The Story of My Life Part 31

Dr. Ryerson, on his part, felt kindly towards Mr. Mackenzie. He mentioned to the Editor of this book near the close of the year 1860, that on the ensuing New Year's day he (Dr. Ryerson) would call upon and shake hands with his old antagonist, and wish him a "Happy New Year."

FOOTNOTES:

[59] Mr. Mackenzie frequently visited the Educational Depository to make inquiries, etc. The Editor of this book had frequent conversations with him on the subject, and explained to him the details of management. He was pleased to know that through the agency of the Depository thousands of volumes of good books were being yearly sent out to the schools.

[60] Now the Rev. Dr. Cunningham Geikie, of England, and author of the "Life and Words of Christ," and other valuable books. He declined the use of the t.i.tle of reverend in his controversy with Dr. Ryerson.

CHAPTER XXIV.

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 pet.i.tion 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.[61] and completed them in the office of Mr. Daniel Hagerman, of Ernestown. He was admitted as a barrister-at-law in April, 1821.

Mr. Bidwell was first elected to the House of a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.sembly) 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 judges.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sembly was dissolved by Sir Francis, and a general election ordered. I had warned the public against Mr. Mackenzie's doings in converting const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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.[62]

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 a.s.sumed 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 judges.h.i.+p, 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 a.s.sured 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, and will prove that I had also no knowledge or expectation that any such attempt [_i.e._ insurrectionary movement]

was in contemplation.

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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sed a sleepless night.

The late Mr. Henry Ca.s.sidy 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. Ca.s.sidy had been a student in Mr. Bidwell's law-office and was now his law agent. Mr. Bidwell enclosed to Mr. Ca.s.sidy the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Sir F. Head and Attorney-General Hagerman, and Mr. Ca.s.sidy 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. Ca.s.sidy, 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 a.s.sailed 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. Ca.s.sidy 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. Ca.s.sidy 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 to excite suspicion.[63] It was the first article that had appeared in the public press after the rebellion, breathing the spirit of freedom, and advocating British const.i.tutional rights against illegal oppression.[64]

The effect of this article upon the public mind was very remarkable. As an example, Mr. John Campbell, member of the Legislative a.s.sembly 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 paper that I ever penned (and for the recovery of which I afterwards offered five pounds, but without success), reducing the questions to a series of mathematical propositions, and demonstrating in each case from the Attorney-General's own data, that my conclusions were true, and his absurd. I concluded by defying his legal threat of prosecution, and signed my name to the letter.

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 const.i.tutional government.[65]

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 a.s.sertions that impeached his character, and desired me to inform him on what evidence I had based my statements. He said:--

The first a.s.sertion 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 a.s.sertions 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 Hagerman himself. Mr. Hagerman was a man of generous impulses. He was a variable speaker, but at times his every gesture was eloquent, his intonations of voice were truly musical, and almost every sentence was a gem of beauty.

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 antic.i.p.ated 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 I advised Mr. H. C. Thompson) of striking off a large number of copies, in pamphlet form, of your Review of Archdeacon Strachan's Sermon. (See page 68.) I have no doubt it will be really a great service to the country to do so. Indeed, I sincerely think that you could not in any other way be instrumental in promoting so much the cause of Christ, as in the labours which you have undertaken. The concerns of this Colony, as you see in the newspapers, are attracting the attention of the British Parliament; and the decided expression of public opinion here at present will outweigh all that Dr. Strachan and his junto can say and do. My father and I will shortly give the subject of Church Establishment in this Province, contended for by Dr. Strachan, a full and careful examination, and communicate to you the result.

_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 Speakers.h.i.+p. 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 friends.h.i.+p.

_March 10th, 1829--York._--The Marriage Bill has been pa.s.sed, 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 pa.s.s. 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 grat.i.tude. 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 a.s.sistance, beyond what you have any idea of.