Robert Randall and the Le Breton flats; an account of the early legal and political controversies respecting the ownership of a large portion of the present city of Ottawa

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT
FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY

HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE

Cornell University
Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028901275

ROBERT RANDALL

AND

The LE BRETON FLATS

An account of the early legal and political controversies

respecting the ownership of a large portion of

the present City of Ottawa

BY

HAMNETT P. HILL

Published by
JAMES HOPE & SONS, LIMITED

OTTAWA

Ef ' „ W ,v,t- [;:■.» ' >'

F
/o£9

&9 H Ci

Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, on the 33rd day of May,
1919, in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, by Hamnett P. Hill.

■'•'■'■ Ml >i

INDEX

Page

Chapter I.— The Grant 7

Chapter II. — The Judgment 15

Chapter III.— Early Settlers 21

Chapter IV— The Sale 24

Chapter V. — Captain John Le Breton 28

Chapter VI.— In the Courts 40

Chapter VII.— The Coming of Colonel John By 48

Chapter VIII — In the Political Arena 54

PREFACE.

In apologizing for ray temerity in presenting this little volume
to the public I bespeak their .kind indulgence for its obvious
shortcomings. My intention in studying the troubles and mis-
fortunes of Robert Randall, from whom a cruel fate robbed the
honour of being one of the builders of the future Capital of
Canada was not that I might be rated as a local historian, but
merely to afford myself the pleasure of drawing aside the curtain
which was hiding what had happened in the backwoods border-
ing on the Chaudiere water power before the days of Colonel
By. My friends to whom I mentioned the story have urged me
that it should be made available both to those who take an in-
terest in the early history of the Capital of Canada as well as
to those whose interest might he aroused by having the narrative
brought to their attention.

Not heing endowed with a facile pen I regret that I have not
done justice to the facts I have endeavoured to present. My
feelings in this regard are similar to those which prompted the
late William Pittman Lett to insert the following lines in his
"Recollections of Bytown":

"And ! deal leniently with me while I try
To bring the vanished past before your eye,
When all around the spot on which I stand
Was trackless forest and primeval land,
The "Barrack Hill" a wilderness all o'er
And Lower Town to Rideau's ancient shore
A gloomy cedar swamp, the haunt of deer
In which the ruffled grouse drum'd when

spring was near;
While here and there a great pine on high
Towered with its spreading branches to the sky. ' '

HAMNETT P. HILL.
Ottawa,

April 22nd, 1919.

(SJ/ £>.s. JfJ/r S7^f^ a/r ^-

Copy of Original Plan of a portion of the Township of Nepean
now the Western Section of the City of Ottawa

ROBERT RANDALL AND THE LE BRETON FLATS

CHAPTER I.
THE GRANT.

Robert Randall the Grantee from the Crown of the Chaudiere
water power and the land adjoining was of promising tempera-
ment, restlessly active, indomitably courageous and optimistic.
In 1798, then a young man of respectable connection, large
pecuniary resources and good credit, he left his quiet home in
Maryland and migrated to Upper Canada, with the intention of
engaging there in various enterprises. He settled near Niagara
Palls. There he erected his forge, and commenced the manu-
facture of cast and bar iron. He was the first manufacturer of
wrought iron in Canada. Shortly afterwards he purchased a
large grist and saw mill at Niagara Falls, known as the Bridge-
water. "Works. In a petition to Sir Francis Gore in 1809, now
on fyle in the Archives at Toronto, Mr. Randall states that the
first wheat flour manufactured in Upper Canada for the European
Market was ground in his Bridgewater Mills. Besides his
establishment at Niagara Falls Mr. Randall had a large mercan-
tile business at Cornwall, where, feeing a devout churchman and
of progressive character, he built the church for the adherents
of the Qhurch of England to worship in.

Randall was essentially a pioneer and doubtlessly his curio-
sity and interest in the great hinterland to the north was aroused
by what he heard on his visits to Cornwall. At this period
there was not a single settler in what is now the County of
Carleton. In fact it is doubtful if there was anyone residing
at any distance north of the St. Lawrence River. There were
small settlements of the United Empire Loyalists at what are
now Prescott, Brockville, Cornwall, Gananoque and Kingston,
but these were mere hamlets in the neighborhood of which the
hardy exiles from the United States had cleared the forests and
were struggling to eke out an existence on their farms. From
this settlement north to the banks of the Ottawa stretched an
unbroken forest.

8

On September 1st, 1793, instructions had been issued by
the Government at York (now Toronto) to Deputy Surveyor
John Stegmann to survey certain townships, which, at that
time, were lettered "A", "B", "C" and "D", etc., in the
northern portions of the Counties of Leeds and Grenville as
they then existed, there being at the time no County of Carleton.
Township "D" subsequently came to be called the Township
of Nepean. There is an undated plan of this Township in the
Department of Lands, Forests and Mines at Toronto by this
Surveyor. Apparently, however, the Township was originally
surveyed either during the winter of 1793, or the Spring of
1794. There is a legend that Mr. Stegmann was drowned in the
Rideau River while making the survey.

In 1807 Randall made an exploring trip accompanied by
Indians from Kingston up the Cataraqui River, through the maze
of lakes in tjhe interior and down the then turbulent and rapid
Rideau River to the banks of the Ottawa. Randall had a keen
eye to the future, and this trip was probably made with a view
to locating land which might some day become valuable.

On his way down the Rideau he was attracted by the water
power at the end of Long Island (called the Long Island Falls
near the mouth of the River Jock), and he subsequently acquired
four hundred and fifty acres of land there. This power was
effaced when Colonel By built dams for the canal twenty years
later.

Upon arriving at the Chaudiere Falls on the Ottawa, he
readily perceived their value. The land abutting on the Falls
in the Township of Nepean had been subdivided into lots Nos.
39 and 40 in Broken Concession "A" and corresponding lots
lay immediately south of these, known as Lots Nos. 39 and 40
in Concession 1. Lot No. 40 in Concession 1, and Lot No. 40 in
Concession "A" with Which this article deals, comprised that
portion of the present City of Ottawa, which may be roughly
described as bounded on the east by Bronson Avenue, on the
south by Carling Avenue, on the west by Booth Street >and Bridge
Street, and on the north by the Ottawa River.

Returning to Cornwall, Mr. Randall wrote to the legal firm
of Boulton & Boulton at York, instructing them to apply on his
behalf for the land abutting on the Chaudiere Falls, and for

the neighbouring islands. This letter is well worth reproduc-
tion, —

"Cornwall, 8th October, 1807.
Dear Sir, —

I enclose you two petitions, one for two hundred acres
of land, agreeable to the regulations of the Province, pro-
viding for settlers ; also one for a lease of Lot No. 39 in the
first Concession (or front) of the Ottawa River, opposite to
the Falls, known by the name of the Chaudiere, in the Town-
ship of Nepean, a short distance above the mouth of the
River Rideau. The petition for two hundred acres as a
settler, I have left a blank for you to fill up, agreeable to
the instructions hereby given. If Lot 39 is a reserved lot,
as I presume it is, and if there be a broken front, which I
also think there is, and likewise a broken front to lot No. 38,
lying adjoining No. 39, on the upper side, and should there
also be a broken front on No. 40, adjoining No. 39, on the
lower side, provided these fronts will be sufficient to fill my
claim for two hundred acres, you will please to lay my peti-
tion upon the said broken fronts, comprehending all water
privileges as far as the channel of the Ottawa or Grand
River including all lands between the channel of said river
and the banks of the main, from the west side of lot 39
running ten chains below the east line of Lot No. 40.

This, Sir, requires an explanation. There are four small
islands at or near the Chaudiere Falls which lay so situated
as to make them actually necessary to be procured for the
purpose I have in view, which is to extend a dam, from the
main bank to the upper islands lying at the Falls and taking
the water between the main and said islands for the purpose
of a grist or saw mill. The Ottawa River is very narrow
at the Chaudiere Falls, therefore you will find the distance
to be but short from the main to the channel of the river,
and the quantity of acres which those islands contain cannot
exceed twenty, but the Government not having it in their
power to grant islands, makes it necessary to apply in this
way, as Government can make a grant in this way that will
be as effectual as if the islands were expressed in the deeds,
but should the broken fronts of lots Nos. 38, 39 and 40, not

10

be sufficient to fill my claim, you will please to lay the claim
upon the broken front let there be what quantity there may,
and let my petition lay open for the deficiency to be laid in
some other place. Provided that lot No. 39 should not be
reserved for clergy, and that lots Nos. 38 and 40 should not
be granted; please to lay my claim upon as much of the
fronts as the same will cover, comprehending the privileges
of the waters of the river and bound by the channel of the
said river as already described, provided there should not
be broken fronts to the aforesaid lots, and that 38 and 40
have already been granted, and should No. 39 be reserved
for the benefit of the Crown, endeavour to prevail on Gov-
ernment to allow my claim to cover it; with the privilege
of said waters and islands as described. But should Gov-
ernment not allow my claim to cover No. 39 and should the
said Nos. 38 and 40 be already granted, as likewise there
may not be any broken fronts ; in that case take out a lease
for me for No. 39, and endeavour to get a grant from the
bank of the west line of No. 39 running to the channel of
the river, ten chains below the east line of Lot No. 40, to the
main bank including all lands, which is those small islands.
I have enclosed my bond, together with my bondsmen, for
my annual payment of the lease. You will also call upon
Captain Farquharson for my letter directed to Thomas B.
Gauf, Esquire, who, Mr. Ohewitt says was at New York and
had not returned when he left home. You will get Captain
Farquharson to open my letter favoured by Mr. Burns to
Mr. Gauf, in order that you may get my certificate as hav-
ing taken the oaths required by Government. Should
Captain Farquharson not be in possession of my letter to
Mr. Gauf, please call on Mr. Burns, (I think his Christian
name is William) I had the pleasure to see him at Cornwall.
As Government is knowing to my arduous undertaking at
the Bridgewater Works near the Falls of Niagara, and my
perseverence in this kind of business, I flatter myself the
Governor in Council will be disposed to encourage me all in
their power in commencing business at the Chaudiere Falls
on the Ottawa River. It will be the means of settling tat,
wild lands on that river, that is at this present a perfect

11

"wilderness, not one settler inhabiting the country ; it will
be the means of settling the wild lands upon that line of
the Province which I conceive to be much required. The
fees required in getting out my patent, if in your power to
procure one, I shall pay to your order in Cornwall on de-
mand. You will greatly oblige me to hasten the business
as much as in your power and forward the deed and lease
by the first safe opportunity that may offer, as I am very
desirous to get out my timber and build my dam before the
freezing of the waters.

I fully expected my letter would have found my friend
Mr. Gauf in York, on Mr. Burns' arrival, and expected at
all events to have heard from my business by you when last
down at Cornwall Court, at my return from Quebec. The
acquaintance which I have had the honour to have with you
makes me trust you will use your interest for me. You can
observe to the Governor, that the Parish at Cornwall must
also feel itself under a small 'compliment for having huilt
the Church.

Relying upon your usual goodness I subscribe myself
your most obedient and humble servant,

ROBERT RANDALL.

D'Arcy Boulton Esquire".

The firm of Boulton & Boulton was composed of Mr. D'Arcy
Boulton and his son, Mr. Henry J. Boulton. As will appear
subsequently, the latter was responsible for the legal and politi-
cal struggles and controversies in whiah Randall became in-
volved.

Mr. D'Arcy Boulton was the son of an English Barrister
who emmigrated to Canada in 1797 and settled in Brockville.
In 1802 the scarcity of lawyers in Upper Canada was so great
that the Assembly passed an Act authorizing the Government
to appoint no more than six persons as lawyers as, according to
their probity education and condition in life, it should deem fit
and proper to practice the profession of law in the Province.
Mr. D'Arcy Boulton was one of those selected, and the choice
was a happy one, as he was well qualified and rose rapidly in
the profession, eventually being appointed a Judge of the Kings
Bench.

