Jump to content

Types Riot

Add links
Coordinates: 43°39′00.9″N 79°22′08.9″W / 43.650250°N 79.369139°W / 43.650250; -79.369139
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 13 May 2021 (Adding Good Article icon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Types Riot
DateJune 8, 1826
Location
York, Upper Canada

43°39′00.9″N 79°22′08.9″W / 43.650250°N 79.369139°W / 43.650250; -79.369139
Caused byEditorials in the Colonial Advocate
GoalsDestroy the printing press and types of the Colonial Advocate
Parties
Employees of the Colonial Advocate
Lead figures
Number
9-15
9

The Types Riot refers to the destruction of William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press and movable type by members of the Family Compact on June 8, 1826, in York, Upper Canada (now known as Toronto). The Family Compact, a group of men that held the majority of government positions in Upper Canada, were offended by Mackenzie's editorials in his newspaper, Colonial Advocate. The editorials questioned the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada and described negative personal stories about them and their families. It is unknown who planned the riots, although Samuel Jarvis later claimed that he planned the event. During the riot, Mackenzie's employees tried to get passersby to help stop the rioters, but bystanders saw that government officials like William Allan and Stephen Heward were watching the spectacle and assumed the Upper Canadian government sanctioned the event.

Mackenzie sued the rioters for the damage to his property and lost business opportunities. The civil trial attracted substantial media attention, with several newspapers denouncing the government officials who did not stop the riots. A jury awarded £625 to Mackenzie. James FitzGibbon, the colonel of the York Militia, solicited donations from Family Compact members to help the defendants satisfy the judgment. Mackenzie used the event to highlight abuses of the Upper Canada government during his first campaign to be elected to the Parliament of Upper Canada. The public viewed Mackenzie as a martyr because of the destruction of his property and he remained popular amongst the public for several decades. Historians identify the event as a sign of weakening Conservative influence in Upper Canada politics.

Background

A portrait of William Lyon Mackenzie, depicted sitting in a chair with papers in his hands.
William Lyon Mackenzie wrote the articles in the Colonial Advocate that instigated the riots

The ruling elite of Upper Canada consisted of members of the Family Compact, who were descendants of Loyalist families. They appointed themselves to the executive council, positions in the judicial system, higher offices in the Anglican church, and the boards of financial institutions. They used their power to economically benefit themselves and their families.[1]

In 1824, Mackenzie began publishing the Colonial Advocate, a newspaper critical of the government and the Family Compact.[2] He published articles under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift" that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony.[1][3] For the Colonial Advocate's second anniversary on May 18, 1826, Mackenzie published several negative stories on the history of Family Compact members.[4] He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active and infected with syphilis,[5] and made negative comments on their personal appearance.[6] On June 8, 1826, Mackenzie published an account of an 1817 duel between Samuel Jarvis and John Ridout, which resulted in the latter's death. Jarvis considered this a personal attack on his character and commentary on a private matter.[1] Many of the rioters testified that they were retaliating against the Swift columns.[7] Raymond Baby, one of the rioters, claimed some were present to attack Bartemas Ferguson, one of Mackenzie's employees, because they believed Ferguson was Patrick Swift.[8]

The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street. Mackenzie lived at the location with his mother Elizabeth, his wife Isabel, and his children James and Elizabeth. Isabel's siblings, Margaret and James Baxter, were also living on the property and the latter was an apprentice of Mackenzie. Two other apprentices lived on the property, along with a journeyman named Charles French.[9] Mackenzie travelled to Queenston before the riot for unknown reasons and left Ferguson, his foreman, in charge of the press in his absence.[8]

Riots

It is uncertain who planned the riots. Members of the Family Compact approached John Lyons, the lieutenant-governer's clerk, and encouraged to plan the attack.[6][10] A few years after the incident Jarvis claimed that he planned the riot.[11][12] William Proudfoot testified at the civil trial that he heard Jarvis, Lyons, and Charles Richardson plan to ambush and attack Mackenzie. Raymond Baby stated he was recruited for the mob in the afternoon of the riot by Charles Heward and Henry Sherwood. Baby claimed they brought him to the Attorney General's office, but this was denied by several members of the mob eighteen months after the trial concluded.[13]

A map showing the location of Mackenzie's house and printing press during the Types Riot

The riot took place just after 6 pm on June 8, 1826.[6] The exact number of rioters is uncertain; Jarvis reported that there were nine or ten people, while a newspaper at the time reported fifteen participants.[11] The rioters included Jarvis, Lyons, Richardson, Sherwood, Charles Baby, Raymond Baby, Charles Heward, Henry Heward, James King, and Peter McDougall.[10][14] Several rioters brought clubs and sticks with them to aid in damaging the property.[11] The group might have been dressed as indigenous people, although this was not confirmed by newspaper accounts at the time.[15]

