"A TRIED REFORMER."

Top

Sir Francis Head, upon reaching Toronto on Saturday, the 23rd of January, temporarily took up his quarters at a hotel, where apartments had been engaged for him. He was not a little surprised, as he rode along the streets, to see himself placarded in large letters on the walls as "Sir Francis Head, a Tried Reformer." What a farce the thing must have appeared in his eyes, knowing, as he did, that up to the date of receiving the king's messenger, he had never read a page of practical politics; that he had never recorded a political vote, and that he was at this present moment, to use his own frank expression, no more connected with human politics than the horses that were drawing him! How he must have marvelled at Fate for playing him such a trick! On the same day, at the urgent request of Sir John Colborne, he removed to Government House. On Monday, the 25th, he was sworn into office as Lieutenant-Governor; and on Tuesday Sir John and his family took their departure for Montreal. The Compact took care that their staunch friend should not leave the seat of his Government without some mark of what might pass for popular favour. A crowd of persons was got together to cheer as Sir John passed along the streets on his way eastward, and a stranger might have been excused for believing that the ex-Lieutenant-Governor was regarded by the populace with feelings of the warmest affection. He proceeded to Montreal, and had arranged to sail from New York for England, when he received a despatch appointing him Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Canada. He accordingly repaired to Quebec, the capital of the Lower Province, which was already in a state of ferment, and preparing for the outburst which ensued towards the close of the following year.

Sir Francis being now formally installed in office, an era of Reform was commonly supposed to have begun. His manner and address were in the highest degree pleasing, and he at first produced a most favourable impression upon all who came within the immediate circle of his influence. The Reform press sang paeans in his praise. He held no sooner received his appointment than Joseph Hume had written to Mackenzie congratulating the Province on the circumstance, and stating that the conduct and principles of Sir Francis had been much approved of. "My anxiety is," wrote Mr. Hume, "that you and all the Reformers should receive Sir Francis in the best possible manner, and do everything consistent with principle to meet his views and wishes."[210] The fact was that Mr. Hume was in precisely the same condition as Lord Glenelg himself with respect to Sir Francis: that is to say, he knew nothing whatever about him. He seems to have very unwisely taken it for granted that the new Lieutenant-Governor was a good man for the position because he had been appointed under Whig auspices. His letter found its way into all the Reform newspapers in Upper Canada, and Sir Francis had no reason to complain of the treatment he received at their hands. He was welcomed as the "Tried Reformer" for whom they had so long prayed in vain. The Tories and Conservatives, on the other hand, naturally regarded him with considerable apprehension. They entertained no doubt that his advent boded their downfall; but they were too wise to betray any solicitude, and quietly waited the march of events. Parliament being in session, he received from both Houses congratulatory addresses upon his assumption of the Government. On the 27th he went down to the Council Chamber, and made a brief and rather meaningless speech to the Legislature.[211] "As regards myself," said he, "I have nothing either to promise or profess, but I trust I shall not call in vain upon you to give me that loyal, constitutional, unbiased and fearless assistance which your King expects, and which the rising interests of your country require." He had been directed by Lord Glenelg to communicate to the Provincial Legislature the substance of his instructions. He not only communicated the substance, but a verbatim copy of the letter itself, together with a copy of the appendix, to each of the Houses. By this injudicious proceeding he caused no little embarrassment to the Colonial Secretary, and proved his utter want of experience in diplomatic affairs.[212] Lord Glenelg, in common with the official world of Great Britain generally, felt and expressed strong disapprobation of this extraordinary conduct on the part of the Lieutenant-Governor, who ought to have been recalled for this act alone, and probably would have been but for the difficulty of finding a competent man to succeed him.

