Upon reaching England Mr. Willis put himself into immediate communication with the Colonial Office. He took up his quarters at the house of his brother, the Reverend W. D. Willis, at Bath. There he prepared an elaborate statement of his case, which was duly forwarded to the Colonial Secretary. After some delay he succeeded in obtaining copies of the several despatches of Sir Peregrine Maitland in which the charges against him were formulated with wearisome reiteration. These indictments against him, which, though signed by Sir Peregrine, were doubtless in reality prepared by Mr. Willis's arch-enemy, Attorney-General Robinson, were certainly of the most formidable character. They went over the whole course of the Judge's procedure, from the time of his arrival in the Province down to his departure therefrom. To the serious grounds of complaint which had unquestionably been given were added numerous delinquencies of the most petty and trifling nature. It was stigmatized as "a great indecency" that Judge Willis had been seen in a dress "but little according with his situation."[113] In view of the interests involved, and of the grave nature of the questions to be decided, it seems ludicrous that the appellant should have been called upon to reply to an accusation of this nature.[114] A perusal of these despatches, however, rendered necessary a supplementary statement and narrative, wherein every count in the indictment was either traversed, or, in legal parlance, confessed and avoided. But Mr. Willis soon found that he was not to gain so easy a triumph over his enemies as he had previously allowed himself to suppose would be the case. The question to be decided was a purely technical one, and after the matter had been for some time under consideration at the Colonial Office it was referred for decision to the Privy Council, where it was not disposed of for nearly a year. The conclusion finally arrived at was that Mr. Willis had been wrong in his view of the question in dispute, and that the Executive Council, in amoving him from office, had not acted in excess of their authority. Under such circumstances his return to Upper Canada was of course out of the question; but as his conduct was attributed to error of judgment rather than to any serious dereliction from duty, he received an appointment to a judgeship in the South American colony of Demerara.

From all the circumstances, then, it is clear that Judge Willis, though he was in some sense a victim of Executive intolerance in Upper Canada, was himself largely to blame for his downfall, to which he contributed by his want of caution and calm good sense. But many of the circumstances detailed in the present chapter were unknown to the bulk of the Canadian people, by whom he was regarded as a martyr to his upright and liberal principles. His amoval produced a wider excitement than any event since Gourlay's time. It tended greatly to embitter public opinion, and was unquestionably a strong factor in producing the discontent which ultimately found expression in open rebellion. For this reason it has been thought desirable to go somewhat minutely into details which are in themselves fraught with instruction, and as to which the people of Canada, even at the present day, are very inadequately informed.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

Mr. Willis felt his defeat very keenly, more especially as he had confidently looked forward to a successful termination of his appeal. At his instigation the subject was brought before the attention of the House of Commons by Lord Milton, on Tuesday, the 11th day of May, 1830.[115] Sir George's Murray's explanation, which involved a narrative of the circumstances in detail, proved satisfactory to the House, and the matter was allowed to drop. But the amoved Judge was fated to have greater reasons still for deploring that he had ever taken up his abode in Canada, as his residence there led to the rupture of his family ties and the total wreck of his domestic happiness. It will be remembered that Lady Mary and her child, together with Miss Willis, had remained at York. Upon learning the decision of the Privy Council in his case, Mr. Willis wrote to his wife and sister, requesting them to dispose of his house there, and to return home as speedily as possible. During the long interval which had elapsed since the ex-Judge's departure for England, the two ladies had been left to amuse themselves as best they could in the little capital. They occasionally went into society, and received a certain amount of attention from that portion of it which had been favourable to Judge Willis, as well as from some of the military officers stationed there. Among others whose acquaintance they formed was a certain Lieutenant Bernard, an officer of the 68th Light Infantry, whose regiment was then in Canada. He occasionally rode out with Miss Willis, who was an accomplished equestrienne, but he did not appear to be on specially intimate terms with Lady Mary. On the 16th of May, 1829, Lady Mary set out for England by way of Montreal, Miss Willis remaining behind for a week to make a final disposition of the house. On reaching Kingston, Lady Mary was met by Lieutenant Bernard, who accompanied her to Montreal, whence the pair several months afterwards fled together to England, Lady Mary leaving her child behind her in the care of one of her maids. Mr. Willis brought an action against Bernard, who had by that time succeeded to a Captaincy. The case was tried in the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster on Thursday, the 9th of February, 1832, when the plaintiff recovered L1000 by way of damages. A report of the proceedings will be found in The Times of the following day.[116]

[Sidenote: 1832.]

It may be of interest to Canadian readers to learn that Mr. Willis was some years afterwards appointed to a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On the 8th of February, 1841, he was under a local statute appointed resident Judge for the District of Port Philip. While officiating in that capacity he came into conflict with Sir George Gipps, Governor of the Colony, and the Executive Council, by whom he was once more "amoved" from office. The order of amotion, which was made on the 17th of June, 1843, was however reversed by the Imperial Privy Council for irregularity. The Lords of the Judicial Committee, before whom the case was heard in June and July, 1846, reported that in their opinion the Governor-in-Council had power in law to amove Mr. Willis, and that the facts were sufficient to justify his amoval, but that an opportunity ought to have been afforded him of being previously heard. The requisite notice not having been given, the omission was held to vacate the order of amotion, and judgment was rendered accordingly.[117]

FOOTNOTES:

[96] See his "Narrative of Occurrences in Upper Canada," written from Bath to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, dated 5th December, 1828, and included in pp. 273-288 of the blue book on the subject issued by the Imperial Government in 1829.

[97] There is a covert irony in the portion of Judge Willis's Narrative which refers to this subject. "I wished to think," he writes, "and from the attention he seemed to pay to business I actually worked myself up into the belief, which I frequently expressed, that Mr. Justice Sherwood was a hard-headed sensible man; but I became convinced that, though right in the former conjecture, yet so far as legal knowledge or abilities were concerned, I was mistaken in the latter part of my conclusion." The italics are Judge Willis's own.

[98] See Judge Willis's Narrative, ubi supra.

[99] So far as mere diction is concerned I have here chiefly followed Collins's own report of this episode, as published in the Freeman, but I have also before me the Attorney-General's account, as well as the more elaborate one of Judge Willis himself, and the three do not materially differ in this respect.

[100] Ante, p. 13.

[101] The Freeman, April 17th, 1828.

[102] The case, as put by the Judge, was purely hypothetical. "If the Attorney-General has acted so and so, he has neglected his duty." See ante, p. 174.

[103] The announcement ran as follows:—"Preparing for publication.—A View of the Present System of Jurisprudence in Upper Canada; by an English Barrister, now one of His Majesty's Judges in this Province.—Meliora sperans."

[104] It was time for some one to undertake the duty of ameliorating the criminal law of Upper Canada, which was that of England as it stood on the 17th of September, 1792, except in so far as it had been altered by subsequent legislation. At the Assizes for the Home District, held at York in the autumn of 1827, within a few weeks after Judge Willis's arrival in the Province, a boy was capitally convicted and sentenced to death for killing a cow.

[105] On the Government of the British Colonies. London, 1850.

[106] The investigation, according to Judge Willis's own testimony, was entered into partly in consequence of a suggestion which he received on the subject. See the text of his written opinion, embodied in pp. 66-74 of the Imperial blue book issued in 1829, entitled "Papers relating to the Removal of the Honourable John Walpole Willis from the Office of One of His Majesty's Judges of the Court of King's Bench of Upper Canada." It seems probable that the suggestion emanated from Dr. Baldwin.

[107] 34 Geo. III., c. 2. This statute was framed by the Hon. William Osgoode, first Chief Justice of Upper Canada, a gentleman of great learning, who had been sent out from England for the express purpose of organizing the Courts of the Province.

[108] 2 Geo. IV., c. 1.

[109] See pp. 249-267 of the Imperial Government's blue book on the subject, ubi supra.

[110] The notification was dated the 26th of June, whereas the formal document issued by the Council was not signed until the 27th. Mr. Willis attached a good deal of weight to this irregularity, which however was of less importance than might at first sight be supposed. The Council had fully made up their minds on the 26th, and the notification was despatched accordingly, though the order of amotion was not actually ready for signature until the day following.

[111] The well-known author, who was then in Canada as representative of the Canada Land Company.

[112] "Cabot," in Blackwood's Magazine for September, 1829.

[113] See despatch marked "Separate," from Major-General Sir Peregrine Maitland to Mr. Secretary Huskisson, dated 6th July, 1828.

[114] His reply will be matter of surprise to the staid and decorously-attired judges of the present day. "On all ordinary occasions," he wrote, "I usually wore a black velvet coat and waistcoat. The first time I saw the Chief Justice he had on a black kalimanco or camlet jacket, which I have seen him wear even on the bench. I have met the Lieutenant-Governor frequently walking through the streets with an olive-coloured square-cut velveteen jacket and waistcoat; and a few days before I left York I beheld Mr. Justice Sherwood in a grass-green cloth jacket with white metal buttons. I merely mention these 'extravagancies' to show that my dress was neither improper nor extraordinary."—See the Narrative, ubi supra.

[115] See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, N. S., Vol. xxiv., 551-555.

[116] Some further particulars may be found in 8 Bingham, 376; also in 5 C. & P., 342.

[117] See the case of John Walpole Willis, Appellant, versus Sir George Gipps, Knt., Respondent, 5 Moore's Reports of Privy Council Cases, 379. From an obiter dictum of one of the judges in the case it would appear that the order of amotion from the bench of this Province was finally set aside on technical grounds, owing to the appellant's not having been heard in Canada. After diligent search, I have been unable to find any report of this decision, either in the official reports of the Privy Council or in any of the newspapers or periodicals of the time.