The group gathered at the Attorney General's office and Jarvis sent Heward to the printing office to discover if Ferguson was there. The others followed shortly after, walking in a single-file line and brandishing their weapons.[16][17] When they arrived at the printing press they shouted to be let into the building. When no one responded they forced their way in.[4] Two apprentices, James Lumsden and James Baxter, immediately fled the house and shouted for assistance.[16] When the rioters could not find Ferguson, they attacked the printing press.[17] James and Elizabeth Mackenzie investigated the noise and discovered the rioters destroying property.[18] Elizabeth was upset with the situation and exited the house. The rioters intimidated the occupants of the house, scattered movable type across the property, and demolished the printing press. When a rioter announced that the mob had done enough destruction, they left carrying cases of type which were thrown into Toronto Harbour.[16]

A passerby heard Baxter's call for assistance, but did not help because he saw William Allan and Stephen Heward, two high-ranking administrators in Upper Canada, observing the riot without assisting. Heward shouted encouragement for his sons to continue rioting while Allan watched from his property. Charles Ridout watched the riot from the bay and saw the lack of action from Heward and Allan. Other spectators gathered on a bank of a bay near the printing press.[19] When Francis Collins, editor of the Canadian Freeman, arrived at the printing office he discovered that the rioters had left and Elizabeth distraught over the damage. He reported that Elizabeth feared that the rioters would return to demolish the house.[18]

Immediate aftermath

Independent newspaper editors throughout Upper Canada believed Allan and Heward's inaction during the riot meant the riot was supported by the Upper Canadian government.[20] Collins denounced the destruction in the Canadian Freeman[21] and criticised Allan and Heward for not helping to stop the riots, even though they were police magistrates.[22] H. C. Thompson in the Upper Canada Herald criticised the rioters' connection to the Upper Canada administration as an attack on the freedom of press.[20] James Macfarlane supported the rioters in the Kingston Chronicle, stating they had no other recourse to the Swift articles in the Colonial Advocate.[23] The Upper Canada Gazette, the journal published by the public administration of Upper Canada, did not comment on the riot, furthering speculation that the event was supported by the government.[24]

Members of the Upper Canada elite expressed their opinions in private letters. Anne Powell wrote that this was the "most disgraceful scene" that had happened in York.[24][25] She hoped that her sons were not involved in the incident and forwarded the news to her husband in London.[25] Robert Stanton said the rioters displayed their passion without restraint. When William Jarvis discovered his brother was involved in the riots, he wrote to him saying he wished Samuel had thrown Mackenzie into the bay, too.[24]

Lieutenant-governor Peregrine Maitland was not in York during the riot and government officials did not comment on the event on his behalf. When Maitland returned to York two weeks later, he fired Lyons as his private secretary. He did not comment on the event publicly and did not report the incident to his superiors at the Colonial Office.[26] Attorney General John Beverley Robinson did not publicly condemn the attacks or admonish his employees who participated in the riots. The dean of York attorneys William Warren Baldwin wrote a letter to Robinson expressing displeasure that Robinson's office did not denounce the rioters.[27]

Public opinion supported Mackenzie because of the inaction of government administrators to stop or charge the perpetrators.[28] Mackenzie stayed away from York immediately after the riots because friends advised him that his life might be in danger.[29] Mackenzie struggled financially for six months as the printing press was his source of income and he was responsible for boarding his apprentices. His malarial fever returned as he experienced stress.[30]

Civil trial

Trial details

Samuel Jarvis, pictured seated facing the camera in a black and white photo.
Samuel Jarvis, the first defendant named in Types Riot civil lawsuit

Ferguson hired James Edward Small as Mackenzie's attorney before Mackenzie confirmed that he was going to file a lawsuit. Small issued writs addressed to "Jarvis et al." for a civil suit. Jarvis hired James Buchanan Macaulay to defend him. Small proposed a settlement for £2000 as the value of the destroyed printing press and type. Macaulay claimed the rioters were righteous in their actions and that the destroyed property was not worth £2000. He offered to settle for £200, then £300. Small rejected these offers, causing the lawsuit to go to a trial.[31]

The defendants in the trial were Jarvis, Lyons, Richardson, Charles Baby, Charles Heward, King, McDougall and Sherwood. Raymond Baby was possibly not named as a defendant because he was considered too young to be responsible for his actions, as he was 17 or 18 at the time.[14] Although Henry Heward was named as a rioter, he was not named as a defendant.[10]

