Another possible objection to seeing ideology as shaping politics in the 1780's and 1790's in Upper Canada relates to the rude and undeveloped state of the colony. One could argue that abstract political ideas can be developed only by leisure-class individuals in populous and sophisticated nations. According to this view, while ideology may be an important factor in London or Paris, it is a luxury that pioneers living on the very edge of civilization can ill-afford. Upper Canada in 1790 had about ten thousand European inhabitants at most, nearly all of them farmers, almost all of whom had arrived since 1780. Some might contend that the condition of the colony would mean the influence on Upper Canadian Loyalists of Burke, procedural conservative thought, and ideas in general must be dismissed. While superficially plausible, this objection to an ideological interpretation of early Upper Canadian political history is ultimately defective; many Loyalists were educated, well-informed, and articulate.

While conditions for most of the Loyalist settlers were extremely strenuous, especially in the first few years after arrival, the Loyalists received substantial assistance from the British government in establishing themselves in their new homes. The majority of colonists devoted themselves to clearing the land and creating farms but some Loyalists were able to engage in more mind-expanding lines of work. Based in Kingston, Richard Cartwright was a trader participating in a network that extended deep into the interior but which also reached through the populous lower province and across the Atlantic to London. Despite the lack of facilities for formal English-language education in the Canadas, many of the Loyalists had been educated in their home colonies. Richard Cartwright had studied to be an Anglican minister, but his career had been disrupted by the American Revolution. Self-education and improvement through reading was certainly possible. The Upper Canadian Gazette sometimes carried advertisements listing books for sale. While some of these books were fiction or devoted to strictly practical matters, one is struck by how many are devoted to the analysis of political or historical issues. Histories of the American Revolution were brought into Upper Canada for sale, as was Mary Wolstonecraft's early feminist book on the Rights of Women, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, David Hume's History of England, as well as Justice Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.⁽²⁰⁾The newspapers that served Upper Canada sometimes editorialized about constitutional principles, and broadened the minds of their readers to events and ideas in the wider world beyond the forest clearing. For instance, in February 1788, the Quebec Gazette ran a long article on the ways in which an oriental despotism differs from a European constitutional monarchy.⁽²¹⁾ In 1797, the Upper Canada Gazette printed a story about women in a New Jersey town attempted to vote in an election and pointed out that on the island of Java women participated in government.⁽²²⁾

When news of the death of Edmund Burke reached Upper Canada, the Upper Canada Gazette ran a lengthy article praising him. According to the Gazette, Burke's talents were "the glory of his country and the admiration of Europe... they might have been the salvation of both." Echoing the procedural conservative dislike of abstract theorization, the Gazette says that Burke "least of all men in his time, indulged in splendid theories." Loyalist readers opposed to innovation and radical change would have concurred with the Gazette in praising Burke for his reluctance "to innovate." The procedural conservative attack on the arrogance of those who would oppose established institutions on the basis of the dictates of their own puny reason was voiced by the anonymous Gazette writer in praising Burke: "the greatest mind is singly inferior to the accumulated efforts of innumerable [individuals] in the long flow of centuries." According to the Gazette, one should regard with "holy reverence the institutions and manners derived from our ancestors." ⁽²³⁾ Burke would likely have been a recognized name in Upper Canada, his speeches printed in pre-Revolutionary American newspapers had "seeped into Loyalist thought" inculcating a "pragmatic and historical approach."⁽²⁴⁾

Newspapers like the Upper Canada and Quebec Gazettes kept people in lonely settlements informed of world events. Continental European news received far more coverage than local, American, or even British news. Typically, the Upper Canada Gazette would begin with coverage of events in the most distant country (for instance Poland or Russia), then would discuss French affairs, followed by British news and speeches given in Parliament. Announcements and proclamations of the local government came last, right before several pages of advertising. The progress of the French Revolution was covered in detail, albeit with a significant time delay, and the responses to the Revolution by Upper Canadians of various political persuasions colored political discourse in the province. Despite being a remote, inland colony, Upper Canada participated in the flow of political ideas in the Atlantic world, albeit only as a receiver of ideology.

Having left their original homes in order to continue living under their traditional legal and constitutional framework, the Loyalists upriver from Montreal were increasingly dissatisfied in the 1780's with life under the Quebec Act of 1774. Far from being a replica of the traditional institutions of the Anglo-American colonies, governance in the colony of Quebec (which included the future Upper Canada) was radically different. Most glaring was the lack of any sort of elected assembly. When New France had been conquered in 1760, such an assembly was envisioned as a way of anglicizing the colony by making the tiny Protestant minority dominant (as Catholics would have been barred from voting). An assembly had been promised in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 but had never been granted. The English-speaking population that emerged in Quebec after the Conquest felt that the ongoing denial of an assembly was a violation of their rights. The Governor of the colony, Guy Carleton (later Lord Dorchester), felt that while assemblies might be good in England or Massachusetts, they were inappropriate in Quebec, which he saw as a fundamentally feudal society. London's idea of an elected assembly was quickly shelved by local officials who sympathized with the preservation of French Canadian culture. The closest thing to an elected assembly was an appointed council, many of whose members were seigneurs, including representative of the old French Canadian nobility as well as British officers who had purchased seigneuries. The plans to introduce English law and land tenure were also forgotten or mitigated for the same reason. London recognized the wisdom of Carleton's decision to work within Canada's pre-existing social structure with the Quebec Act of 1774, which eliminated any reference to an assembly and extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Many Anglo-American colonists found the extension of feudal laws and land-tenures into such an extensive tract to be unacceptable. The Quebec Act was one of the "Intolerable Acts" of 1774 which had provoked so many Anglo-American colonists, including future Loyalists.

