  1838. Defence of the Hon. Marshall Spring Bidwell. From various papers and letters left by Dr. Ryerson, I have compiled the following statement in regard to his memorable defence of the Hon. M. S. Bidwell, in 1838. I have used Dr. Ryerson's own words throughout, only varying them when the sense, or the construction, or condensation of a sentence, required it. He said:— On Dr. Duncombe's return to Canada, I believe the conspiracy was commenced by him, Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, and others, sought to accomplish their objects by rebellion; but in this the great body of Reformers took no part except to surpress it. I had warned them that Mr. Mackenzie's proceedings would result in rebellion. I afterwards received the thanks of great numbers of Reformers for having by my warnings and counsels saved them and their families from being involved in the consequences of the rebellion. I was so odious to Mr. Mackenzie and his fellow rebels, that they determined to hang me on the first tree could they get hold of me. Of this, I had proof from one of themselves; yet I afterwards succeeded by my representations and appeals, to get several of them out of prison. My brother John, who was then in Toronto, presented to Governor Arthur and advocated a largely signed petition against the execution of Lount and Matthews. He also read a letter from me (then a stationed minister in Kingston) against their execution, and on the impolicy of capital punishment for political offences. After the suppression of the rebellion—in the putting down of which the great body of the Reformers joined—the leaders of the dominant party sought, nevertheless, to hold the entire party of the Reformers responsible for that rebellion, and to proscribe and put them down accordingly. The first step in this process of proscription was the ostracism of Mr. M. S. Bidwell, an able and prudent politician, and a gentleman who took a high place in the legal profession. Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1824; re-elected and chosen Speaker in 1828. On the death of George IV., in 1830, a new general election took place, when the Reform party were reduced to a minority, and Mr. Bidwell was not re-elected Speaker; but he greatly distinguished himself in the debates of the House. In 1834, a new general election took place; a large majority of Reformers were returned, and Mr. Bidwell was again elected Speaker. In May, 1836, Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House of Assembly, and Mr. Bidwell and his colleague, the late Peter Perry, were defeated in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, which Mr. Bidwell had represented in Parliament during twelve years. From that time (May, 1836) Mr. Bidwell never attended a political meeting, or took any part in politics. During my stay in England, from December, 1835, to April, 1837, I had many conversations with Lord Glenelg, Sir George Grey, and Sir James Stephen (Under Secretaries), on the Government of Canada, shewing them that the foundation of our Government was too narrow, like an inverted pyramid, conferring the appointments to all offices, civil, military, judicial, to one party—excluding all others, however respectable and competent, as if they were enemies, and even aliens. I mentioned that not one member of the Reform party, (which had commanded for years a majority in the House of Assembly) had ever been appointed to the Bench, though there were several of them able lawyers, such as Bidwell, Rolph, etc. (Page 169.) Lord Glenelg, in a despatch, directed Sir F. B. Head to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship on the first vacancy. Sir F. Head refused to do so, for which he was recalled, and Sir George Arthur was appointed in his place. In the meantime the House of Assembly was dissolved by Sir Francis, and a general election ordered. I had warned the public against Mr. Mackenzie's doings in converting constitutional reform into republican revolution, in consequence of which he attacked me furiously. Peter Perry, in the parliamentary session of 1836, attacked me also, and defended Mr. Mackenzie in a long speech. This speech reached me in England. I sat down and wrote a letter in reply, which reached Canada, and was published there on the eve of the elections, of which I then knew nothing. The constitutional party in Lennox and Addington had my letter printed by thousands, in the form of a large hand-bill headed: "Peter Perry Picked to Pieces by Egerton Ryerson." Although Mr. Bidwell took no part in the controversy, he was on the same electoral ticket with Mr. Perry, and both were defeated. The Radical party being defeated at the polls, its leaders: Mr. Wm. L. Mackenzie, Dr. Charles Duncombe, and many others, sought to accomplish by force of arms what they had failed to accomplish by popular elections; the rebellion of 1836-7 was the result. As Mr. Bidwell was known to be the intimate friend of Dr. Rolph, and as Dr. Rolph was thought to be implicated in the rebellion, it was assumed by Sir F. Head that Mr. Bidwell was concerned in it