Marshall Spring Bidwell represented Mackenzie at the trial, with Small's assistance. Christopher Alexander Hagerman represented the defendants.[32] The trial took place in York's new courthouse; William Campbell presided. Allan was an associate judge during the proceedings. The defendants admitted that they participated in the riots so the jury was tasked with determining the amount of money Mackenzie should receive.[33]

Hagerman insisted that the case be heard by a special jury. The names of all men in the district who owned property worth more than £200 were put into a sheriff's hat. Forty names were selected for the jury pool and the lawyers alternated removing men from the pool until sixteen men remained and were summoned to the courtroom. Only eleven of the summoned men came to the courtroom, leaving one empty spot on the jury. The lawyers agreed to randomly draw three names from the regular jury pool and jointly chose one of the three men to serve as the twelfth juror.[34] The jury's foreman was Robert Rutherford, who owned a general store in York. The other two jurors from York were Edward Wright, a tailor; and George Shaw, a grocer. The rest of the jurors were farmers from the surrounding towns of Whitby, Markham, Scarborough, and Vaughan, and included Jacob Boyer, a German immigrant;[35] and Joseph Tomlinson, who became an agent for the Colonial Advocate after the trial.[36]

Arguments and jury deliberations

Bidwell argued that Mackenzie should be awarded a larger settlement because of the damaged property's value and Mackenzie's inability to fulfil printing contracts after the printing press was destroyed. Bidwell stated that the rioters violated all Englishmen's rights to a free press and that the morality and legality of a newspaper should be decided in the law instead of by a mob. He stated that the defendants should have used their social standing and education to peacefully find a solution instead of using violence. He also accused the defendants of violating Mackenzie's privacy by damaging his home, which was on the same property as the printing press.[37]

Elizabeth Mackenzie was the first witness for the plaintiff and described the attack from inside the property, although she could not identify any perpetrators. William Lyon Mackenzie's five employees identified the rioters and explained the business's finances to showcase Mackenzie's lost income from the riot. Hagerman did not want the jury to sympathise with Mackenzie so he questioned the employees about Mackenzie's character and the Colonial Advocate's negative reputation.[38] These questions revealed that the Patrick Swift editorials were written by Mackenzie. They also revealed that the four printing presses in Upper Canada submitted a joint bid to print materials for the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada to avoid competing with each other and receive a larger amount of money for the government's printing contract.[39]

The Upper Canada Herald printed Hagerman's address to the jury, which totalled 4,400 words.[40] Hagerman suggested that the trial was about Mackenzie's conduct. He claimed Mackenzie was exaggerating the financial cost of the damage and was using the lawsuit to prevent bankruptcy because the Colonial Advocate was unsuccessful. He emphasised that the Swift editorials damaged the reputations of living and deceased people and the right to free press was not supposed to protect slanderous writers like Mackenzie. He stated that the rioters wanted to protect decency in Upper Canada and did not physically harm anyone.[41] Although Hagerman admitted that the rioters had damaged some property, he claimed Mackenzie was not entitled to the sums of money he was suing for.[42] The defendants did not testify during the trial because Hagerman did not want them to be cross-examined on who had planned, recruited, and executed the attack. He also wanted the jury to focus on Mackenzie's conduct, not on the defendants.[43]

Campbell gave instructions to the jury before they began their deliberations. Mary Jarvis, Samuel Jarvis's wife, thought the instructions favoured the defendants, but newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy. The jury deliberated for thirty hours, debating the amount of money Mackenzie should be rewarded. Juror George Shaw did not want to give any damages to Mackenzie and argued that previous case law said they should dismiss the case. Three jurors became sick during the deliberations and Jacob Boyer had bloodletting administered to him, but refused to be dismissed from the deliberations.[44] After further deliberations, the jury awarded Mackenzie £625 in damages.[45]

Civil trial aftermath

Settlement payments

The low amount awarded to Mackenzie surprised Mary, Jarvis's wife. James Baby reprimanded Charles as he paid his son's share of the settlement.[46] James FitzGibbon, a colonel in Upper Canada, solicited donations from riot supporters and government administrators.[47] In 1827, Collins reported on this donation scheme and accused Maitland of donating funds. FitzGibbon confirmed that he solicited funds but denied that Maitland donated money.[48] Opponents of the government speculated that FitzGibbon was appointed clerk of the Legislative Assembly and colonel of the militia as a reward for organising this collection. FitzGibbon reacted against these accusations by sending a letter to the lieutenant-governor accusing Mackenzie of instigating the riots to increase his popularity and save his printing business.[49]

