To have ordered a new election would only have been to prepare the way for a fresh outrage in the shape of another expulsion. One result of these various proceedings against Mr. Mackenzie, was to deprive the county of York of one of its two members, during the term of nearly a whole Parliament.

Though some of the actors in this drama are still living, we are sufficiently removed from the time in which the events occurred, to be able to take a view of them unclouded by passion or prejudice. The recital of the facts will often create a feeling of honest indignation; but this feeling will be quite as strong in the mind of the reader fifty years hence. A brief review of the whole proceedings will give the best idea of the spirit in which they were conducted. At first, an attempt was made to expel the obnoxious member, because he had, at his own cost, distributed copies of the Journals of the House, without note or comment, unaccompanied by the appendix. A majority was ashamed to act upon so flimsy a pretext; but one object was gained: Mr. Mackenzie did not again tender. for the printing of the Journals, and the work was a godsend to the partisans of the government. Next, a pretended libel, published in a newspaper, was made a ground of expulsion, and acted upon. Neither of the articles complained of was half so severe as artiHouse of Peers, to make laws relating either to the qualification or disqualification of electors or candidates, or rather to effect their object by resolutions only." And should the Speaker be called upon, in the exercise of his ministerial capacity, to issue a warrant for a new election, "in consequence of a member being unseated by an illegal resolution, the duty would devolve upon the Lord Chancellor to take notice of the cause of vacancy, as recited in the warrant, and on the ground of illegality to refuse to affix the great seal to the new writ."

cles that are now daily published without exciting attention. Then a new libel was discovered, and made the cause of a second expulsion. This time the House stretched the power of privilege to the monstrous extent of creating a disqualification unknown to the law. The third time, the House contented itself with giving force to this declared disability. Next time, a unanimous re-election was declared to be no election at all; though the Returning Officer had returned Mr. Mackenzie as duly elected, and no candidate had appeared to oppose him. The fifth time, he was declared expelled, though not allowed by the House to take the oaths or his seat; and the same majority that now expelled him had declared, a short time before, that he was not and could not be elected; they having assumed that he was incapable of being elected during that Parliament. This last time he was, at first, forcibly ejected from the space below the bar, on a motion to clear the House of strangers; because not having taken the oaths, which the Speaker urged the commissioners not to administer, he must be treated as a stranger; and then, after he had taken the oath, before a commissioner, instructed by the Lieutenant Governor, on the advice of the Attorney General, to administer it, he was again forcibly dragged from his seat by the Sergeant-at-arms, condemned to silence under the outrage, and threatened with imprisonment. The frequency and the facility with which the majority shifted their ground, showed that all they wanted was a colorable pretext for carrying out a foregone conclusion, to rid themselves of the presence of an opponent' who gave them so much trouble.

As in the case of Wilkes, who was expelled from the House of Commons, the whole of the proceedings relating to these expulsions, were expunged from the Journals of the Assembly; being declared subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of Upper Canada.* This was done in the first session

Here is the resolution: "Mr. Mackenzie, seconded by Mr. McIntosh, moves, That it be resolved, that all the declarations, orders, and resolutions of this House, respecting the several elections of William Lyon Mackenzie, Esq., into Parliament for the county of York, as void elections, and the incapacity of William Lyon Mackenzie, Esq., to serve in the said Parliament, and for his expulsions therefrom, and disqualification by the mere force of a former vote or votes of expulsion, as also all orders, declarations, and resolutions, denying that the elections of William Lyon Mackenzie, Esq., were good, true, and valid, or affirming that the House having expelled and declared him unfit and unworthy to take a seat therein during the said Parliament, and that being convinced of the propriety of such expulsion and declaration, would not allow him to sit and vote, be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this Province. Which was carried on a vote of twenty-eight against seven."