also. But this was perfectly untrue. Besides, Mr. Bidwell entertained the strongest views that not a drop of blood should be shed to obtain the civil freedom of a country—that only moral suasion and public opinion should be employed for such purposes. Sir F. Head thought that now was the opportunity to revenge himself alike upon Lord Glenelg and the Whig Government, which had ordered him to appoint Mr. Bidwell to a judgeship, and also upon Mr. Bidwell as a former leader of the Reform party who had opposed him. Mr. Bidwell's letters having reached the Governor, he sent for that gentleman. What transpired is thus related by Mr. Bidwell, in a letter written to me some time afterwards:— Sir Francis assured me that the letters had been sent to him without his orders, and that he never would allow my letters to be opened. I asked him to open them, as I did not wish to have any suspicions about them indulged afterwards; but he refused to do it, and said he had too much respect for me to allow it. Indeed, on the Wednesday previously, I expressly informed the Attorney-General of my own anxiety, (and that I was willing) to undergo the most full and unreserved examination, and to let all my papers be examined. The terms of my note of the 8th December—the evening of the day of the interview—were dictated, or at least, suggested to me by Sir Francis, and referred particularly to his expressions of personal regard. The object of drawing such a note from me is now apparent—but I was not then aware that he had received orders from Lord Glenelg to make me a Judge. Before leaving Toronto (as he intimates), and after his arrival at Lewiston, Mr. Bidwell wrote to Sir F. Head (December 11th, 1837), protesting his innocence and against the injustice of the means used to compel him to leave his country. The conclusion of Mr. Bidwell's note from Toronto is as follows: I am confident ... that the investigations, which will now of course be made, will fully remove those suspicions from the mind of your Excellency, To accomplish his revengeful purpose, however, Sir F. Head wrote or inspired an editorial to the Toronto Patriot newspaper (then the organ of his Government) stating that as Mr. Bidwell had left the country, under circumstances that proved his consciousness of guilt, it was therefore the duty of the Benchers of the Law Society to erase his name from their rolls. I was then stationed at Kingston. When I saw the editorial in the Patriot, I at once recognized Sir F. Head's hand in it, and was horror-struck at the idea of a man being exiled from his country, and then deprived of his professional character and privileges without a trial! I passed a sleepless night. The late Mr. Henry Cassidy was then mayor of Kingston; a staunch Churchman and Conservative. His wife was a relative of mine, so a sort of family intimacy existed between us. Mr. Cassidy had been a student in Mr. Bidwell's law-office and was now his law agent. Mr. Bidwell enclosed to Mr. Cassidy the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Sir F. Head and Attorney-General Hagerman, and Mr. Cassidy had shown it to me. The morning after I saw the article in the Patriot, proposing the erasure of Mr. Bidwell's name from the books of the Law Society, I went to Mr. Cassidy, saying that I had not closed my eyes all night, in consequence of Sir F. Head's article in the Patriot; that I was the only person besides himself who knew the facts of the case, and though I had been assailed by the newspapers of the party with which Mr. Bidwell had been connected, I felt it in my heart to prevent a gross act of injustice and cruelty being inflicted upon a man, in his absence and helplessness, who had introduced and carried through our Legislature the laws by which the different religious denominations held their Church property, and their ministers solemnized matrimony. I asked Mr. Cassidy if he would allow me the use of the letters which Mr. Bidwell had enclosed to him, justifying his own innocence, and showing the injustice done him by the misstatements of Sir F. Head. After some hours of deliberation, Mr. Cassidy consented. I sat down, and over the signature of "A United Empire Loyalist," I detailed the case, introducing as proofs of Mr. Bidwell's innocence the injustice proposed to be inflicted upon him, referring to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman's own letter, and appealing to the Law Society, and the country at large, against such injustice and against such violation of the rights of a British subject. I got a friend to copy my communication, so as not The effect of this article upon the public mind was very remarkable. As an example, Mr. John Campbell, member of the Legislative Assembly for the County of Frontenac, despairing of the liberties of the country under the "tory" oppression of the day, determined to sell his property for whatever it might bring, and remove to the States. He was on a steamboat on Lake Ontario, on his way to the Territory of Iowa to buy land and settle there, when the newspaper containing my communication fell into his hands; he