Mackenzie used the settlement to pay his creditors and restart production of the Colonial Advocate.[50] In 1827 he published his account of the incident as The History of the Destruction of the Colonial Advocate Press.[51] Mackenzie also used the settlement to fund his first campaign for a seat in the Upper Canada Legislature for the County of York in July 1828.[52]

Defendants

Jarvis was listed first as a defendant in the lawsuit and used this status to promote his social status among the governing elite. He declared that he was the leader of the mob and refused to say or publish material that damaged the reputation of the involved persons, including government administrators.[53] Two years after the riot, Jarvis printed a pamphlet called A Statement of Facts Relating to the Trespass on the Printing Press in the Possession of William Lyon Mackenzie, in which he claimed to have organised the riot. Jarvis said the riot's purpose was to preserve the power structure of Upper Canada and stop social change.[11] Jarvis' publication included a sworn statement from all the defendants that government officials had no involvement in the planning or implementation of the riot.[54]

Newspapers

Newspapers that opposed Upper Canadian government officials believed the riot was another example of the government eliminating opposition to its power. Collins stated in the Canadian Freeman that he supported Mackenzie's settlement and denounced the riots. Those that supported the administration believed the rioters overreacted to Mackenzie's provocation in his Patrick Swift editorials.[55] Robert Stanton of the Upper Canada Gazette decried the large settlement Mackenzie received, believing the damage to his printing press was exaggerated.[56] Most independent newspapers supported Mackenzie and the amount awarded to him. The lack of criminal proceedings against any perpetrators caused suspicions that the government had supported or instigated the riot.[39]

Criminal trial

Robinson, the attorney general, did not pursue criminal charges against the rioters. He stated that it was customary for the victim to choose if a civil or criminal trial should commence, and Mackenzie chose a civil trial. Supporters of the defendants wanted Robinson to pursue a criminal trial anyways because they thought it would reduce the amount of money Mackenzie would be awarded in the civil trial. Robinson declined to pursue charges during the civil trial to avoid accusations of interfering with proceedings. After the civil trial, Mackenzie declined Robinson's offer to pursue a criminal trial.[57] Mackenzie later claimed that his lawyers advised him not to pursue criminal charges because Robinson was biased in favour of the defendants.[58]

In April 1828, grand jury indictments were presented to the court for the participants in the Types Riot, causing the defendants to be criminally charged by the government. The named individuals were the same eight defendants in the civil suit. William Botsford Jarvis, the sheriff of York, was ordered to immediately arrest the men and hold them for bail.[59] The criminal trial commenced later that day.[60]

According to Jarvis, the criminal trial was orchestrated to force Mackenzie to testify in the proceedings. The defendants' witnesses testified that Mackenzie told them that he exaggerated the damage. Mackenzie testified that the physical damage was £12 but the amount he claimed in the civil trial included money he lost in printing contracts because his press was damaged. The jury quickly decided that the men were guilty. The judge determined that the defendants already paid a large settlement after the civil trial and fined each person the low amount of five shillings.[60]

Legacy

The Types Riot inspired Mackenzie to continue his fight to dismantle the Upper Canada power structure dominated by the Family Compact.[61] A year after the incident he used the riot to highlight abuses of power from government authorities and criticised Allan and Heward's appointment as barristers-at-law. He used the riot to campaign to become a legislator in the Upper Canada Parliament, claiming that government officials had betrayed the public's trust by instigating the riots.[62] He also used the riots to show electors that he was part of a group of citizens who struggled to reform the political system of Upper Canada.[63] The riots caused Mackenzie to become a martyr among Reformers, the political group that campaigned against the Family Compact, and Mackenzie remained popular for several years.[64][65]

After the Types Riot, the youth of York divided themselves into an upper class of people related to the government administrators and a lower class composed of mechanics and labourers. These groups avoided interacting with each other and distrusted each other's actions.[66] Samuel Jarvis claimed the riots exposed the differing political philosophies of those born and raised in Upper Canada, who supported the ruling elite, and immigrants who believed in changing the political system towards British radicalism or American egalitarianism.[67]

Historian Carol Wilton called the Types Riot, and its subsequent civil trial, "the most important debate in Upper Canadian legal history".[68] According to Wilton, the Types Riot showed an upper class without an understanding of the rule of law who wanted to preserve their society.[69] Although Tory-aligned historians believe Mackenzie's reward in the lawsuit showed an impartial court,[70] other historians believe this event highlighted the maladministration of Upper Canada.[69] The riot showed a willingness of the Upper Canadian elite to ignore the laws that placed them in positions of power.[52] Wilton stated that the event should be analysed as part of a larger campaign of conservative political attacks that includes the violence of Reform meetings in the 1830s.[71]