A certain space must be devoted to an examination of these instructions. Speaking generally, it may be premised that they showed a disposition to conciliate the discontent of the colonists, but only after a partial and piecemeal fashion, such as might be exercised towards persons in a state of tutelage. It was evident that the Home Government regarded the colonists as persons who had not reached full political stature, who were not in all cases able to judge as to what was best for themselves, and who needed the constant supervision of calmer and loftier intelligences than their own. In reply to the allegation that the number of public offices in the colony was in excess of the people's needs, it was said that in Upper Canada, as in other new countries, the number of public employments was necessarily larger in proportion than in older and more densely-peopled states. "In the early stages of such a society," wrote Lord Glenelg, "many duties devolve upon the Government which, at a more advanced period, are undertaken by the better educated and wealthier classes, as an honourable occupation of their leisure time." He went on to say that His Majesty's Government were not solicitous to retain more patronage than was necessary for the people's welfare, but that the selection of public officers must be entrusted to the head of the local Government, and could not wisely be exercised in any form of popular election, or committed to any popular body. Such exercise or transfer, it was suggested, would be destructive of responsibility and discipline. This doctrine was laid down as a general rule of action, but any wish to urge it beyond its just and necessary limits was expressly disclaimed, and it was even suggested that there were cases in which the doctrine might be contravened. There was no attempt to go into details as to specific cases, but it was stated as a general principle that whatever patronage was necessary to maintain perfect subordination to the prerogatives of the Crown must be retained, and that whatever was unnecessary for that purpose should be abandoned. His Excellency was directed to review and consider the subject with diligence, and to report the result of his investigation. Should he meanwhile deem it wise to reduce the number of offices, either by abolition or consolidation, he was authorized to exercise his discretion in that respect, but any appointment made under such circumstances was to be merely provisional, and subject to cancellation by the Home Government. In the selection of persons for public offices his Excellency was to be guided exclusively by the comparison of the claims of the candidates by reason of past services or personal qualifications; and as a general rule no person was to be appointed to office who was not either a native of the Province or a settled inhabitant of it. Exceptions to this latter rule were admitted where a knowledge of some particular art or science was demanded, and where no Provincial candidate could be found possessing the necessary qualifications. His Excellency was also left free from restriction in the choice of those officers immediately attached to his own person. There were various other directions, not necessary to be specified, on the subjects of patronage and pensions, salaries and fees, and the Provincial Post Office. The Clergy Reserves question was dealt with in the most general manner, no definite course being suggested; and the instructions on this subject are absolutely devoid of historical or other value. With regard to the Land-Granting Department, it was assumed that some of the grievances had been remedied. Reference was made to a despatch of Lord Ripon's on the subject, and it was stated that any ambiguity therein was to be removed, while prompt obedience to the instructions embodied therein was inculcated. Upper Canada College, established by Sir John Colborne only five years before this time, had already become a ground of offence to many Reformers. The Assembly, in their Address to His Majesty, had declared that it was upheld at great public expense, with high salaries to its principal masters. They had expressed the opinion that the Province in general derived very little advantage from it, and that it might be dispensed with. On this subject Lord Glenelg remarked that there was no desire to retain any charge for the establishment more than sufficient to suitably provide for the effective performance of the teachers; but the advantages of such an institution, it was said, ought to be great, and if the Province derived no benefit from it the explanation was to be found in some error of management susceptible of remedy. His Lordship remarked that he should deeply lament the abolition of a college "of which the defects would appear so remediable, and of which it does not seem easy to exaggerate the benefits." As for King's College, which was another educational bone of contention between the two branches of the Provincial Legislature, it was intimated that His Majesty would cheerfully resume the consideration of the charter, provided the assent of both Houses to his doing so could be obtained, but that, as the subject had been committed to the local Legislature, he could not withdraw it from their cognizance at the instance of one branch only. The system of auditing the public accounts had been complained of as being insufficient for ensuring the proper application of the revenue. As a remedy, the establishment of a Board of Audit, the regulation of which should be secured by well-considered legislation, had been suggested. In this suggestion the Colonial Secretary expressed his concurrence, and he transmitted various documents explanatory of the system of auditing the public accounts of the Kingdom. The Assembly having expressed its belief that the Legislative Council would not assent to any efficient legislation on the subject, the Lieutenant-Governor was empowered, in case of that belief being realized, to constitute a provisional Board of Audit. To remedy another evil which had been complained of—the withholding of public accounts from the Assembly—it was proposed that a statute should be passed providing the time and manner of making periodical returns, and naming the officers who should render them to the Legislature. Then followed brief instructions to be observed by the Lieutenant-Governor in his intercourse with the Assembly. "You will always," wrote his Lordship, "receive the addresses of the Assembly with the most studious attention and courtesy. As far as may be consistent with your duty to the King, you will accede to their wishes cheerfully and frankly. Should that duty ever compel you to differ from their opinion, or to decline compliance with their desires, you will explain in the most direct, and of course in the most conciliatory terms, the ground of your conduct." His Excellency was instructed to adopt Lord Goderich's despatch to Sir John Colborne of the 8th of November, 1832,[213] as a rule for the guidance of his conduct. He was directed to select Justices of the Peace without reference to political considerations. In the Grievance Committee's Report, as well as in the Address from the Assembly to the King, great stress had been laid on the mode of appointing members of the Legislative Council. It had been represented that that body had utterly failed to answer the ends for which it had been created, and that the restoration of legislative harmony and good government required its reconstruction on the elective principle.[214] The inhabitants of the Lower Province felt still more strongly on this subject than did their fellow-colonists in Upper Canada, and had made urgent representations to His Majesty thereupon in ninety-two resolutions which had been adopted by the local Assembly during the session of 1834. "The greatest defect in the constitution of Canada," said they, "is the right of nomination, by the Crown, of the Legislative Councillors." These resolutions had led to the appointment by the Imperial Government of a commission of investigation into the affairs of Lower Canada, and as the principles bearing upon the question of an elective Legislative Council were the same in both Provinces, Lord Glenelg now contented himself with appending the instructions issued to the commissioners, and referring to the views therein contained as having received the deliberate sanction of the King. A similar device was adopted with respect to the demand for the control by the Assembly of the territorial and casual revenues of the Crown.

The one great overshadowing question of Executive responsibility was dealt with by Lord Glenelg in a most perfunctory and unsatisfactory manner. It was apparent that he either wholly failed to grasp the real significance of the theme, or that he fenced with it for the mere purpose of beguiling the colonists with a counterfeit presentment. "Experience would seem to prove," he wrote, "that the administration of public affairs in Canada is by no means exempt from the control of a sufficient practical responsibility. To His Majesty and to Parliament the Governor of Upper Canada is at all times most fully responsible for his official acts. That this responsibility is not merely nominal, but that His Majesty feels the most lively interest in the welfare of his Canadian subjects, and is ever anxious to devote a patient and laborious attention to any representations which they may address to him, either through their representatives or as individuals, is proved not only by the whole tenor of the correspondence of my predecessors in this office, but by the despatch which I am now addressing to you. That the Imperial Parliament is not disposed to receive with inattention the representations of their Canadian fellow-subjects is attested by the labours of the committees which have been appointed by the House of Commons during the last few years to inquire into matters relating to those Provinces." It was declared to be the Lieutenant-Governor's duty to vindicate to the King and the Imperial Parliament every act of his administration. In the event of any complaint being preferred against him, his conduct was to receive the most favourable construction. The Assembly, it was said, were at all times able to invoke the interference of the King and Parliament. Every public officer was to depend on the King's pleasure—i.e., upon the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor—for the tenure of his office. Certain rules were then laid down, the observance of which, it was said, would produce a system of perfect responsibility. As these rules differed in no essential respect from those which had consistently been acted upon by Francis Gore, Sir Peregrine Maitland and Sir John Colborne, it was evident that the system of responsibility contemplated by Lord Glenelg was not identical with that desired by Upper Canadian Reformers. Lord Glenelg certainly made good his asseveration that the Upper Canadian Executive were "practically responsible." But to whom were they responsible? To the Upper Canadian people? Not at all. The responsibility was to the King and Parliament of Great Britain—that is to say, to Downing Street, several thousand miles away. Of what avail was such responsibility, guarded, as it was, by secret despatches, "like a system of espionage"?[215] Had this responsibility to Downing Street ever saved "a single martyr to Executive displeasure"?[216] Had it been of any avail for the protection of Robert Gourlay, Captain Matthews, Francis Collins or Robert Randal? Had it preserved from the dry pan and the slow fire any one of a score of individuals whose only offence against the State was that they would not willingly sacrifice their rights, and become the tools of venality and corruption? In not one solitary instance had it served any such purpose. Such responsibility was a mockery, "a broken reed, which it would be folly ever again to rest upon."[217] Of real, constitutional responsibility to the people there was not so much as a pretence. "All the powers of the Government," says Mr. Lindsey, "were centralized in Downing Street, and all the colonial officers, from the highest to the lowest, were puppets in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the same time, the outward trappings of a constitutional system, intended to amuse the colonists, served no other end than to irritate and exasperate men who had penetration enough to detect the mockery, and whose self-respect made them abhor the sham."[218]

