The Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion - John Charles Dent (best historical biographies .TXT) 📗

as 1821, when he had purchased the adjoining lot from William Dickson, and no one had ever questioned his right to maintain it there. He seems to have thought that he had as good a claim to the property as anybody. He had been informed, contrary to the fact, that the Government reserve extended only to the lower bank, and did not cover the land at the top. He might easily have discovered that his information was misleading, but he had not chosen to take so much trouble, and deserved to suffer the legal consequences of his neglect. He could undoubtedly have been dispossessed by means of an action of ejectment, with the costs of which he would justly have been saddled. But he had a right to expect that, after being allowed to remain so many years in undisturbed possession, he should only be dispossessed by civil process. It was not a case where an arbitrary removal was justifiable, such as may lawfully take place when it becomes necessary to abate a nuisance. But it was above all things intolerable that the military should have been employed for such a purpose. Sir Peregrine Maitland, in sending Captain Phillpotts on the expedition, had acted, not in his capacity of Lieutenant-Governor, but in that of Major-General Commanding the Forces in Upper Canada. This it was that wrought up the public pulse to such a pitch of excitement. This it was that created a dangerous antagonism between the people and the soldiery, and led to frequent quarrels and bickerings between them. The Committee subsequently appointed by the Assembly to investigate the subject echoed the popular sentiment when they reported that "a person long in possession of land, like the petitioner, ought to have been ejected by the law of the land, which is ample, when impartially administered, for securing the rights of property, but the interference of the military, by such acts of violence, for maintaining supposed or contested rights, is justly regarded with jealousy in all free countries, and ought to be seriously regarded in a colony where the most unprecedented outrages have been perpetrated without prosecution, and even followed by the patronage of the local Government upon the wrong-doers."[91] The presence of the civil power on the occasion, in the person of the Sheriff, had been even an aggravation of the offence, for the Sheriff had thus been made to lend his countenance to the proceeding. As for the Lieutenant-Governor's action in the matter, he himself was solely to blame, for his intentions were not made known to the Executive Council, or, so far as appears, to any member of that body. It was simply and solely a barefaced and most impudent abuse of authority, the responsibility for which rests upon no shoulders but his own.
Forsyth had no success in his appeals to the law. He brought two actions of trespass, one of which was against Sheriff Leonard and Captain Phillpotts jointly, for removing the fence and blacksmith's shop; and the other of which was against Captain Phillpotts alone for removing the fence the second time. Sir Peregrine instructed Attorney-General Robinson to defend both these suits, and to vindicate the Crown's title to the reserved land.[92] To effect the latter object in the most formal and decisive manner, the Attorney-General filed an information for intrusion against Forsyth, upon which a verdict was rendered in favour of the Crown. The plaintiff altogether failed in his action against Phillpotts and the Sheriff, and the decision in that case rendered it useless for him to proceed with the action against Phillpotts alone.[93]
[Sidenote: 1828.]
While those suits were in progress, Forsyth, finding that public opinion, if not in his favour, was at least hostile to the Lieutenant-Governor, sent in a petition to the Assembly, setting forth the circumstances, and praying for redress. This was during the session of 1828. The Assembly entertained the petition, and appointed a Committee of Inquiry. The Committee proceeded to inquire accordingly. While their investigations were in progress they resolved to examine two of the Government officials, who, as there was reason to believe, could throw light upon Sir Peregrine's reasons for such arbitrary conduct as that of which he had been guilty. The officials whose evidence it was thought desirable to obtain were Colonels Coffin and Givins, both of whom were heads of departments. The former occupied the position of Adjutant-General of Militia for Upper Canada; the latter was Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Both of these gentlemen were summoned to attend before the Committee at a specified time. In this there was nothing strange or unusual. It was a matter of frequent occurrence for officials of the Government, high and low, to be summoned before Parliamentary committees while the Legislature was in session; and there was no question as to the right of such committees to require such attendance. In this instance, however, the persons summoned were not permitted to obey the behests of the Committee, and in the attendant circumstances there were pretty plain indications of crookedness and collusion between the Crown officers and Sir Peregrine Maitland. Each of the two officers concerned, immediately upon receiving his summons, caused the fact to be communicated to the Lieutenant-Governor, and each wrote a shuffling letter to the Chairman of the Committee. Later in the day the Lieutenant-Governor positively declined to permit the attendance of the persons summoned, assigning as a reason that he had not been made acquainted with the facts as to which it was desired to interrogate them. Now, when one considers all the facts and circumstances of the case, one is driven to the conclusion that Colonels Coffin and Givins were in possession of certain information which the Executive, or at any rate the Lieutenant-Governor, had a strong interest in keeping secret. Why else were they forbidden to attend? The reason assigned was certainly not a sufficient one. In the first place it was not founded upon fact. That the Committee had been appointed for the specific purpose of investigating the circumstances connected with the Niagara Falls outrage was matter of common notoriety. When the two Government officers were summoned to give evidence before that Committee there could be no doubt that the intention was to examine them touching their knowledge of the matter in hand.[94] Some years before this time, when the Compact were all-powerful in the Assembly, as well as in the Upper House, a custom had been introduced of notifying the Lieutenant-Governor whenever it was proposed to examine any of the Government officials as witnesses before a Parliamentary committee. It had been customary to specify, in the address of notification, the subject on which it was intended to take evidence. This, however, had been a mere matter of courtesy and conventionality, upon which nobody had any right to insist; and the practice had not been uniform or consistent, various instances having occurred where Crown officers had been summoned and examined as witnesses without any such notification having been given. Upon such a flimsy pretext, however, did Sir Peregrine Maitland base his refusal to permit the two witnesses to attend for examination in the Forsyth case.