CHAPTER IX.

THE CASE OF FRANCIS COLLINS.

In the foregoing pages mention has several times been made of Francis Collins, editor, proprietor and publisher of The Canadian Freeman, a Radical weekly newspaper issued at York. Mr. Collins was an enthusiastic young Irish Roman Catholic, who had immigrated to Canada a short time before the excitement arising out of the Gourlay persecution reached its height, and when he himself was barely twenty years of age. He was a printer by trade, and for some time after his arrival worked as a compositor in the office of The Upper Canada Gazette, published at York by the King's Printer, Dr. Robert Charles Horne. Finding that he possessed much intelligence and a fair education, his employer deputed him to report the debates in the Assembly during the sessions of Parliament. In 1821 he reported certain proceedings which the Government were annoyed at seeing in print, more especially as the version given was not strictly accurate. For this offence Dr. Horne was summoned to the bar of the House, where he sought to evade responsibility by pleading that the debates had not been reported by himself, but by Francis Collins. The Doctor further offered a humble apology, and was glad to escape with a sharp reprimand, accompanied by a caution from the Speaker that he would thereafter be held responsible for the reports in the Gazette.[118]

Within a short time after receiving this admonition Dr. Horne ceased to be King's Printer, whereby the post became vacant. As Collins was familiar with the nature of the work, and was naturally desirous of bettering his condition, he applied for the appointment. The office was at the disposal of the Lieutenant-Governor, and was held entirely at his pleasure. Collins was curtly checked for his presumption by a leading official, who informed him that the office would be conferred upon "no one but a gentleman." It would be interesting to know whence the official who was guilty of this wanton insult had derived his ideas of courtesy and good breeding. If his statement were to be credited, any application on his part for the post of King's Printer would most assuredly have been made in vain. The appointment was given to Mr. Charles Fothergill, who belonged to a good Yorkshire family, and was therefore fully entitled to rank as a gentleman.[119]

Collins was excusably indignant at the gross insult which had been hurled at him. He considered himself as at least the social equal of any member of the Government, for he claimed descent from the old Irish kings, and on one or two occasions when more than ordinarily exhilarated he had even been known to refer to his ancestor, Brian Boru. Yet, for all this mendacious and vainglorious boasting, Collins was a man of unquestionable ability, and when fully aroused could write a paragraph well calculated to make the ears of his enemies to tingle. His nationality was clearly indicated by his personal appearance, his features being rough-hewn and unmistakably Celtic; while his red hair and beard, usually not very well cared for, gave him an aspect of uncouth wildness. Up to this time he had not taken any very conspicuous part in politics since his arrival in Canada; but henceforward the Executive had no more bitter or sleepless foe. He continued to report the proceedings in Parliament, and kept his eyes ever open for an opportunity to strike the Government with effect. In 1825 he succeeded in establishing the Freeman, which was thenceforth to some extent a rival of Mackenzie's Advocate. It was from the first conducted with great energy, and the editorials, which were often set up without being committed to paper, displayed exceptional vigour, but they were frequently disfigured by a coarseness and bad taste equal to anything of Mackenzie's production. For some time the better class of Liberals fought shy of the enterprise, but the editor steadily forced his way into general recognition.

The Freeman was permitted to continue its course unchecked for nearly three years. During that time it followed up the shortcomings of the Executive with ceaseless vigilance. To Sir Peregrine Maitland and Attorney-General Robinson it was a veritable thorn in the flesh. There was abundant occasion for criticism, and it was seldom, if ever, that Collins resorted to pure invention for the purpose of attacking the innumerable abuses of the time. There was always a sufficient substratum of truth in his accusations to render it inexpedient to prosecute him for libel. The punishment of what was false would have involved the public exposure of what was true. The official party realized the force of the laureate's dictum, not then propounded, that

"A lie that is all a lie may be met with and fought outright, But a lie that is part of a truth is a harder matter to fight."

[Sidenote: 1828.]

They of course did not present the matter in this aspect to the world at large. On the contrary, their organs claimed for them a spirit of generous and Christian forbearance. But this could not go on for ever. Collins continued to pour in his chain-shot from week to week with never-failing pertinacity, and with seeming impunity from the law. The Executive in the first place tried to check his career by crippling him financially. The Assembly had for some years previously been accustomed to vote him an annual sum by way of remuneration for reporting their proceedings. The paying over of this sum, however, was a matter entirely within the control of the Lieutenant-Governor. As it was known that Collins was poor, and that his resources were sometimes taxed to the uttermost to enable him to bring out his paper, it was hoped that, by withholding payment for his services as reporter to the Assembly, he might be compelled to suspend publication. He was accordingly informed, when he applied for his money in the early spring of 1828, that the funds were not forthcoming. The sum in question was L118 10s., and was a matter of serious importance to him; but he well understood the object of the Executive, and spurred himself up to fresh effort. His paper appeared with the most provoking regularity, and its tone was, if possible, intensified by the withholding of the sum due to its editor. He told the story to the public, his account being garnished with profuse comments in his bitterest vein. The Executive found that they had miscalculated his resources, and that his press was conducted with renewed vigour. It was finally resolved that a dead-set should be made upon him, and that he should be overwhelmed by a shower of contemporaneous indictments. On Thursday, the 10th of April, 1828, as mentioned in the preceding chapter,[120] two bills of indictment for libel were found against him. One of these was for having, in his paper, charged the Lieutenant-Governor with partiality, injustice and fraud, in not paying over the money voted by the Assembly. The other was on the information of the Solicitor-General, Henry John Boulton, for animadversions on his conduct in connection with the duel, in 1817, between Samuel Peters Jarvis and John Ridout.[121] Upon the strength of these indictments Collins was forthwith arrested, and compelled to appear and give the required bail. On the following morning two other bills were found, upon which he also gave bail. It was at this time that he made his extraordinary attack upon the Attorney-General, before Justice Willis, as already narrated at length.[122] It will be remembered that he was instructed by the Judge to go before the Grand Jury and prefer his complaints. These instructions he followed without a moment's unnecessary delay. He appeared before the Grand Jury, and charged H. J. Boulton and J. E. Small with being accessary to murder in the killing of young Ridout. He next laid a charge of rioting against S. P. Jarvis and six other persons who had figured as defendants in the action brought by Mackenzie. The Grand Jury speedily returned a true bill against Boulton and Small. Both those gentlemen were then in Court with their gowns on. They were immediately put under arrest, and they so remained until late in the afternoon, when Judge Willis, upon the application of Mr. Macaulay, admitted them to bail. As Jarvis had been tried for the offence and acquitted, shortly after the duel in 1817, the Grand Jury now returned "No bill" as to him. On the following Monday a true bill was returned by the Grand Jury against the seven persons charged with riot. They were promptly arrested and held to bail.

Collins, having no faith in Attorney-General Robinson's integrity, was very unwilling that the prosecution of these cases should be conducted by him. Boulton was not only the Attorney-General's colleague as a law officer of the Crown, but was his warm personal friend, as well as a connexion by marriage. Boulton, in fact, was a profound admirer and faint umbra of the Attorney-General, in whose professional sunshine he basked, and at whose feet he may in an intellectual sense be said to have grovelled. Even the most Spartan of Crown prosecutors could hardly be expected to do his utmost to secure a conviction under such circumstances; and Attorney-General Robinson had nothing of the Spartan in his composition where the interests of his friends were concerned. Collins accordingly applied to Robert Baldwin to conduct the prosecution for murder. But the prosecution of criminal cases was not then open to the bar as a matter of course, and without the consent of the Crown. Mr. Baldwin applied to the Court for the necessary permission, which was granted with the Attorney-General's consent. The trial was proceeded with before Justice Willis at the opening of the Court on the morning of Monday, the 14th. The defendants, upon being arraigned, pleaded "Not guilty." The proceedings extended over two days, during which the same evidence was given that had been adduced at the trial in 1817. All the horrible details of the duel were revived for the edification of a crowded Court-room. Many of the spectators, as well as the Judge himself, were affected to tears. The custom of society was once more successfully pleaded in extenuation of a cruel and dastardly murder. As the chief offender had himself escaped scot-free, however, it would have seemed anomalous to punish the accessaries. The charge from the bench was eloquent and judicial, and the jury were absent from the box only ten minutes, when they returned into Court with a verdict of acquittal.

The trial of the type-rioters next required consideration. Collins's counsel moved for leave to the prosecutor to conduct this case also by private counsel, but to this the Attorney-General firmly refused to consent. It was urged that one of the accused was his nephew, and that two others had been clerks in his office at the time of the outrage. No matter; he was determined to withstand any further interference with Crown prosecutions on the part of the bar. There was no telling, he remarked, where such interference would end. There had already been too much of it. He was about to proceed with the prosecution, when Mr. Rolph arose on behalf of Collins, and expressed a wish that, as the painful investigation of the murder case had been finished, the prosecutions for libel might be discontinued. Judge Willis warmly seconded the proposal, and further suggested that the prosecution of the type-rioters might also be dropped. The type-rioters, however, were ready and waiting for their trial, and, through their counsel, objected to any abandonment so far as they were concerned. It was urged on their part that they had never wished to avoid prosecution, but had rather courted it; that they would accept of no compromise of a proceeding which had been maliciously and vexatiously instituted, not by the person injured, but by one who, being brought into Court for libel, had been received as a sort of public prosecutor, and allowed to harass them by raking into old transactions which had long since been investigated and atoned for. They insisted upon the matter being there and then finally disposed of, so that it might no longer be in the power of any malicious person wholly unconnected with the case to prosecute them at his pleasure.

