From the front page of the Huron Expositor
Friday, 11 December 1931
Reprinted with the permission of the Huron Expositor
Copyright: the Huron Expositor
“Your Community Newspaper Since 1860”
P. O. Box 69
11 Main Street
Seaforth, Ontario N0K 1W0
Chapter 12 Montgomery’s Tavern
In the election of 1836 the Reformers had suffered a serious reverse. They ought to have had no difficulty in seeing that in Upper Canada at large as well as in that small portion thereof known as the Huron Tract, they had lost votes principally because the indiscreet language of their extremists had given colour to the charges of disloyalty continually brought against them by the Family Compact. After the election they found themselves obliged to devise a policy in view of the new circumstances. The moderates felt that discreet conduct in a period of waiting might suffice to reconvert to their side the electors of the province who had no love for the Family Compact and had left the Reform fold only through temporary alarm. But during the early months of 1837, the extremist group, among whom were William Lyon Mackenzie, Dr Rolph, Dr Duncombe and Samuel Lount, turned their thoughts toward more violent courses, being no doubt influenced by reports of discontent verging on rebellion in the lower province. As the summer advanced, Mackenzie permitted a more and more inflammatory tone in his paper, and soon he was actively at work organizing revolt.
Even from his own point of view the venture ought to have appeared a wild gamble in view of the hostility of the people of the province so clearly expressed at the election. But in the 1837 Mackenzie seems to have lost his head, at least temporarily.
Meanwhile Colonel Van Egmond was active in Huron. The Misses Lizars report that the farmers of the Tract “had been told more than once by Van Egmond that if they wanted anything they would have to fight for it.” A minute in the Tuckersmith commissioners as early as January, 1836, reads: “Met January 16th at the house of W Fowler and considered the disturbed state of the township in consequence of a meeting held by a Mr Van Egmond. The commissioners agreed to adjourn until March 12th, meantime to present a petition to the House of Assembly.” This petition, however, if it were ever sent, is not now to be found in the Ontario Archives; and for this reason we are in ignorance about the nature of the Colonel’s meeting, although we may surmise that discussion of the Canada Company and the Family Compact occupied a prominent place on the agenda. The commissioners soon discovered another difference with Van Egmond; during 1837 they fought to compel him to do statute labour and in the end they made a forced sale of his goods to the amount of one pound nine shillings and three-pence, or $7.50. (In 1931 terms). Why the Colonel refused to pay a sum so trifling to him is not recorded, but he must have considered that some principle was at stake. It is clear that the Dutch veteran left no stone unturned in his endeavour to rouse discontent in Huron County. Probably he was acting in close concert with Mackenzie; perhaps he sent Mackenzie letters and received replies and instructions; but concerning these matters we can only guess.
In the fall of 1837 Mackenzie had committed himself to the attempt at revolt. During the third week in November, Rolph expressed his desire to secure a trained military leader for the insurgent army. In answer Mackenzie stated that he could obtain the services of one of the most efficient and thoroughly trained officers in the country, and named Colonel Van Egmond. This conversation suggests that Mackenzie had kept his dealings with the Dutchman to himself and had preferred not to inform his colleagues. Several days later, about November 24th, Rolph learned that Van Egmond had consented to take the command and would be at Montgomery’s for that purpose early on December 7th. Why the rebel leaders did not summon the thoroughly experienced Colonel as soon as they had reached the decision to revolt is not explained by any of our authorities; and from their own standpoint the omission was a serious blunder. One of the insurgent soldiers, quoted in Robertson’s Landmarks of Toronto, declared that if Van Egmond had been with them at the commencement of the revolt, they would have captured the city. Whatever the reason, at the beginning of December Mackenzie informed his men at Montgomery’s that he would be commander since Colonel Van Egmond had not arrived; and he ordered the attack on Toronto which dissolved in a panic on both sides. After this failure the leaders of the insurgents resolved to wait for reinforcements and Van Egmond before a second attempt. But the delay gave the loyalists time to collect forces and organize them under the leadership of a man whose experience of war, though not so considerable as Van Egmond’s, had been quite sufficient for the purpose: James FitzGibbon, veteran of 1812 and hero of Beaver Dams. At the same time the opinion of the province became plain; loyalist farmers were pouring into Toronto from all quarters, especially from the east, determined to do their best to crush separatism and disloyalty. The scale had already turned against the insurgents.