The violence that occurred in Upper Canada in the 1820s and 1830s, including the Types Riot, indicated the weakening Conservative dominance in the province's politics.[72] It showed that the Family Compact's claim to authority, based on their education and upbringing, was supported by threats of uncivilized violence.[73] Reformers used the riot to support their theory of persecution from the Tory elite.[72] Government prosecutors' refusal to charge the defendants in a criminal case showed that the ruling class would prevent opposition to their power[74] and the Family Compact's campaign to pay the civil suit settlement showed their tolerance of illegal activities.[75] It convinced citizens that violence against the government was acceptable because the government would not stop attacks against their dissenters.[76] The civil trial's verdict showed the Tory elite that they could be held accountable by the judicial system and they used legal manoeuvres to protect their property and assets.[77] The Types Riot was the first abuse of power by the ruling class that led to the Upper Canada Rebellion.[78]

References

  1. ^ a b c Davis-Fisch 2014, p. 36.
  2. ^ Sewell 2002, p. 43.
  3. ^ Schrauwers 2009, p. 73.
  4. ^ a b Kilbourn 2008, p. 69.
  5. ^ Heaman 2015, p. 90.
  6. ^ a b c Sewell 2002, p. 60.
  7. ^ Raible 1992, p. 41.
  8. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 49.
  9. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 8–9.
  10. ^ a b c Raible 1992, p. 63.
  11. ^ a b c d Raible 1992, p. 59.
  12. ^ Sewell 2002, p. 61.
  13. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 108–109.
  14. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 61.
  15. ^ Davis-Fisch 2014, p. 31.
  16. ^ a b c Davis-Fisch 2014, p. 33.
  17. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 108.
  18. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 31.
  19. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 79–80.
  20. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 86.
  21. ^ Raible 1992, p. 5.
  22. ^ Raible 1992, p. 82.
  23. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 86–87.
  24. ^ a b c Raible 1992, p. 87.
  25. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 199.
  26. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 87–88.
  27. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 200–201.
  28. ^ Schrauwers 2009, p. 84.
  29. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 91–92.
  30. ^ Raible 2008, p. 11.
  31. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 92–94.
  32. ^ Raible 1992, p. 94.
  33. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 102–103.
  34. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 101–102.
  35. ^ Raible 1992, p. 116-117.
  36. ^ Koerber 2011, p. 144.
  37. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 103–104.
  38. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 105–106.
  39. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 120.
  40. ^ Raible 1992, p. 115.
  41. ^ Raible 1992, p. 111.
  42. ^ Raible 1992, p. 116.
  43. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 111–112.
  44. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 116–117.
  45. ^ Kilbourn 2008, p. 70.
  46. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 129–130.
  47. ^ Schrauwers 2009, p. 80.
  48. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 131–132.
  49. ^ Raible 1992, p. 134.
  50. ^ Kilbourn 2008, pp. 71–72.
  51. ^ Schrauwers 2009, p. 79.
  52. ^ a b Schrauwers 2009, p. 85.
  53. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 152–153.
  54. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 153–154.
  55. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 119–120.
  56. ^ Raible 1992, p. 130.
  57. ^ Romney 1996, p. 509.
  58. ^ Romney 1996, p. 507.
  59. ^ Raible 1992, p. 168.
  60. ^ a b Raible 1992, p. 174.
  61. ^ Gray 1998, p. 17.
  62. ^ Raible 1992, p. 151.
  63. ^ Wilton 2000, p. 56.
  64. ^ Kingsford 1898, p. 243.
  65. ^ Read 1896, p. 156.
  66. ^ Raible 1992, pp. 180–181.
  67. ^ Baker 1988, p. 185.
  68. ^ Wilton 1995, p. 112.
  69. ^ a b Wilton 1995, pp. 112–113.
  70. ^ Armstrong 1971, p. 25.
  71. ^ Wilton 1995, p. 113.
  72. ^ a b Wilton 1995, p. 133.
  73. ^ Davis-Fisch 2014, p. 44.
  74. ^ Kingsford 1898, pp. 243–244.
  75. ^ Godfrey 1993, p. 81.
  76. ^ Wilton 1995, p. 134.
  77. ^ Schrauwers 2009, p. 68.
  78. ^ Baker 1988, p. 184.

Works cited

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_Riot&oldid=1022999313"