the great value of them, are nevertheless shamefully indifferent into
whose hands they commit their preservation and due exercise. Experience
alone must teach the people. This experience is coming to them by
painful lessons.... Under these circumstances I beg you will make my
apology," etc. The letter appears in the _Advocate_ of March 13th, 1834,
following one to a similar purport from Dr. Rolph.
[190] It was continued for some time after by another hand, under the
name of _The Correspondent and Advocate_.