Produced by Al Haines








  BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY AND
  POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN QUEEN'S
  UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, ONTARIO, CANADA.


  NO. 28, JULY, 1918


  SIR GEORGE ARTHUR AND HIS
  ADMINISTRATION OF UPPER CANADA.


  BY

  WALTER SAGE



  _The Jackson Press, Kingston_




SIR GEORGE ARTHUR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION OF UPPER CANADA.


The last Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada before the Union of 1841
was Sir George Arthur.  To most Canadians of to-day he is little more
than a name, but still he played an important part in the stirring
events of our political life fourscore years ago.  He lacked the
picturesqueness of that extraordinary personage, his predecessor in
office, Sir Francis Bond Head, and he was overshadowed completely by
both Lord Durham to Poulett Thomson, better known as Lord Sydenham,
who were in succession as Governors-General placed in authority over
him.  None the less he lives in Canadian history as the man who
refused to reprieve Lount and Matthews, and who made common cause
with the Family Compact against the Reformers.  Although nominally he
was Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada from his appointment in 1837
until the Act of Union went into force, his real term of office
lasted only a little more than a year and a half, from March 23rd,
1838, until November 22nd, 1839.  After that time he was directly
subordinate to Sydenham.  During that brief period Sir George Arthur
proved himself an energetic if not always merciful governor.

It was unfortunate that Arthur come to Upper Canada at a time when
Mackenzie's rebellion had just been crushed and when party feeling
was still running very high.  Sir Francis Bond Head left Toronto on
the very day that Sir George Arthur arrived and so the new
Lieutenant-Governor was unable to obtain much information from his
predecessor.  There is reason to believe, none the less, that Sir
Francis put in a good word for his old friends the Family Compact and
that Arthur from the beginning of his term of office favoured that
party.  In his first official despatch to Lord Glenelg dated March
29th, 1838, Sir George makes mention of the "large preponderating
party looking to the Executive Government to put down treason by
energetic measures," as opposed to "the party styling themselves
Reformers" who were "hoping for the most lenient course."[1]  These
phrases, written when Arthur had been only about a week in Upper
Canada, stamp the new governor at once as an opponent of reform.  If
further proof is needed it can readily be found in Arthur's reply to
a congratulatory address from seven hundred and fifty citizens of
Toronto upon the occasion of his arrival in that city.  In that
address reference was made to the fact that "in the promotion of
public order, and the adoption of measures for the pacification of
the country" Arthur would have "the prompt and energetic support of
the loyal, patriotic and constitutional reformers of the Province."
In his reply Sir George Arthur regretted that "any portion of the
inhabitants of this city should have felt it necessary at the moment
to present themselves under the character of reformers, as a distinct
class of the people of this Province."  Such a statement was not
likely to secure for Sir George Arthur the whole-hearted support of
all the well-disposed citizens of Toronto.  The execution of Lount
and Matthews further alienated the more moderate men in the Province.

When Sir Francis Head arrived in Toronto he was greeted by placards
which designated him as "a Tried Reformer."[2]  When Sir George
Arthur was appointed to succeed him the London _Atlas_, on March 3rd,
1838, enquired, "What will the inhabitants of Upper Canada think of
the appointment of the Governor of a penal Colony to rule over a
province of freemen?"[3]  As a matter of fact, Arthur was an
improvement on Head but he was never able to shake off his past
traditions or to obtain as Lord Durham and Lord Sydenham did, a real
insight into Upper Canadian conditions.  Durham, it is true, in his
Report is not nearly so successful when he deals with the upper
province as when he portrays the miseries of Lower Canada, but he
understood the situation there better than Head or Arthur ever did.
Sydenham's ideas as to the workings of Responsible Government did not
harmonize with those of Lord Elgin, but he never would have argued
against it, as Arthur did, on the grounds that it was demanded by the
Reformers.  From start to finish of his term of office in Upper
Canada Sir George Arthur was unable to forget his experience in
British Honduras where he quelled a negro insurrection and in Van
Diemen's Land, now Tasmania, where he was called upon to rule a
convict settlement.  Above all he was a military officer, and as such
was none too ready to season justice with mercy.  He was the last of
that series of Lieutenant-Governors of Upper Canada who were also
military officers and he possessed the defects of his qualities.
Stern, unbending, narrow-minded, but entirely honest he was totally
unable to see his opponent's point of view.

By training Sir George Arthur was a soldier.  Before he ever embarked
on his administrative career as governor of one colonial dependency
after another he had served many years in the army.  Born in 1784,
the youngest son of John Arthur of Norley House, Plymouth, George
Arthur entered the army at the age of twenty.  He saw service in
Italy, Egypt--where he was wounded at Rosetta in 1807--and also in
Sicily in 1808.  He took part in the ill-fated Walcheren Expedition
of 1809 and seems to have distinguished himself in it, since we read
that he was thanked in general orders and also that he received the
freedom of the city of London.  After being military secretary to Sir
George Don, the governor of the island of Jersey; Arthur, in 1812,
became a major in the Seventh West India Regiment.  We next find him
in Jamaica as assistant quartermaster-general of the forces on that
island.

In 1814 George Arthur became Lieutenant-Governor of British Honduras
"with the rank of colonel on the staff."[4]  This office, which was
both civil and military, Arthur held until 1822, during which time he
suppressed a serious revolt of the slave population.  His despatches
on the subject of slavery we are told attracted the attention of the
great abolitionist, William Wilberforce.  In 1822 Colonel Arthur
returned to England on leave of absence in order to furnish the
British Government with additional information on the subject of the
emancipation of slaves.  It was during this stay in England that he
was in 1824 appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land and at
the same time commander of the military forces in that penal colony.

For twelve years George Arthur grappled with the terrible conditions
existing in that most unfortunate island.  The transportation system,
one of the worst blots in British colonial history, was then at its
height and its evils were only too apparent.  The Select Committee on
Transportation appointed by the British Parliament in its Report
submitted in 1838, having outlined the unspeakable conditions
existing at Norfolk Island, goes on to make the following statement
regarding Van Diemen's Land:

"Your Committee will not lengthen this report by describing the penal
settlements of Van Diemen's Land, where the severity of the system is
as great as, if not greater than, that at Norfolk Island, where
culprits are as reckless, if not more reckless, commissing murder"
(to use the words of Sir George Arthur) "in order to enjoy the
excitement of being sent up to Hobart Town for trial, though aware
that in the ordinary course they must be executed within a fortnight
after arrival."[5]

As Lieutenant-Governor of such a colony Colonel Arthur was called
upon to act with firmness and often with severity.  His biographer in
the Dictionary of National Biography, Sir Alexander John Arbuthnot,
K.C.S.I., claims that the object of Arthur's appointment was "the
introduction of an improved system" of treatment for the convicts.
Arthur sought to adopt "a middle course between the extreme severity
of the system which would make transportation simply deterrent and
the over-indulgence of the system which aimed at reforming the
convict by gentler treatment.  He held that it was possible to make
transportation a punishment much dreaded by criminals whilst offering
every facility for reform to those who were not hardened in crime;
but he entertained no quixotic expectations of frequent
reformation."[6]  It will be seen from this quotation that Arthur
believed in the transportation system in a modified and "improved"
form.  In this he ran counter to the wishes of the colonists who
desired that an end be put to the abomination.  Arthur's biographer
regrets that "the colonists and their friends in England were bent on
putting an end to the transportation system and their views
ultimately prevailed."