True to his word, however, Van Egmond arrived at Montgomery’s Tavern at 8 am Thursday, December 7th, riding the white horse which had borne him for the last time along his own Huron Road. He had breakfast in a private room with Mackenzie, Lount, Gibson, Fletcher and John Montgomery. At the conclusion of the meal, these men held a council of war. Mackenzie proposed an immediate attack on the city, but the expected reinforcements had not arrived and could not be on hand until later in the day. More, the insurgents had lost many by desertion and in consequence could not muster more than 500 men while the government troops were well-armed, well-equipped and much superior in numbers. Such being the case, Van Egmond replied to Mackenzie’s proposal by characterizing it as “stark madness.” Mackenzie burst into an explosion of wrath and threatened to shoot the Colonel but the others hastily secured an appeasement, perhaps making excuse to Van Egmond for the state of Mackenzie’s nerves. The Colonel then proposed that no attempt be made on the city until sufficient reinforcements should have arrived to render success feasible and that meantime a diversion should be arranged to occupy the attention of the government troops. This plan was adopted. The leaders ordered Peter Matthews, of Pickering, to proceed to the Don bridge with sixty men, to burn the bridge, intercept the mail and otherwise advertise his presence in the hope of drawing off part of the Loyalist forces. There was some expectation of reinforcements, as one man had promised to bring in a force of 550, but no realization as the morning passed with no arrivals and no news of any. Van Egmond must have seen that the situation was far from bright. He held a review of the men, some 400 in number, and found that half only had pikes or guns, the rest more primitive weapons or nothing at all. He chose officers: with others Gibson, whom he appointed commander of a company, and gave some general directions in case of an attack by the government troops.
About noon a scout arrived with news that the militia were moving north from the Parliament Buildings. A few minutes later the sentinels saw the government forces coming over the brow of Gallows Hill. Silas Fletcher rushed up and cried, “Seize your arms, men! The enemy’s coming and no mistake! No false alarm this time!” At this news, Mackenzie and Van Egmond mounted horses and rode south till they saw the militia and heard the band; then, realising that an attack in force was coming, they returned to the Tavern and prepared for the fight. Van Egmond made his dispositions. He placed 150 men in a wood 150 yards west of Yonge Street, a half-mile south of the tavern, and stationed sixty officers in the field to the east. The rest of the insurgent force, being unarmed, stood beside the tavern or sought safety inside it.
Soon the government troops under command of FitzGibbon arrived at the “front.” They placed two guns on the west side of Yonge Street and opened fire on the belt of woods where Van Egmond had stationed his men. These, however, found the trees and the brush heaps a fair protection and suffered not more than one or two casualties; meanwhile they tried to return the fire with their muskets. But the rushing of the balls and the crashing of the branches alarmed them and caused a good deal of confusion. During this “bombardment” Van Egmond and Lount had attempted to direct the defence; but soon they saw the militia advancing to the attack in such strength that the position could not be held. They gave the word to the men to save themselves knowing that everything was lost. Almost before the word was uttered the insurgents streamed out of the wood and retreated to the north, Van Egmond and Lount last of all. The Loyalist gunners now advanced, set up their weapons again and sent two shots through the main body of the tavern. The men inside poured out in fright and fled into the forest. The insurgent army dissolved. The skirmish had lasted fifteen or twenty minutes. One of Mackenzie's men was killed, four wounded with fatal results; no government soldier was even seriously injured.
Van Egmond had one advantage for escape, his horse. He rode up to a group who were deliberating whether to fly together or separately; but at this moment, they saw the smoke from the burning tavern and scattered in every direction. The Colonel with some companions made his way to the north. Near the Golden Lion Inn, four miles north of Montgomery's, they found themselves overtaken by Mackenzie and Fletcher. The group held a hurried discussion and agreed that they should try to reach the Niagara frontier. Mackenzie succeeded in escaping. The old Colonel, nearly overcome with fatigue, sought shelter on a neighbouring farm. But a militia detachment arrived, searched the place, seized him, and took him to Toronto jail.
