The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion Part 13

Mr. Boulton, upon receiving from the Lieutenant-Governor's secretary an intimation of his dismissal, raised a howl of indignation against Lord G.o.derich and the Imperial Government generally. It was notorious that he controlled the columns of _The Upper Canada Courier_, a newspaper published at York in the interests of the official party, and edited by Mr. George Gurnett. That paper, in its next issue, contained an article more scurrilous and abusive than had been either of those articles in the _Advocate_ on the pretext whereof Mackenzie had been expelled from the a.s.sembly. It reeked with scurrility and disloyalty from beginning to end. It alleged that the well-affected people in the country were more than half alienated from the Home Government, and that they began to cast about in their mind's eye for some new state of political existence. There was more to the same purport. Some new state of political existence! This was a pretty strong suggestion of rebellion!

And it emanated from the organ of a faction in whose mouths the word "loyalty" was ever present; whose "loyalty" had for years been vaunted from every hustings, and who, so long as the tide ran in their favour, had preached doctrines worthy of the middle ages about submission to the higher powers. How changed was the tone now that there seemed to be some prospect of their being placed upon the same footing, and judged by the same standard as their neighbours. If they did these things in the green tree, what would they do in the dry? What might have been expected from them if they had been subjected to such injustice and ignominy as the party to which they were opposed? Here was a faction professedly ready to throw off their allegiance because two of their number had been deprived of offices which they had notoriously prost.i.tuted and disgraced.[158] Here was a "well-affected" people "casting about" in their "mind's eye" for a new state of political existence, because two of the most corrupt, brazen and audacious officials in the colony were no longer to be allowed to pervert legislation under the mantle of Imperial countenance. And they were as little disposed to brook interference with their pecuniary interests by the Colonial Office.

Early in the following year they gave utterance to rank treason in consequence of the threatened disallowance by the Imperial Government of certain Bank Charter Acts pa.s.sed by the Provincial Parliament.[159] A pearl is proverbially uncomely in the snout of a swine; and truly the word "loyalty" was never more absurdly out of place than when p.r.o.nounced by such lips.

The ex-Attorney-General followed the ex-Solicitor-General to England, where he represented his case to the new Colonial Minister. After giving much attention to the matter, Mr. Stanley expressed himself as satisfied with the explanations which had been offered. The explanations seem to have chiefly consisted of solemn declarations on the part of Mr.

Boulton that he had been insufficiently informed of the views of the Home Government, and that he had had no desire whatever to set up his own will in opposition to those views.[160] He doubtless professed his readiness to go any length in the way of sycophancy which might be required of him for the future. It was however impossible to restore him to the Attorney-Generalship, as a successor to that office had been appointed in the person of Mr. Robert Sympson Jameson,[161] an English barrister, who had actually sailed from Liverpool for Canada, and was already well on his way thither. Mr. Boulton was informed that he should have the first good appointment at the Secretary's disposal. His success was even greater than that of his recent colleague, for on the 17th of June he was notified that the King had been graciously pleased to accept of his further services, and that the Colonial Secretary had His Majesty's commands to offer him the appointment of Chief Justice of Newfoundland, which situation had recently become vacant.[162] This appointment was fully approved by the Earl of Ripon, under whose advice he had been dismissed from the Attorney-Generalship of Upper Canada,[163] but who had been induced to change his views after hearing Mr. Boulton's explanations.

Mr. Boulton's triumph, however, was to be followed by a downfall more humiliating than that which he had so narrowly escaped. He repaired to Newfoundland in the autumn, and entered upon the performance of his duties. He had not been long in his new position before he had aroused a feeling of disgust and alarm on the part of a large proportion of the public and the profession. He began by being arbitrary, tyrannical and unjust. He proceeded from bad to worse, until it was found impossible to permit him to retain his position.[164] There is no need to follow the proceedings adopted against him. He was not finally got rid of until 1838, when he returned to Upper Canada, and once more entered political life as member for Niagara. The Home Government turned a deaf ear to his perpetual applications for employment, and would have nothing more to do with him. Some years after the Union of the Provinces, finding that he had nothing to hope for from the Conservative party, who refused to elevate him to a judgeship, he abandoned them, and for some time acted with Mr. Baldwin. It seems almost cruel to record the fact that he supported Responsible Government and the Rebellion Losses Bill.

FOOTNOTES:

[148] _Ante_, p. 229.

