"A TRIED REFORMER."
Sir Francis Head, upon reaching Toronto on Saturday, the 23rd of
January, temporarily took up his quarters at a hotel, where apartments
had been engaged for him. He was not a little surprised, as he rode
along the streets, to see himself placarded in large letters on the
walls as "Sir Francis Head, a Tried Reformer." What a farce the thing
must have appeared in his eyes, knowing, as he did, that up to the date
of receiving the king's messenger, he had never read a page of practical
politics; that he had never recorded a political vote, and that he was
at this present moment, to use his own frank expression, no more
connected with human politics than the horses that were drawing him! How
he must have marvelled at Fate for playing him such a trick! On the same
day, at the urgent request of Sir John Colborne, he removed to
Government House. On Monday, the 25th, he was sworn into office as
Lieutenant-Governor; and on Tuesday Sir John and his family took their
departure for Montreal. The Compact took care that their staunch friend
should not leave the seat of his Government without some mark of what
might pass for popular favour. A crowd of persons was got together to
cheer as Sir John passed along the streets on his way eastward, and a
stranger might have been excused for believing that the
ex-Lieutenant-Governor was regarded by the populace with feelings of the
warmest affection. He proceeded to Montreal, and had arranged to sail
from New York for England, when he received a despatch appointing him
Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Canada. He accordingly repaired to
Quebec, the capital of the Lower Province, which was already in a state
of ferment, and preparing for the outburst which ensued towards the
close of the following year.
Sir Francis being now formally installed in office, an era of Reform was
commonly supposed to have begun. His manner and address were in the
highest degree pleasing, and he at first produced a most favourable
impression upon all who came within the immediate circle of his
influence. The Reform press sang paeans in his praise. He held no sooner
received his appointment than Joseph Hume had written to Mackenzie
congratulating the Province on the circumstance, and stating that the
conduct and principles of Sir Francis had been much approved of. "My
anxiety is," wrote Mr. Hume, "that you and all the Reformers should
receive Sir Francis in the best possible manner, and do everything
consistent with principle to meet his views and wishes."[210] The fact
was that Mr. Hume was in precisely the same condition as Lord Glenelg
himself with respect to Sir Francis: that is to say, he knew nothing
whatever about him. He seems to have very unwisely taken it for granted
that the new Lieutenant-Governor was a good man for the position because
he had been appointed under Whig auspices. His letter found its way into
all the Reform newspapers in Upper Canada, and Sir Francis had no reason
to complain of the treatment he received at their hands. He was welcomed
as the "Tried Reformer" for whom they had so long prayed in vain. The
Tories and Conservatives, on the other hand, naturally regarded him with
considerable apprehension. They entertained no doubt that his advent
boded their downfall; but they were too wise to betray any solicitude,
and quietly waited the march of events. Parliament being in session, he
received from both Houses congratulatory addresses upon his assumption
of the Government. On the 27th he went down to the Council Chamber, and
made a brief and rather meaningless speech to the Legislature.[211] "As
regards myself," said he, "I have nothing either to promise or profess,
but I trust I shall not call in vain upon you to give me that loyal,
constitutional, unbiased and fearless assistance which your King
expects, and which the rising interests of your country require." He had
been directed by Lord Glenelg to communicate to the Provincial
Legislature the substance of his instructions. He not only communicated
the substance, but a verbatim copy of the letter itself, together with a
copy of the appendix, to each of the Houses. By this injudicious
proceeding he caused no little embarrassment to the Colonial Secretary,
and proved his utter want of experience in diplomatic affairs.[212] Lord
Glenelg, in common with the official world of Great Britain generally,
felt and expressed strong disapprobation of this extraordinary conduct
on the part of the Lieutenant-Governor, who ought to have been recalled
for this act alone, and probably would have been but for the difficulty
of finding a competent man to succeed him.
A certain space must be devoted to an examination of these instructions.
Speaking generally, it may be premised that they showed a disposition to
conciliate the discontent of the colonists, but only after a partial and
piecemeal fashion, such as might be exercised towards persons in a state
of tutelage. It was evident that the Home Government regarded the
colonists as persons who had not reached full political stature, who
were not in all cases able to judge as to what was best for themselves,
and who needed the constant supervision of calmer and loftier
intelligences than their own. In reply to the allegation that the number
of public offices in the colony was in excess of the people's needs, it
was said that in Upper Canada, as in other new countries, the number of
public employments was necessarily larger in proportion than in older
and more densely-peopled states. "In the early stages of such a
society," wrote Lord Glenelg, "many duties devolve upon the Government
which, at a more advanced period, are undertaken by the better educated
and wealthier classes, as an honourable occupation of their leisure
time." He went on to say that His Majesty's Government were not
solicitous to retain more patronage than was necessary for the people's
welfare, but that the selection of public officers must be entrusted to
the head of the local Government, and could not wisely be exercised in
any form of popular election, or committed to any popular body. Such
exercise or transfer, it was suggested, would be destructive of
responsibility and discipline. This doctrine was laid down as a general
rule of action, but any wish to urge it beyond its just and necessary
limits was expressly disclaimed, and it was even suggested that there
were cases in which the doctrine might be contravened. There was no
attempt to go into details as to specific cases, but it was stated as a
general principle that whatever patronage was necessary to maintain
perfect subordination to the prerogatives of the Crown must be retained,
and that whatever was unnecessary for that purpose should be abandoned.
His Excellency was directed to review and consider the subject with
diligence, and to report the result of his investigation. Should he
meanwhile deem it wise to reduce the number of offices, either by
abolition or consolidation, he was authorized to exercise his discretion
in that respect, but any appointment made under such circumstances was
to be merely provisional, and subject to cancellation by the Home
Government. In the selection of persons for public offices his
Excellency was to be guided exclusively by the comparison of the claims
of the candidates by reason of past services or personal qualifications;
and as a general rule no person was to be appointed to office who was
not either a native of the Province or a settled inhabitant of it.