The trial was then proceeded with. The persons charged were of course found guilty. Judge Willis was very lenient, and sentenced them to a nominal fine of five shillings each, expressly stating as a reason for this slight punishment that more than ample recompense had already been obtained in the civil action.[123]

With respect to the indictments against Collins, the Judge's appeal to the Attorney-General was not altogether without efficacy, notwithstanding the ill blood between them. The fact is that the latter was glad enough of any excuse for abandoning the two prosecutions instituted by Boulton and Jarvis, feeling well assured that there was no likelihood of securing a conviction in either case. He could subserve his own and his friends' interests, and at the same time assume the appearance of deferring to the suggestion from the bench. The consent of the prosecutors having been obtained, he therefore announced in open Court that he would proceed no further upon those indictments. He added, however, that there were further indictments against Collins which had emanated from the Grand Jury, and that he could not with proper deference to them at once relinquish proceedings therein. "But I have no objections to state," said the Attorney-General, "that I will forbear any further action during the present Assizes, and that in proceeding or not hereafter, I shall be governed in a great measure by the sense which the defendant shall show of his duty and obligations as the conductor of a public newspaper." Bail was accordingly furnished by Collins on one of the presentments. The other was tacitly allowed to lapse; and there, for the time, the matter ended.

The editor of the Freeman certainly gave the Attorney-General no excuse for leaving him unmolested. In each successive issue of his paper he lashed the whole race of officials, to some of whom he applied the most opprobrious epithets. The Government organs pursued a similar course on their side, and characterized Collins and his friends in language too gross for quotation. The Attorney-General probably repented that he had not proceeded on at least one of the indictments during the late Assizes, and resolved that another opportunity should not pass unimproved. The autumn Assizes opened during the second week in October, when he attempted to press one of the old charges against Collins. The defendant appealed to Judge Sherwood, who occupied the bench, representing that his counsel was not in Court, and that he had never been arraigned. The Attorney-General replied that the absence of the defendant's counsel was not the fault of the Crown, and that he had been arraigned at the spring Assizes. The latter statement was denied by the defendant, and upon referring to the Clerk of Assize it appeared that there had been no arraignment. Next day the Attorney-General again attempted to force on the trial, but as it was clear that the defendant had not been arraigned the latter now claimed the right to traverse. As this right was indisputable it was conceded by the Court, the result being that the defendant was entitled to have the trial held over until the next sittings, which would not take place until the following spring. The Attorney-General, however, was entitled to demand that the defendant should find security, and promptly urged his demand. Collins knew that were he to find the required security it would embarrass him in the conduct of his paper, and stated that he would prefer to be tried at once rather than adopt such an alternative. He was accordingly tried, and, though the prosecution was pressed against him with all the vigour at the Attorney-General's command, he was acquitted by the jury.

But the Attorney-General was not the man to allow his prey to escape him while any chance remained of securing a conviction. A fresh indictment was laid against him for a personal libel upon the Attorney-General himself. Collins, in reporting the trial which had just resulted in his acquittal, had accused the Attorney-General of "open palpable falsehood," and "native malignancy," and had referred to Judge Hagerman as "our old customer." This report had been published at full length in the Freeman, and it was the ground of the prosecution now instituted. The defendant laboured under the same compulsion with regard to security as before, and elected to stand his trial at once, which was precisely what the Attorney-General desired. The indictment, which may still be seen among the records at Osgoode Hall, was a truly formidable instrument, and set out the offence with great prolixity. The trial took place on Saturday, the 25th, before Mr. Justice Sherwood, who, in charging the jury, inveighed against the defendant with nearly as great vehemence as did the Crown prosecutor, stigmatizing him as "a wholesale retailer of calumny." He pronounced the Freeman's report to be "a gross and scandalous libel."[124] It was plainly evident that Mr. Sherwood's mind was not equable, and that he was influenced by considerations not properly before him. The fact that his son Henry, and his brother-in-law, H. J. Boulton, had respectively been prosecuted for riot and murder at Collins's instigation was too clearly held in remembrance, insomuch that every point was strained to the utmost against the defendant. Judge Sherwood, however, was absent from the bench when the jury returned into Court with their verdict, his place being taken by Judge Hagerman, who had many times been subjected to the arrows of Collins's satire, and who was referred to with bantering contumely in the very report which formed the subject of the present prosecution. The jury, after deliberating about five hours, brought in a verdict of "Guilty of a libel on the Attorney-General." The Clerk recorded a general verdict of "Guilty," which was read to the jury. The defendant's counsel objected to the recording of the verdict in this form, inasmuch as the jury had found his client guilty of libel on the Attorney-General only. A brief argument on the subject ensued, whereupon the Judge charged the jury to the effect that such a verdict as they had found could not be received. He informed them that if they found the defendant guilty of any part of the alleged libel, they ought to return a general verdict of "Guilty;" but that they might, if they thought proper, suggest to the Court on what particular part of the publication their verdict was founded, in which case the Court would confine the punishment to that part only. The jury thereupon retired a second time, but soon returned with a general verdict of "Guilty." On being asked by the Judge whether they adhered to their former opinion as to the libellous part of the publication, they answered in the affirmative.

The sentence of the Court was not pronounced until sufficient time had elapsed to admit of a conference on the subject between Justices Sherwood and Hagerman. That such a conference really took place is clear enough from a letter of Judge Sherwood himself, to be presently referred to. The sentence, when it came, created much surprise, not only in the bosom of the individual who was directly concerned, but among the public at large. It condemned the defendant to pay a fine of fifty pounds, to be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, to find securities for his good behaviour for three years after his liberation, himself in four hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, and to stand committed until all these conditions should be complied with.

Certainly it was no wonder that the little world of upper Canada opened its eyes at such a Star Chamber sentence as this, pronounced in the year of Grace 1828. It seemed as if the whirligig of time had brought back the days of Bartemus Ferguson and The Niagara Spectator.[125] It was an open question with many persons, even among those who were upon the whole favourable to the measures of the Government, whether the prosecution should have been sustained at all or not. A charge of "native malignancy" was not likely to seriously affect the character or standing of Attorney-General Robinson, who was ready enough to apply much stronger epithets to his enemies. But, however that might be, there could be no sort of doubt that the punishment awarded was wholly disproportionate to the offence, more especially when the defendant's circumstances were considered. If persisted in, the sentence really involved the latter's perpetual imprisonment, for no two men of substance were likely to be found who would feel safe in guaranteeing the good behaviour of such a turbulent spirit as Francis Collins for so long a period as three years. Throughout the whole of this infamous persecution the Attorney-General showed to very little advantage. As previously mentioned, he had showered four indictments upon the defendant within the brief space of two days. Three of these he had withdrawn, and upon the fourth the defendant had been acquitted. He had then gone out of his way to lay a personal information upon a very insignificant pretext. Poor Collins was his enemy, and must not be allowed to characterize his conduct as "native malignancy," whereas the editors of newspapers under the patronage and pay of the Government were permitted to pursue a deliberate system of malicious vilification with impunity. The latter were allowed to publicly malign not only individual members of the Opposition, but to circulate the grossest libels upon the House of Assembly itself. With these offences the Attorney-General did not think fit to meddle. They were committed by his personal and political friends, and, unless common rumour seriously belied him, were not seldom committed at his own instigation. At any rate he maintained the most amicable relations with the libellers, and allowed no opportunity of serving their material interests to pass unimproved. Such inconsistency forced itself upon public attention. People who up to that time had supported the official party began to ask where this one-sidedness was to end. The Attorney-General had no right, it was said, to reward his friends for doing precisely the same things as those for which he punished and imprisoned his enemies. It was remembered against him how, when disputing with Judge Willis as to the nature of his official duties, he had with scorn repudiated the suggestion that he should proceed in the absence of instructions, even against notorious evil-doers. It was remembered that he had declined to take any official cognizance of so serious an offence against the public peace as the type-riot, which had been committed by his own friends and proteges. Yet he had here gone out of his way to prosecute to his ruin a poor wretch who, certainly not without great provocation, had merely accused him of falsehood and native malignancy. A man who accommodated his conduct to his inclinations in this way might perhaps be much beloved by his friends, but he certainly had no claim to be considered either good or great. The faction, from Dr. Strachan downwards, had for years been holding up John Beverley Robinson to the admiration of Upper Canadians. By many he had been accepted at their valuation. The Selkirk and Gourlay episodes, together with a score of others less noteworthy, had been slurred over. As the worst of these had occurred some years before, they had been partly forgotten by the existing generation. But the remorseless vindictiveness and cruelty displayed throughout the Collins prosecution were patent to everybody. They did much to lower the Attorney-General in popular estimation, and to destroy public confidence in the integrity of the Judges. They gave rise to an uneasy feeling of discontent, and doubtless had their share in bringing about the troubles of 1837-38.

