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

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