Exceptions to this latter rule were admitted where a knowledge of some
particular art or science was demanded, and where no Provincial
candidate could be found possessing the necessary qualifications. His
Excellency was also left free from restriction in the choice of those
officers immediately attached to his own person. There were various
other directions, not necessary to be specified, on the subjects of
patronage and pensions, salaries and fees, and the Provincial Post
Office. The Clergy Reserves question was dealt with in the most general
manner, no definite course being suggested; and the instructions on this
subject are absolutely devoid of historical or other value. With regard
to the Land-Granting Department, it was assumed that some of the
grievances had been remedied. Reference was made to a despatch of Lord
Ripon's on the subject, and it was stated that any ambiguity therein was
to be removed, while prompt obedience to the instructions embodied
therein was inculcated. Upper Canada College, established by Sir John
Colborne only five years before this time, had already become a ground
of offence to many Reformers. The Assembly, in their Address to His
Majesty, had declared that it was upheld at great public expense, with
high salaries to its principal masters. They had expressed the opinion
that the Province in general derived very little advantage from it, and
that it might be dispensed with. On this subject Lord Glenelg remarked
that there was no desire to retain any charge for the establishment more
than sufficient to suitably provide for the effective performance of the
teachers; but the advantages of such an institution, it was said, ought
to be great, and if the Province derived no benefit from it the
explanation was to be found in some error of management susceptible of
remedy. His Lordship remarked that he should deeply lament the abolition
of a college "of which the defects would appear so remediable, and of
which it does not seem easy to exaggerate the benefits." As for King's
College, which was another educational bone of contention between the
two branches of the Provincial Legislature, it was intimated that His
Majesty would cheerfully resume the consideration of the charter,
provided the assent of both Houses to his doing so could be obtained,
but that, as the subject had been committed to the local Legislature, he
could not withdraw it from their cognizance at the instance of one
branch only. The system of auditing the public accounts had been
complained of as being insufficient for ensuring the proper application
of the revenue. As a remedy, the establishment of a Board of Audit, the
regulation of which should be secured by well-considered legislation,
had been suggested. In this suggestion the Colonial Secretary expressed
his concurrence, and he transmitted various documents explanatory of the
system of auditing the public accounts of the Kingdom. The Assembly
having expressed its belief that the Legislative Council would not
assent to any efficient legislation on the subject, the
Lieutenant-Governor was empowered, in case of that belief being
realized, to constitute a provisional Board of Audit. To remedy another
evil which had been complained of--the withholding of public accounts
from the Assembly--it was proposed that a statute should be passed
providing the time and manner of making periodical returns, and naming
the officers who should render them to the Legislature. Then followed
brief instructions to be observed by the Lieutenant-Governor in his
intercourse with the Assembly. "You will always," wrote his Lordship,
"receive the addresses of the Assembly with the most studious attention
and courtesy. As far as may be consistent with your duty to the King,
you will accede to their wishes cheerfully and frankly. Should that duty
ever compel you to differ from their opinion, or to decline compliance
with their desires, you will explain in the most direct, and of course
in the most conciliatory terms, the ground of your conduct." His
Excellency was instructed to adopt Lord Goderich's despatch to Sir John
Colborne of the 8th of November, 1832,[213] as a rule for the guidance
of his conduct. He was directed to select Justices of the Peace without
reference to political considerations. In the Grievance Committee's
Report, as well as in the Address from the Assembly to the King, great
stress had been laid on the mode of appointing members of the
Legislative Council. It had been represented that that body had utterly
failed to answer the ends for which it had been created, and that the
restoration of legislative harmony and good government required its
reconstruction on the elective principle.[214] The inhabitants of the
Lower Province felt still more strongly on this subject than did their
fellow-colonists in Upper Canada, and had made urgent representations to
His Majesty thereupon in ninety-two resolutions which had been adopted
by the local Assembly during the session of 1834. "The greatest defect
in the constitution of Canada," said they, "is the right of nomination,
by the Crown, of the Legislative Councillors." These resolutions had led
to the appointment by the Imperial Government of a commission of
investigation into the affairs of Lower Canada, and as the principles
bearing upon the question of an elective Legislative Council were the
same in both Provinces, Lord Glenelg now contented himself with
appending the instructions issued to the commissioners, and referring to
the views therein contained as having received the deliberate sanction
of the King. A similar device was adopted with respect to the demand for
the control by the Assembly of the territorial and casual revenues of
the Crown.
The one great overshadowing question of Executive responsibility was
dealt with by Lord Glenelg in a most perfunctory and unsatisfactory
manner. It was apparent that he either wholly failed to grasp the real
significance of the theme, or that he fenced with it for the mere
purpose of beguiling the colonists with a counterfeit presentment.
"Experience would seem to prove," he wrote, "that the administration of
public affairs in Canada is by no means exempt from the control of a
sufficient practical responsibility. To His Majesty and to Parliament
the Governor of Upper Canada is at all times most fully responsible for
his official acts. That this responsibility is not merely nominal, but
that His Majesty feels the most lively interest in the welfare of his
Canadian subjects, and is ever anxious to devote a patient and laborious
attention to any representations which they may address to him, either
through their representatives or as individuals, is proved not only by
the whole tenor of the correspondence of my predecessors in this office,
but by the despatch which I am now addressing to you. That the Imperial
Parliament is not disposed to receive with inattention the
representations of their Canadian fellow-subjects is attested by the
labours of the committees which have been appointed by the House of
Commons during the last few years to inquire into matters relating to
those Provinces." It was declared to be the Lieutenant-Governor's duty
to vindicate to the King and the Imperial Parliament every act of his
administration. In the event of any complaint being preferred against
him, his conduct was to receive the most favourable construction. The
Assembly, it was said, were at all times able to invoke the
interference of the King and Parliament. Every public officer was
to depend on the King's pleasure--_i.e._, upon the pleasure of the
Lieutenant-Governor--for the tenure of his office. Certain rules were
then laid down, the observance of which, it was said, would produce a
system of perfect responsibility. As these rules differed in no
essential respect from those which had consistently been acted upon by
Francis Gore, Sir Peregrine Maitland and Sir John Colborne, it was
evident that the system of responsibility contemplated by Lord Glenelg
was not identical with that desired by Upper Canadian Reformers. Lord
Glenelg certainly made good his asseveration that the Upper Canadian
Executive were "practically responsible." But to whom were they
responsible? To the Upper Canadian people? Not at all. The
responsibility was to the King and Parliament of Great Britain--that is
to say, to Downing Street, several thousand miles away. Of what avail
was such responsibility, guarded, as it was, by secret despatches, "like
a system of espionage"?[215] Had this responsibility to Downing Street
ever saved "a single martyr to Executive displeasure"?[216] Had it been
of any avail for the protection of Robert Gourlay, Captain Matthews,
Francis Collins or Robert Randal? Had it preserved from the dry pan and
the slow fire any one of a score of individuals whose only offence
against the State was that they would not willingly sacrifice their
rights, and become the tools of venality and corruption? In not one
solitary instance had it served any such purpose. Such responsibility
was a mockery, "a broken reed, which it would be folly ever again to
rest upon."[217] Of real, constitutional responsibility to the people
there was not so much as a pretence. "All the powers of the Government,"
says Mr. Lindsey, "were centralized in Downing Street, and all the
colonial officers, from the highest to the lowest, were puppets in the
hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the same time, the
outward trappings of a constitutional system, intended to amuse the
colonists, served no other end than to irritate and exasperate men who
had penetration enough to detect the mockery, and whose self-respect
made them abhor the sham."[218]
In an early paragraph of these instructions, Lord Glenelg had objected,
on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to any resort on the part of the
Assembly to that ulterior measure--the stoppage of the supplies--to
which allusion had been made in the Address of that body, and had
referred to it as a proceeding to be justified only by an extreme
emergency. He concluded with an expression of earnest hope that the
representatives of the Upper Canadian people would receive with
gratitude and cordiality this renewed proof of His Majesty's paternal
solicitude for the welfare of his loyal subjects in the Province, and
that, laying aside all groundless distrusts, they would cheerfully
cooeperate with the King and the Lieutenant-Governor in advancing the
prosperity of "that interesting and valuable portion of the British
Empire."