[149] "When, in the year 1831, His Majesty was graciously pleased to suggest a further provision for the Civil List, which the Colonial Ministry required to be made either for seven years or for the life of His Majesty, the terms of the proposition were not candidly submitted to the a.s.sembly, and notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of those who desired to make no provision at variance with the spirit of our const.i.tution, the Executive influence in the a.s.sembly succeeded in carrying a measure for a permanent and extravagant supply, popularly called 'the Everlasting Salary Bill,' while the liberal and gracious terms proposed by His Majesty on the subject were concealed and known only to those who, feeling themselves to be above responsibility, consummated a measure which has spread universal dissatisfaction and distrust. If this undue and impolitic concealment was practised from any pretended apprehension that a just provision would not be made for His Majesty's Government by his faithful Commons, there is nothing in the country to justify it, and as it encroached upon the privileges of the Legislature there is no language of censure too strong against it."--_Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_, p. xlii.

[150] See _The Colonial Advocate_ of April 3rd, 1828.

[151] I can find no confirmation of the statement made by Mackenzie, and re-echoed by subsequent writers, about the excessive fears of the Government at this juncture, and the preparations made by them to resist an uprising of the people. There were no grounds for any such fears, nor for any antic.i.p.ations of an uprising. The people were long-suffering, and were by no means ripe for revolt.

[152] If any evidence were needed of this obvious truth, it is furnished by Mackenzie's career in the Canadian Parliament after his return from exile. He was there brought into contact with politicians of a succeeding generation, most of whom knew him by tradition only. His misfortunes, and the manifold sufferings he had been compelled to endure, impelled most of the contemporaries to regard him with a large measure of forbearance, and he was permitted to indulge a license of speech which would not have been tolerated in any other member. He adopted precisely the same _role_ as of yore, and delivered himself with great vehemence on matters which he did not understand. The inevitable result was that the a.s.sembly soon ceased to attach any weight to his opinions. He had lived long enough to repudiate many of his old doctrines, and to eat many of his past words. His views on Tuesday were frequently the very opposite to what they had been on Monday, and neither were any indication of what they would be on Wednesday. Members ceased to attach any importance to his statements, or to think of them as calling for serious consideration. He came to be regarded as a sort of unlicensed jester who might be permitted to amuse the House by his antics when there was no pressing business on hand; but as to any real influence, he had no more than the junior messenger. It took him several years to find this out, and when it was brought thoroughly home to him he resigned his seat. Had the Family Compact politicians of fifty to sixty years ago been as wise in their generation as the members of the a.s.sembly during the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Parliaments of United Canada, they would have ceased to defend the indefensible, and would have let Mackenzie alone. They might then have held the reins of power for ten--or possibly twenty--years longer; but the day of reckoning, when it came, would probably have been a darker one.

[153] Lord Howick, writing on behalf of the Colonial Secretary, under date of June 23rd, 1832, in reply to Mackenzie's application for an interview, informed the applicant that although the Secretary was ready to hear any observations which he (Mackenzie) might have to offer upon the affairs of Upper Canada, as an individual interested in the welfare of that Province, and as a member of the a.s.sembly, yet that the Secretary could not recognize him as being deputed to act for any other person, nor could he enter into any discussion with him on measures which His Majesty's Government might think it right to pursue. "The views and intentions of His Majesty's Government with respect to the affairs of the Province," wrote his Lordship, "can only be made known to the people of Upper Canada through the medium of the Governor or of the Legislature; it is to one or other of these authorities that any complaints which individuals may have occasion to make should properly be addressed; and if the course pursued by the Executive Government should be such as to give just ground for dissatisfaction, the inhabitants have, by their Representatives, the means of bringing their grievances under the immediate attention of His Majesty." The full text of the letter will be found on pp. 191, 192 of the _Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_.

[154] Mr. Boulton denied, at least by implication, that any such communication had been made to him. See his letter dated April 30th, 1833, and published in the _Courier_ of the following day. But it is certain that the contents of the missive had been made known to Mr.

Hagerman, and it is hardly conceivable that he would have failed to communicate to his colleague matters of such vital importance to their welfare.

[155] The full text of the despatch will be found on p. 295 of the _Seventh Report of Grievance Committee_.