The jail was cold, as one might expect in the Toronto of December, 1837. Van Egmond was attacked by “a complication of maladies,” in particular by inflammatory rheumatism, for which reason the authorities transferred him to the city hospital. There they marched him before one of the dying insurgents to make sure of his identity. Van Egmond touched the man's foot is a sign to the poor fellow not to betray him. But the man replied, “Why do you push my foot, Colonel Van Egmond? I am a dying man; I cannot die with a lie in my mouth. You were with us and were to have commanded us at Montgomery's Tavern, but you did not arrive in time.” After this disclosure, it was clear that there was no escape for the Colonel. In the hospital he rapidly sank into unconsciousness and died on January 5th. There is a local tradition to the effect that the end was hastened by poison given him by one of his sons. If this were the case, the motive is clear. If Van Egmond had recovered, he would have been tried for treason and executed with a Lount and Matthews. As it was, while his remains were being brought home, the coffin was twice broken open by militiamen on the pretext of searching for arms. The body was buried in Egmondville cemetery, where a plain slab marks in the grave to the present day.
His death was recorded in the Toronto papers with no comments. Some days earlier the Patriot of January 2nd had printed bad verse about Mackenzie and his defeat.
“The rich he promised honours vast
To Gibson and to Lount,
To Bidwell, Rolph and Fletcher too,
And Lloyd and Van Egmount.”
The Colborne Star, of Wednesday, January 17th, allotted him a few lines. “Van Egmond, who was appointed general of Mackenzie's band just before they were attacked at Montgomery's, and who had since been arrested for high treason, died in the hospital on Thursday last after an illness of a few days’ continuance.”
Mackenzie had attached Van Egmond's name to a proclamation from Navy Island, printed in the Toronto Mirror of December 30th. On learning of the Colonel's death, he wrote in a letter quoted in the Erie Observer: “Colonel Van Egmond, an old officer of Napoleon's army, and the proprietor of 13,000 acres of land in the Huron Tract, joined us back of Toronto an hour before our last battle, was taken prisoner, starved into sickness, sent to the hospital half dead and is now under the sod. The Colonel was a native of Holland and my particular friend.” Such were, so to speak, the contemporary epitaphs on this man who had achieved distinction in the Napoleonic wars, who had identified himself with Upper Canada, who had performed a noteworthy service in the settlement of the province, and who had become too closely involved in an ill-considered movement of protest against the existing regime.
We of this generation are fairly in agreement that Family Compact rule left something to be desired. But however justified we may believe the grievances of the Reformers of 1837, we can hardly avoid condemning the decision to revolt in the face of an adverse majority verdict at the polls as foolish in itself and actually criminal toward the poor unarmed farmers who were led to certain defeat. In this defeat it was Van Egmond's misfortune to be involved. He arrived on the scene of action only in time to incur consequences for which he was not responsible and which he could do nothing to avoid. Montgomery's Tavern could as well have been lost without him as with him; his presence merely added one to the list of casualties. From Waterloo to Montgomery's Tavern is a bathos that smacks of the ridiculous. But such an end for such a man appears melancholy.
Among the Huron Reformers there lingered some fit sympathy for him. “Blame Van Egmond?” one man asked. “I blame the Family Compact, a sight more than I blame him!” His family, however, were for a long time distinctly reticent about his connection with Mackenzie and the revolt of ’37. His son, Constant, refused to allow a volley to be fired over the Colonel’s grave in military fashion “because my father was Mackenzie's general.” But since the passions of the time have subsided, Van Egmond's connection with the revolt no longer carries any implication of disgrace in the eyes of his family or the people of Huron.
The citizens of the one-time Tract, now of Huron and Perth counties, respect the memory of the man who assisted to bring into being the great Huron Road and who took a leading part in the founding of those two flourishing communities.