The counties formed by Simcoe's proclamation were: 1, Glengarry; 2, Stormont; 3, Dundas; 4, Grenville; 5, Leeds; 6, Frontenac; 7, Ontario; 8, Addington; 9, Lenox; 10, Prince Edward; 11, Hastings; 12, Northumberland; 13, Durham; 14, York; 15, Lincoln; 16, Norfolk; 17, Suffolk; 18, Essex; and 19, Kent. All these names are still used except Suffolk; but "Ontario" is now applied to a different part of the province: what is now Ontario being in those early times almost wholly destitute of inhabitants-" Ontario County" was then the islands west of the Gananoque river.

Glengarry had two members. For the first riding Hugh Macdonell was returned; for the second, his brother John, who became the Speaker of the first House. As he was a Roman Catholic, he occupied a dignity which he could not at that time occupy in any other part of the British Dominions, except Lower Canada. These two brothers were U. E. Loyalists, and were the maternal uncles of Lt.-Col. John Macdonell, who was Brock's aide-de-camp, and was killed with his chief at the Battle of Queenston Heights in the war of 1812. He was also Attorney-General of Upper Canada; a mural plate to his memory is to be found in the east wing of Osgoode Hall.

Stormont was represented by Lieutenant Jeremiah French, a U. E. Loyalist from Vermont.

Dundas sent Alexander Campbell, of whom little is known, or at least recorded.

Grenville sent another U. E. Loyalist, Ephraim Jones, the father of Jonas Jones, afterwards a Judge of the (King's) Queen's Bench; and he had also two sons-in-law, who achieved the same distinction, Levius P. Sherwood and Henry John Boulton.

Leeds and Frontenac were allotted one member; John White, an English barrister, who had been appointed by the Home Government, Attorney-General of Upper Canada, and had come out in June, 1792, was by Simcoe's influence elected member. He was killed in a duel eight years after.

Addington and Ontario sent Joshua Booth, a U. E. Loyalist, who died in the war of 1812.

Lenox, Hastings and Northumberland had one representative and Lieut Hazelton Shaver, also a U. E. Loyalist, was elected. ("Lenox was the spelling at that time; now the word is spelled with two n's).

Prince Edward and Adolphustown had one member (for the township of Adolphustown was detached from Lenox for electoral purposes). Philip Dorland was elected, but not taking the oath required by sec. 29 of the Act, 31 Geo. III., ch. 31 (as he was a Quaker) a new writ was issued, and Major Peter Vanalstine was elected in his place-they were both U. E. Loyalists.

Durham, York and first Lincoln sent Nathaniel Pettit, of Grimsby, a member of the Land Board of Nassau District.

The second riding of Lincoln sent Col. Benjamin Pawling, who had been in Butler's Rangers during the Revolutionary war.

The third riding of Lincoln sent Isaac Swayzie, who had been a noted scout on the British side. His enemies called him a 66 spy "-a mere difference in terminology. He later took a prominent part in the prosecution of Gourlay; and it is said narrowly escaped prosecution for the murder of William Morgan, who had threatened to disclose the secrets of Freemasonry, and who mysteriously disappeared. The mystery has never been cleared up; but it was made evident that Swayzie had nothing to do with Morgan's abduction and death, notwithstanding his boast that he had.* He undoubtedly was a Freemason, however.

The fourth riding of Lincoln and Norfolk together had one representative. Parshall Terry was elected; he was one of Swayzie's bondsmen (v. the note*) and afterwards was drowned in the Don in 1808, having removed to York when Simcoe made the change.

This is told of him in Dent's Upper Canada Rebellion," and should be taken cum grano: That he had enemies was to be expected, and indeed is fairly certain; there is on record a petition by him, of April, 1790, to the Land Board of Nassau District, setting forth that from his character having been traduced he had been prevented from enjoying the privileges of other loyal citizens." The Board found that he had produced sufficient proof that his character had been misrepresented; and held that he was entitled to the quantity of land his services entitled him to as a volunteer in the British army at New York.

He was not a member of the second Parliament. When that was in existence, the following misfortune befel him or some other of the same name, unknown to fame, as appears by the Term Books at Osgoode Hall: On Monday, April 20th, 1795, an information for sedition was filed by the Attorney-General, John White, against Isaac Swayzé, and a capais was granted to bring him before the Court to answer it. The Court of King's Bench, on that application, was composed of William Dummer Powell, Puisné Justice, and Peter Russell, sitting on Special Commission. On Wednesday, April 22nd, Mr. Swayze appeared and pleaded "not guilty," giving two sureties, Parshal Terry and Essai Daiton, in £50 each, himself in £100, to appear on Friday next to answer to the information against him. Friday, April 24th, a venire was directed to issue

Suffolk and Essex sent Francis Baby, a prominent Canadian of French descent, and like the Macdonells a Roman Catholic.

Kent sent William Macomb and David William Smith,† the former of North of Ireland descent, and the latter, son of the commandant at Detroit.

This first session was held it is said by some-but there seems to be a doubt-in Freemasons' Hall at Newark. The first name of what is now Niagara-on-the-Lake was Niagara, then it was successively called Lennox, Nassau and Newark. As Newark it was the capital of Upper Canada until after the selection of Toronto was made the name being changed by Simcoe from Toronto to York in honour of the Duke of York, the King's brother. Newark had been selected by reason of the proximity of forts held by the British; Simcoe expected that the British would continue to occupy the forts on the left side of the Niagara River. A guard from the 5th regiment was kept on duty during the whole session-the Lieutenant-Governor had attended in state accompanied by a guard of honour and opened the Parliament by a speech from the Throne in traditional British form-and Upper Canada was fairly launched on her free career.