This difference of opinion between Arthur and the colonists furnished
W. L. MacKenzie with some of his choicest bits of invective against
the new Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada.  In his _Gazette_,
MacKenzie prefaced a long series of excerpts from the newspapers of
Van Diemen's Land on the occasion of Arthur's recall with the
sarcasm: "Such credentials cannot fail to increase the loyalty of the
happy Canadians.  O, the blessings of Colonial Dependence!!!"[7]

These excerpts clearly show that there was a considerable body of
colonial opinion in Van Diemen's Land opposed to the policies of
Governor Arthur.  The following from the Hobart Town _News_ may be
taken as fairly typical.  As a matter of fact it is quite moderate in
tone in comparison with some of the other invectives against Arthur.

"It was with feelings of the most sincere satisfaction, we announced
in our last number the arrival of the 'good ship' "Elphinstone", from
England, bringing the very gratifying intelligence of the recall of
Colonel George Arthur after an administration of twelve years; during
the whole of which long period the people have been rendered
wretched, unhappy, discontented and miserable by the misrule of his
government...."[8]

Of course, no one would look into the pages of MacKenzie's _Gazette_
to get a favourable impression of Sir George Arthur, but a perusal of
these excerpts shows that the dissatisfaction against Arthur was
widespread.  The Launcetown _Advertiser_ states that, "Throughout the
whole period of his government the military have been placed in too
prominent a position.  Lieutenants and Ensigns, fresh from the
frolics of Chatham, have been turned into justices of the peace and
the whole administration of the colony has been pipe-clayed into a
service of an amphibious, half-military, half-civil complexion."[9]
The _Colonial Times_ quite frankly lays it down that "A worse British
Governor never ruled during the present century."[10]  This is strong
language, written in the heat of the moment, but when sufficient
discount is made for hot temper the fact remains that Sir George
Arthur made a number of enemies in Van Diemen's Land.

To a certain extent Arthur was not to blame since he was the victim
of circumstances.  He was forced by the nature of his office to
uphold the abominable system of transportation and his position as
commander-in-chief of the military forces on the island made him a
military as well as a civil governor of a penal colony.  But on the
other hand, he was by nature an aristocrat with but little democratic
feeling.  He mistrusted popular government and he had to keep down a
discontented population of whom over one-third were convicts.  Sir
William Molesworth in his speech on transportation delivered in the
British House of Commons on May 5th, 1840,[11] gives the following
statistics culled from Sir George Arthur's despatches from Van
Diemen's Land in 1834.  "Its population in 1834 did not exceed
40,000, of whom 16,000 were convicts, 1,000 soldiers, and 23,000 free
inhabitants; what proportion of the latter had been convicts it is
impossible to say.  In this small community the summary convictions
amounted to about 15,000 in the year in question, amongst which there
were about 2,000 for felony, 1,200 for misdemeanour, 700 for
assaults, and 3,000 for drunkenness.  Eleven thousand of these
convictions were of convicts who are summarily punished for all
offences to which the penalty of death is not attached."  With such a
turbulent population to control it is no wonder that Sir George
Arthur had but little belief in popular government.

But however great the opposition to Governor Arthur in Van Diemen's
Land may have been, the Australian Commonwealth to-day owes him one
debt of gratitude.  According to his biographer Arbuthnot, Arthur was
the first person to suggest the advisability of a federation of all
the Australian colonies.  In this he was years in advance of his
time.  Still it is to be doubted whether any scheme of federation
brought forward in Arthur's time could have been so complete and
satisfactory as that consummated in 1901.

After his return to England in March, 1837, Colonel Arthur received
the Hanoverian Order of Knighthood.  At the close of the same year he
was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada and at the same
time given "the military rank and command of a major-general on the
staff." Sir George Arthur was now nearly sixty years of age and had
been for over twenty-two years a colonial governor.  During that
period he had wielded almost despotic power.  It was not at all
likely that he would be inclined to look with favour upon the demands
of the Upper Canadian Reformers for "Responsible Government."

On his arrival in Upper Canada Sir George Arthur was faced by a
situation of the utmost delicacy.  The rashness and wrong-headedness
of Sir Francis Bond Head and of William Lyon MacKenzie had brought on
the Upper Canadian Rebellion.  The skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern
occurred on Thursday, December 7th, 1837, and at the close of the day
W. L.  MacKenzie was a fugitive with a price on his head.  The affair
of the "Caroline" took place on December 29th.  The destruction of
this American steamboat resulted in considerable excitement in the
United States and relations between the British and American
governments became somewhat strained.  The arrest and trial of
Alexander McLeod on the charge of murdering Amos Durfee, an American
citizen, who was killed during the raid on the "Caroline", further
complicated the situation.  It was not until 1842 that the incident
was finally closed by a letter of apology addressed by Sir Robert
Peel to Daniel Webster.

Shortly after the destruction of the "Caroline" by the Canadians,
MacKenzie's sympathizers, who had seized Navy Island in the Niagara
River near the Falls, were forced to abandon their post, and the
centre of disturbance shifted westward to the Detroit River.  On this
frontier an attack was planned by American sympathizers and
disaffected Canadians against Fort Madden which was situated sixteen
miles from Windsor, Ontario.  The attempt proved disastrous and
resulted in the capture of "General" Theller and other American
sympathizers, who were sent to Toronto for trial.  On the 3rd of
March, 1838, Pelee Island in Lake Erie was captured by another band
of invaders who were driven off by a Canadian loyalist force under
Colonel Maitland.  This was the last serious attempt made from the
United States before the arrival in Upper Canada of Sir George Arthur.

The new Lieutenant-Governor then found himself involved in a peculiar
international situation.  Were these American sympathizers foreigners
who were levying open war against the province committed to his
charge, or were they merely marauders to be classed as pirates?  This
problem complicated another question of the utmost and pressing
importance which was, in what way were the leaders of the late
rebellion to be treated?  The Family Compact men and the Tories
generally thirsted for their blood.  Two of the leaders of
MacKenzie's rebellion, Lount and Matthews, were already in prison and
were shortly to be put on trial for their lives.  The problem which
Sir George Arthur had to settle was whether or not the extreme
penalty of the law should be exacted.

It was not to be expected that the ex-governor of a penal colony
would show much mercy towards these men who had taken up arms against
constituted authority.  Nor did he.  Lount and Matthews pleaded
guilty and were on March 29th sentenced to death.  The execution was
to take place on April 12th.  Sir George Arthur had, of course, no
part in sentencing them to death.  That was done by Chief Justice
John Beverley Robinson, who, Kingsford tells us, pronounced sentence
"with that felicity of language ever at his command, but its tone was
merciless."[12]  Sir John Beverley Robinson's son and biographer,
Major-General C. W. Robinson, quotes from the _Law Journal_ of Upper
Canada for March, 1863, to show that "of the three individuals
concerned, the Chief Justice was most certainly the most painfully
affected."  But whatever his private feelings may have been the Chief
Justice was unbending in his determination that no mercy be shown.
He refused to advise the Lieutenant-Governor that Lount and Matthews
be either pardoned or respited.[13]  In this opinion of the Chief
Justice the Attorney-General, Hagerman, concurred, and although there
was great excitement in the province and "petitions signed by not
less than 8,000 persons"[14] were presented, a reprieve was not
granted and the two rebel leaders were executed on the day set.

Two days later, on April 14th, Arthur penned a long dispatch on the
subject to Lord Glenelg.  This document shows clearly how completely
the new Lieutenant-Governor was in sympathy with the Family Compact
and how entirely he failed to understand the point of view of the
Reformers.

The despatch professes to deal with the cases of Samuel Lount and
Peter Matthews, "with a general view of the course to be taken with
respect to persons committed for High Treason."  Arthur begins by
combatting a statement made by Lord Glenelg in a despatch dated
January 6th, 1835, addressed to Sir John Colborne and marked
"separate," to the effect that,

"Her Majesty's Government could not fail to notice the wide
difference which exists between the circumstances which have taken
place in Lower Canada, and the recent events in Upper Canada.  So far
as can be collected from the information now before me, the chief
motive which influenced the instigation of the disturbance in Upper
Canada appears to have been the view of plunder, and the offences
which they perpetrated, seem to bear comparatively little of a
political character."