In an early paragraph of these instructions, Lord Glenelg had objected, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to any resort on the part of the Assembly to that ulterior measure—the stoppage of the supplies—to which allusion had been made in the Address of that body, and had referred to it as a proceeding to be justified only by an extreme emergency. He concluded with an expression of earnest hope that the representatives of the Upper Canadian people would receive with gratitude and cordiality this renewed proof of His Majesty's paternal solicitude for the welfare of his loyal subjects in the Province, and that, laying aside all groundless distrusts, they would cheerfully coÖperate with the King and the Lieutenant-Governor in advancing the prosperity of "that interesting and valuable portion of the British Empire."

As already mentioned, the full text of the instructions was communicated by the new Lieutenant-Governor to the Upper Canadian Assembly. Apart from the fact that this proceeding was not warranted either by usage or express permission, it was short-sighted and unwise, for the instructions were not such as to be by any means satisfactory, either to the official party or the Opposition. The Opposition perceived that, under a cover of many fair words and specious phrases, there was very little substantial concession. To the official party it seemed that the spirit of concession was manifested much too strongly, and as the appointment of Sir Francis Head had been hailed by the Reformers as a triumph, anything in the nature of concession, filtered through such a medium, was naturally regarded with strong suspicion. As for Sir Francis himself, his mind seems to have been for some weeks in a chaotic state. He had not been installed in office many days before he had a succession of private interviews with several leading members of the Reform party. In the course of a conversation with Mr. Bidwell, who, it will be remembered, was Speaker of the Assembly, he for the first time became aware that the Report of the Grievance Committee was not recognized by the Reform party as being a complete exposition of the case as between the Home Government and themselves.[219] He soon after had an interview with Mackenzie, who, in conjunction with Dr. Morrison, was chiefly responsible for the existence of the Report. "I thought," writes Sir Francis,[220] "that of course he would be too happy to discuss with me the contents of his own book, but his mind seemed to nauseate its subjects even more than Mr. Bidwell's. Afraid to look me in the face, he sat, with his feet not reaching the ground, and with his countenance averted from me, at an angle of about seventy degrees; while, with the eccentricity, the volubility, and indeed the appearance of a madman, the tiny creature raved about grievances here and grievances there, which the Committee, he said, had not ventured to enumerate." This was a revelation to the Lieutenant-Governor, and set him thinking. He attempted to discuss the merits of the Report with various persons, but encountered what was to him an inexplicable reluctance to talk about it. All were ready to discuss the grievances themselves, but no leading Reformer was disposed to admit the Report into the discussion. The reason of this was doubtless because the Report had been chiefly fathered by Mackenzie, and they were unwilling to accept him as their mouthpiece. As for Mackenzie's own disinclination to enter into a discussion of the matter, it probably arose from a feeling that it would be unwise for him to tie himself down to a particular record, beyond which he would not be permitted to travel. Sir Francis, writing three years afterwards, declares that "the light of truth" at once burst upon his mind, and that he perceived that the Grievance Report was a mere pretext for Rebellion.[221] It is quite clear that he perceived nothing of the kind, and that "the light of truth" was a mere after-thought with him. It is impossible for one in his sober senses to see what does not exist, and at this time there was no purpose of rebellion in the heart of anyone with whom the Lieutenant-Governor came in contact—not even in the heart of Mackenzie himself, who might easily have been conciliated by wisdom and prudence. Had Sir Francis been half as clever and astute as he professed to believe himself to be—nay, had he even been fairly honest and truthful, and possessed of the most ordinary good sense—there would probably have been no such thing as an Upper Canadian Rebellion.

He had not been a fortnight in the country when suggestions began to be made to him from various quarters as to the membership of the Executive Council. That body, for the nonce, consisted of only three persons, namely, Peter Robinson, Commissioner of Crown Lands; George Herchmer Markland, Inspector-General; and Joseph Wells, Bursar of King's College. The presence of all three of these persons was necessary to the formation of a quorum, and in case of the illness or unavoidable absence of any one of them the public business would have been interrupted and delayed. Mr. Robinson, moreover, was not only an Executive Councillor, but, as just mentioned, was also Commissioner of Crown Lands. In the former capacity the duty was imposed upon him of taking part in the auditing of his own accounts. This invidious necessity would no longer exist if additional members were appointed, as a quorum could easily be obtained without Mr. Robinson's presence being required at the Council Board. These facts were indisputable, and the argument to be deduced therefrom was unanswerable. Additional Councillors must be appointed. But from what class of the community should they be selected? Sir Francis, the "Tried Reformer," had begun to conceive a distaste for the Reformers of Upper Canada. There seemed to be a natural antagonism between him and them. The reason is not far to seek. Persons of the social grade of Mackenzie were inconceivably odious to this "diner-out of the first water;" while men like Bidwell and Baldwin made him painfully conscious of his own littleness and insufficiency for the task which he had undertaken. Yet he could not venture to call to his Council any of the remnant of the Tory Compact, and thereby utterly ignore the Liberal principles which were presumed to have dictated his appointment. The Tories, moreover, had seen fit to petition the King against his very first administrative act—the appointment of a Surveyor-General. As for the Conservatives, as distinct from the Tories, they had not yet formulated a distinct policy, and none of their leaders had come very conspicuously to the front.

