1830s

Howe (1835), Dixon (1920) and McLachlan (1923): Comparative Perspectives on the Legal History of Sedition

by
Joseph howe province house

This paper recounts three trials for seditious libel in Nova Scotia, drawing parallels between Joseph Howe’s trial in 1835, F.J. Dixon’s trial in 1920, and J.B. McLachlan’s trial in 1923. Howe’s trial, though acquitted, established him as a folk hero due to his successful self-defense. Dixon, emulating Howe’s defense, was also acquitted, while McLachlan’s trial, marked by government manipulation and interference, resulted in his conviction and imprisonment.

McLachlan’s case, unlike Howe and Dixon’s, exemplifies a miscarriage of justice, orchestrated to suppress the working-class. Despite legal efforts inspired by Howe’s defense, McLachlan’s trial failed to challenge the unjust system. The analysis emphasizes the significance of these trials in Nova Scotia’s legal and political history, showcasing struggles against state oppression and the impact of legal and political maneuvering on outcomes.

“Then there is Howe, who was prosecuted by the corrupt magistrates whom he exposed in his day. By the way, he successfully defended himself, and I hope to perhaps follow his glorious example. He is now proclaimed as Nova Scotia’s noblest son.” — FJ. Dixon, 1920

“When they tried Joseph Howe for sedition, they erected a monument to him in the shadow of the County jail [sic: Province House yard].” — J.B. McLachlan, 1924

“I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I tell you that what happened to Howe will happen to McLachlan.” — J.S. Woodsworth, 1924

In Halifax, in 1835, Joseph Howe, a newspaper proprietor and editor, was tried for seditious libel for publishing the second of two pseudonymous letters critical of local government. In Winnipeg, in 1920, F J. (Fred) Dixon, an independent labour member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, was tried for seditious libel for publishing in the strike bulletin which he briefly edited during the General Strike of 1919, articles critical of the strike’s suppression. In Halifax, in 1923, J.B. McLachlan, communist secretary of United Mine Workers of America District, was tried for seditious libel for having written an official letter critical of the violent actions of the provincial police in Sydney. These three “state trials” document the important historical conflicts out of which they arose, reflect the politico-legal contexts in which they occurred and illustrate the meaning of the “misrule of law” as it developed through the repressive exercise of state power during both the colonial and the national periods.”

“Ironically, the industrial action which led to the prosecution of McLachlan did not originate with the Cape Breton coalminers. In June 1923, Sydney steelworkers struck again for recognition of their union. When mounted provincial police, who had been summoned at the behest of the British Empire Steel Corporation (Besco), made a bloody charge against the Sunday evening crowd on Victoria Road in Sydney on July 1, McLachlan, in his capacity as secretary of District 26, authorized a wildcat strike. “This was a fateful decision,” writes David Frank, quoting McLachlan’s official letter (sea Appendix 1), one that brought down the wrath first of the provincial government and then of the international union. For his call to arms McLachlan was charged with seditious libel and subsequently sentenced to two years in jail. For his violation of international union polity in calling the sympathetic strike he was removed from office by John L. Lewis [president] of the United Mine Workers. McLachlan was prosecuted because he was the leader of an illegal sympathetic strike. The seditious libel for which he was convicted was an official letter signed and ordered circulated by McLachlan in his capacity as secretary of District 26 of the UMWA.”

“The parallels to Howe rest with Fred Dixon, who was acquitted after defending himself in a great forensic address purposely modelled on Howe’s. McLachlan, on the other hand, was dissuaded from defending himself, did not testify on his own behalf and was perfunctorily convicted. “[C]ivil libertarians, then and since,” according to Howe’s biographer, Murray Beck, “have excoriated the [McLachlan] trial for its alleged unfairness.” Yet, Beck too refuses to acknowledge any parallels between Howe and McLachlan. He forbears describing Howe as “seditious libel,” a technical term he uses in relation to McLachlan, and does not confront the suspicion that chief counsel for the defence, Gordon Sidney Harrington K.C., (in David Frank’s words) “deliberately exploited the case to promote the fortunes of the Conservative Party and prove the iniquity of the Liberal government.” Beck also fails to identify “McLachlan’s lawyers” as two politically ambitious Conservative barristers — the other was Halifax labour lawyer, John Archibald Walker — both of whom were elected to the Assembly in the Conservative sweep of 1925 and appointed to the cabinet. Harrington, a former mayor of Glace Bay, which was also home town to McLachlan and headquarters of District 26 of the UMWA, was counsel to the union.”

“McLachlan — unlike Howe and Dixon — was a gross miscarriage of justice, in which the accused was “framed”, charged, tried, convicted and imprisoned for having published a seditious libel when in neither the legal nor the ordinary sense of the word had he published anything at all. Before the “fixed” publication, the Crown did not have even a prima facie case against the accused. The obvious motive for the government’s conniving at newspaper publication was not only to lay the basis for the charge of seditious libel, but also to give some reason for McLachlan’s incarceration and transportation to Halifax, which Attorney-General O’Hearn was later to characterize as “a neutral [safe?] county.” The very possibility of contesting the legal repression – by achieving a counter-hegemonic success à la Howe and Dixon — was precluded by the careful manner in which the government stage-managed the proceedings against McLachlan from beginning to end. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the McLachlan prosecution was the result of a conspiracy involving the Red-baiting provincial Liberal government, the management of Besco and the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle — the only Halifax newspaper in which McLachlan’s official letter was published. The District circular appeared verbatim on the front page of the edition of 6 July 1923 — a mere two days after it was issued — under the incendiary sub-headline, “McLachlan’s War Whoop.” Publication in Halifax had been arranged by Andrew Merkel, Maritime superintendent of The Canadian Press, whose vice-president, George Frederick Pearson, was also hereditary president of the Chronicle Publishing Company Limited. A lawyer and highly influential political insider — Beck describes him as “long a mastermind of the Liberal Party” — G. Fred Pearson was also Besco’s solicitor. Though McLachlan’s conviction for publication in Halifax was eventually struck down on appeal, at the time of the trial even the strongest legal defence would have been ineffectual against a government partial to Besco, a mass-circulation morning newspaper complicitously toeing the government’s line, an “anti-Bolshevik” Attorney-General prosecuting in person, a manipulable jury altogether unacquainted with labour-management relations in industrial Cape Breton, and an highly interested judge. Presiding over McLachlan was Justice Humphrey Mellish, a corporate lawyer and former solicitor for the Dominion Coal Company — who was elevated to the bench in 1918, so that he could more effectively protect the interests of his former corporate clients. The fact that Mellish’s law firm, Mclnnes Jenks Lovett & Macdonald [now Mclnnes Cooper & Robertson], was in Besco’s pocket — the senior partner, Hector Mclnnes, was a director of the corporation — was sharply emphasized by J.S. Woodsworth MP in House of Commons debate in March 1924, following the announcement of the government’s decision to parole McLachlan. Woodsworth, who toured Nova Scotia in January 1924 at the invitation of the Nova Scotia Workers Defence Committee, enquired “concerning the judges of the supreme court, and… was told that the corporation influence on the bench was so strong that the court is looked upon by labour as a company department.” Charges of seditious libel against Woodsworth, a former editor of Winnipeg’s Strike Bulletin, were indefinitely stayed when Fred Dixon was acquitted of the same charge. Woodsworth read into Hansard the words uttered by Joseph Howe before the jury while introducing his discussion of The Libel Act 1792: It is ninety years since in Nova Scotia a man was tried for sedition. Then a man was haled before the courts and accused of being “a wicked seditious and ill-disposed person, a person of most wicked and malicious temper and disposition.” That man is now regarded as one of Canada’s greatest sons, Joseph Howe. But he was able to say at that time, in connection with his trial: “And here I may be permitted to thank heaven and our ancestors, that I do not stand before a corrupt and venal court and a packed and predetermined jury.’,

Joseph Howe’s trial for seditious libel, eighty-eight years before McLachlan’s, has never been excoriated for unfairness by civil libertarians or anyone else, because Howe was tried by an impartial, disinterested judge — Chief Justice Brenton Halliburton — and acquitted by an enlightened jury. Indeed the canonical, politico-biographical interpretation of Howe does not consider the possibility that this too was a trial for sedition, lest it be compared with the trial of the politically persona non grata working-class radical, J.B. McLachlan. Repeated ad nauseam is the canard that Howe was tried for “criminal” libel, suggesting that the dual character of defamation as crime and tort could disprove the self-evident truth that Howe too was tried for seditious libel. Indeed the very success of Howe’s self-defence accounts for this misunderstanding of his trial, which resulted in an acquittal despite the fact that the truth of a libel was not pleadable except as a defence to an action, and that neither truth nor public benefit could be pleaded in justification of a seditious libel.”

“Joseph Howe — it needs to be said — was neither arrested nor jailed, though he expected to be and arranged for bail to be posted by his friends, while McLachlan and Livingstone were not only arrested, transported to Halifax and imprisoned, but were initially denied bail at the instance of the Crown. Nor was Howe’s venue changed from Halifax to Sydney, to be tried by a jury of coalminers, who had as little understanding of abuses in the administration of local government in the District of Halifax as the jury of Halifax petit-bourgeois who convicted McLachlan had of labour relations in industrial Cape Breton. The Crown failed to make its case in Howe and Dixon and would have failed to do so in McLachlan had he too been tried by a jury of his peers. Howe — tried and acquitted by sympathetic friends and neighbours and readers of his reformist newspaper, the Novascotian — was thought by the Halifax bar, who to a man refused his retainer, to be foredoomed. Conversely, McLachlan’s lawyer, seeing in his client a latter-day Howe, was overconfident of victory.”

“In preparing his defence of McLachlan, Harrington, like Dixon, availed himself of The Speeches and Public Letters of Joseph Howe, a new and complete edition of which had been produced in 1909 in a commendably bipartisan manner. The publisher was the Halifax Chronicle, the Liberal Party organ founded in 1844 and once edited by Joseph Howe, while the reviser was the prominent Conservative lawyer and municipal politician, Joseph Andrew Chisholm K.C. Chisholm, who in 1916 acceded to a puisne judgeship, played a significant collateral role in the proceedings against McLachlan. In June 1923, he presided at the criminal assizes in Sydney, when, according to Attorney-General O’Hearn, “in the neighbourhood of twenty-odd bills of indictment against strikers for their criminal activities in February 1923, were thrown out” by the grand jury for lack of witnesses willing to testify. Chisholm was also, according to J.S. Woodsworth, one of only two of seven judges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia who had had no “known relations” with Besco or its constituent operating companies.”

“What mattered were the changes in Canada between 1919 and 1923. By the latter date, sedition law was being used systematically against working-class radicals in general and strike leaders in particular, regardless of their lack of socialist credentials — a tendency strikingly illustrated by the prosecution of Fred Dixon MLA. Not only had new repressive state security laws been introduced, but also the state’s determination to repress working-class radicalism had been renewed since 1919 and the range of potential uses of existing sedition law accordingly broadened. If the significance of Howe for McLachlan relates more to the forensic use of history than to the forensic use of law, then McLachlan is an object lesson in the failure of legal history as legal argument. It is not a question of the uses or sources of law, however, because Howe, as a jury trial resulting in an acquittal did not form a legal precedent. Howe in relation to McLachlan concerns the historical uses of law versus the juridical uses of history, and in either respect depends upon a mutually agreed, authoritative and analytically sound reconstruction of the leading case. When the Crown denied the existence of any previous trials for sedition in Nova Scotia, the defence attempted unsuccessfully to adduce Howe as a precedent.”

