40
Historical
Narrative
Road To Rebellion
History with a message.
The
death
and
destruction
resulting from the war of 1812
hardened conservative attitudes
in Upper Canada and stiffened the
determination of the privileged
few in the province to create a
conservative fortress in British
North
America
that
would
be
resistant
to
the
extreme
democratic influences filtering
up from the United States.
Words
such
as
‘disloyal’,
‘seditious’,
‘democratic’
and
‘American’ were all synonymous as
terms of contempt and reproach
hurled by Tories at anyone who
dared oppose them
To
further
their
conservative
ends, members of the Tory elite
often sought appointments to both
the legislative and the executive
councils. Many, including such
personalities
as
the
Reverend
John Strachan, received them.
Overlapping appointments such as
these confirmed the
exclusive
and closed nature of this group,
which Reformers in the 1820s
would disdainfully designate the
Family
Compact.
These
appointments,
more
alarmingly
demonstrated the
closeness of
the links between the colony's
political/administrative
structure
and
its
judicial
system.
Connections between political and
judicial structures always tend
to be close: politicians make
laws and judges enforce them. In
Upper Canada, however, they were
so cozy, that the same executive
council
which
advised
the
lieutenant
governor
on
the
colony's
administration,
also
served as the colony’s final
court of appeal. As a result, it
was very difficult to distinguish
between those who made the
and those who enforced it.
law
In
keeping
with
British
tradition,
Upper Canada's elite
viewed the law as an ally in the
effort to preserve the social
hierarchy
within
which
they
enjoyed
privileged
positions.
They
fully
realized,
however,
given the colony’s exposed and
vulnerable position bordering on
the
United
States,
and
the
discontent of residents within
the colony evident both before
and during the war, that a too
extreme
application
of
the
existing
law
could
be
counterproductive.
Like
Britain's
ruling
class,
therefore, they opted for more
subtle displays of power. An
example of this was the show
trial orchestrated by Attorney
General John Beverley Robinson in
May, 1814 at Ancaster, just west
of Hamilton.
Dressed in imposing regal robes,
the judges indicted 71 traitors
and sentenced 17 to be hanged,
drawn,
and
quartered.
They
finally
pardoned
nine,
hanged
eight, and quartered none. By
tempering
harsh
justice
with
mercy in such an august setting,
the elite hoped to conciliate the
people and promote loyalty or at
least compliance on the part of
the public.
A similar approach
was followed in the lower courts,
where although the death penalty
existed for a wide range of
crimes, executions were rarely
imposed.
One individual who personified
the close connections between law
and politics within the Family
Compact was Sir John Beverley
Robinson', a student of Bishop
Strachans.
He
was
appointed
41
acting attorney general at the
age of 21 before he had even been
called to the bar. In 1818 he
became attorney general and in
1820 he joined the legislative
assembly, where he became the
primary
spokesman
for
the
province’s
elite.
In
1829
Robinson
was
appointed
chief
justice, a position he held until
1863.
In addition to the courts, the
church
was
also
used
to
manipulate
and
control
the
population.
The
Constitutional
Act had established the Church of
England as the state church with
all the majesty that entailed.
The government looked to the
church to monitor and manage the
behaviour of the people, and to
assist it to do so, the church
was
assigned
control
of
educational policy and funded by
monies from the sale of the
Clergy Reserves.
Majesty
and
mercy
eventually
proved inadequate to disguise the
fundamentally
self-centered
nature of the elite’s agenda. In
the
1820s
as
political,
administrative
and
judicial
decisions
became
increasingly
more domineering and oppressive,
some assembly members by the end
of the decade joined together as
‘His
Majesty’s
faithful
opposition,’ a term then being
used in the British Parliament.
Several
issues
promoted
the
development of a Reform movement.
In 1817 Upper Canadians, who were
born in the United States after
1783, were stripped of their
rights to vote and to own land.
At
the
instigation
of
John
Beverley Robinson, one Americanborn resident, who was elected to
the assembly, was denied the
right to take his seat. This
legislation, known as the Alien
Question,
was
blatantly
this
discriminatory
and
it
caused
public resentment developed into
anger.
When those who protested this
intolerance
received
no
satisfaction from their appeals
to the lieutenant governor, they
petitioned
directly
to
the
British
government,
a
tactic
bitterly opposed by the elites,
because
it
undercut
their
authority. Their annoyance turned
to outrage when the Colonial
Secretary ordered that Americanborn Upper Canadians be granted
equal civil rights.
A series of other ‘outrages’
increased the fury of the Family
Compact. A fiery Scots reformer
named Robert Gourlay, had come to
Upper Canada in 1817 with the
intention of settling and had
almost at once fallen afoul of
those in control of the colony.