Lord Glenelg's grasp of the situation in Upper Canada may be inferred
from the above passage and Sir George Arthur proceeds to enlighten
him.  Several sentences from his despatch deserve quoting in full,
since they show how readily Sir George Arthur had embraced the Tory
point of view.

"In Upper Canada, the same pretensions to patriotism--the same
assertions of republican Principles--the same accusations against the
Government of Tyranny and Corruption--were put forth as the ground
and justification of the Rebellion as in the Lower Province.  In
Lower Canada, the right was insisted on, of the popular Branch of the
Legislature sullenly to refuse acting as a legislative Body, and to
bring to a complete stop all beneficial operations of Government, and
to assert a supremacy inconsistent with the relations of a Colony
with the parent state.

"In Upper Canada arms were taken up with the avowed purpose of
assisting the Lower Canadians, and of asserting the same principles
as applicable to this Colony.  In Upper Canada the majority of the
Assembly were attached to British Institutions; but this Majority was
asserted to have been brought about by unconstitutional means on the
part of Government, and the use which the revolutionary Party had
made of a majority in Parliament when they had it, was precisely the
same here as in Lower Canada: namely, to coerce the Government by a
refusal to grant the necessary supplies.  The Revolutionists in
neither province hoped by themselves to overthrow the Government.
They alike solicited foreign aid, and by its means expected to
accomplish those designs...."

It may easily be seen from the above quotation that Sir George Arthur
misunderstood the political situation in both Upper and Lower Canada.
He failed entirely to appreciate the aims of the Reformers and
considered them a grave menace to the security of British rule in
Canada.  So imbued was he with the point of view of what he terms the
"Constitutional Party" that he believed the rebel leaders, including
Lount and Matthews, had proved "not only that they were determined,
with their own hands, to execute the foulest deeds in furtherance of
their project of subverting the Government; but they had encouraged a
class of dissolute and vagrant Foreigners to join in their
enterprise, who, they well knew, would not hesitate to inflict upon
the inhabitants of this Province, if they could have subjugated them,
the most barbarous atrocities."[15]

Under such circumstances, if the British connexion was to be
preserved and law and order firmly re-established, it was necessary,
Arthur considered, that several public examples should be made.
Lount and Matthews had pleaded guilty of the heinous crime of
rebellion against authority and were convicted of high treason.  The
penalty was death and it made no difference to Sir George Arthur
whether eight thousand or thirty thousand[16] persons signed
petitions for their reprieve.  He could not understand that Lount and
Matthews were in the eyes of a very large section of the province
merely political prisoners who had been unfortunate enough to appeal
to arms and be defeated by their opponents of the Tory party.  The
fact that the Lieutenant-Governor and the Executive Council were
adherents of this Tory party did not, in itself, mean that Lount and
Matthews were traitors.  High treason is a very serious thing and so
is armed rebellion, but the skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern could
hardly be called a battle and there had been great provocation.

In refusing to reprieve Lount and Matthews or even to postpone their
execution until he had had an opportunity to confer with the Colonial
Office, Sir George Arthur made the chief blunder of his career as
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada.  To be sure he acted in complete
harmony with his Executive Council, whose advice he took in the
matter, but he did not understand the real feeling of the province.
It is doubtful whether any but the most rabid Tories favoured the
exaction of the death penalty.  The ends of justice could have been
secured either by transportation or banishment.  Nor did the Colonial
Office entirely favour the executions of these men.  On May 22nd Lord
Glenelg wrote to Arthur as follows:

"I have received your despatch of the 29th March, No. 1, reporting
your proceedings up to that date, and the measures which you proposed
to adopt with reference to the militia and volunteers, and stating
that two of the most active of the persons engaged in the late
revolt, having been brought to trial, had pleaded guilty and been
sentenced to death, and assuring me that the most merciful
consideration would be shown towards the prisoners generally.

"I have laid your despatch before the Queen, and have to convey to
you Her Majesty's approbation of the proceedings which you have
reported.  Since the receipt, indeed, of your despatch, intelligence
has appeared in the public papers of the execution at Toronto of
Messrs. Lount and Matthews, the individuals, as I presume, alluded to
in your despatch.

"I have every confidence that before consenting to such a means, you
devoted to the cases of these persons a calm and dispassionate
consideration, but as I have hitherto received from you no report of
these executions or of the grounds on which you decided to let the
law take its course, I abstain for the present from any further
comment on them.

"I am happy to learn, through the same channel of information, that
no further executions were likely to take place."[17]

Eight days later, on May 30th, 1838, after receiving Sir George
Arthur's despatch of the 14th of April, Lord Glenelg again alluded to
the execution and this time one feels that, in his own mild way, the
Colonial Secretary is seeking to restrain Arthur:

"I have received your despatch of the 14th April last (No. 4),
reporting the executions, on the 12th of that month, of Lount and
Matthews, who had been convicted, on their own confession, of 'high
treason,' and explaining, at considerable length, the views adopted
by yourself and the Executive Council with regard to these prisoners,
and the considerations which appeared to you imperatively to demand
that the law in the case should be allowed to take its course.

"Her Majesty's Government regret extremely that a paramount necessity
should have arisen for these examples of severity.  They are,
however, fully convinced that you did not consent to the execution of
these individuals without having given the most ample consideration
to all the circumstances of the case, and they have no reason to
doubt the necessity of the course which, with the entire concurrence
of the Executive Council, you felt it your duty to adopt."[18]

The Colonial Secretary did not censure Arthur for his conduct in the
matter of the execution of Lount and Matthews but he added a
significant paragraph regarding the treatment of other political
prisoners.

"With respect to the disposal of the other prisoners, Her Majesty's
Government cannot give you any specific instructions, until they
shall have received the report which you lead me to expect.  But I
cannot defer expressing our earnest hope that, with respect to these
persons, your opinion that no further capital punishments will be
necessary, may be acted on.  Nothing would cause Her Majesty's
Government more sincere regret than an unnecessary recourse to the
punishment of death, and I am persuaded that the same feeling will
influence not only yourself, but the Executive Council.  The examples
which have been made in the case of the most guilty will be
sufficient to warn others of the consequences to which they render
themselves liable by such crimes, and this object having been
accomplished, no further advantage could be gained by indict the
extreme penalty of the law on any of their associates."[19]

The death of Lount and Matthews seems to have satisfied the desire
for revenge on the part of the extremists and a milder course of
policy was then pursued by the Lieutenant-Governor and Executive
Council.  Several other leaders including "Generals" Sutherland and
Theller, both of whom were American citizens, were sentenced to
transportation.  Theller had been sentenced to death and, according
to his own account, was only saved from the gallows by the energetic
agitation in his favour of the Irish section of the population.  He
has left a voluminous account of his captivity, including his
sensational escape from the Citadel of Quebec, in his book, _Canada
in 1837-8_, to which the reader is referred if he wishes to obtain a
very highly-coloured bit of autobiography.[20]

Theller's case brought up a very interesting question of
International Law.  He had been born in Ireland and had become
naturalized as an American citizen.  When put on trial for his life
on a charge of high treason Theller pleaded that his American
naturalization had rendered him no longer a British subject.  Against
him a precedent of 1747 was quoted to support the doctrine of
"perpetual allegiance," i.e. "once a British subject, always a
British subject."  The jury brought in the curious verdict that "if
the prisoner was a British subject he was guilty of treason."  Chief
Justice Robinson, acting in accordance with his belief in the
doctrine of 'perpetual allegiance' ruled that Theller was still a
British subject and thereupon sentenced him to death.  Under the
circumstances to carry out the death sentence would have been very
inadvisable.  Pressure was brought to bear upon the
Lieutenant-Governor and the Executive Council, and as a result a
respite was granted "until Her Majesty's pleasure should be
known."[21] Theller was soon after removed from Toronto to Quebec and
detained there in the Citadel, from which he escaped.  Sutherland was
tried by court martial, imprisoned in Toronto and Quebec, and finally
returned to American soil.