It seemed clear, then, that the choice must be made from the Reform ranks. After much deliberation and inquiry,[222] the Lieutenant-Governor came to the conclusion that approaches should be made to Robert Baldwin, a gentleman to whom he refers as "highly respected for his moral character, being moderate in his politics, and possessing the esteem and confidence of all parties."[223] His Excellency's resolve on this subject was approved of by the Speakers of the two Houses, as well as by the three members of the Council, to all of whom the project was submitted before any attempt was made to carry it out. When the proposal was made to Mr. Baldwin it was received by him with becoming respect, but with a coolness of demeanour which was far from flattering to the vanity of Sir Francis, who seems to have expected that the recipient would be well-nigh overwhelmed by the honour. The latter stated that he was very reluctant to again embark in public life, and he explained his views on the political situation with great frankness. There were several interviews, in the course of which Sir Francis did his utmost to induce Mr. Baldwin to accede to his wishes. Mr. Baldwin required time for consideration, an indulgence which was of course accorded. The Lieutenant-Governor being anxious to carry his point, sent for Mr. Baldwin's father, Dr. W. W. Baldwin, for the purpose of securing his influence in the negotiations. Father and son were both of one mind. There was little or nothing in common between the political sentiments of the three members of the existing Executive Council and the man whom it was proposed to add to their number. How, then, could it be expected that they would agree as to the policy of the Administration. If they did not agree, what would Mr. Baldwin's single voice avail against the other three? And, even admitting that this anomaly could be got rid of, it was deemed necessary that there should be some understanding on the subject of Executive responsibility before Mr. Baldwin could consent to accept a seat in the Council. He and his father, from whom his political ideas had been chiefly derived, had for years contended that Responsible Government already existed in Upper Canada by virtue of the Constitutional Act, and that when a Government failed to command a majority of votes in the Assembly it was legally bound to resign. It was of course notorious that this principle had never been recognized by the Provincial Administration, but Mr. Baldwin was of opinion that the constitution had been systematically violated in this particular. In talking over the matter with the Lieutenant-Governor he now discovered that the latter was entirely unacquainted with constitutional questions, and that he had no ideas on the subject whatever, beyond such as he had picked up within the past few days. Still, his Excellency's good temper, and his seeming anxiety to do his duty, won upon the sympathies of Mr. Baldwin, who naturally felt desirous to be of service to a man who had come to Canada in the guise of a tried Reformer, and who professed to be actuated by a sincere desire to govern the colony on Liberal principles. After several courteous refusals, and after much consideration and repeated consultations with his friends, Mr. Baldwin consented to accept office, provided that seats in the Council were at the same time offered to his father, and to Dr. Rolph and Mr. Bidwell. Dr. Baldwin was so unwilling to accept the cares of office that his name was dropped by common consent. To Dr. Rolph no objection was felt, but his Excellency had conceived an antagonism towards Mr. Bidwell, with whom he had had frequent interviews, and who had not scrupled to express himself with much freedom on the necessity for a regular system of Provincial Reform. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that John Henry Dunn, the Provincial Receiver-General, should be substituted for Mr. Bidwell. Mr. Dunn was not a member of any political party, nor had he any special aptitude for political life; but he was a man of high character and moderate views, and was held in much public estimation. On Saturday the 20th of February the three new Councillors were sworn into office and gazetted, "until the King's pleasure be known."[224] The three old members retained their places.

This manifestation of a resolve to carry on the Government of the Province by means of Councillors possessing the public confidence was hailed with great favour by the Reform party, and indeed by the Conservatives as well, for Messieurs Baldwin, Rolph and Dunn were persons for whom the highest respect was felt by all classes of the community, and were regarded as being altogether above suspicion. Even the members of the Compact were disposed to favour the arrangement, for, in consequence of rumours which had reached their ears, they had dreaded that the Lieutenant-Governor might possibly ally himself with the Radicals, who, if placed in power, would have done their utmost to exact a reckoning for past abuses. Upon the whole, then, Sir Francis had materially strengthened his position. But the strength was fictitious rather than real, and the baseless fabric which he had reared with such pains quickly tottered and fell. The three new Councillors were not long in discovering that their places were sinecures. His Excellency wanted none of their counsel, and had no intention of permitting them to have any real voice in the carrying-on of the Government. To one person only did he apply for advice in every emergency. That person was not a member of the Government, and was therefore an unsworn counsellor, under no semblance of responsibility to anybody. He was a power behind the throne, with all the privileges and none of the disabilities attaching to such a position. The gentleman elevated to this anomalous dignity was Chief Justice Robinson, Speaker of the Legislative Council, the master-spirit of the Family Compact, and the life-long champion of those very abuses which the "Tried Reformer" was currently supposed to have been sent out to remove. The Councillors, old as well as new, were treated as mere figure-heads. They were consulted about land matters and insignificant questions of detail, but the policy and measures of the Government seldom passed under their review, or were submitted to them for advice.[225] Some of these measures were such as they could not approve or sanction. His Excellency nominated two adherents of the old official party to vacant offices upon which they had no sort of claim. He refused the royal assent to the Felons' Counsel Bill, a measure "demanded by justice and humanity, and passed for more than ten years, almost unanimously, by repeated and different Houses of Assembly."[226] The Councillors were thus made to seem responsible for acts over which they had no control, and of which some of them, at least, highly disapproved. The Reform party were astonished to see such things done under the auspices of a Government of which Robert Baldwin and Dr. Rolph were members. They however acquitted both those gentleman of having advised such acts. It was believed by Reformers generally that the three new Councillors were not consulted, or else that the old members, with the umpirage of the Lieutenant-Governor, predominated.[227]

This state of things could not be allowed to continue. The Executive Councillors consulted together, and determined upon a remonstrance with the Lieutenant-Governor. This remonstrance was formally prepared in writing, and sent in to his Excellency on Friday, the 4th of March. The three old members concurred in it, and it was signed by all the six in order of seniority. The mere fact of this concurrence affords strong evidence of the growth of the power of public opinion in the Province. In past times members of the Executive Council had been content to pose as figure-heads year after year, while John Beverley Robinson and one or two others manipulated and directed the whole course of public affairs. It is probable, however, that in the present instance the three senior Councillors may have been influenced by the arguments of Baldwin and Rolph, who felt very strongly on the question at issue.