Patriot forces had invaded Canada in 1775, seizing Montreal, but had been repulsed. After 1778, the province of Quebec was increasingly secure in British hands. Individual Loyalists began arriving in the future Upper Canada around 1780, but the organized settlement of Loyalists in the area above Montreal began only after 1783. Regiments of colonists who had fought for Britain during the war collected in Quebec as the war drew to a close. It was decided by Haldimand, Carleton's replacements as governor, that a permanent home in the area above Montreal would be made for the Loyalist veterans. In 1784, a flotilla of vessels carrying Loyalists and supplies moved up the St. Lawrence from Montreal. The settlers were grouped together according to which fighting unit they had served in. For instance, the townships known numbered six, seven, and eight were given to those who had served in the volunteer unit known as Jessup's Corps. The amount of land given to each soldier depended upon his former rank. For instance, a private was to receive one hundred acres, while at the other end of the spectrum, an ex-field officer was to be given one thousand acres. Each township was legally a seigneury, though one owned by the Crown, not by a private individual, as most seigneuries in the lower part of the province were. In this way, Loyalist settlements from the near Montreal to the Bay of Quinte were planted. As well, another disbanded unit had settled along the Niagara river.⁽²⁵⁾

The first few year of settlement were extremely difficult. But as Loyalist settlement became more secure as the 1780s progressed, the inhabitants were able to turn their attention from mere survival to considering the legal and constitutional environment. There was much people who had fought to remain British would find disturbing about the laws of Quebec, which were French and implied a feudal society.

In any agricultural society, the system of land tenure is of crucial importance. The Loyalists would have preferred free and common soccage because it was more familiar and because it was less costly to the individual farmer. Seigneurial tenure involved "burthensome" duties and fees paid to the seigneur. Moreover, it implied a hierarchical social structure. Instead of the familiar common law, the alien coutome de Paris prevailed even in the Loyalist areas of the colony. Few Loyalists were familiar with the various privileges that occurred to seigneurs under this legal system. For instance, if a siegneur built a mill on his seigneury, the inhabitants, or censitaries, were obliged to use it. This right was called the banalité.⁽²⁶⁾

The feudal privileges relating to mills was particularly irksome to the Loyalists. According to the established laws, if someone other than the seigneur built a mill on a seigneury, they were entitled to keep and operate the mill for ten years, after which it reverted to the seigneur, which in the case of the Loyalist townships was the Crown. With such a short period in which to recoup the costs of constructing a mill, building a mill was not worthwhile for private individuals. Recognizing that the law created a disincentive for people to create something of such importance to the community, a regulation extending the period before a mill reverted to the government to fifteen years was passed by the governor's council in 1786.⁽²⁷⁾ Despite this positive reform, the problems surrounding mills did little to improve the view the Loyalists had of either the constitutional framework or the system of land-tenure.

Another dissatisfying aspect of the Quebec Act was the near-absence of local government and provisions for the administration of justice. Loyalists, particularly those from New England, had been used to strong local self-government and the tradition of the town-meeting. It is true that some of the Loyalist "settlers in the earlier townships had undertaken to reproduce in Canada the local institutions to which they had been accustomed."⁽²⁸⁾ However, such informal efforts had not received official recognition. Bureaucrats in the Chateau St. Louis in Quebec City recognized the need to decentralize administration in the thousand-mile long colony, but their regional offices or "governments" were a far cry from self-governing townships. Before 1788 all the country lying above Montreal had been administered as part of the district of Montreal, the rest of the colony being divided into the district of Three Rivers and the district of Quebec. These districts were branches of the central administration and were certainly not forums for local decision-making. In July 1788, five new districts were created, four of which were located in the future Upper Canada. The district of Lunenberg extended from the present boundary between the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario to Gananoque. Mecklenburg extended from Gananoque to the River Trent. Nassau extended from the Trent to a meridian drawn through the tip of Long Point. Hesse was the most westernmost district and included Detroit.⁽²⁹⁾ Difficult to traverse and given alien-sounding names, these districts could never become units of local self-government. Moreover, the townships that had been surveyed were not intended to be units of local government; "so little intention was there to use the townships as municipal units that special instructions were issued requiring the townships to be numbered rather than named."⁽³⁰⁾

Living under the seigneurial tenure, French laws, and a political system that suggested French absolutism and feudalism made the Loyalists unhappy. Loyalists petitioned for a "liberal system of tenure, law, and government." According to the petition, the Loyalists had fought to remain under British laws and were unused to the "rigorous, Rules, homages, and reservations, and restrictions of the French Laws and Customs." As well, they asked that the area west of Montreal be made a "district distinct from the province of Quebec... but subordinate to the Governor and Council in Quebec, in the same manner that the Island of Cape Breton now is to the government of Nova Scotia." ⁽³¹⁾ Procedural conservatism maintains that populations require the laws and customs to which they are traditional accustomed, and this is precisely what the Loyalists in Upper Canada demanded and the justification they gave for their demands. I

The spectre of feudalism also produced dissension in the Loyalist settlements. In hindsight, it appears that all Loyalist settlers, both former officers and former enlisted men, desired the introduction of the familiar systems of land tenure, government, and law. Within the Loyalist communities however, there was a growing fear among the more plebeian Loyalists that the officers were in favour of feudalism. The proximity of the feudal society in the lower province, a society that contrasted so much with the fairly egalitarian and familiar social structure of the old colonies, led to new tensions within the Loyalists. Many of the officers increasingly attempted to remain aloof of the men who had once served under them. The common Loyalist was offended by the aristocratic pretensions of the officer class. In 1786, Guy Carleton returned to the colony to govern it for a second time, his promotion to the peerage having changed his name to Lord Dorchester. Many of the officers in the Loyalist settlements went down to Quebec to attend Dorchester's inauguration as governor.⁽³²⁾

While there is no evidence that any conspiracy existed, the simultaneous departure of so many of the officer class to the very heart of French Canadian feudalism, the Chateau St. Louis in Quebec, was seen by many common Loyalists in ominous terms. According to A.L. Burt, "the whisper ran that the officers were scheming to perpetuate the feudal system and seat themselves in the saddle."⁽³³⁾ The disappearance of the officers provided a window of opportunity for the common Loyalists to articulate their grievances on their own. While the officers were absent, each Loyalist community selected three men to represent its views. Officers remaining in the community were too intimidated to participate in this process and at least one feared for his safety.⁽³⁴⁾ The combined representatives of the common people of the Loyalist communities produced a petition asking for an assembly, English laws and land-tenure, and the formation of Upper Canada into a sub-colony of Quebec with the right to make its own laws. The petition pointed out that Loyalists who had settled in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia enjoyed these benefits. The officers' demands voiced in an earlier petition were essentially the same; despite the fears of the common Loyalists, the officers were not trying to create a feudal society in Upper Canada. Notwithstanding the officers' affectation of English gentility, both officers and men in Upper Canada wanted English laws and opposed French feudalism. On the lower Saint Lawrence, in contrast, many British-born officers admired French Canadian society and assimilated into the Canadian noblesse.⁽³⁵⁾ There the primary opposition to feudalism came from the English merchants to whom Richard Cartwright was economically tied.