[156] "We have been very credibly informed that, on account of the extent of the settlements and consequent increase of court business, it was thought expedient by our wise ones that a fourth judge was necessary, and that he [Mr. Hagerman] had obtained (previous to his leaving here) a recommend from the other judges for himself to be appointed to the new created situation."--_Colonial Advocate_, Thursday, May 2nd, 1833.

[157] It was at this time that Mr. Stanley, by his fiery speech against O'Connell, won for himself the sobriquet of "the Rupert of Debate."

[158] Henry Sherwood, who had by this time attained to a prominent place in the ranks of the official party, was especially loud in his denunciations of the British Government for dismissing Boulton and Hagerman. According to a correspondent of the _Colonial Advocate_, he declared, in the course of an ordinary conversation, that if such proceedings were to continue, he, for his part, did not care how soon the British authority was superseded by a republican one.--See letter of "John Bull," on first page of the _Advocate_ of December 14th, 1833.

[159] They were equally intolerant of opposition from their own adherents when their pecuniary interests were at stake. In December, 1833, the Hon. John Elmsley, who had been called to the Executive Council three years before, was forced to resign his seat in that body because he could not act independently there. In his letter of resignation, which is dated "Holland House, York, December 3rd, 1833,"

he says: "Since I have a.s.sumed the duties of that high office [_i.e._, the office of an Executive Councillor], I find that I cannot fearlessly express my real sentiments and opinions, if opposed to the Government for the time being, without incurring the risk of dismissal from that Honourable Board, which const.i.tutes my inability to advance the public good. I have therefore deemed it expedient most respectfully, but reluctantly, to tender the resignation of my seat in the Executive Council."--See evidence of the Hon. Peter Robinson, in Appendix to _Seventh Report on Grievance_, p. 91. See also p. xxvii of the Report itself.

[160] See _Case of the Honourable Henry John Boulton, Chief Justice of the Island of Newfoundland_, etc.--being a report of the Case before the Privy Council--p. 3.

[161] This was the husband of the accomplished Anna Jameson, whose brilliant art criticisms are among the most readable things of their kind in the English language, and whose Canadian sketches have made her name well known in this country.

[162] _Case of the Hon. H. J. Boulton_, etc., p. 3.

[163] _Ib._, p. 4.

[164] Full particulars of his misconduct may be found in the work already quoted from.

CHAPTER XII.

DISENFRANCHIs.e.m.e.nT.

Mackenzie remained in England much longer than he had antic.i.p.ated, and did not return to Canada until towards the end of August, 1833. He was absent in all nearly sixteen months, which was considerably longer than was necessary for the accomplishment of the objects of his mission. He doubtless enjoyed life in the metropolis, and was loth to relinquish it.[165] His mission had not been wholly fruitless, for his representations at the Colonial Office had led to the writing of Lord G.o.derich's despatch already referred to, by which the faction in Upper Canada were led to see that they would for the future be compelled to act with somewhat more of circ.u.mspection. Several much-needed suggestions were made in the despatch on subjects of practical importance--among others as to the remuneration of members of the a.s.sembly representing Town const.i.tuencies; as to the extension of the franchise to persons who, by reason of their religious scruples, could not conscientiously take the prescribed oath; as to the repeal of the law disqualifying British subjects from voting at elections till the expiration of seven years after their return from a residence in a foreign country; and as to the interference of ecclesiastical Legislative Councillors in secular matters.[166] Mackenzie was also ent.i.tled to claim credit for obtaining important reforms in the management of the Provincial Post Office. He had brought the affairs of the Province conspicuously before the minds of several eminent public men, whose interest in Canada had thus been aroused, and who were thenceforth able to display some familiarity with Canadian questions as they came up for discussion in the House of Commons. During his stay in London he had published a duodecimo volume, extending to 504 pages, ent.i.tled "Sketches in Canada and the United States," in which a good many Provincial abuses had been specified. The information contained in this work had been thrown together in a higgledy-piggledy fashion, and it could not be said to have much real value, more especially as many of its statements were inaccurate, and must have been known to be so when they were written.[167] Still, it probably had some effect in seconding the author's efforts to attract attention to himself and the interests which he represented. He had moreover acquainted the Colonial Secretary with matters which could not possibly have been clearly explained otherwise than orally. It was tolerably certain that information furnished by him had led to the dismissal of Boulton and Hagerman, a proceeding which had wonderfully exhilarated his mind; and his depression had been correspondently deep upon learning that the one had been promoted and the other reinstated. He had hoped to see Mr. Rolph appointed to the Solicitor-Generalship, and, if his word is to be credited, he really seems to have had some grounds for believing that such an appointment would be made.[168] He afterwards declared that he had "good reasons for believing" that Mr. Rolph's appointment had actually been made out and transmitted to Canada, but that Sir John Colborne and Chief Justice Robinson had prevented it from taking effect.[169]