The Lieutenant-Governor's reply, every paragraph of which bears evidence of the Chief Justice's cunning hand, is dated on the following day, but was not actually communicated until the next regular Council day, which was Thursday, the 10th. It contained a firm but courteous expression of his Excellency's dissent from the opinions expressed by the Executive Councillors as to their privileges and duties. It was contended that the Lieutenant-Governor was the sole responsible minister, and the difference between the constitution of the mother-country and the colony was referred to as being highly advantageous to the latter. His Excellency, it was said, was only bound to consult his Council when he felt the need of their advice, and to do so on the innumerable subjects upon which he was daily compelled to decide would be "as utterly impossible as for any one but himself to decide upon what points his mind required or needed" advice. The position taken by the Councillors was declared to be unconstitutional, but his Excellency informed them that his estimation of their talents and integrity, as well as his personal regard for them, remained unshaken, and that he was not insensible to the difficulties to which he would be exposed should they deem it necessary to resign. He added, however, that should they be of opinion that their oaths required them to retire from office, he begged that they would not on his account hesitate to do so. As they were very strongly of that opinion, they waited on his Excellency on Saturday, the 12th, and tendered their resignations, which were accepted. They had held office precisely three weeks.

The clue to this puzzle is easily found. Sir Francis had conceived an utter distaste for the persons and political principles of the Reformers of Upper Canada. There was an inherent antagonism between the nature of this shallow, feather-brained sketcher by the wayside and the natures of men like Rolph, Bidwell and the Baldwins, whose quiet earnestness and fixity of purpose had been intensified by the long course of injustice to which they, in common with their party, had been subjected. The earnestness of these gentlemen presented itself to him in the light of importunity, if not of impertinence. He could hardly be expected to sympathize very strongly with their unconquerable zeal for principles which he did not understand: which he was perhaps incapable of understanding. Then, Sir Francis was an eminently social personage, and the social qualities of the leaders of Upper Canadian Reform were not of a high order. To them, small talk across the walnuts and the wine seemed utterly incongruous in view of the momentous public questions which were urgently pressing for a solution. In this particular they presented a marked contrast to the leading spirits of the Compact. The Robinsons, Hagermans and Sherwoods, one and all, could not only advise the Lieutenant-Governor on the affairs of the Province, but could be pleasant and entertaining companions. They were not very different from the county magistrates and other officials with whom he had been accustomed to confer in his capacity of a poor-law commissioner. They were moreover exceedingly diplomatic. They saw the importance of winning him to their side, and governed themselves accordingly. They lost no opportunity of making themselves agreeable to him. Instead of boring him with what, to his understanding, seemed abstruse speculations on executive responsibility and an elective Legislative Council, they scouted such doctrines as myths begotten in the moody brains of unpractical and discontented men. The wide knowledge, long experience and specious eloquence of the Chief Justice enabled him to present the Tory side of these arguments with much plausibility. Sir Francis soon became convinced that the issue was not merely between two sides of colonial politics, but between monarchy and republicanism, between loyalty and disloyalty, between Great Britain and the United States. As he afterwards declared, he believed that he was "sentenced to contend on the soil of America with Democracy,[228]" and that if he did not overpower it, he would himself be compelled to succumb. Having brought himself to this conclusion, he not unnaturally preferred the role of the hammer to that of the anvil. It was surely better to strike than to be struck. Acting on this principle, he made a complete surrender of himself to the Family Compact, and from that time forward was in all essential respects guided by their counsels. His rashness and impetuosity sometimes led him to act on his own motion, and without waiting to take counsel from any quarter; but in all ordinary affairs of administration he was guided by Sir John Robinson quite as effectually as Sir John Colborne had ever been.

No sooner was it announced that the Executive Councillors had all resigned office than the public pulse began to beat at an accelerated pace. The excitement was greatly intensified upon the publication of a letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, in which, by the Lieutenant-Governor's special permission, all the attendant circumstances were set forth in detail. This letter, having been written for the express purpose of being read by Mr. Perry from his place in the Assembly, and of being afterwards published in the newspapers, is somewhat formal and official in its tone, but it presents the subject-matter in a clear light, and must be regarded as an important contribution to the history of Responsible Government in Upper Canada. It is the chief, indeed the only trustworthy original authority for the facts as to the precise dispute between Sir Francis and his Council, for the former's account[229] is more than usually incomplete and one-sided when dealing with this episode. The essential portions of Mr. Baldwin's presentation of the case have been embodied in the foregoing narrative. The Lieutenant-Governor lost no time in providing himself with a new Council. On the 14th of March, when the resignation was only two days old, an extraordinary issue of the Gazette announced that Robert Baldwin Sullivan, John Elmsley, Augustus Baldwin and William Allan had been appointed members of the Executive Council of the Province. The reader has already made the acquaintance of all these gentlemen with the exception of Augustus Baldwin, who was a retired naval officer of high character, but of no particular politics; a brother of Dr. Baldwin, and by consequence an uncle of Robert Baldwin. All four of the new Councillors were persons of character and position, but they were not in sympathy with the Liberal sentiments of the period, and the people generally were not disposed to place any political confidence in them. Elmsley and Allan were consistent, old-fashioned Tories. Baldwin's leanings, so far as he had any, were in the same direction. Sullivan's youth and early life had been passed amid more or less Liberal influences, but of late he had shown a retrogressive tendency in political matters. This was largely due to personal rivalry between Mackenzie and himself in municipal affairs. As previously mentioned, he had defeated Mackenzie at the municipal elections for St. David's Ward, and had been elected mayor of Toronto in the beginning of 1835. The contest had been waged between them with unseemly rancour. Sullivan had denounced Mackenzie as a noisy upstart and demagogue; while Mackenzie had characterized Sullivan as an oily-tongued, unprincipled lawyer, who would lie the loudest for the client who had the longest purse. All Mackenzie's supporters during the contest had been Radicals, or at least persons of strong Reform proclivities. This had arrayed the whole Tory and Conservative vote on the side of Sullivan, who was thus in a measure brought under anti-Reform influences. His social tastes also inclined him in the same direction, so that he soon came to be classed as a Conservative. Reformers were disposed to look askance at him as a political renegade, and this disposition was increased upon his acceptance of office under Sir Francis Head at the present juncture. He alone, of all the new Councillors, was a man of exceptional ability. He was not inaccurately described, a few years later, as "an Irishman by birth, and a lawyer by profession; a man who, if he had united consistency of political conduct and weight of personal character with the great and original talents which he unquestionably possessed, might have taken a conspicuous part in the public affairs of any country."[230]

These transactions—the resignation of the Councillors and the appointment of their successors—produced a tremendous effervescence of feeling among the Opposition in the Assembly, who had already conceived strong suspicions of the Lieutenant-Governor's motives. But the excitement was not confined to the Opposition. It was participated in by the Conservatives, and, even, for a time, by most of the ultra-Tories. On the 14th of March, the House, by a vote of fifty-three to two, adopted a resolution unequivocally assertive of the principles which the ex-Councillors had endeavoured to maintain. Ten days later an address to the Lieutenant-Governor, based on this resolution, was passed by a vote of thirty-two to nineteen. It expressed deep regret that his Excellency had consented to accept the resignation of his late Council. It declared the Assembly's entire want of confidence in the new appointments, and humbly requested that immediate steps might be taken to remove the new Councillors from office. Meanwhile, petitions on the all-engrossing subject poured into the Assembly from all over the Province.[231] Public meetings were called in Toronto, as well as in some other of the principal towns, at which resolutions were passed echoing the Assembly's address, imploring the Lieutenant-Governor to dismiss his present advisers, and to call to his Council gentlemen possessing public confidence.

