appointed a
Committee of Inquiry. The Committee proceeded to inquire accordingly.
While their investigations were in progress they resolved to examine two
of the Government officials, who, as there was reason to believe, could
throw light upon Sir Peregrine's reasons for such arbitrary conduct as
that of which he had been guilty. The officials whose evidence it was
thought desirable to obtain were Colonels Coffin and Givins, both of
whom were heads of departments. The former occupied the position of
Adjutant-General of Militia for Upper Canada; the latter was
Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Both of these gentlemen were summoned
to attend before the Committee at a specified time. In this there was
nothing strange or unusual. It was a matter of frequent occurrence for
officials of the Government, high and low, to be summoned before
Parliamentary committees while the Legislature was in session; and there
was no question as to the right of such committees to require such
attendance. In this instance, however, the persons summoned were not
permitted to obey the behests of the Committee, and in the attendant
circumstances there were pretty plain indications of crookedness and
collusion between the Crown officers and Sir Peregrine Maitland. Each of
the two officers concerned, immediately upon receiving his summons,
caused the fact to be communicated to the Lieutenant-Governor, and each
wrote a shuffling letter to the Chairman of the Committee. Later in the
day the Lieutenant-Governor positively declined to permit the attendance
of the persons summoned, assigning as a reason that he had not been made
acquainted with the facts as to which it was desired to interrogate
them. Now, when one considers all the facts and circumstances of the
case, one is driven to the conclusion that Colonels Coffin and Givins
were in possession of certain information which the Executive, or at any
rate the Lieutenant-Governor, had a strong interest in keeping secret.
Why else were they forbidden to attend? The reason assigned was
certainly not a sufficient one. In the first place it was not founded
upon fact. That the Committee had been appointed for the specific
purpose of investigating the circumstances connected with the Niagara
Falls outrage was matter of common notoriety. When the two Government
officers were summoned to give evidence before that Committee there
could be no doubt that the intention was to examine them touching their
knowledge o