As has already been seen,[170] Mackenzie, during his absence in England, had once more been elected to represent the County of York in the a.s.sembly. Upon the first meeting of Parliament after his return he presented himself as a member. There was however a persistent determination that he should not be permitted to take his seat. The hostile majority in the House professed to believe that they had a right to exercise a discretion as to who should be permitted to sit therein.

Mackenzie, they alleged, had libelled the House by libelling a majority of its members, and he had neither made nor attempted to make any reparation or apology. The Clerk, acting most probably on instructions, refused to administer the oath to him. A resolution was adopted that he should not be permitted to sit or vote as a member during the session, and a writ for a new election was ordered. Again did he return to his const.i.tuents, and again was he returned without opposition. The electors of York were by this time heartily tired of the farce, the perpetual re-enactment whereof had the effect of partly disfranchising them by leaving them with only one representative in the a.s.sembly instead of two. They were nevertheless fully resolved not to yield their undoubted rights without some further a.s.sertion of them. The member of their choice was under no legal disability. They were advised that there was no const.i.tutional justification for the action of the a.s.sembly. They declared that they owed it to themselves and those who were to come after them not to submit tamely to injustice of such a nature. The election being over, a considerable body of them escorted him to the Houses of Parliament. But a short time had elapsed since the last expulsion, and the Legislature was still in session. The members of the a.s.sembly stared in astonishment at the sudden and altogether unlooked-for incursion of strangers, who poured into the gallery and into the s.p.a.ce below the bar, where they were permitted to intrude themselves, and where Mackenzie presented himself to take the oath.

Those who could not find room inside remained without in the lobbies. In a few moments a lull occurred in the proceedings of the House, whereupon burly Peter Perry rose in his place and announced that he had a pet.i.tion to present on behalf of the inhabitants of the County of York. The contents of the pet.i.tion were not of a nature to render it acceptable to a majority of the members. It referred to Mackenzie's expulsion, and prayed that that indignity might not be repeated. There was a very general feeling among the supporters of the Government that the House ought not to receive such a pet.i.tion, and several of them gave utterance to their opinions on the subject. Allan MacNab expressed himself to this effect with his customary emphasis, and was greeted with a storm of hisses from the York electors in the gallery. Ominous sounds! The House could not be expected to tamely brook such a manifestation, and an order was given to clear the gallery. While the order was being obeyed, the Sergeant-at-Arms approached Mackenzie where he stood below the bar, and directed him to leave. Mackenzie replied to the effect that he had a right to be there, and that he intended to remain. The door was then opened by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who proceeded to eject Mackenzie by force; but before he could carry out his purpose a rush was made from the adjacent lobby. The door was promptly closed and barricaded, but not until several of the invaders had effected an entrance. The excitement was intense, and for some minutes the proceedings of the House were suspended. When quiet had been in some measure restored, the Speaker directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the s.p.a.ce below the bar of strangers. That functionary again ordered Mackenzie to leave, and he received the same reply as before. This was communicated to the Speaker, who decided that, as Mackenzie had not taken the oath, he was not a member of the House, and was not ent.i.tled to remain. Mackenzie was there, ready and anxious to take the oath; but he was nevertheless removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the a.s.sembly was once more purged of his presence. On the next day he was again formally expelled by a vote of the House[171]--an anomalous proceeding in view of the Speaker's decision that he was not a member! He had thus been thrice expelled from the House, and once excluded therefrom upon the ground that he was not a member.

[Sidenote: 1834.]