“G.S. Harrington, who had never practised in Halifax and was far from being the “noted barrister” of John Mellor’s rose-coloured romance, was facing one of the leading criminal counsel of the Halifax bar in Attorney-General O’Hearn. Harrington nevertheless aimed to achieve, without any help from his client, whom he did not call to testify in his own defence, what Howe and Dixon had achieved by unassisted advocateship. The upshot was that Howe immediately became a “folk hero,” and ultimately a figure of Olympian myth. His trial became the defining moment in the political history of the province. Dixon was overwhelmingly re-elected to the Manitoba legislature in the general election held four months after his acquittal. McLachlan, however, remained a working-class anti-hero, whose trial and unsuccessful appeal, in David Frank’s words, “passed on into the untapped obscurity of legal history.” Scholars of Howe have failed to acknowledge the resemblance of the McLachlan sedition trial to the Howe sedition trial. They seem unaware that seditious libel at common law is sedition not libel, and that Howe was not on trial for defamation, but for a crime against the state. The politically and socially dangerous implication for the historiography is that Howe, the petit-bourgeois “conservative reformer,” would be coloured by association with McLachlan, the working-class radical and Bolshevik pariah. Yet, at the time of his own sedition trial Howe did not consider himself, nor did his friends or enemies consider him to be conservative in any sense of the word. That Howe stood four-square in the English radical whig tradition is clear from a close, impartial reading of the stenographic report of his courtroom address in his own defence.”

“In that sense, J.B. McLachlan no less than Fred Dixon was a legatee of Joseph Howe, as well as the provider of a legacy of working-class political radicalism — and his forerunners were the radical reformers of a century earlier. Excepting only McLachlan, the study of sedition in Nova Scotia has been obfuscated by the “criminal libel” misnomer such that the seditious libel prosecutions of William Wilkie in 1820 and Joseph Howe in 1835 are not seen for what they undoubtedly were: show trials staged by the ruling class to counter the perceived threat to the established order posed by ancillary crimes against the state. Just as Howe implicitly compared himself to the English radicals of the period of extreme Tory reaction in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries — many of whom were tried and convicted of seditious libel — so the comparison with Howe was advocated by McLachlan’s senior counsel, the Conservative lawyer-politician Harrington. If the radical pamphleteer William Wilkie — tried and convicted of seditious libel in 1820 after an unsuccessful self-defence conducted along the same lines as Howe’s fifteen years later — was a forerunner of Joseph Howe, then Howe was a forerunner of J.B. McLachlan, who assumes a place of honour within the century-old tradition of political protest and trials for sedition in Nova Scotia. McLachlan, writes David Frank, “was a political trial, part of a Canadian tradition we have found it all too easy to forget. These kinds of trials, such as Joseph Howe’s in 1835, had long pitted the forces of change against the forces of continuity.””

“Clearly a line of defence which did not result in a verdict of not guilty was “an ineffectual one”; however, to criticize it as incoherent, as David Frank does, is ex post facto rationalization. Just as scholars of Howe have disposed of some archetypal myths — such as that the verdict established freedom of the press — only to replace them with others, so students of McLachlan fail to recognize that one of the lessons of that case is that criminal law and criminal justice history are not necessarily combinable in the context of legal proceedings. Political trials, however significant they may be in other respects, are not necessarily significant sources of law. Frank, for example, argues that counsel for the defence in McLachlan “probably unreasonably, accepted the argument that truth was no defence in a case of seditious libel.” Harrington’s acceptance of what had long been a settled principle of the common law can hardly be considered unreasonable for a lawyer pleading in a criminal court. Moreover, Harrington’s failure to recognize that one of the lessons of Howe was that the restriction on truth as a defence “could be easily evaded in the process of clarifying the defendant’s intentions” is fully consistent with his argument on appeal that seditious libel law was unaffected by the passage of The Libel Act 1792. There the jury’s right to “find” intention as a matter of fact was explicitly affirmed. The problem with Harrington’s defence was not incoherence but error of law. The Libel Act 1792 was the very statute which enabled Howe to evade this common law restriction on defence pleading in the course of clarifying his innocent intentions.

As John Mellor correctly states, Harrington “had based his whole case on the famous Joseph Howe and his acquittal on a similar charge of seditious libel.” Harrington either did not understand or failed to elucidate the legal justification for Howe’s acquittal. He not only misunderstood the implications of The Libel Act 1792 for sedition law, but also mistook the legal heart of Howe’s defence. Harrington nevertheless believed that he could defend McLachlan in the same manner and with the same success as Howe had defended himself. Despite the fact that McLachlan was not defending himself, and that Howe had called no witnesses, there seemed to Harrington little point in putting the accused in the witness-box, to be exposed to a withering, ideologically perverse cross-examination by the Attorney-General. “It was generally believed,” according to Mellor’s hearsay: that if Harrington had arranged for defence witnesses to give evidence for McLachlan at the trial, he could quite possibly have won an acquittal, but instead, Harrington had based his whole defence on drawing an analogy between the famous Joseph Howe case, which had ended in acquittal, and the McLachlan case with its communist overtones. This is an aspect in which McLachlan and Dixon differ; Dixon was a non-socialist, while McLachlan was a revolutionary socialist who could scarcely have been permitted to speak candidly in his own defence in open court.”

Just as the legal argument from analogy failed to obtain an acquittal for McLachlan, so the argument from legal history has failed to obtain recognition of McLachlan as a case which merits judicial reconsideration. As recently as 1990, the authors of an essay on the historiography and sources for the study of Russell could claim that “[t]he legal history of the Winnipeg General Strike trials has yet to be written.” The same may be said for the legal history of working-class radicalism in Nova Scotia.”

Cahill, Barry. “Howe (1835), Dixon (1920) and McLachlan (1923): Comparative perspectives on the legal history of sedition.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal, vol. 45, 1996, journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/29601

Mic Mac Rotary

by
dartmouth rotary micmac
“Atlantic Air Survey aerial photo showing Mic Mac Rotary”, 1970s. https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/pages/in-content/2022-06/101-80c-1-4-h-56_0.jpg, https://archives.novascotia.ca/communityalbums/HalifaxArchives/archives/?ID=472

In the photo above (and below) you can see the original path of Braemar Drive, as well as where the original shoreline was, previous to the construction of the rotary.

“Mic Mac Rotary [aerial photograph]”, Sept 2, 1963.
https://7046.sydneyplus.com/archive/final/Portal/Default.aspx?component=AABC&record=5a0cfb54-9e92-4958-bd31-040214655f8d
“Mic Mac Rotary [aerial photograph]”, 1960s. https://7046.sydneyplus.com/archive/final/Portal/Default.aspx?component=AABC&record=fc8d889c-68b3-4e01-9267-501465a9c2a4

Another view of the rotary shortly after construction, looking towards what is now Mic Mac Mall. To the right is what remained of Braemar Drive, along with one of the homes that once was a lakefront property before being swallowed up by “progress”.

mic mac beltway rotary

What is now Mic Mac Mall and “Mic Mac Village”, shortly after construction of the beltway that extended as far as Woodland Road as seen in the map at the bottom of the page.

From the Mail Star, Saturday May 24, 1986

“By August of 1961, the Micmac Rotary was nearing completion. Originally Main Street connected with Prince Albert Road and Braemar Drive was a continuous street where it is now split by the rotary. The site of what was to become Micmac Mall was at that time a tract of empty land. Many of the homes surrounding the rotary have since disappeared. And, the Dartmouth Inn has grown over the years.”

From 1830, a good view of the original shoreline around Graham’s Grove. “50 men commenced 8th Oct 1830 to make a new road”. “Plan of the Improvement of Dartmouth Road by Bells Sand Pit”, https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=459.

“Graham, Bell”…🤔

The same area as above nearly 25 years later, the “old road” alignment still noted. “Dartmouth, Property along the 1st Dartmouth Lake”, 1853. https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=730

https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=1370

The general vicinity in 1918, the road to Preston branching into what is now Lakecrest Drive and Tacoma Drive.

By 1956 there’s some subdivisions and aspirational plans included that didn’t quite come to pass as envisioned here. “Map and Directory of Information Halifax and Dartmouth and Vicinity, Nova Scotia”, Mapco. 1956. https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=1673&Page=202012450

Planning for the rotary underway, “Map of Halifax, Dartmouth and Vicinity”, 1962. Mapco. https://archives.novascotia.ca/maps/archives/?ID=1740&Page=202012470

From “Halifax Military Town Plan“, 1963. http://digitalarchive.mcmaster.ca/islandora/object/macrepo%3A81109

The Development of Public Health in Nova Scotia

by

Throughout the history of Nova Scotia, epidemics and infectious diseases have been recurring challenges, shaping legislation and public health measures. From as early as Champlain’s account of scurvy in 1606 to the smallpox outbreaks in the 18th and 19th centuries, diseases like smallpox, cholera, and typhus have had significant impacts on the region’s population.

Similarities can be drawn between past responses to epidemics and the modern approach to managing COVID-19. Social distancing measures, such as quarantine and isolation, were enforced through legislation dating back to the 18th century. Centralized decision-making, often led by governmental bodies or health officials, played a crucial role in implementing and enforcing these measures. For instance, laws were passed to regulate the entry of infected vessels into ports, mandate quarantine procedures, and appoint health officers to oversee public health initiatives.

Over time, legislation evolved to address specific diseases and public health challenges. Measures included the establishment of quarantine stations, vaccination programs, and the creation of boards of health to oversee public health initiatives at the local and provincial levels.

“Disaster is frequently the parent of legislation. In surveying the long history of Nova Scotia, we find this saying particularly true.”

“The first recorded instance of illness in Nova Scotia is the account of Champlain of an outbreak of scurvy at Port Royal in 1606. His group of settlers had spent the winter of 1605 at St. Croix Island, where, of a group of seventy-nine, forty-four died of scurvy. In Port Royal in the following year twelve of forty-five died.”

“Of all the epidemics, that of smallpox carried with it the greatest destruction and terror. In 1694 an epidemic was present among the [Mi’kmaq] of Acadia, but we have no knowledge of the number dying as a result. We may be sure it was large, however…”

“There was again an outbreak in Acadia in 1709 where there is evidence to suggest that the disease was of the hemorrhagic type. It was present in Louisburg in 1749. In October of the same year, a few months after the founding of Halifax, it broke out in this settlement. It was particularly destructive in type and during the autumn and winter months about one thousand persons died.”

“In 1801 we find it again in Nova Scotia and there is definite evidence that it was present the previous year. The total number of deaths in 1800 was one hundred and eighty-two, of which one hundred and thirty-eight contracted the disease in the ordinary manner and fourty-four by direct inoculation. In the epidemic of 1801, there were over 8,500 cases in and about Halifax of which accounts are scanty.

The early records indicate that a large number of persons were immunized by inoculation. Vaccination with cowpox was first used in Nova Scotia in the early spring of 1802 by Dr. Joseph Norman Bond of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.”