12

The islands referred to in Randall's letter are the four
islands on which now are erected Mr. J. R. Booth's mills, and
the other industries at the Chaudiere. The character of the
channel ibetween these islands has now been completely altered
by the construction of ithe slides and the dams. At the time .
of Randall's application, the distance from the main land to
the "rocky clumps" or islands was about sixty feet and except
in the time of high water the passage was almost dry. Randall's
idea, as explained in subsequent letters, was that by extending
a dam from the main land to one of the nearest islands, and
throwing a wing dam out into the main channel of the river, he
would command a sufficiency of water for the purpose of
developing power. Except for building works of this character,
Randall did not consider that a grant of the main land and the
islands would be worth possessing, but by developing the power
in the manner he had in mind, a large settlement would spring
up in a part of the Province which at that time was totally
uninhabited.

Randall's letter to Boulton was written on the 8th of
October, 1807, but it was not until the following July that he
received his answer. In the reply, reference was only made
to the lots in the First Concession back from the river, which
were not the lots Randall was desirous of obtaining. This
apparently annoyed him, as he immediately wrote another
Solicitor, Mr. Jonathan Rudsdel, to call at the Executive Council
Office in Toronto and ascertain if his petition had been filed,
and also ascertain if the lots which he had asked Mr. Boulton
to obtain for him had been acquired by anyone else, and if so,
by whom, and if the date of the application had been since the
date of |his letter to Mr. Boulton, he was to remonstrate to the
Governor and explain the facts, and endeavour to have the grant
reversed. Between Mr. Boulton and Mr. Rudsdel, the application
was properly made.

The Officials in the Land Office were careful and dilatory.
They expressed doubt as to whether Randall's dam would inter-
fere or obstruct the passage of canoes or boats navigating the
river. Their minds were set at rest in regard to this by Mr.
Wm. McGillvray, the chief agent of the North West Company,
who reported to them that no such damage would occur.

13

Information was also required, in the form of affidavits,
respecting the timber on the lot, the reason of this being that
if there was oak or pine on the banks of a river, the Crown
reserved it for the navy. Serious difficulty 'arose over the
question whether the islands should be considered as part of
the broken front. This proved a stumbling block and the
matter dragged for some time. Judging that if he owned the
main land, the islands would be of no use to anyone else, Randall,
in February 1809 accepted a patent for lots 38 and 40, together
with broken fronts, and a lease for lot No. 39 and the broken
front between it and the river. In this way he became possessed
of a block of land which is now bounded on the east by Bronson
Avenue, on the south by Carling Avenue, on the west by Bays-
water Avenue, and on the north by the Ottawa River.

Immediately on obtaining the grant of lot No. 40, Randall
erected a small building in the little bay below the Falls where
the water works aqueduct now empties into the river, (later
known as Richmond Landing), and made preliminary arrange-
ments to commence operations. He expended probably £500
upon plant and equipment.

Randall was now at the height of his prosperity. His in-
defatigable industry and perseverence had made him one of the
large land owners in the Province. At this time, in addition
to owning 950 acres of land at the Chaudiere, he had 450 acres
abutting, on the water power on the Rideau at the mouth of
the Jock, 1200 acres on the south side of the river Welland,
near Niagara, 400 acres in the County of Dundas, 400 acres in
the County of Leeds and his mercantile establishment at Corn-
wall, and his flour and grist mill, and iron-works, known as the
Bridgewater Works, at Niagara Falls.

Everything indicated that with the rapid growth of popu-
lation in the Province great wealth would assuredly come
to him. Fortune had smiled on him, but the smile was about
to change to a frown.

In connection with his mercantile and milling business, it
had been necessary for him to give very extensive country
credits, and on the failure of his British and Quebec agents,
Messrs. Burton & McCullough, he was obliged shortly after ob-
taining the grant of the Chaudiere property to surrender his

14

Bridgewater industries to a Receiver. Later in the same year,
1809, when in Montreal, in connection with his Chaudiere pro-
perty, one of his creditors had him arrested and sent to jail
for debt. Being unable to pay the claim, he remained in
confinement for seven years. Randall ascribed this harsh treat-
ment to envy and malice. While he was still in prison the war
of 1812 broke out, and his establishment at Niagara was burned
to tihe ground by the invading army. The Receiver made over
the property in a somewhat informal way to Colonel Thomas
Clarke, who later became Honourable Thomas Clarke. Colonel
Clarke went to England and by some means had this very imper-
fect title changed into a patent from the Crown to himself.

15

CHAPTER II.

THE JUDGMENT

After nearly seven years of close confinement, the prison
doors were at last opened and Randall once more became a free
man. He immediately retained Honourable D'Arcy Boulton,
who at this time was the Attorney General of the Province, to
commence an action for damages against Clarke and those who
were associated with him. The nature of his claim is somewhat
obscure, but judgment was given in his favour for £10,000.
Unfortunately, this judgment was set aside by the Court of
Kings Bench on appeal, and a new trial' was ordered. At this
trial Honourable D'Arcy Boulton also acted for him. Judgment
was given in his favour but the amount was left to arbitration.
Each side appointed its arbitrator, but they were unable to
agree on a Chairman with the result that the arbitration pro-
ceedings were dropped and Mr. Randall brought a third action.
This action was proceeding to 'trial when Honourable Mr.
D'Arcy Boulton, who was still acting for him, was appointed
a Judge of the Kings Bench and his son Henry J. Boulton, Who
was his partner, took over the proceedings.

At this time Mr. Randall was in very low pecuniary circum-
stances, and was indebted to Honourable D'Arcy Boulton and
Henry J. Boulton to the extent of £100, for fees in the previous
actions. Henry John Boulton therefore demanded and obtained
from Randall a mortgage for £200, covering the property in the
township of Nepean on the Rideau River at the mouth of the
Jock, to Which reference has already been made. While this
mortgage was meant as security for the payment of the in-
debtedness of £100, there was not contained in it any covenant
for the payment of the £100, and Boulton therefore took, some
months later, a bond for £100 from Randall, which bond recited
the mortgage and the omission of any convenant for the due
payment of the amount, and provided that Randall should pay
the sum of £100 on the first day of January 1819.

Randall's case was then entered on the list of cases
for trial at Niagara in October 1818. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice

16

D 'Arcy Boulton was delegated to take the Niagara Circuit. His
son, Henry John Boulton attended with Randall at the Court
House, with a great number of witnesses prepared to go to trial.
Just before the case was called, Henry J. Boulton suddenly
demanded from Randall a note for £25, to cover his Counsel fees
for attending at the trial. Randall accordingly gave him a
promissory note for this amount, payable on the 1st of May
1819. Shortly afterwards his case was called, but Mr.
Justice Boulton declined to try it on the ground that
he had been Attorney previously for Randall and had
instituted the action. Mr. Justice Boulton 's refusal to
preside at the trial was obviously a correct one, and it is incon-
ceivable that Henry John Boulton could have believed that under
the circumstances, his father would have presided. He and his
father were on the best of terms, and they had probably many
times discussed this case when they were partners together.
The strong probability is 'that he knew from conversations be-
fore he left Toronto to go to Niagara Falls that his father would
not preside at the trial, and his demand for the promissory note
under these circumstances, and just before the case was called,
when his client was absolutely at his mercy, would appear, to
say the least, to be somewhat peculiar. The case was adjourned
to the sittings to be held in the following summer.

Henry J. Boulton was cursed with a bad-tempered, over-
bearing, bullying disposition. Ten years afterwards he was At-
torney General of the Province, leading the Family Compact
forces in the House of Assembly, against the attacks of the
Reform Party.

A writer has thus described him> —

"The Reform members found Attorney General Boulton
an infliction specially hard to bear. He was simply unen-
durable. His capacity was barely such as to enable him to
discharge his official functions and what he lacked in ability,
he made up in bluster. He had an abominable temper, a
haughty over-bearing manner. He was always committing
blunders, which he refused to acknowledge, and he roared
and bullied his way through one complication after another

17

in a fashion which disgusted even those with whom he
acted."

He now quarrelled with Randall, who, judging by his corres-
pondence, was apt to be quarrelsome himself.

On May 1, 1819, the promissory note for £25 became due.
The bond had fallen due four months before. A few days later,
Boulton sent his clerk to Randall with a cognovit for Randall's
signature, (a cognovit being a consent to judgment) at the same
time kindly explaining to poor Randall that he was doing so,
"to be enabled, if so inclined, to take out an execution against
you."

He coupled his request for this cognovit with a threat.
Randall, however, refused to be frightened into signing the
cognovit, and wrote Boulton to this effect. Boulton 's letter
in reply is interesting, if, for nothing else, than as showing
how a Family Compact lawyer could address a penniless client
in the early part of the nineteenth Century if his fees were not
attended to promptly, —

"I received your most extraordinary letter of the 17th
instant by Mr. Smith, which, if there is any meaning at all
to be given to it, is a very impertinent one, and such a one
as I will not permit you or any other client to write to me
with impunity. I would have you understand that I am not
rendering you any professional assistance, from what you
may fancy "popular reasons", and therefore any further
than my duty to my client prompts me, I do not care a
farthing about you. As I am not looking to the result of
your business, as you call it, for my payment, I insist upon
having the money long due to me for services already per-
formed, paid or secured in a sufficient manner. You may
be certain that I shall not retract one farthing."
On the 31st of May 1819, Boulton issued a writ of summons
against ihis client Randall and in due course obtained a judgment
for the amount of his claim.

The circumstances which led up to Randall's indebtedness
to and quarrel with Boulton have been set forth in detail, as
this judgment cost Randall the Ohaudiere property. It was
also the cause of legal and political controversies extending over
a great many years, in which all the men prominent in public

18

life of the period figured, and in which practically all the evils
which effected the body politic and judicial, and which William
Lyon Mackenzie and the other Reformers of the day battled
against, were shown in a glaring light. Especially was this the
case with respect to the defects in the judicial system of the
Province. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is neces-
sary to understand the procedure under Which Boulton obtained
the judgment, and it is difficult to explain this without being
somewhat technical.

The Province at that time was divided into various Judicial
Districts, — York, now Toronto, was in the Home District, and
the writ of summons was issued from the Court Office at York.
Randall was living in the Niagara Distriet. Under the rules of
Court if a party served with a writ of summons did not enter
an appearance within the stated time, the plaintiff was required
to serve a demand on the defendant 'for a plea. This was a
request to the defendant to enter in the office from Which the
writ was issued, a written statement of his defence, if any, to
the claim. Undejr the Statute creating the Court of Kings
Bench, the defendant was allowed eight days after being served
with the demand of plea, in which to fyle his plea, but under
a rule enacted by the Judges of the Court, it was provided that
if the defendant did not reside in the District where the action
was brought, the demand o'f plea should be posted up in the
office, accompanied with an affidavit, stating that the defendant's
place of abode within the District was not known to the depon-
ent, and in such case, judgment could be signed four days after
the demand of plea was so posted up. This rule carried injus-
tice upon the face of it, and it is difficult to understand why
the Judges made the rule, as it clearly lacked every element of
equity or fairness. If the defendant lived within the Town of
York» within the precincts of the Home District, the demand of
plea could be served on him, or left at his usual place of abode
and he was allowed eight days to fyle his plea of defence, but
if he lived in the remoter settlements, in the very eastern or
western extremities of the Province, the eight days given by
the Statute were arbitrarily reduced to four, and the notice in-
stead of being left at his abode was fyled in an office, to which,
from his remoteness, he could not possibly have access, and of the

19

proceedings from the unavoidable difficulties of communication,
he could not be apprized. Of this rule, Boulton took advantage.
Boulton instructed his student James B. MacOauley, later Mr.
Justice MacCauley, to make an affidavit that Randall's place
of abode in the Home District was not known to him; on the
17th of July he posted up the demand in the Office, and four
days later judgment was obtained by default.

The rule referred to, was of a most extraordinary nature, —
"If the defendant's place of abode be not in such Dis-
trict, then the demand of plea shall be entered in the Office,
accompanied with an affidavit, stating that the defendant's
place of abode within such District is not known to the
Deponent".

