Read & Stagg, 1985, pp 118-120

. . . The petition of the Undersigned Randal Wixson now in the Home District Gaol on a charge of High Treason.

Humbly Sheweth: . . .

That your petitioner's Loyalty stood both unimpeached and unimpeachable up to the evening of the 30th November last, when William H. Doyle of Stouffville came to your Petitioner's residence in the Township of Brock, inquiring for the residences of certain individuals in said Township; - whereupon your petitioner asked Mr. Doyle, Why he was in such earnest to see them? To which he replied that there was to be a meeting in Stouffville on the following Saturday, Dec. 2d and that Mr. MacKenzie was particularly desirous that the persons named should be present at the meeting, as there was something of importance to be discussed. Your petitioner then asked Mr. Doyle whether the meeting was to be a private one? To which he replied that he did not consider it so. Your petitioner, thinking by Mr. Doyle's manner, that there must be something more than common [in] the matter, asked what was going on? To which he replied that the Lower Canadians were fighting like the Devil and carrying all before them.

Your petitioner felt very much struck, and, being an Upper Canadian by birth and warmly attached to the interests of his Country, - after a few moments reflection, concluded to attend the meeting at Stouffville and hear for himself what was going on, - which he did in company with several of his neighbors.

On his arrival there, your Petitioner found a large company usembled and assembling apparently without knowing the objects of the meeting further than that Mr. Doyle had warned them to attend. When a number of persons, say from 50 to 100, had gotten together, Mr. Mackenzie made his appearance, and proceeded immediately to explain the objects of the meeting in substance, (as nearly as memory serves,) as follows, viz. That the Lower Canadians were in an actual state of open revolt, - That they were defeating the Queens troops in every engagement, - That he knew from unquestionable authority that the Queens army were literally cut all to pieces, - That Montreal was unquestionably in the hands of Papineau, - That there was little or no room to doubt but that Quebec had followed in the same track as the troops had been withdrawn towards Montreal to such an extent as to leave the citizens of Quebec (who were almost to a man in favor of the insurgents) by far stronger than the soldiery, - That in fact, (although he had not received positive information of it,) he had no more doubt of Quebec's being in the hands of the Canadians, than he had of his own existence.

That under these trying circumstances the people of Upper Canada were imperatively called upon to consider what was to be done, which they had promptly done, - That consultations similar to the present had already been held in various parts of the province, and that more than nine tenths of the people of Upper Canada had agreed to a change of constitution as a matter of expediency, - That people holding a diversity of political opinions on former occasions, were assuming a unanimity on this occasion, naming (as proofs of this unanimity) several distinguished individuals, amongst which were the Hon. Peter Robinson, The Hon. The Chief Justice Robinson, Dr. John Rolph, M.S. Bidwell, Esq. and many others holding, on former occasions a wide difference in political opinions, - explaining the various means by which he had learned the sentiments of the various persons whom he named.

That the reason for the asserted unanimity was very obvious, - That with Lower Canada existing as an independent republic, we could not exist as a British Colony as we would be without a seaport and consequently shut out from, and deprived of, all commercial advantages, - That there was still another consideration of more importance, - That the Lower Canadians would most undoubtedly turn their victorious arms against Upper Canada which was too weak to resist them, assisted as they were, by thousands of riflemen from Vermont and Maine enlisted into the Canadian Service, as volunteers. That under these painful circumstances it was clearly our only alternative to change our constitution and join the American union, or see our Country deluged in blood and covered with devastation.

That the proposed change was not to affect private rights, that person and property were to remain equally protected and equally secure under the new constitution as under the old one, and that commercial transactions were not expected to be impeded for a single week. That the proposed change could not be made, or consistently admitted by those in office without some appearance of military parade; - that it was necessary that there should be a sort of turnout to carry it into effect; but that there would not be a gun fired, or at least, that he had no expectation that there would be.

Your petitioner believes he should be fully able to prove nearly or quite all the material points in the above outline of Mr. Mackenzie's statement. The meeting was not formally organized by the appointment of a chairman and secretary, neither was there any door keeper, but people went out and in as they pleased.

Suffice it to say, that after Mr. Mackenzie had publicly made the foregoing statements and had given the most solemn assurances of their truth when further interrogated in private, all doubts having thus been removed from the mind of your Petitioner as to the truth of them, - your Petitioner returned home and mentioned, he thinks, to about a dozen of his acquaintances in Brock, the situation of the public affairs, as he then understood diem, some four or five of whom he thinks may have turned out in consequence of what he told them.

That your petitioner by particular request attended a meeting in Brock which was afterwards convened for the purpose of choosing officers. That it was distinctly understood at that meeting that the proposed change was to be carried into effect by the general consent of the leading men of all political parties, or more properly speaking, of the country; - That the choosing of officers was considered a mere matter of form, and that the most moderate and temperate men were chosen to office instead of warriors. . . .

Historical summary: 1830's