These American prisoners were very embarrassing to the Upper Canadian
authorities.  There was still considerable excitement along the
American frontier and the danger of invasion was by no means over.
Lount and Matthews were considered martyrs by many on the American
side of the border.  Highly coloured accounts of the execution
appeared in the American press.  Even the New York Sun took up the
matter and recounted how Mrs. Lount on the day previous to her
husband's execution "pleaded with Governor Arthur for hours for his
life, and when she pointed to _thirty thousand names_ who petitioned
with her for the exercise of the royal prerogative, he coldly replied
'that he had not believed that Mr. Lount had so many friends in the
province, and that there was the more necessity that he should be
made an example to the rest.'"[22]  Under these circumstances the
execution of Theller would have added oil to the flame.

The Congress of the United States passed a "Neutrality Bill" which
cleared up the situation a great deal by denying official sanction to
any schemes of invasion and enjoining neutrality on all American
citizens.  The state authorities along the frontier also tried to
prevent any movement of armed forces against Canada.  Theller records
how he successfully dodged the American authorities in making his
attack on Fort Madden and how Governor Mason of Michigan was coming
down the river with a strong force when Theller and his friends
approached the island of Bois Blanc which lies in Canadian waters.
No doubt there often was a certain amount of laxity on the part of
the American authorities, and Sir George Arthur finds occasion to
condemn it at times, but the United States Government seems on the
whole to have acted very wisely.  The burning of the "Caroline,"
which it should be remembered was an American vessel attacked by a
Canadian force in American waters, might easily have led to very
serious consequences.  If President Van Buren and his cabinet had
wanted war it would have been quite possible to claim the destruction
of the ill-fated "Caroline" as an overt act of hostility.
Fortunately milder counsels prevailed and war was avoided.  But this
incident profoundly affected and prolonged the agitation on the
American side of the border.

On April 23rd, 1838, an "authorized agent" of the United States
Government, Mr. Aaron Vail, who had recently been Chargé d'Affaires
in the American Embassy in London, arrived at Toronto.  Mr. Vail,
according to the official despatch of the British ambassador at
Washington, Mr. H. S. Fox, was charged with the task "of inquiring
into, and reporting upon, the actual condition of various
individuals, who are now in confinement in Canada."  Mr. Fox
considered Mr. Vail a very fitting envoy and that his mission would
be beneficial "by dissipating false rumours which tend to keep alive
feelings of ill-will between the British and American inhabitants on
the Canadian frontier."

Aaron Vail's mission seems to have fulfilled expectations, for on
April 25th Arthur wrote to Fox that it was quite impossible that a
more proper person than Mr. Vail could have been selected by the
President, and that he trusted all the benefit would result from his
mission as Fox had anticipated.  Vail does not seem to have formed a
very high opinion of the American prisoners, whom he described as
"the 'scum' of the population."[23]  Theller has left us an amusing
account of how the Toronto gaol was carefully scrubbed in honour of
Vail's visit and how the prison authorities hinted that "the
Americans had better clean and dress up, as they might expect to see
some visitors, and probably hear some good news."[24]  The prisoners
poured out their tale of woe to Vail who "took notes and assured us
that the government of the United States would strictly inquire into
the matter."[25]  Nothing much, however, seems to have resulted from
the inquiry, since it was evident that Vail's mission was to smooth
over affairs rather than to stir up further strife by issuing an
inflammatory report on Canadian conditions.

Soon after the departure of Mr. Vail occurred the trial and
conviction of Charles Durand.  Durand's case was peculiar, and
noteworthy as illustrating the methods employed by Arthur and his
Executive Council to stamp out disaffection.  Durand was put on trial
for high treason, the chief evidence against him being a letter which
was found in his house among his papers addressed to W. L. MacKenzie,
and which contained within it charges against the Executive Council
and Family Compact generally.  This letter was never sent and
MacKenzie in his _Gazette_ denies ever having seen it.  It was,
therefore, a high handed proceeding to sentence a man to death on the
evidence of a private paper which was never published.  Durand was
afterwards respited and banished to the United States, but his trial
and conviction on the 7th of May did not tend to increase the
popularity of the Lieutenant-Governor and his Executive Council.

Durand's letter certainly was written in no mild tone and it still
breathes forth the spirit of disaffection.  But it was never
published and as such should not have been used to convict its
author.  The following-sentences will serve as a sample of the whole:

"The principles of the reformers are those of truth, are those that
tend to promote the happiness of the many--instead of the few.
Although in common with thousands of the old farmers in Canada, with
thousands of the sons of U. E. Loyalists, I was willing to petition
the mother country for the redress of our political wrongs, and even
to petition them again and again, yet when I see insult upon insult
heaped upon the reformers of this Province: our Governors allowed
with impunity to slander and laugh at the people and their House of
Assembly--when I see Governors who have held up with both hands the
gracious despatches of the deceitful and tyrannical Colonial
Office--conspiring against the liberties of this colony by
establishing a 'Dominant Church' and 'English Church Rectories'
amongst us against our will and desire, _raised, promoted_ and
_applauded_ for deceiving the people here, when I see Judges
suspended and dismissed from their offices for voting for liberal men
and the _elective franchise_, the only spark of liberty we can boast
of, trampled down by office holders, and done away with by the
Governor issuing thousands of patent deeds to his favorites and
officials, I begin to ask myself, shall I, shall we, who have made
the country what it is, be used thus with impunity?  Shall we, the
native Canadians, the sons of U. E. Loyalists, be called aliens in
the land of our birth, and by the fluttering officials that hang on
the smiles of a Governor's brow--I say nay.  I feel that we are too
tame--that we have forgotten that we are free--that we are in
America,"[26] etc. etc.

There is no need to quote more of this verbiage.  The above is
sufficient to show that Durand was able to "tear a passion to
tatters, to very rags," and if he had ever had this letter published
it would have doubtless "split the ears of the groundlings."  The
curious thing it that a man should be condemned to death for writing
such a letter.  Truly Arthur and his Executive Council lacked a sense
of humour!

About this time a new movement against Canada was on foot in the
United States.  "Hunters' Lodges" were formed with the object "never
to rest, till all tyrants of Britain cease to have any dominion or
footing whatever in North America."[27]  This new organization seems
to have originated in May, 1838, and to have spread rapidly,
especially through the states bordering on Upper Canada.  Lindsay
tells us that at a convention of the Hunters' Lodges of Ohio and
Michigan held at Cleveland from September 16th to 22nd[28] of that
year, seventy delegates were present.  At this meeting a republican
government was appointed for Upper Canada, including a president and
complete cabinet.  A "republican bank of Upper Canada" was projected
which was to issue a paper currency adorned with the heads of Lount,
Matthews and Moreau who took part in the Short Hills affair in June,
1838, to which reference will shortly be made.  But the members of
the "Hunters' Lodges" though full of enthusiasm were short of funds,
so the bank did not prosper.