As already mentioned, the full text of the instructions was communicated
by the new Lieutenant-Governor to the Upper Canadian Assembly. Apart
from the fact that this proceeding was not warranted either by usage or
express permission, it was short-sighted and unwise, for the
instructions were not such as to be by any means satisfactory, either to
the official party or the Opposition. The Opposition perceived that,
under a cover of many fair words and specious phrases, there was very
little substantial concession. To the official party it seemed that the
spirit of concession was manifested much too strongly, and as the
appointment of Sir Francis Head had been hailed by the Reformers as a
triumph, anything in the nature of concession, filtered through such a
medium, was naturally regarded with strong suspicion. As for Sir Francis
himself, his mind seems to have been for some weeks in a chaotic state.
He had not been installed in office many days before he had a succession
of private interviews with several leading members of the Reform party.
In the course of a conversation with Mr. Bidwell, who, it will be
remembered, was Speaker of the Assembly, he for the first time became
aware that the Report of the Grievance Committee was not recognized by
the Reform party as being a complete exposition of the case as between
the Home Government and themselves.[219] He soon after had an interview
with Mackenzie, who, in conjunction with Dr. Morrison, was chiefly
responsible for the existence of the Report. "I thought," writes Sir
Francis,[220] "that of course he would be too happy to discuss with me
the contents of his own book, but his mind seemed to nauseate its
subjects even more than Mr. Bidwell's. Afraid to look me in the face, he
sat, with his feet not reaching the ground, and with his countenance
averted from me, at an angle of about seventy degrees; while, with the
eccentricity, the volubility, and indeed the appearance of a madman, the
tiny creature raved about grievances here and grievances there, which
the Committee, he said, had not ventured to enumerate." This was a
revelation to the Lieutenant-Governor, and set him thinking. He
attempted to discuss the merits of the Report with various persons, but
encountered what was to him an inexplicable reluctance to talk about it.
All were ready to discuss the grievances themselves, but no leading
Reformer was disposed to admit the Report into the discussion. The
reason of this was doubtless because the Report had been chiefly
fathered by Mackenzie, and they were unwilling to accept him as their
mouthpiece. As for Mackenzie's own disinclination to enter into a
discussion of the matter, it probably arose from a feeling that it would
be unwise for him to tie himself down to a particular record, beyond
which he would not be permitted to travel. Sir Francis, writing three
years afterwards, declares that "the light of truth" at once burst upon
his mind, and that he perceived that the Grievance Report was a mere
pretext for Rebellion.[221] It is quite clear that he perceived nothing
of the kind, and that "the light of truth" was a mere after-thought with
him. It is impossible for one in his sober senses to see what does not
exist, and at this time there was no purpose of rebellion in the heart
of anyone with whom the Lieutenant-Governor came in contact--not even in
the heart of Mackenzie himself, who might easily have been conciliated
by wisdom and prudence. Had Sir Francis been half as clever and astute
as he professed to believe himself to be--nay, had he even been fairly
honest and truthful, and possessed of the most ordinary good
sense--there would probably have been no such thing as an Upper Canadian
Rebellion.
He had not been a fortnight in the country when suggestions began to be
made to him from various quarters as to the membership of the Executive
Council. That body, for the nonce, consisted of only three persons,
namely, Peter Robinson, Commissioner of Crown Lands; George Herchmer
Markland, Inspector-General; and Joseph Wells, Bursar of King's
College. The presence of all three of these persons was necessary to the
formation of a quorum, and in case of the illness or unavoidable absence
of any one of them the public business would have been interrupted and
delayed. Mr. Robinson, moreover, was not only an Executive Councillor,
but, as just mentioned, was also Commissioner of Crown Lands. In the
former capacity the duty was imposed upon him of taking part in the
auditing of his own accounts. This invidious necessity would no longer
exist if additional members were appointed, as a quorum could easily be
obtained without Mr. Robinson's presence being required at the Council
Board. These facts were indisputable, and the argument to be deduced
therefrom was unanswerable. Additional Councillors must be appointed.
But from what class of the community should they be selected? Sir
Francis, the "Tried Reformer," had begun to conceive a distaste for the
Reformers of Upper Canada. There seemed to be a natural antagonism
between him and them. The reason is not far to seek. Persons of the
social grade of Mackenzie were inconceivably odious to this "diner-out
of the first water;" while men like Bidwell and Baldwin made him
painfully conscious of his own littleness and insufficiency for the task
which he had undertaken. Yet he could not venture to call to his Council
any of the remnant of the Tory Compact, and thereby utterly ignore the
Liberal principles which were presumed to have dictated his appointment.
The Tories, moreover, had seen fit to petition the King against his very
first administrative act--the appointment of a Surveyor-General. As for
the Conservatives, as distinct from the Tories, they had not yet
formulated a distinct policy, and none of their leaders had come very
conspicuously to the front.
It seemed clear, then, that the choice must be made from the Reform
ranks. After much deliberation and inquiry,[222] the Lieutenant-Governor
came to the conclusion that approaches should be made to Robert Baldwin,
a gentleman to whom he refers as "highly respected for his moral
character, being moderate in his politics, and possessing the esteem and
confidence of all parties."[223] His Excellency's resolve on this
subject was approved of by the Speakers of the two Houses, as well as
by the three members of the Council, to all of whom the project was
submitted before any attempt was made to carry it out. When the proposal
was made to Mr. Baldwin it was received by him with becoming respect,
but with a coolness of demeanour which was far from flattering to the
vanity of Sir Francis, who seems to have expected that the recipient
would be well-nigh overwhelmed by the honour. The latter stated that he
was very reluctant to again embark in public life, and he explained his
views on the political situation with great frankness. There were
several interviews, in the course of which Sir Francis did his utmost to
induce Mr. Baldwin to accede to his wishes. Mr. Baldwin required time
for consideration, an indulgence which was of course accorded. The
Lieutenant-Governor being anxious to carry his point, sent for Mr.
