The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion, Volume 1

by John Charles Dent

The feelings entertained towards him by the members of the Government, and by the Tory party generally, were largely personal and independent of politics. The conflict between them may be said to have begun before the removal from Queenston to York, and indeed almost before the ink was dry upon the first number of the Advocate. In that number Sir Peregrine Maitland, the Lieutenant-Governor, was accused of indolence, and of being the cause why Upper Canada was less progressive than her enterprising republican neighbour. He was referred to as one who, after spending his earlier days in the din of war and the turmoil of camps, had gained enough renown in Europe to enable him to enjoy himself, like the country he governed, in inactivity; whose migrations were, by water, from York to Queenston and from Queenston to York, like the Vicar of Wakefield, from the brown bed to the blue, and from the blue bed to the brown. Such comparisons as these could not be expected to find much favour with Sir Peregrine, more especially as they notoriously contained more than a soupçon of truth. The faction naturally sympathized with the Lieutenant-Governor, and only waited a suitable opportunity to give adequate expression to their abhorrence of Mackenzie and his doctrines. As for Sir Peregrine, he was ready enough to coöperate with his supporters in any proceeding for the suppression of this free-spoken and most objectionable little Radical, who dared to wag his plebeian tongue against the son-in-law of a Duke. An occasion for the first overt act of hostility was afforded by certain rites connected with the erection of the monument on Queenston Heights to the memory of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock. The construction of the monument having been determined upon, and considerable sums of money having been granted by Parliament for the purpose, commissioners were appointed to superintend the work, which was duly proceeded with. The second funeral of the dead hero, and the removal of his remains from Fort George, had been fixed for the 18th of October (1824), being the twelfth anniversary of the battle; but in the interim some of the local magnates of the Niagara District resolved that the foundation-stone should be laid with masonic honours. The 1st of June was appointed for this ceremonial, and on that date a considerable number of persons assembled on the Heights to witness it. Mr. Mackenzie, who, it will be remembered, then resided at Queenston, seems to have taken an active part in the proceedings, and this with the full consent and approval of the committee of management. A glass vessel, hermetically sealed, and enclosing a number of coins and a copy of The Upper Canada Gazette, together with the recently-issued first number of The Colonial Advocate, was produced for the purpose of being placed within the hollow of the foundation-stone. The vessel and its contents, enveloped in an otter's skin, were placed by Mr. Mackenzie in the cavity, the spectators looking on in quiet approval. The stone was then touched with the trowel, the deposit was covered up, and the rite was complete. An account of the proceedings found its way into the newspapers, and Sir Peregrine Maitland learned, to his intense disgust, of the part which Mackenzie had been permitted to take in the ceremony. He sent for Colonel Thomas Clark, one of the commissioners appointed by Parliament to superintend the construction of the column, and, in a voice of undisguised passion, gave orders to that gentleman that the glass vessel should forthwith be disinterred, and the copy of the Advocate removed therefrom. The mandate was of course obeyed. As the column had by this time reached a considerable height, the excavation was no slight task. Mr. Mackenzie himself, who personally attended at what he called the "premature resurrection," claimed and obtained possession of the number of the paper which had caused so much unnecessary labour and ill-temper.

From this time forward there was almost incessant warfare between Mr. Mackenzie and the official party: warfare sometimes suppressed, sometimes altogether concealed for a brief season, but always ready to break out upon the slightest pretext—sometimes, indeed, without any apparent pretext at all.

Soon after the Advocate's removal to York, and not long before the opening of the Legislature, the Honourable D'Arcy Boulton, one of the puisne judges, laid himself open to attack by conduct of the most reprehensible kind. In a case tried before him, in which his son, the Solicitor-General, appeared on behalf of the Crown, the Judge displayed such gross partiality that one cannot read the report of the proceedings, even as chronicled by one of the organs of the Government, without mingled feelings of wonder and disgust. At the present day such conduct on the part of an occupant of the judicial bench would bring down upon his head the animadversions of the press of the whole country. Sixty years ago it passed without editorial remark from any of the journals of the time, with the single exception of the Advocate, which certainly used some very plain words in characterizing the Judge's behaviour. It appealed to the Legislature to address the Governor on the subject, with a request to dismiss from office the whole of the Boulton race, root and branch. "If a Government emanating from England," wrote Mr. Mackenzie, "can cherish such a corrupt, such a Star Chamber crew, then the days of the infamous Scroggs and Jeffries are returned upon us; and we may lament for ourselves, for our wives and for our children, that the British Constitution is, in Canada, a phantom to delude to destruction, instead of being the day-star of our dearest liberties."