“A terrible epidemic, that was in all probability typhus, prevented a successful French invasion in the summer of 1746. A fleet of seventy sailing vessels, having on board 3,150 disciplined troops under the command of the Duc D’Anville, was sent from France to join a force of 1,700 French troops in Nova Scotia. The expedition was to first take Annapolis Royal and then Boston, proceeding thereafter to the West Indies. The fleet arrived in Halifax Harbor, or as it was then known, Chebucto Harbor, ninety days after leaving France. During the voyage, 1,270 men had died and the remainder were ill. The Canadian force had, in the meantime, grown tired of waiting and had retraced its steps to Quebec. After landing the troops an additional number, probably about 1,200, died. The [Mi’kmaq] who approached the camp on the shore of Bedford Basin contracted the disease and in the months following, it is estimated that at least one third of the whole [Mi’kmaq] tribe in the province died.”

“On September 7, 1827, the brig “Fame” arrived in Halifax with 130 persons on board ill with typhus. Smallpox was prevalent in the city at the same time. There was a great loss of life from the two diseases. A large number of deaths were amongst the poor. Some 800 persons of the 11,000 inhabitants died. From Halifax the disease spread to other parts of the province. The first mention of cholera in Nova Scotia is in 1834. It continued for two or three months, particularly in Halifax and about twenty persons died daily.”

“In 1854 a severe epidemic of cholera broke out in Saint John, New Brunswick. It fortunately did not reach Halifax, but its proximity brought such anxiety to the minds of the legislators of that day that as a direct result a City Hospital was built. This afterwards became in turn the City and Provincial Hospital, and the Victoria General Hospital.”

“A ship arrived at Halifax with cholera on board in 1866. Dr. Slater of Halifax, one of those who went on board to care for the victims, died as a result of the disease. It does not appear that an outbreak followed. In 1871 the steamship “Franklyn” came to Halifax with cholera on board. The disease was carried ashore to Chezzetcook, on the coast east of Halifax, where two deaths occurred. So far as is known this was the extent of its spread.”

“Since 1749 various outbreaks of the infectious fevers, particularly scarlet fever and diphtheria, have occurred throughout the province. Diphtheria was particularly fatal amongst children. As these diseases were almost endemic, the public grew used to them and they did not strike the same terror into the populace as those brought by ships. It was the old story of an evil that became tolerated and as a result, public records contain little reference to the ordinary infectious diseases.”

“As previously mentioned, legislation, often temporary, was enacted from time to time following the appearance of epidemic diseases. While there is little doubt that the medical profession from time to time played a part, a great deal Of credit must be given the official bodies of Government for their efforts to meet the recurring dangers.

A perusal of the Uniacke Edition of the Statutes (1758 to 1804) of Nova Scotia, reveals that in the year 1761 an Act was passed which provided that vessels entering the port of Halifax with an infected person or infected persons on board, must anchor at least two miles from town, having an ensign with the Union down at her mast head; no persons were to land and the master was to give notice to the Governor and conform to his orders. Before infected persons were landed, the master was required to give security to pay attending charges; masters violating this Act were to forfeit 100 pounds, to be recovered in a court of record. In other towns one or more of the nearest justices were charged with the responsibility of preventing persons landing from or going on board infected vessels and of transmitting intelligence to the Governor for instructions.

In 1775 authority was given to two justices and the overseers of the poor to make provision for the care of persons coming from infected places and of local persons infected. If such persons were unable to pay the incidental expenses, the town of residence was made liable; if strangers, the charge was to be recovered from the Provincial Treasury.

Provision was made for “inoculating” such persons as desired it against smallpox in houses 160 rods from any dwelling. During the period of resulting illness they were not allowed to go farther than 80 rods from the inoculation houses and flags were to be flown on the premises in order that others might avoid the places.

In 1779 reference is made to the neighboring States of America having been, for several years, visited by yellow fever or “Putrid Fever” or other “Infectious Distempers” and as a consequence, the desirability of requiring persons coming from infected places to “perform” quarantine in such manner as may be ordered by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Commander in Chief for the time being and “for punishing offenders in a more expeditious manner than can be done by the ordinary course of law”. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Commander in Chief was given authority and was obliged to appoint during pleasure, health officers in all counties and districts of the province ; such officers, duly sworn, were to be paid out of the provincial treasury a reasonable sum for services rendered upon presentation of the accounts to the General Assembly. The 1799 legislation was quite drastic and gave wide powers to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Commander in Chief and health officers, to compel quarantine, to punish offenders, to use force if necessary, and to burn or purify goods, wearing apparel, beds, etc. It was provided that “two justices, with the overseers of the poor, where authorized by Governor’s proclamation and after consulting skillful persons, might make provision for treating persons, storing and airing goods on vessels, for removing persons and goods to houses, tents or lazarets appointed for the purpose”. “Skillful persons” as defined in the Act, meant “one or more physicians, surgeons, apothecaries or other skillful persons living in or near the place.” Persons refusing to conform were liable to imprisonment for 6 months or a fine of 50 pounds. “Persons concealing from health officers or emerging letters or goods from a vessel, shall be guilty of a felony, without benefit of clergy”. “Governor’s orders respecting quarantine to be published by proclamation and read the first Sunday in every month in places of public worship.”

In 1809 legislation was enacted which obliged persons within the “town” of Halifax, to keep gutters and streets before their houses, buildings or lots, clear of dirt, filth and nuisances of all kinds. A fine of 20 shillings was imposed on anyone permitting such nuisances and the expenses incurred in removing them.

On the 14th day of April, 1832, two important pieces of public health legislation were placed upon the Statute books of the province. Both appear to demonstrate how apprehensive the authorities of that time were respecting the spread of communicable diseases and particularly their desire to prevent the entry of these from without. By their introduction all previous legislation on the same subject was repealed. One was termed “An Act to prevent the spreading of contagious diseases and for the performance of quarantine” and the other “An Act more effectually to provide against the introduction of infectious or contagious diseases and the spreading thereof in the province”.

The first Act provided for quarantine at definite anchorage points of all vessels coming from ports declared to be infected by the Governor-in-Council. Plague, smallpox, yellow fever, typhus and cholera morbus were mentioned. Power was given the chief officers of the crown to make orders dealing with any health emergency which might arise. Masters of infected vessels were required to report their state and to hoist signals when meeting other vessels, or when within two leagues of land; the day signal—”a large yellow flag of six breadths of bunting at the main top mast head”, and the night large signal lantern, with a light therein at the same mast head”. Penalties up to 200 pounds could be imposed for disobedience or refractory behavior. Provision was made for appointing health officers, superintendents of quarantine and assistants at the several ports, by the Governor.

In the second Act reference is made to a highly dangerous disease called “Cholera” or “Spasmodia” or “Indian Cholera”, which had prevailed on the continent of Europe and in Great Britain. Power was given the Governor to appoint, when expedient, at the several ports of the province, not only health officers, but boards of health for “carrying out and enforcing regulations made by the Governor-in-Council and generally to preserve the public health.” Sweeping powers were given the chief officers of the Crown to make regulations in emergencies.

All ships entering port were required to anchor at quarantine and remain there until boarded by a health officer and given a permit, which permit had to be shown the customs officer. Fees for the health officer’s services in this particular were collected from the masters by the customs officers and paid to the health officers; such fees were fixed by the Governor-in-Council.

This Act also gave the Governor power to appoint “Health Wardens” in Halifax and Justices of the Peace authority to appoint such wardens in any county or district of the province, the wardens to act gratuitously and to be sworn to the due performance of their duties. Wardens were required to examine in day time, as often as they deemed necessary, all houses, buildings, lots, stores, wharves, yards, enclosures and other places and all vessels and boats lying at any place in the province and to ascertain and report to the Governor, or such other persons as might be appointed to receive such reports, “the state and condition of all such buildings, places and vessels in regard to any substances, articles or animals there or therein being, or any trade or business, matter or thing there or therein used, followed or transacted, whereby or by means whereof any nuisance might be occasioned or the public health might be endangered or affected”. The wardens were given power to order the removal of all nuisances and to order any premises “lime washed”, disinfected or “purified”. Penalties of 5 to 100 pounds could be imposed for any infringement of the act.

The two Acts just referred to were to be in force for one year. From this time on and for many years both Acts were, at each session of the legislature. continued for another year.

Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1833 made provision for the destroying. by any constable, of dogs by whose bite the disease “Canine Madness” might be occasioned. Two Justices of the Peace were empowered to make and put into execution such rules and regulations as they thought proper to prevent dogs or other animals, by whose bite the disease “Canine Madness” might be caused, going at large and to destroy them if necessary.

In the year 1850 authority was vested in general sessions of the Peace, or special sessions, consisting of not less than seven magistrates on requisition of the Board of Health, or whenever they considered such measures necessary to prevent the spread of smallpox, to order a general vaccination of persons in a county or district, or any portion thereof ; persons unable to pay to be vaccinated at the expense of the county or district concerned.

On April 8, 1852, a statute was passed empowering the Governor-in-Council to select a site and erect a building for a lunatic asylum.

On the 28th day of March, 1861, legislative enactment was given for the incorporation of the Medical Society of Nova Scotia. In the act of incorporation, the following were named : Rufus S, Black, James C. Hume, Edward Jennings, Daniel McNeil Parker and William B. Webster.

In the year 1862 legal provision was made for the appointment of a medical officer for the City of Halifax by the Board of Health of the City. This medical officer was not to interfere with the health officer for the port of Halifax, appointed by the Provincial Government. The city medical officer was to be under the control and subject to the orders of the Board of Health. He was given power to remove from dwellings in the city, or from boats at wharves within the city, persons having infectious diseases. If the sick persons should not, in his opinion be taken out, then the other occupants could, by him, be removed. He was also authorized to call in consultants; such consultants to be paid out of city funds. In the following year (1863) it was enacted that hereafter the mayor and aldermen of the City of Halifax should constitute the Board of Health of the city and any Acts previously passed and inconsistent with this ruling were thereby repealed.

Three years later (1866) provision was made for the establishment of a quarantine station at the port of Halifax. That Act empowered the Governor to expend $30,000.00 for the purchase of a site and the erection of a hospital, the City of Halifax having agreed to bear one-third of the expenses of the site and the building. Persons within the city having infectious diseases were to be eligible for treatment in and subject to removal to this station. All vessels over 100 tons burden entering the port were made liable to a fee of one cent per ton towards the expenses of maintaining such quarantine station and hospital. Mail steamers were required to pay this fee once a year. Vessels sent into quarantine with infectious diseases were held responsible for all expenses on account of crew or passengers aboard suffering from such diseases.

On the 7th day of May, 1866, an Act to provide against the introduction of diseases amongst horses and cattle was passed. The Governor-in-Council was given the power to make regulations respecting the introduction of such diseases in horses, cattle, sheep and swine and for the destruction of the animals should these diseases be introduced.

In the same year the mayor and all aldermen in the City of Halifax were made “Health Wardens” with power to expend money in sums found necessary to cleanse, purify and keep clean all sewers, drains, yards and places, or to carry into effect all sanitary orders of the Board of Health or health wardens in the interests of the public health.

Legislative authority in the year 1875 more clearly defined the duties of the city medical officer and the office of surgeon to the city prison was abolished. The following duties were imposed upon the city medical officer:

  • 1. “To perform services heretofore performed by the City Medical Offcer and prison surgeon”.
  • 2. “Act as medical advisor to the Board of Health, the City Council and the Health Inspectors,”
  • 3. ‘Visit City Policemen and other city offcials absent from duty on the plea of ill health and report to proper authority”.
  • 4. “To attend policemen, firemen or other city officials gratuitously, also persons brought to the police station”.
  • 5. “Vaccinate free of charge such persons as the Board of Health may determine”.
  • 6. ‘Visit and report upon cases of contagious disease brought to his notice”.
  • 7. “Generally to perform all such duties as may be reasonably required or prescribed by the Board of Health or City Council”.