Baldwin's father, Dr. W. W. Baldwin, for the purpose of securing his
influence in the negotiations. Father and son were both of one mind.
There was little or nothing in common between the political sentiments
of the three members of the existing Executive Council and the man whom
it was proposed to add to their number. How, then, could it be expected
that they would agree as to the policy of the Administration. If they
did not agree, what would Mr. Baldwin's single voice avail against the
other three? And, even admitting that this anomaly could be got rid of,
it was deemed necessary that there should be some understanding on the
subject of Executive responsibility before Mr. Baldwin could consent to
accept a seat in the Council. He and his father, from whom his political
ideas had been chiefly derived, had for years contended that Responsible
Government already existed in Upper Canada by virtue of the
Constitutional Act, and that when a Government failed to command a
majority of votes in the Assembly it was legally bound to resign. It was
of course notorious that this principle had never been recognized by the
Provincial Administration, but Mr. Baldwin was of opinion that the
constitution had been systematically violated in this particular. In
talking over the matter with the Lieutenant-Governor he now discovered
that the latter was entirely unacquainted with constitutional questions,
and that he had no ideas on the subject whatever, beyond such as he had
picked up within the past few days. Still, his Excellency's good temper,
and his seeming anxiety to do his duty, won upon the sympathies of Mr.
Baldwin, who naturally felt desirous to be of service to a man who had
come to Canada in the guise of a tried Reformer, and who professed to be
actuated by a sincere desire to govern the colony on Liberal principles.
After several courteous refusals, and after much consideration and
repeated consultations with his friends, Mr. Baldwin consented to accept
office, provided that seats in the Council were at the same time offered
to his father, and to Dr. Rolph and Mr. Bidwell. Dr. Baldwin was so
unwilling to accept the cares of office that his name was dropped by
common consent. To Dr. Rolph no objection was felt, but his Excellency
had conceived an antagonism towards Mr. Bidwell, with whom he had had
frequent interviews, and who had not scrupled to express himself with
much freedom on the necessity for a regular system of Provincial Reform.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed that John Henry Dunn, the
Provincial Receiver-General, should be substituted for Mr. Bidwell. Mr.
Dunn was not a member of any political party, nor had he any special
aptitude for political life; but he was a man of high character and
moderate views, and was held in much public estimation. On Saturday the
20th of February the three new Councillors were sworn into office and
gazetted, "until the King's pleasure be known."[224] The three old
members retained their places.
This manifestation of a resolve to carry on the Government of the
Province by means of Councillors possessing the public confidence was
hailed with great favour by the Reform party, and indeed by the
Conservatives as well, for Messieurs Baldwin, Rolph and Dunn were
persons for whom the highest respect was felt by all classes of the
community, and were regarded as being altogether above suspicion. Even
the members of the Compact were disposed to favour the arrangement, for,
in consequence of rumours which had reached their ears, they had dreaded
that the Lieutenant-Governor might possibly ally himself with the
Radicals, who, if placed in power, would have done their utmost to exact
a reckoning for past abuses. Upon the whole, then, Sir Francis had
materially strengthened his position. But the strength was fictitious
rather than real, and the baseless fabric which he had reared with such
pains quickly tottered and fell. The three new Councillors were not long
in discovering that their places were sinecures. His Excellency wanted
none of their counsel, and had no intention of permitting them to have
any real voice in the carrying-on of the Government. To one person only
did he apply for advice in every emergency. That person was not a member
of the Government, and was therefore an unsworn counsellor, under no
semblance of responsibility to anybody. He was a power behind the
throne, with all the privileges and none of the disabilities attaching
to such a position. The gentleman elevated to this anomalous dignity was
Chief Justice Robinson, Speaker of the Legislative Council, the
master-spirit of the Family Compact, and the life-long champion of those
very abuses which the "Tried Reformer" was currently supposed to have
been sent out to remove. The Councillors, old as well as new, were
treated as mere figure-heads. They were consulted about land matters and
insignificant questions of detail, but the policy and measures of the
Government seldom passed under their review, or were submitted to them
for advice.[225] Some of these measures were such as they could not
approve or sanction. His Excellency nominated two adherents of the old
official party to vacant offices upon which they had no sort of claim.
He refused the royal assent to the Felons' Counsel Bill, a measure
"demanded by justice and humanity, and passed for more than ten years,
almost unanimously, by repeated and different Houses of Assembly."[226]
The Councillors were thus made to seem responsible for acts over which
they had no control, and of which some of them, at least, highly
disapproved. The Reform party were astonished to see such things done
under the auspices of a Government of which Robert Baldwin and Dr. Rolph
were members. They however acquitted both those gentleman of having
advised such acts. It was believed by Reformers generally that the three
new Councillors were not consulted, or else that the old members, with
the umpirage of the Lieutenant-Governor, predominated.[227]
This state of things could not be allowed to continue. The Executive
Councillors consulted together, and determined upon a remonstrance with
the Lieutenant-Governor. This remonstrance was formally prepared in
writing, and sent in to his Excellency on Friday, the 4th of March. The
three old members concurred in it, and it was signed by all the six in
order of seniority. The mere fact of this concurrence affords strong
evidence of the growth of the power of public opinion in the Province.
In past times members of the Executive Council had been content to pose
as figure-heads year after year, while John Beverley Robinson and one or
two others manipulated and directed the whole course of public affairs.
It is probable, however, that in the present instance the three senior
Councillors may have been influenced by the arguments of Baldwin and
Rolph, who felt very strongly on the question at issue.
The Lieutenant-Governor's reply, every paragraph of which bears evidence
of the Chief Justice's cunning hand, is dated on the following day, but
was not actually communicated until the next regular Council day, which
was Thursday, the 10th. It contained a firm but courteous expression of
his Excellency's dissent from the opinions expressed by the Executive
Councillors as to their privileges and duties. It was contended that the
Lieutenant-Governor was the sole responsible minister, and the
difference between the constitution of the mother-country and the colony
was referred to as being highly advantageous to the latter. His
Excellency, it was said, was only bound to consult his Council when he
felt the need of their advice, and to do so on the innumerable subjects
upon which he was daily compelled to decide would be "as utterly
impossible as for any one but himself to decide upon what points his
mind required or needed" advice. The position taken by the Councillors
was declared to be unconstitutional, but his Excellency informed them
that his estimation of their talents and integrity, as well as his
personal regard for them, remained unshaken, and that he was not
insensible to the difficulties to which he would be exposed should they
deem it necessary to resign. He added, however, that should they be of
opinion that their oaths required them to retire from office, he begged
that they would not on his account hesitate to do so. As they were very
strongly of that opinion, they waited on his Excellency on Saturday, the
12th, and tendered their resignations, which were accepted. They had
held office precisely three weeks.