Before this grandiloquent meeting at Cleveland there had been several
disturbances along the border.  The first of these was the
destruction on May 30th, of the Canadian passenger steamer "Sir
Robert Peel" at Wells' Island by American sympathizers.  Wells'
Island, one of the Thousand Islands, is situated in American waters
and so the authorities of New York state were to a certain extent
negligent in allowing the incident to occur.  The destruction of the
"Sir Robert Peel" seems to have been regarded by the "patriots" who
boarded her as an act of revenge for the burning of the "Caroline."
But whatever the motives of those concerned the incident caused bad
feeling along the border.  An American steamer, the "Telegraph," was
fired upon on June 2nd by the Canadian sentries at Brockville, the
excuse given that the "Telegraph" had not answered when hailed by the
sentries.  An investigation was held at which the authorities of St.
Lawrence County, N.Y., were present, and it was ascertained that the
sentries had acted without orders.

A few days after these incidents a body of "patriots" under the
leadership of James Moreau crossed the Niagara frontier in order to
free Upper Canada.  Moreau, who is called Morrow in the Canadian
records, issued a proclamation which called upon the Canadians to
come to his assistance and proclaimed that this was the hour of their
redemption.  The answer of the "oppressed Canadians" was the
engagement fought at the Short Hills on June 21st when the "patriots"
were defeated by the Canadian militia.  Moreau fled with a price on
his head but was captured, tried and condemned to death.  The
Executive Council on July 26th refused to reprieve him since he was
considered a proper case for capital punishment under an Act of the
Parliament of Upper Canada passed the previous session in order "to
protect the Inhabitants of this Province against lawless aggressions
from Subjects of Foreign Countries at Peace with Her Majesty."
Moreau was accordingly executed at Niagara on July 30th.  If Sir
George Arthur had had his way there would have been more executions,
but Lord Durham intervened.

The next serious outbreak on the frontier was the attack of von
Schoultz near Prescott on November 11th.  The invaders seized a point
of land on which a stone windmill had been built and fortified the
place.  An engagement ensued and the invaders were driven back to
shelter within the windmill.  On the 14th of November British
reinforcements, including artillery, arrived, and two days later an
attack was made at the distance of only 400 yards.  The garrison of
the windmill then surrendered and nearly 160 prisoners were
taken.[29]  Von Schoultz and nine others were executed in Kingston.
Von Schoultz was defended by Sir John A. Macdonald, then a young
barrister just beginning his profession, but there was little that
could be said in his defence.

The last movement against Upper Canada took place on December 4th,
when an attack was made on Windsor.  This affair is thus described in
the District General Orders of December 10th, dated at Toronto:[30]

"A large body of pirates and brigands, belonging to the hostile
combination in the neighbouring country which has of late so much
disturbed the peace of this province, after assembling in the
neighbourhood of Detroit, and showing themselves at different points
in the vicinity, at length had the hardihood to effect a landing near
Windsor, about three miles from Sandwich, on the morning of the 4th
instant, where they commenced their work of destruction by burning a
steam-boat called the "Thames," and a house used as a barrack, making
prisoners a small but gallant party of militia quartered therein,
who, in defending themselves against the attacking banditti shot
their leader and eventually effected their escape."

At Sandwich, Colonel Prince gathered a force of local militia, made
"a spirited attack" and put the invaders to flight.  Four prisoners
who had been taken were shot by orders of Colonel Prince, whose
action was afterward severely censured by Lord Brougham and others.
After the action at Sandwich the rest of the invaders either
recrossed to American territory or else took to the woods, where many
perished from the cold.  So ended the last attempt at invasion of
Upper Canada.  Seven of those captured at Windsor were executed at
London, including Daniel Davis Bedford and Albert Clark.  The cases
of these two men were discussed at two separate meetings of the
Executive Council and it was decided that each of them should suffer
the death penalty.  In these decisions Sir George Arthur entirely
concurred.  The ex-governor of the penal colony was still exacting
vengeance.  In his defence it should be stated that the loyal section
of the province, including the Executive Council, considered these
men filibusters and murderers.

The treatment meted out by the Executive Council to those British
subjects, American citizens and others who were taken in arms against
the government of Upper Canada has been discussed at some length.
This has been done for two reasons, first that it bulks so large in
Sir George Arthur's official despatches, and second because it shows
what complete harmony existed between Sir George and his Executive
Council.  Not even Sir Francis Head was more devoted to the Family
Compact party.  Sir George Arthur was by temperament and training
entirely on the side of established authority and opposed to
disaffection in all its forms.  A strong conservative, he mistrusted
the rule of the people and, therefore, opposed as stubbornly as
possible the popular demand for Responsible Government.  In this, as
in other respects, Arthur found himself completely at variance with
the Governor-General, the Earl of Durham.

It was unfortunate for Arthur that he was in Upper Canada during a
period of unrest and transition.  It was even more unfortunate for
him that he was brought into contact with Lord Durham.  Durham was a
man of vision who sketched out a mighty scheme which took years to
put into actual practice.  Arthur was a man of routine who could not
appreciate either Durham or his visions.  Above all he mistrusted
that pet project of Lord Durham, Responsible Government, and did not
hesitate to say so.

The appointment of the Earl of Durham as Governor-General of the
British North American provinces was deeply resented by Sir George
Arthur.  By virtue of his commission Durham was empowered to assume
the government of the province in which he might be and to retain it
during his residence in that province.  During that period the
functions of the Lieutenant-Governor were to be altogether
suspended.[31]  Due notice of this fact was sent each of the
Lieutenant-Governors of the British North American provinces
including, of course, Sir George Arthur.  After receiving this notice
Sir George wrote on June 5th, 1838, to Lord Glenelg, complaining of
this arrangement.  He based his case against it on his experience in
Van Diemen's Land, which was during his tenure of office there a
dependency of New South Wales, and called to Lord Glenelg remembrance
a conversation he had had with him on the subject.  In fact, as
Arthur reminds Glenelg, the terms on which he consented to become
Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada were that no change of that sort
would be made.

Three days after writing thus to Lord Glenelg Sir George Arthur
received a circular letter from Lord Durham requesting him "to enter
into the most free and confidential communication ... on all subjects
affecting the province of Upper Canada, both as regards its internal
condition and the state of affairs on the frontiers."[32]  Lord
Durham included in this letter the following paragraphs in order to
allay the suspicion that might exist in Arthur's mind that he wished
to diminish the Lieutenant-Governor's authority,

"Your Excellency will of course understand that this request does not
contemplate any interference with your administration of the
government, but refers to the necessity which exists that I, as
Governor-General of all the North American provinces, should be
immediately informed of all matters of general interest affecting the
high and important mission which has been conferred upon me.

"It will be my duty as well as my inclination to uphold your
authority, not only from the respect which I must entertain for you
personally, but from a due regard to the efficiency of the public
service."

This circular must have mollified Arthur somewhat, or else he was too
well trained a public servant to show his innermost feelings.  At any
rate he writes to Durham on June 9th as follows,

"I sincerely thank your Lordship for your very kind declaration of
confidence in me and for the determination which your Lordship has
expressed of upholding my authority.

"It is peculiarly gratifying to me to receive these assurances from
your Lordship, for I ought in candour to say that from the time I
received Lord Glenelg's 'Circular,' I have been very apprehensive of
the embarrassment which might arise out of the new relative position
in which I found myself most unexpectedly placed.  The immeasurable
distinction between your Lordship's station and my own must satisfy
your Lordship that this has proceeded from no vain jealousy, on
personal grounds, of the control of a superior.  With diminished
influence I feared the ability of being useful to Her Majesty's
Government and to this province would be taken away; for I have to
co-operate with a legislature which must have a reasonable degree of
confidence of my powers to act in union with them, and to fulfil my
professions.[33]"

To this rather naïve letter Durham on June 18th replied stating even
more clearly that no act of his would diminish Arthur's influence and
authority in Upper Canada.  He goes on to put his case as follows,

"I repeat to you, that I have no wish to interfere with the local
administration of the affairs of any of the provinces included in my
general government.