Collins went to jail, where, in spite of great exertions on his behalf, he was compelled to remain for many months. The fine was paid, like the damages in the type-riot case, by public subscription. Appeals from various quarters to the Lieutenant-Governor on the prisoner's behalf were made in vain. The incumbent of that office was no longer Sir Peregrine Maitland, whose torpid and nerveless administration had come to an end some weeks before,[126] when, as previously mentioned, he had taken his departure for Nova Scotia. His successor as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was Major-General Sir John Colborne, a distinguished officer of the 52nd Regiment, who had done gallant service in the Peninsula, and had fought at Waterloo. He is described by Napier, the historian of the Peninsular War, as having developed "an extraordinary genius for war." After the return of peace he had had some experience in diplomacy, having for some time been placed in charge of the Government in the island of Guernsey. His appointment to the more onerous and responsible post of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was heralded as the precursor of better times. It was announced that he had come over charged with instructions to reverse the fatuous policy of his predecessor, and to conduct the administration in accordance with the well understood wishes of the people. It seems tolerably certain that some such general directions as these had actually been given, but great latitude was necessarily left to Sir John himself; and, as after events proved, he was ill fitted for the discharge of such duties as had been entrusted to him. He was destined to furnish, in his own person, a sufficient argument against the absurd system pursued by the Home Government of saddling the colonies with military rulers. That Sir John was an excellent soldier goes without saying. It is certain, too, that he was in the main actuated by upright and honourable motives. But he had been "a man of war from his youth," and his early training and long military career had made him stern and unbending. He had no sympathy with the aspirations of a people who were just beginning to grasp the principles of constitutional liberty, and who saw many things in the body politic which called aloud for reform.

It did not take long for the people of Upper Canada to gauge the character of the new Governor, for he had not been a fortnight in the Province before he had practically allied himself with the Compact. Hardly had he assumed the functions of his office ere a petition, signed by a number of influential inhabitants of York and its neighbourhood, was presented to him by a Committee on behalf of Collins. The facts were set out in detail, and his Excellency was asked to exercise the royal clemency by releasing the prisoner from his melancholy situation. Sir John's reply was non-committal, but not wholly discouraging. It conceded the advantages resulting from a free and well-conducted press, but expressed reverence for trial by jury, and referred to the danger of interfering with the verdicts of juries or the opinions of Judges unless their illegality could be clearly demonstrated. It added, however, that if his Excellency; after inquiring into the case, should come to the conclusion that his interposition was called for, a communication to that effect would be made to the person chiefly concerned.

In the face of this reply, it behooved the prisoner and his friends to wait a reasonable time before taking any further steps. Within the next few days a number of facts came to light which certainly went to show that there were at least good grounds for a new trial. It appeared that John Hayden, one of the jurymen, had been ignorant of the true meaning of the word "malignancy," and had sent out to the Court for Johnson's Dictionary, in order to arrive at a true definition. This indulgence was refused by the Court, and Hayden was constrained to accept the definition of another juror, whereby he was led to believe that the word in question has a much more serious significance than really attaches to it. By this means he had been induced to give his voice for the conviction of the defendant. Two other jurymen,[127] who were servile tools of the Attorney-General, had been actuated by undue prejudice, insomuch that they had expressed a strong pre-determination to convict the defendant. Then, the conduct of Mr. Hagerman, in sitting as a Judge in a case wherein he was personally concerned—it will be remembered that he had been derisively referred to in the report which formed the subject of the indictment—was an infringement of decency, to say nothing of its being a perversion of the letter and spirit of the law. He had also conferred with the Judge by whom the sentence was pronounced as to the measure of punishment to be awarded. But he had not only sat in judgment in his own cause: he had refused to record the finding of the jury, whom he had misled and coerced into bringing in a verdict contrary to what they really intended. Judge Sherwood's conduct had been little better. He had delivered a charge to the jury which practically left them no alternative but to convict, unless they altogether disregarded his counsels. John Carey, editor of the York Observer, who was present on the occasion, testified that the Judge's charge appeared to him to outrage law and common sense.[128] Then, the sentence itself was so grossly out of proportion to the offence as to shock all ideas of justice, and to form a standing menace against the liberty of the press in Upper Canada. Yet Judge Sherwood, in pronouncing it, had expressly stated that it should be light, in consequence of its being awarded for a first conviction. It would be curious to know what punishment he would have awarded if the defendant had been previously convicted on a similar charge.

All these circumstances went far to prove that the defendant had met with considerably more or less than justice. And there were other facts which had an ugly look. The defendant, as already mentioned, was a Roman Catholic; yet, out of a large and respectable population professing the same religious faith, not one was to be found on the panel, although at the Quarter Sessions, held a few days later, the number of Roman Catholics summoned to serve on juries was exceptionally large. The Sheriff who empanelled the jury was a political enemy of the accused. So was each individual member of the Grand Jury who found the true bill against him. So were a large majority of the petty jury by whom he was tried. So was the Attorney-General who prosecuted him. So were the two Judges who presided at the trial. Taken in connection with the specific facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, these matters gave rise to many unpleasant conjectures, and it was no wonder that the public voice exclaimed against the verdict as an unrighteous one. It was no wonder that public meetings were held in some of the rural districts to protest against what was almost universally pronounced to be a tyrannical abuse of the process of the Courts. It was no wonder that hisses and groans were sometimes heard from quiet nooks and corners when the Attorney-General passed along the streets of York. And it was no wonder that, coming, as it did, on the heels of other trials that differed with it only in degree, the case of Francis Collins caused many theretofore loyal subjects to ask themselves whether their loyalty demanded that they should forever continue to bend their necks to the yoke of the oppressor. What was Collins's case to-day might possibly be theirs or their sons' on the morrow.

On the 26th of November Collins sent in to the Lieutenant-Governor a pathetically-worded petition, in which the desolate condition of his young and helpless family was alluded to in brief but moving terms. It set out that, in consequence of his imprisonment, the business whereby he had supported his family was all but ruined, as its success depended solely on his personal exertions. Finally, he prayed to be restored to his liberty. Accompanying the petition were affidavits setting forth the admitted ignorance of one of the jurymen, and the pre-determination of the other two to convict. But the prisoner knocked at the gates of Sir John Colborne's heart in vain. The Lieutenant-Governor was by this time as completely hand and glove with the official party as his predecessor had ever been. Dr. Strachan and John Beverley Robinson managed him with great skill, and, by dint of much seeming deference, had him under complete control. Without being in the least aware of it, he was clay in the hands of the potter, who moulded him at will. As well might poor Collins have appealed for mercy to a half-famished tiger of the jungle as to these two Provincial representatives of law and gospel. His memorial, dated "York Gaol, November 26th, 1829," was not replied to until more than three weeks had elapsed, and when the answer came its contents indicated perfect callousness to the prisoner's unhappy condition. He was curtly informed that the Lieutenant-Governor could not think it right to comply with the petition, but that on the expiration of the specified term of imprisonment, any application which he might desire to make would be taken into consideration.

From this time forward the prisoner seems to have resigned himself to his fate, although his friends did not relax their exertions on his behalf. It seemed useless to apply for a new trial, as the application would have to be made to either Sherwood or Hagerman, from neither of whom could he hope to obtain justice. The Freeman continued to make its appearance, although its publication was necessarily carried on under great disadvantages. The editor's spirit was by no means broken, and he sent forth from his place of confinement a succession of editorials as bitterly vigorous as any previous efforts of his pen. He also wrote a series of open letters addressed to the Attorney-General, in which that official's career, from his infancy onwards, was reviewed with caustic bitterness.[129] These letters were published in successive numbers of the Freeman, and must be presumed to have been a source of great annoyance to the gentleman to whom they were directed. Though many of the statements therein were perverse and wilful distortions of facts, there was a large element of truth, and it would not have been easy to expose the falsehood without admitting much that could not be denied. The Attorney-General contemplated another prosecution, but thought better of it—not, it is to be presumed, from any want of vindictiveness, but because he felt that there was a limit to the public endurance, and that that limit had pretty nearly been reached.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

In January, 1829, the Collins case was taken into consideration by the Assembly. A Committee was appointed, and a rigid inquiry instituted into some of the most interesting features. Attorney-General Robinson was examined at considerable length. Judges Sherwood and Hagerman were summoned before the Committee, but both of them declined to answer any questions. A good many important facts were elicited, upon the strength of which an Address to his Excellency was passed, recapitulating the circumstances, and praying for a remission of the sentence. The reply was of the same inexorable character as that previously made to Collins's own petition. "It is my anxious wish," was the response of the Lieutenant-Governor, "to render service to the Province, by concurring with the Legislature in everything that can promote its peace, prosperity and happiness; and I regret exceedingly that the House of Assembly should have made an application to me which the obligation I am under to support the laws, and my duty to society, forbid me, I think, to comply with." For the information of the House, his Excellency forwarded a copy of a letter addressed by Justice Sherwood to the Governor's Secretary, embodying certain reasons for the judgment of the Court in the case. The Judge, it will be remembered, refused to assign any such reasons when questioned on the subject by the Committee of the House of Assembly. As to his right to so refuse there can hardly be much difference of opinion, but he would have been more consistent if he had also refused when applied to by the Lieutenant-Governor. After admitting the right to publish fair and candid opinions on the Government and constitution, the Judge declared that if a publisher "steps aside from the high road of decency and peaceable deportment, and adopts a course of public calumny and open abuse against the officers of Government generally, or particularly against the principal law officer of the Crown, in the legal discharge of his duty in the King's Courts, as the defendant did," then it was the Judge's conviction that the publisher so offending should be "punished to that extent which, in human probability, would prevent a recurrence of the offence." And yet this same Judge, in pronouncing sentence, had expressly declared that the sentence should be a light one, as it was the defendant's first offence. The conclusion of the letter showed plainly enough that a conference had taken place between Justices Sherwood and Hagerman before the imposition of the penalty. It proved, indeed, that the sentence was to be considered as the joint sentence of the two Judges. "Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration," it ran, "Mr. Justice Hagerman and myself deemed the sentence which we passed on the defendant both proper and necessary for the public good, and what the case itself required."

