From the Huron Expositor - Wednesday, 27 April, 1994
Article 4 of 4: Colonel Van Egmond’s Last Stand – Elections and Rebellion
He wasn't exactly Preston Manning, but in the first elections held in Huron in 1835 and 1836, Colonel Anthony Van Egmond ran as a member of the Reform Party.
Although the reformers voiced their dissatisfaction with the Canada Company and were expected to gain massive support, they didn't. Van Egmond's opponents rallied and chose Captain Robert Dunlop, brother of the famous “Tiger” Dunlop as their leader.
“Accordingly, when they saw Van Egmond adopting the Reform cause, they turned to a man against him, ignoring their grievances against the Company in their hostility to the disloyalty of which they suspected the Reform Party,” wrote Seaforth historian W B Kerr in a 1931 Huron Expositor article on the 1837 Rebellion.
“There was a hundred percent turnout for both elections and it can be safely said that this has never happened since,” wrote Fred Van Egmond in his book The Importance of Liberty. Sixty eligible voters showed up to cast their ballots.
“Nearly the entire population of the Huron Tract had converged on Goderich for this event. Of the sixty eligible voters, all were irate and all were determined to prevent from ascending the steps anyone who did not share their political views. It was like running the gauntlet for a man to climb the steps and be counted, yet every qualified voter was successful. Goderich was a town of axe handles and battered heads, with considerably more than sixty voters taking part in the activity,” wrote Fred Van Egmond.
In the end, Van Egmond lost the 1835 election by ten votes. Thirty-five went to Dunlop and twenty-five to the Colonel, according to The Importance of Liberty. The election of 1836 was more of a disaster for Van Egmond. He was virtually ignored at the polls with Dunlop capturing fifty-nine votes to the Colonel’s two. The “Colborne Clique,” with Dunlop as their leader and Daniel Lizars as a main supporter, was victorious.
“It is apparent that they failed to see the relationship between the Canada Company and the Family Compact. They were blind to the fact that Van Egmond wished to bring an end to their troubles by means of the Reform Party; so the Colborne Clique put the Reform Party and the Canada Company in one category and the Family Compact in another,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. As an interesting aside he also wrote: “logic and reason often fight a losing battle when their enemy is emotion. It would be interesting to know what the results of the election would have been if everybody twenty-one and over, men and women, had been given a vote.”
Colonel Van Egmond was increasingly angered at the attitudes and actions of the Canada Company and the Family Compact. He wrote a letter entitled “the Curse of the Canada Company,” which was published in William Lyon Mackenzie's paper “The Constitution” in October 4, 1836. On November 21, 1837, Van Egmond wrote an open letter to Thomas Mercer Jones accompanied with an essay entitled: “The Mismanagement of the Canada Company,” which was also published in 1837. In the essay Van Egmond writes about six promises made by the Company which fell through, including the construction of canals, bridges, churches and schoolhouses. The seeds of rebellion were being sown.Rebellion of 1837
“Frustrated at not being able to get into the Legislature where he could have made these charges publicly, and far from satisfied, as any active man such as he would be, with having to rely simply on writing letters, Van Egmond was obviously ripe for an approach from William Lyon Mackenzie who, on a broader scale, was equally exasperated by what he saw happening in Upper Canada,” wrote Professor James Scott of Seaforth.
Although, as Fred Van Egmond writes, the Colonel had promoted peace from the beginning and made every effort to assist new settlers, including the donation of cash and land, he became discontented and succumbed to Mackenzie's concepts of rebellion.
Professor Scott also suggests Van Egmond didn't have the background of deep loyalty to the British sovereign which characterized most of the other settlers in Huron.
Mackenzie wanted to obtain the services of “the most efficient and thoroughly trained officer in the country -- Colonel Anthony Van Egmond.”