In 1832 a Central Board of Health was established for the province. The President was the Honourable Henry H. Cogswell. Vice-Presidents were Doctors Allan and Johnston. Members were the Attorney-General; the Solicitor- General James Foreman, Esq., Doctors Shoreland, Hume, Sterling and Gregor and William Cogswell, Esq. The last named was the Secretary of the Board. This Central Board was given power to make and enforce regulations, to prevent spread of disease and to regulate the observance of quarantine. At the same time, local Boards were established in various places throughout the province, each having the same authority as the Central Board and each required to report its proceedings to the Central authority. At this time, Boards were named at Digby, Arichat, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Windsor and Annapolis. There was some indication also that County Boards for Pictou, Hants, Kings, Cumberland and Antigonish were established.

A quarantine hospital was opened in Halifax and Dr. James C. Hume was appointed Health Officer with a “salary of twenty pounds a month while employed, with reasonable allowances for expenses.”

In 1851 all previous legislation relating to public health was consolidated. The Central Board apparently ceased to exist about this time and enforcements of quarantine and the administration of public health were vested in the Governor-in-Council, who had authority to “make quarantine orders applicable to vessels, goods, persons and things being within the province or expected hither from abroad ; to make sanitary orders to cover any special conditions that might arise; to appoint persons at the several ports of the province to act as health officers therefor; to establish at any place a Board of Health for carrying such sanitary orders into effect ; and to prescribe the duties of health officers and Boards of Health”. Health inspectors were to be appointed at general or special court sessions and in Halifax and other parts of the province health wardens were appointed.

The legislation of 1851 remained almost without change until 1873. At this time, some change was made with reference to executive officials and the requirements added that a yellow flag should be displayed on the premises where small-pox or “malignant cholera” prevailed. After 1884 the appointment of health wardens was made by the municipal councils instead of by the courts. In 1893 a Central Board of Health was established as a central organization.”

CAMPBELL, P. S., and H. L. SCAMMELL. “The Development of Public Health in Nova Scotia.” Canadian Public Health Journal, vol. 30, no. 5, 1939, pp. 226–238. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41977931. Accessed 27 Jan. 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41977931?seq=1

Sedition In Nova Scotia: R. v. Howe and the “Contested Legality” of Seditious Libel

by

Joseph Howe’s trial for sedition in 1835 marked a pivotal moment in Canadian history, likened to John Wilkes and Charles James Fox in significance. Howe’s defense, a masterful application of legal principles, challenged the government’s use of sedition law to silence political opposition. His arguments, rooted in fundamental freedoms and legal rights, led to his acquittal and established a precedent against repressive prosecutions. The trial showcased the interplay between law and politics, highlighting the role of sedition as a tool for stifling dissent and the importance of legal resistance in defending constitutional liberties.

Howe’s victory dismantled sedition as a crime in Nova Scotia, discouraging future prosecutions and emphasizing the power of the jury to uphold civil liberties. While Howe’s success was a blow to government repression, lasting reform required political action in the legislature, where the battle for constitutional change ultimately unfolded. Overall, Howe’s trial exemplified the complex relationship between law, politics, and individual rights in the struggle for freedom of expression and governmental accountability.

“Nova Scotia had found [in Joseph Howe] not only its John Wilkes but also its Charles James Fox.” — W.S. MacNutt, 1965

“In a seminal article published in 1974, Kenneth McNaught described Howe as one of Canada’s “two most significant cases involving political freedom of the press” — the other being Dixon for seditious libel arising from the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919. McNaught failed to mention an important early New Brunswick case (Hooper, 1830), where the proprietor-editor of the British Colonist (Saint John) was prosecuted for seditious libel after publishing, under the author’s suggestive Puritan nom-de-plume (“Hampden”), a letter castigating the legal profession and the administration of justice. Hooper, like Howe and Fred Dixon after him, defended himself — but was discharged rather than acquitted, due to a hung jury and the trial judge’s advice to the attorney-general to stay the proceedings. Whether Hooper’s discharge or Howe’s acquittal established, preserved or strengthened the freedom of the press is a moot point which, regardless of how it is decided, does not provide the key to understanding either the legal or historical context of Howe’s trial for sedition. Yet traditional scholarship fails to offer a properly contextualized legal or political analysis of Howe, which was by any definition a state trial.

Another question which requires attention is whether the prosecution of Joseph Howe for sedition would have taken place at all had Howe’s newspaper not been the voice of radical political opposition to Halifax’s corrupt, inefficient and unreformed government. This self-perpetuating gerontocracy of justices of the peace, based on the old English model, had ruled Halifax since its founding in 1749. It had been resisting any and all attempts at civic incorporation since 1785, when Saint John, Canada’s first city, was incorporated. Published criticism of the magistrateship tended to be construed as criticism of the executive branch — the lieutenant-governor and council — who “were equally supreme in the control of town affairs as those of the province at large.

The grand jury for the year 1835 was impaneled on the opening day of Hilary Term and formally charged by the chief justice. The date was later than usual, but in good time for the spring sitting of the Quarter Sessions on 3 March. Both Howe’s half-brother Joseph Austen and the two magistrates, James Noble Shannon and John Leander Starr, sought and received permission to withdraw when, on 17 February, the attorney-general came to the grand jury room and presented to the foreman an indictment against Joseph Howe for libel. Howe afterwards read into the record a passage from the now lost indictment which makes crystal clear that the charge was seditious libel:

“The jurors of our Lord the King upon their oath present, that Joseph Howe, late of Halifax, in the County of Halifax, printer, being a wicked, seditious and ill-disposed person, and being a person of a most wicked and malicious temper and disposition … [and] greatly disaffected to the administration of His Majesty’s Government in this Province, and wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously contriving, devising, and intending to stir up and excite discontent and sedition among His Majesty’s subjects….”

“Though the grand jury had ample opportunity to quash the indictment, they chose instead not to run the risk of antagonizing the government by forcing the attorney-general either to discontinue the prosecution or to lay an ex officio criminal information. Returning true bill suggests timidity on the part of the grand jury in the exercise of their investigative function — at least where political trials were concerned — and their action was not even remotely comparable to the independence and assertiveness of earlier, reformist grand juries. If the neo-conservative grand jury of 1835 had been of the same political stripe as that of 1834, then the bill would certainly have been rejected. Everything turned on the composition of the new grand juiy: whether to prosecute; whom to prosecute; by what means to prosecute.”

“This was not mere criminal libel – defamation; this was sedition. “That is not the law as respects public bodies,” stated Archibald. “It does not allow the defendant to escape in this way.” The attorney-general then sketched the common-law crime of sedition, omitting Fox’s Libel Act, which had already been covered by lead counsel. Archibald’s contention that the defendant’s rebuttal of the crown’s inference of malice was “unknown to the law” differed from Howe’s constructive application of the Act, according to which the jury was not required to convict solely on the basis of the sense ascribed to the alleged libel in the indictment. In other words, the effect of construing the Act as Howe did was to undermine the common-law rule that the intention of the writer is to be gathered from the words written. The accused had argued forcefully that if the crown had the right to infer malice from the content of the alleged libel, then the jury had the right to reject that inference, and to determine on other grounds the presence or absence of seditious intention.
Recognizing the weak self-interestedness of the crown’s case, Archibald focused more on its procedural than on its substantive aspects. Indeed, he came dangerously close to suggesting that the government had prosecuted for sedition in order to forestall the magistrates impoliticly initiating an action for defamation:
If the nature of the charge [against the magistrates] would have allowed of a private prosecution, the defendant would then have been obliged to put his justification upon the record, and to prove the truth of it by witnesses placed in the box and examined on oath, not by hearsay, nor even by the report of a committee of His Majesty’s Council.”

“Howe’s defence was built on the bedrock of law, not the sand of fact; and it was as ingenious as it was brilliant in its simplicity. The proceeding must have induced in Chief Justice Halliburton a sense of déjà vu; he had been on the bench in 1820, when Chief Justice Sampson Salter Blowers delivered his charge to the jury in Wilkie. Fifteen years later, Halliburton, having succeeded Blowers in 1833, now found himself presiding over only the second seditious libel trial to have occurred in the province. The charge was a congeries of evasion, irrelevancy and prejudication, which strikingly illustrated Halliburton’s too limited experience at the bar; as a lawyer, the chief justice was much the inferior of his contemporary, the attorney-general. Indeed, the only constructive parts of his charge were those which regurgitated the attorney-general’s reply. Like Archibald before him, Halliburton was at pains to explain the nature of the prosecution in order to justify, if not cloak, its purpose. As the trial proceeded, it became clear that it was the crown, not the accused, that was on the defensive.”

Howe was the first, and would be the only, acquittal of an accused seditionist in Nova Scotia. “Your verdict will be the most important in its consequences ever delivered before this tribunal,” Howe admonished the jury in his defence, implying that the liberty of the press might be in jeopardy if it were to find against him. A defence which persuaded a trial jury, applying Fox’s Libel Act, to return a verdict of not guilty cannot reasonably be described as “from the point of view of the law…magnificently irrelevant.” Such an interpretation ignores the truism that the jury was ultimately the judge of both law and fact. The trial judge could only advise and warn, direct and instruct — and then consent to the verdict, regardless of what it was. The jury’s responsibility in sedition cases was greater still because there was no clear, positive law defining seditious libel; that was for the courts to determine by reference to case law. As part of received English criminal procedure — consistent with Nova Scotia’s common-law reception protocol — Fox’s Libel Act was deemed automatically to be in force. It was declaratory, affirmative and ameliorative of the common law of libel, and tended to enhance the liberty of the subject. To be sure, both Attorney-General Archibald and Chief Justice Halliburton passed over in deafening silence an Act which they knew to be the strongest weapon in Howe’s tiny legal arsenal. However, Gray had already elucidated it in presenting the crown’s case; and the accused made much of it in his defence. The attorney- general and the chief justice may therefore have concluded that the less said about it the better. They could hardly have taken exception to Howe’s account of it, which was correct and compelling in every way.


The suggestion that the law was disregarded by the jury is likewise mistaken. The opposite is true; the law was scrupulously regarded by a jury exercising their prerogative under Fox’s Libel Act to give a general verdict on the evidence. They found that there was no seditious libel, not because the statements in “The People” were true or because their publication by the accused had been for the public benefit, but because there was no seditious intention. Howe’s forensic enabled the jury to infer absence of malice from truth and public benefit, these being the two elements which would afterwards combine in the Libel Act, 1843 (“Lord Campbell’s Act”) to form the justification defence to criminal defamation. That the crown inferred malice from the publication, without attempting to prove seditious intention, was an attempt to presume the accused guilty, as it were, until he could prove himself innocent.”

“Though the bar was, for Howe, the career path not taken, he had conducted an intensive study of both the state-trials case law and the treatises. By no means “magnificently irrelevant” from the point of view of law, Howe’s defence exploited to the full the resources of criminal procedure. Though the accused undoubtedly “stated a great variety of things which could not be evidence,” he had also stated more law than either the attorney-general in his summation or the chief justice in his charge to the jury. To the extent to which doubts respecting the function of juries in libel cases were removed by Fox’s Libel Act, Howe construed the remedial statute liberally. Hence the correctness of the jury’s decision “to take its view of libel, not from Archibald, not from Halliburton, but from Howe, and bring in a verdict of ‘not guilty.’” Despite the brilliance of his forensic oratory, Howe’s triumph was more forensic than oratorical in character. To paraphrase Beck, the accused had in effect convinced the jury that the procedural law applicable to their function in a seditious libel case empowered them honourably to acquit him.”