When the demands of the Loyalists in the upper country reached London, they were received from colonial official still reeling from the loss of the jewel of the First British Empire, now the United States. W.R. Brock examines the impact the loss of America had on British thinking in The Effects of the Loss of the American Colonies on British Policy. ⁽³⁶⁾ A period of critical self-examination followed the recognition of American Independence as people attempted to determine what had gone wrong. According to Brock, in the post-1783 period, it was accepted as a truism that all colonies eventually revolt against their parent country. However, it was felt that this unhappy inevitability could be put off through several measures. The rebellion of the American colonies was attributed by many to differences between the constitutional and social structures of the colonies and the mother country. While England's balanced constitution kept the Aristotelian categories of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy in perfect equipoise, the aristocratic element in the lost colonies had been very weak. A stronger colonial aristocracy could have acted a mediating party between the governor (who represented the monarchical principle) and the popular Assembly. A colonial aristocracy could have checked the worse excesses of both governor and assembly and preserved social harmony. By making sure that future colonies replicated the British balanced constitution, the eventual independence of the colony could be delayed for a long time.⁽³⁷⁾

Officials in London considered the future of Quebec in terms of the lessons learned from the American Revolution. In a summary of the petitions and counter-petitions that had been received in London, William Grenville wrote to Lord Dorchester (the Governor of Quebec) that the loss of the American Colonies can be most "justly ascribed" to "the want of an intermediate power to operate as a check both upon the misconduct of the Governors, and on the democratical spirit that prevailed in the Assemblies." Grenville thought that "a Provincial Baronetage" that was perhaps "discendible to their eldest sons in lineal succession" was perhaps advisable.⁽³⁸⁾ In the bicameral colonial legislatures, the Legislative Council corresponded to the British House of Lords, so the discussion of creating a colonial aristocracy revolved around a "hereditary Legislative Council" rather than one whose members were appointed, as they had been in the lost colonies. It was felt that a Legislative Council where the members held their positions for only a limited term or at the pleasure of the Governor would not have the independence to challenge the Governor.

The idea of creating a colonial titular nobility was by no means unanimously endorsed by either colonial officialdom or the House of Commons. Because many in England were opposed to this idea it is difficult to ascribe colonial disputes over aristocratic policies to "Old World" and "New World" mentalities is very problematic. Lord Dorchester opposed the idea of a colonial hereditary nobility. He wrote from Quebec in early 1790 to say that while a hereditary Upper House might otherwise be desirable, local circumstances, namely the "condition of the country" and the "fluctuating state of property" made such an institution undesirable.⁽³⁹⁾ When the final draft of the Constitution Act was introduced to the House of Commons in March 1791, the Whig Party was being polarized along ideological lines by the issues raised by the French Revolution. Charles James Fox lead a faction that was supportive of the French Revolution, while other Whigs, especially Burke, were strongly opposed to it. The inclusion of a provision in the Bill on Canada relating to aristocracy meant that the ideological debate relating to the events in France easily spilled over into the discussion of Canadian affairs. As one historian put it, during the debate on Canada's Constitution Act "columns of speeches were made on the French and American Constitutions, &c., and little on the Bill." Fox suggested an amendment whereby the Legislative Council would not be hereditary but would be instead be elected for terms of ten years or life. He also criticized the financial qualifications for voting as too high.⁽⁴⁰⁾

One member of this House of Commons who strongly supported the Bill was John Graves Simcoe. British-born, Simcoe had been stationed in America in time to fight in the American Revolution. After having been involved with Butler's Rangers, a force composed mostly of Loyalist volunteers, Simcoe had returned to England in 1782 and had settled into the family home in Devon. However, Simcoe retained a keen interest in Canadian affairs. He wrote letters advising colonial officials on Canadian policy and was strongly in favour of "a hereditary Council with some mark of nobility."⁽⁴¹⁾ Simcoe shared the common view that "the cause of the American Revolt was the want of an aristocratic power" in colonial societies.⁽⁴²⁾ Through the support the Marquis of Buckingham (the brother of William Grenville ), Simcoe stood for election in 1789 and won a seat in the House of Commons.⁽⁴³⁾ Most of Simcoe's speeches in the House of Commons were in relation to Canadian matters. When news of the impending partition of the province of Quebec had reached Lord Dorchester, Dorchester had recommended that prominent Loyalist Sir John Johnson should become Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada.⁽⁴⁴⁾ However, the Home Secretary, William Grenville decided the man his brother had helped elect to Parliament, Simcoe, was best suited for the job. Simcoe sailed for Quebec in September 1791.

Under the Quebec Act, representative institutions had been lacking in the province. As well as partitioning the province, the Constitution Act of 1791 provided for representative institutions in both Upper and Lower Canada. For the first time in their new homes, the Loyalists were to have the right to send members to a Legislative Assembly. The lower house of the Upper Canadian legislature had sixteen members. The upper house, the Legislative Council, had ten. The membership of the Legislative Council partially overlapped with that of the Executive Council, which was analogous to the modern cabinet and which contained officials subordinate to Lieutenant Governor Simcoe. Simcoe was in turn subordinate to the Governor at Quebec as well as London, but was the highest official in the colony. ⁽⁴⁵⁾

The Chairman of the Executive Council and Simcoe's right-hand man was William Osgoode, Chief Justice of the Province. Born in London, Osgoode arrived at Kingston a single day ahead of Simcoe in 1792, and returned to England in 1802.⁽⁴⁶⁾ As a member of the Legislative Council, he fought with Cartwright and Hamilton on a number of issues. Another prominent pro-Simcoe figure on the Legislative and the Executive Councils was Peter Russell, who had arrived at Kingston from Britain two days ahead of Simcoe. There were several more minor figures who sat on both the Executive and Legislative Councils; William Robertson, Alexander Grant, and Jacques Baby. With the exception of Baby, who represented the mostly French population of the Detroit area, these more minor figures were all British-born.⁽⁴⁷⁾