So the stage was set. Van Egmond, mounted on a white horse, arrived at Montgomery's Tavern (in Toronto) on Thursday, December 7, 1837 at 8 am to keep his appointment with Mackenzie. Van Egmond had met with Mackenzie's associates in late November in Toronto to accept the invitation to lead the rebel forces.
Fred Van Egmond raises two questions in his book that he claims have never been answered by historians: Why did Van Egmond, after being in Toronto in November, make the one hundred mile trip back to Huron only to return almost immediately to keep his rendezvous with Mackenzie? The second mystery is: Why did the rebel leaders not summon the thoroughly trained Colonel as soon as the decision was made to revolt.
As the accounts go, Van Egmond arrived at Montgomery's Tavern to find that there were only a few hundred armed troops at his command instead of a few thousand as he was led to believe. When he found this out, he said the rebellion should be postponed. At this point, accounts say, Mackenzie had an outburst of violent rage, pointed to a gun by the wall, and shouted, “There is a ball in this rifle with your name on it, Colonel Van Egmond, if you refuse.” Others present in the room restrained Mackenzie. Van Egmond then put forth a plan of diversion of the government troops, since the rebels were fewer in number. The plan was to burn down the Don bridge, and also intercept the mail. The stage carrying the mail was stopped but their attempt to burn the bridge was thwarted by alert citizens.
The next morning, the Colonel reviewed the rebel troops which totalled about four hundred. They were poorly armed. He chose a commander of a company and gave directions in case the government troops attacked. About noon, word came that the enemy army was marching from the direction of the parliament buildings. When they were seen coming over Gallows Hill, Silas Fletcher shouted, “Seize your arms men! The enemy’s coming and no mistake,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. Mackenzie and Van Egmond returned to the tavern and divided up the men. One hundred fifty were stationed in the woods west of Yonge Street, half a mile from the tavern. Sixty men were placed in the east and the remainder stayed outside Montgomery's.
The government forces were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel James FitzGibbon, who placed two canons on the west side of Yonge Street and opened fire at the wooded area where the main rebel force was located. The whole battle only lasted about twenty minutes. The men in the trees returned fire with their muskets and rifles, but soon mass confusion and panic ensued and the untrained troops fled in all directions as Van Egmond attempted to direct them. Two canon balls were sent through the centre of Montgomery’s Tavern and the men inside “came out like a swarm of bees and dissipated in the bush,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. After the smoke cleared, only one of Mackenzie's men was dead and four were wounded. No serious injuries were suffered among the Loyalists.
Mackenzie fled to Niagara and was successful, but Van Egmond took refuge in a farmer's house and was soon arrested by Loyalist soldiers and transported to a Toronto jail. While in jail, Van Egmond tried to claim his innocence and disassociate himself from the rebellion to escape the gallows but he was overcome with malnourishment and disease and died on December 30, 1837.
Although history is subjective and filled with varying accounts and perceptions of most events, Van Egmond did receive just praise from various sources. J C Dent wrote in The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion, “He (Van Egmond) was actuated by no sordid or selfish motive, and must have been largely impelled by an enthusiasm for the cause of freedom. Colonel Van Egmond was a gallant soldier, an enterprising pioneer, and an educated gentleman. Although he died in prison with a charge of treason hanging over him, he gave his life for what he firmly believed to be the sacred rights and liberties of people.”
Among the Huron Reformers, wrote W B Kerr, there lingered some sympathy for him. “Blame Van Egmond?” one man asked. “I blame the Family Compact a sight more than I blame him!”
In his book, The Settlement of Huron County, Professor Scott echoed Professor W B Kerr's words: “Now the men and women of Huron may well continue to honour the memory of the man who gave his heart, soul and purse to the infant settlement of the County and who deserves the title ‘Father of the Huron Tract.’”With notes from Professor James Scott, W. B. Kerr, and Fred Van Egmond)
Caption under an illustration:
HEAD OF THE REBELLION: William Lyon Mackenzie master-minded the ill-fated Rebellion of 1837 which took place at Montgomery’s Tavern on Yonge Street in Toronto.