To take such an oath must have done violence to one's con-
science, inasmuch as it clearly implies that the place of abode
is in the District, but is not known to the party making the
affidavit; but if his place of abode was in the District, the rule
did not apply and the defendant should have been served per-
sonally with the demand. This rule was formulated by the
Hon. Thomas Scott, Chief Justice, the Hon. William D. Powell,
and the Hon. Mr. Justice Campbell, the latter two of whom
became successively Chief Justices of the Province. They were
all men of the very highest ability and standing, and it is fair
to suppose that on account of some conditions existing at the
time, it was advisable to have the affidavit made in this way,
instead of a simple oath that the debtor had no place of abode
within the District. The wording, however, of the rule, and the
practice under it, were unfortunate.

As will be explained later, Boulton neglected to observe
three very important rules of Court in obtaining his judgment,
the observance of which would have given Randall an oppor-
tunity of knowing what was being done. Randall later claimed
that he was waiting to be served with the demand of plea, and
not having been so served, he was under the impression that
Boulton was not proceeding with his claim. The judgment was
therefore obtained without his knowing it. Boulton im-
mediately issued a writ of fi fa directed to the Sheriff of the
Home District against the goods and chattels of Randall, know-
ing at the time that Randall was not living dn the Home District

20

and had no goods or chatties there, and a month later, the
Sheriff made the expected return of "nulla bona" to this writ.
On the 1st of November 1819, he issued a writ of fi fa directed
to the Sheriff of the Johnstown District against Randall's lands. \
The Johnstown District at that time comprised the Counties of (
Leeds and Grenvi'lle, and stretched from the St. Lawrence Eiver
up to the Ottawa River. Randall's lands at the Chaudiere Palls
lay in this District and became subject to the wnit. It was
evident that Boulton had not forgotten the :application his father
had made for lot No. 40 ten years before, and that he intended
to make it available for payment of his judgment. Of this judg-
ment and the writs of fi fa Randall knew nothing.

In the mean time, Randall's action had come on for trial at
Niagara Falls. Boulton did not appear and Randall was obliged
to proceed without a lawyer. Against him was Mr. John Bever-
ley Robinson, later Chief Justice of the Province of Ontario, and
undoubtedly the leading lawyer in Upper Canada at that time,
and Mr. John Beardsley, the senior member of the Upper Canada
bar. Randall on this occasion lost his action.

>i" ■- ■ - ■

CAPTAIN BENJAMIN STREET, R.N.

Probably the most distinguished of the early military and naval

settlers in the County of Carleton

21

CHAPTER III.

EARLY SETTLERS

After the war of 1812, the Government had the problem on
its hands of disposing of the Regiments of British soldiers which
had been sent to this Country to resist the invasion.

Land was set aside for the officers, non-commissioned officers
and men of the 99th and 100th Regiments, near what is now
Richmond, Smiths Falls and Perth. Those of the 100th Regiment
who accepted the Government offer of land left Quebec in a body
on the 28th of July 1818, and landed at the foot of the Chaudiere
Falls on Randall's lot early in August of the same year. Tents
were pitched and huts built for the women and children who
remained in camp, while the men cut a road through to near
Richmond and selected their land. As the women and children
numbered several hundred, the flats at the Chaudiere must have
presented a busy picture at that time.

The road built by the Richmond settlers under the superin-
tendence of Sergeant Hill of the 99th was a Government work.
It was hardly fit to be called a road, but was an improvement over
the old Chaudiere Portage trail. It followed with some few
minor exceptions the course of the present Richmond Road.

About the same time a settlement was made in the Township
of March 'along the river front by military and naval officers.
Captain Monk of the 97th Regiment was the first to secure land
there about eight miles beyond Britannia. Captain Weatherley
and Captain Landel of the army soon followed. Captain Street,
of the Royal Navy* who was probably the most distinguished
of these early settlers, and who had performed very praise-
worthy services during the Napoleonic wars, and had been pre-
sented with the freedom of the City of Liverpool, settled about
six- miles above Britannia. General Lloyd (who had seen much
service in India), and Captain Cox of the 98th came a little later.
All these arrived between 1818 and 1820.

The first permanent settler in the township of Nepean was
Mr. Ira Honeywell, the great grandfather of Mr. F. H. Honey-
well and of Mr. A. E. Honeywell, the well known Ottawa Solici-

22

tors. This early pioneer made his way up from Prescott where
his father resided, in the winter of 1809 and settled on land
which the latter had acquired as a United Empire Loyalist. Mr.
Honeywell travelled on the ice down the Rideau River. A
jumper drawn (by a yoke of oxen carried his effects. On arriv-
ing at the Palls, now known as Hogs Back, he left the river
and cut his way through the forest to the banks of the Ottawa,
some three miles above the Chaudiere. Mr. Honeywell settled
on his farm at about the same time that Randall acquired the
Chaudiere property.

In 1820, in addition to Mr. Ira Honeywell, there was living
in the following order above "The Flats", Thompson, McConnell,
Holt, Moore and LeBreton, their farms being scattered along the
Richmond Portage.

The pioneer settler on the Rideau River near what is now
Ottawa was Mr. Bradish Billings, whose descendants are so
prominent and well known locally. He settled on his farm at
Billings Bridge in November 1812, but had been engaged in
lumbering operations on the Rideau for two or three years
previous to that date. Abram Dow arrived with his family in
1814 on lands he had secured across the river from Mr. Billings.
Two brothers settled near him shortly afterwards. It is interest-
ing to note that what is now St. Louis Dam was previously known
as "Dow's Swamp".

Down beside the little landing place on the Ottawa River,
at this time called Richmond Landing, a man named Andrew
Berry had erected a small tavern, which, no doubt, was highly
appreciated toy the men of the settlement and toy convivial souls
who crossed over from Philomen Wright's colony on the other
side of the river, now Hull. The following letter from this hotel-
keeper Berry to Mr. Randall is of interest, —

"Point Nepean, 8th Jan., 1820.
Honored Sir, —

Having wrote you on the 27th of October last and not
receiving an answer, I again take the liberty of troubling
you on the same head.

Having been here ever since July last and had every
opportunity of seeing the necessity of a house of accommo-

23

dation I took the liberty of erecting one (as a tavern) near
the old house built by Mr. Torry.

It ibeing the opinion of everyone here that nothing can
be done on the point in regard to cultivation, I mean with
your full approbation to make a trial by laying out a garden,
having been a gardener seven years in this Country, during
my service here in the Royal Artillery, being employed
chiefly by Generals Brock and Glasgow.

From what I have heard from several persons who have
the honour of being acquainted with your character, I have
every reason to hope for a favourable answer, or should not
have gone thus far without hearing from you. I hope there-
fore, Sir, you will not think it too much trouble to send me
an answer the first opportunity.

As to my character, I can no doubt fully satisfy you on
that point; in compliance with the above you will much
oblige,

Your obedient servant,

ANDREW BERRY."

It should be remembered that what later became known as
LeBreton Plats was then called Nepean Point. What we now
know as Nepean Point was not so called until after Colonel By
commenced the construction of the Rideau Canal.

The settlers at Richmond, on the river bank above Britannia,
and along the Richmond Road were dependent on Montreal for
their supplies. These were conveyed up the river in boats and
canoes and landed in the little bay at the foot of the Chaudiere
Palls, where a small wharf had been constructed. This little
landing place was called Richmond Landing, and was a place of
much importance in the eyes of these early pioneers. Every-
one going or coming from Montreal passed through the Landing.
It was there they drove from Richmond and March for their mail
or to meet their friends. It was the centre or gathering point
for the little scattered community.

24

CHAPTER IV.
THE SALE
Under the rules of Court as they then existed, a Sheriff was
unable to sell lands seized by him under a judgment until the
expiration of one year from the time he received the writ of
execution. The sale therefore of Randall's property under the
judgment was not held until December 10th, 1820. The sale 1
took place at Brockville and there were between twenty and
thirty persons in the Sheriff's Office. It was hardly to be ex-
pected that anyone living along the front, as the St. Lawrence
District was then called, would be interested in this back woods
water power. Doubtlessly most of those present were attaint-
ed by curiosity rather than by any intention of investing money.
Considerable controversy has since taken place as to whether
proper notice was given of the sale, or not. It is clear, however,
that the sale had been advertised in a newspaper at Brockville
and notices had been sent to stores and other places where people
might see them. The sale was probably as well advertised as
such sales usually were at the time. It does not appear, that
any of the military settlers in the Township of March took an
interest in the sale. The lot was apparently unsuited for agri-
cultural purposes, and in addition these military settlers had
been given lands for nothing and were probably too busily en-
gaged in clearing them to think of purchasing a property which
could only be utilized for power purposes, after the expenditure
of considerable money in development work. The settlers at
Richmond were very much interested in Richmond Landing and
were desirous that the Government should obtain land there and
erect a storehouse for them, as there was no place to store the
goods and supplies that came up the Ottawa River consigned to
them. As will be seen later, it is a fair deduction that no one at
Richmond heard of the proposed sale. From the records avail-
able, it would appear that Captain LeBreton was the only settler
in the neighborhood who took an interest in it. He had been
anxious to buy a portion from Randall more than two years
before, as the following letter from him shews : —

00

o

C5

■Q 1
o

25

"Nepean, 8th May, 1819.
Sir —

I had the honour of addressing you last Autumn, but
not knowing your address correctly, I am doubtful of your
having received it. The purport of that letter as well as
the present was to know if you would dispose of a part of
your lot of land on the Falls of the Chaudiere, as I should
be glad to have one or two acres either by sale or lease. I
have not the honour of being known to you personally, but
having served in the late war in various parts of Canada
and particularly the part of the Country where you at pre-
sent reside, and although my military occupation prevented
my having much 'communication with the gentlemen ox your
neighbourhood, I believe you will obtain information of me
from Mr. Samuel Street, although bu!t little acquainted
with that gentleman. I was at that time Deputy Assis-
tant Quarter-Master General and at present have retired
at Captain's half pay, of the Sixteenth Regiment, and hav-
ing drawn some lands in this Country have taken up my resi-
dence at the Rapids des Chenes five miles from your lot,
and as the whole of that distance is land carriage, I find
a great inconvenience for want of place to store my goods
at the landing and am now obliged to build a small store of
round logs on your property, which, if not agreeable to you,
I will immediately remove, but if you will either sell or lease
one or two acres at the lower point, next to the island in the
Bay, I shall be glad to know your terms by the earliest up-
portunity.

There is a person here by the name of Burrows, who
pretends to be agent for that property, alias Honey, but
as I could not believe that he was entrusted with any pro-
perty I have not applied to him. If you have no agent
here, and that I can be in any way serviceable in that line,
though not with the view of pecuniary motive, but merely
for the advancement and settling of the country, I beg you
will command me; I shall at all times feel happy to com-
municate with you on the subject. Should your business at
any time lead you to York please mention my name to Judge

2G

Campbell with whom I have had the honour of being ac-
quainted some years past.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient and humble servant,

JOHN LEBRETON".

Captain LeBreton arrived in Brockville the day before the
sale, having made his way by canoe from the mouth of the
Rideau River to Kingston, and then by horse-back from King-
ston to Brockville. The evening before the sale, he called on
Mr. Livius P. Sherwood ,a well known and highly respected
lawyer in Brockville. Mr. Sherwood was of United Empire
Loyalist stock, his father, Mr. Justus Sherwood, having been a
Captain in active service during the Revolutionary War. He
had been one of the first members of the Upper Canada House
of Assembly which met at Newark, now Niagara, in 1792. Mr.
Justus Sherwood had two sons, Samuel and Livius Peter Sher-
wood. Both sons were educated for the bar. Mr. Livius P.
Sherwood was called in 1803, and is number nineteen on the Bar-
risters' Roll at Osgoode Hall. He was at this time a member of
the Upper Canada House of Assembly representing the County
of Leeds, and in 1822 was elected Speaker of the House. In
1825 he was appointed a Judge of the Kings Bench. He proved
himself a painstaking Judge and gave general satisfaction, on
several occasions being required to give judgment in matters of
the very greatest importance.