It was by this time clear that from a House so const.i.tuted Mackenzie could not expect to meet with fair play. Mr. Bidwell, Mr. Perry, and others of his friends had all along spoken manfully on his behalf whenever an opportunity of doing so had presented itself, but their arguments had simply been thrown away. His pugnacious spirit was however fully aroused, and he determined to exhaust every means before abandoning his endeavours to take the seat to which he was ent.i.tled. He applied to the Lieutenant-Governor for permission to take the oath prescribed for members of the Legislature before his Excellency, or before some one specially appointed for the purpose, under the twenty-ninth section of the Const.i.tutional Act of 1791.[172] The question involved in this application was submitted to the Attorney-General, Mr. Jameson, who p.r.o.nounced the opinion that Mackenzie was ent.i.tled to the privilege asked for. The matter was nevertheless allowed to remain in abeyance for some weeks, as the hostile members of a.s.sembly had been worked up to a great pitch of excitement by the incursion of the rural population, and were in no humour to tolerate Mackenzie's presence. Meanwhile pet.i.tions to the Lieutenant-Governor were sent in from various parts of the County of York, as well as from other places. The language in some of these was of the most unmistakable kind, and it was evident that endurance had nearly reached its limits.

On Monday, the 10th of February, Mackenzie, having taken the oath before the Clerk of the Executive Council, and having obtained a duly attested certificate of the ceremonial, ventured once more to present himself in the Chamber of the a.s.sembly.

The House was in Committee on the question of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence when he entered. The gallery was crowded with spectators, most of whom were sympathizers with Mackenzie, and had a.s.sembled there to impart to him a sort of outside numerical support. He walked to the seat which he had once been accustomed to occupy, and quietly sat down in it. Ere many minutes the Sergeant-at-Arms[173]

approached and requested him to withdraw. This he declined to do, alleging that he was a member legally elected, duly sworn, and charged with no offence or irregularity which could disqualify him from sitting and voting.[174] He produced the attested copy of the oath, and bade the Sergeant-at-Arms interfere at his peril. The following is Mackenzie's own account of what ensued; and, unlike most of his narratives, it is in all substantial respects confirmed by several eye-witnesses. "He [the Sergeant-at-Arms] said he must use force, and he did so in as gentle a manner as was consistent with the act. Although his proceedings were illegal, his whole conduct in carrying them into effect was marked by a discretion wisely adopted in the excited state of the minds of the dense audience by whom he was surrounded. I almost immediately returned to the seat I had occupied, and while on my way was seized hold of by Colonel Frazer, Collector of Customs at Brockville, and obliged to change my route. Before I had got well seated, one of the members, I think Mr.

Boulton[175] moved that the Speaker take the chair. He did so, and I addressed him, stating the insult I had received while in the performance of my duty as a member. To this he made no reply, but said that the Sergeant-at-Arms must know his duty. He then left the chair; the Committee resumed, and I was a second time forced from my seat by violent means. After a little reflection I decided to resume my seat; was a third time forced from it by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and when the Speaker had returned I was placed at the bar, charged by the Sergeant-at-Arms with refusing to leave the House."[176] The Sergeant-at-Arms then reported to the Speaker that he had taken into custody William Lyon Mackenzie for disorderly conduct, and that he had him in charge at the bar; whereupon it was moved by Mr. Samson, and seconded by Mr. Vankoughnet, member for Stormont, that William Lyon Mackenzie, having been brought to the bar of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms for disorderly conduct, be called upon to state what he might have to say in his defence. To this motion Mr. Perry moved an amendment to the effect that Mackenzie was under no legal disqualifications, and had a right to sit and vote in the House. Then followed a long debate which lasted nearly six hours,[177] and which left the question at issue pretty nearly where it had been. Mr. Perry's motion was lost by a vote of twenty-one to fifteen. A dense crowd occupied the gallery until far into the night, but good order was preserved, the only demonstration being a subdued hiss while Mr. William B. Robinson, member for Simcoe, and brother of the Chief Justice, was speaking. Much rancour was exhibited by some of the Tory speakers, several of whom approved their loyalty by inveighing loudly against the Lieutenant-Governor for permitting the Clerk of the Executive Council to administer the oath to Mackenzie. Allan MacNab declared his intention to vote for committing Mackenzie to the common jail. Casting his eyes up to the gallery, he scowled at the occupants, to whom he referred as a band of ruffians who had come there to intimidate the House. The Lieutenant-Governor, he said, had interfered very improperly, and in a manner no way creditable to himself. He had acted like the Vicar of Bray, and might yet find, like that individual, that by taking both sides of a question he might fall through between. Mr. Samson, member for Hastings, spoke to a similar purport, declaring himself to be in favour of sending Mackenzie to jail without a hearing, and referring to the Lieutenant-Governor in terms of strong censure. "His Excellency,"

remarked Mr. Samson, "knew perfectly well that Mr. Mackenzie had been expelled by us, and for him to allow the oath to be administered under such circ.u.mstances was a most unwarrantable proceeding. He had no right whatever to interfere. I do say he acted a most improper part, and I do not know but this House ought to take it up." When Mackenzie attempted to speak at the bar, William Hamilton Merritt, member for Haldimand, rose in much anger, and exclaimed: "Drown his voice. He ought to be put out of the House, and two men stationed continually at the door to keep him out." Absalom Shade, of Galt, member for Halton, was of the same opinion. The speech of the member for Simcoe, which evoked the hiss from the gallery as already mentioned, was perhaps the most violent of all.