He began to make inquiries into
the
administration
of
the
province, to collect statistics
and to send out questionnaires,
convassing the citizens for their
grievances. He encouraged them to
speak out for change, virtually
inviting them to criticize the
government. When a leading member
of
the
Family
Compact,
the
Reverend John Strachan, attempted
to silence him, Gourlay called
him “a monstrous little fool of a parson”
and organized a public convention
to discuss the colony’s problems.
At this point the elite removed
the velvet glove, exposed the
mailed fist and abandoned any
pretence of leniency and mercy. A
ban was placed on all public
conventions
and
supporters
of
Gourlay were dismissed from their
places of employment. Gourlay was
ordered to leave the province.
When he refused, he was charged
with
sedition
sentenced
to
eighteen months in jail.
Gourlay served his sentence in
the Niagara jail, mostly in a
42
small room with the window nailed
shut, paper and pencil forbidden
to him. During this period his
mental
health
deteriorated
greatly.
Few
recognized
the
wizened man who finally appeared
before them 8 months later in the
hot,
uncomfortably
crowded
courtroom. His clothes made to
fit a portly person hung on a
stooping skeleton. His once red
face was grey, his hands shook
visibly,
his
eyes
wondered
vacantly
about
the
courtroom
Despite his wretched condition,
he was found guilty and ordered
to leave the province within
twenty-four hours or face death.
He first returned to England then
became an obscure settler in the
United
States.
His
unjust
sentence
created
widespread
indignation
among
all
rightthinking people.
His name and
case were not forgotten.
Authoritarian
repression
culminated in the case of Judge
John Walpole Willis, who arrived
from England as a junior judge in
1827. Far from supporting the
political
shenanigans
of
the
Family Compact, Willis questioned
what was going on. He argued that
loyalty was not God-given, but
had to be earned. “Statues have not
given the People their Liberties; their
Liberties
have
produced
them.”
The
Tories were infuriated by his
fairness and sought his immediate
dismissal.
Although the Reformers swept the
1828 election, they failed to
work together. They lacked unity
since political parties in the
modern sense had yet to emerge.
Violence simmered in the 1820s
and came to a boil in the 1830s.
Of the 51 riots recorded in Upper
Canada before 1840, 44 of them
took place during the 1830s.

In 1842 the Assembly of Upper Canada declared
Gourlay’s arrest to be “unjust and illegal” and his sentence
“null and void.” He was offered a pension.
The Tories worked to bolster
their
political
position,
but
increasingly their behaviour and
integrity were being questioned.
As a result they became more
belligerent in their efforts to
put a stop to the rising Reform
movement. In what is known as the
Types Riot, young sons of the
elite
destroyed the press of
William Lyon Mackenzie and threw
it into the lake. Sheet-covered
men in blackface stripped, tarred
and
feathered
a
long-time
Reformer. Those responsible for
this illegal act included two
magistrates, one of whom was also
the
local
sheriff!
Bully-boy
tactics were used to disrupt
political meetings. The , as well
as effigy burning and
personal
assaults. Moderate Reform leaders
like William Baldwin and his son,
Robert, argued that “every free
Government must have
governing party and a
two parties, a
party in check.”
For the Family Compact this was
utter nonsense. There were only
loyal
Tories
or
disloyal
Reformers.
The privileged few were seemingly
impervious
to
prosecution
for
committing
these
fragrantly
illegal activities, since no one
was brought before the courts.
The law, far from being above
politics, was its handmaiden.
In spite of all the grief and
grievances suffered and endured
by
the
Reformers,
those
who
advocated rebellion were always
few in number. Most moderate
Reformers were British subjects
who distrusted extreme views and
feared
disloyalty.
They
saw
little to be gained by physically
confronting
the
established
authority with
its military
might.
Tragically,
at
this
critical
period in the life of the little
colony, the most incapable of
43
governors, Sir Francis Bond Head,
was
selected
by
the
British
cabinet to promote conciliation
in
Upper
Canada.
For
his
inexperience the Cabinet which
appointed him was responsible.
For
his
incompetence
and
ignorance, Head was solely to
blame.
Sir Francis Bond Head did not
know
the
meaning
of
collaboration. He lacked common
sense, modesty and discipline and
combined insults to his subjects
with
disobedience
to
his
superiors.
His
bone-headedness
brought the crisis to a climax.
In
the
violent
and
crooked
election of 1836, Head stomped
the
province,
and
by
using
bribes,
threats,
violence
and
fear-mongering, he led the Tories
to an overwhelming victory. All
moderates
like
Robert
Baldwin
were shut out of office and in
disgust
and
despair,
these
moderate
Reformers
decided
to
withdraw from politics. In so
doing they left leadership in the
hands
of
the
more
radically
inclined.
These inflammable elements lost
all patience with the process,
and
burst
forth
into
insurrection.
Mackenzie,
a
radical Reformer, was essentially
an agitator. When he decided that
reform in government was not
possible to achieve peacefully,
he unreservedly urged incitement
to rebellion.
