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 petition 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 Assembly 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 Assembly, 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 Assembly) 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 judgeship 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 Assembly was dissolved by Sir Francis, and a general election ordered. I had warned the public against Mr. Mackenzie's doings in converting constitutional 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 constitutional 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 assumed 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 judgeship, 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 assured 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 circumstances 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 passed a sleepless night.

The late Mr. Henry Cassidy 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. Cassidy had been a student in Mr. Bidwell's law-office and was now his law agent. Mr. Bidwell enclosed to Mr. Cassidy the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Sir F. Head and Attorney-General Hagerman, and Mr. Cassidy 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. Cassidy, 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 assailed 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. Cassidy 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. Cassidy 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 constitutional 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 Assembly 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 constitutional 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 assertions that impeached his character, and desired me to inform him on what evidence I had based my statements. He said:--

The first assertion 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 assertions 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 anticipated 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 Speakership. 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 friendship.

_March 10th, 1829--York._--The Marriage Bill has been passed, 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 pass. 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
gratitude. 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
assistance, beyond what you have any idea of.

_April 6th, 1831--Kingston._--I am very glad to see your
commendations of the Attorney-General.[A] I think they are just.
They are certainly politic and seasonable. Indeed, I had thought of
hinting to you the propriety of some such notice of his liberality,
etc. I was afraid otherwise the coldness of the courtiers towards
him might make him repent of such liberality. But I think that your
remarks have come at the right time, and are exactly of the right
sort.[66]

_June 14th, 1833--York._--We have heard with pleasure of your safe
arrival in England: and pleasing indeed this has been to your many
friends in the Province, whose prayers, good wishes, and friendly
recollections, have accompanied you across the Atlantic.... Mr.
John Willson, M.P.P., of Saltfleet, has, within a day or two,
obtained from the Receiver-General, on the warrant of the
Lieutenant-Governor, £600 of the public money, to aid in building
chapels, I suppose, for the Ryanites. (See page 87). The fact was
mentioned to me privately this morning, but I deem it so important
as to justify and require me to inform you confidentially of it,
leaving it to your judgment to use the intelligence in the most
discreet manner that may be consistent with the duty you owe to
liberty and religion.

It excites surprise, pain, mortification, indignation, and
contempt, to see the Executive Government here making unjust and
invidious distinctions between His Majesty's subjects in the
appropriations of the Clergy Reserves, thereby endeavouring to
secure an unconstitutional and corrupt influence, especially after
Lord Goderich's declaration in his despatch (which he directed to
be published), that if any preference was shown to one denomination
of Christians more than another, it was contrary to the policy of
His Majesty's Government, and against repeated instructions sent to
the Government here.

As a Presbyterian I lament the grant to the Presbytery, and will do
all I can to get it repealed, for I am convinced it will do injury
to liberty and religion, and to the very persons who may wish, or
wicked enough, to receive it. I suppose the Province is indebted to
Sir John Colborne for these grants. If it is the Government at
home, it ought to be known: if it is not, they ought not only to
remove Sir John, but also reform this abuse. Have the Government
ever given your Society sixpence, or even a foot of land for your
chapels?--although it is the oldest and most numerous body of the
kind in the Province; is not wealthy, and has rendered the most
valuable services, and at a time when no other Church evinced the
least interest for the religious instruction or the welfare of the
people.

_April 12th, 1838--New York._--Your letter of the 23rd ult. and its
enclosure [the defence], I need not say, have effected me deeply,
too much, indeed, for me to describe my feelings. I thank you from
the bottom of my heart for this instance of your kindness; not less
valued, certainly, because it was unexpected, not to say
undeserved. If my misfortunes shall be the means of recovering a
friendship which I formerly enjoyed and always prized, I shall feel
not a little reconciled.[67]

I took the precaution some time ago, to send to England a plain,
distinct statement of all that had occurred between Sir Francis
Head and myself. This was transmitted to a friend to show to Lord
Glenelg. My only object was the vindication of my character. I have
never had the least expectation of obtaining justice or redress
from the Colonial office. There seems in that department utter
incapacity. The very persons they select for the Government of
Upper Canada are enough to prove this. And yet I believe that Lord
Glenelg is an able, as well as amiable, devout, good man.

_May 15th, 1838--New York._--I have received a letter from the
gentleman in England, to whom I had written. He had seen Lord
Durham, and shown him my letter. He expressed no opinion; but the
gentleman thinks that the matter stands favourably before him. He
has not yet seen Lord Glenelg.

_August 10th, 1839--New York._--Mr. Christopher Dunkin[68] is very
anxious to have the honour of an introduction to you. I am very
happy to be the means of gratifying him. Mr. Dunkin was editor of
the Montreal _Courier_, in the latter part of 1837, and beginning
of 1838. He was afterwards appointed by Lord Durham on the
Commission relating to education, and has latterly resided in the
United States.