The clue to this puzzle is easily found. Sir Francis had conceived an
utter distaste for the persons and political principles of the Reformers
of Upper Canada. There was an inherent antagonism between the nature of
this shallow, feather-brained sketcher by the wayside and the natures of
men like Rolph, Bidwell and the Baldwins, whose quiet earnestness and
fixity of purpose had been intensified by the long course of injustice
to which they, in common with their party, had been subjected. The
earnestness of these gentlemen presented itself to him in the light of
importunity, if not of impertinence. He could hardly be expected to
sympathize very strongly with their unconquerable zeal for principles
which he did not understand: which he was perhaps incapable of
understanding. Then, Sir Francis was an eminently social personage, and
the social qualities of the leaders of Upper Canadian Reform were not of
a high order. To them, small talk across the walnuts and the wine seemed
utterly incongruous in view of the momentous public questions which were
urgently pressing for a solution. In this particular they presented a
marked contrast to the leading spirits of the Compact. The Robinsons,
Hagermans and Sherwoods, one and all, could not only advise the
Lieutenant-Governor on the affairs of the Province, but could be
pleasant and entertaining companions. They were not very different from
the county magistrates and other officials with whom he had been
accustomed to confer in his capacity of a poor-law commissioner. They
were moreover exceedingly diplomatic. They saw the importance of winning
him to their side, and governed themselves accordingly. They lost no
opportunity of making themselves agreeable to him. Instead of boring him
with what, to his understanding, seemed abstruse speculations on
executive responsibility and an elective Legislative Council, they
scouted such doctrines as myths begotten in the moody brains of
unpractical and discontented men. The wide knowledge, long experience
and specious eloquence of the Chief Justice enabled him to present the
Tory side of these arguments with much plausibility. Sir Francis soon
became convinced that the issue was not merely between two sides of
colonial politics, but between monarchy and republicanism, between
loyalty and disloyalty, between Great Britain and the United States. As
he afterwards declared, he believed that he was "sentenced to contend on
the soil of America with Democracy,[228]" and that if he did not
overpower it, he would himself be compelled to succumb. Having brought
himself to this conclusion, he not unnaturally preferred the _role_ of
the hammer to that of the anvil. It was surely better to strike than to
be struck. Acting on this principle, he made a complete surrender of
himself to the Family Compact, and from that time forward was in all
essential respects guided by their counsels. His rashness and
impetuosity sometimes led him to act on his own motion, and without
waiting to take counsel from any quarter; but in all ordinary affairs of
administration he was guided by Sir John Robinson quite as effectually
as Sir John Colborne had ever been.
No sooner was it announced that the Executive Councillors had all
resigned office than the public pulse began to beat at an accelerated
pace. The excitement was greatly intensified upon the publication of a
letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, in which, by the
Lieutenant-Governor's special permission, all the attendant
circumstances were set forth in detail. This letter, having been written
for the express purpose of being read by Mr. Perry from his place in the
Assembly, and of being afterwards published in the newspapers, is
somewhat formal and official in its tone, but it presents the
subject-matter in a clear light, and must be regarded as an important
contribution to the history of Responsible Government in Upper Canada.
It is the chief, indeed the only trustworthy original authority for the
facts as to the precise dispute between Sir Francis and his Council, for
the former's account[229] is more than usually incomplete and one-sided
when dealing with this episode. The essential portions of Mr. Baldwin's
presentation of the case have been embodied in the foregoing narrative.
The Lieutenant-Governor lost no time in providing himself with a new
Council. On the 14th of March, when the resignation was only two days
old, an extraordinary issue of the _Gazette_ announced that Robert
Baldwin Sullivan, John Elmsley, Augustus Baldwin and William Allan had
been appointed members of the Executive Council of the Province. The
reader has already made the acquaintance of all these gentlemen with the
exception of Augustus Baldwin, who was a retired naval officer of high
character, but of no particular politics; a brother of Dr. Baldwin, and
by consequence an uncle of Robert Baldwin. All four of the new
Councillors were persons of character and position, but they were not in
sympathy with the Liberal sentiments of the period, and the people
generally were not disposed to place any political confidence in them.
Elmsley and Allan were consistent, old-fashioned Tories. Baldwin's
leanings, so far as he had any, were in the same direction. Sullivan's
youth and early life had been passed amid more or less Liberal
influences, but of late he had shown a retrogressive tendency in
political matters. This was largely due to personal rivalry between
Mackenzie and himself in municipal affairs. As previously mentioned, he
had defeated Mackenzie at the municipal elections for St. David's Ward,
and had been elected mayor of Toronto in the beginning of 1835. The
contest had been waged between them with unseemly rancour. Sullivan had
denounced Mackenzie as a noisy upstart and demagogue; while Mackenzie
had characterized Sullivan as an oily-tongued, unprincipled lawyer, who
would lie the loudest for the client who had the longest purse. All
Mackenzie's supporters during the contest had been Radicals, or at least
persons of strong Reform proclivities. This had arrayed the whole Tory
and Conservative vote on the side of Sullivan, who was thus in a measure
brought under anti-Reform influences. His social tastes also inclined
him in the same direction, so that he soon came to be classed as a
Conservative. Reformers were disposed to look askance at him as a
political renegade, and this disposition was increased upon his
acceptance of office under Sir Francis Head at the present juncture. He
alone, of all the new Councillors, was a man of exceptional ability. He
was not inaccurately described, a few years later, as "an Irishman by
birth, and a lawyer by profession; a man who, if he had united
consistency of political conduct and weight of personal character with
the great and original talents which he unquestionably possessed, might
have taken a conspicuous part in the public affairs of any
country."[230]
These transactions--the resignation of the Councillors and the
appointment of their successors--produced a tremendous effervescence of
feeling among the Opposition in the Assembly, who had already conceived
strong suspicions of the Lieutenant-Governor's motives. But the
excitement was not confined to the Opposition. It was participated in by
the Conservatives, and, even, for a time, by most of the ultra-Tories.
