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

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