Two or three further appeals were made to the Lieutenant-Governor on the prisoner's behalf, all of which proved ineffectual. The matter was really in the hands of the Attorney-General himself, who was inexorable, and would be satisfied with nothing short of the fullest expiation. The Assembly meanwhile did not relax its efforts to obtain a commutation of the sentence. On the 12th of March an address to the King was passed by that body, whereby His Majesty was entreated "to extend to Francis Collins the royal clemency, by remitting the residue of his punishment." Not much was hoped for from this proceeding, as it was felt that the whole influence of the Executive would be put forward against it. The prisoner himself made up his mind to accept the inevitable, and to serve out at least the full term of the sentence imposed. He continued to supply editorial articles for his paper, couched in a strain which seemed to indicate his superiority to circumstances. But his buoyant spirit was measurably tamed by his long imprisonment, and it was remarked that he was never again quite the same man as before. Contrary to his anticipations, the address of the Assembly finally proved effective, and he was permitted to walk forth from the jail a free man. His paper came forth from week to week, but its tone was evidently modified and subdued. Something of the old spirit occasionally flashed forth, but fitfully and transitorily only, like the flicker of a lamp before its extinction. It was clear that the editor had not forgotten the indignity and mental suffering he had undergone, and throughout the remaining years of his life he always dwelt more or less in the shadow of the cold and solitary cell. The records of the jurisprudence of civilized countries contain few modern instances of the exaction of so severe a penalty for so insignificant an offence.

The narrative has no further concern with Francis Collins, except to record that he continued to edit and publish the Freeman down to 1834, when he fell a victim to the cholera invasion by which the Provincial capital was ravaged during that year. He died on the 2nd of September, and the Freeman thenceforth ceased to exist.

FOOTNOTES:

[118] The Attorney-General, John Beverley Robinson, was ever valiant on the stronger side. He tried to induce the Assembly to compel Dr. Horne to insert in the next issue of the Gazette a paragraph in the following words: "From the incompetence or negligence of our reporter, the debates of the House of Assembly inserted in the last number of this paper were so imperfect and so untruly reported that no dependence can be placed in their accuracy." The Assembly, however, were satisfied with the humiliation to which the Doctor had been subjected, and would not compel him to further self-abasement.

[119] Mr. Fothergill held the office barely three years, when he was dismissed for voting with the Opposition in the Assembly against the Government. It was an anomaly to permit the King's Printer to hold a seat in the Legislative Assembly, and the Government could hardly be expected to tolerate opposition from such a quarter. Mr. Fothergill was the first incumbent of the office to develop liberal opinions. He was sufficiently deep in the secrets of the Administration to make him a dangerous opponent if he had felt disposed to wage war to the knife. Of this fact the Administration seem to have taken a sort of oblique cognizance. He had overdrawn his account by L360, and in settling with him this sum was not taken into consideration. In other words, the Government made him a present of L360. His successor in the office of King's Printer was Mr. Robert Stanton.

[120] Ante, p. 171.

[121] Ante, p. 13.

[122] Ante, pp. 171-174.

[123] Ante, p. 136.

[124] The charge, as reported by Collins, will be found in the Appendix to the Journals of Assembly for 1829, pp. 27, 28.

[125] Ante, p. 42 et seq.

[126] Sir Peregrine was gazetted to be "Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia and its dependencies" on the 14th of August, 1828. On the same date Sir John Colborne was gazetted as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, but he did not reach the seat of his Government until late in the autumn, and Sir Peregrine did not actually demit office until the arrival of his successor.

[127] William Davenish and Andrew A. Thompson. The former stated that in the event of his being called as a juror he would "put it on to" Collins. See the Freeman for Thursday December 25th, 1828.

[128] See Appendix to Journals of Assembly for 1829.

[129] Ante, pp. 101, 102, note.



CHAPTER X.

LIGHTS—OLD AND NEW.

In the preceding five chapters an attempt has been made to reduce to narrative form a great mass of heterogeneous material bearing upon the "Story" which it is the purpose of these volumes to relate. A considerable proportion of this material is to all practical intents inaccessible to the general reading public, being scattered here and there through old and long-forgotten newspapers, blue-books, pamphlets and unedited manuscripts. Yet some acquaintance with it is absolutely necessary to a clear comprehension of the deplorable state of things which existed in this Province during the regime of Sir Peregrine Maitland and his successor. No one who is ignorant of it is capable of expressing an intelligent opinion as to the merits or demerits of the Rebellion and those who took part therein. The principal facts and circumstances attendant upon some of the most flagrant exhibitions of Family Compact oppression which mark the fourth decade of Upper Canadian history have therefore been set forth in consecutive order, and with considerable minuteness. The picture thus afforded of Provincial-society and Government, though pregnant with instruction, is by no means an attractive one, and any person contemplating it for the first time may well be excused for questioning its perfect accuracy. The drawing, at times, seems to be too wavy in outline, and some of the details have the appearance of being painted in colours too glaring to be natural. But a strict examination of the properties will correct all such impressions. Varying themes require varying methods of treatment. There are certain features of landscape which must not be drawn with absolute sharpness of outline, and there are subjects to which neutral tints altogether fail to do justice. Of such a character are more than one of the scenes here reproduced. Independently of the mere method of treatment, the historical evidence is so clear and explicit that it can be questioned by no one who takes the trouble to examine it. As to mere matters of fact, there will be little or no difference of opinion among those who consult and compare the various authorities cited in the notes.[130]

The cases hitherto recorded are merely a few out of many, but they suffice to tell the story of Executive cruelty and selfishness during the period referred to more effectively than it could possibly be told without their aid. To set forth with equal fulness of detail the circumstances attendant upon the persecution of Jonah Brown, Robert Randal, Hugh Christopher Thompson, and a round score of minor victims, would be to extend this work to an interminable length. The materials for a work written on such a plan are abundant, as they include all the facts arising out of the stupendous iniquity sought to be perpetrated under the guise of the Alien Bill. The particulars connected with the attempt to force this infamous measure upon the people of Upper Canada cannot be inquired into in these pages. Sufficient to say that it was a most dishonest and unstatesmanlike attempt on the part of the Executive to get rid of political opponents by repudiating the well-understood obligations of their predecessors in office: an attempt to dispossess persons who, relying upon the faith of the Government of the day, had settled in the country and taken up lands, to which they had received titles, and upon which they and their parents had in many cases resided ever since Governor Simcoe's time. The attempt failed through the vigilance of the Opposition and the interference of the Imperial Government, but it proved the length to which the official party were prepared to go in order to maintain the existing order of things. It was of a piece with the rest of the Executive policy, which seemed to wax more and more exacting and one-sided with lapse of time. It was abundantly clear to many persons unconnected with the Reform party that there was no justice in the land for a Reformer, and that the oligarchy by whom the country was dominated cared nothing for its best interests. Constitutional liberty was systematically trampled under foot. The oft-quoted boast of the Founder of the Province about the Upper Canadian constitution being "the very image and transcript of that of Great Britain"[131] seemed the hollowest mockery when viewed in the light of events which had become a matter of frequent occurrence.

It was not only to the thumbs of political opponents that the Executive screw was applied. When occasion arose it was applied with surprising energy and vigour to the thumbs of those who had long been obedient slaves of the Administration. Nothing more clearly shows the shameless exercise of power on the part of the faction: nothing more clearly proves the complete subordination of their tools, and the depths of degradation to which public men could be made to stoop: than an episode which occurred during the Parliamentary session of 1828. The persons chiefly involved were the Hon. James Baby, who was himself Inspector-General of Public Accounts and senior member of the Executive Council, and ex-Chief Justice Powell. It has already been explained that the first-named personage had for some time past ceased to carry any great weight at the Council Board, where he had been to a considerable extent superseded by his juniors.[132] His seniority was merely in point of time, and his influence on the policy of the Government was as insignificant as it possibly could be, consistently with the position which he held. He keenly felt his having been, so to speak, thrust into the background, and in several instances showed a disposition to assert himself by acting independently. A similar feeling, but milder in degree, animated the breast of the ex-Chief Justice, whose place as principal lay adviser of the Lieutenant-Governor had long since been taken by Attorney-General Robinson. During the session of 1823-4 he had seen fit to protest against a School Bill passed by the Assembly, under which Dr. Strachan was intended to and did actually derive a sinecure salary of three hundred pounds a year. His protest, at his own urgent request, was entered on the journal, where it seemed likely to remain a perpetual memento of his independence and of the servility of his colleagues. But this was by no means desired by the Lieutenant-Governor and the Attorney-General. Pressure was brought to bear upon the recalcitrant member, under the influence of which he was forced to succumb. He consented that the protest should be erased from the journal, and it was erased accordingly.[133] But a still more sickening humiliation was in store for him, as well as for the venerable Mr. Baby.