read it, rose up and said that as long as there was a man in Canada who could write in that way there was hope for the country. He returned home, resumed his business, and lived and died in Canada. The Attorney-General was annoyed at the publication of his letter to Mr. Bidwell, and attempted a justification of his conduct. At the conclusion of a letter to me, he said that I had concealed my name for fear of the legal consequences of my seditious paper. I at once sat down and wrote the most argumentative The effect of my reply to Mr. Attorney-General Hagerman was marvellous in weakening the influence of the first law adviser of the Crown, and in reviving the confidence of the friends of liberal constitutional government. Subsequently, (in June, 1838), I received a letter from Mr. Hagerman, in which he stated that in my observations on Mr. Bidwell's case I had made assertions that impeached his character, and desired me to inform him on what evidence I had based my statements. He said:— The first assertion is that I was the author of certain remarks published under the editorial head of the Patriot newspaper of this city, injurious to the reputation of Mr. Bidwell.... The second statement is that I desired to procure his expulsion from the Province, because he had been preferred to me for the office of judge. My reply to Mr. Hagerman was brief and to the point: I beg to say, in reply to your letter, that I am not conscious of having made either of the assertions which you have been pleased to attribute to me. I think it only just to the late Mr. Hagerman to add, that the sharp discussions between him and me did not chill the friendliness, and even pleasantness, of our personal intercourse afterwards; and I believe few men would have more heartily welcomed Mr. Bidwell's return to Canada than Mr. Justice The discussion ended there; but no proposal was ever made to, much less entertained by, the Law Society to erase Mr. Bidwell's name from its rolls. Mr. Bidwell's case did not, however, end here. In 1842, on the recommendation of Hon. Robert Baldwin, any promise given by Mr. Bidwell not to return to Canada—of which no record was found in any of the Government offices—was revoked, in 1843, by the Governor-General (Lord Metcalfe). Mr. Bidwell was also strongly urged to come back, and a promise was given to him by the authority of the Governor-General that all of his former rights and privileges would be restored to him, with a view to his elevation to the Bench. He, however, declined to return. Again, some years afterwards, when Sir W. B. Richards was Attorney-General, he was authorized to offer Mr. Bidwell the position of Commissioner to revise our Statute Law. He declined that offer also. In conversation, in 1872, with Sir John Macdonald in relation to Mr. Bidwell's early life, Sir John informed me that some years before, he himself had, while in New York, solicited Mr. Bidwell to return to Canada, but without success. Sir John said that he had done so, not merely on his own account (as he had always loved Mr. Bidwell, and did not believe that he had any connection whatever with the rebellion), but because he believed that he represented the wishes of his political friends, as well as those of the people of Canada generally. Mr. Bidwell was an earnest Christian. He was also a charming companion. A few weeks before his lamented decease, he visited his relatives and friends in Canada, spent a Sabbath in Toronto, occupying a seat in my pew in the Metropolitan Church. While here he presented me with a beautiful likeness of himself on ivory. I have placed it in the Canadian room of our Departmental Museum. I little thought it was my last meeting with him, as I had long anticipated and often intended to visit him in New York, where he promised to narrate to me many incidents of men and things in the Canada of former years, which had not come to my knowledge, or which I had forgotten. A suitable monument would be an appropriate tribute to his memory by our Legislature and country. The following are extracts of letters written to Dr. Ryerson, by Mr. Bidwell, at the dates mentioned: May 21st, 1828—Kingston.—I admire and fully approved of your plan (as January 19th, 1829—York.—I rejoice once more to receive a letter from you.... I sincerely thank you for your congratulations on my elevation to the Speakership. I am sensible how much I need the prayers and counsels of my friends in discharging the duties of my station. I wish Christians would reflect what important consequences may follow from every step taken by those in public life, and especially in the Legislature.... I send you a copy of Wilbur's Reference Bible, which I beg you will accept as a testimony of my respect and friendship. March 10th, 1829—York.