"Those functions will be vested, as before, in the
Lieutenant-Governors; but it is essential to the success of my
mission and to the due execution of my duties, more especially in the
present disturbed state of our relations with the frontier population
of the United States, that I should be promptly and directly made
acquainted with all events bearing on those important questions."

Arthur seems to have followed out Durham's instructions as regards
frontier troubles to the letter, since we find the following
postscript added to his despatch of June 22nd, 1838 (No. 4):

"_P.S._ I make now no communications myself to the American
Government, and have troubled your Lordship with all these
particulars, as a representation will of course come with far greater
force from your Lordship."[34]

In July, 1838, Lord Durham made a flying visit to Upper Canada.  His
object seems to have been to ascertain for himself existing
conditions in this province and to form his own opinion as to what
policy it would be best to pursue.  He writes thus to Lord Glenelg
from Montreal on July 6th:

"Lower Canada is perfectly free from internal troubles, and her
frontier is not menaced by the Americans; but Upper Canada, by the
last accounts from Sir George Arthur, is in a very unsatisfactory
state, both as to domestic dissensions and border incursions.  I am
anxious, therefore, to proceed there as soon as possible."[35]

Lord Durham left Montreal on July 10th, arrived in Kingston late on
the night of the 11th, and then proceeded to Niagara.  At Niagara Sir
George Arthur met him.  From Niagara Lord Durham journeyed to Toronto
where Sir George was also present to receive him formally, along with
the mayor and corporation and the citizens of the provincial capital.
On the 19th of July Durham returned to Kingston and thence down the
St.  Lawrence to Montreal where he arrived on July 24th.  His visit
to Upper Canada had been short but he had covered a great deal of
territory and seems to have been pleased with what he saw.

If one of Lord Durham's objects in making his hurried trip to Upper
Canada was to obtain a better understanding with Sir George Arthur he
must have been disappointed since shortly after his return to Lower
Canada their relations became somewhat strained.  The reason for this
was the action of Sir George Arthur and his Executive Council in
sentencing to death Samuel Chandler and Benjamin Waite for their part
in the Short Hills affair.  The families of these men had appealed to
Durham "for an extension of the Royal mercy" and "for the grant to
them of Her Majesty's pardon."[36]  Durham asked Arthur for
particulars, reminding him that Lord Glenelg had written on the 3rd
of April asking that "the utmost lenity, compatible with public
safety, should be exercised towards the insurgents."

To this Sir George Arthur replied on August 20th, complaining that
Durham's action was "depriving the officer administering the
Government of Upper Canada of the powers expressly vested in him by
the Royal Commission."[37]  Arthur also claimed that Durham "had
misapprehended the intention of the instruction of the Secretary of
State" and Lord Glenelg had in a despatch of July 12th referred him
"to the power of pardoning for treason vested in the officers
administering this government under your Lordship's commission as
Governor-in-Chief."

Durham in his turn maintained that all he wished was to exercise the
superintending authority he possessed as Governor-General.  He
admitted that Arthur had the power of pardoning for treason delegated
to him, but would argue that that power was exempt from "the general
subordination to instructions from the Governor-General."[38]  Durham
then proceeds to give his opinion of Sir George Arthur's policy in
the following terms.

"Your Excellency's explanation of the policy which you had determined
on adopting with regard to the prisoners convicted at Niagara does
not immediately strike me as indicating a course so obviously correct
that I can dispense with the information which I required in my
despatch of the 16th instant.  I cannot quite admit the propriety of
selecting some one subject of Her Majesty to share the fate of
Morreau, the leader of the expedition, who happened to be a citizen
of the United States.  The fate of Her Majesty's subjects should be
determined on a view of their own conduct, and of the circumstances
which have led the juries to accompany their verdict of guilty, in
every case, with a recommendation to mercy."

A further despatch of Lord Durham to Arthur on September 18th went
into the case of Jacob Beamer in some detail.  Beamer had been
singled out by the Executive Council as the scape goat and was alone
to suffer the death penalty.  To this Durham would not agree but
requested that the case be referred to Lord Glenelg.  This despatch
is interesting since it shows that the Executive Council of Upper
Canada was at this time none too friendly towards Lord Durham and was
quite willing to stir up strife between the Governor-General and the
Lieutenant-Governor.

In the meantime the correspondence between Arthur and Durham had
continued at some length and not always with the best of feeling.
But no actual breach seems to have occurred and at length the vexed
problem of the political prisoners seemed likely of solution.  A
general amnesty was to be proclaimed for all except a certain few who
were to be named in the proclamation.  But by this time Lord Durham
was preparing to return to England.

Among the despatches sent by Sir George Arthur to the Earl of Durham
is one dated July 9th, 1838, which deals with the political condition
of Upper Canada.  This letter establishes without a doubt the close
adherence of Sir George Arthur to the Family Compact party, all the
more so because Sir George tries to claim his independence of all
party affiliations.  It also shows that the Lieutenant-Governor had
received instructions from the Home Government "to pursue the policy
and measures of Sir Francis Head."  This Arthur apparently had
attempted to do in so far as his support of the dominant party in the
province was concerned.  He had fallen in completely with their way
of thinking and had failed to distinguish between reformers and
rebels.  He even warned Lord Sydenham that Dr. Egerton Ryerson was "a
dangerous man" chiefly because Ryerson supported Mr. Bidwell, who had
been Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and had been forced to leave
the province on account of persecution by Sir Francis Head and his
Executive Council after MacKenzie's Rebellion.  In this letter of
July 9th Sir George Arthur attempts to combat the opinions of Mr.
Isaac Buchanan, a reformer, who had been presenting his views on the
Upper Canadian political situation to Lord Durham.  According to
Arthur, Mr. Buchanan was endeavouring to prejudice Durham's mind
"against some of the most respectable and most highly esteemed men in
the province," and the Lieutenant-Governor hastened to defend his
friends.  One or two sentences from this despatch deserve quotation
as showing Arthur's attitude towards the self-constituted aristocracy
of Upper Canada.

"In this Colony, as in other countries, respectable station, united
with superior talents and good conduct, gives a certain degree of
influence which is natural and salutary, and it would be of all
things ungracious and discouraging, as well as impolitic, if the
Government were to manifest a jealousy of an influence so honorably
acquired.  It is, so far as I have been able to judge, most
unobtrusively exercised and I am satisfied, from what I have
experienced, that so far as he can conscientiously do so, your
Lordship will have the most cordial co-operation of the Chief Justice
and of all the Family Compact, in all its ramifications throughout
the Province."[39]

In this same despatch Arthur informs Durham that he had "amicably
discussed with the Leaders of each Denomination, the long contested
Clergy Reserves Question," and had the intention of "bringing in a
Bill to reinvest those lands in the Crown" if better means could not
be found of providing a settlement.  He also thought that he would be
able to carry any measure he desired successfully through the
Provincial Parliament.  It should be remembered that the ultra-tory
assembly of 1836, at whose elections Sir Francis Head so
distinguished himself, was still in existence and that Sir George
Arthur thought that it would pass any measure brought forward by the
government.  Already on a previous occasion Sir George had written to
the Governor-General on the same subject of the Clergy Reserves and
had expressed a hope that asperities had been already softened and
that at the next meeting of the Legislature he would be able to see
this long-pending contest terminated upon nearly the same principle
as it had been settled in Van Diemen's Land during his administration
there.  But in this pious hope Arthur reckoned without the opposition
of the Reformers.