Several members of the Legislative Council were excluded from the Executive Council. Leaving aside non-entities who rarely attended sessions or who were absent from the province, there were only two members of the Legislative Council of any importance who were not Executive Councilors: Robert Hamilton and Richard Cartwright. These two men were both business and political partners. Cartwright received goods from the lower province at Kingston and then forwarded them upstream to Hamilton at Niagara.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Both had been in the future Upper Canada since 1780. Hamilton was of Scottish birth, while Cartwright had been born in Albany. These two men formed the nucleus of the opposition to many of Simcoe's substantive conservative policies. One area of disagreement was the very purpose of the Legislative Council itself. Parliament's desire to have a chamber filled with wealthy aristocrats with the independence to challenge the governor and the lower house was open to changes in emphasis. For Simcoe, the essential reason for having a Legislative Council was to allow the executive to create an aristocracy in the province. For Cartwright, the purpose of the Legislative Council was to check the Executive, Simcoe. Commenting on the Constitution Act's aim of making Legislative Councilors independent, Cartwright wrote that "the spirit of that part of the Act might be evaded." According to Cartwright, the way in which the independence of the Council could be compromised is by placing on it ("as has in fact been done") "Executive Councilors and officers of Government dependent for their salaries on the good pleasure of the Governor." ⁽⁴⁹⁾

In expressing concern about the Executive's corrupt undermining of the independence of the Legislative Council, Cartwright drew upon the traditional English "Court versus Country" ideology articulated by figures like Bolingbroke and embraced by many American Revolutionaries. In contrast with the corrupt motives of the Executive's placemen, Cartwright wrote that the "welfare of the province is his highest standard." Cartwright wrote that as a disinterested public servant, "I do not expect of wish for the place I hold in the Legislature, nor do I care how soon I resign it, but while I do retain it I will most certainly do my duty." ⁽⁵⁰⁾ Simcoe, for his part, would come to regard Robert Hamilton as an "avowed Republican" and had a scarcely better view of Cartwright.⁽⁵¹⁾

The Legislature convened for the first time in September 1792. In the Throne Speech that inaugurated representative government in Upper Canada, Simcoe spoke of the blessings the province enjoyed under "the British Constitution." According to Simcoe, the constitution of the new colony was to be "the transcript and image" of that of the mother country.⁽⁵²⁾ While the phrase "transcript and image" in this speech referred specifically to the constitution, it also captures Simcoe's vision of the future of the province. Simcoe had a certain image of what England was, one seen through a very conservative ideological lens, and he wished to replicate England between the Great Lakes. Some of the ways in which Simcoe wanted Upper Canada to become more like England were uncontroversial. Simcoe desired to make the colony more prosperous and populated; this aim was clearly shared by all. There is no sign that his decision to scrap the Germanic names of the districts and to divide the province into counties with English names ( such as Suffolk, Essex, and Northumberland) was opposed by the population. Most importantly, Simcoe was fiercely opposed to the existence of "miserable" French feudal laws and land-tenure in the province. On this issue, Simcoe's views corresponded with those of the majority of the people. One of the first orders of business of the young legislature was to introduce English laws and land-tenure into the province.

However, Hamilton and Cartwright disagreed with the other ways in which Simcoe wanted Upper Canada to become the "transcript and image" of England. Simcoe wrote to colonial officials in London saying that

British Customs, Manners, and Principles in the most trivial as well

as serious matters should be promoted and inculcated to obtain the their

due Ascendancy to assimilate the Colony with the parent state.⁽⁵³⁾

The question of the constitutional status of the Church of England was a major issue in the first session of Upper Canada's Legislature. Even before coming to Upper Canada, Simcoe had already conceived very definite ideas about the necessity of establishing of the Church of England in Upper Canada. For instance, in December 1790, before he had even been selected as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Simcoe wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the status of the Church of England in Upper Canada. After making reference to a previous conversation on the subject, Simcoe wrote that a strong Anglican church "is absolutely necessary in any extensive colony which this country means to preserve."⁽⁵⁴⁾ Simcoe stressed the political uses of a strong Anglican church in the colony in countering forces for social equality: "every establishment of Church and State that upholds the distinction of ranks and lessens the undue weight of the democratic influence, must be indiscriminately introduced." Likely referring to the loss of the former colonies, Simcoe states that "the neglect of this principle of overturning republicanism in former periods... is much to be lamented." In a letter to Henry Dundas before he left for North America, Simcoe recommended not only a resident bishop for Upper Canada, but the "admission of the Bishop to a seat in the Legislative Council."⁽⁵⁵⁾ If this idea had been carried out, there would have been ecclesiastical representation in the Upper Canadian Upper House to match the presence of bishops in the House of Lords. For Simcoe, a strong Episcopal church is "interwoven and connected with the monarchical foundations of our government."

In the first session of the Upper Canadian Legislature, this preconceived notion of the role that the Church of England should have in Upper Canadian life was challenged by Richard Cartwright and Robert Hamilton. The occasion for this clash of perspectives was a bill touching upon the right to perform the marriage ceremony. There had been few if any ordained ministers in Upper Canada before 1791. In the absence of ministers, judges, commanding officers, and even surgeons had married couples. Richard Cartwright himself had been married in 1784 by a justice of the peace at Niagara. One of the first bill introduced into the Legislature provided for the recognition of such marriages. Simcoe felt that the recognition of marriages performed in the past by people not Anglican ministers might open the door to ministers of all denominations being allowed to perform the marriage ceremony. Simcoe was determined that the marriage monopoly of the Church of England should be upheld and that it was a key part of its Establishment. Eventually, a compromise was reached whereby past marriages were recognized and marriages performed in future by a non-Church of England minister would be recognized only if there were no Church of England ministers living in nearby.