Article 4 of 4: Colonel Van Egmond’s Last Stand – Elections and Rebellion
He wasn't exactly Preston Manning, but in the first elections held in Huron in 1835 and 1836, Colonel Anthony Van Egmond ran as a member of the Reform Party.
Although the reformers voiced their dissatisfaction with the Canada Company and were expected to gain massive support, they didn't. Van Egmond's opponents rallied and chose Captain Robert Dunlop, brother of the famous “Tiger” Dunlop as their leader.
“Accordingly, when they saw Van Egmond adopting the Reform cause, they turned to a man against him, ignoring their grievances against the Company in their hostility to the disloyalty of which they suspected the Reform Party,” wrote Seaforth historian W B Kerr in a 1931 Huron Expositor article on the 1837 Rebellion.
“There was a hundred percent turnout for both elections and it can be safely said that this has never happened since,” wrote Fred Van Egmond in his book The Importance of Liberty. Sixty eligible voters showed up to cast their ballots.
“Nearly the entire population of the Huron Tract had converged on Goderich for this event. Of the sixty eligible voters, all were irate and all were determined to prevent from ascending the steps anyone who did not share their political views. It was like running the gauntlet for a man to climb the steps and be counted, yet every qualified voter was successful. Goderich was a town of axe handles and battered heads, with considerably more than sixty voters taking part in the activity,” wrote Fred Van Egmond.
In the end, Van Egmond lost the 1835 election by ten votes. Thirty-five went to Dunlop and twenty-five to the Colonel, according to The Importance of Liberty. The election of 1836 was more of a disaster for Van Egmond. He was virtually ignored at the polls with Dunlop capturing fifty-nine votes to the Colonel’s two. The “Colborne Clique,” with Dunlop as their leader and Daniel Lizars as a main supporter, was victorious.
“It is apparent that they failed to see the relationship between the Canada Company and the Family Compact. They were blind to the fact that Van Egmond wished to bring an end to their troubles by means of the Reform Party; so the Colborne Clique put the Reform Party and the Canada Company in one category and the Family Compact in another,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. As an interesting aside he also wrote: “logic and reason often fight a losing battle when their enemy is emotion. It would be interesting to know what the results of the election would have been if everybody twenty-one and over, men and women, had been given a vote.”
Colonel Van Egmond was increasingly angered at the attitudes and actions of the Canada Company and the Family Compact. He wrote a letter entitled “the Curse of the Canada Company,” which was published in William Lyon Mackenzie's paper “The Constitution” in October 4, 1836. On November 21, 1837, Van Egmond wrote an open letter to Thomas Mercer Jones accompanied with an essay entitled: “The Mismanagement of the Canada Company,” which was also published in 1837. In the essay Van Egmond writes about six promises made by the Company which fell through, including the construction of canals, bridges, churches and schoolhouses. The seeds of rebellion were being sown.Rebellion of 1837
“Frustrated at not being able to get into the Legislature where he could have made these charges publicly, and far from satisfied, as any active man such as he would be, with having to rely simply on writing letters, Van Egmond was obviously ripe for an approach from William Lyon Mackenzie who, on a broader scale, was equally exasperated by what he saw happening in Upper Canada,” wrote Professor James Scott of Seaforth.
Although, as Fred Van Egmond writes, the Colonel had promoted peace from the beginning and made every effort to assist new settlers, including the donation of cash and land, he became discontented and succumbed to Mackenzie's concepts of rebellion.
Professor Scott also suggests Van Egmond didn't have the background of deep loyalty to the British sovereign which characterized most of the other settlers in Huron.
Mackenzie wanted to obtain the services of “the most efficient and thoroughly trained officer in the country -- Colonel Anthony Van Egmond.”
So the stage was set. Van Egmond, mounted on a white horse, arrived at Montgomery's Tavern (in Toronto) on Thursday, December 7, 1837 at 8 am to keep his appointment with Mackenzie. Van Egmond had met with Mackenzie's associates in late November in Toronto to accept the invitation to lead the rebel forces.