On the 14th of March, the House, by a vote of fifty-three to two,
adopted a resolution unequivocally assertive of the principles which the
ex-Councillors had endeavoured to maintain. Ten days later an address to
the Lieutenant-Governor, based on this resolution, was passed by a vote
of thirty-two to nineteen. It expressed deep regret that his Excellency
had consented to accept the resignation of his late Council. It declared
the Assembly's entire want of confidence in the new appointments, and
humbly requested that immediate steps might be taken to remove the new
Councillors from office. Meanwhile, petitions on the all-engrossing
subject poured into the Assembly from all over the Province.[231] Public
meetings were called in Toronto, as well as in some other of the
principal towns, at which resolutions were passed echoing the Assembly's
address, imploring the Lieutenant-Governor to dismiss his present
advisers, and to call to his Council gentlemen possessing public
confidence.
One of these gatherings tended in an especial manner to widen the
irreparable breach between Sir Francis Head and the Reform party. On the
25th of March a meeting was held in the City Hall, Toronto, at which an
Address to his Excellency of exceptional significance was passed. It
dealt at considerable length with the constitutional question at issue;
referred to Responsible Government as having been introduced by the
Constitutional Act; expressed surprise and sorrow at the resignation of
the late Councillors, and an entire want of confidence in their
successors. It deplored the apparent fact that his Excellency was acting
under the influence of evil and unknown advisers. In conclusion, it
claimed all the rights and privileges of the British constitution, and
that the representative of the Crown should be advised by men known to
and possessing the confidence of the people. When the deputation called
at Government House to present this Address, they were treated with an
off-hand abruptness and _brusquerie_ which gave them much offence. The
reply of his Excellency was wordy and unsatisfying in tone; but its most
objectionable feature was the air of assumed superiority by which it was
pervaded. It referred to the meeting represented by the deputation as
having been composed principally of "the industrious classes," but
added, with a seeming loftiness of condescension, that the Address
should be replied to with as much attention as if it had proceeded from
either of the branches of the Legislature--"although," said his
Excellency, "I shall express myself in plainer and more homely
language." This was bad enough, but its effect was intensified by the
demeanour of the Lieutenant-Governor and several military officers who
were in attendance upon him. It seemed to the deputation that those
gentlemen regarded them with supercilious impertinence; as a something
which viceroyalty must be content, for the nonce, to endure, but as
being altogether beyond the pale of their sympathies or interests.
Nothing could have been in worse taste than such conduct as this, though
it is possible enough that more sensitiveness was displayed than was
called for by the actual circumstances. The deputation withdrew, cut to
the quick by the indignities which they, rightly or wrongly, conceived
themselves to have sustained. On the succeeding evening a meeting of
themselves and some of their friends was held at the house of Dr.
Morrison--who was now mayor of the city--at which a bitterly sarcastic
rejoinder was prepared. It thanked his Excellency for replying to an
Address from "the industrious classes" with as much attention as if it
had proceeded from either branch of the Legislature, and acknowledged
his condescension in expressing himself in plain and homely
language--language presumed to be brought down to the level of the plain
and homely understandings of his interlocutors, whose deplorable want of
education was accounted for by the maladministration by former
Governments of the endowments of King's College, and by the
impossibility of obtaining a sale of the Clergy Reserves and the
appropriation of the proceeds to educational purposes. "It is,"
proceeded this cutting rejoinder, "because we have been thus maltreated,
neglected and despised, in our education and interests, under the system
of Government that has hitherto prevailed, that we are now driven to
insist upon a change that cannot be for the worse." Reference was made
to the desire to bring about a system of Responsible Government, and the
utter futility of mere responsibility to Downing Street was pointed out
with a pointed eloquence which proved that the signatories were in
deadly earnest. The misgovernment of Dalhousie and Aylmer in Lower
Canada, and of Gore, Maitland and Colborne in Upper Canada, was touched
upon in a few brief, vitriolic sentences. It was shown that, though
these gentlemen had been responsible to Downing Street, they had not
only met with no punishment, but had actually been promoted to higher
honours. "We do not mean," said they, "in our plain and homely
statement, to be discourteous, by declaring our unalterable conviction
that a nominal responsibility to Downing Street, which has failed of any
good with the above gentlemen of high pretensions to honour, character
and station, cannot have any magic operation in your Excellency's
administration, which, should it end as it has unhappily begun, might
make us drink the cup of national misgovernment to the very dregs,
without (as experience proves) redress on our part, or retribution on
yours." There was much more of the same sort. The document concluded by
stating that if the Lieutenant-Governor would not govern upon sound
constitutional principles he would violate the charter, virtually
abrogate the law, and justly forfeit submission to his authority.
This was beyond doubt the most vigorously-written protest that had ever
been presented to an Upper Canadian Lieutenant-Governor. It was signed
by Jesse Ketchum, James Hervey Price, James Lesslie, Andrew McGlashan,
James Shannon, Robert McKay, M. McLellan, Timothy Parsons, William
Lesslie, John Mills, E. T. Henderson, John Doel, John E. Tims, and
William J. O'Grady. All these were ardent Radicals, and coadjutors of
Mackenzie. Two of them--Jesse Ketchum and James Lesslie--delivered the
rejoinder at Government House, without waiting for a reply. It was
already in type, and during the next day was widely read and commented
upon. The Lieutenant-Governor was not insensible to its cutting irony,
but it did not admit of any sur-rejoinder, and after the first transient
ebullition of his wrath, the matter, so far as he was concerned, was
quietly permitted to drop out of sight. The document, however, acted as
an additional stimulus to the public excitement, and it continued to be
quoted against Sir Francis from time to time so long as he remained in
the colony.
While these events were occurring the Provincial Legislature still
remained in session. A Committee having been appointed by the Assembly
to consider the correspondence between the Lieutenant-Governor and the
ex-Councillors, it proceeded to deal with the question in the usual
manner. The report was presented to the Assembly on the 18th of April.
In the course of the debate which ensued, several eloquent speeches were
made on the Tory side. The most effective Tory arguments were founded
upon the assumption that the concession of Responsible Government would
be a mere preliminary to separation from the mother country. The speech
made by Mr. Hagerman on this occasion was one of the most brilliant
efforts of his life. Mere verbal eloquence, however, exhausted itself in
vain. The report was adopted by a vote of thirty-two to twenty-one. It
was even more directly condemnatory of the Lieutenant-Governor than the
rejoinder above referred to had been. It expressed the Committee's
belief that the appointment of the three ex-Councillors had been a
deceitful manoeuvre to gain credit with the country for Liberal
feelings and intentions where none really existed. The question of
Executive responsibility was gone into at considerable length, and the
conduct of the ex-Councillors was approved of in every particular. There
is no need to analyze the entire report, which was long and exhaustive.