The larger issue of the future role of the Church of England continued to rage for the rest of Simcoe's administration and into the nineteenth century. When Simcoe proposed measures to strengthen the established status of the Church of England, Cartwright countered these proposals with procedural conservative ideas. Whereas Simcoe had a mental image of English institutions which he felt ought to be replicated in other countries, Cartwright (like Burke) felt that the laws made for a country must correspond to the prevailing culture of the country. According to Cartwright, Simcoe "thinks every existing regulation in England would be proper here... he seems bent on copying all the subordinate establishments without considering the great disparity between the two countries." ⁽⁵⁶⁾ Cartwright pointed to the historical experience of the people now living in Upper Canada; they had been "bred in a country where there was perfect freedom in religious matters." Cartwright pointed out that Anglicans such as himself were a tiny minority in Upper Canada, as nineteen out of twenty people in the colony were of other denominations. Establishing the Church of England and requiring property-owners to pay tithes (as they did in England) would

"certainly occasion a general emigration." At no point does Cartwright attack the establishment of the Church of England in England. Cartwright makes no reference to grand theories involving inalienable rights and freedom of religion. He merely argues that while it is suitable to establish the Church of England in England, circumstances in Upper Canada advise against it. This somewhat relativistic position is in keeping with the procedural conservative philosophy outlined by Hume and popularized by Burke. In contrast, Simcoe saw the Anglican church as intrinsically good in any social context.

In addition to bringing with them notions of religious pluralism, as has been mentioned above, the Loyalists also came to Upper Canada with a strong tradition of local self-government.

Even before the division of the colony and the provision of an elected legislature, Loyalists had spontaneously organized embryonic town meetings. By the time of the second session of the Legislature, the popular demands for municipal self-government had to be addressed. In 1793, legislation was tabled in the lower house to provide for municipal self-government. The act provided for the popular election of various municipal officers, including clerks, high constables, town-wardens, and fence-viewers. The election of these officers was to take place at an annual meetings.⁽⁵⁷⁾ In effect, the Assembly wanted to replicate the model of municipal government the Loyalists had known, especially those from New England. Simcoe felt that the people "seemed to have a stronger attachment to the elective principle in all town affairs than might be thought advisable."⁽⁵⁸⁾ Simcoe's preference would have been for a more English system of local government by Justices of the Peace meeting in Quarter Sessions. Justices of the Peace were dependent for their position on the Crown. But while Simcoe was opposed to this measure, the Assembly was determined to pass it, so a compromise was achieved, but due to Simcoe's insistence, no reference to town meetings were included.

The battle between British and Loyalist models of local government continued in subsequent years, but in different forms. In England, the Crown's appointed representative in each county is the Lord Lieutenant. Simcoe wanted Lord Lieutenants in each county in Upper Canada "in order to promote an aristocracy most necessary in this country." ⁽⁵⁹⁾ London eventually disallowed this measure, because it was felt that the Lord Lieutenants might detract from the authority of the Lieutenant Governor. Later in Simcoe's term of office, Richard Cartwright wanted to incorporate Kingston as a city and drew up a plan "in accordance with the best American experience." Simcoe approved of the basic idea, but gave the plan "an aristocratic turn." Simcoe's plan was closely based on the more hierarchical British models. Kingston and Niagara were to be erected into cities presided over by a mayor, six aldermen who must also be Justices of the Peace, and "a suitable number of common councilors." Thus, there would be a bicameral city council whose first members were to be appointed but whose successors were to be elected in "such a way as to render the election as little popular as possible." In this way, municipal government would be a "support of the aristocracy of the country." The plan was vetoed in London, partly on the grounds that the proposed municipal government was too complex for a raw colony.⁽⁶⁰⁾ Placing this proposal for municipal government in context, when Simcoe first arrived in Kingston, there was only one stone house in the community, which belonged to Richard Cartwright.

The location of the capital of the colony was another source of conflict between Cartwright and Simcoe illuminating Simcoe's desire to turn Upper Canada into an "image and transcript" of England. In the 1790's, most settlers in Upper Canada lived in several discontinuous areas. One band of Loyalist settlement stretched from the border with Lower Canada along the Saint Lawrence and to the Bay of Quinte. Along the Niagara there was another band of Loyalist settlement. The Grande River flows into Lake Erie, and the territory for six miles on either side had been granted to the followers of Chief Joseph Brant. Surrounding Detroit on either side of the river was a primarily French Canadian settlement, dating from before the Conquest. Above Detroit, the River La Tranche flows into Lake St. Clair. There were at most a few farms at the mouth of the river, which then wound its way through hundreds of miles of virgin forest.⁽⁶¹⁾ For about one hundred miles from its mouth the La Tranche was navigable in flat-bottomed bateau. Isolated in a vast area of unsettled forest, a site at the head of navigation on the La Tranche River was Simcoe's choice for a capital. Simcoe had explored the area in 1791 and decided that it would make a suitable capital city.⁽⁶²⁾ He ordered the construction of a road linking the site to Lake Ontario. The future capital was to be called "London" and the name of the river was changed from "La Tranche" to "Thames." Simcoe looked to the military to force the development of this area. Soldiers were charged with clearing the road leading to London, and Simcoe planned to plant a colony of part-time soldiers at the capital. A life-long admirer of the Romans' systematic empire-building who enjoyed searching for Roman ruins in his native Devon, Simcoe made reference to the Roman system of military colonies repeatedly in outlining his ideas for settling the area around the capital. Simcoe's approach contrasted markedly with Cartwright's view of colonial development, which focused more on the unplanned and spontaneous efforts of settlers and traders.

Until his death in 1815, Cartwright consistently called the Thames by its old name, La Tranche, despite the fact that this was one of Simcoe's name changes that lasted beyond his time in Upper Canada. His aversion to using the new name in his correspondence is explained by his hostility to Simcoe's plan for the capital. In 1792, Cartwright called the decision to build London a case of "political Quixotism." An avid follower of scientific developments, Cartwright made reference to a recent technological development in mocking Simcoe's location of the capital, saying that it would become appropriate only if "Montgolfier's ingenious invention" of the air balloon is "converted into a vehicle of commerce." ⁽⁶³⁾

Simcoe never gave up the idea of London becoming the capital of the province. However, he did realize that temporary capitals would be occupied for a considerable period of time, and concentrated on making sure they fit with his vision of Upper Canada as another England. In York, strict rules governing building styles were enacted with the aim of producing streets lined with tall and impressive buildings of "a certain order of architecture." Building codes of this type might be appropriate in a rich and populous country but not in a rude frontier settlement. Richard Cartwright's amusement with these regulations are evident in a letter to an associate in Montreal; "our good Governor is a little wild in his projects, and seems to imagine that he can in two or three years put the country into a situation that it is impossible it can arrive at in a century."⁽⁶⁴⁾ A Whig down to his philosophical roots, Cartwright followed Hume, Burke, and Adam Smith in emphasizing the gradual, evolutionary, and spontaneous nature of progress in attacking Simcoe's plans to force development through planning.⁽⁶⁵⁾