About the time of Mr. Bidwell's defence, Dr. Ryerson also wrote an explanatory letter to the Colonial Office in regard to his excellent friend, Hon. John H. Dunn, the Receiver-General, whose generous conduct towards the Upper Canada Academy is mentioned on page 166[69]. In a letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Dunn to Dr. Ryerson, he said:--

I am very glad to learn from your letter that you have written to
Lord Glenelg. It is but just to put His Lordship in possession of
facts which may counteract the influence of misrepresentation, and
enable His Lordship to exercise his own humane disposition in
putting matters right, which have been so wrong and arbitrary
towards the individual Mr. Bidwell, whom you have taken the
interest in, and trouble, to restore to his position and his
country.

I feel exceedingly obliged for the kind feeling which you entertain
towards me. Believe me, that you have only done me justice by
mentioning my name to Lord Glenelg. I have laboured hard since I
have been in the Province to discharge my duty to my God and my
Government. I have entertained different opinions at times of the
"Powers here," but they have been the dictates of an honest heart.
I cannot guide my opinions to the service of any party. Whatever
they may be, I shall lament if they should result in any other than
for the best interests and welfare of the Province of Upper Canada.

You were so good as to read me your letter to Lord Glenelg, on the
subject of the late execution of Lount and Matthews. Your version
too, of the real meaning of the representation which caused Sir
Francis Head to compel us to retire from the Executive Council, is
so correct, that I cannot suggest any amendment; besides, I am
bound by my oath not to divulge any transaction arising at the
Council Board. I shall be very happy to see the letter published.
(See page 170.)

You have seen my name kindly mentioned in the public prints. What
has been said has been the spontaneous expressions of other
persons, quite unknown to me. I am grateful to those persons who
have vindicated me against a party, eager to destroy me, and my
family. I leave them to a Judge who knows the secrets of all
hearts, and before whom we all shall soon appear. I have had my
share of afflictions and troubles in this world, and to which I
feel little or no attachment whatever. When the heart is sick, the
whole body is faint.

Dr. Ryerson (in the _Guardian_ of 22nd January, 1840) thus referred to Mr. Dunn as one of the speakers in the Legislative Council on the popular side of the clergy reserve question:--

I was glad to hear Mr. Dunn speak so well and so
forcibly,--universally and affectionately esteemed as he is beyond
any other public functionary in Upper Canada.

* * * * *

Some months after the exile of Mr. Bidwell, Mr. James S. Howard was dismissed by Sir F. B. Head from the office of Postmaster of Toronto. The alleged ground of dismissal was that he was a Radical, and had not taken up arms in defence of the country. Dr. Ryerson, with his usual generous sympathy for persons who in those days were made the victims of Governor Head's caprice, at once espoused Mr. Howard's cause. In his first letter in the Defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, he said:--

After the insurrection of 1837-8, unfavourable impressions were
made far and wide against the late Postmaster of Toronto, and Mr.
Bidwell. But subsequent investigations corrected these impressions.
The former has been appointed to office, and Sir F. B. Head's
proceedings against the latter have been cancelled by Sir Charles
Metcalfe. (Page 16.)

Again, in the "Prefatory Address" to the Metcalfe Defence, he said:--

While God gives me a heart to feel, a head to think, and a pen to
write, I will not passively see honourable integrity murdered by
grasping faction.... I would not do so in 1838, when an attempt was
made to degrade and proscribe, and drive out of the country all
naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all
Reformers with the brand of rebellion.... I relieved the name of an
injured James S. Howard from the obloquy that hung over it, and
rescued the character and rights of an exiled Bidwell from ruthless
invasion, and the still further effort to cover him with perpetual
infamy by expelling him from the Law Society. (Page 7.)

FOOTNOTES:

[61] According to the books of the Law Society, Mr. Bidwell commenced his legal studies in Kingston, the 14th March, 1816, in the office of Mr. Daniel Washburn, 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 Assembly 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 Assembly, 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.

[62] As stated by Dr. Ryerson, in the above note, Mr. Bidwell took no part in politics after his political defeat in May, 1836. In a note to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie, dated August 3rd, 1837, Mr. Bidwell said: Having learned from the _Constitution_ of yesterday that I was chosen as a delegate to a Provincial Convention, I think it right without delay to inform you ... that I must be excused from undertaking the duties of that appointment.... I cannot but regret that my name should have been used without my consent, or previous knowledge, by which I am driven to the disagreeable necessity of thus publicly declining [the] appointment, etc. In the _Guardian_ of 27th September, where this letter appears, it is stated that Mr. Mackenzie did not publish it in the _Constitution_ until the 20th September--six weeks after he had received it.

In a letter from Mr. Bidwell, dated, the 30th April, 1837, to Dr. O'Callaghan, of Montreal, he said: Retired from public life, probably for ever; I still look with the deepest sympathy on the efforts of those who are actively contending for the great principles of liberty, and good government, etc.--"_Political History of Canada_, 1840-1855, by Sir Francis Hincks, 1877, page 7."