It was no doubt due to the presence of such lawyers as Chief Justice Osgoode and Attorney-General White in the two Houses, that the legislation is couched in such accurate and efficient language.

WILLIAM RENWICK RIDDELL.

returnable Friday next to try the issue, and Mr. Swayzé gave new sureties, John Wilson and Samuel Pew. May 1st, a jury was sworn, whose names are given, and these, on May 2nd, by their foreman, Andrew Templeton, find the defendant guilty." He then found sureties, William Reid and John Hainer, to appear for judgment the first day of Trinity Term, July 20th. On that day he entered into a recognizance himself in £200 P.M. (i.e., provincial money), and George Forsyth and Joseph Edwards in £100 each, to appear Friday, July 24th. There the Court sentenced him to pay a fine of £10 P.M. and stand committed until it should be paid, and also to enter into a recognizance with two sureties for his good behaviour for two years. He afterwards was elected for the third, fourth, sixth and seventh Parliaments. dying in 1828.

The name is spelled "Swayzie," and "Swayzy" in different places.

66

Swayze," Swayze," "Suayze"

David William Smith, Deputy Judge Advocate, of Newark, received a license dated at Navy Hall, July 7th, 1795, under the hand and seal-at-arms of Governor Simcoe, countersigned by W. Mayne, Acting Secretary, authorizing him to be and appear as an advocate or attorney in all and every of His Majesty's Courts. He afterwards removed to England, became a Baronet in 1821, and died in England, 1837, at the age of 73.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, ONTARIO.

JUDGMENT OF HON. MR. JUSTICE BRITTON.

JANUARY 9TH, 1913.

LINDSEY v. LE SUEUR.

Trial at Toronto without a jury.

Hellmuth, K.C., and Moorhouse, for the plaintiff.
Shepley, K.C., and Hill (Ottawa), for the defendant.

BRITTON, J.-This action is to compel delivery by the defendant to the plaintiff, of certain documents and extracts and copies of documents which the defendant now has, and which he obtained from the collection of the late William Lyon Mackenzie, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or making public any of these documents or copies of or extracts from them.

The late Charles Lindsey was the son-in-law of the late William Lyon Mackenzie.

The plaintiff, George G. S. Lindsey, is the son and sole executor of Charles Lindsey.

Charles Lindsey was the owner of a large and valuable collection of books, papers, manuscripts, letters, etc., which had been the property of William Lyon Mackenzie. Prior to February, 1906, the publishing firm of Morang & Company had determined to have written for publication and sale, books on "The Makers of Canada."

To carry out this purpose Morang & Co. chose to include William Lyon Mackenzie in the series, and they employed the defendant to write that book.

In February, 1906, Charles Lindsey resided with the plaintiff, and at that time the defendant sought and obtained an introduction to the plaintiff, and requested to be allowed access to the Mackenzie collection. It is alleged that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he, the defendant had undertaken to write the life of Mackenzie for the Morang & Company series; that the life so written would be to the satisfaction of Morang & Company; and that it would be published in the series mentioned.

It is further alleged that the defendant represented that the work would be entered upon by him in sympathy with the character he was to depict, exhibiting in the book Mackenzie as one of "The Makers of Canada." Upon this representation, the plaintiff, acting for his father, allowed the de

fendant free access to the collection to make copies of and extracts from documents, and, generally, to obtain such information as was available.

The defendant for months resided in the plaintiff's house, and while there, obtained the information sought.

The defendant completed his manuscript, sent it to Morang & Company, and it was rejected.

The plaintiff says that by necessary implication from what took place, the agreement was that the defendant, in writing such life of Mackenzie, as one of the class mentioned, would make fair use of the material he found. The plaintiff charges that the defendant did not do so, and for that reason the life written by defendant was partizan and unfair; and in consequence thereof, the manuscript was rejected.

I have spent a great deal of time in reading with care most of the evidence, given at great length upon the trial of this action. No useful purpose will be served by my referring at length or quoting from the evidence.

It seems to me clear, that the plaintiff, and the late Charles Lindsey supposed that the defendant intended to write of William Lyon Mackenzie as one of the men in Canadian history, who can fairly be called, speaking colloquially, one of the "Makers of Canada." The conduct of the defendant and what he said, warranted the plaintiff and Charles Lindsey in so thinking. I must find as a fact, that the defendant gave the plaintiff and Charles Lindsey to understand that the views and feelings of the defendant towards Mackenzie were friendly, that his attitude in presenting Mackenzie to the public was a fair one, that he had no bias against Mackenzie, and that he had no feeling or opinion which would prevent him, as a writer, from truly presenting the facts and circumstances of Mackenzie's life and character. The defendant in my opinion, intended that the plaintiff and Charles Lindsey should believe as they did in reference to defendant's feeling and attitude.

At the time of defendant's arrangement with the plaintiff, the defendant did hold strong views against Mackenzie. At that time the defendant intended to write the life of Mackenzie on other than "conventional lines." He intended to write of Mackenzie, not as one of the makers of Canada in the general acceptation of that term, but as a "aller down," as was stated during the trial.