Cartwright's opposition to Simcoe's desire to replicate English legal institutions in Upper Canada was manifest in his strenuous opposition to Judicature Bill. The Judicature Bill established a "scheme," in Cartwright's words, for administering civil justice in the province. The pre-existing court system of the province was abolished and replaced by a system closely corresponding to English models, with the "intricate practice of Westminster Hall" introduced to the colony. Cartwright feels that a moderate reform of the older District Court system would have been a better option than this totally new system. For Cartwright, while the English legal system may or may not work well in England, the colonial context makes it inadvisable. There were few lawyers in the colony when the Judicature Bill was passed, and Cartwright mocks the associated bill qualifying sixteen individuals to act as lawyers; without "previous study training" these men have become lawyers "by the mere magic virtue of the Privy Seal."⁽⁶⁶⁾

In a speech in the Legislative Council on the Judicature Bill, Cartwright reiterated the procedural conservative focus on the importance of respecting the social context in creating political institutions. "There is no maxim more incontestable in politics than that a government should be formed for a country, and not a country strained and distorted for the accommodation of a preconceived or speculative scheme of government." ⁽⁶⁷⁾ In replacing the District Courts, the Judicature Bill would have required individuals to travel to the capital to settle many cases, following the English practice of London courts dealing with cases from all over the country. While England in "compact and crowded with an immense population," the situation in Upper Canada is without the "smallest analogy." "England is hardly equal to the smallest of our districts," and in Upper Canada there is hardly "a single lawyer within the compass of seven hundred miles."⁽⁶⁸⁾ Cartwright praised the older system of justice the Judicature Bill would supplant, "regard being had to the circumstances of the province, the constitution of the Courts themselves can only be altered for the worse." Cartwright quoted from Blackstone to show that the Judicature Bill was analogous to the Norman Conquest of England, where the simple legal system of the Anglo-Saxons was supplanted by the Norman system with all its "metaphysical subtleties."⁽⁶⁹⁾

Cartwright was concerned with conserving the existing institutional order prevailing in Upper Canada and with preserving the institutions the Loyalists had brought with them from their home colonies. While for Cartwright there was already a pre-existing order in the province that needed to be preserved, Simcoe saw Upper Canada as a kind of societal tabula rasa upon which a copy of England might be drawn. Drawing on Lockean ideas, Simcoe sees a parallel between the development of a colony and the growth of a child, and feels that the earliest attempts to impress ideas into the mind of the infant will be most successful. Simcoe describes the early years of Upper Canada as "the great opportunity that is now open of forming the character, temper, and manners of this infant colony."⁽⁷⁰⁾ For Cartwright, Upper Canada already had a distinctive identity by the time Simcoe arrived, formed by the cultural baggage the Loyalists brought from their original colonies, the dictates of nature, and the institutions and practices formed in early years of settlement in the colony. Cartwright had arrived at Niagara in 1780, had married, built a business, engaged in public service, and had had several children before Simcoe ever arrived.

Simcoe understood the importance of education in the youth of both individuals and colonies. Simcoe's top-down approach to governance was reflected in his plans for education in the province. At a time when there were few schools in the province offering even basic education, Simcoe dreamed of establishing a university. "Liberal education seems to me to be indispensably necessary; and the completion of it by the establishment of an University in the capital of the country."⁽⁷¹⁾ Providing for liberal arts education would attack "the minute, the plebeian, the mechanical philosophy" at a time when "commercial" thinking was "of the age." The relationship between Simcoe's educational ideas and the his plans for establishing the Anglican Church is clear; in Simcoe's eyes, establishing "seminaries" would support the "monarchical foundations of our government."⁽⁷²⁾ After Simcoe left the colony, Cartwright supported legislation endorsing a more grass-roots, bottom-up form of education by providing for district schools.⁽⁷³⁾ In the meantime, the lack of schools forced him to retain a private tutor to educate his children.⁽⁷⁴⁾

The Revolution underway in distant France affected Upper Canada in the 1790's. The Upper Canadian Gazette and the records of the Legislature are replete with references to the unfolding events in France. Referring to events in Europe, Simcoe told the Legislature of Upper Canada that they were living in "a period of awful and stupendous events, which still agitate the greater part of mankind." ⁽⁷⁵⁾ The Chief Justice of Upper Canada, William Osgoode, sought to link the experiences of the Loyalists with events in France: "the Principles on which those who exercise the supreme Authority over the French Nation... cannot fail to call your recollection how often it has been necessary for Great Britain to stand forth as the protector of the liberties of Mankind." The "wild and visionary innovations" in France "recollect the many instances we have received the Royal bounty."⁽⁷⁶⁾ Dislike of the unfolding events in France was shared by the elected Assembly as well; a petition to the King printed in the Gazette in 1793, stated that it was "with astonishment and grief we have marked the progress of that unruly spirit of Innovation and Turbulence which has actuated... the prevailing party in France."⁽⁷⁷⁾

Increasing ideological polarization in Europe affected political discourse in Upper Canada. Charges of disloyalty and republicanism came to be leveled by the executive even against Loyalists. Simcoe accused Robert Hamilton of being "an avowed Republican." His criticisms of Cartwright were less extreme, but nevertheless reveal an attitude similar to that of the commandant of a besieged city; there can be no such things as a loyal opposition. Factionalism and treason are cut of the same cloth.

Richard Cartwright dismissed the accusations of disloyalty, and maintained that he was fundamentally loyal to Britain and the constitution. "Though I do not think it necessary to bow with reverence to the wayward fancies of every sub-delegate of the Executive Government, I will not hesitate to assert that his Majesty has not two more loyal subjects" than Robert Hamilton and himself. As proof of his loyalty, he quoted a speech his made to a Grand Jury in a letter to a friend: "we are happily exempt from those political dissensions that are now covering Europe with crimes and blood. [We are] happy in a liberal constitution."⁽⁷⁸⁾ With reference to European events, Cartwright defined his political beliefs in opposition to both Jacobinism and political reaction: the "triumvirate of Russia, Prussia, and Austria seem determined to rivet the fetters of despotism upon mankind, and show themselves equal enemies of the temperate reforms of Poland and the extravagant republicanism of France."⁽⁷⁹⁾ According to Cartwright, the "illiberal" policies pursued by Simcoe are "perhaps laying the foundations of future revolution." ⁽⁸⁰⁾

Writing in 1794 to criticize Simcoe's attempts to establish the Church of England in a mostly Dissenting colony, Cartwright observed "one would, however, have thought that politics in the abstract would by this time have been sufficiently out of repute." ⁽⁸¹⁾ It is difficult to understand what Cartwright meant by "politics in the abstract" and its having gone "out of repute" without reference to Burke's views on the American and French Revolutions. It is not clear whether Cartwright thought that politics in the abstract had gone out of repute because of parliamentary taxation of the colonies or because of the unfolding events in France or both. What is apparent, however, are the strong parallels between Cartwright's attack on "politics in the abstract" and that articulated by Burke.