The Chairman of the Committee duly reported to the Assembly the non-attendance of the witnesses, and that body determined that its authority should not thus be defied and set at naught with impunity. The chief offender, the Lieutenant-Governor--or the Commander of the Forces, if he was to be considered as acting in that capacity--was of course beyond reach, but proceedings were forthwith instituted against the recalcitrant witnesses. Warrants were issued against them by the Speaker, in order that they might be brought up before the House, in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to answer for their contempt. Acting under legal advice, they declined to submit to such authority unless compelled to do so by force; and they boldly threatened that in case of force being resorted to they would prosecute the Speaker. It is to be presumed that the warrants would in any case have been acted upon, but this impudent threat left the Assembly no alternative. If Government officers, paid out of the public purse, were to be allowed to defy that branch of the Legislature which alone represented the popular voice--if they were to be permitted to treat its mandates with contempt, and to threaten its representative with ulterior consequences in the event of those mandates being enforced--then, indeed, liberty and equal rights were at a low ebb in Upper Canada. The warrants were promptly executed, the house in which the two officials had ensconced themselves being forcibly entered for the purpose. Being brought to the bar of the House, and charged with their contempt, they sought to vindicate themselves by pleading the action of the Lieutenant-Governor in refusing to sanction their attendance. The House then adopted a resolution under which they were handed over to the custody of the Sheriff, and committed to the common jail of the Home District. They formally notified the Lieutenant-Governor, through his private secretary, of the calamity which had come upon them through obedience to his behests, and requested that the advice and assistance of the Crown officers--that is to say, of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General--might be vouchsafed to them. They however remained in confinement only three days, for the Lieutenant-Governor, in accordance with an intimation previously given, prorogued the Legislature on the 25th of March--they had been committed on the 22nd--and the power of the Assembly to commit did not extend beyond the time when it was actually in session.
Colonels Coffin and Givins carried out their threat, and sued the Speaker for damages for false imprisonment. The right of the Assembly to commit for contempt was however a matter too well established, and was confirmed by the Court of King's Bench in another cause then pending. So that the Adjutant-General of Militia and the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, in addition to their respective bills of costs, had their three days' imprisonment as a reward for their fealty to Sir Peregrine Maitland, and for their disloyalty to the Canadian people.
Sir Peregrine appears to have felt a little dubious as to how his proceedings would be regarded at the Home Office. It was quite certain that the Colonial Secretary would hear of the affair, but that dignitary's approval was open to question. It would at all events be well that the official mind should receive its first impression on the subject from Sir Peregrine himself, who accordingly lost no time in sending over his own version of the transaction. His despatch, which bears internal evidence of having been written or revised by Attorney-General Robinson, is dated the 29th of March--the fourth day after the prorogation. Under the pretext of asking for advice as to how he should act in the future in case of any of the officials being summoned before Parliamentary committees without any notification having been made to himself, he recounts the story of the Niagara Falls outrage. His narrative, it is almost needless to say, is from first to last garbled and one-sided. Forsyth is referred to therein as "a person notoriously of indifferent character;" and the Assembly and its committees are maligned in language highly improper to be employed in a confidential communication from the Lieutenant-Governor of a colony to his superiors at home.[95] The Colonial Secretary, however, was shrewd enough to penetrate the veil of misrepresentation in which the despatch was enveloped, and to arrive at a pretty just appreciation of the merits of the case. He officially expressed his opinion that there had been adequate grounds for inquiry by the Assembly. "I cannot but consider," he wrote, "that Sir Peregrine Maitland would have exercised a sounder discretion had he permitted the officers to appear before the Assembly; and I regret that he did not accomplish the object he had in view in preventing Forsyth's encroachments by means of the civil power, which is said to have been at hand, rather than by calling