Howe’s crash-course mastery of sedition law à la Thomas Erskine figured prominently in his defence to the charge. Unlike Wilkie, he argued not for truth as a defence to seditious libel but for a narrower definition of it that excluded fair comment. Yet there was no criticism of the administration of justice — as in Hooper, and also to some extent in Wilkie — and no allegations that the magistrates were guilty of misfeasance. This is what distinguishes Howe from both Wilkie and Hooper, where the crown’s case was stronger and the verdicts guilty. While the resort to sedition law bore the legitimacy of precedent, it was a double-edged sword, as Attorney-General Archibald realized. Despite the chief justice’s rather unsubtle attempt to direct a verdict of conviction, the government could not depend on a trial jury to toe the line; and, because of Archibald’s unwillingness to allow either of the law officers lead for the prosecution, Howe was able to exploit with spectacular success the very public forum of a trial at bar in the Supreme Court. As Howe’s triumph demonstrates, the government’s prosecutorial monopoly and control of the judiciary did not mean that a struggle such as Howe’s was a purely self-defensive reaction to an undefendable charge arising from the repressive use of the criminal law. The fact that truth could not be pleaded as a defence to seditious libel did not mean that there was no defence.

The Howe case is a uniquely rich exemplification of contested legality. An analysis of Howe’s great speech in his own defence reveals not only the legal sophistication of the accused, but also highlights the importance of law-finding in the verdicts of libel juries. Howe’s arguments from fundamental freedoms and legal and equality rights thoroughly discredited the charge against him. They derived from his belief in the jury’s obligation to safeguard hard-won constitutional liberties, such as freedom of the press (only recently achieved in England), and to oppose by their verdict repressive use of the criminal law by government. The very nature of sedition law and the deep interpenetration of government and the judiciary under the ancien régime placed in high relief concerns about crown prosecutorial responsibility, the independence of the grand jury, and the impartiality of the bench.


The fact that the Nova Scotia government controlled the inauguration of state- criminal proceedings was hardly a controversial departure from English practice, as it was in Upper Canada in the 1820s and New Brunswick in 1830-1. The attorney-general’s monopoly over crown prosecutions (which by no means precluded private prosecutions) was benign — except when the government ordered the prosecution of a suspected political criminal. Despite the fact that the ex officio criminal information formed no part of received English criminal procedure in Nova Scotia, Attorney-General Archibald could easily have proceeded by that mode – simply because the offence charged was sedition (a public libel) rather than defamation (a private libel). That he did not to do so, and explained why in his summation, is a most telling illustration of the triumph of constitutionalism over legal repression.”

“The trial jury’s freedom to render a general verdict was based on the recognition that Fox’s Libel Act was of full force and effect in Nova Scotia and that it applied to all forms of libel, public (seditious, obscene, blasphemous) as well as private (defamatory). Trial by jury and verdict according to conscience — central to civil-libertarian opposition to the development of sedition law in eighteenth-century England, and virtually suspended in Upper Canada under the Seditious Aliens Act (1804-1829) — were taken for granted in Nova Scotia. As is clear from Howe, Erskine’s famous arguments on the trial jury’s right to deliver a general verdict were recapitulated, and Nova Scotia’s instantaneous reception of the common-law declaratory Libel Act was reconfirmed. Upper Canada, where the need was greater because of a punitive sedition statute, did not have the benefit of Fox’s Libel Act. Ultimately, it fell to the jury in Howe to become the voice of popular protest against oppressive prosecutions and Sessional misgovemment, as that role had been abdicated by the new neo-conservative grand jury. Though the accused in his defence suggested no such thing, the trial jury by their verdict sent a clear message to the Council and the magistrates that the local government was inefficient and corrupt and required reform or replacement.”

“As an episode in Canadian law and Canadian history, Howe clearly demonstrates the very broad applications of a judicially-legislated offence like seditious libel. As J.M. Bumsted has written in another context, “Seditious libel was the classic Anglo-Canadian charge used by those seeking to muzzle public criticism.” Seditious libel had more of sedition than of libel about it. The long-term politico-legal effect of Howe was to extinguish sedition as a crime in Nova Scotia; there would not be another prosecution for nearly ninety years. Before Howe, seditious libel prosecutions were an assured conviction; after Howe, they were deemed risky, counter-productive and not worth pursuing.


Sociolegal history is essential to understanding the interrelationship of law and politics and government’s use of the former to regulate and control the latter. Certainly the Nova Scotian sedition cases – Hoffman (1753), Wilkie (1820), Howe (1835) and McLachlan (1923) – document the overwhelming importance of political crime both to the colonial state and to the experience of “conservative” reformers such as Joseph Howe, not to mention radical ones such as William Wilkie and J.B. McLachlan. Sedition law was an extreme and usually effective means of censoring extra-legislative political discourse. Prosecutions were designed to intimidate influential public opinion-makers and neutralize potential leaders of a popular opposition, by stigmatizing pro bono publico criticism as untrue and unfair and imputing a spirit of disloyalty to it. Yet while serving to justify and excuse its repressive use by government, the law was multi-purpose. Victims of the prosecution could use the machinery of the criminal law to contest legal repression by government. Sedition as an instance and instrument of the repressive use of criminal law reveals tensions between rule of law and rule of government, state and people, authority and discretion — articulated in concerns about government control of public prosecutions, the grand jury and the judiciary. Howe’s great hopes and expectations for British justice had everything to do with constitutionalism and nothing with legalism. Howe’s optimistic sentiments bespoke his fundamental belief in the system, his belief that the rule of law was the guarantee of the liberty of the subject and of equality before and under the law. The source of Howe’s immense popular appeal as a victim who refused to lie down was not that the government had deprived him of his constitutional rights, but that they had falsely and maliciously accused him of, and prosecuted him for a crime which he had not committed. He used the law decisively to remedy its misuse by government, a strategy which highlighted the political inexpediency of legal repression. What had worked before would not work again because it was wrong.


The positive effect of Howe’s success, however, should not be exaggerated. The fact that public prosecutions were always initiated by government meant that trials in the Supreme Court were risky self-defensive exercises, which, while not precluding the possibility of unanticipated acquittals, made their occurrence improbable. And it is evident that claims of contestability, which defied precedent and the collective wisdom of the legal profession, were weak on their face — given government control of the prosecution process in state trials. Nevertheless, the effect of Howe’s acquittal was to checkmate legal repression by holding the magistrates accountable, and embarrassing the government in such a manner as to kick-start reform in the legislative sphere. The reform leadership-in-waiting— in other words, the lawyers who would not defend Howe in that most public of all public forums, the Supreme Court — declined to do so in part because they realized that the more important struggles ultimately had to take place in the political arena, in the House of Assembly, and not in extra-parliamentary forums such as the grand jury and the liberal press. Repressive prosecutions, the political use of the criminal law and ancillary crimes against the state could only be effectively resisted if “high-profile” acquittals were procured. Legal successes, especially surprising ones, caused massive loss of face and credibility on the part of government, and unquestionably discouraged resort to sedition law after 1835. However, constitutional reform could only be secured by political action in the legislature. From 1836, when the final battle was joined, until 1848, when final victory was won, the legislature – not the courts – would be the arena of political struggle in Nova Scotia”

Cahill, J Barry. ‘Sedition in Nova Scotia: R. v. Howe (1835) and the ‘Contested Legality’ of Seditious Libel’ University of New Brunswick Law Journal, Vol 51, 2002, pp. 95 – 140. https://web.archive.org/web/20210207140058/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288207148.pdf

The Intellectual Awakening of Nova Scotia

by

“In 1822 public subscription libraries had been opened in Yarmouth and Pictou, preceding by only twelve years those literary and scientific societies which were established in both places in 1834. In 1824, the Halifax Public Library appeared; and in 1831 the Mechanics’ Library and Institute. The first lecture in the Institute was given in January, 1832; and, during the next quarter of a century, every phase of literature and science was discussed in this institute, which might well have been called the University of Halifax. From the parent organization branches spread to Dartmouth, Upper Stewiacke and Truro.”

“Rather, it seems to have been inevitable that the Nova Scotian character should have been moulded by American and British experiences, and that the social heritage of the Nova Scotian should have been a far from uniform blend of American and British characteristics”

Harvey, D.C. “The Intellectual Awakening of Nova Scotia” Dalhousie Review, Volume 13, Number 1, 1933 https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/62186/dalrev_vol13_iss1_pp1_22.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Archives and Historical Research in the Maritimes

by

“The Mechanics’ Institute was organized in Halifax in 1832, and during the next three decades was a real university of the people for the city of Halifax, from which the idea spread to Dartmouth, Windsor, Truro, Stewiacke, Antigonish, Sydney and other places in Nova Scotia, as well as to Charlottetown, Saint John and Fredericton. In this institute weekly lectures were given during the winter months on literary and scientific subjects; and before it some of the most inspiring addresses of Joseph Howe were given. It was as President of the Institute, in 1834, that he gave that address on love of country and faith in Nova Scotia which inspired the youth of his generation and still speaks to the heart of those who read it to-day. It was that address which suggested to me a title for the period 1837 to 1867, as- the Age of Faith in Nova Scotia, of which more anon.”

Harvey, D.C. “Archives and Historical Research in the Maritimes” Dalhousie Review, Volume 23, Number 2, 1943 https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/57703/dalrev_vol23_iss2_pp193_206.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

1832

by
storyofdartmouth-32 old ferry

From The Story of Dartmouth, by John P. Martin:

In January 1832, there appeared in the “Nova Scotian” seven stanzas of poetry written by “Albyn” at Ellenvale on the occasion of the death of John D. Hawthorn. The latter was a prominent merchant of this community, and a Justice of the Peace. He had been a promoter of the Aboiteau, across the Lawrencetown River near the present railway trestle, which resulted in the reclamation of a wide area of dykeland for hay.

The weather that season continued cold. Ice formed in the Coves and extended all over the harbor by mid-February, when the mercury sank to 12 below. Hundreds amused themselves skating across. Sailing ships could not enter the port owing to heavy drift ice, which for a time clogged the entrance.

As for the unemployed Canal workers, this was the winter of their discontent. Contractor Daniel Hoard had made an assignment and was now incarcerated in the debtors’ jail at Halifax. With the whole project at a standstill, poverty and distress prevailed among helpless families in “Canal Town”, which was only partly relieved by intermittent local charity.

The men appealed successively to Canal officers, to Government officials and finally to Lieutenant-Governor Maitland. Even rioting was threatened.

Some went so far as to set fire to the wooden gates at Lock number 6. This brought forth a proclamation from the Government, offering £50 reward for the culprits.

When the Legislature met that winter, the workmen had a long petition prepared explaining their position. They had not received their hire regularly since the summer of 1831. When later on, several left their jobs, they were persuaded to return by Mr. Dealey, a Company Inspector, who assured them that the pay would soon be forthcoming. They asked that any Government grants for the Canal be applied to their wages.

