The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion, Volume 1

by John Charles Dent

[249] See his speech in the Assembly on January 30th, 1837.

[250] From official returns it appears that 1,478 patents passed the Great Seal between the 20th of April (the date of the prorogation) and the close of the contest in June. Of this number 1,245 were issued in pursuance of Orders in Council made prior to Sir Francis Head's arrival in the Province. Between his arrival and the close of the election 233 were issued, whereof only 150 were issued under Order in Council on his authority. But that the entire 1,478 were passed under Sir Francis's régime within a very brief period; that a special staff of clerks was employed for the purpose; that for the first time in the history of the Province these patents were distributed at the polling-booths by Government agents who were strong adherents of the official party, and who were moreover dependent upon the Government for their situations—these are circumstances which admit of but one brief explanation. The only one of these agents whom the Committee of Inquiry ventured to summon before them was Mr. Welsley Richey, of Barrie, who, on his examination, deposed that he mentioned to the Lieutenant-Governor that the persons who wanted their deeds were entitled to them, and that he thought they would vote for Constitutional candidates; that Sir F. B. Head strictly commanded witness not in any manner to interfere as Government agent, or to use any influence which his situation gave him at the election; that out of a number not exceeding 130 patents which persons residing in the County of Simcoe were entitled to, and which were in witness's possession for them, only about thirty were called for, and only part of that thirty voted. This is mere petty evasion. As pointed out in the text, the extent to which such tactics as these affected the result is not the chief question to be decided. The mere fact that they were employed is sufficient to settle the question of culpability. Richey was directed not to interfere with the elections as Government agent. How was it possible for an official known to be connected with the Government to divest himself of the influence inseparable from such a connection, more especially when his strong political bias was well known, and when he presented himself at the poll as a distributor of deeds among the voters? The mere fact of a conference on such a subject between the head of the Government and a subordinate is in itself a suspicious circumstance.

[251] In Lord Goderich's despatch to Sir John Colborne, dated 8th November, 1832, referred to ante, p. 246, the following language is employed: "His Majesty expects and requires of you neither to practise, nor to allow on the part of those who are officially subordinate to you, any interference with the rights of his subjects to the free and unbiased choice of their representatives;" and, as previously mentioned, Lord Glenelg had expressly instructed Sir Francis Head to adopt that despatch as a rule for the guidance of his conduct. See ante, p. 301.

[252] Ante, p. 272.

[253] Sir Francis Hincks, who, as previously mentioned in the text, then resided in Toronto, and was identified with the Reform party, has, in his Reminiscences, recorded his views on this subject, and as they are founded upon personal experience and recollection they are worth quoting. "Bearing in mind," he writes, "that there are exceptions to all general rules, I think that I am not wrong in my belief that the members of the Church of England and the Presbyterians generally voted for the Tory candidates, while the Roman Catholics and the Baptists, Congregationalists, etc., voted as uniformly for the Reformers. The Wesleyan Methodists held the balance of power in a great many constituencies, and I believe that it has been generally acknowledged that the elections in 1836 were carried against the Reformers by their votes." Again: "I believe that I am correct in asserting that Sir Francis Head carried the elections in 1836 against the Reformers mainly through the influence of the Rev. Egerton Ryerson, who, though absent from Canada at the time, had, by his published impressions, induced those who confided in him to abandon the Reform cause."—Reminiscences, etc., pp. 17, 18.

[254] U.C. folio edition, p, 49.

[255] The House contained in all only sixty-two members, so that a majority of twenty-five constituted what might be called absolute control. The actual majority was twenty-six, as there were but eighteen Reform representatives as against forty-four supporters of the Government.

[256] See his despatch of 1st June.

[257] Ib.

[258] This language aptly characterizes Mr. Thomson, for afterwards, in the Assembly, it was impossible to predict how he would vote on any conceivable question. His "Reform" principles must have been very "moderate," for he frequently supported the measures of the Compact. His votes seem to have been dictated by chance or caprice, rather than political conviction of any kind.