Captain LeBreton explained to Mr. Sherwood that a valuable
lot was to be sold at the Sheriff's sale the next day, and that he,
LeBreton, desired to become the purchaser, but he was not sure
that he had sufficient money, as he understood that other persons
had come into Brockville intending to endeavour to buy. He
proposed to Mr. Sherwood, who had never seen the property, that
he should either lend him money to enable him to buy the lot,
or should join him in the purchase. Mr. Sherwood explained
that he was not inclined at that time to buy land but that he would
assist LeBreton in purchasing it. It was eventually agreed be-
tween them that he would take part of the lot from LeBreton
if he bought it, or would advance the money if LeBreton would

27

give him satisfactory security. "William Morris a prominent
merchant in Perth was the only other serious bidder for the pro-
perty. Mr. Morris had seen a notice of the sale, in fact, one had
been placed in his store at Perth, and he had walked from Perth
to the property to see it, and had instructed his brother who
resided in Brockville, to bid it in for him. Captain LeBreton
and Mr. Morris bid against each other up to £499 when Morris
retired from the contest, and the property was declared sold to
Captain LeBreton. The day following the sale Captain LeBreton
gave Mr. Sherwood a conveyance of an undivided one-half
interest in the lot, and some months later a partition was made
Captain LeBreton taking the west half and Mr. Sherwood the
east. half. From these ownerships came the names, — "LeBreton
Flats" and "Mount Sherwood".

28

CHAPTER V.

CAPTAIN JOHN LE BEETON
Of Captain John LeBreton who was so active in the early
days of Bytown and after whom an important portion of the
present City of Ottawa was named, little has hitherto been
known. He came of a Jersey Island family and while a young
man joined the army. In 1811 he was stationed as a Lieutenant
in the Quarter-Master Generals Department at Quebec. In this
office he seems to have been active and zealous in the performance
of his duties. On the outbreak of the war in 1812, between
Great Britain and the United States, he was attached to the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment of Fencible Infantry, a regiment
which earned an enviable record during the war. He accompan-
ied the regiment on General Brock's expedition to Detroit in
1812> and was present at the capture of the city. In the follow-
ing Spring he took an active part in a battle with the Americans
on the Miami, being mentioned in General Proctor's dispatch
in these terms : —

' ' Lieut. LeBreton of the R.N.P.L. Regiment, Assistant >
Engineer by his unwearied exertions rendered essential ser-
vice".
And later in the same dispatch General Proctor wrote : —

"I have to notice Captain Chambers' gallant conduct in
the attack near the batteries at the point of the bayonet, a
service in which he was well supported by Lt. LeBreton of
the R.N.P. Land Regiment".

After the disastrous battle at Moraviantown where the Brit-
ish were badly defeated and were obliged to retreat to the Niagara
River, giving up the whole western portion of the Province, Le-
Breton volunteered and was sent with a flag of truce to General
Harrison to arrange for an exchange of prisoners. On his way
to Harrison's Headquarters he was appealed to by numbers oi
Canadians who had remained on their farms after the British
Army had retired, to assist them to join the British Army, which,
to quote his report, —

"I would have done had it not been for two tribes- of

29

hostile savages by whom I was surrounded and who fre-
quently threatened my life, notwithstanding which I would
have effected their emancipation, as well as several soldiers
of the 41st Regiment taken prisoners on the 5th of Oct., 1813,
had I been allowed to return by the same route, and which
was, I believe, General Harrison's principal reason for having
detained me, and although I regret much having missed the
opportunity of bringing those men, yet I am in a great meas-
ure compensated by the valuable information I obtained of
the situation of the navy on that lake. ' '
LeBreton on this trip also learned of the location and
strength of the American Forts at Detroit and of a very large
depot of supplies of every description for the Western American
Army, which were unknown to the British Authorities, and
which he was of opinion could be easily captured. "With boy-
ish enthusiasm he writes, —

"Should His Excellency be pleased to authorize me to
raise a Company, I am very certain of being able to accom-
plish it in the course of three months from amongst those
men before alluded to, as they are all British subjects and
a great proportion of them Scotchmen. I would require for
this purpose, the assistance of about five or six of the West-
ern Indians and two non-commissioned officers, Scotchmen if
■possible".

In a report by Lieut.-Ool. Tucker of a minor engagement in
1813, referring to LeBreton and another, he says, —

"These officers afforded me the greatest satisfaction, —

their conduct was conspicuous to all".

Shortly afterwards he was appointed on the Quarter-Master

General's Staff. In the Battle of Lundys Lane in July 1814,

he was severely wounded. Lt.-General Drummond in his report

on this battle writes, —

"Major Maule and Lieut. LeBreton of the Quarter-
Master General's Department were extremely useful to me, —
the latter was severely wounded".

This wound prevented LeBreton from engaging in any fur-
ther operations and in 1815 he applied for leave to return to Eng-
land which was granted. Before sailing he received the follow-

30

ing letter from Major-General Proctor, which coming from an
officer of such high rank to a Lieutenant must have been most
highly appreciated, —

"Montreal, August 16, 1815.
Sir —

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 8th instant, informing me of your having ob-
tained leave of absence to proceed to England and also
conveying a request that I would be pleased to grant you
such a testimonial of your services as I might think you
were entitled to, during the period you were with the
Division of the Army under my Command in Upper Canada.
It is with much satisfaction I can state that on every occasion
you were desirous of meeting the service, uniformly evincing
the most indefatigable zeal in the performance of your duties
in the Engineer Department and occasionally in that of the
Quarter-Master General's.

I have already publicly acknowledged your exertions
during the arduous service on the Miami and on the 5th May,
1813, especially on the same occasion, I gratefully recollect
your having volunteered and performed to my satisfaction
a disagreeable and important duty, soon after the unsuccess-
ful affair Sandusky going to that place with a Flag of Truce
at the risk of imprisonment in Retaliation for our treatment
of a Spy, and an apprehension of which caused the Reluc-
tance shewn by the Officer whose duty it should have been
but for your zeal.

"Wishing your promotion,

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your faithful Humble Servant,

HENRY PROCTOR,

Major General.
To-

Lieut. LeBreton,

Royal Newfoundland Regt."

LeBreton later returned to Canada, having in the meantime
been promoted to a Captaincy, and taking advantage of the pro-

31

visions whereby the soldiers who had served in the war were
entitled to land grants, he obtained a grant in 1819 of two hun-
dred acres at what is now Britannia.

Captain LeBreton 's reputation has been somewhat tarnished
in Ottawa by reason of the legend that he obtained the "Flats"
by a dishonourable act. The story is that he was on the staff
of Lord Dalhousie the Governor-General of Canada, at the time
Colonel By came to Quebec, and that he was present at an inter-
view between these gentlemen at which it was decided that the
canal should run from the present St. Louis Dam through
Rochesterville and the Flats and enter the Ottawa at Richmond
Landing, or where the waterworks aqueduct now flows into the
Ottawa. The story is that, thus learning By's intention. Le-
Breton surreptitiously bought the Flats property, but that, when
Colonel By learnt what was done, he, in a rage, altered the plans
and adopted the present route of the canal. As LeBreton was
never on Dalhousie 's staff, and bought the property, six years
before Colonel By came to Canada, at the auction sale, as ex-
plained in the previous chapter, it is clear that there is no truth
whatever in the story.

There was, however, an unpleasant misunderstanding be-
tween Lord Dalhousie and LeBreton over his purchase of lot
No. 40 at the sale, and the freedom with which Dalhousie vented
his indignation probably accounts for the distorted story.

Fortunately both LeBreton and Dalhousie have set forth
their views fully in writing. The writer does not propose to
attempt to judge, who was right in this controversy, but will
allow the letters which follow to speak for themselves, —
To,—

His Excellency The Right Honourable George Earl of
Dalhousie, Baron Dalhousie Castle, Knight Grand Cross
of the Most Honorable Military Order of the Bath,
Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over the
Province of Lower Canada, Upper Canada, &c, &c, &c.
My Lord, —

I humbly beg leave to address Your Lordship on a sub-
ject which has been some years in agitation and emanating
from Your Lordship, highly prejudicial to my character, and
must with submission to Your Lordship, state that your

32

Lordship has been misinformed on the subject. I allude,
My Lord, to some land purchased by me in the year 1820,
and which Your Lordship has been pleased to say, ' ' was pur-
chased by me with a view to imposing on Government".

And as Your Lordship appears from recent circum-
stances to be still of the same opinion, I deem it expedient
to recapitulate the whole affair in hopes that Your Lordship
will be pleased to reconsider the subject and to render me
that justice which the case requires.

Sometime in the year 1820, I learnt that some lots of
land in the Township of Nepean where I reside were to be
sold at Sheriff's sale, among which, was one which I con-
sidered very valuable. I attended the sale which was in
the Court House at Brockville, and sold by the Sheriff of
the District. I purchased the lot in question and part of
which I then sold to Livius P. Sherwood, Esquire. On my
return to my habitation in Nepean I immediately wrote to
George T. Burke, Esquire; Superintendent of Settlers,
acquainting him with the circumstances, stating that if a
store house was required for Government either the one
already built or another should be at their service, at the
same time requesting to be put in possession of the key of
the one already built by the Government, it being on
my land and unoccupied by them. In reply to which I
received a letter from the Quarter-Master General's Office
intimating that the land in question was required for Gov-
ernment purposes, and concluding that I could have no
hesitation in giving it up. ,

Having some business at that time at Quebec, I thought
it most prudent to see Your Lordship in person. On my
arrival at Quebec I waited on Lieut. Col. Oockburn, then
Deputy Quarter-Master General, for the purpose of being
introduced to Your Lordship. He asked if I could not take
wild lands in lieu of the said land in question, to which I
replied that wild lands were of no use to me whatever,
besides which I had sold part of the land to Mr. Sherwood
and could not act without his concurrence. He then wished
to know what I would ask for the land, to which I replied,
that, as to my part of it, I should leave it entirely to Your

33

Lordship, and that I was confident Mr. Sherwood would do
the same. "We then walked on toward the Castle, during
which time Col. Cockburn repeatedly urged me to name a
price which I declined, and replied as before, that I would
leave it entirely to Your Lordship. On arriving at the Castle
gate Ool. Cockburn said he would not see Your Lordship on
the subject unless I would name a price. I then told him that
I valued it at three thousand pounds, (a sum less than half
its value). I waited below in the waiting room whilst Col.
Cockburn had a conference with Your Lordship. I was then
called up to the Drawing Room, but what was my surprise
when I was met at the door by Your Lordship and told,
that I was an Impostor ! that I had purchased the land in
question in an underhand manner with the view of imposing
on Government ! ! ! Such a reception from a personage of
Your Lordship's exalted rank and character, renowned for
justice and urbanity, convinced me that a misrepresentation
had been made to Your Lordship. And when I endeavoured
to explain and defend myself, Your Lordship would not
allow me to speak: adding that "Doctor Thorn of Perth had
written down to say that it was his intention to have pur-
chased it for Government; but that I had bought it in an
underhand manner and unknown to him." Your Lordship
was at same time pleased to say that you would take meas-
urs to deprive me of it, and although not in express terms
I understood, it was Your Lordship's intention to report my
conduct as it was represented to Your Lordship to the Com-
mander in Chief with a view to depriving me of my Half
Pay. Your Lordship was also pleased to implicate Mr.
Sherwood in what Your Lordship termed a nefarious tran-
saction. It is but justice to that gentleman to say that Your
Lordship must be totally unacquainted with him; His hon-
our and integrity are too well established to be injured by
any aspersions of the foregoing nature, which could only
have been intimated to Your Lordship through malice. And
I now pledge my word of honour, that I never had any
communication with him on the subject of the land either
directly or indirectly, nor did he know the value of the
land until the morning of the day of sale. Knowing that

34

Dr. Thorn and Mr. Morris were about to purchase it; not
for Government, but for their own private speculation (as
Mr. Morris has since publicly declared) and fearing that it
would rise beyond me I pointed out to him its great value
and advantages and asked him to join me in the purchase,
which he at first declined but ultimately acceded to.