The petition was signed by:

Robert Hunter, John Turnbull, Robert Wilson, Robert Johnston, Michael Murphy, James Sinnott, Thos. McMillan, John Elliot, Wm. Elliot, James Elliot, Thomas Elliot, Hector Elliot, John Murphy, Nathaniel Russell, Jeremiah Donovan, John Shenston, Paul Shenston, James Colbert, Laurence Feeney, John O’Donnell, Wm. Beattie, Oliver Cumerford, Michael Lahey, Andrew Smith, John Bowes, John Evans, Wm. Carroll, Michael Carroll, David Goggin, John Loney, Pat Galaher, Tim Haley, Wm. Russell, James Russell, jr, John Fisher, Dan Nicholson, Thos. Dey, James Hailey, Luke Langley, Morris Power, Wm. Forren, Tom Sullivan, Morris Conden, Timothy Meagher, Alexander Grant, George Tully, James Fitzgerald, Patt Doyle, Thos. Meagher, Michael Dormady, John Beattie, James Young, James Young, sr, James Shortell, Michael Shortell, Tim Hayley, John Wilson, Patrick Devine, Patrick Shea, James Fenerty, Terry Sullivan, Michael Kennedy, Michael Kennedy 2nd, John Kennedy 2nd, Daniel Keating, Danl Sullivan 2nd, James Walsh, Thomas Shea, John Kennedy 3rd, John Kennedy 4th, Danl Sullivan 1st, Cornelius Kennedy, Thomas Sullivan, Andrew Forhin, Wm. Donohue, Pat Murphy, James Coleman, Thos Hogan, Michael Doweling, John Boyle, John Roatch, Donald Flinn and Walter Currie.

When member John Young read the complaint in the House that February afternoon, Charles R. Fairbanks, representative for Halifax, whose heart and soul was in the Canal project, rose to his feet at once to exculpate the Directors of the Company and lay the blame upon the Contractors.

The latter had been paid in regular installments until, forced by circumstances already described, Company funds had become depleted. This was partly due to the dishonest work of at least one Contractor. The men were in the employ of Contractors, and not of the Company, he said.” Payments to Daniel Hoard had been withheld, pending an adjustment.

Mr. Fairbanks warmly assailed members like John Homer of Barrington, who had called the Canal a “Slough of Despond”, not realizing that £50,000 in British capital was being spent in promoting the development of Nova Scotia. The speaker praised the undertaking as a great public work which would tap our immense natural resources through to Minas Basin, and make Halifax harbor the seaport of the Bay of Fundy.

In March, the House voted a sum of £100 to be used for the relief of the distressed workmen. As a matter of record, Governor Maitland had already paid over that amount.

The petition of the Steam Boat Company that year was not so fortunate. Their application for a grant was opposed by several members who contended that the boat stopped for days, weeks and sometimes months during 1831. Their charter was retained only by running an occasional trip.

Despite the explanations of Messrs. Fairbanks and DeBlois, and their pleas that the Directors were each out of pocket by some £500, the vote was defeated. (This was the first rejection of a ferry grant in ten years.)

Of more local interest was a petition from inhabitants of Cole Harbor, Lawrencetown and Preston Roads. Familiar names like Bissett, Kuhn, Tulloch and Wisdom are appended. Christian Katzman’s name is in large bold handwriting.

These people asked for assistance to make improvements “on that part of the road leading from the North and South ferries up over Creighton’s Hill”.

storyofdartmouth-32 old ferry
Old Ferry Road as it was in 1832, from Pleasant Street to Portland Street today. “Road from Lawrencetown and Preston” at the top being Portland Street (which split at Woodlawn to become the Preston Road on the left, Mount Edward Road, and the Lawrencetown Road on the right, Portland Street and then Cole Harbor Road), while the road to Creighton’s Ferry eventually ran back up the hill to continue on to Eastern Passage near what is now Newcastle Street.

As seen above, the road over that immense bank had been originally cut in zigzag fashion in order to lessen the difficulty of climbing up to the level near the present Mount Amelia residence. 

This section, known as “Shoulder of Mutton Hill” was noted for its “amazing steepness”, said the petition. Even in the best of weather, “travellers cannot load their waggons with more than one-half the usual load”. The road was cut into, after every rainstorm because the gutter became clogged with mud washing down the sharp slope.

The sentences quoted from the petition, indicate that the Lower Ferry wharf was also the landing place of much heavy merchandise destined for the eastern sections.

We should note here that the petition mentions the use of Old Ferry Road by teams from the “North” ferry, i. e. the Steam Boat terminus. From this fact, we assume that the present Portland Street was not yet cut in a westerly direction from the foot of Maynard Street. The route then from Cole Harbor districts evidently went down Old Ferry Road and turned westerly along Pleasant Street to the Steam Boat wharf.

As a result of the above petition, John Stayner and John Allen of Dartmouth were subsequently instructed to submit plans for altering “Shoulder of Mutton Hill”.

All the real estate of the late Hon. Michael Wallace was auctioned at Dartmouth that year. It included Medley’s Hotel, stable and garden, together with four lots in rear of the house. Also a corner lot opposite the Church, formerly owned by Adam Miller; a lot south of Skerry’s wharf with a water lot in rear; and another water lot at the end of North Street, 100 by 300 feet. Medley bought the Hotel.

The extensive possessions of John D. Hawthorn were also up for sale at auction. His Dartmouth property consisted of two dwellings, coach house, stable, bake house, a store on the wharf and other buildings. At Lawrencetown were his farm lands, horses, cows, sheep, waggons and a large scow.

Thomas Boggs advertised to let the house on Dartmouth Point formerly occupied by him, with coach house, stable, garden and field. Also his wharf in the Cove. Inquiries were to be left with Mr. Hugh Searl, at Dartmouth Hotel.

(From Prince Street to King Street, the railway now runs through the middle section of the original Boggs’ field. It used to be lined with hawsey and chestnut trees. At the intersection of the railway track with the east side of Prince Street, there once stood a fashionable house which was no doubt the Boggs’ residence; although another plan shows a building at the southwest corner of King and South Streets. Boggs’ plank-floored coach house, converted into a dwelling, still stands at the southeast corner of Prince and South Streets.)

Engineer Francis Hall, who was about to leave the Province, advertised his 10-roomed house, garden, stable, outhouses, with a water-lot in front, near the Ferry. Along with it went the whole of his household furniture, “a very superior horse, harness, saddlery, gig and sleigh”.

John Tapper, a blacksmith, who no doubt fashioned ironwork for the Canal, advertised his house for sale. Andrew Malcom, his one-time partner, offered five more in downtown Dartmouth—all heavily mortgaged. The latter’s account books showed long lists of uncollectible bills. Finally he was forced to make an assignment.

James Synott mortgaged to Donald McLennan for £300, three adjoining dwellings northeast corner of South and Water Streets. Also the “land and store on the north side of the old road leading from Dartmouth to Preston, said road now being obstructed and shut up by the waste-weir”. (Lower stretch of Crichton Avenue on east side.)

John Skerry purchased for £85, two seven-acre lots of Abbeville estate with buildings thereon, commencing at the northeast corner of School Street and Victoria Road. (Until new streets were laid out in that vicinity, the surrounding pastures and woods continued to be called Skerry’s fields.)

Alexander Lyle sold for £40 to Thomas Marvin, block-maker, the property which is now no. 6 Commercial Street.

A lot of land 50 yards from the northeast corner of Ochterloney and Dundas Streets “on which corner stands John Chamberlain’s dwelling”, in Block “A” which had been granted to Christ Church along with Block “G”, was sold in 1832 for £25 to Robert McNesly. The proceeds were used to discharge debts due on the new Parsonage.

James Stanford, the tanner, bought for £85 two of the lots on Ochterloney Street. It comprised a large area of lowland and stream near the present Maple Street.

The first record of the ferry being used for a fire-boat was logged in October of 1832, when the “Sir Charles Ogle” interrupted her schedule to transport the Dartmouth Firemen to fight a conflagration which was raging in the vicinity of Cunard’s buildings at the foot of Proctor Street in Halifax. The newspapers reported that the fire engine “worked on board the Steam Boat, assisted very materially in checking the spread of flames in the rear of the buildings”.

There was a very fashionable wedding out at Mount Edward that summer when widower S. G. W. Archibald, then Attorney General for Nova Scotia, was married to Mrs. Brinley, widow of William Birch Brinley. Rev. Mr. DesBrisay officiated. The same Minister performed the marriage at Dartmouth of Martha Vaughan to Francis Hoard.

Among Dartmouth baptisms were Henry, child of Sophia and Joseph Frame, farmer; Margaret and John, twin children of Maria and John Morton, laborer.

John Thomas Wilson, aged 11, (also on school register) was drowned while skating on the Canal just before Christmas.

A similar tragedy was reported the previous March, when Robert Mills, who missed the last boat at night, attempted to cross to Halifax on the ice opposite the Naval Yard, and was never seen afterwards. He left a widow and two sons.

Other deaths recorded were Michael Meagher, of Dartmouth, aged 39; and Francis Mizangeau aged 30 at Eastern Passage.

Notable deaths abroad in 1832 included Sir Walter Scott. When news reached here in November, it brought forth from “Albyn”, an elegy filling nearly three newspaper columns.

1830

by

From The Story of Dartmouth, by John P. Martin:

BEGINNINGS OF WOODSIDE

“Woodside” was the name of a beautiful rural estate, commanding a full view of the harbor, which was laid out about 1830 for Hon. John E. Fairbanks. The description of these highly ornamental grounds occupies a whole page in Mrs. Lawson’s History of Dartmouth. His private duck-pond was across the main road in that filled-in oval running westerly from the present base-ball park. The old Fairbanks dwelling is still used as a recreation hall. All that residential section of South Woodside commenced developing when the “Company” houses were constructed in 1886. The first sugar refinery, composed largely of brick, was erected in 1884, and destroyed by fire in 1912. The present building occupies much of the old site. There has been no sugar refined at this plant since June 1942. The stoppage was caused by world conditions during the war.

Along the railway track nearly to the boundary of the Nova Scotia Hospital, the hollowed-out bank indicates the situation of the old pottery works, and mill for the manufacture of chocolate and cocoa started in the 1830’s by Henry Y. Mott. If is said that the Mott family were among the first to make chocolates in what is now Canada. The Mott homestead was built on the present location of the new brick building just south of the main Nova Scotia Hospital. About 1909, the Grant family moved the house where it now stands next south of St. Alban’s Church.

The first record of another new hotel in Dartmouth is noted in newspapers of 1830 when on January 9 there is an account of a distinguished party in town. The report says:

Rear Admiral Sir Charles Ogle, the Lord Bishop of Nova Scotia, and Hon. Michael Wallace, the Treasurer of the Province, visited the Canal yesterday, and afterwards dined together at Medley’s Hotel in Dartmouth, where a sumptuous fare was provided in handsome style for them.

Medley’s Hotel was at the present Central Apartments on 59 Queen Street, owned at that time by Hon. Mr. Wallace. It outlasted all the other local inns of the 19th century.

In April 1830, a Boarding and Day School was opened in a large wooden house at the northeast corner of Commercial and Portland Streets. The announcement reads:

Mrs. Pratt, from London, most respectfully announces to the inhabitants of Halifax and Dartmouth, that she intends opening a Boarding and Day Seminary for young ladies, at the house of Mr. Lowe, opposite the Steam Boat wharf.

In May, word came from Charles R. Fairbanks in London that he had been successful in obtaining a loan of £20,000 from the British Government. In addition, £27,000 worth of shares of Canal stock had been purchased by private subscription.