Such language as this, which was a mild specimen of the writer's trenchant style, was not, upon the whole, too strong for the occasion. In other instances he was roused to greater fury on less provocation, and used phrases unbefitting the columns of any paper which aspires to be a public instructor. But he was not alone in his scurrility. Some of the persons attacked in the Advocate retorted upon the editor through the official press in language far less defensible than his own. He was denounced as an upstart and a demagogue, whose low origin placed him far beneath the notice of gentlemen. This language, be it understood, was used by at least one wealthy and influential personage whose own origin was such that Mr. Mackenzie's might have been pronounced aristocratic by comparison. To all such vapourings Mr. Mackenzie responded in the Advocate in kind. He had a large vocabulary of Billingsgate at his command, and as his temper became thoroughly aroused he proved that he could fully hold his own in this sort of wordy warfare. He followed the example of his antagonists, invaded the sanctities of private life, and descended to outrageous personalities. The persons thus placed in the journalistic pillory were merely paid back in their own coin, but they had never been accustomed to yield to others the privileges they claimed for themselves, and could not understand how "this fellow" dared presume to retort the foulness hurled at him. His paper meanwhile enjoyed a fair circulation, and his enemies periodically saw themselves held up before the people of the Province in a light well calculated to bring down public execration upon them. They winced, and hated their aggressor with a hatred which knew no bounds.

Before the close of the first session of the Ninth Parliament, in 1825, the struggle between the two political parties had assumed a distinct form. The Opposition contended for a responsible Executive; the Government repudiated the contention with sarcastic contempt. There were various other grounds of dispute, but this great question overshadowed and practically included all. It cannot truly be said that there was much perceptible progress in reform during the session; indeed material progress was impossible so long as the Government controlled the Legislative Council, and while the Executive Councillors held on to office in spite of the hostile votes of the Assembly. The way towards reform was however paved by the debates. Never before had the Government of Upper Canada been subjected to the incessant criticism of a watchful and vigorous phalanx of censors within the walls of Parliament. They were not wise enough to read the signs of the times, and would yield nothing to the demands of their opponents. They still believed in the efficacy of repression, and the next few years were marked by a series of high-handed persecutions which did more to speed the progress of reform than all the eloquence of Rolph and Bidwell could have effected in half a century.

As for Mackenzie, he would doubtless have been dealt with as Gourlay had been, could such a course have been adopted towards him with safety. Isaac Swayzes in abundance might no doubt have been found to swear that the obnoxious personage had not been a resident of the Province for the preceding six months. Doubtless, also, phrases had been used in the Advocate which, isolated from the context, might have been tortured into something like sedition. But the party in power were not so dull as to be unable to perceive that that experiment must not be repeated. The Liberal schoolmaster had been actively at work within the last few years, and any attempt to re-enact that glaring iniquity would, to say the least, be attended with serious risk to the actors. The most feasible method of disposing of the noisy little firebrand presented itself in the shape of successive indictments for libel, to which his aggressive and unguarded mode of writing would be certain to expose him. It is of course impossible to obtain direct evidence of an express conspiracy on the part of the Government to destroy him by such means. A conspiracy of that nature would not be likely to take the shape of a written contract which might be produced against the contracting parties in the future. Nor would the parties to such a conspiracy be likely to leave any written traces of it behind them. Still, anyone who has the opportunity and inclination to go minutely into the question will be irresistibly driven to the conclusion that there was some sort of understanding among the chiefs of the official party that the publication of the Advocate was to be stopped, and that its editor was to be either driven out of the country or reduced to silence.