One of these gatherings tended in an especial manner to widen the irreparable breach between Sir Francis Head and the Reform party. On the 25th of March a meeting was held in the City Hall, Toronto, at which an Address to his Excellency of exceptional significance was passed. It dealt at considerable length with the constitutional question at issue; referred to Responsible Government as having been introduced by the Constitutional Act; expressed surprise and sorrow at the resignation of the late Councillors, and an entire want of confidence in their successors. It deplored the apparent fact that his Excellency was acting under the influence of evil and unknown advisers. In conclusion, it claimed all the rights and privileges of the British constitution, and that the representative of the Crown should be advised by men known to and possessing the confidence of the people. When the deputation called at Government House to present this Address, they were treated with an off-hand abruptness and brusquerie which gave them much offence. The reply of his Excellency was wordy and unsatisfying in tone; but its most objectionable feature was the air of assumed superiority by which it was pervaded. It referred to the meeting represented by the deputation as having been composed principally of "the industrious classes," but added, with a seeming loftiness of condescension, that the Address should be replied to with as much attention as if it had proceeded from either of the branches of the Legislature—"although," said his Excellency, "I shall express myself in plainer and more homely language." This was bad enough, but its effect was intensified by the demeanour of the Lieutenant-Governor and several military officers who were in attendance upon him. It seemed to the deputation that those gentlemen regarded them with supercilious impertinence; as a something which viceroyalty must be content, for the nonce, to endure, but as being altogether beyond the pale of their sympathies or interests. Nothing could have been in worse taste than such conduct as this, though it is possible enough that more sensitiveness was displayed than was called for by the actual circumstances. The deputation withdrew, cut to the quick by the indignities which they, rightly or wrongly, conceived themselves to have sustained. On the succeeding evening a meeting of themselves and some of their friends was held at the house of Dr. Morrison—who was now mayor of the city—at which a bitterly sarcastic rejoinder was prepared. It thanked his Excellency for replying to an Address from "the industrious classes" with as much attention as if it had proceeded from either branch of the Legislature, and acknowledged his condescension in expressing himself in plain and homely language—language presumed to be brought down to the level of the plain and homely understandings of his interlocutors, whose deplorable want of education was accounted for by the maladministration by former Governments of the endowments of King's College, and by the impossibility of obtaining a sale of the Clergy Reserves and the appropriation of the proceeds to educational purposes. "It is," proceeded this cutting rejoinder, "because we have been thus maltreated, neglected and despised, in our education and interests, under the system of Government that has hitherto prevailed, that we are now driven to insist upon a change that cannot be for the worse." Reference was made to the desire to bring about a system of Responsible Government, and the utter futility of mere responsibility to Downing Street was pointed out with a pointed eloquence which proved that the signatories were in deadly earnest. The misgovernment of Dalhousie and Aylmer in Lower Canada, and of Gore, Maitland and Colborne in Upper Canada, was touched upon in a few brief, vitriolic sentences. It was shown that, though these gentlemen had been responsible to Downing Street, they had not only met with no punishment, but had actually been promoted to higher honours. "We do not mean," said they, "in our plain and homely statement, to be discourteous, by declaring our unalterable conviction that a nominal responsibility to Downing Street, which has failed of any good with the above gentlemen of high pretensions to honour, character and station, cannot have any magic operation in your Excellency's administration, which, should it end as it has unhappily begun, might make us drink the cup of national misgovernment to the very dregs, without (as experience proves) redress on our part, or retribution on yours." There was much more of the same sort. The document concluded by stating that if the Lieutenant-Governor would not govern upon sound constitutional principles he would violate the charter, virtually abrogate the law, and justly forfeit submission to his authority.

This was beyond doubt the most vigorously-written protest that had ever been presented to an Upper Canadian Lieutenant-Governor. It was signed by Jesse Ketchum, James Hervey Price, James Lesslie, Andrew McGlashan, James Shannon, Robert McKay, M. McLellan, Timothy Parsons, William Lesslie, John Mills, E. T. Henderson, John Doel, John E. Tims, and William J. O'Grady. All these were ardent Radicals, and coadjutors of Mackenzie. Two of them—Jesse Ketchum and James Lesslie—delivered the rejoinder at Government House, without waiting for a reply. It was already in type, and during the next day was widely read and commented upon. The Lieutenant-Governor was not insensible to its cutting irony, but it did not admit of any sur-rejoinder, and after the first transient ebullition of his wrath, the matter, so far as he was concerned, was quietly permitted to drop out of sight. The document, however, acted as an additional stimulus to the public excitement, and it continued to be quoted against Sir Francis from time to time so long as he remained in the colony.