It distinctly recommended the withholding of the annual supplies. The
Assembly, by adopting the report, and by committing itself to this
extreme measure, proved that, in the language of Lord Glenelg's
instructions,[232] it regarded the present in the light of "an
emergency." The supplies, however, were not entirely withheld. Money
was granted for the construction of roads, for schools, for the
improvement of navigation, and other useful purposes; but all these
grants were nullified by the Lieutenant-Governor, who signified his
disapprobation of the Assembly's conduct by refusing his assent to the
money-bills of the session. He afterwards stated as one of his reasons
for this refusal that he had good grounds for believing a portion of the
money would have been spent by the Assembly in sending an agent to
England[233]--which was probably the fact.
The Assembly, feeling that some reason should be assigned for their
action in the matter of the supplies, which were now withheld for the
first time in the history of Upper Canada, passed an Address to the
King, in which the Lieutenant-Governor's conduct was painted in no
neutral tints. He was directly charged with being despotic, tyrannical,
unjust and deceitful. His conduct was declared to have been "derogatory
to the honour" of his Majesty, and "demoralizing to the community." A
memorial to the House of Commons was also adopted, in which his public
acts were referred to as having been arbitrary and vindictive, and
wherein he was charged with mis-statements, misrepresentations, and
"deviations from candour and truth." This bitterly-worded memorial was
formally signed by Mr. Bidwell as Speaker of the House--a circumstance
which was long remembered against him by the person implicated.
It must have been gall and wormwood to Sir Francis to be compelled to
forward these documents to the Colonial Office. It was the first time
that clear and undisguised charges of so humiliating a nature had been
officially laid against a colonial Lieutenant-Governor, and one must
needs confess that nothing short of the most unassailable evidence could
have justified the employment of such terms in a communication between
two representative bodies respecting a trusted servant of the Crown,
more especially in the case of one occupying so lofty a position.
Something is due to the proprieties, and to accuse a man of deviations
from candour and truth is of course merely a slightly periphrastic
method of charging him with falsehood. The Assembly, however, had become
convinced, not without reason, that Sir Francis's word was not to be
trusted. Other persons who had been brought into more or less intimate
relations with him had been driven to the same conclusion.[234] The fact
is that when his feelings were much stirred he knew not how to speak the
language of truth and soberness. He talked so much and so thoughtlessly
that he very frequently gave utterance to the thing which was not. Some
excuse might perhaps be made for one who, in the heat or haste of verbal
controversy, gives currency to erroneous statements. But Sir Francis's
mis-statements were not confined to verbal controversy. He had been
distinctly convicted of "a deviation from candour and truth" in a
deliberate official communication. The Assembly had requested that they
might be furnished with copies of any bond or agreement between him and
his Councillors respecting the administration of the Government in the
event of his Excellency's death or removal. To this request Sir Francis
had replied, explicitly denying the existence of any document of such a
nature. Yet upon the examination of certain of the Councillors it had
been proved that an agreement on the subject had actually been made, and
that it had been reduced to writing by his Excellency's own hand. The
devices to which he had had recourse in his attempts to prove that he
had merely been guilty of tergiversation instead of downright lying,
were such as positively to aggravate the original offence, and to fully
justify the Assembly in refusing to attach any weight to his unsupported
statement upon any subject.[235] As the weeks passed by, the quarrel
between him and the Assembly waxed positively ferocious. On the 20th of
April he prorogued Parliament, making a speech on the occasion which
must have occupied a full hour or more in delivery, and wherein he
reviewed, in his own inimitable fashion, and from his own point of view,
the various events by which his Administration had up to this time been
characterized. Any attempt to analyze it here is altogether out of the
question. It should be read in its entirety in the official Journal of
the session.
During the weeks following the prorogation the public excitement
continued to increase, until it had reached a height without precedent
in the history of the Province. The Reformers felt that they had been
wofully deceived in the Lieutenant-Governor, and many of them placed no
bounds to their censure. Some of the Reform newspapers hinted pretty
strongly that no people could be expected to remain permanently loyal
when they were deprived of their rights year after year, and when all
their petitions were set at naught. The political atmosphere was charged
with electricity. The outlook was lurid and ominous. Some of the
loyalists began to dread an actual uprising of the people. Such an
uprising, they thought, would be a legitimate sequel to so extraordinary
a proceeding as the stoppage of the supplies. To not a few well-meaning
but old-fashioned people the mere act of refusing to vote the supplies
was in itself a species of treason. To more practical people this act
presented itself in a different aspect. It seemed to them indicative of
a niggard and ruinous parsimony. They gazed with ill-concealed envy at
the marvellous prosperity of the neighbouring State of New York. Any one
crossing the Canadian frontier in that direction at once became aware
that he had passed from a land of comparative stagnation to a land of
activity and progress. This contrast had been largely brought about by
the construction of great public works, and a lavish policy on the part
of the State Legislature. There seemed no reason to doubt that the
adoption of a similar policy would bring about similar results in Upper
Canada, where large and costly public works were urgently needed for the
proper development of the resources of the colony. But, instead of
liberal grants of money for such purposes, the Assembly had cut down the
supplies to meet the barest works of necessity. The colony could never
hope to hold up its head by the side of its enterprising neighbour while
such a cheese-paring system prevailed.
The Lieutenant-Governor's advisers were shrewd enough to make the most
of this unpromising state of affairs. The cheese-paring policy went for
something, but it was almost lost sight of in the much more effective
imputation of disloyalty to the Empire. Nothing was so certain to turn
the scale of public opinion in favour of his Excellency as an apparently
well-founded stigma of disloyalty cast upon his opponents. The official
party accordingly set themselves deliberately to work to disseminate the
belief that the bulk of the Opposition were ripe for treason, and that,
under the guise of agitation for Reform, they concealed a design of
effecting the separation of the colony from Great Britain. It is not
improbable that many of those who industriously circulated the report
did so in good faith, for the language of some of the Reformers, used in
moments of irritation, was of a nature to lead to such a conclusion. No
sooner did this report gain credence than there was a very perceptible
turning of the scale of popular opinion. Many who had grumbled loudly at
Sir Francis's conduct now declared themselves as being on his side. They
favoured the doctrine of a responsible Executive, but devotion to the
mother country was as the breath of their nostrils. Whatever tended to
relax the tie which bound the colony to the Empire was a thing to be
utterly opposed and stamped out. The domination of the Compact was bad,
but even at its worst it was better than separation. So argued many
persons who had always been conspicuous for the moderation of their
political views. The official party of course turned such sentiments as
these to the utmost account. The cry of disloyalty was heard on every
side. The state of the Lower Province, which was rapidly gliding into
insurrection, was triumphantly pointed to as evidence of what was to be
looked for if democratic ideas were allowed to make headway. Twice
within the last four years had the Lower Canadian Assembly resorted to
the extreme measure of refusing to grant supplies to the Government. By
so doing they had embroiled themselves with the Imperial Ministry, and
drawn down upon themselves the indignation of persons of moderate views.