It is of interest to record here that Dartmouth received considerably publicity as a result of Mr. Fairbanks’ visit. Famous men in the House of Lords who debated the Shubenacadie Canal Bill, included Lord Durham and the Duke of Wellington. The former was firmly opposed to the measure, while the latter seemed to be favorable to the loan.

The newspapers about this time had many more items concerning Dartmouth, than ever before. The Canal cottages were no doubt along Ochterloney Street for the convenience of workmen at the new Circular Dam and the new Locks near the Starr Works, as the following newspaper item suggests:

DARTMOUTH—Several new houses have been erected this spring. Others are being repaired and enlarged. A few rods above the Church, a new village has arisen almost spontaneously in the wilderness. The Dartmouth Canal Locks are progressing rapidly, and on a working day a visitor may see in miniature, some of the wonders of art which we hear of from other countries.

The poetry of “Albyn” continued to appear in Joseph Howe’s newspaper. Early in 1830, he wrote a 15-verse rhapsody, entitled SPRING’S WAKE. We quote two verses:

Birds from the East and West Know their appointed time, Thrice welcome, ev’ry aerial guest, Come to repair its ruined nest, Or sport on beds of thyme. The field-fare, in a flock, Have spread their pilgrim wings The ravens round Cole-Harbor croak, And geese that come ‘like clouds of smoke’, There stay their travellings. SPRING’S WAKE

The first casualty on the “Sir Charles Ogle” occurred in April. A young man in the employ, descended into the boiler for the purpose of cleaning it out, without first ascertaining if the fixed air had escaped. The result was instantly fatal.

Trouble soon developed on the Steam Boat, for in July she ceased running for a time. This is inferred from a complaint in the papers by a Halifax resident who went down to the Halifax dock with a group intent on a trip in the Steam Boat. After trying for two days, they had to “cross in one of Findlay’s barges”. At Dartmouth they found 14 or 15 teams laden with produce which had been detained on that side for several days, and at their own expense.

Meantime Joseph Findlay at the Old Ferry Inn, was taking every opportunity to encourage travelers to use his route. His card of July 1830, announced:

Joseph Findlay begs leave to return his sincere acknowledgements to the public, for the many marks of their kindness shewn him since he commenced his establishment at the Lower Ferry, Dartmouth, and likewise informs them that he has erected a convenient BATHING HOUSE near his wharf, where the water is pure. Adults can be accommodated at 3d each and children half price. Tea and Refreshments as usual.

There was no regatta on the harbor that summer. Other matters engaged public attention. On Sunday, August 1, a barque arrived at Saint John, N.B., with Dublin newspapers announcing the death of George IV. Halifax got the news on Wednesday night’s stage-coach from Annapolis.

The Legislature was consequently dissolved, and the Province plunged into the heat of a general election, for this was the year of the famous “Brandy Dispute”.

The brilliant S. G. W. Archibald, of Truro, led the poll in Halifax County, which then extended to Pictou. He subsequently became Speaker of the new House. Our fellow townsman and late member, Lawrence Hartshorne, was not re-elected.

Of particular interest at that time was the circumstance that of the two European Sovereigns who had just ascended Thrones, at least one, and probably both, had trod the soil of Dartmouth. They were King Louis Phillippe of France, and William IV of England.

The former visited Preston, and the latter was on this station in command of H. M. S. “Pegasus” forty-odd years previously. It will be recalled that the fort at Eastern Battery was re-named after Prince William when he became the Duke of Clarence.

Proof that Dartmouth was used as the main route of no. 2 Highway is shown by an occurrence in August of 1830. The Eastern Stage Coach, due on a Saturday evening, did not get to Dartmouth until Sunday morning, owing to accidents on the road. Davidson, the driver, complained afterward, that they had reached here just as the 8 o’clock ferry was docking. Despite his pleas to Captain Hunter that he carried English mail for H.M.S. “Pallas”, which was on the eve of sailing, the driver and his passengers were compelled to wait for nearly an hour while the Steam Boat crew went off to breakfast.

All the lands of the late Jonathan Tremain were advertised to be sold at auction that summer. Included was his country seat, already mentioned. His 12-acre field, containing a house, a garden and a wharf on the waterfront, was purchased by Joseph Hamilton of Halifax. Hence the Hamilton fields.

An old plan of the field shows that there was a proposed thoroughfare called “King William Street”, which was to extend from Canal Street to Maitland. It was to run parallel with Portland Street, about half way to the shore.

The northwest section of this field [, where now stands the Dartmouth Medical Centre, was acquired by William Foster, son of Edward Foster. The Foster deed of 1830, described the property as being “120 feet on Canal Street and 138 feet on the road to Creighton’s Ferry”. Foster’s corner was a landmark of last century. For many years they operated a tobacco factory at this spot, manufacturing plug tobacco.

There was also for sale a 50-acre Tremain lot bordering Dartmouth Common on what is now the upper side of Victoria Road extending from about Brightwood Avenue to Boland Road. A plan of the area shows that School Street divides the property which has one lone house standing near the present southeast corner of Slayter Street and Gladstone Avenue. The description says that the land was “partly improved, but mostly studded with a growth of spruce, birch, beech and oak trees”.

The plan divides the land on the southern side of School Street into four oblong-shaped lots of about five acres each, while four others on the opposite side contain about seven acres. The whole of the estate, which comprised a great part of the present golf greens, was called “Abbeville” probably after Mrs. Tremain whose Christian name was Abigail.

A name that was prominent in real estate holdings in Dartmouth for over a century was that of Allan McDonald. There were three generations of them. The first Allan carried on a tobacco and cigar manufactory along with a stock of general merchandise including liquors, at 48 Bedford Row in Halifax. The building which now stands at no. 78 is perhaps the same one.

Allan McDonald’s name first appears on property deeds in 1830, when he bought 50 acres of land from John Elliott at Russell’s Lake; and eight additional acres from Nathaniel Russell. Hence McDonald’s Lake. Older maps name it Morris’ Lake. In course of time a flour mill and snuff mill were erected there.

The newly elected Provincial Legislature convened in November. They heard more ferry complaints. A petition, signed by several Dartmouthians was sent in by Peter Donaldson, asking permission to run a competitive ferry from his wharf on the shore below the present no. 11 Commercial Street.

The petitioners stated that the fare was now four pence instead of 3p as formerly charged on Skerry’s boats. Furthermore the Magistrates had recently made a regulation forbidding any landings within a certain distance of the Steam Boat wharf. As a consequence, passengers on Findlay’s boats from Halifax, had to be landed in the Cove. The petition was refused.

Deaths in 1830 included Thomas Barrons, a Canal workman, killed by falling 20 feet from the top of Lock no. 6, (the Channel). In September, James Purvis and Patrick Riley were drowned from one of Findlay’s small ferries while crossing from Halifax to Dartmouth in a violent wind and rain.

Dr. James Boggs died at Halifax in his 91st year. At Lake Loon, Mary Ann Morris, daughter of Hon. Charles Morris, died aged 20; and at Preston, Miss Eleanor Simpson, aged 42. At Warren’s Hotel, Dartmouth, died Jeane, wife of Capt. Richard Gethen, 96th Regt., leaving a young family.

Marriages that year included a fashionable one at Mount Edward by the Rev. M. B. DesBrisay, of Frances Mary Brinley, daughter of the late W. B. Brinley, Esq., to William Lawson, junior. Other nuptials performed by the same Minister were those of Sarah Rogers, daughter of John Rogers, to Thomas Medley; and Mary Ann Marvin to Joseph Robinson.

Rev. James Morrison officiated at the weddings of Mrs. Jane Bell to John Meagher; Elizabeth Green to George Irvin; and Jane Albro to James Hall, Esq. The last named was a brother to Engineer Francis Hall, the husband of Mary Albro.

The first Roman Catholic marriage was recorded in October 1830, when Captain Michael Dormandy was united to Mrs. Mary Shortell, by Rev. James Dunphy of the new St. Peter’s Church.

Baptisms that year were Rebecca, child of Rose and Wm. Walker, schoolmaster; Ann, child of Dorothy and Thos. Marvin, shipbuilder; Edward, child of Eliza and Chas. Allen, shipbuilder.

Many rural members of the Legislature remained in Halifax for Christmas in 1830, for the House sat through the holidays to finish up business, and finally prorogued in mid-January of 1831. A bonus of £250 yearly until 1834 was voted the Eastern Stage Coach. The Steam Boat got a grant of £190.

The Company’s petition stated that they now had a valuable steamboat and enlarged wharf accommodation. The year’s expenses had exceeded £4,000, making the total outlay to date over £12,000. From this investment, shareholders had never received a shilling of dividends. Appended to the petition were lengthy sheets filled with signatures, or symbols, of Company supporters both in Halifax and Dartmouth.

Despite all this backing, the ferry service was unsatisfactory because the “Sir Charles Ogle” gave considerable trouble, and sometimes had to cease running. Salt water, which was used in her boiler, kept clogging the tubes. Frequently fires had to be drawn, in order to clean out the crusting of salt. During three weeks in the early winter of 1831, she was laid up for ten days. Teams arriving with country produce, were put to the necessity either of selling their supplies at a loss in Dartmouth, or of driving around the Basin to Halifax market.

1839

by

From The Story of Dartmouth, by John P. Martin:

“At this stage of our story, we turn to the columns of the Dartmouth “Atlantic Weekly” to give readers a first-hand account of life in Dartmouth in the 1830s, as written by an old resident in April 1899. He gave credit to three octogenarians of that time for furnishing him with much information. The three were Thomas Gentles, Thomas Synott, and George Shiels.

…The town naturally centered itself around the ferry. The ferry in those days landed at the foot of Ochterloney Street. The ferry service consisted at first of rowboats simple, later an addition was made in the shape of the “Grinders”, boats resembling whalers, having paddle-like arrangements driven by a hand-crank, which propelled them forward. These again were supplanted by the team-boat which requires no explanation. The horses used on the boat were housed overnight in an old schooner lying on the offside of the landing. The fare was fourpence, return sevenpence halfpenny, or twelve cents. The departure of the boats was signaled by the blowing of a horn, and shouting “hover rover”.

At the left on landing, i.e. the northwest corner of Ochterloney and Water Streets, stood the “Stone Jug”, being built of stone as the name suggests. It is said to have got its name from the fact that there was a well immediately back of it. This well constituted the water supply of the town, and in spite of being frequently flooded by the sea, the water in it never tasted the least brackish. To understand this better, it must be remembered that the level of Water Street from the “Stone Jug” north was ten feet lower than now — or about the level of Coleman’s yard. The lower side of the street was the sea wash at that time.

Across the street to the south (of the Stone Jug) was Indian Hill, on which was a flagstaff. Immediately opposite was Skerry’s corner, owned and occupied by “Skipper” Skerry. Passengers on the ferry paid their fare at the house, and it is said that it was as common a sight to see coppers barrelled as it was pork.

On the remaining corner stood the building recently replaced by the new Hotel. It had been built by Quakers, after the Quaker fashion. Continuing up Ochterloney Street on the left, a building stood midway in the block in which the late Frank Hyde’s father carried on a grocery business. Farther along, a building stood near the corner of Prince Edward Street. A building stood on Gentles’ Corner.

(Gentles bakery, northeast corner Ochterloney and Edward Streets.)

From there to “Bush Inn” was a blank. “Bush Inn” occupied the site of George Jackson’s house.

(Bush Inn with its stables stood at 63 Ochterloney St. In front was a long hedge.)