An example of Burke attacking "politics in the abstract" would be his criticism Lord North's policy of taxing the American colonies on the grounds that it was based in an abstract theory of sovereignty instead of an understanding of American conditions. As Burke said in 1769, "whoever goes about to reason on any part of the policy of this country with regard to America, upon the mere abstract principles of government.... will often be misled." Instead, "all reasonings [about America]... must be drawn from its actual circumstances." For Burke, constitutional prescriptions must be rooted in the particular traits of the people in question as, "people must be governed in manner agreeable to their temper and disposition."⁽⁸²⁾ In being too abstract and failing to pay attention to local peculiarities in America, British policy-makers were endangering the well-being of the Empire.

In the 1790s, men espousing a political philosophy characterized by an excessive degree of abstractedness came to power in France. Burke criticized the French Revolutionaries for their deduction of universal "rights of man" from an abstract and hypothetical conception of human nature. Again emphasizing the importance of local and national characteristics, Burke stated that "a wise prince... will study the genius of his people." As Burke said in a letter to the Loyalist Sir William Smith in Quebec City, Jacobinism is best defined with reference to the Jacobins' failure to take into account the pre-existing "frame and fabric" of their society."⁽⁸³⁾ Burke predicted that the French proceeding upon universal or "general principles" would soon result in disaster.⁽⁸⁴⁾ In the eyes of many Englishmen, he was proved correct.

Simcoe was certainly no Jacobin. He was a British colonial administrator aiming to replicate English rural social hierarchies in a frontier settlement. Cartwright's statement about politics in the abstract, however, reveals the parallel he may have seen between Simcoe's attempt to turn Upper Canada into a "transcript and image" of England and the Jacobins' attempt to rebuild society. Many of the existing values, institutions, and circumstances of the colony made Upper Canada very different from England. Wealth was distributed more evenly than in the aristocratic mother country. Dissenters were an overwhelming majority of the population, making the establishment of the Church of England inadvisable. A frontier society did not need the complex legal institutions present in London. Despite the protestations that it was wildly out of place in a colonial context, Simcoe and his entourage remained committed to implementing unsuitable polices in Upper Canada. Simcoe was actually proud of the fact that his preconceived vision of Upper Canada, already well-developed by the late 1780s, did not change, in his own words, he "proceeded upon a system" in governing Upper Canada. In 1795, Simcoe wrote that "nothing has happened since I left England in the least to invalidate my own conception" of what policies were needed in Upper Canada. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ Later that year, Simcoe repeated that "my views are totally unchanged" and that his "system" would be vindicated by "the judgment of posterity." Close to his death in 1806, Simcoe wrote that he was "still of the opinion to anglicize the Canadas." ⁽⁸⁶⁾ Simcoe spoke of anglicizing both Canadas, French Lower Canada and English-speaking Upper Canada. Simcoe's notion of what was entailed in being English would be very restrictive if Upper Canada was lumped in with the Lower Province as non-English; yo his very end, Simcoe did not recognize the Loyalist way of being British as valid.

Not all British colonial administrators in Canada at this time were dedicated to imposing a particular conception of Englishness. Guy Carleton was for many years the Governor of Quebec and the Upper and Lower Canada. When he first came to Quebec as governor in 1764, the British government had conceived an assimilationist policy for the province. French Catholics were to be excluded from public office, Protestant immigration encouraged, the French laws that upheld the position of the French Canadian nobility replaced with the laws of England. Carleton violated his instructions and formulated policies to preserve the traditional Canadian society and to strengthen the role of the nobility and the Church. But Carleton's belief in preserving the hierarchical social structure of Lower Canada did not translate in an attempt to impose such a hierarchical social structure on Upper Canada. The Loyalists of Upper Canada required different institutions. Sympathetic to the Loyalists, especially the common Loyalist, Lord Dorchester disagreed with the actions of the officer class before 1791 and with Simcoe thereafter.⁽⁸⁷⁾

Cartwright seems to have disliked Simcoe's immediate successor, Peter Russell, who had been closely allied with Simcoe.⁽⁸⁸⁾ But in the early nineteenth century, Simcoe became more closely allied with the Executive, as more pragmatic, less visionary men arrived to govern the province. Some observers have seen this shift in attitude on the part of Simcoe as the product of a shift in Simcoe's own beliefs; "during these years Cartwright became much more conservative... he became more closely identified with the government."⁽⁸⁹⁾ Explaining Simcoe's changed attitude towards the Executive solely in terms of his becoming more conservative with age overlooks the marked change in the nature of Upper Canada's Lieutenant-Governors in the period after Simcoe's departure. Whereas Simcoe's energetic attempts to realize his vision of Upper Canada had been a source of conflict with Cartwright, Simcoe's successors lacked these traits as well as the "power and ability to dominate affairs." ⁽⁹⁰⁾ Peter Russell fulfilled Simcoe's duties as temporary Administrator until 1799, but because he knew he would likely be replaced soon he merely continued Simcoe's policies, initiating no major changes of his own.⁽⁹¹⁾ Peter Hunter, Lieutenant-Governor from 1799 to 1805 "made little impression" and seems to have gotten along well with Cartwright.⁽⁹²⁾ The Administrator of the Province from 1805 to 1806 was a medically infirm naval officer.⁽⁹³⁾ His successor, Francis Gore was more active and was advised by the aging Cartwright.⁽⁹⁴⁾ Moreover, by this time the ideological ground was shifting under Cartwright's feet, pushing him towards the Executive. In the early years of the colony, Cartwright had led the only real opposition there was in Upper Canada. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, truly radical figures like Justice Thorpe emerged, redefining the political spectrum.⁽⁹⁵⁾ Cartwright joined the Executive in combating political radicalism in the province. Moreover, the last years of Cartwright's life saw war with the United States, forcing all loyal Upper Canadians to work together to preserve the colony.