During the session of 1828 several petitions were received by the Assembly praying for relief against a law passed in 1825, whereby certain taxes had been imposed on wild lands.[134] Among other grievances complained of was the manner in which the law had been passed. It was distinctly alleged in one of the petitions that the measure had been pushed through both Houses with too great rapidity, and that most culpable means had been employed in order to procure the assent of certain members to whom it was objectionable. The Assembly entertained the petitions, and appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. A number of witnesses were examined, and some astounding facts elicited. The allegations as to undue influence were proved by the clearest evidence, and by witnesses who had generally been accustomed to act with the Government. One of these was our somewhile acquaintance, the Hon. William Dickson, who, as has previously been seen, was the owner of an immense tract of land,[135] and was consequently seriously affected by the law enacted in 1825. His evidence, as printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Assembly,[136] stands as a perpetual indictment against Sir Peregrine Maitland and the venal clique by whom he was surrounded. It appears that from the time when the Bill relating to the taxation of wild lands was first introduced into the Upper House it was an unpopular measure, and that it was opposed by a majority of the members. Most of the latter were large landholders by virtue of their membership, and some of them had acquired additional blocks by purchase. The obnoxious Bill was opposed at every stage, and there seemed to be no possibility of its becoming law. Its defeat being regarded as inevitable, its opponents to some extent relaxed their efforts, and congratulated each other upon their apparent success. On the third reading, however, Mr. Dickson found, to his supreme astonishment and disgust, that some of the members upon whom he had relied for votes presented an entire change of front, and appeared in the role of supporters of the measure. It was noticeable that all the converts, or perverts, held offices under the Government. The Hon. John Henry Dunn, Provincial Receiver-General, took a different course. He had been among the most determined opponents of the Bill, and had declared that it would never pass.[137] He had too much self-respect, after taking such a stand, to give the lie to all his protestations by voting for the measure, so he quietly staid at home on a pretence of sickness.[138] Referring to those who took a more determined stand, by voting contrary to their pledges, Mr. Dickson says: "This change, I am satisfied, arose from intimidation by the Local Government, who seemed determined to carry the measure at any sacrifice. It was most painfully manifest from their countenances and demeanour that the change was not from conviction, but from coercion. The business of the Legislative Council was suspended for two hours for a meeting of the Executive Council. And I do believe that at that Council the members of the Legislative Council holding offices were constrained at the peril of their situations to vote for the measures they had a week before decidedly opposed. Upon those members returning that day to their legislative duties there was a change of voting, and one of those who staid away on pretence of sickness was, to my knowledge, able to attend." The reference here is presumably to Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dickson's evidence then goes on to say that about ten minutes before the vote was taken, a message was delivered to the Hon. James Baby that Major Hillier wished to speak to him. Major Hillier was the Lieutenant-Governor's most confidential secretary, and was employed in numberless little transactions requiring the exercise of coolness and tact. In response to the message Mr. Baby left his place in the House, and did not return for some time. Upon his return from the interview to his accustomed seat he was evidently much confused and agitated. Being spoken to by Mr. Dickson he found it impossible to conceal his agitation, but told his interlocutor, to that gentleman's great astonishment, that he must vote for the Bill. When the time came he accordingly voted with the Government, and the Bill was carried by a small majority, Messieurs Dickson and Clark entering a determined protest against it. "After the passing of the Bill," continues Mr. Dickson, "the Hon. Mr. Baby, after leaving the House, put his hand upon his heart, and, with reference to his change of conduct on the measure, said something about his children, expressive of his regret at the necessity which drove him to the abandonment of the course he had pursued."

Mr. Powell, who was then Speaker of the Legislative Council, was evidently subjected to similar influences. Like Mr. Baby, he had been strenuous in his opposition to the Bill, and had even gone so far as to speak harshly of some of those who promoted it. But he was speedily made to know his place, and the tenure by which he held it. During a portion of the two hours when the business of the Legislative Council was suspended he was in secret conference with Major Hillier and one or more members of the Executive Council.[139] When he took his seat upon the resumption of the business of the day, it was noticeable that he, as well as Baby, was labouring under undue embarrassment and agitation. It was beyond any reasonable doubt that they had been shamelessly coerced, and had been compelled to choose between voting as they were commanded or being dismissed from their respective offices. Upon being questioned by Mr. Dickson, Powell admitted that he had changed his opinion, and added, in seeming sincerity, that he had received new light on the matter within the last ten minutes. Such an exchange of an old lamp for a new one must surely have been the work of some malignant and monstrous genie at the Council Board.

It should be mentioned that Dickson's evidence, so far as "extraordinary and undue influence by the Local Government" is concerned, is fully confirmed by the evidence of the Hon. Thomas Clark, who was also a member of the Upper House, and was present at the proceedings above described.

There could not well be any more conclusive proof of the unconstitutional and corrupt manner in which the Government was carried on during Sir Peregrine Maitland's time than is afforded by the circumstances just narrated. They read like a chapter out of the political history of England during the last century. The methods employed by Walpole exhibit nothing baser or more repulsive than these. His aphorism about "every one of them" having his price might well have been echoed by Sir Peregrine, so far as the Legislative Council was concerned, with the addition that the price in Upper Canada was sometimes ridiculously low. The persons who were guilty of these gross violations of the constitution, to say nothing of the commonest principles of honesty, were incessantly prating of their devoted loyalty to the Crown. Yet it is plain enough that their fealty was always subservient to what they deemed to be their personal interests. This was as clearly apparent in 1837 as it had been in 1828. When, a few years later,[140] a crisis arose in which they were compelled to choose between those interests and their devotion to the Crown, it was once more abundantly manifest that theirs was the veriest lip-loyalty. The burning of the Parliament Buildings at Montreal was as direct an act of treason as was the affair at Montgomery's Farm.

[Sidenote: 1829.]

In 1828 there was a general election, in the course of which the Executive party made tremendous exertions to regain a predominating influence in the Assembly. They perceived plainly enough that a hostile majority in the Lower House must in the end prove fatal to them. They might temporarily set it at naught, through their control over the Legislative Council and the absence of ministerial responsibility, but they could not hope to keep up such a farce for all time. This knowledge impelled them to adopt every means which their ingenuity could devise to secure the return of candidates who might be relied upon to support their policy. Their success was by no means proportionate to their efforts. When the returns were all in it appeared that the Opposition had rather gained than lost by the contest. Two staunch members of the Compact were defeated in what had theretofore been regarded as safe Tory boroughs, and Attorney-General Robinson's majority in the Town of York was greatly diminished. All the most prominent Reformers were returned, and at the opening of the session on the 8th of January, 1829, Rolph, Bidwell, Perry, Matthews and Dr. Baldwin took their seats on the Opposition benches. To their number was now added William Lyon Mackenzie, who had been returned for the County of York. His election was a surprise to the Government party, and was pronounced by them to be an everlasting disgrace to the intelligent and populous constituency which had returned him. He repaid such compliments as these with others of a like character, and gave back as much as he received, if not with usury, at least with fair interest.

Mr. Bidwell was elected to the Speaker's chair by the new Assembly, and on every test question the Government were left in a hopeless minority. The vote on the Address in Reply will afford some clue to the political complexion of the House. It referred to the Lieutenant-Governor's advisers as having deeply wounded the feelings and injured the best interests of the country; yet it was carried with only one dissentient vote—that of J. H. Samson, one of the members for Hastings. Reform was evidently in the ascendant throughout the Province; but, as during the preceding Parliament, the exertions of the majority in the Assembly could do little for Reform under the existing state of the constitution. The Lieutenant-Governor responded with curt ambiguity to the Assembly's Address, and cemented his alliance with the Compact by refusing to grant the prayer of the petition for the release of Collins. The Government submitted to one defeat after another with dogged sullenness, but with undiminished contempt for the idea that successive defeats imposed upon them any obligation to resign.

The session of 1829 was a noisy and quarrelsome one. Hardly had Mackenzie taken his seat before he began that system of inquiry and agitation which he thenceforward pursued throughout the whole of his career as a member of Parliament. He instituted an investigation into the management of the Provincial Post Office, conducted an inquiry as to the privileges of members of the Assembly, and as to the behaviour of certain returning officers, and generally busied himself with important matters of detail. He displayed precisely the same characteristics as a legislator that he had displayed as the conductor of a newspaper—great energy and vigilance, accompanied by a critical and fault-finding spirit, and an almost entire absence of tact and discretion. He gave wanton and unnecessary offence to those who differed from him in opinion, not only on important political questions, but even on comparatively insignificant matters of every-day occurrence. His coadjutors found that, independently of the sincerity or insincerity of his intentions, his judgment was not to be trusted. He could be misled by any ignis fatuus that displayed a bright light, and was led into many a Serbonian bog from which he was not extricated without serious difficulty. Some men have an unerring instinct which, even in the absence of calm judgment or mature reflection, commonly leads them in the right path. Mackenzie's first conceptions, on the contrary, were almost invariably erroneous; and he had a perverse habit of frequently clinging to an idea once formed, even when experience and deliberation had proved it to be unsound.[141] At other times his opinions were as changeable as the hue of the chameleon. In short, he was a creature of impulse, and too often acted upon the motto of "First fire—then inquire." This was perhaps a misfortune rather than a fault, and under ordinary circumstances would have merited lightness of touch on the part of the historian. But Mr. Mackenzie is identified with a movement which forms a conspicuous and dramatic passage in Upper Canadian chronicles, and in justice to others it becomes highly necessary to form a correct estimate of his personality. This is all the more essential from the fact that he himself at different times gave various and conflicting accounts of the episode with which his name is inseparably blended, which accounts have hitherto been the only sources of information drawn upon by so-called historians. All the references to the Upper Canadian Rebellion to be found in current histories are traceable, directly or indirectly, to Mackenzie himself, and all are built upon false hypotheses and perverted representations of events. To Mackenzie, more than to any other person, or to all other persons combined, are to be attributed all the worst consequences which flowed from that feebly-planned and ill-starred movement. All the facts point to the conclusion that if he had been content to play the patient and subordinate part properly belonging to him, the whole course of his subsequent life might have been shaped much more smoothly, and he might have been saved the most serious of the privations which he was compelled to undergo. Much sorrow and suffering would also have been spared to others. The injury that may be done in a primitive community by a man who combines good intentions and great energy with excessive obstinacy, misguided ambition, and perversity of judgment, is simply incalculable. The subsequent course of the narrative will be found to fully bear out these reflections, and to point a moral even where there is no intention to moralize.