"With respect to Dr. Thorn's letter I beg leave to say
that the land was publicly advertised, was sold in the Public
Court House at noon day. Doctor Thorn and William
Morris, Esquire, of Perth employed Messrs. Alexander and
James Morris of Brockville to bid for them. They did bid
as far as they thought proper, when they declared publicly
they would bid no further, the land was then knocked down
to me. Doctor Hubble at Brockville also bid for the land.
May I beg to ask Your Lordship what part of this transac-
tion was underhanded or imposing. If Doctor Thorn did
write such a letter which I cannot doubt from Your Lord-
ship 's assertion, he will of course prove the charge ; I stand
ready, My Lord, to answer to the accusation, and I beg Your
Lordship will be pleased to cause the enquiry to be publicly
made.

After the interview with Your Lordship before men-
tioned, being convicted and condemned on the Ipse dixit
of my enemies without the privilege of trial or defence,
and unwilling to remain under the unfavourable impression
entertained by Your Lordship, I waited on the Honourable
Mr. Hale, the Hon. Chief Justice Sewell, Lieut. Col. (at pre-
sent) Sir John Harvey, I represented the case to them,
they unanimously agreed that Your Lordship's conduct in
this instance was different from its usual tenor and that
the circumstances had been misrepresented to Your Lord-
ship. They recommended me to address Your Lordship on
the subject, and to refer Your Lordship to them for their
knowledge of me, which I did accordingly, but without any
satisfactory result.

As a further proof of the injustice of the accusation,
as soon as I heard that the land was to be sold, knowing
its great value and fearing that my means would not allow
me to purchase it, I called on Charles Shirreff, Esquire,

35

Hamnett Pinhey, Esquire, and Captain Street, Royal Navy.
I mentioned it to them and asked them individually to join
me in the purchase, which they for pecuniary reasons de-
clined. I beg to ask Your Lordship if this was acting
clandestinely; and if I wished to impose upon Government
(if purchasing land can he so called) the very lot of land
adjoining, which Tour Lordship was pleased to purchase
for Government for £750 had been previously offered to me
for £15.

And even, My Lord, had I known that it was required
for Government service, not being authorized to purchase
it for them, had I not a right to purchase it for myself if
my means would allow me 1 Had Your Lordship ever in-
timated to me that the land was required for Government
I would either have purchased it for the Government
or not purchased it at all. Is it because I have served His
Majesty; and I trust with honour, that I am not allowed
to better my situation in life ? What situation of honour
or profit has Your Lordship ever bestowed on me ? None,
my Lord, Whilst numbers of Officers in this Province hold
offices of honour and profit who cannot produce such testi-
monials of their services as I have the honour herewith to
lay before Your Lordship, besides the General Orders and
Despatches of this Country during the late war, to which
I beg leave to refer Your Lordship. And will not Your
Lordship's generosity allow me any credit for the estab-
lishment which I have made in this country at the expense
of seven thousand pounds ? It is not an establishment,
My Lord, where the American Independence is celebrated
by the Firing of His Britannic Majesty's Cannon, I beg
to refer Your Lordship to Major Elliott and Captain
Grant of the steamboat for the explanation. But an estab-
lishment noted for Loyalty, Industry and Sobriety, and I
trust worthy of the name with which it is honored.

I have the honour to lay before Your Lordship herewith
copies of two letters, one from His late Royal Highness the
Duke of Kent, alluding to services performed when an En-
sign not 18 years of age, the other from the late Major Gen-
eral Proctor at the close of the late war. I merely by those

36

letters wish to prove to Your Lordship that as a soldier I
did my duty; and as a civilian under a British Constitution
I expect justice and right to enjoy my property unmolested ;
the latter privilege I have been debarred from, — I allude
to the case of Andrew Berrie and Isaac Firth, who are Tres-
passers on my property and have kept possession against
my will. On my giving them notice to quit the premises
they applied to Your Lordship. You were pleased to direct
them to keep possession and I am informed, I believe from
undoubted authority that Your Lordship has even employed
a lawyer at your own expense to defend their cause ! ! !
From Your Lordship's authority and station it is but fair
to conclude that any ill opinion of me favoured by Your
Lordship may be attended with aggravation and injury to
my interest in other quarters, and to which I attribute the
conduct of the Lieut.-Governor of the Upper Province to-
ward me.

I shall refrain from further remarks, My Lord, and beg
Your Lordship will be pleased to reconsider the subject and
to grant me that justice which the case requires. In fact
the prejudicial reports which have spread through the
country, the privation of the friendship of several gentlemen
of the utmost respectability, the duty I owe to the three
Honourable Gentlemen before mentioned and to the rest of
my friends, require me to take every legal step towards a
public justification of my conduct, and to which I humbly
hope and trust Your Lordship will be graciously pleased to
accede.

I have the Honour to be,
"With all due submission,

Your Lordship's most obedient,
Humble servant,

JOHN LEBRETON.
Britannia, Ottawa River

30th March, 1827.

37

"Military Secretary's Office,

Quebec, 9th May, 1827
Sir,—

I am directed to acquaint you that the Commander of
the Forces has received your letter, to which His Lordship
would not have thought it worth while to return any answer,
but for the purpose of having a true statement of the sub-
ject committed to record. With this view I have received
His Lordship's commands to transcribe and convey to you
the following statement, drawn up by Himself on a perfect
and clear recollection of the whole of the transaction to
which it relates.

"In 1820 I made it my first duty on my arrival in the
Province to visit it as extensively as the period of the season
permitted. I passed up the Ottawa and erossed the Country
from Hull through the Military Settlement then just begun.
At Richmond Major Burke with a party of the Half Pay
Officers there (as many as the house could hold) dined with
me; the chief subject of conversation was the means of
promoting the public prosperity in that newly settled tract.
It was evident to all, that a Government Depot for stores
and supplies was highly important at the Richmond Landing,
so called on the Ottawa, to establish an accessible point of
communication and a certainty of supplies for the large
population likely to assemble in that new Country.

The land belonged to a Mr. Randall, an absentee, and
who could not then be found. No improvement had been
made on it, and it was probable that the purchase might be
made for a trifling sum; I gave an instruction to Major
Burke, as Superintendent and in the presence and hearing
of all at table, to take steps to effect the purchase, or to
watch any advertisement of the sale of it, but to report to
me before he concluded.

Captain LeBreton was then present, heard my senti-
ments, heard my instructions and in my idea, as a member
of that settlement, as an officer and a gentleman was, in
honour bound, to give his assistance. He did not do so, he
availed himself of the information and set about a specula-

38

tive purchase to make a profitable bargain and then offer
it to Government.

I heard nothing more on the subject until when Lieut.
Col. Coekburn informed me that the Richmond Landing had
been sold, and that Capt. LeBreton was in Quebec to offer
it to Government. It was stated to me that he had bought
it for £400, and offered it at £3,000, but in all probability
might yield it at £2,000. I desired to see Captain LeBreton
personally, and he came with Colonel Coekburn up to my
writing room. I asked him if he seriously proposed such a
demand. He said he did, and justified himself, I forget in
what terms. I, at once, and very angrily, told him, I would
not permit so scandalous an imposition on H. M. Govern-
ment, and I gave him all my reasons for so thinking:

1st, A breach of confidence in availing himself of the
information which passed at my table.

2ndly. It was not becoming in a British officer to catch
at such a speculation.

3rdly. The difference from £400 to £3000, or even £2000
before he himself had paid his price, was indecent and shame-
ful imposition.

Prom that one interview I formed an unfavorable opin-
ion of Captain LeBreton and I have seen no cause to alter
it since. I know nothing of his character. I thought then
and think still that due notice of the Sheriff's sale was not
given, and although the Solicitor General did report to Sir
P. Maitland that it was done in due form, the later Memor-
ials of Mr. Randall himself incline me to think the sale was
not legal, and therefore Mr. LeBreton 's title altogether bad,
and the purchase of the lot an illegal transaction. I do not
believe one word of Mr. LeBreton 's assertion that he could
have obtained from Mr. Fraser at £15 the lot for which that
gentleman obtained £750 from Government.

With regard to the family of Firth, I did say I would
support that family if ill treated by those illegal proprietors,
and I will do so still at my own private cost.

I know nothing of Dr. Thorn, Mr. Sherwood or any of
those people named.

39

No further answer will be made on this subject if
continued. ' '

(Signed) DALHOUSIE,

I have, &c.

H. C. DARLING,

7th May 1827.

Captain LeBreton was a brave and gallant officer who fought
and suffered for his country and, for that, his memory should be
respected in the City of Ottawa of which he was one of the most
prominent residents in the days of its youth.

40

CHAPTER VI.
IN THE COURTS
In 1820 Randall was elected to the House of Assembly by
the freeholders of the District of Niagara and during the winter
of 1821 while sitting in the Assembly, he was informed to his
utter astonishment by William Morris, who had been elected the
member for the Johnstown District that his property at the
Chaudiere had been sold under the judgment at the suit of
Henry J. Boulton.

Randall was still in financial difficulties, but he was able
to persuade an old friend of his, Alex. Stewart, practicing at
Niagara to launch a motion to set aside the judgment which
Boulton had obtained. Mr. Stewart discovered several irregu-
larities in the obtaining of the judgment. It had been secured
in several respects contrary to the practice required by the Court
which practice, had it been followed or enforced, would have
afforded some protection to Randall. In the discussion of these
irregularities, it must be confessed that the non-observance of
the requirements, while technically prejudicial to Randall's in-
terests, in that he was kept in the dark as to what was being
done, may not have really prejudiced him as, owing to his finan-
cial position, it is very questionable whether he could have saved
the property. By 1820 there were several judgments against
him, and all his other lands had been sold by different Sheriffs.
The non-observance of legal requirements, however, is always
serious and apt to lead to injustice, and does not excuse Boulton
for his neglect.

The following rules had not been observed: —

"It is ordered that in future in cases of judgment by
default on bonds conditioned for the payment of money a
rule nisi to refer the bond to the Master for taxation should
not be necessary, but in lieu thereof, a notice of motion
for the pre-emptory rule shall be given in writing to the
defendant or his attorney, but the rule shall be made ab-
solute in the first instance on an affidavit being made of the
service of such notice".

41

This rule required that Boulton should have served Randall
with a notice that on a certain day he would apply to a Judge
for an order referring the claim to the Master of the Court to
settle the amount of the judgment.

Another rule read as follows: —

"It is ordered that in future the note or bond is to be

produced for the inspection of the Judges when a motion is

made before referring them to the Master".

The observance of these rules would have given Randall
notice of what was being done and there is always the possibility
that he might have been able to protect himself or arrange a
satisfactory settlement. While no doubt he was liable on the
bond for £100, his liability on the note for £25, given under the
circumstances related above, was very arguable. It should be
remembered also that Boulton had a mortgage as collateral se-
curity for the £100 indebtedness and Randall might have arrang-
ed a sale of this mortgage or been able to realize some money
on it with which to pay Boulton.

Another rule required : —

"That from and after the end of this term the Clerk

give no further writ of execution on a judgment by default

on any bond without an order of Court in term time or

the fiat of a Judge in vacation".

This rule had not been observed by Mr. Boulton so that
clearly the writ of execution had been improperly issued. Mr.
Stewart on his motion dwelt on the non-observance of these re-
quirements, and argued that the judgment had been therefore
improperly obtained, and should be set aside, and further that,
even if the judgment was held to be valid, that the writ of
execution had been improperly issued, and therefore should be
rescinded, and everything done pursuant to it 'declared a nullity.

He also made objection to the Court having any power to
make a rule such as the one which Boulton acted on, as has been
explained in a previous chapter, on the ground that he was con-
travening the Statute; that where the Statute gave the Court
power to make rules, it was only to regulate the practice where
the Statutes had omitted to do so, but in this case there was no
such omission, as the Statute required the defendant to be served
eight days before the judgment could be signed. The rule limit-

42

ing the time to four days therefore contravened the Statute and
was ultra vires of the Court.