Mr. Mackenzie was not the first member of the Upper Canada Assembly who had been expelled for breach of privilege consisting of alleged libel. On the 4th of March, 1817, Mr. Durand, member for Wentworth, was declared guilty of a false, scandalous, and malicious libel, and ordered to be sent to the York jail during the session. Having placed himself out of the reach of the officer of that House; and for this "high contempt" of the authority of the House, and "flagrant breach” of its privileges, he was expelled. The libel arose out of an irregular suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, by Sir Gordon Drummond, administrator of the Government of Upper Canada, during the latter part of the war of 1812. This act had been suspended during the former part of the war; and the House having refused to renew the suspension, Sir Gordon Drummond took it upon himself to declare the suspension by proclamation. In a newspaper called the St. David's Spectator, Mr. Durand alleged that great atrocities had been committed both by the regular troops and the militia, at the time when the administrator of the government assumed the exercise of a disputed power. The Assembly, in 1815, asked Sir Gordon Drummond for any papers he might have explaining the act; when he replied, in a style too much in fashion in those days among persons having authority in Colonial governments: "All measures of that nature were adopted by me, as commanding His Majesty's forces, and resulted from the exercise of my discretion." Mr. Durand's libel on the House appears to have consisted of a

of the next Provincial Parliament, on the 16th of July, 1835. Mr. McNab voted to expunge his own resolutions, and frankly admitted that the House was wrong in grounding its third expulsion on the fact of the second. He had copied the formula of the resolution, on that occasion, from one framed for the case of Mr. Christie, from the Journals of the Lower Canada Assembly. Among Mr. Mackenzie's notes I find a statement that Mr. Hagerman confessed, on this occasion, that he had, from the first, thought the whole of these expulsions inexpedient; but that, having been overruled by those with whom he acted, he had publicly supported them. But I find nothing of the kind in Mr. Hagerman's published speech. He did not defend the expulsions, it is true; he declared he would not stoop to inquire whether this act was right or wrong; it was sufficient for him that the House had done it. He objected to one Assembly, acting judicially, reversing the decision of a previous Assembly. From first to last, the proceedings against Mr. Mackenzie were conceived in a party spirit, and carried by party votes. No worse description or condemnation of them could be given; seeing that they were in their nature judicial

statement of the alleged condition of things in the House, when the renewal of the Habeas Corpus suspension was proposed. "The House at this time," he said, "seemed agitated by prospects before them according to their various feelings the tide of temptation, at this crisis, ran high-the terrors of the bill were on one hand, good contracts were on the other; and of course the man who opposed the President's will was for ever shut out."

CHAPTER XVIII.

York changed to Toronto-Was it the Site of the Indian Toronto?-Mr. Mackenzie elected First Mayor of the City-Mayor and Corporation borrow £1000 for Municipal Purposes on their Individual Responsibility-3d. in the £1 considered a monstrously oppressive Tax-Public Meeting called by the Mayor to justify the 3d. Tax-Is adjourned and a Frightful Accident occurs by the giving way of a Balcony-The Cholera of 1834-How the Mayor braved Disease and Death-Is attacked with Cholera-Formation of the Canadian Alliance Society-Loss of his Infant Son-Resolution to abandon the Press-Mackenzie as a Journalist.

On the 6th March, 1834, the town of York had its limits extended, and it was erected into an incorporated city, under the name of Toronto.* On the 15th

Toronto is an Indian name, but that the Indians gave that name to the place now called Toronto is more than doubtful. All the evidence I have seen is against the supposition. Upon the early French maps the present site of Toronto was designated Teiaigon or Teiaiagon. In a Carte du Canada ou de la Nouvelle France, by Del Isle, of the French Academy of Sciences, and first Geographer of the King, published at Paris, in 1803, it is called Teiaiagon. In the Carte Generale du Canada, of Baron Lahonton, in his Nouveau Voyage dans L'Amerique Septentrionale, written at different times from 1683 to 1692, and published at the Hague, Penetanguishine Bay [mouth of the Severn] is set down as Baye de Toronto; and in another work, Memoires de L'Amerique Septentrionale, the same traveller says of Lake Huron: "On voit au nord-est de cette Rivière la Baye de Toronto qui a vingt ou vingt cinq lieuës de longueur et quinze d'ouverture, il se décharge une Rivière que sort du petit lac du même nom, [Lake Simcoe,] formant plusieurs cataractes impracticables, tout en descendant qu'en montant. De sa source on peut aller dans le lac de Frontenac [Ontario] en faisant un portage jusqu'a la Rivière de Tonaouaté [the Don at the present city of Toronto] que s'y décharge. Vous pouvez remarquer au côté Meridional de la Baye de Toronto le Fort supposé, dont je vous a fait mention dans ma