The aim of Sir George Arthur and the Executive Council was "to secure
the removal of the Clergy Reserves question from the hostile arena of
the Upper Canada Legislature to the friendly atmosphere of the
English House of Commons, and the still more friendly tribunal of the
House of Lords--where the bench of bishops would be sure to defend
the claims of the Church to their royal patrimony."[40]  This project
the Reformers and opponents of the Clergy Reserves were determined to
resist to the uttermost.  A long controversy raged during 1838 and
1839.  In December, 1837, a bill had been brought forward to reinvest
the Reserves in the Crown, but a despatch from the Home Government
which arrived soon after showed that the British Parliamentary
authorities had no desire to interfere in the settlement of this
vexed question.  During 1838 Sir George Arthur still hoped that the
scheme for reinvesting the Clergy Reserves in the Crown would carry
as the references in his despatches, cited above, show.  Such a bill
would have suited the members of the Executive Council and Family
Compact generally.  It would have meant that the Church of England
would have still profited at the expense of the other denominations.
As it was, in 1837 out of a total of £10,852 11s 8d the Church of
England received £7,291 5s Od, the Church of Scotland £1,425, the
United Synod of Upper Canada £636 6s 8d, and the Roman Catholic
clergy £1,000.[41]  The Wesleyan Methodists and other denominations
did not receive one penny from the "one-seventh of all Crown lands
set aside for the support of a Protestant clergy."

Upon the reassembling of the Upper Canadian Legislature in February,
1839, Sir George Arthur stated that "the settlement of this vitally
important question ought not to be longer delayed" and hoped that the
contending parties could be amicably adjusted, but added meaningly
that if all their efforts failed it would only remain to reinvest the
Reserves in the hands of the Crown.  Various bills on the subject
were introduced and finally the Legislative Council amended one sent
to it by the Assembly in such a way as to put complete control of the
Clergy Reserves in the hands of the Imperial Parliament.  This bill
as amended was passed in the Assembly in a thin house by a majority
of one.  Sir George Arthur and his party had triumphed by a narrow
margin.  But the royal assent was never given to the bill owing to an
objection raised in England that the Upper Canadian Legislature,
being a subordinate authority, could not make such a delegation to
the Imperial Parliament.

A compromise bill which was devised to meet the approval of the
majority of people in Upper Canada was submitted to the House of
Assembly in January, 1840, but it was the work not of Sir George
Arthur, but of Lord Durham's successor, Mr. Poulett Thomson (Lord
Sydenham).  It provided that the remainder of the land should be sold
and that the annual proceeds of the fund, when realized, be
distributed one half to the Church of England and the Presbyterians
and one half to the other denominations who wished to share it.  This
bill was passed in Upper Canada and sent to England where it met its
death blow in the House of Lords.  The vexatious Clergy Reserves
problem still remained unsettled.

In the matter of the Clergy Reserves, Sir George Arthur had shown
himself the uncompromising ally of the Family Compact.  He was to
show it once more in his attitude towards the reunion of the
provinces and the introduction of Responsible Government.

The reunion of the provinces was urged by Lord Durham in his Report
and was favoured by a large majority of the inhabitants of Upper
Canada.  It was opposed by the Family Compact, supported as usual by
Sir George Arthur.  But the feeling for union was so strong that on
March 23rd, 1839, three resolutions in favour of the reunion of the
provinces were carried by the Upper Canadian Legislature.  Four days
later, on March 27th, fourteen qualifying resolutions were passed by
the Assembly.  These resolutions, if embodied in the Act of Union,
would have placed the balance of power in the hands of the British
population of the united province.

A committee of the Legislative Council was appointed at the same time
to inquire into Lord Durham's Report and to put forward their side of
the case.  This was very ably done in a document dated May 11th,
1839, and approved by the Legislative Council.  In this report on the
Report Lord Durham's "great panacea for all political disorders
'Responsible Government'"[42] was attacked and certain inaccurate
statements were challenged.  The blame for the recent troubles in
Upper Canada was cast entirely upon the Reformers and the question
propounded: "Is it because reformers, or a portion of them, can
command the sympathies of the United States, and of Lower Canadian
rebels, that the internal affairs of a British colony must be
conducted so as to please them?"

With these sentiments Sir George Arthur heartily concurred.  He was
entirely opposed to "Responsible Government" and still feared
disaffection in the provinces.  During the early months of 1839 the
trials of the political prisoners had continued and had attracted
much attention on both sides of the border.  There was still
considerable excitement in the province and riots occurred in some
places.  In one of these which took place at Stone's Tavern, Percy
Township, Northumberland County, on June 5th, 1839, the reformers
carried "a red flag on which were written or printed the words, 'Lord
Durham and Reform.'"[43]  Incidents such as this increased Sir George
Arthur's mistrust of Lord Durham's schemes for the better government
of Canada, and on July 2nd we find him writing to the Marquis of
Normanby, Lord Glenelg's successor, as follows:

"I have all along informed Her Majesty's Government that it is absurd
to think of Upper Canada as containing a whole community of
loyalists.  There is a considerable section of persons who are
disloyal to the core; reform is on their lips, but separation is in
their hearts.  These men having, for the last two or three years,
made a 'responsible government' their watchword, are now
extravagantly elated because the Earl of Durham has recommended that
measure.

"They regard it as an unerring means to get rid of all British
connexion, while the Earl of Durham, on the contrary, has recommended
it as a measure for cementing the existing bond of union with the
mother country."

These few sentences throw great light on Sir George Arthur's attitude
on the question of 'Responsible Government.'  As usual, the Reformers
are annexationists.  It was the usual tactics of the dominant party
to call them so and to include as disloyal all those who favoured the
cause of Reform.  Of course Sir George Arthur, from the nature of his
position, was supposed to be moderate in his political views, but he
does yeoman service for the Family Compact in trying to impress upon
the authorities in England that the Reformers were disloyal.  It is
impossible to state what percentage of the Reformers were actually
disloyal, but it must be remembered, as Egerton Ryerson has told us,
the great body of the Reformers took no part in MacKenzie's Rebellion
except to suppress it.  The bulk of moderate opinion in the province
sided neither with the annexationists nor with the Family Compact,
but readily embraced the suggestions set forth in Lord Durham's
Report.  With these moderate reformers Sir George Arthur was soon at
variance.

In the month of August, 1839, Sir George received a series of
resolutions supporting Lord Durham's Report and Responsible
Government passed at a meeting of freeholders and inhabitants of the
Gore District held on July 27th.  This meeting resolved that the
House of Assembly did not represent the wishes or sentiments of the
province "particularly in its late Report of its committee,
purporting to be the Report of the House of Assembly in answer to
Lord Durham's Report on the State of the Province."  It also resolved
"that the Report of the Earl of Durham, in all its material points,
has been received by an overwhelming majority of the people of Upper
Canada with the most abundant gratification" and "that this meeting
is of opinion that a responsible government, as recommended in Lord
Durham's Report, is the only means of restoring confidence, allaying
discontent, or perpetuating the connexion between Great Britain and
this colony."[44]

All this was wormwood and gall to Sir George Arthur, who hastened to
reply to this address.  In his answer he attacks Responsible
Government and states "that the proposed plan would lead to a state
of things inconsistent with the relations of this colony, as a
dependency of the British Crown."  This was a bold statement for the
Lieutenant-Governor to make and it was soon to land him into
difficulties since the British authorities were prepared to carry out
Lord Durham's schemes.  Mr. Poulett Thomson was selected as
Governor-General and under him Sir George Arthur was once more to act
as a subordinate Lieutenant-Governor.[45]

It was a curious arrangement, since Arthur was known to be opposed to
the very scheme of government which Poulett Thomson was being sent
out to initiate.  But Sir George Arthur was not unwilling to
co-operate with the new Governor-General.  He met Poulett Thomson at
Montreal on October 25th and conferred with him on the subject of
Upper Canada.  It was decided that the Legislature of that province
should be summoned for December 3rd and that Poulett Thomson would
visit Upper Canada about the 18th of November.  The Governor-General
was determined to open the session of the Legislature in person.
This determination on his part was largely the outcome of his
conversations with Sir George Arthur, who strongly urged upon him the
desirability of so doing.