[63] Sir Alexander Campbell, now Minister of Justice, in a note to the Editor, thus explains this circumstance:--In the winter of 1837-38, I was a student-at-law, and a resident of Kingston. Dr. Ryerson was then the Methodist minister in charge of the only congregation of that body in town. The rebellion of 1837-8, had led to excited, and very bitter feelings--arrests had been frequent; and it was not prudent for any one to try to palliate the deeds of the rebels, or to seek to lessen the odium which covered their real, or even supposed allies and friends. Dr. Ryerson, however, desired to bring out the facts connected with Mr. Bidwell's banishment, and to change the current of public feeling on the subject--but it was not wise to send letters to the press in his own handwriting, or in any other way suffer it to become known that he was the author of the letters in defence of Mr. Bidwell. Under these circumstances he asked me to copy them, and take them to the _Herald_ office--then the most liberal paper in Upper Canada. I was proud of the confidence placed in me, and copied the several letters, and went with them to the publisher. The letters were signed in words which I have not since seen, but which remain impressed upon my memory, and which were as follows:--

"I am Sir, by parental instruction and example, by personal feeling and exertion,

A United Empire Loyalist"

The letters constituted an eloquent defence of Mr. Bidwell, who certainly took no part in the counsels of those who were afterwards engaged in the rebellion, when it became evident that they intended to push matters to extremes.

The incident made a great impression on me at the time, and was the beginning of a friendship with which Dr. Ryerson honoured me, and which ended only with his life.

A. Campbell.

Ottawa, 29th December, 1882.

[64] The defence was afterwards reprinted in a pamphlet on the 10th of May, 1838, with the following title: "The Cause and Circumstances of Mr. Bidwell's Banishment by Sir F. B. Head, correctly stated and proved by A United Empire Loyalist." Kingston, 1838, pp. 16.

[65] Some time after Sir George Arthur's arrival as Governor, he sent for me, and stated that his object in doing so was to request me, for the sake of the Government and the country, to withdraw the letter I had written in answer to Attorney-General Hagerman; that it greatly weakened the Government; that my power of argumentation was prodigious, but he believed I was mistaken; that Mr. Bidwell had called to pay his respects to him at Albany, on his way to Canada; and that he (Sir George) believed Mr. Bidwell was guilty, as far as a man of his caution and knowledge could be concerned in the rebellion; and though my argument on his behalf seemed to be irresistible, he believed I was wrong, and that the withdrawal of my letter would be a great help to the Government. I replied that my weekly editorials in the _Christian Guardian_ (of which I had consented to be re-elected Editor) showed that I was anxious to suppress the factious and party hatreds of the day, and to place the Government upon a broad foundation of loyalty and justice; that what I had written in the case of Mr. Bidwell had been written by me as an individual and not as the editor of the organ of a religious body, and had been written from the firm conviction of Mr. Bidwell's innocence, and that his case involved the fundamental and essential rights of every British subject; and that, however anxious I was to meet His Excellency's wishes, I could not withdraw my letter. I then bowed myself out from the presence of Sir George, who, from that hour became my enemy, and afterwards warned Lord Sydenham against me as "a dangerous man," as Lord Sydenham laughingly told me the last evening I spent with him in Montreal, at his request, and before his lamented death.

[66] These remarks will be found on page 83 of the _Guardian_ of 2nd April.

[67] This loss of friendship with Dr. Ryerson may be explained by the following reference to Mr. Bidwell, in a letter from Dr. Ryerson, to his brother John, dated, Kingston, 29th May, 1838:--From an intimate religious friend of Mr. Bidwell, I learn that during the last few years he had acted more after a worldly policy, common to politicians, and had, therefore, partly laid himself open to the censure which he has received. I am also sensible of his prejudices against me of late years, and of the great injury which I have thereby sustained. I had some difficulty to overcome my own feelings in the first instance. But as far as individual feelings and interests are concerned, "it is the glory of man to pass over a transgression," generous as well as just, as we have received help from Bidwell himself when we could not help ourselves, and were trampled upon by a desperate party. If others had seen the letters from Bidwell to Mr. Cassidy, which I have been permitted to read, I am sure the noble generosity of their hearts would be excited in all its sympathies. I do not think, however, that he will ever return to this Province to reside. That appears to be altogether out of the question with him; but that does not alter the nature of the case.

I have replied to Mr. Hagerman with calmness, but with deep feeling. My reply will occupy about eight columns in to-morrow's _Herald_.

[68] Mr. Dunkin afterwards became a noted politician, and member of the Parliament of United Canada, from 1857, until Confederation. He was the promoter of the "Dunkin Act." He was one of the contributors to the _Monthly Review_, established by Lord Sydenham in 1841. He was subsequently appointed to the Bench, and died a few years since.

[69] The Hon. John Henry Dunn was a native of England. He came to Canada in 1820, having been appointed Receiver-General of Upper Canada, and a member of the Executive and Legislative Council. He held the office of Receiver-General until the union of the Provinces in 1841, when the political exigencies of the times compelled him to resign it. He and Hon. Isaac Buchanan contested the city of Toronto, in the Reform interest, in 1841, and were returned. Mr. Dunn received no compensation for the loss of his office, and soon afterwards returned to England, where he died in 1854. He was a most estimable public officer. His son, Col. Dunn, greatly distinguished himself during the Crimean war, and, on his visiting Canada soon afterwards, was received with great enthusiasm, and a handsome sword was presented to him.--H.