Fred Van Egmond raises two questions in his book that he claims have never been answered by historians: Why did Van Egmond, after being in Toronto in November, make the one hundred mile trip back to Huron only to return almost immediately to keep his rendezvous with Mackenzie? The second mystery is: Why did the rebel leaders not summon the thoroughly trained Colonel as soon as the decision was made to revolt.
As the accounts go, Van Egmond arrived at Montgomery's Tavern to find that there were only a few hundred armed troops at his command instead of a few thousand as he was led to believe. When he found this out, he said the rebellion should be postponed. At this point, accounts say, Mackenzie had an outburst of violent rage, pointed to a gun by the wall, and shouted, “There is a ball in this rifle with your name on it, Colonel Van Egmond, if you refuse.” Others present in the room restrained Mackenzie. Van Egmond then put forth a plan of diversion of the government troops, since the rebels were fewer in number. The plan was to burn down the Don bridge, and also intercept the mail. The stage carrying the mail was stopped but their attempt to burn the bridge was thwarted by alert citizens.
The next morning, the Colonel reviewed the rebel troops which totalled about four hundred. They were poorly armed. He chose a commander of a company and gave directions in case the government troops attacked. About noon, word came that the enemy army was marching from the direction of the parliament buildings. When they were seen coming over Gallows Hill, Silas Fletcher shouted, “Seize your arms men! The enemy’s coming and no mistake,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. Mackenzie and Van Egmond returned to the tavern and divided up the men. One hundred fifty were stationed in the woods west of Yonge Street, half a mile from the tavern. Sixty men were placed in the east and the remainder stayed outside Montgomery's.
The government forces were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel James FitzGibbon, who placed two canons on the west side of Yonge Street and opened fire at the wooded area where the main rebel force was located. The whole battle only lasted about twenty minutes. The men in the trees returned fire with their muskets and rifles, but soon mass confusion and panic ensued and the untrained troops fled in all directions as Van Egmond attempted to direct them. Two canon balls were sent through the centre of Montgomery’s Tavern and the men inside “came out like a swarm of bees and dissipated in the bush,” wrote Fred Van Egmond. After the smoke cleared, only one of Mackenzie's men was dead and four were wounded. No serious injuries were suffered among the Loyalists.
Mackenzie fled to Niagara and was successful, but Van Egmond took refuge in a farmer's house and was soon arrested by Loyalist soldiers and transported to a Toronto jail. While in jail, Van Egmond tried to claim his innocence and disassociate himself from the rebellion to escape the gallows but he was overcome with malnourishment and disease and died on December 30, 1837.
Although history is subjective and filled with varying accounts and perceptions of most events, Van Egmond did receive just praise from various sources. J C Dent wrote in The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion, “He (Van Egmond) was actuated by no sordid or selfish motive, and must have been largely impelled by an enthusiasm for the cause of freedom. Colonel Van Egmond was a gallant soldier, an enterprising pioneer, and an educated gentleman. Although he died in prison with a charge of treason hanging over him, he gave his life for what he firmly believed to be the sacred rights and liberties of people.”
Among the Huron Reformers, wrote W B Kerr, there lingered some sympathy for him. “Blame Van Egmond?” one man asked. “I blame the Family Compact a sight more than I blame him!”
In his book, The Settlement of Huron County, Professor Scott echoed Professor W B Kerr's words: “Now the men and women of Huron may well continue to honour the memory of the man who gave his heart, soul and purse to the infant settlement of the County and who deserves the title ‘Father of the Huron Tract.’”With notes from Professor James Scott, W. B. Kerr, and Fred Van Egmond)
Caption under an illustration:
HEAD OF THE REBELLION: William Lyon Mackenzie master-minded the ill-fated Rebellion of 1837 which took place at Montgomery’s Tavern on Yonge Street in Toronto.