It was built by Quakers. It was a low one-storey house with a large verandah. The place was kept by Mrs. Manning, who also ran a dancing school there.

From “Bush Inn” to Sullivan’s Pond was fields and woods with the exception of the Church of England, a possible log-cabin on the corner of Pine Street, and Stanford’s Tannery at the foot of Maple Street.

(By the 1830’s the “fields and woods” on the upper side of Ochterloney Street were undoubtedly developed. In 1831, James W. Johnston subdivided 2 1/2 acres between the present Victoria Road and Crichton Avenue, and extending back to Thomas Boggs’ boundary, which was about on a line with Whebby Terrace. Mr. Johnston divided the land into lots having a 66-foot frontage on Ochterloney Street. Timothy Murphy purchased lot no. 1 for £20, and by 1834 had erected and was offering for sale a three-storey double house “At the Sign of the Golden Boot”, already mentioned. Some other purchasers in order of numbers, were David Vaughan, A. Spriggs, Alex. Farquharson, Richard McCabe, Michael Dormady, Mrs. Simpson and James Stanford, the tanner, not Robert. The site of McCabe’s is at the present 137 Ochterloney. Ponnady’s foundation and vacant lot adjoins on the east, Simpson’s was the half-stone house opposite Greenvale Apartments, recently demolished. All this section is thought to have comprised part of Canal Town or Irish Town.)

All the land back of Ochterloney Street and north of Pine Street then belonged to Thomas Boggs. Mr. Thomas Farrell’s father was old Boggs’ gardener, and lived about the present John White house.

(The John White house is now the property of Mrs. D. W. B. Reid at 13 Myrtle Street. On that property is the Farrell foundation.)

On the south side of Ochterloney Street there were Skerry’s corner already mentioned; a blacksmith shop stood where the drugstore is now, being run by Thomas Miller who did iron work for the Canal Company. Findlay’s house stood where E. M. Walker’s residence is at present.

(The drugstore was Parker Mott’s, son of Thomas Mott. The store is just east of Eldridge Lloy, the grocer. E. M. Walker’s residence was southwest corner Edward and Ochterloney. J. W. Tufts’ drygoods store is now a restaurant at 73 Commercial St. The northeast corner Quarrel (Queen) and Water is the Bell Bus Station. Allan McDonald had just died and the building demolished, but a few months before this article was written. It stood at the southeast corner of Quarrell and Water Streets. Mr. McDonald sold fishing tackle, made flies and mended rods. Over the front door, a metal fish dangled on a pole.)

Then came the Chapel, and it is possible a building stood on the corner of King Street. This is all the buildings that Ochterloney Street could then claim, on that side.

On Water Street, Dave Vaughan had a slaughterhouse near where Mr. Tufts’ store now is. The building on the northeast corner of Quarrel and Water Streets certainly ranks among the oldest existing houses in Dartmouth. The building lately occupied by Allan McDonald, and which was recently torn down, was originally a cabin off a ship. Jackson’s house occupied the present site of James Simmonds and Company. The old wooden building which stood where Sterns’ magnificent brick store is now, was a famous landmark of the town. It showed traces of Quaker architecture, and was certainly built by them. It was owned by Edward H. Lowe and afterwards fell into the hands of the McDonald family.

(The old wooden building at Sterns’ corner had about a dozen rooms, with a grand staircase inside the front entrance on Portland Street, and a flight of ordinary steps near the back door to be used by the hired help. On the Water Street side were two separate shops. We lived there from 1890 till its demolition in 1893. — JPM.)

Mrs. Lawlor’s corner stood there then as now. Immediately south of the corner there still exists a building which is second to none as regards age.

On Portland Street, a little above Mrs. Lawlor’s, stood a large barn occupied by “Cups” Murphy and “Larry” Ring, respectively shoemaker and tailor.

(Mrs. Lawlor’s corner is the southeast corner Portland and Water Streets. J. B. Mac-Lean’s grocery was at 35 Portland Street, head of Prince Street. Dr. Milsom’s was northeast corner King and Portland, now the Owl Drugstore. Scallions was on the bank near 147 Prince Albert Road, foot of Bolton Terrace.)

Connors held out where J. B. MaeLean* is now, the entrance then being nearly 15 feet higher than now, the street having suffered considerable cutting away since then.

Dr. Milsom’s present residence was built by John Kennedy. It was then known as Dartmouth Hotel, and it was a very favorite resort.

Perhaps the more favorite resorts of those days were “Commercial Inn” on the corner of Portland and Dundas Streets, which also showed the effects of Quaker settlement in the town. Its flowery days were under the proprietorship of Captain Searl. Its destruction by fire is within the knowledge of the present generation. “Mill Bank Inn” on Quarrel Street, now called the old salt box, was owned by William Warren who kept a skittle alley, the great game of those days.

“Tea Garden”, latterly known as Hoyne’s Hotel, now the residence of J. B. MacLean, is the remaining one of the three famous resorts of the boys in the Thirties. It also had a skittle alley. It was run by Thomas Medley. Of course, Dartmouth had then as now its out-the-road houses. The favorite was Jimmy Scallions, a little above Sullivan’s Pond. The “boys” of town used to assemble there on a Sunday and watch the [Mi’kmaq] go through their war dances, jigs, etc., in all the paint, feathers and style of a more remote period.

I have already noted the lasting effect that the Quaker settlement left in the town, but they were not the only landmark makers. The Scotch and Irish masons brought here to work on the Canal have left their lasting trademark in the shape of buildings. All the stone houses in town were built at the time the Canal was undergoing construction. All of them were built by these imported masons, and all of them — no, I won’t say all, but at least some — were built of stone from the Canal, and they were not very scrupulous how the stone was come by — I don’t say it was stolen. (The Downey house on the west side of Coleman Street was a stone house. It was pulled down a short time after the 1917 Explosion. The only stone house left in the downtown area, is at North and Edward Streets.)

1838

by

From The Story of Dartmouth, by John P. Martin:

Queen Victoria was crowned on June 28th, and on that day celebrations were held in several centres of Nova Scotia. Crowds thronged to Halifax where the demonstrations started at dawn with salutes of cannon, music of bands and the joyous peal of church bells. The weather was glorious.

All the principal shops were closed and shuttered, bunting billowed in the morning breeze and regal flags fluttered on church towers and other prominent places like Dalhousie College, then on the present location of City Hall.

People in holiday attire kept wending their way to the Common, where there were more parades and reviews of scarlet-coated troops before Governor Campbell and his staff.

On the Parade at noon, groups from Dartmouth joined in a patriotic procession of naval, military and civilian organizations, marching to the stirring music of intermittent bands and pipes through streets lined with hurrahing Haligonians. As each unit rounded the crescent-shaped driveway of Government House, the men halted to receive individual felicitations from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor.

In the afternoon an immense concourse of people assembled on the green slopes of Citadel “Hill and on the Common, where there was a varied program of amusements and sports. No one went hungry or thirsty. On a massive spit outside the tent of the Irish Society, an entire ox was roasted. Refreshments were served in a large marquee set up by the Coronation Committee. Thomas Medley was chef.

At night there was a gorgeous display of fireworks from the Grand Parade, public and private buildings were illuminated, and a fashionable ball held at Government House.

Our townsfolk, who had probably crossed to Halifax by the hundreds that day, returned home in plenty of time for the Dartmouth celebration because on this side of the harbor the show was then only at the beginning.

As in Halifax, an energetic local committee had solicited subscriptions to defray expenses, and carried out a program most fitting for the occasion. How well they succeeded, may be judged from the fact that nearly 60 years later, elderly folks fondly recalled the memories of Queen Victoria’s coronation night, when they danced until dawn with the gay crowd on the pavilion in Medley’s Tea Gardens.

On the Committee were Dr. DesBrisay, William Hague, Mr. Turner, E. H. Lowe, Allan McDonald, Mr. Foster (probably William), Captain Galt, and Mr. Mcllreith, Secretary.

The Coronation Address commemorating the event was “classically and eloquently spoken” by Robert Jamison, the schoolmaster. The vast throng listened with marked attention throughout, and at the conclusion gave vent to their feelings of loyalty and enthusiasm by uniting with Mr. Jamison in “three times three rousing and rapturous cheers”.

There was also a Coronation song sung, which had been composed especially for the occasion by a Captain Galt. The latter was particularly praised in the newspaper report, as having devoted considerable time and trouble in arranging the program, although a comparative stranger.

Most of the account of the Dartmouth celebration in the “Acadian Recorder” is reprinted here, so that imaginative readers may enjoy vicariously the fun experienced by our ancestors on that June night of 1838. Medley’s Hotel (the present Central Apartments at 59 Queen Street), with its stables, outbuildings and gardens, then occupied the whole of the southern half of Town Block “F”. Down Queen Street to Dundas there ran a slate-rock stone wall in front of a thickly-set curtilage of hawsey trees which continued northerly on Dundas Street, giving that particular block the nickname of “Hawsey Lane”.

The skittle alley stood on the northeast corner of Wentworth and Queen Streets, with its length extending to the present property of the Telephone Company. There were other Inns at the time, like the Mill Bank, the Bush Inn at 63 Ochterloney Street, the Commercial Inn and Skerry’s Inn; but Medley’s had more attractive and spacious surroundings. It was also the stopping-place of the Halifax-Truro stagecoach. The hotel proprietor in 1838 was John Kennedy.

DARTMOUTH AND ITS VICINITY ON THE DAY OF THE CORONATION

The village on this day came forward with a spirit eminently creditable. It not only contributed its numbers to enlarge the line of the procession in Halifax, but in the evening a large party of about 800, from a circuit of 15 miles, gathered in gay groups to welcome the event by a merry dance.

The whole town of Dartmouth including the Anglican Rector, the Magistrates and their families were present. On no occasion do we believe, within the memory of the oldest resident has so large and respectable an assemblage been seen. A more attractive spectacle pf health and beauty has seldom been assembled, and few prettier faces smiled a welcome to our youthful Queen’s reign on that day.

The green area which separates Mr. Kennedy’s Hotel from the ball alley, was enclosed by an extended awning consisting of more than two thousand square yards of canvas, lined on the inside by the flags of all nations which drooped in festoons from the ceiling, and presented the spectacle of a splendid Turkish tent. It was lit by a variety of chandeliers.

The enclosure of the roof of Mr. Kennedy’s Hotel afforded a very pretty coup d’oeil from its windows, of the glad groups as they joined in the joyous dance. All was lighthearted and merry, and the tout ensemble did eminent credit to the zeal and attention of the gentlemen who conducted the scene.

A great abundance and diversity of refreshments were provided in the ball alley. On a high hill in the vicinity, a huge bonfire blazed during the evening.

At 9 o’clock, after the company had witnessed an exhibition of fireworks in front of Mr. Kennedy’s gardens, the gay dance and quadrille were persevered in until the gray streaks of dawn in the eastern sky, announced that the Coronation was yesterday.

There was a census taken in 1838 giving the names of heads of families in Dartmouth Township which then extended into the suburbs of Tufts’ Cove, Port Wallace, PortoBello area, Woodlawn and Imperoyal districts. The number of males who were heads of families totaled 195. The number of males under 6 was 118. Number of females under 6 was 139. Number of males under 14 Was 128. Number of females under 14 was 136. Number of females above 14 was 371. Males above 14 not heads of families, 163. The total number in the settlement was 1,246. This included 76 people of color.

Speech on Canadian affairs, April 14 1838
Page 5 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6