—The Marriage Bill has been passed, with amendments made by the Legislative Council. The House is about equally divided on trying questions, so that we often forbear attempting measures which we would wish to pass. This unpleasant state of things produces anxiety, uncertainty, and (worst of all) violent party spirit. I can with great truth declare that I have received but little satisfaction in my public life. To you and your brother the Province owes a large debt of gratitude. For one, I feel it sensibly, and wish most sincerely that we could have the benefit of your counsel in our House. Two or three such men would be a comfort, a relief, a support, and an assistance, beyond what you have any idea of. April 6th, 1831—Kingston.—I am very glad to see your commendations of the Attorney-General.[A] I think they are just. They are certainly politic and seasonable. Indeed, I had thought of hinting to you the propriety of some such notice of his liberality, etc. I was afraid otherwise the coldness of the courtiers towards him might make him repent of such liberality. But I think that your remarks have come at the right time, and are exactly of the right sort. June 14th, 1833—York.—We have heard with pleasure of your safe arrival in England: and pleasing indeed this has been to your many friends in the Province, whose prayers, good wishes, and friendly recollections, have accompanied you across the Atlantic.... Mr. John Willson, M.P.P., of Saltfleet, has, within a day or two, obtained from the Receiver-General, on the warrant of the Lieutenant-Governor, £600 of the public money, to aid in building chapels, I suppose, for the Ryanites. (See page 87). The fact was mentioned to me privately this morning, but I deem it so important as to justify and require me to inform you confidentially of it, leaving it to your judgment to use the intelligence in the most discreet manner that may be consistent with the duty you owe to liberty and religion. It excites surprise, pain, mortification, indignation, and contempt, to see the Executive Government here making unjust and invidious distinctions between His Majesty's subjects in the appropriations of the Clergy Reserves, thereby endeavouring to secure an unconstitutional and corrupt influence, especially after Lord Goderich's declaration in his despatch (which he As a Presbyterian I lament the grant to the Presbytery, and will do all I can to get it repealed, for I am convinced it will do injury to liberty and religion, and to the very persons who may wish, or wicked enough, to receive it. I suppose the Province is indebted to Sir John Colborne for these grants. If it is the Government at home, it ought to be known: if it is not, they ought not only to remove Sir John, but also reform this abuse. Have the Government ever given your Society sixpence, or even a foot of land for your chapels?—although it is the oldest and most numerous body of the kind in the Province; is not wealthy, and has rendered the most valuable services, and at a time when no other Church evinced the least interest for the religious instruction or the welfare of the people. April 12th, 1838—New York.—Your letter of the 23rd ult. and its enclosure [the defence], I need not say, have effected me deeply, too much, indeed, for me to describe my feelings. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this instance of your kindness; not less valued, certainly, because it was unexpected, not to say undeserved. If my misfortunes shall be the means of recovering a friendship which I formerly enjoyed and always prized, I shall feel not a little reconciled. I took the precaution some time ago, to send to England a plain, distinct statement of all that had occurred between Sir Francis Head and myself. This was transmitted to a friend to show to Lord Glenelg. My only object was the vindication of my character. I have never had the least expectation of obtaining justice or redress from the Colonial office. There seems in that department utter incapacity. The very persons they select for the Government of Upper Canada are enough to prove this. And yet I believe that Lord Glenelg is an able, as well as amiable, devout, good man. May 15th, 1838—New York.—I have received a letter from the gentleman in England, to whom I had written. He had seen Lord Durham, and shown him my letter. He expressed no opinion; but the gentleman thinks that the matter stands favourably before him. He has not yet seen Lord Glenelg. August 10th, 1839—New York.—Mr. Christopher Dunkin About the time of Mr. Bidwell's defence, Dr. Ryerson also wrote an explanatory letter to the Colonial Office in regard to his excellent friend, Hon. John H. Dunn, the Receiver-General, whose generous conduct towards the Upper Canada Academy is mentioned on page 166 I am very glad to learn from your letter that you have written to Lord Glenelg. It is but just to put His Lordship in possession of facts which may counteract the influence of misrepresentation, and enable His Lordship to exercise his own humane disposition in putting matters right, which have been so wrong and arbitrary towards the individual Mr. Bidwell, whom you have taken the interest in, and trouble, to restore to his position and his country. I feel exceedingly obliged for the kind feeling which you entertain towards me. Believe me, that you have only done me justice by mentioning my name to Lord Glenelg. I have laboured