As a result of this meeting between the Governor-General and
Lieutenant-Governor, Poulett Thomson was present to open the
Legislature on December 3rd.  After that date Sir George Arthur's
power in Upper Canada became entirely secondary to that of Poulett
Thomson.  He still acted as Lieutenant-Governor in the absence of the
Governor-General but his term of real authority in Upper Canada ended
on November 22nd, 1839, when the new Governor-General assumed the
government of the upper province.

Sir George Arthur remained in Upper Canada until 1841, when the Act
of Union came into force and the two provinces surrendered their
separate existence.  He then returned to England where his services
in Canada were recognized by the bestowal upon him of a baronetcy.
In June, 1842, he was appointed Governor of the Bombay Presidency in
India, which office he held until his retirement in 1846.  Had his
health warranted the acceptance of so difficult a post he might then
have become Governor-General of India.  After returning to England
Sir George Arthur was made a Privy Councillor and was honoured by the
University of Oxford with the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law.
He died on September 19th, 1854.

Sir George Arthur was a true type of the old colonial governor.  He
was unfortunate in that he was unable to realize that the days of
colonial dependency were numbered, and that the future belonged to
the advocates of self-government.  His long experience as a colonial
governor under the old regime, probably told against Arthur in his
administration of Upper Canada just as it was of value to him as
Governor of Bombay.  His support of the Family Compact was as natural
and sincere as his mistrust of Responsible Government.  Of his
uprightness and integrity there could be no doubt.  Although his
treatment of the political prisoners shows him to have been
merciless, on occasion he was known as a gentle and kind man.  He
tried to do what he considered right but he lacked vision.
Throughout his administration in Upper Canada he was attempting to
bolster up a dying cause.  His one fatal defect was that he could not
see that the political future of Canada lay in the proper
interpretation and elaboration of the principles laid down in Lord
Durham's Report.


WALTER SAGE.



[1] Arthur to Glenelg, 29 March, 1838.

[2] Head's Narrative, p. 32.

[3] Canadian Archives.  Q 406, Pt. I, p. 175.

[4] D. N. B., Vol. I, p. 604.

[5] Report of Transportation Committee, 1838.  Quoted in Molesworth's
_Speeches_, Appendix, p. 465.

[6] D. N. B., Article on Sir George Arthur.

[7] Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, p. 226.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., p. 232.

[10] Ibid., p. 227.

[11] Molesworth: _Speeches_, p. 112.

[12] Kingsford: _History of Canada_, Vol. X, p. 472.

[13] Cf. Arthur to Glenelg, April 14th, 1838, Canadian Archives G,
494.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Arthur to Glenelg: April 14th, 1838.

[16] Both numbers are given--the higher number, 30,000, by MacKenzie.

[17] Glenelg to Arthur, No. 70, 22 May, 1838; Brit. Parl. paper, 2,
1839, p. 279.

[18] Glenelg to Arthur, No. 82, 30th May, 1838; op. cit. pp. 279-80.

[19] Ibid.

[20] E. A. Theller, Canada in 1837-8, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1841.

[21] Theller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. I, p. 261.

[22] Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, pp. 177-8.

[23] Arthur to Glenelg, 24 April, 1838, No. 8.

[24] Theller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. 2, p. 9.

[25] Ibid., p. 10.

[26] Can. Archives, Q. 406, Pt. I, pp. 166-7.

[27] Quoted: Kingsford, X, p. 457.

[28] Lindsay: _Life of W. L. MacKenzie_ (Makers of Canada Series), p.
440, gives the month as September; Kingsford gives December.

[29] Arthur to Glenelg, 24th November, 1838, No. 92.

[30] Parl. Paper, 2, 1839, p. 370.

[31] Cf. Glenelg to Durham, April 3rd, 1838, No. 8, Parl. paper 2, p.
12.

[32] Durham to Arthur, 1 June, 1838; No. 1. Parl. paper, 2, p. 109.

[33] Arthur to Durham, June 9th, No. 1, Parl. paper 2, p. 116.

[34] P.P. 2, p. 125.

[35] Durham to Glenelg, No. 24, P. P. 2, p. 139.

[36] Durham to Arthur, 16 May, 1838, pp. 2, p. 103.

[37] Ibid., Arthur to Durham, 20th Aug., 1838.

[38] Durham to Arthur, Aug. 24th, 1838; Ibid., p. 164.

[39] Arthur to Durham, July 9th, 1838, Can. Archives, G. 494, p. 507.

[40] Ryerson: Story of My Life, p. 225.

[41] These figures are taken from a return to be found in the
Canadian Archives, Q. 407, Pt. I, pp. 108-13.

[42] Egerton and Grant: Canadian Constitutional Development, p. 176.

[43] Parl. papers (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 142.

[44] Parl. paper (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 181.

[45] For a full account of the relations between Poulett Thomson and
Sir George Arthur the reader is referred to Shortt, _Sydenham_, pp.
153-162.




  BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY AND
  POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN QUEEN'S
  UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, ONTARIO, CANADA.

No. 1.  The Colonial Policy of Chatham, by W. L. Grant.

No. 2.  Canada and the Most Favored Nation Treaties, by O. D. Skelton.

No. 3.  The Status of Women in New England and New France, by James
Douglas.

No. 4.  Sir Charles Bagot: An Incident in Canadian Parliamentary
History, by J. L. Morison.

No. 5.  Canadian Bank Inspection, by W. W. Swanson.

No. 6.  Should Canadian Cities Adopt Commission Government, by
William Bennett Munro.

No. 7.  An Early Canadian Impeachment, by D. A. McArthur.

No. 8.  A Puritan at the Court of Louis XIV, by W. L. Grant.

No. 9.  British Supremacy and Canadian Autonomy: An Examination of
Early Victorian Opinion Concerning Canadian Self-government, by J. L.
Morison.

No. 10.  The Problem of Agricultural Credit in Canada, by H. Michell.

No. 11.  St. Alban in History and Legend: A Critical Examination; The
King and His Councillors: Prolegomena to a History of the House of
Lords, by L. F. Rushbrook Williams.

No. 12.  Life of the Settler in Western Canada Before the War of
1812, by Adam Shortt.

No. 13.  The Grange in Canada, by H. Michell.

No. 14.  The Financial Power of the Empire, by W. W. Swanson.

No. 15.  Modern British Foreign Policy, by J. L. Morison.

No. 16.  Federal Finance, by O. D. Skelton.

No. 17.  Craft-Gilds of the Thirteenth Century in Paris, by F. B.
Millett.

No. 18.  The Co-operative Store in Canada, by H. Michell.

No. 19,  The Chronicles of Thomas Sprott, by Walter Sage.

No. 20. The Country Elevator in the Canadian West, by W. C. Clark.

No. 21.  The Ontario Grammar Schools, by W. E. Macpherson.

No. 22.  The Royal Disallowance in Massachusetts, by A. G. Borland.

No. 23.  The Language Issue in Canada; Notes on the Language Issue
Abroad, by O. D. Skelton.

No. 24.  The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner.

No. 25.  The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner.

No. 26.  Profit-Sharing and Producers' Co-operation in Canada, by H.
Michell.

No. 27.  Should Maximum Prices Prevail?  by W. C. Clark.

No. 28.  Sir George Arthur and His Administration of Upper Canada, by
Walter Sage.



[Transcriber's note: the duplicate entries for 24 and 25 above are as
printed.]