While these events were occurring the Provincial Legislature still remained in session. A Committee having been appointed by the Assembly to consider the correspondence between the Lieutenant-Governor and the ex-Councillors, it proceeded to deal with the question in the usual manner. The report was presented to the Assembly on the 18th of April. In the course of the debate which ensued, several eloquent speeches were made on the Tory side. The most effective Tory arguments were founded upon the assumption that the concession of Responsible Government would be a mere preliminary to separation from the mother country. The speech made by Mr. Hagerman on this occasion was one of the most brilliant efforts of his life. Mere verbal eloquence, however, exhausted itself in vain. The report was adopted by a vote of thirty-two to twenty-one. It was even more directly condemnatory of the Lieutenant-Governor than the rejoinder above referred to had been. It expressed the Committee's belief that the appointment of the three ex-Councillors had been a deceitful manoeuvre to gain credit with the country for Liberal feelings and intentions where none really existed. The question of Executive responsibility was gone into at considerable length, and the conduct of the ex-Councillors was approved of in every particular. There is no need to analyze the entire report, which was long and exhaustive. It distinctly recommended the withholding of the annual supplies. The Assembly, by adopting the report, and by committing itself to this extreme measure, proved that, in the language of Lord Glenelg's instructions,[232] it regarded the present in the light of "an emergency." The supplies, however, were not entirely withheld. Money was granted for the construction of roads, for schools, for the improvement of navigation, and other useful purposes; but all these grants were nullified by the Lieutenant-Governor, who signified his disapprobation of the Assembly's conduct by refusing his assent to the money-bills of the session. He afterwards stated as one of his reasons for this refusal that he had good grounds for believing a portion of the money would have been spent by the Assembly in sending an agent to England[233]—which was probably the fact.

The Assembly, feeling that some reason should be assigned for their action in the matter of the supplies, which were now withheld for the first time in the history of Upper Canada, passed an Address to the King, in which the Lieutenant-Governor's conduct was painted in no neutral tints. He was directly charged with being despotic, tyrannical, unjust and deceitful. His conduct was declared to have been "derogatory to the honour" of his Majesty, and "demoralizing to the community." A memorial to the House of Commons was also adopted, in which his public acts were referred to as having been arbitrary and vindictive, and wherein he was charged with mis-statements, misrepresentations, and "deviations from candour and truth." This bitterly-worded memorial was formally signed by Mr. Bidwell as Speaker of the House—a circumstance which was long remembered against him by the person implicated.

It must have been gall and wormwood to Sir Francis to be compelled to forward these documents to the Colonial Office. It was the first time that clear and undisguised charges of so humiliating a nature had been officially laid against a colonial Lieutenant-Governor, and one must needs confess that nothing short of the most unassailable evidence could have justified the employment of such terms in a communication between two representative bodies respecting a trusted servant of the Crown, more especially in the case of one occupying so lofty a position. Something is due to the proprieties, and to accuse a man of deviations from candour and truth is of course merely a slightly periphrastic method of charging him with falsehood. The Assembly, however, had become convinced, not without reason, that Sir Francis's word was not to be trusted. Other persons who had been brought into more or less intimate relations with him had been driven to the same conclusion.[234] The fact is that when his feelings were much stirred he knew not how to speak the language of truth and soberness. He talked so much and so thoughtlessly that he very frequently gave utterance to the thing which was not. Some excuse might perhaps be made for one who, in the heat or haste of verbal controversy, gives currency to erroneous statements. But Sir Francis's mis-statements were not confined to verbal controversy. He had been distinctly convicted of "a deviation from candour and truth" in a deliberate official communication. The Assembly had requested that they might be furnished with copies of any bond or agreement between him and his Councillors respecting the administration of the Government in the event of his Excellency's death or removal. To this request Sir Francis had replied, explicitly denying the existence of any document of such a nature. Yet upon the examination of certain of the Councillors it had been proved that an agreement on the subject had actually been made, and that it had been reduced to writing by his Excellency's own hand. The devices to which he had had recourse in his attempts to prove that he had merely been guilty of tergiversation instead of downright lying, were such as positively to aggravate the original offence, and to fully justify the Assembly in refusing to attach any weight to his unsupported statement upon any subject.[235] As the weeks passed by, the quarrel between him and the Assembly waxed positively ferocious. On the 20th of April he prorogued Parliament, making a speech on the occasion which must have occupied a full hour or more in delivery, and wherein he reviewed, in his own inimitable fashion, and from his own point of view, the various events by which his Administration had up to this time been characterized. Any attempt to analyze it here is altogether out of the question. It should be read in its entirety in the official Journal of the session.During the weeks following the prorogation the public excitement continued to increase, until it had reached a height without precedent in the history of the Province. The Reformers felt that they had been wofully deceived in the Lieutenant-Governor, and many of them placed no bounds to their censure. Some of the Reform newspapers hinted pretty strongly that no people could be expected to remain permanently loyal when they were deprived of their rights year after year, and when all their petitions were set at naught. The political atmosphere was charged with electricity. The outlook was lurid and ominous. Some of the loyalists began to dread an actual uprising of the people. Such an uprising, they thought, would be a legitimate sequel to so extraordinary a proceeding as the stoppage of the supplies. To not a few well-meaning but old-fashioned people the mere act of refusing to vote the supplies was in itself a species of treason. To more practical people this act presented itself in a different aspect. It seemed to them indicative of a niggard and ruinous parsimony. They gazed with ill-concealed envy at the marvellous prosperity of the neighbouring State of New York. Any one crossing the Canadian frontier in that direction at once became aware that he had passed from a land of comparative stagnation to a land of activity and progress. This contrast had been largely brought about by the construction of great public works, and a lavish policy on the part of the State Legislature. There seemed no reason to doubt that the adoption of a similar policy would bring about similar results in Upper Canada, where large and costly public works were urgently needed for the proper development of the resources of the colony. But, instead of liberal grants of money for such purposes, the Assembly had cut down the supplies to meet the barest works of necessity. The colony could never hope to hold up its head by the side of its enterprising neighbour while such a cheese-paring system prevailed.