He advocated that Mackenzie should be punished and consigned to jail without being allowed to utter "one single word" in defence of his outrageous proceedings. "Mackenzie," said he, "would never have dared to show himself in this House again if he had not had his Excellency's sanction for doing so in his pocket. His Excellency's conduct, I maintain, has been utterly unjustifiable. Indeed, I could not have believed it possible that his Excellency should have thought of taking such a step without consulting the Speaker of this House. He had no right whatever to do so, and now that he is told that we do not recognize such a right on the part of the Executive, I trust he will not persevere."[178] For milder language than this, many of the Reformers had been branded as "traitors," "disaffected," and "republicans," by the very person who now gave utterance to it. The beam in one's own eye is so much harder to perceive than the mote in the eye of one's brother.

The plain fact of the matter is, that no sentiment of either loyalty or disloyalty had anything whatever to do with the treatment to which Mackenzie was subjected at the hands of the Compact and their supporters. It was simply this: Mackenzie was a thorn in their sides. He watched them closely, and exposed their conduct in language which was telling and vigorous, albeit often ill-considered and unbecoming. They felt that their supremacy was menaced, and largely by his instrumentality. His expulsions were due to a fixed determination to keep him out of Parliament, irrespective not only of what was const.i.tutional or unconst.i.tutional, but even of what was right or wrong.

To carry out this determination they resorted to all the party devices which a majority in the a.s.sembly placed at their disposal. "From first to last," as Mr. Lindsey remarks,[179] "the proceedings against Mr.

Mackenzie were conceived in a party spirit, and carried by party votes.

No worse description or condemnation of them could be given, seeing that they were in their nature judicial."

The debate, as has been said, came to nothing. Mackenzie was not permitted to take his seat, and did not again attempt to do so during the session. No new writ was issued for the election of a member by the County of York. Mackenzie's supporters opposed the issue of a writ because such a proceeding would have a.s.sumed that the expulsion had been legal, and that there was a legal vacancy in the representation. Others, who were not friendly to Mackenzie, felt that a new election would only lead to fresh complications. York would undoubtedly return the expelled member, and he would again be refused a seat in the House. The session accordingly dragged on to its close without any writ having been issued: a matter of little practical importance, inasmuch as there was to be a general election in the course of a few months. It will thus be seen that the County of York underwent a partial disfranchis.e.m.e.nt for three years, during which three sessions were held. Before another session came round a new Parliament had come into being, and the political situation had undergone a complete metamorphosis.

During the session of 1833-4, which witnessed the tumultuous scene just described, the Provincial Parliament made one important concession to public opinion by pa.s.sing an Act to render the Judges of the Court of King's Bench independent of the Crown. It is right to state, however, that this was done in consequence of pressure from the Imperial Government,[180] and not from any wish to remove an abuse of long standing. The Act provided that "the Judges of His Majesty's Court of King's Bench for this Province shall hold their offices during their good behaviour, notwithstanding the commissions which have been heretofore granted to them, or either of them, may specify that the office is to be held during the pleasure of His Majesty; and that from and after the pa.s.sing of this Act the commissions to the Judges of the said Court shall be made to them respectively to hold during their good behaviour, and that the commissions of Judges of the said Court for the time being shall be, continue, and remain in full force during their good behaviour, notwithstanding the demise of His Majesty, or of any of his heirs and successors." Thus were the Judiciary rendered independent of the humours of the Executive, whereby a long step was taken towards securing a pure administration of justice in the Superior Court of the Province. Had a similar policy been pursued with respect to other gross abuses, the effect upon the public mind would have been most pacificatory. Standing, as it did, alone, the Act exhibited a striking contrast to every other feature of the Executive policy, and it may be doubted whether a solitary inhabitant of the Province was conciliated thereby.