Beyond the perpetual friction which was kept up between the Executive body and the Opposition, the session of 1829 was barren of events of permanent political importance. The Executive was tolerably independent of the popular branch of the Legislature, for it retained the casual and territorial revenues, and could get along without an annual vote for supplies. No fewer than twenty-one Bills passed by the Assembly were rejected by the Legislative Council during the session. "The Province," says Mr. MacMullen,[142] "presented the unconstitutional spectacle of a Government requiring no moneys from the Assembly, and a Legislative Council of a totally different political complexion from the popular branch of the Legislature. No restraint could now be imposed on the Executive by an annual vote of supplies. It was completely independent of the people." And it declared its independence in the most emphatic manner by inserting in one of the Lieutenant-Governor's messages a direct intimation that the Assembly would not be asked to trouble itself about ways and means.

Certain episodes occurred during this session which are deserving of something more than passing reference, not only as indicative of the manners of those times, but because they concern personages whose achievements were fated to occupy much space in the annals of our country. The Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Colborne, had not long been installed in office before he was exhibited in effigy in the streets of Hamilton. Certain Tories who were believed to have taken part in the exhibition openly asserted that the Hamilton Reformers were responsible for it. It was at the same time alleged that there was a plot on the part of the Reformers to release Francis Collins from York jail by force of arms. The two stories emanated from a common source, and as they were without any foundation in truth the Reform leaders in the Assembly deemed it proper to institute an inquiry into the matter. Upon motion of Mr. John Rolph a Committee of Investigation was appointed, with power to send for persons and papers. It was known that Allan Napier MacNab, who was then an impecunious young lawyer in Hamilton, could give certain important information about the affair, and he was summoned to appear before the Committee during the second week in February. He obeyed the summons, so far as presenting an appearance was concerned, but he refused to reply to certain questions put to him, and conducted himself with great insolence and want of discretion. Being again summoned before the Committee, to answer for his conduct, he read a written defence which had been prepared for him, and which rather aggravated his offence than otherwise. Accordingly, on motion of Dr. Baldwin, seconded by George Rolph, the future baronet was committed to York jail, under warrant of the Speaker, during the pleasure of the House. After remaining in custody about ten days, Mr. MacNab addressed a letter to the House which reads very much like a repetition of his former contempt, but which the Assembly seem to have construed very charitably, as on the 3rd of March a motion was carried for his discharge, and he was set at liberty.

This brief term of imprisonment, which in all lasted less than a fortnight, was the turning point in the reckless young lawyer's career. Up to that time he had been nobody, and had had no apparent prospect of ever attaining to any importance. But from this time forward the official party regarded him in the light of a martyr who had suffered in the good cause. They feasted and lionized him, and did their utmost to advance his fortunes. At the elections which took place during the following year they returned him as one of the representatives of the County of Wentworth in the Assembly, where, though he lacked sufficient ballast to display anything like statesmanship, he made considerable noise, and erelong became a notable personage. He was voluble, and made many verbose speeches, the matter of which never rose above the veriest commonplace, but as it was always charged with emphatic High Toryism it was applauded to the echo by the official party. Eventually, as every Canadian knows, he obtained high distinction and eminence, and had abundant reason to bless the discipline which he had received at the hands of a Parliamentary Committee. But for that discipline he might have lived and died an obscure country lawyer. To that discipline he was indebted for all the honours which subsequently descended upon him. By its aid he successively became a member of the Upper Canadian Parliament, Speaker of the Assembly, Commander-in-Chief of the Upper Canadian land forces during the Rebellion, Knight, Queen's Counsel, member of the United Parliament of Canada, leader of the Tory Party in the Canadian Legislature, Premier, President of the Council and Minister of Agriculture, Baronet, honorary Colonel in the British Army, Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, Speaker of the Legislative Council. He also became father-in-law to a peer of the realm, and died Sir Allan MacNab of Dundurn. Certain passages of his life will form the subject of future consideration. Meanwhile it will be sufficient to remark that each successive link in the long chain of his triumphs may be distinctly traced to his supposed martyrdom at the hands of the Reform majority in the Upper Canadian Assembly in 1829.

Another personage cited to appear before the Assembly's Committee on the same investigation was the Hon. H. J. Boulton, Solicitor-General. He displayed the same reticence as young MacNab, and refused to reply to certain questions put to him by the Chairman. He was soon taught that the high position which he occupied, backed, as it was, by the support of the party in power, could not shield him from the consequences of his refusal. Upon motion of Dr. Baldwin a resolution was adopted that the Solicitor-General had been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the privileges of the House. He was placed at the bar, where he showed more sense of propriety than had been shown by his predecessor. He had no desire to wear a crown of martyrdom, and did his utmost to purge himself of his contempt. He pleaded that he had intended no disrespect to the Committee, nor any breach of the privileges of the Assembly, and concluded by saying that he stood ready to answer, if the House so desired. The House acted magnanimously, not choosing to humiliate a beaten man any farther than was necessary for the due vindication of its own authority. John Rolph, seconded by Dr. Ambrose Blacklock, one of the members for Stormont, moved that the Solicitor-General be admonished by the Speaker, and discharged on payment of fees to the Sergeant-at-Arms. The motion was carried, and it only remained for the culprit to submit to the mild discipline which he had been adjudged to bear.

But there was reason for believing that that discipline would be a trying ordeal for the Solicitor-General. The Speaker who was to pronounce the admonition was no commonplace piece of clay, trained to the set phrase of office, like the previous occupant had been. He was no less a personage than Marshall Spring Bidwell, who, with perhaps the single exception of John Rolph, was the most eloquent and powerful speaker in the Province. When moved to righteous anger, he was capable of administering a scorching reproof, and if a man is ever justified in taking his antagonist at a disadvantage, ample justification was to be found in the present instance. Mr. Bidwell had reason to hate the very name of Boulton, and might well be expected to avail himself of such an opportunity of darting the hot iron into his enemy's soul. There was a feud of long standing between the Bidwells and the Boultons. The Bidwells had sustained serious wrong and insult at the hands of the Boultons, and the Boultons hated the Bidwells with the hatred which small natures always feel towards higher natures which they have wronged. It was a Boulton who had been despatched to Massachusetts in 1821, to hunt up evidence as to the alleged misconduct of the elder Bidwell.[143] It was this same Henry John Boulton who had joined with his friend the Attorney-General in abusing and maligning the elder Bidwell during the election campaign of 1821, and afterwards. It was he who had put forth all the little strength that was in him to assist his party in bringing about the expulsion of the elder Bidwell from the Assembly.[144] He had done his utmost, and successfully, to induce members of Parliament to vote for the statute which had forever closed the doors of the Upper Canadian Legislature to the ex-member of Congress.[145] He had opposed the return of the younger Bidwell to the Assembly, and more recently, though he was not then a member of the House, he had done what he could to keep him out of the Speaker's Chair by influencing members in favour of John Willson. He had lost no opportunity of making himself personally offensive to Mr. Bidwell, whose abilities he envied, and whose character he was utterly incapable of appreciating. It will thus be seen that all the attendant circumstances combined to make Mr. Bidwell hate and contemn his adversary. If he failed to do so the explanation was to be found in his own gentle nature, and not in the lessons of humiliation which the Boultons had endeavoured to impose upon him.

It was a memorable scene when the Solicitor-General stood up, on the 20th of February, to receive the admonition which he had been adjudged to endure. He was in a state of tremor, for he was conscious of the disadvantage of his position, and he dreaded the power of the Speaker's tongue. His friends also felt much solicitude on his account, for they knew how little consideration he deserved at the hands of the man who now had him in his power. For some moments a solemn silence reigned supreme. Then the Speaker's voice was heard; low at first, but steadily rising into clear and impressive tones which made every word sink deep into the hearts of the listeners. And the words themselves: how different from what the expectant personage at the bar had looked for! Nothing of malice or revenge there. Nothing but quiet dignity and forbearance. No mere spectator could have told whether the offender was a personal friend or an enemy of the Speaker. The voice was full of feeling, but utterly devoid of passion or malevolence. The power of Parliament was fully vindicated, yet the transgressor escaped without any unnecessary laceration of his pride. "By every member of the community," proceeded Mr. Bidwell, "a ready and cheerful respect should be shown towards the House of Assembly, who represent the people of the Province, whom the constitution has entrusted with important privileges for the benefit of their constituents, and who are amenable to them for all that they do. But it might in a peculiar degree have been expected of you, whose duty it is to enforce submission to the laws and respect for the institutions of the country." Here Mr. Boulton bowed his head as if in mute assent. He was then informed that the House could not permit this formal and gratuitous denial of its authority to pass unnoticed. "It is important," continued the Speaker, "that by its proceedings against you a warning should be given, before others are led by the influence of your sentiments and conduct to dispute an authority which the House is bound to vindicate and enforce. It is necessary that it should go thus far; but it gives me great satisfaction to observe that its duty does not compel, nor its inclination induce it, in your case, to go any farther than is requisite to attain this object; and, finding from your answer that you are now disposed to treat its privileges with just and becoming respect, and to defer your own private opinion to the judgment of that body whose constitutional right it is to decide upon its own privileges, it is willing to dismiss you with no other punishment than this admonition from its Speaker. This moderation is a proof that these privileges have been safely lodged by the constitution in its hands, and that they will never be used in a wanton or oppressive manner. It is by the order and in the name of the House that I thus admonish you, and direct that the Sergeant-at-Arms do now discharge you from custody." He was discharged accordingly, and left the house profoundly affected by the magnanimity of the man whom he had so grievously injured. One who seems to have watched him as he took his departure has recorded that the Boulton crest never hung so low as at that hour.[146] Nothing could have more clearly proved the greatness of soul of Mr. Bidwell than this episode; nothing could have more effectually illustrated his capacity to rise superior to all merely personal considerations when entrusted with the discharge of a public duty. The London Times published a full report of his admonition, which it pronounced to be the best paper of the kind on record.

