9] See his Despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated 5th April, 1837, in
Narrative, chap. ix.

[270] See his Despatch dated July 14th, 1837.

[271] On the 10th of September.

[272] See the number for June 10th, 1824.

[273] This boast seems to have been made in the columns of _The
Constitution_, but I have been unable to find it there. I make the
quotation on the authority of Mr. Lindsey's _Life of Mackenzie_, vol.
i., p. 395, note.

[274] Mr. MacMullen, writing, doubtless, from honest conviction,
endeavours to convey the impression that Bidwell was more deeply
implicated in the rebellion than he chose to acknowledge. See his
_History of Canada_, p. 446, note. But no substantial proof has ever
been offered in support of such a belief, whereas the proof on the other
side is unanswerable. There is, first of all, the character of the man.
His moral courage was great, and he could stand up for a cherished
principle with much firmness and vigour. But he fought with weapons
which were not carnal, and would have suffered almost any wrong that
could have been inflicted upon him rather than resort to physical
violence. Then, there is the fact that he always denied all knowledge of
the rising. No man who knew Marshall Spring Bidwell would have hesitated
to accept his bare word as against any but the most direct evidence to
the contrary, and in this case there can hardly be said to be any
countervailing evidence whatever. Again, there is the fact that he
declined to act as a delegate to the proposed Reform convention, as
subsequently mentioned in the text. But there is no need to resort to
circumstantial or conjectural evidence. We have the testimony of
Mackenzie himself, who, after his return to Canada, was ready enough to
betray the secrets of his somewhile coadjutors, and who would have been
only too glad if he could have pointed to Bidwell as one of the number.
In his _Flag of Truce_, published in 1853, he says; "The question is
often asked me--What part Mr. Bidwell took in 1837"--and his answer is
explicit enough: "None that I know." It is quite certain that Bidwell
could not have been concerned in the movement without Mackenzie's
knowledge. The only circumstances which might be adduced as indicating a
knowledge of the intended rising on the part of Mr. Bidwell are two in
number, and neither of them will bear a moment's examination. First, it
is true that he was consulted by the Radicals as to the lawfulness of
their assembling f