FOOTNOTES:

[165] Prior to his departure from Canada he travelled about here and there through the country to collect subscriptions towards the expenses of his journey. He met with but slender success. After his return he made further efforts in the same direction, and with similar results.

Persons who professed much zeal for Reform were slow to put their hands in their pockets for such a purpose, and he succeeded in collecting only about 150. It should however be remembered that most Upper Canadian Reformers in those days were poor. Mackenzie's actual disburs.e.m.e.nts during his absence are stated by Mr. Lindsey to have been 676 (_Life of Mackenzie_, vol. i., p. 287), but a considerable part of this sum was expended on a visit to Scotland. It is probable, too, that the amount stated includes the cost of publishing _Sketches in Canada and the United States_, which must have been considerable. It is fairly to be inferred from Mr. Lindsey's account that Mackenzie was himself compelled to pay the difference between 150, the amount collected from subscribers, and 676, the amount actually expended. "The people's agent," he informs us, "was left to bear the greater part of the expense." This, no doubt, was Mr. Lindsay's belief when his book was written; but nothing could be further from the fact. It would be much nearer the truth to say that Mackenzie enjoyed a sixteen months' holiday at the expense of his political friends, for all, or nearly all the money expended over and above the 150 was contributed by Dr. Morrison, Dr. Rolph, David Gibson, the Lesslies, Shepards, and others; and as no portion of the money so contributed was ever repaid, they, and not Mackenzie, were compelled to bear the loss. The implied slur upon the Reform party is therefore wholly undeserved.

[166] His Lordship expressed himself with much clearness on this subject. "Whether," he wrote, "even under this restriction [_i.e._, the restriction of non-interference in secular affairs], their holding such seats is really desirable, is a question upon which I am fully prepared to listen with the utmost attention to any advice which I may receive from yourself, from the House of a.s.sembly, or from any other competent authority. I have no solicitude for retaining either the Bishop [McDonnell] or the Archdeacon [Strachan] on the list of Councillors, but am, on the contrary, rather predisposed to the opinion that by resigning their seats they would best consult their own personal comfort and the success of their designs for the spiritual good of the people. But any such resignation must be voluntary, since the office is held for life; and were it otherwise, no consideration could induce me to advise His Majesty to degrade the Bishop or the Archdeacon from the stations they occupy, except upon the most conclusive proof of misconduct." One might not unreasonably construe these words into a pretty broad hint to Bishop McDonnell and Dr. Strachan that they ought to resign.

[167] The London _Morning Herald_ of July 11th, 1833, correctly characterized it as "the oddest mixture of slander and truth, of knowledge and ignorance, of bold a.s.sertion and vacillating opinion."

[168] "Mr. Rolph will, we have no doubt, have the offer of the Solicitorship, but whether he will accept it is a matter more doubtful; though we think he possibly may, provided he is to be a.s.sociated in the administration with men of a liberal policy; otherwise we are of opinion he will decline. Such an appointment would certainly do credit to our country, and we hope he (Mr. Rolph) will accept the appointment if offered--that is, if he can consistently do so."--_Colonial Advocate_, Thursday, May 2nd, 1833. See also the _Advocate_ for October 3rd, 1833.

[169] See _An Account of the Dismissal of the Attorney and Solicitor-General from Office, and of the Re-appointment of Mr.

Hagerman_, written by Mackenzie for the General [Reform] Committee at York, and published in the _Advocate_ for Thursday, August 29th, 1833.

[170] _Ante_, p. 247.

[171] As the resolution recited the facts relating to the two former expulsions, as well as the grounds of the present one, it may not be amiss to transcribe it in full. It was voted upon on Tuesday, the 17th of December (1833). Its mover was William Morris, member for Lanark. It was in the following words: "That this House, on the thirteenth day of December, 1831, in consequence of a false and scandalous libel published against a majority of its members by William Lyon Mackenzie, Esquire, one of the members then representing the County of York, of which he avowed himself the author and publisher, was induced to expel him, the said William Lyon Mackenzie, from this House: That notwithstanding the gross and scandalous nature of the said libel, this House, in the hope that the said William Lyon Mackenzie would abstain from a continuance of the offensive conduct for which he had been expelled, permitted him to take his seat on the third day of January following, as a member for the County of York, after being re-elected: That in this hope, so important to the deliberate transaction of public business, so essential to the respectability of the Legislature and peace of the country, a few days'