Hon. John Beverley Robinson who was Attorney General
at the time appeared on behalf of Mr. Boulton, who was now
Solicitor General for the Province. The Court did not consider
the matter on its merits, but simply held that Randall was too
late in making his application and that therefore it could
not interfere. While the Court was presumably right in its
decision under its own rules, the injustice done to Randall is
more marked when it is considered that from the neglect of its
rules by Mr. Boulton, he was deprived of these notices to which
he was entitled, by the written law of the land, and the rules
of Court, and that it was due to the omission to give these very
notices that he was so late in applying to set aside the judgment.
Irregularities may be waived, after notice, by delay, but it would
be productive of incalculable injustice if a notice could be
superseded and a suit be clandestinely carried through, and the
ruined defendant should be precluded from relief on the ground
of delay, while the plaintiff sheltered himself behind his own
wrong.

Two years later, in 1824, John Rolph, on Randall's behalf,
applied again for a rule to show cause why the proceedings and
judgment should not be set aside for irregularities, and why the
writ of fieri facias issued upon the judgment should not be set
aside, and restitution made to Randall. John Rolph, who acted
for Randall, was one of the leading members of the Reform
Party. An historian has thus described him: —

"John Rolph was unquestionably one of the most ex-
traordinary personalities who have figured in the annals of
Upper Canada. He possessed talents which under favour-
ing circumstances would have made him a marked man in
either professional or public life in any country. Chief
among his qualifications may be mentioned a comprehensive
subtle intellect, high scholastic and professional attainments,
a style of eloquence which was at once ornate and logical,
a noble and handsome countenance, a voice of silvery sweet-
ness and great power of modulation, and an address at once
impressive, dignified and gratiating. His keenness of per-
ception and his faculty for detecting the weak point in an

43

argument were almost abnormal, while his power of elo-
quent and subtle exposition had no rival among the public
men of those times".

So bitter were Rolph's attacks on the judiciary that the
emnity between him and the Judges subsequently became so
great that he was obliged to retire from the practice of law.
Afterwards he became involved in the rebellion of 1837 and ,
was obliged to leave the Country for some years. Later after
the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada in 1841 he became
a Minister of the Crown.

Hon. John Beverley Robinson, the Attorney General, again
acted for Boulton. Robinson on this occasion relied upon the
universal practice of the Courts of Law, which does not permit
a case once determined upon motion and argument, to be again
brought forward either upon the ground of the same, or of other
irregularities not before insisted upon. He cited a rule passed
in "the reign of one of the Jameses" to the effect that if any
one dared to bring a motion or apply for a judgment on a case
once decided, then an attachment should go against him and
that the Counsel who so moves should not be heard in Court
in that term. Mr. Justice Campbell stated in his judgment that
at first he thought it strange and was very indignant that the
irregularities pointed out by the defendant's Counsel should
have taken place, and that Boulton should have obtained a
judgment in such a manner. However, as it appeared that the
irregularities had been discussed and decided upon by a Court
many terms back, there was no authority for him to re-open and
reconsider the matter. He also noted that there was a penalty
attached to the breach of the rule against such second discus-
sions, but as this was the first time it had ever been infringed
in this Province, he would not desire to see the penalty enforced.
On any future attempt of the kind he would enforce it. No
doubt the Judge was correct, but again we see the Court obliged
to adhere to one rule in order to uphold a judgment which had
been obtained by a violation of three other rules of Court equally
solemn and binding. As on the previous occasion, Randall failed
by reason of a technicality apart from the merits of his motion.
Later on in the year 1824, as a last resort to get rid of the
judgment, Randall was advised to apply for a writ of error

44

Coram Nobis, that being in the opinion of his Counsel his only
chance, but the difficulty lay in procuring the writ as it was
an original one issued out of Chancery and there was no such
Court in the Province. However, this difficulty was at last
surmounted, the writ was obtained under the Great Seal of the
Province, and the matter was argued in the vacation of Trinity
Term in 1825, before two of the Judges, Mr. Justice Boulton
being absent in England. Judgment was reserved to be given
in the following term. The Judges divided in their opinions
and without giving judgment, announced that the matter
must stand over until the Bench was full. This was to Randall
tantamount to a decision against him, inasmuch as Mr. Justice
Boulton was the missing Judge, and he could not sit, or be ex-
pected to give an opinion either way as the greater part of the
money recovered under the judgment had been received by Judge
Boulton himself.

In the summer of 1825 a general election was held for the
House of Assembly. Randall was the candidate of the Reform
Party in the County of Lincoln. Under an Act passed in the
previous session, candidates were required to have certain free-
hold property qualifications. Randall at his nomination made
an affidavit that he had a freehold estate in the Bridgewater
Works on the Niagara River ; 1200 acres of land in the Township
of Wainfleet in the District of Niagara; lots 38, 39 and 40 in
the First Concession of the Township of Nepean and the broken
fronts of these lots; 450 acres of land on the Jock and Rideau
Rivers in the Township of Nepean and some other properties.
As a matter of fact he at that time owned none of the properties
they all having been sold at Sheriff's sales under judgments
obtained against him by different parties, with the exception of
the Bridgewater Works, which property he had lost completely
by reason of the grant to Colonel Clarke to which reference has
already been made. His unfortunate experiences were well
known to the people of his district; much sympathy was felt
for him by reason of his sudden change from riches to poverty,
and he was returned by a large majority. Immediately after the
election, however, his political opponents laid a charge against
him of perjury, for making the affidavit that he had a freehold
interest in these lands.

45

The trial was the subject of great interest all over the
Province. The struggle between the Tory Party and the
Reformers had become most bitter by this time. "William Lyon
Mackenzie who was a warm friend of Randall had been elect-
ed to the Assembly at the election and had been making the
most violent attacks against the Family Compact in his jour-
nal. He had been especially criticising and attacking Boulton
who was now Solicitor-General, in the most extravagant way
for the manner in which he had obtained the judgment against
Randall. Randall's case was therefore well known and at-
tracted great interest.

The trial was held in the Court House at Niagara Palls
on September 7th 1825. For the Crown there appeared the
Solicitor General Henry J. Boulton and Mr. J. B. McCauley.
McCauley, it will be remembered, had been Boulton's student
when the judgment was obtained against Randall, and it was
he who made the affidavit that he did not know Randall's
abode in the Home District. He had been called to the bar
in 1822 and rose rapidly in his profession, constantly gaining
the respect and confidence of all with whom he came in con-
tact in a professional way. He had only been ( in practice
seven years when he was elevated to the Bench as one of the
Justices of the Court of Kings Bench and on the consolidation
of the Court of Commons Pleas in 1849 he was made its Chief
Justice. At this time he was an active member of the Tory
Party.

Randall's bete noir, Henry J. Boulton as Solicitor-General,
should have prosecuted him, but instead held a watching brief.
This was explained by McCauley in his opening address to the
Jury as follows : —

"Motives of delicacy owing to some private misunder-
standing between the Solicitor-General and the defendant
have induced that learned gentleman to decline prosecuting
the present indictment and he has requested me to conduct
the trial for him".

Randall was defended by his old friend, John Rolph, assist-
ed by Dr. Baldwin, and Robert Baldwin, both prominent mem-
bers of the Reform Party, the latter of whom after the rebellion
became Premier of Canada and is generally recognized as being

46

the father of popular or representative Government in this Coun-
try. The charge against Randall was limited to his having de-
posed that he owned the Bridgewater works, and the 1200 acres
of land on the south side of the River Welland in the Township
of Wainfleet. Probably the Solicitor General did not desire to
have the facts in connection with the sale of lot No. 40 brought
forth at the trial which may explain why Randall was not charg-
ed with having perjured himself in connection with this lot. The
Crown failed to show in connection with the 1200 acres of land
in Wainfleet, that Randall knew of the Sheriff's sale, and in
connection with the Bridgewater property one of its witnesses
had to admit that Randall had a claim on an undivided one-
third of the land under a lease from General Simcoe for 999
years, which fact Rolph very cleverly used in his argument.
John Rolph 's address to the jury was on a much higher level of
oratory than we are now accustomed to in the Courts. Its mov-
ing character can be judged from the following extract: —

"Long accustomed to persecution, the child of misfor-
tune and the companion of troubles, — this last effort to
crush him seems to awaken in him no emotion, for sad ex-
perience has taught him that nothing is too bold to be at-
tempted against his property, his character, or his person,
and sensibility being exhausted by continued grief leaves
him without his native buoyancy and he would with passive
confidence repose himself undefended upon the integrity of
his Country. It has been long in fashion from motives the
darkness of which I can scarcely penetrate, to cry down
Randall; reduction from wealth to comparative poverty has
exposed him to the scorn of the proud and the influential.
Randall has tasted the bitterness of protracted imprisonment
in a Foreign Gaol, and it is now proposed to make him suffer
martyrdom in a life pillory. For seven years he was immured
in a dungeon in Lower Canada, where he suffered privations,
the details of which would make humanity shudder. Engaged
as you are in the active and diversified pursuits of life, there
is much to occupy your attention, and divert it from a thou-
sand vexations which are attendant on the fate of the most
fortunate of men ; and even when business has lost its inter-
est, or brought fatigue, nature opens her exhaustless stores

47

to invigorate the body, to delight the senses and to regale
the mind ; but in i gaol there is nothing to fill up a tedious
existence ; it is there almost Worldless as the grave, no im-
portant trifles to incite desire, no prospects of success to
animate with hope. Randall's care-worn soul, vacant of
employment, and harrowed up by thought, was there -left
to turn upon itself for years to witness its own forlorn
wretchedness, to mourn the prospect it had lost, and brood
over the miseries to come. It was thought that the poverty
and wretchedness brought upon him, would break down the
spirit of the man; that nature, however buoyant, could not
bear up against such complicated woes. Many, many a
man, thus made a prey to accumulated sorrow, is doomed to
hang the head of despondency and when ushered into prison
every remnant of former vigour, that might promise a suc-
cessful struggle, is soon exhausted by despair. But Randall
survived the wreck of his property and the miseries of a
prison".

The Jury was only out five minutes and returned with a
verdict of "Not Guilty".

48

CHAPTER VII.
THE COMING OP COLONEL JOHN BY
In September 1826 Colonel By arrived on the banks of the
Ottawa with full power and authority by Statute, —

"to explore the Country lying between Lake Ontario or the
waters leading therefrom and the River Ottawa, and to
enter into or upon the lands or grounds belonging to any
person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, and to survey
and take levels of the same and to dig, get, remove, take,
carry away, and sell earth, soil- clay, stone, rubbish, trees,
roots of trees, beds of gravel or sand, or any other matters
or things which may be digged or got in or out of any lands
or any grounds", —
or in other words, By was to construct a canal from Kingston to
the mouth of the Rideau River.

Up to this time the present City of Ottawa was* almost a
wilderness. Nearly the whole of the present Lower Town — and
a great part of Upper Town — was an impenetrable swamp. What
is now Parliament Hill was a densely wooded hemlock ridge.
Two squatters, Berry and Firth, lived down near Richmond
Landing. Nicholas Sparks had a few months previously taken
up his abode on what is now Sparks Street, between Lyon and Bay
Streets.

In the whole Township of Nepean, according to the Assess-
ment returns for 1826, the year of By's arrival, there were 682
acres under cultivation. The style of agriculture may be judged
from the fact that there was one stone house, one two-storied
house built of squared timber, and two one-storied houses of
similar construction. The rest were ordinary log houses. There
were two shops to provide the inhabitants with the necessities
of life, and those same inhabitants possessed forty-seven horses
and eighty-three cows. The total assessment of the Township
was £4291.12.0, and the taxes collected for the year amounted to
about eighty-five dollars.

With the advent of Colonel By* however, came an influx of

LT.-COL. JOHN BY

49
settlers, sappers, miners and engineers, and an army of labourers
to work on the canal and a number of tradesmen and merchants,
always intent on pushing their trade to the extreme confines of
civilization.