The Lieutenant-Governor's advisers were shrewd enough to make the most of this unpromising state of affairs. The cheese-paring policy went for something, but it was almost lost sight of in the much more effective imputation of disloyalty to the Empire. Nothing was so certain to turn the scale of public opinion in favour of his Excellency as an apparently well-founded stigma of disloyalty cast upon his opponents. The official party accordingly set themselves deliberately to work to disseminate the belief that the bulk of the Opposition were ripe for treason, and that, under the guise of agitation for Reform, they concealed a design of effecting the separation of the colony from Great Britain. It is not improbable that many of those who industriously circulated the report did so in good faith, for the language of some of the Reformers, used in moments of irritation, was of a nature to lead to such a conclusion. No sooner did this report gain credence than there was a very perceptible turning of the scale of popular opinion. Many who had grumbled loudly at Sir Francis's conduct now declared themselves as being on his side. They favoured the doctrine of a responsible Executive, but devotion to the mother country was as the breath of their nostrils. Whatever tended to relax the tie which bound the colony to the Empire was a thing to be utterly opposed and stamped out. The domination of the Compact was bad, but even at its worst it was better than separation. So argued many persons who had always been conspicuous for the moderation of their political views. The official party of course turned such sentiments as these to the utmost account. The cry of disloyalty was heard on every side. The state of the Lower Province, which was rapidly gliding into insurrection, was triumphantly pointed to as evidence of what was to be looked for if democratic ideas were allowed to make headway. Twice within the last four years had the Lower Canadian Assembly resorted to the extreme measure of refusing to grant supplies to the Government. By so doing they had embroiled themselves with the Imperial Ministry, and drawn down upon themselves the indignation of persons of moderate views. It was no secret that the Upper Canadian Reformers generally were in sympathy with the projects of Reform entertained by the Lower Canadian agitators; and it suited the Tories to assume that the sympathy extended not only to legitimate projects of Reform, but to less openly-avowed schemes of rebellion. Just before the prorogation Mr. Bidwell had laid before the Assembly a letter written by Louis Joseph Papineau, Speaker of the Lower Canada Assembly, wherein the great agitator had given utterance to sentiments which, read in the light of subsequent events, cannot be construed otherwise than as treasonable. Several members of the Reform party had publicly spoken enthusiastically of M. Papineau, and had even gone so far as to express approbation of his most indiscreet and objectionable language. This circumstance was now urged to show that the objects of the anti-Executive party in both Provinces were identical. There was no attempt to discriminate between constitutional Reformers of the Baldwin stamp and advanced Radicals like Mackenzie. All were included in one sweeping verdict as "disloyal" persons, against whom it was necessary for right-minded citizens to organize in self-defence.

Early in May these sentiments began to find expression in outward acts. A number of Tory gentlemen of Toronto formed themselves into what they called the British Constitutional Society, with the fundamental principle and object of perpetuating the connection between Upper Canada and the United Kingdom. A society bearing the same name had been formed upon the breaking out of the War of 1812, and this of 1836 professed to be a reorganization of the former one. In reality, however, it was to all intents and purposes a new society, started for the specific purpose of opposing the cry for Responsible Government, and of gaining support for Sir Francis Head. During the previous year, Colonel Fitzgibbon had, under Sir John Colborne's auspices, formed a drill corps for such young men of Toronto as desired military instruction. A handful of well-connected young men had availed themselves of the opportunity. The Colonel now devoted himself with redoubled ardour to preparations for the insurrection which he declared would burst forth before the next winter. He got together a rifle corps to the number of seventy, and drilled them twice a week with tireless enthusiasm, declaring that when the hour of trial should come, he and "his boys" would be found in their places, however the rest of the community might see fit to demean themselves.

Notwithstanding these preparations, and the prevailing sentiments which inspired them, it is doubtful whether the idea of rebellion had up to this time taken definite possession of the mind of a single human being in Upper Canada. There seems abundant reason for believing that the time for wise concession was not past, and that a prudent and discreet Administrator might have restored tranquillity to the land without going an iota beyond the scope of Lord Glenelg's instructions. But Sir Francis Head acted in no such spirit. He set his mind firmly against concession, feeling convinced, as he said, that the more he yielded the more would be demanded of him. In this respect he—no doubt unconsciously—emulated the example of James the Second, who was of opinion that his father owed the loss of his head to his concessions to the House of Commons. That this opinion was altogether erroneous does not admit of argument. Sir Francis was equally wrong, and equally stubborn in maintaining his opinion. His conduct was the last straw heaped upon the back of the much-enduring camel, and the outbreak which followed must in large measure be attributed to his misgovernment.

[210] See the letter, in Head's Narrative, chap. iii.[211] This proceeding was not relished by the Assembly. Sir John Colborne had already delivered one Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session, and this delivery of a second one was resented as a breach of privilege. After much time had been wasted in discussion, a precedent for the Lieutenant-Governor's action was found under date of December, 1765, and this matter was allowed to drop.[212] In the third chapter of his Narrative Sir Francis attempts to excuse himself for this senseless act. The reader who thinks it worth while to consult the rhetorical plea there attempted to be set up will recall Pembroke's dictum, in King John, that

"——oftentimes excusing of a fault
Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse."[213] This is the despatch referred to ante, p. 246, which had been treated with such contempt by the Law Officers of the Crown, and which had been returned by the Provincial Legislative Council to the Lieutenant-Governor.[214] See the 8vo edition of the Report, p. xxxix.[215] See the rejoinder of certain citizens of Toronto to the reply of the Lieutenant-Governor to their address, dated 25th March, 1836.[216] Ib.[217] Ib.[218] Life of Mackenzie, vol i., pp. 345, 346.[219] Narrative, chap. iii.[220] Ib.[221] Narrative, chap. iii.[222] See Head's despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated February 22nd, 1836, in Narrative, chap. iv.[223] Ib.[224] See the extra number of the Gazette issued on that date. A very full account of the negotiations and conferences which led to this result will be found in a letter written by Robert Baldwin to Peter Perry, dated "Front Street, 16th March, 1836," and published in the papers of the time. See post, p. 312.[225] See the representations of the Councillors to the Lieutenant-Governor, dated Friday, 4th March, 1836.[226] See Report of the Select Committee to which was referred the Answer of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor to an Address of the House of Assembly, relative to a Responsible Executive Council, p. 6. Toronto, 1836.[227] Ib., p. 7.[228] Narrative, chap. v.[229] Narrative, chapters iv., v.[230] Kaye's Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe, vol. ii., p. 339. Revised edition, 1858.[231] It is fair to say that some of these were due to the efforts of the Radicals in the Assembly, who had sent out blank petitions to local friends, with instructions to obtain signatures and fill in the name of the constituency.[232] Ante, pp. 303, 304.[233] See his despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated April 28th, 1836, in Narrative, chap. v.[234] Sir Francis himself has gravely recorded that certain militia officers publicly declared him to be "the d——dest liar and d——dest rascal in the Province." See despatch of 6th February, 1837, in Narrative, chap. ix.[235] The evidence will be found in appendix to Journal of 1836, 2nd Session, Twelfth Parliament, vol. iii., No. 106, pp. 57, 58.