And now, in 1839, in this Arcadia of Red River there became evident the dreadful presence of the law in the person of Adam Thom, first Recorder of Rupert’s Land, who, as compared with the humble incomes of the people of Red River, had the enormous salary of L700 a year bestowed upon him by the Hudson’s Bay Company. The plan was a very real one in Governor Simpson’s mind when he took a step so decided.
[Illustration: Adam Thom, LL.D. Recorder and Author. Lived in Red River Settlement 1839-1854.]
And the man who had been chosen for this post was no man of putty. He was a Scotchman of commanding presence, decided opinions and strong will. He was a man of rather aggressive and combative disposition. The writer met him in London long after he had retired—and this was some thirty years ago, and though the judge was then upwards of three score and ten, he was yet a man of force and decision. A graduate of Aberdeen University, Adam Thom had come to Montreal as a lawyer, and was for a time on Lord Durham’s staff. He had taken high ground against Papineau’s rebellion, and was known as one of the strongest newspaper controversialists of the time. He was a determined opponent of the French-Canadian rebellion, as he was of rebellion in any form whatever. Evidently, Governor Simpson chose a man “after his own heart” for the difficult task, of introducing law and order among the turbulent Nor’-Westers.
The arrival of the new Judge in the Red River Settlement gave rise to much comment. The spirit of discontent had strengthened, as we have seen among the Colonists and English-speaking half-breeds. The Hudson’s Bay Company had now re-bought the land of Assiniboia from Lord Selkirk’s heirs. Hitherto it was difficult to find out precisely who their oppressor was. Now, though Governor Simpson sought by diplomacy to evade the responsibility, yet the explanation given by the Colonists of the arrival of Recorder Thom, was that he had come to uphold the Company’s pretensions and to restrict their liberties. According to Ross, the Colonists reasoned that “a man placed in Recorder Thom’s position, liable to be turned out of office at the Company’s pleasure, naturally provokes the doubt whether he could at all times be proof against the sin of partiality. Is it likely,” they said, “that he could always take the impartial view of a case that might involve in its results his own interests or deprive him of his daily bread?”