During the following summer an event took place which removed Attorney-General Robinson from the atmosphere of the Assembly, and was the indirect means of introducing Robert Baldwin to public life. This was the appointment of Mr. Robinson to the place of Chief Justice of Upper Canada. The office had just become vacant through the retirement of Chief Justice Campbell, who had received the honour of knighthood during his absence in England. Mr. Robinson thus obtained the reward which he had long coveted, and which his devotion to successive Lieutenant-Governors had richly earned. There was some doubt as to the strict legality of his passing directly from the office of Attorney-General to that of Chief Justice. To remove the doubt he accepted the position of Registrar of the County of Kent, which he resigned after holding it a few days. His appointment to the Chief Justiceship was made on the 13th of July, but owing to the delay occasioned by his acceptance of the inferior office it was confirmed and re-dated on the 3rd of August following. He then took his seat on the bench, and was destined to remain there for more than thirty-three years. As Chief Justice he succeeded to the Presidency of the Executive Council, and at the opening of the session in the beginning of 1830 he was nominated Speaker of the Upper House. His removal from the Assembly therefore did not remove him from the political arena, and for years afterwards he continued, in conjunction with his friend and quondam tutor Dr. Strachan, to direct the policy of the Government as completely as he had done for some years previously. He was succeeded in the office of Attorney-General by Henry John Boulton. The temporary purpose for which Mr. Hagerman had been appointed to the bench, in place of Mr. Justice Willis, having been fully effected, that gentleman now threw off his official robes and succeeded his friend Boulton as Solicitor-General.

Mr. Robinson's elevation to the bench left a vacancy in the representation of the Town of York. This vacancy young Robert Baldwin successfully aspired to fill. At the last general election, in conjunction with J. E. Small, he had unsuccessfully contested the County of York with W. L. Mackenzie and Jesse Ketchum. He was now opposed in the town by the same individual who had so lately been his coadjutor in the county. Mr. Small was defeated, but, at his instance, the return was declared void, the writ for the election having inadvertently been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor instead of by the Speaker of the Assembly, as in strictness it should have been. A new writ was issued, and Mr. Baldwin again contested the seat, his opponent now being the Sheriff of the County, William Botsford Jarvis. The Sheriff naturally enjoyed many advantages in such a contest, but he was defeated by a considerable majority, and on the opening of the session in the following January, Robert Baldwin, then in his twenty-sixth year, took his seat in Parliament for the first time. He however did not make any conspicuous figure during the session. He had already fully imbibed the idea that a responsible Executive was the great want of Upper Canadian polity, and took comparatively little interest in the subordinate questions of the day. He could see no good purpose to be served by recording successive majorities against the Government, so long as the members of that Government could retain their offices, together with the favour of the Lieutenant-Governor, in spite of any vote which the Assembly might see fit to record. He made no remarkable speeches, and seemed rather disposed to remain in the background. It so happened that he did not again have an opportunity of winning honours in the Legislature for many years, as, in consequence of the death of the king, a dissolution of Parliament took place before the time had arrived for the meeting of another session, and Robert Baldwin was one of the many Reform candidates who were beaten at the general elections which ensued.

There are few facts worthy of record in connection with the session of 1830. In the Speech from the Throne the Lieutenant-Governor was able to announce that the revenue at the disposal of the Crown had been found sufficient to meet the requirements of the civil list, and that there still remained a considerable surplus in the Provincial Treasury. The Assembly's Address in Reply once more drew his Excellency's attention to the want of confidence felt in the advisers by whom he was surrounded. "We still feel unabated solicitude about the administration of public justice," it ran, "and entertain a settled conviction that the continuance about your Excellency of those advisers who from the unhappy policy they pursued have long deservedly lost the confidence of the country, is highly inexpedient, and calculated seriously to weaken the expectations of the people from the impartial and disinterested justice of His Majesty's Government." The response to this intimation is probably the briefest official deliverance of the kind on record. Divested of the formal commencement, it contained exactly six short words: "I thank you for your Address." The number of Bills passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Upper House during the session was twenty-seven. In addition to these there were several Bills which originated in the Assembly, but were afterwards rejected by that House by reason of amendments made to them by the Legislative Council.[147]

FOOTNOTES:

[130] It has not been thought desirable to incumber the text with footnotes except where they seemed to be needed for purposes of elucidation; but in every matter of real importance, where the reader of average information and intelligence may reasonably be supposed to be in doubt as to the source of the narrative, care has been taken to indicate the authority.

[131] Ante, p. 48.

[132] Ante, p. 140.

[133] See Seventh Report of Grievance Committee, p. xxxvii. The School Act referred to was 4 George IV. cap. 8, passed on the 19th of January, 1824. John Henry Dunn, Receiver-General of the Province, seems also to have protested against the measure, and to have consented, under pressure, to the erasure of his protest. See the evidence of the Hon. William Dickson and the Hon. Thomas Clark, referred to in the ensuing paragraph of the text.

[134] The royal assent to this Act was promulgated by a proclamation bearing date April 4th, 1825.

[135] Ante, p. 14.

[136] See Report on Petitions against Wild Lands Assessment Law, in Appendix to Journals of Assembly for 1828, p. 107 et seq.

[137] See The Split in the Legislative Council, by F. C. [? Francis Collins], p. 7.

[138] Ib., p. 8.

[139] The Split in the Legislative Council, ubi supra, p. 10.

[140] In 1849.

[141] Such, as far as I have been able to learn, was the conviction of all Mackenzie's contemporaries, even of those most favourably disposed, including those who were thrown into the most intimate relations with him, and were bound to him by close ties. One of the foremost of these, in a conversation with me a short time since, remarked: "Mackenzie generally meant well, but he was unpractical and unmanageable. I knew him intimately from his boyhood, and I am compelled to say that whenever he was in the least excited he acted like a spoiled child. He underwent no change in this respect, and was the same in youth, manhood and old age. A more unfit person to be entrusted with the management of any great enterprise, or with the control of his fellow-creatures, I can hardly conceive." I have abundant written testimony to the same effect.

[142] History of Canada, p. 370.

[143] Ante, p. 100.

[144] Ante, p. 101.

[145] Ib.

[146] The Hamilton Outrage, by "Vindex," p. 9. York, 1829.

[147] For the titles of these measures, see the Seventh Report of Grievance Committee, pp. 266, 267.



CHAPTER XI.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

For several years before this time a quiet and almost imperceptible change had been taking place in Upper Canadian politics. On one side was the old High Tory or Family Compact party, who revelled in the spoils of office, and held the representative of Majesty in the hollow of their hands. The policy of this body was unchanged and unchangeable. The Reform party, though it had not been in existence more than six years, already began to show symptoms of want of cohesion. The men of moderate views, like the Rolphs, the Baldwins and the Bidwells, composed fully two-thirds of the entire number. The ultra-Radicals, composed for the most part of unlettered farmers and recently-arrived immigrants, began to show evidence of a desire to rally themselves under the banner of Mackenzie, who, through the combined influence of his paper and his election to Parliament, had of late come prominently before the public. A large and intelligent body of electors had however grown up within the last few years who, while they professed Conservative principles, were disgusted with the greedy, self-seeking Compact, whose practices they held in utter disdain. They held politicians of the Mackenzie stamp in still greater abhorrence, to which was added a large modicum of contempt. With the moderate Reformers, on the other hand, they had much in common. Many of them approved of the doctrine of Responsible Government, and almost all of them desired to see the end of Compact domination. At the last general election their votes had been very much divided. But they were now disposed to hold aloof from the Reformers in consequence of the latter's being nominally of the same party as the Mackenzie Radicals, who had only recently come into existence. The exercise of a little diplomacy and mutual forbearance at this time might, it is believed, have effected that union between these two classes of persons which was actually accomplished about a quarter of a century later. Such an union would have made the united party all powerful. It would have swept away the Compact, together with the long-standing abuses which had grown up under their rule, and the united party would quietly have assumed the reins of power with an overwhelming majority at its back. There would thus have been no raison d'etre for the Radical element, which would necessarily have been absorbed, or would at least have ceased to be an important factor in political life.

These things, however, were not to be. Neither of the parties primarily interested made any advances to the other, and each was left to pursue its own line of policy. As a consequence the moderate Conservatives henceforth voted as one man. They saw the Radical element assuming an importance which, as they believed, was fraught with far greater danger to the commonwealth than was likely to arise from the continued ascendency of the Compact. They gave the official party a qualified support, merely because they regarded them as the less of two evils, and their votes at the general election of 1830 resulted in the return of a considerable majority of candidates favourable to the official body.