It was said of Mackenzie
that “he
felt a longing desire to right the wrongs
which he saw everywhere around.” This,
therefore, constituted “his mission
as a public man in Canada.” At heart
Mackenzie’s fundamental political
tenant was that government was a
trust
to
be
administered
on
behalf
of
the
governed.
Any
deviation by a public person from
the straight and narrow path of
public service, any abuse of
public
office
for
private
advantage and high salary, any
undue private gain from public
measures must be denounced and
exposed for the public good. The
central theme was of government
as a trust.
In Upper Canada he believed that
trust had been violated again and
again and now, anything less than
the complete overthrow of the
system would be a waste of time.
“To die fighting for freedom is truly
glorious,”
he wrote in November
1837. “Who would live and die a slave?
Come if you dare! Here goes!”
Mackenzie
stormed
about
the
province
preaching
revolution
among the disaffected.
In His Own Words
“Canadians, Do you love freedom? I know
you do. Do you hate oppression? Who dare
deny it? Do you wish perpetual peace and a
government bound to enforce the law to do
to each other as you would be done by?
Then buckle on your armour, and put down
the villains who oppress and enslave your
country. One short hour will deliver our
land from the oppressor. He who commands
the winds and the waves will be with us.
Up then brave Canadians. Ready your rifles
and make short work of it.”
The Little Rebel’s plan was to
seize the city and declare the
independence of the province. In
December 1837, he donned several
overcoats to shield him from the
cold and the .15 calibre bullets
and led roughly one thousand illarmed
men
on
a
pathetically
planned,
totally
unsuccessful
assault on Toronto.
Pursued by the Loyal militia and
warriors from the Six Nations,
the rebels frantically dispersed
in all directions. Mackenzie, a
44
Review: Road to Rebellion
one thousand pound price
head, was protected by the
of the province as he fled
frontier and crossed to
into the United States.
on his
people
to the
safety
Mackenzie
had
completely
misunderstood the sentiment of
the citizens of Upper Canada and
falsely exaggerated the degree of
support they would give to his
seditious movement. However, the
fact that the rebellion fizzled
and its perpetrators fled did not
mean
that
dissatisfaction
and
dissent were not widespread
in
the province.
Many Upper Canadians sympathized
with the misguided malcontents
and were quite prepared to see
their
punishment
tempered
by
mercy. When some 800 alleged
rebels were caught and held for
what were expected to be fast and
fearsome trials, petitions for
clemency
totalling
more
than
30,000 signatures flooded into
Toronto.
Into this tense and turbulent
mixture, the British government
belatedly acted in a frantic
attempt to repair the fractured
Canadian political system. Enter
the
emissary
charged
with
resolving the Canadian conflicts:
John George Lambton, the Earl of
Durham.
Review Vocabulary: elite, tradition, ally,
hierarchy,
vulnerable,
synonymous,
reproach,
counterproductive,
opted,
orchestrated,
overlapping,
exclusive,
judicial, disdainfully, quartered, august,
compliance, imposed, personified,
petitioned, undercut, grievances, sedition,
instigation,
blatantly,
discriminatory,
authoritarian, culminated, shenanigans,
impervious,
infuriated,
integrity,
perpetrators,
tempered,
alleged,
insurrection,
incitement,
disaffected,
belatedly, conciliation, collaboration.
Review the following questions before
reading the narrative, then answer them
after completing it.
1. Why do you think the elite were so
agitated by the actions of Robert
Gourlay?
2. Do you consider Gourlay a
responsible
critic
or
an
irresponsible agitator?
3. Explain: (a) hardened conservative
attitudes; (b) removed the velvet
glove exposing the mailed fist; (c)
synonymous as terms of contempt;
(d) overlapping appointments (e)
the rebellion fizzled; (f) fear
mongering; (g) too extreme an
application of the law could be
counterproductive.
4. What is wrong with individuals
having overlapping appointments?
5. Why
was
Upper
Canada
considered to be in a ‘vulnerable’
position?
6. What
were
the
extreme
democratic principles the elite
wanted to keep out of Canada?
45
7. How did the Family Compact
endeavour to pacify the people of
the province?
8. (a) Why did the leading moderate
Reformers retire from the field?
9. (b) Criticize this action.
10. If Bond Head and the Family
Compact were so objectionable,
why did the people of the province
give the Tories an overwhelming
majority in the Assembly in the
1836 election?
11. How did people of the province
show their understanding if not
support for the rebels?
12. Was Mackenzie right or wrong in
fomenting the rebellion?
13. What is wrong with having a close
connection between those who
make the law and those who
enforce it?
14. Explain:
Fractured
Canadian
political system.
15. In this instance, what was history’s
message?
16. Briefly summarize the main theme
and the important details of this
narrative.