hard since I have been in the Province to discharge my duty to my God and my Government. I have entertained different opinions at times of the "Powers here," but they have been the dictates of an honest heart. I cannot guide my opinions to the service of any party. Whatever they may be, I shall lament if they should result in any other than for the best interests and welfare of the Province of Upper Canada. You were so good as to read me your letter to Lord Glenelg, on the subject of the late execution of Lount and Matthews. Your version too, of the real meaning of the representation which caused Sir Francis Head to compel us to retire from the Executive Council, is so correct, that I cannot suggest any amendment; besides, I am bound by my oath not to divulge any transaction arising at the Council Board. I shall be very happy to see the letter published. (See page 170.) You have seen my name kindly mentioned in the public prints. What has been said has been the spontaneous expressions of other persons, quite unknown to me. I am grateful to those persons who have vindicated me against a party, eager to destroy me, and my family. I leave them to a Judge who knows the secrets of all hearts, and before whom we all shall soon appear. I have had my share of afflictions and troubles in this world, Dr. Ryerson (in the Guardian of 22nd January, 1840) thus referred to Mr. Dunn as one of the speakers in the Legislative Council on the popular side of the clergy reserve question:— I was glad to hear Mr. Dunn speak so well and so forcibly,—universally and affectionately esteemed as he is beyond any other public functionary in Upper Canada. Some months after the exile of Mr. Bidwell, Mr. James S. Howard was dismissed by Sir F. B. Head from the office of Postmaster of Toronto. The alleged ground of dismissal was that he was a Radical, and had not taken up arms in defence of the country. Dr. Ryerson, with his usual generous sympathy for persons who in those days were made the victims of Governor Head's caprice, at once espoused Mr. Howard's cause. In his first letter in the Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, he said:— After the insurrection of 1837-8, unfavourable impressions were made far and wide against the late Postmaster of Toronto, and Mr. Bidwell. But subsequent investigations corrected these impressions. The former has been appointed to office, and Sir F. B. Head's proceedings against the latter have been cancelled by Sir Charles Metcalfe. (Page 16.) Again, in the "Prefatory Address" to the Metcalfe Defence, he said:— While God gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to write, I will not passively see honourable integrity murdered by grasping faction.... I would not do so in 1838, when an attempt was made to degrade and proscribe, and drive out of the country all naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all Reformers with the brand of rebellion.... I relieved the name of an injured James S. Howard from the obloquy that hung over it, and rescued the character and rights of an exiled Bidwell from ruthless invasion, and the still further effort to cover him with perpetual infamy by expelling him from the Law Society. (Page 7.) FOOTNOTES:Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1824; re-elected and chosen Speaker in 1828. On the death of George IV., in 1830, a new general election took place, when the Reform party were reduced to a minority, and Mr. Bidwell was not re-elected Speaker; but he greatly distinguished himself in the debates of the House. In 1834, a new general election took place; a large majority of Reformers were returned, and Mr. Bidwell was again elected Speaker. In May, 1836, Sir F. B. Head dissolved the House of Assembly, and Mr. Bidwell and his colleague, the late Peter Perry, were defeated in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, which Mr. Bidwell had represented in Parliament during twelve years. From that time (May, 1836) Mr. Bidwell never attended a political meeting, or took any part in politics. In a letter from Mr. Bidwell, dated, the 30th April, 1837, to Dr. O'Callaghan, of Montreal, he said: Retired from public life, probably for ever; I still look with the deepest sympathy on the efforts of those who are actively contending for the great principles of liberty, and good government, etc.—"Political History of Canada, 1840-1855, by Sir Francis Hincks, 1877, page 7." "I am Sir, by parental instruction and example, by personal feeling and A United Empire Loyalist" The letters constituted an eloquent defence of Mr. Bidwell, who certainly took no part in the counsels of those who were afterwards engaged in the rebellion, when it became evident that they intended to push matters to extremes. The incident made a great impression on me at the time, and was the beginning of a friendship with which Dr. Ryerson honoured me, and which ended only with his life. A. Campbell. Ottawa, 29th December, 1882. I have replied to Mr. Hagerman with calmness, but with deep feeling. My reply will occupy about eight columns in to-morrow's Herald. |
|