It was no secret that the Upper Canadian Reformers generally were in
sympathy with the projects of Reform entertained by the Lower Canadian
agitators; and it suited the Tories to assume that the sympathy extended
not only to legitimate projects of Reform, but to less openly-avowed
schemes of rebellion. Just before the prorogation Mr. Bidwell had laid
before the Assembly a letter written by Louis Joseph Papineau, Speaker
of the Lower Canada Assembly, wherein the great agitator had given
utterance to sentiments which, read in the light of subsequent events,
cannot be construed otherwise than as treasonable. Several members of
the Reform party had publicly spoken enthusiastically of M. Papineau,
and had even gone so far as to express approbation of his most
indiscreet and objectionable language. This circumstance was now urged
to show that the objects of the anti-Executive party in both Provinces
were identical. There was no attempt to discriminate between
constitutional Reformers of the Baldwin stamp and advanced Radicals like
Mackenzie. All were included in one sweeping verdict as "disloyal"
persons, against whom it was necessary for right-minded citizens to
organize in self-defence.
Early in May these sentiments began to find expression in outward acts.
A number of Tory gentlemen of Toronto formed themselves into what they
called the British Constitutional Society, with the fundamental
principle and object of perpetuating the connection between Upper Canada
and the United Kingdom. A society bearing the same name had been formed
upon the breaking out of the War of 1812, and this of 1836 professed to
be a reorganization of the former one. In reality, however, it was to
all intents and purposes a new society, started for the specific purpose
of opposing the cry for Responsible Government, and of gaining support
for Sir Francis Head. During the previous year, Colonel Fitzgibbon had,
under Sir John Colborne's auspices, formed a drill corps for such young
men of Toronto as desired military instruction. A handful of
well-connected young men had availed themselves of the opportunity. The
Colonel now devoted himself with redoubled ardour to preparations for
the insurrection which he declared would burst forth before the next
winter. He got together a rifle corps to the number of seventy, and
drilled them twice a week with tireless enthusiasm, declaring that when
the hour of trial should come, he and "his boys" would be found in their
places, however the rest of the community might see fit to demean
themselves.
Notwithstanding these preparations, and the prevailing sentiments which
inspired them, it is doubtful whether the idea of rebellion had up to
this time taken definite possession of the mind of a single human being
in Upper Canada. There seems abundant reason for believing that the time
for wise concession was not past, and that a prudent and discreet
Administrator might have restored tranquillity to the land without
going an iota beyond the scope of Lord Glenelg's instructions. But Sir
Francis Head acted in no such spirit. He set his mind firmly against
concession, feeling convinced, as he said, that the more he yielded the
more would be demanded of him. In this respect he--no doubt
unconsciously--emulated the example of James the Second, who was of
opinion that his father owed the loss of his head to his concessions to
the House of Commons. That this opinion was altogether erroneous does
not admit of argument. Sir Francis was equally wrong, and equally
stubborn in maintaining his opinion. His conduct was the last straw
heaped upon the back of the much-enduring camel, and the outbreak which
followed must in large measure be attributed to his misgovernment.
FOOTNOTES:
[210] See the letter, in Head's _Narrative_, chap. iii.
[211] This proceeding was not relished by the Assembly. Sir John
Colborne had already delivered one Speech from the Throne at the opening
of the session, and this delivery of a second one was resented as a
breach of privilege. After much time had been wasted in discussion, a
precedent for the Lieutenant-Governor's action was found under date of
December, 1765, and this matter was allowed to drop.
[212] In the third chapter of his _Narrative_ Sir Francis attempts to
excuse himself for this senseless act. The reader who thinks it worth
while to consult the rhetorical plea there attempted to be set up will
recall Pembroke's dictum, in _King John_, that
"----oftentimes excusing of a fault
Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse."
[213] This is the despatch referred to _ante_, p. 246, which had been
treated with such contempt by the Law Officers of the Crown, and which
had been returned by the Provincial Legislative Council to the
Lieutenant-Governor.
[214] See the 8vo edition of the Report, p. xxxix.
[215] See the rejoinder of certain citizens of Toronto to the reply of
the Lieutenant-Governor to their address, dated 25th March, 1836.
[216] _Ib._
[217] _Ib._
[218] _Life of Mackenzie_, vol i., pp. 345, 346.
[219] _Narrative_, chap. iii.
[220] _Ib._
[221] _Narrative_, chap. iii.
[222] See Head's despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated February 22nd, 1836, in
_Narrative_, chap. iv.
[223] _Ib._
[224] See the extra number of the _Gazette_ issued on that date. A very
full account of the negotiations and conferences which led to this
result will be found in a letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter
Perry, dated "Front Street, 16th March, 1836," and published in the
papers of the time. See _post_, p. 312.
[225] See the representations of the Councillors to the
Lieutenant-Governor, dated Friday, 4th March, 1836.
[226] See _Report of the Select Committee to which was referred the
Answer of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor to an Address of the
House of Assembly, relative to a Responsible Executive Council_, p. 6.
Toronto, 1836.
[227] _Ib._, p. 7.
[228] _Narrative_, chap. v.
[229] _Narrative_, chapters iv., v.
[230] Kaye's _Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe_, vol.
ii., p. 339. Revised edition, 1858.
[231] It is fair to say that some of these were due to the efforts of
the Radicals in the Assembly, who had sent out blank petitions to local
friends, with instructions to obtain signatures and fill in the name of
the constituency.
[232] _Ante_, pp. 303, 304.
[233] See his despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated April 28th, 1836, in
_Narrative_, chap. v.
[234] Sir Francis himself has gravely recorded that certain militia
officers publicly declared him to be "the d----dest liar and d----dest
rascal in the Province." See despatch of 6th February, 1837, in
_Narrative_, chap. ix.
[235] The evidence will be found in appendix to Journal of 1836, 2nd
Session, Twelfth Parliament, vol. iii., No. 106, pp. 57, 58.