In the meantime Mr. Mackenzie himself had serious difficulties to contend with. The Advocate, notwithstanding its considerable circulation, did not yield any appreciable income. Subscribers were backward in their payments, and the cost of making collections reduced the profit to little or nothing. The postage to country subscribers had to be paid in advance by the publisher, which was in itself a considerable drain upon his resources. The issue of the paper was moreover necessarily attended by a good deal of expense. It did not appear regularly, and the intervals between successive numbers were sometimes of considerable duration. This irregularity was a serious drawback to its prosperity, and a source of much dissatisfaction to its patrons. Such a combination of discouragements could have but one result. By the beginning of June, 1826, Mr. Mackenzie had been reduced to serious pecuniary embarrassment, and had temporarily withdrawn himself from the jurisdiction, pending an arrangement with his creditors. It is in the highest degree improbable that another number of the paper would ever have been issued. It was moribund, if not already dead. But when matters had arrived at this pass, the violence of Mackenzie's enemies led them to commit an act of lawless ruffianism which gave the Advocate a new lease of life. The act moreover aroused much popular indignation against the perpetrators, and a proportionate degree of sympathy for their victim, to whom it gave additional importance, while it at the same time materially improved his financial condition.

During the spring of the year 1826 the Advocate's criticisms upon certain members of the oligarchical faction were marked by exceptional acerbity. The persons attacked, however, sought in vain throughout the closely-packed columns for any material upon which a criminal prosecution might be founded; for Mr. Mackenzie, whether by prudence or good fortune, contrived for some weeks to say very acrid things without rendering himself liable to an indictment. Among the persons who were compelled to pass through the fire of his criticism was the Honourable James Buchanan Macaulay, a gentleman who in after years attained the honour of knighthood, and became Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas for Upper Canada. At the period under consideration he was a member of the Executive Council, and occupied a high position at the local bar. The language employed by the Advocate with respect to him was comparatively mild, and did not even mention him by name. Moreover, the editor's remarks appear to have been entirely in accordance with facts. At any rate they were altogether insufficient to account for the state of ferocity into which Mr. Macaulay allowed himself to be lashed. He prepared and published a pamphlet, in which he gave vent to such scurrility as it seems incredible that any man of education, or even of decent social training, could ever have descended to write. Truly, no man is ever so effectually written down as when he himself holds the pen. Those readers who wish to be better acquainted with the depths to which an angry man can lower himself, and who have not access to Mr. Macaulay's pamphlet, can obtain some inkling of the truth by reference to Mr. Lindsey's "Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie."[68] As Mr. Lindsey very justly remarks:—"The cause of the quarrel was utterly contemptible, and Mr. Macaulay showed to great disadvantage in it." It seems probable enough that one main object of the publication of the pamphlet was to goad Mr. Mackenzie into a retort which would render him amenable to the law of libel. In one sense this plan—if such there were—succeeded. The Advocate came out with a long reply which contained an abundance of scandalous matter, a great part of which, as the writer must have been well aware, had no shadow of foundation in truth. The matter related not only to persons occupying public situations, but to individuals altogether unconnected with public life, including respectable married women and persons who had long been dead. But most of the statements and insinuations, even those which were unsupported by a tittle of evidence—nay, even those which were notoriously groundless—related to and were interwoven with circumstances which, as the persons involved well knew, would not bear discussion. It would never do to permit such matters to become the subject of judicial investigation. Anything in the shape of an enquiry would inevitably lead to disclosures seriously affecting the honour of more than one member of the Compact. An indictment, therefore, was out of the question.

It has often been asserted that the oligarchy are to be held accountable for the display of ruffianly violence which followed Mackenzie's retort to Macaulay's pamphlet. In one sense this is true, for it was in consequence of their long abuse of the supremacy which they enjoyed that feelings of hatred and enmity were begotten between one stratum of society and another; and it was this hatred which gave rise to violent measures. But if it is meant to be implied that the oligarchy, as a body, conceived the design, or that it was carried out under their auspices, the implication is too absurd to stand in need of serious rebuttal. To carry the argument no farther, the body was too numerous to admit of any general secret coöperation between them for such a purpose. As simple matter of fact, all knowledge of the contemplated violence was confined to the breasts of those who took part in it. No one familiar with the circumstances, however, can doubt that it met with the fullest approval of the ruling faction after it had been effected, and that, so far as such a thing was possible, the wrong-doers were protected by them from the consequences of the outrage. To this charge they must perforce plead guilty; but there are degrees in guilt, and the endorsation, or even the approval of an act after it has been committed, is a different thing from the original conception and carrying out of it. The respective weight of culpability, in the case under consideration, is a matter which the reader may very well be left to estimate according to his own judgment.

And now for the outrage itself.