By the succeeding year 1827, there was a settlement in Lower
Town almost entirely on Rideau and Sussex Streets, while
a few houses had been built on what is now Wellington Street.
The Government had erected barracks for the Regulars on the
side of the present Parliament Buildings, and the chief build-
ing on Rideau Street was the Civilian Barracks, also erected by
the Imperial Government for the accommodation of labourers.
The above with a double row of houses extending from Rideau
Street to the present Laurier Avenue Bridge constituted in 1827,
the Village of By Town.

With this inrush of what appeared to be permanent settlers,
came the realization that real estate in the locality should no
longer be considered as fit only for farming purposes. As did
the real estate promoters in the North West in the days before
the war, so did Messrs. Sherwood and LeBreton realize that their
property lying close to By Town would ultimately develop into
one of great value, and they accordingly considered the question
of subdividing and selling it in lots.

Before doing so, however, it was necessary that they should
remove the squatters who had settled near Richmond Landing
on their property. The constant disputes in the Courts had
moreover cast doubt on their title to the property. This doubt
was accentuated by reason of the very strong stand that Lord
Dalhousie, Governor-General of Canada, took in connection with
the squatters. Lord Dalhousie as early as 1822 in a letter to
Berrie had said; —

"I am more than ever confident that the purchase of

Captain LeBreton is an illegal purchase of the Landing lot".

And again in 1828 he wrote to Mrs. Frith, the wife of the

man who looked after the dock at Richmond Landing, and said, —

' ' I am confident that he has no fair claim nor legal right

to it, and on the part of the Government I have maintained

the Firths in their possession and I think they ought to be

maintained in it against the pretensions set up by Sherwood

and LeBreton".

50

He further instructed Hon. Mr. John Beverley Kobinson,
the Attorney-General, to act for Firth in the action of ejectment
which was being brought by Judge Sherwood and also caused
him to notify Eandall that, —

' ' If the sale was illegal for any cause stated by you and
particularly for want of being clearly advertised, you
have now an opportunity to ask the opinion of the Court
upon it by enabling Firth to urge that objection against the
plaintiff's title".

Mr. Thomas Radenhurst, a lawyer in Perth where the trial
was to be held was appointed by the Attorney-General to act for
him and Mr. Randall, handed over all his papers and documents
to Mr. Radenhurst and instructed him. Just at this time the
Court of Kings Bench was constituted by Chief Justice Sir W.
Campbell and Judge Sherwood. Judge Campbell at this time
was in London seeking a pension, and Judge Sherwood being the
plaintiff; of course, could not sit as Judge. Accordingly the
Executive Council appointed Mr. C. A. Hagarman, the Collector
of Customs at Kingston, as a temporary Judge and Hagarman
held the Assizes at Perth when the ejectment trial came on.
What occurred at the trial is best told in Mr. Radenhurst 's letter
reporting to Mr. Randall, —

"Perth, 23rd August, 1828.
Robert Randall, Esquire, —
Dear Sir, —

I received your several letters with the documents en-
closed respecting the suit of Doe ex dem Sherwood vs. Firth
and Berrie, for part of the land formerly your property at
Nepean Point. Many of the papers you sent were entirely
useless, as the Judge would not permit evidence to show
how the judgment in Boulton's suit was obtained. Nor
could I, in addressing the Jury (as I wished) allude to that
circumstance) but was entirely confined to what was put in
evidence by the plaintiff, viz., the judgment, executions and
sale, and even in this I was once or twice interrupted ~by the
opposite Counsel and censured by the Court for what they
considered exceeding my bounds.

I objected, as you requested I should, to the trial pro-
ceeding at all, which the Judge paid no attention to, as he

51

considered it was casting a censure on the conduct of the
Court of Kings Bench which he could not listen to. The
plaintiff did not produce any notice of the sale whatever,
nor show that any such was given previous to the sale taking
place. Upon this and some other points, I moved for a non
suit, and the Judge reserved the points. We were also
anxious to show that Colonel By required the property for
the Government use* for the purpose of the Rideau Canal ;
this evidence the Judge refused receiving. In fact, he
seemed unwilling that any point that could operate in yours
or the tenant 's favour should go to the Jury ; and as the
Jury at that Assize were persons little acquainted with their
duty or with the Courts of Law, they implicitly followed
the directions of the Court, which, in this case, was for the
plaintiff and gave a verdict accordingly.

I remain,

Your obedient servant,

THOS. RADENHURST".

Firth, prompted by Randall, decided to appeal and then
occurred what would to-day be considered nothing short of a
traversty, but what at that time was a somewhat common occur-
rence and had been held by the Privy Council to be quite
proper.

As explained, neither Campbell or "Willis nor Sherwood
could sit- so that when the appeal came up for hearing there
sat Mr. Justice Hagarman alone as the Whole Court, and he
solemnly confirmed his own judgment at the Assizes.

This condition of affairs prompted the House of Assembly
of Upper Canada to forward an address to His Majesty, bring-
ing to his attention the condition of the Court of Kings Bench
in the Province. Reference is made to Judge Hagarman alone
constituting the Court of Kings Bench in the following words :—
"In Michaelmas Term last Mr. Justice Hagarman alone
constituted our Court of Kings Bench, wherein he confirmed
his own questioned judgment at the preceding Assizes, in a
trial in which Mr. Justice Sherwood was interested; the

52

result of which trial involved a property of very great value,
acquired through those judicial proceedings in the case of
Mr. Randall, whose injustice has long been unavailingly an
object of legislative relief and public sympathy. It is from
such proceedings, such Courts, and such Judges, that the
people desire to be relieved."

The judgment having been given in favour of Sherwood,
LeBreton proceeded to subdivide into lots that portion of the
property on the flat near the river, since known as LeBreton
Flats, and called this little subdivision "The Town of Sher-
wood".

LeBreton 's advertisement calling attention to the sale of
these lots is interesting, it being the first advertisement of the
sale of real estate at or near By Town.

"Town of Sherwood"

In consequence of the decision of the Court of Kings
Bench held at Perth on the 20th instant, proving the sub-
scriber's indisputable title to that valuable tract of land in
the Township of Nepean, formerly known by the name of
Richmond Landing (at present the Town of Sherwood)
and adjoining to By Town, reports prejudicial to the title
of the said land having been maliciously circulated by a
personage of high rank and responsibility, have heretofore
prevented the subscriber from disposing of said land. The
situation is most beautiful and salubrious, being on the south
side of the Chaudiere Falls, with the Grand Union Bridge
abutting on the centre of the front and leading through the
main street. It is replete with mill sites, and for commerce
no situation on the River Ottawa can equal it. The sub-
scriber is determined as much as possible to confine his sales
to persons of respectability.

Britannia, Ottawa River.

26th August 1828".

JOHN LEBRETON.

It can be presumed that Captain LeBreton 's determination
to limit the sale of his lots to persons of respectability was based

53

on the motive which finds expression to-day in the restrictive
building covenants that promoters of real estate subdivisions are
accustomed to impose on their lots.

Colonel By on behalf of the Government purchased the
property on which Messrs. Firth & Berrie had built their hotel,
and these gentlemen were allowed to remain in possession.

If this little wooden tavern on the banks of the Ottawa lack-
ed the architectural grandeur of the Chateau Laurier, its ad-
vertisement lacked none of the dignity of its pretentious suc-
cessor) —

"Firth & Berrie beg to make their most grateful
acknowledgement for the very liberal patronage and sup-
port they have received from their friends and the public
for the long period of nine years of which it will be their
earnest study to merit a continuation by contributing to the
utmost of their means and power to the comfort and accom-
modation of those who favour them with their countenance
and support.

"The romantic and highly picturesque situation of the
Union Hotel, which commands a most interesting view of
the mountains and scenery in the vicinity of Hull, the islands
and banks of the noble Ottawa, the magnificent Falls of the
Chaudiere, over which bridges are now about completed,
and the works and improvements in Upper By Town will
render this place a delightful retreat either to the delicate
invalid, or scientific tourist.

"The accommodations will be of a superior kind; the
table will be furnished with the choicest viands that the
season and the situation of the country will afford, and
the wines and the liquors will be of the best quality that can
be procured either at Bytown or from the most respectable
dealers in Montreal.
"Bytown, 1st September, 1828".

54

CHAPTBE VIII.

IN THE POLITICAL AEENA

The establishment of the little village of Bytown and the
possibility of lot No. 40 becoming of great value added zeal to
Randall's efforts to recover it. Not being successful in his en-
deavours to obtain satisfaction in the Courts he decided to ap-
peal to the Parliament of Upper Canada for redress.

This was the period when the feeling between the Reformers
and the Family Compact was daily growing more bitter. By
1825 the Reform Party had assumed a distinct form. The Re-
formers contended for a responsible executive and the Govern-
ment opposed the contention with sarcastic contempt. There
were various other grounds of dispute but this great question
overshadowed and practically included them all. The struggle
was of the usual political variety aimed at discrediting every
move the Government made as a body as well as besmirching
the reputation and standing of the individual and prominent
members of the Tory Party. In this respect Randall's case lent
itself very readily. Through it, the Courts and the Judiciary
could be criticised for very apparent defects and failings. The
Solicitor General could be painted in colours the reverse of flat-
tering and the dramatic personnae illustrated that close relation-
ship between the governing powers that prompted Mackenzie to
dub them the "Family Compact".

The leaders of the Reform Party were Rolph, BidwelL and
the Baldwins, father and son. William Lyon Mackenzie, who
raised the flag of revolt in 1837 was not then a member of the
Assembly, but in the columns of his paper, ' ' The Colonial Advo-
cate", he was assailing the members of the Government with
vigor, bitterness and aggression. The leaders of the Family
Compact or Government Party were Hon. John Beverley Robin-
son, the Attorney General; Hon. John Henry Boulton, the Soli-
citor General; Hon. J. B. McCauley, Mr. Christopher Hagarman
and others. ,

In 1826 a mob had invaded Mackenzie's printing establish-
ment and wrecked it. Among those who had been active in

WILLIAM LYON MACKENZIE
Intimate friend, and Executor of the will, of Robert Randal

55

this outrage were Henry Sherwoodi a son of Judge Livius P.
Sherwood, Charles Eichardson, a student in the office of the At-
torney General, John Beverley Robinson and James King, a
student in the office of the Solicitor General, Henry J. Boulton.
The Government took no action against these perpetrators. It
was at that time, when rankling under a sense of personal injury,
that Mackenzie became acquainted with Randall. A warm and
intimate friendship sprang up between them, and Lindsay in his
"Life of Mackenzie", says that the connection produced its effect
upon Mackenzie for life. He was touched by Randall's misfor-
tunes and his sympathy for his friend found a ready outlet in
attacks more vigorous than ever on the Solicitor General, H. J.
Boulton. The fact that Hon. Mr. Boulton, Mr. Stuart; the
Sheriff at Brockville, who sold the property, and Judge Sherwood
who purchased it were brotjhers-in-law, and that Hon. J. B.
McCauley, who had made the affidavit, that he did not know
Randall's address and Judge Hagarman were also brothers-in-
law, was not overlooked in defining his conception of the ^Family
Compact. The failure of Randall to obtain relief, due to legal
technicalities afforded the text of many editorials on the inade-
quacy of the Courts.

As explained before Randall was a member of the House of
Assembly representing the County of Lincoln. A perusal of the
Journals of the House shows that he was active and untiring in
the performance of his duties. His name frequently appears as
the mover and seconder of resolutions and a study of the votes
indicates that he was a man of strong opinions who did not hesi-
tate, when his judgment prompted him to oppose measures which
his friends were in favour of.

Randall was a member of the Reform Party and was un-
doubtedly influenced in his decision to apply to Parliament for
relief by his friends in the House of Assembly. Several bills
were introduced and passed by the House of Assembly for his
benefit, but these bills because of their political character failed
to pass the Upper House. It must be admitted from a study of
these bills passed by the Reformers in the Lower House and
thrown out by the Tories in the Upper House that the Reform
Party were as much intent on making political capital out of

56

attacks on Boulton and the Government as they were in obtaining
relief for Eandall.