Later decades saw other struggles between British and American social models in Upper Canada. In some cases, conservatives sought to reconstruct Canadian political and social institutions along British lines. In other, political radicals wish to move society in the opposite direction and "Americanize" it. In between the extreme political stances engendered by following external models lay a moderate, procedural conservative position akin to that of Richard Cartwright. Most of Cartwright's biological children died prematurely, but he had many intellectual descendants; his ideological progeny would go on to play an important role in the development of the Canadian political system. Eschewing political radicalism of any kind and rejecting what would today be called "social engineering," the centrist, philosophically conservative tradition would play a crucial role in the subsequent evolution of Canada. Evolutionary gradualism and a conservative respect for tradition colour Canadian political life to this very day. It is a commonplace that "America is a revolutionary country while Canada is an evolutionary country." Among other things, this intellectual heritage has enabled monarchical institutions to persist to this day in Canada. But these superficially anti-democratic elements in Canadian society mask a fairly strong practical commitment to egalitarianism, a value expressed through an extensive welfare-state. The Loyalists, the founding group of Canada's largest province, are partially responsible for the egalitarian strain in Canadian thought. Without the Loyalists and figures like Cartwright, the plans of Simcoe and later would-be aristocrats would have had a greater chance of success. A tremendous irony lies in the fact that it is because of the Loyalist migration into Upper Canada that Canadian social structures developed along lines similar to those in the northern United States. Canadian procedural conservatism was born with the decision of the Loyalists to oppose their Patriot neighbors in their homes in the old colonies. It lives to this day, an important force in a society similar to yet different from the larger English-speaking countries.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Bliss, Michael. Canadian Historical Documents. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1986.

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Edited and with an Introduction by Connor Cruise O'Brien. London: Penguin Books, 1969

------------------ First Letter on a Regicide Peace. pp.234-238 in The Philosophy of Edmund Burke: A Selection from his Speeches and Writtings. Bredvold, Louis I. and Ralph G. Ross. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1960.

------------------ Observations on a Publication on the Late State of the Nation. in The Philosophy of Edmund Burke: A Selection from his Speeches and Writings.

----------------- Letter to William Smith. in The Philosophy of Edmund Burke: A Selection from his Speeches and Writings.

Cartwright, Richard. Letter to Sir John Johnson, 22 December, 1787, signed by Cartwright and several other magistates at Cataraqui. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University Archives, Cartwright Family Papers, Box 2.

-----------------------Life and Letters of Richard Cartwright. Edited by C.E. Cartwright. Toronto: Belford Brothers, 1876. The letters to Isaac Todd written 21 October, 1792, 14 October, 1793 and October 1, 1794, letter to Chief Justice Alcock, 14 March 1807, and Cartwright's Speech on the Judiciary Bill to the Legislative Council.

Journal of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada. Republished by the Archives of Ontario, Toronto, 1908.

Petition for an Assembly. Canadian Historical Documents. Michael Bliss, editor.

Quebec Gazette. Quebec City, 1782-1791.

Shortt, Adam and Arthur Doughty, editors. Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada. Ottawa, 1918.

Simcoe, John Graves. Speech upon proroguing the fifth session of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. CIHM 41227-41271

------------------------- Speech upon opening the first session of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. Printed in the Upper Canada Gazette, September 1792. 41227-41271

------------------------- Letter from Simcoe at Kingston to the Lord Bishop of Quebec, April 30, 1795. 41227-41271

------------------------- Letter from Simcoe at Wolford Lodge, Devon, to Mr. Windham, Exeter, April 30, 1806. CIHM 41227-41271

------------------------- Letter from Simcoe to the Archbishop of Canterbury, December 30, 1790. CIHM 41227-41271

------------------------- Letter to Henry Dundas, June 2, 1791. CIHM 21785

Upper Canada Gazette or American Oracle. Niagara (Newark), 1792-1798

Secondary Sources

Brock, W.R. The Effects of the Loss of the American Colonies on British Policy. London, 1966. Privately Published.

Burt, A. L. The Old Province of Quebec: Volume II 1778-1791.Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1968.

Clark, Mattie, M.I. The Positive Side of John Graves Simcoe. Toronto: Forward Publishing,

1943.

Craig, Gerald M. Upper Canada: the Formative Years, 1784-1841. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1967.

Errington, Jane. The Lion, the Eagle, and Upper Canada: a Developing Colonial Identity.

Fryer, Mary Beacock and Christopher Dracott. John Grave Simcoe: 1752-1806: A Biography. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1998.

Hampsher-Monk, Iain. The Political Philosophy of Edmund Burke. London: Longman, 1987.

Lower, A.R.M. Colony to Nation: a History of Canada. Toronto: Longmans Greeens, 1957.

Mills, David. The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850. Kingston: Queen's-McGill Press, 1988.

Muller, Jerry Z. Conservatism: an Anthology of Social and Political Thought From David Hume to the Present. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Potter, Janice. The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial Massachusetts and New York.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Riddell, William Renwick. The Life of John Graves Simcoe: First Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Upper Canada, 1792-96. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1926.

Shortt, Adam. Municipal Government in Upper Canada: a Historical Sketch.

Upton, L.F.S. The Loyal Whig: William Smith of New York and Quebec. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969.

Upton, L.F.S., editor. The United Empire Loyalists: Men and Myths. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1967.

Wilson, Bruce. The Enterprises of Robert Hamilton: a Study of Wealth and Influence in Early Upper Canada, 1776-1812. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1983.

Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.

Wrong, George M. Canada and the American Revolution: the Disruption of the First British Empire. London: MacMillan, 1935.

Theses and Journal Articles

Macdonald, Donald C. The Political Ideas of Richard Cartwright. M.A. Thesis, Queen's University, 1939.

Miller, Marilyn G. The Political Ideas of Richard Cartwright. M.A. Thesis, Queen's University, 1975.

Mills, David. The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada. in J. Keith Johnson Historical Essays on Upper Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975.