In the session of 1828, on the eve of a General Election for
the Assembly) Randall introduced his first petition for relief.
A special committee to enquire into the complaints set forth in
his petition was appointed, composed of B. C. Beardsley, the
senior member of the Law Society, Hon. John B. Robinson, the
Attorney General, Mr. M. S. Bidwell, Dr. John Rolph, who had
defended Randall when he had been tried for perjury in 1825,
and Capt. John Matthews.

John Beverley Robinson was the leader of the Tory Party
and a warm and intimate friend of the Solicitor General, Henry
John Boulton. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Beardsley.
was of moderate views and not prominent in any of the contro-
versies which agitated the public mind at this period. The other
three members were strong active and vigorous Reformers.
Rolph and Bidwell were leaders of the Party. Capt. John
Matthews made up in bitterness what he lacked in ability. He
was a retired army officer and had been in receipt of a pension.
In 1825 he shed his Tory clothing and espoused the Reform
cause. On the New Years Eve of 1826> at a convivial gathering,
he had loudly called on the orchestra to play "Yankee Doodle"
and "Hail Columbia" to the great scandal of the ultra loyal
Tories then present. For this he was ordered to leave the Pro-
vince, and on his refusal his pension was stopped.

The Committee sat for several days examining witnesses.
Evidence was given in regard to the circumstances attending the
giving of the promissory note for £25, to Boulton immediately
before Randall's ease had been called at Niagara. An effort was
made to show that Boulton had obtained it fraudulently and that
the sale of the lot was not properly advertised and was sold at
much below its value. Much evidence was also given dealing
with the method by which Boulton obtained the judgment against
Randall. The Committee in due course made its report to the
Assembly reviewing the facts in connection with the giving of
the promissory note, and the mortgage, the obtaining of the
judgment, the sale and the subsequent efforts of Randall in the
Courts. The closing paragraphs of their report were as fol-
lows : —

57

"Mr. Boulton has received his principal and interest
upon the bond and note. The fee of the land mortgaged
is also in him and there is no Court of Chancery to inter-
fere. The land sold at Sheriff's sale under this judgment
is undoubtedly most valuable and it appears to have been
sold before the Petitioner kneivv there was a judgment
against him. Part of the land sold under the judgment is
owned by the Hon. Mr. Justice Sherwood, brother-in-law
to Mr. Boulton. There is, however, no evidence to show
that Mr. Boulton was concerned in the sale or the pur-
chase.

"Your Committee have to remark that Mr. Boulton
was conducting a cause for himself against his own client;
and when they consider the nature of the debt, the great
and multiplied irregularities by which the judgment and
executions were obtained, the great value of the property
sacrificed, and the expensive and fruitless endeavours of the
Petitioner to obtain a reversal of the proceedings; they do
not hesitate to recommend relief. Independent of the in-
terest of one of the Judges it appears that the Court of
Kings Bench, if they set the proceedings aside, could not
afford adequate relief and therefore your Committee have
reported a Bill enabling the Honourable Mr. Justice Willis
to enquire into the matters alleged in the petition and to
do justice between all the persons interested. The Chief
Justice is not included in the Bill, as it is publicly reported
that he is about to visit England; and under such circum-
stances, the objects of the measure might be defeated, and
the ends of public justice not be answered, if he were in-
cluded".

The report was signed by the Chairman, Mr. Beardsley.
The Bill reported by the Committee appointed Hon. Mr.
Justice Willis a Commissioner to enquire into the truth of
Randall's statements, giving him power to summon witnesses to
be examined in open Court and empowering him, —

"to make such decrees for either the confirmation or re-
versal of the said judgment and of the proceedings there-
upon"
as he should deem necessary for the doing of justice between all
parties interested in the matter.

58

No better choice in some respects could have been made of
a Commissioner than Mr. Justice Willis, and no worse in some
others. He was an English Barrister of the Equity Bar, who had
been sent to Canada as a Judge of the Kings Bench in the
Autumn of 1827> the intention being ultimately to establish a
Court of Chancery in the Province, in which case Willis would
have been made Chancellor of it. To appoint an Equity Judge
fresh from England as a Commissioner in such a case as Ran-
dalls, would appear to have been excellent, but unfortunately
Willis was a man totally devoid of prudence, judgment or tact.
He had been in Canada only a short time when he and Attorney
General Robinson quarrelled 'and as Robinson was high in favour
with the Government, Willis immeliately incurred .the dislike and
disapproval of the Tory Party. Shortly after the House rose he
had a most unseemly row with the Attorney General when he
undertook in open Court to lecture this personage on how to
conduct the affairs of his office, and in July of the same year,
after a disgraceful scene between him and Judge Sherwood, he
was dismissed by the Executive Council and returned to Eng-
land. Judge Willis, naturally , was always in high favour with
the Reformers.

The Bill was reported to the House on the day before ad-
journment when a mass of legislation was being rushed through.
It had its first and second reading without a vote in the after-
noon. The House sat until eight in the evening, adjourned for
an hour, and gave the Bill its third reading at nine o'clock.
A vote was taken on this reading and the Bill carried by a
majority of two. Hon. John Beverley Robinson voted against
it. Beardsleyi the Chairman of the Committee, voted for it, but
the other members of the Committee were not present. Randall
did not vote. The Bill was immediately sent to the Upper House
where it was defeated.

The discussion in the Assembly and the taking of evidence
by the Committee had, however, served the purpose. The Soli-
citor General Boulton was painted, in the ensuing election as
a villainous lawyer, who, by threats and duress had obtained a
promissory note from a penniless client and then after desert-
ing him had secretly and deceitfully under color of law seized
a valuable estate and procured one brother-in-law (the Sheriff)

59

to sell it to another brother-in-law (Judge Sherwood) for a frac-
tion of what it was worth. Needless to say the story was much
exaggerated. There was absolutely nothing to show that Judge
Sherwood had acted in collusion with Boulton, or that Boulton
had purposely done anything with the intent of hiding the
proceedings from Randall.

In the summer of 1828 the elections took place and William
Lyon Mackenzie was elected a member of the Assembly. In
his first session in 1829 he and Dr. Baldwin introduced the Bill
of the previous session, but instead of naming Judge Willis, who
by this time had been dismissed, they petitioned for the appoint-
ment of Louis Joseph Papineau, the Speaker of the Lower
Canada Assembly, as the Commissioner to make the enquiry. If
the previous bill had savored of politics, this one clearly was
introduced for political purposes. Papineau as the leader of the
French Reformers in the Lower Province, had for years kept his
Province in a ferment against the English governing party and
was in 1837 to fan the flame of discontent into open rebellion.
There was not the slightest possibility that Boulton 's Tory
friends in the Upper House would permit such a bill to become
law. The Bill passed the Lower House practically unanimously,
31 yeas and 2 nays. The Legislative Council refused either to
amend or pass the bill. They simply threw it out assigning no
reasons.

Apparently the Upper House had no personal feeling against
Randall, in twice nullifying the efforts made to furnish him
relief; for in the following session (1830) in

"An Act to grant a further loan to the Welland Canal Com-
pany and to regulate their further operations"
the Assembly appointed Robert Randall a Commissioner to
examine the canal and report for the information of the Legis-
lature on the condition of certain features of this great under-
taking, at the same time providing that Randall was to be
remunerated for his services. This Bill passed the Upper House
and Randall made two very complete and exhaustive reports on
the subject. He was subsequently made a Director of the
Welland Canal Company.

In 1829 John Beverley Robinson not displeased to be rid
of the turmoil of political life was appointed Chief Justice oi

60

the Court of Kings Bench and Henry John Boulton was ap-
pointed Attorney General in his stead. Christopher Hagarman
who had been a temporary Judge was appointed Solicitor
General.

An election took place in 1831 resulting in a decisive defeat
for the Reform Party. Rolph was re-elected, but all Randall's
other friends were defeated. Mackenzie, Bidwell, and Dr. Bald-
win were no longer members. It was therefore useless to at-
tempt anything further in Randall's case for the present.

In 1833 Mackenzie while in England, succeeded in having
Boulton as well as Hagarman dismissed from their positions by
the British Government. Boulton was subsequently appointed
Chief Justice of Newfoundland ,but he soon embroiled himself
with a large and influential section of the population, whereupon
the Imperial Government relieved him of that charge also.

In 1834 Robert Randall died, having first made his will
wherein he appointed his intimate friend, "William Lyon Mac-
kenzie, his executor. One can reasonably conclude that had
Randall been alive when the rebellion broke out in 1837 he
would have been one of the leaders, and probably, owing to his
strength of wil]. and determination, the uncertainty which mark-
ed the attitude of the rebels as they delayed at Montgomery's
tavern, would not have been so prolonged. The attack on York
would have been pressed vigorously and quickly and the town
might have fallen into the possession of Mackenzie and his
cohorts.

A general election took place in October 1834 and the
Reform Party succeeded in electing once more a majority in the
Assembly. One of Mackenzie's first acts when the House met
in 1835, was, as Executor of Randall, to petition the House to
pass an Act similar to those previously adopted, giving relief to
Randall's heirs. The notice of this Bill, however, in the Upper
Canada Gazette was defective and the Bill under the rules of
the House was thrown out.

During the following session 1836, Mackenzie nothing daunt-
ed; introduced a Bill for the fourth time. It was similar to the
preceding Bills but appointed Hon. R. A. Tucker, who had been
at one time Chief Justice of Newfoundland and a man of strong
conservative opinions as the Commissioner. This Bill did not

61

savor so much of polities as the previous ones. H. J. Boulton
was no longer in politics. Judge D'Arcy Boulton was dead
and Tucker was unobjectionable. No doubt Mackenzie was
sincerely desirous of helping Randall's heirs. The usual Com-
mittee was appointed, who, having heard the usual evidence
reported in favour of the Bill. Mr. Watters, the member for the
Bathurst District, in which Bytown then was, stated when being
examined, that the property was then worth at least £20,000.
The Committee 'in its report made this pathetic reference to
Randall : —

"In 1834 Mr. Randall died, having spent nearly seven
years of his life in a prison, and the last thirteen years of
it in a series of vain and fruitless efforts to obtain in Upper
Canada that tardy justice which the defective organization
of our judicial institutions, the personally interested situa-
tion of some of our Judges> and the character and composi-
tion of the Legislative Council denied him".
The Bill passed the House of Assembly, but met the usual
fate at the hands of the Tories in the Upper House.

In the following year Mackenzie raised the flag of revolt
and many of the Reform Party who had been active for Randall
were scattered, and the claims of Randall's heirs were forgotten
by most people.

Mackenzie's loyalty to his old friend, however, remained
staunch and true even in exile.

In 1838 he had some correspondence with Mr. Millard Fell-
more (afterwards President of the United States) who at the
time was practising law in Buffalo and who had been retained
by the Randall heirs in the United States to endeavour to obtain
some relief for them.

Years later when all the circumstances had been foTgotten,
when the principal characters were all dead and the old conflicts
between the Reformers and the Family Compact had become
matters of history, William Lyon Mackenzie introduced into a
new Assembly in which the French members from Lower Canada
had the control, a petition for the adoption of a Bill similar to
those outlined above.

Mackenzie had been pardoned in 1849 and returned to
Canada during the summer of that year. In 1851 a general

62

election took place at which he was elected to the Assembly and
in his first session he introduced a petition for the relief of tht
Randall heirs, in which he set out the history of Randall's
troubles, attacked his old enemy, Boulton, and argued the in-
equitable character of the legal proceedings with the same vim
and bitterness that had characterized his previous attitude. The
returned exile had not realized the tremendous transformation
that had taken place in the political world of Upper Canada.
Thirty-two years had passed since the sale to Sherwood and
LeBreton and the politicians of the day were much more con-
cerned over the "Clear Grit" problem than they were in rectify-
ing the misfortunes of a contemporary of their fathers. Mac-
enzie was obliged to content himself with an order of the As-
sembly that his petition be printed.

Cornell University Library

F 1059509 H64

Robert Randall and the Le Breton flats;

olin

3 1924 028 901 275