Opening
Project Gutenberg has the other volume of this work. Volume I: see http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47809
Transcriber’s note:
A carat character is used to denote superscription. A single character following the carat is superscripted (example: Benj^n).
MONTREAL 1535-1914
Under British Rule 1760-1914
by
WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON, Ph. D.
_Qui manet in patria et patriam cognoscere temnit Is mihi non civis, sed peregrinus erit_
VOLUME II
Illustrated
The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company Montreal Vancouver Chicago 1914
Preface
The history of “Montreal Under British Rule” is the “Tale of Two Cities”, of a dual civilization with two main racial origins, two mentalities, two main languages, and two main religions. It is the story of two dominant races growing up side by side under the same flag, jealously preserving their identities, at some times mistrusting one another, but on the whole living in marvelous harmony though not always in unison, except on certain well defined common grounds of devotion to Canada and the Empire, and of the desire of maintaining the noble traditions and the steady progress of their city.
Montreal of today is a cosmopolitan city, but it is preponderatingly French-Canadian in its population. This fact makes it necessary to give especial attention to the history of two-thirds of the people. There has, therefore, been an effort in these pages, while recognizing this, to respect the rights of the minority, and open-handed justice has been observed.
The position of a dispassionate onlooker has been taken as far as possible in the narration of the domestic struggles in the upbuilding of the city through the crucial turnstiles of Canadian history under British rule--the Interregnum, the establishment of civil government, the Quebec act, the Constitutional act, the Union, and the Confederation. This attitude of equipoise, while disappointing to partisans, has been justified if it helps to present an unbiased account of different periods of history and serves to maintain the city’s motto of “Concordia Salus”--a doctrine which has been upheld throughout this work. Tout savoir c’est tout pardonner.
Charles Dickens in his visit to Montreal in 1842 observed that it was a “heart-burning town.” There is no need to renew the occasion for such a title in the city of today.
It only remains to express thankful indebtedness to those, too numerous to mention, who have assisted in the compilation of certain information otherwise difficult of access, and also to thank a number of friends, prominent citizens of Montreal, who in connection with the movement for city improvement and the inculcation of civic pride have encouraged the author to embark on the laborious but pleasant task of preparing this second volume of the history of “Montreal Under British Rule,” as a sequel to the first volume of “Montreal Under the French Régime.”
WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON. December, 1914.
NOTE TO THE READER
In presenting the second volume to the reader the writer would observe that its first part deals mainly with the story of city progress under the various changes of the political and civic constitution, with certain chapters of supplementary annals and sidelights of general progress. The second part treats in detail, for the sake of students and as a reference book, the special advancement of the city through its various eras in religion, education, culture, population, public service, hospital, charitable, commercial, financial, transportation and city improvement growth, and in so doing the author has desired to present the histories of the chief associations that have in the past or in the present been mainly responsible for the upbuilding of a no mean city.
W.H.A.
I. THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL
1760
“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”
AMHERST’S LETTER REVIEWING EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CAPITULATION--THE SURRENDER OF ARMS--THE REVIEW OF BRITISH TROOPS--THE DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH TROOPS--END OF THE PECULATORS--VAUDREUIL’S CAPITULATION CENSURED--DEPARTURE OF THE PROVINCIAL TROOPS--ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONY--DEPARTURE OF AMHERST--THE TWO RACES LEFT BEHIND. NOTES: (1) THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT.--(2) THE POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL 3
II. THE INTERREGNUM
1760-1763
MILITARY GOVERNMENT
BRIGADIER GAGE, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL--THE ADDRESS OF THE MILITIA AND MERCHANTS--GOVERNMENT BY THE MILITARY BUT NOT “MARTIAL LAW”--THE CUSTOM OF PARIS STILL PREVAILS--COURTS ESTABLISHED--THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRENCH-CANADIAN MILITIA CAPTAINS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE--SENTENCES FROM THE REGISTERS OF THE MONTREAL COURTS--GOVERNOR GAGE’S ORDINANCES--TRADE--THE PORT--GAGE’S REPORT TO PITT ON THE STATE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MONTREAL--THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECLARATION OF THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS--REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF THE PAPER MONEY--LEAVE TO THE FRENCH TO DEPART--LAST ORDINANCES OF GAGE--HIS DEPARTURE 13
III. THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS
1763
THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT
THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE--SECTION RELATING TO CANADA--CATHOLIC DISABILITIES AND THE PHRASE “AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT”--THE TREATY RECEIVED WITH DELIGHT BY THE “OLD” SUBJECTS BUT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT BY THE “NEW”--THE INEVITABLE STRUGGLES BEGIN, TO CULMINATE IN THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774--OPPOSITION AT MONTREAL, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SEIGNEURS--THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ACTION--CIVIL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ESTABLISHED--MURRAY’S ACTION IN ALLOWING “ALL SUBJECTS OF THE COLONY” TO BE CALLED UPON TO ACT AS JURORS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE BRITISH PARTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL--THE PROTEST OF THE QUEBEC GRAND JURY--SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN 1766 TO SUIT ALL PARTIES--GOVERNOR MURRAY’S COMMENT ON MONTREAL, “EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE HATCHED THERE”--MURRAY AND THE MONTREAL MERCHANTS--A TIME OF MISUNDERSTANDING. NOTE: LIST OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNORS 25
IV. CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
1764
RALPH BURTON, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL, BECOMES MILITARY COMMANDANT--FRICTION AMONG MILITARY COMMANDERS--JUSTICES OF PEACE CREATED--FIRST QUARTER SESSIONS--MILITARY VERSUS CITIZENS--THE WALKER OUTRAGE--THE TRIAL--WALKER BOASTS OF SECURING MURRAY’S RECALL--MURRAY’S DEFENSE AFTER HIS RECALL--THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ABUSE THEIR POWER--CENSURED BY THE COUNCIL AT QUEBEC--COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTABLISHED--PIERRE DU CALVET--CARLETON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE “DISTRESSES OF THE CANADIANS” 35
V. THE PRELIMINARY STRUGGLE FOR AN ASSEMBLY
THE BRITISH MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL
“VERY RESPECTABLE MERCHANTS”--A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON BRITISH LINES PROMOTED BY THEM--INOPPORTUNE--VARIOUS MEMORIALS TO GOVERNMENT--THE MEETINGS AT MILES PRENTIES’ HOUSE--CRAMAHE--MASERES--COUNTER PETITIONS 45
Chapter VI
THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774
THE NOBLESSE OF THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE SEIGNEURS--MONTREAL THE HEADQUARTERS--“EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE HATCHED THERE”--PETITIONS--CARLETON’S FEAR OF A FRENCH INVASION--A SECRET MEETING--PROTESTS OF MAGISTRATES TODD AND BRASHAY--PROTESTS OF CITIZENS--CARLETON’S CORRESPONDENCE FOR AN AMENDED CONSTITUTION IN FAVOUR OF THE NOBLESSE--THE QUEBEC ACT--ANGLICIZATION ABANDONED 51
Chapter VII
THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775
MONTREAL THE SEAT OF DISCONTENT
THE QUEBEC ACT, A PRIMARY OCCASION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION--MONTREAL BRITISH DISLOYAL--THE COFFEE HOUSE MEETING--WALKER AGAIN--MONTREAL DISAFFECTS QUEBEC--LOYALTY OF HABITANTS AND SAVAGES UNDERMINED--NOBLESSE, GENTRY AND CLERGY LOYAL--KING GEORGE’S BUST DESECRATED--“DELENDA EST CANADA”--“THE FOURTEENTH COLONY”--BENEDICT ARNOLD AND ETHAN ALLEN--BINDON’S TREACHERY--CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FEEBLY ANSWERED--MILITIA CALLED OUT--LANDING OF THE REBELS--ENGLISH OFFICIAL APATHY--MONTREAL’S PART IN THE DEFENCE OF CANADA--THE FIRST SOLELY FRENCH-CANADIAN COMPANY OF MILITIA--NOTE: THE MILITIA 63
VIII. MONTREAL BESIEGED
1775
THE SECOND CAPITULATION
ETHAN ALLEN--HABITANTS’ AND CAUGHNAWAGANS’ LOYALTY TAMPERED WITH--PLAN TO OVERCOME MONTREAL--THE ATTACK--ALLEN CAPTURED--WALKER’S FARM HOUSE AT L’ASSOMPTION BURNED--WALKER TAKEN PRISONER TO MONTREAL--CARLETON’S FORCE FROM MONTREAL FAILS AT ST. JOHN’S--CARLETON LEAVES MONTREAL--MONTREAL BESIEGED--MONTGOMERY RECEIVES A DEPUTATION OF CITIZENS--THE ARTICLES OF CAPITULATION--MONTGOMERY ENTERS BY THE RECOLLECT GATE--WASHINGTON’S PROCLAMATION 71
IX. MONTREAL, AN AMERICAN CITY SEVEN MONTHS UNDER CONGRESS
1776
THE CONGRESS ARMY EVACUATES MONTREAL
MONTREAL UNDER CONGRESS--GENERAL WOOSTER’S TROUBLES--MONEY AND PROVISIONS SCARCE--MILITARY RULE--GENERAL CONFUSION--THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY, AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS--THE COMMISSIONERS: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, SAMUEL CHASE AND CHARLES CARROL--FLEURY MESPLET, THE PRINTER--THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONERS--NEWS OF THE FLIGHT FROM QUEBEC--MONTREAL A STORMY SEA--THE COMMISSIONERS FLY--THE WALKERS ALSO--THE EVACUATION BY THE CONGRESS TROOPS--NOTES: I. PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED; II. DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES 79
X. THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST
1776-1791
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791
REOCCUPATION BY BRITISH--COURTS REESTABLISHED--CONGRESS’ SPECIAL OFFER TO CANADA--LAFAYETTE’S PROJECTED RAID--UNREST AGAIN--THE LOYALTY OF FRENCH CANADIANS AGAIN BEING TEMPTED--QUEBEC ACT PUT INTO FORCE--THE MERCHANTS BEGIN MEMORIALIZING FOR A REPEAL AND AN ASSEMBLY--HALDIMAND AND HUGH FINLAY OPPOSE ASSEMBLY--MEETINGS AND COUNTER MEETINGS--CIVIC AFFAIRS--THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROJECTED “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE”--THE FIRST NOTIONS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--THE MONTREAL CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE REPORT--THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS--THE DIVISION OF THE PROVINCE PROJECTED--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791. NOTE: MONTREAL NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN 1784 87
XI. THE FUR TRADERS OF MONTREAL
THE GREAT NORTH WEST COMPANY
MERCHANTS--NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINS--UP COUNTRY TRADE--EARLY COMPANIES--NORTH WEST COMPANY--CHARLES GRANT’S REPORT--PASSES--MEMORIALS--GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES--RIVAL COMPANIES--THE X.Y. COMPANY--JOHN JACOB ASTOR’S COMPANIES--- ASTORIA TO BE FOUNDED--THE JOURNEY OF THE MONTREAL CONTINGENT--ASTORIA A FAILURE--THE GREAT RIVAL--THE HUDSON’S BAY COMPANY--SIR ALEXANDER SELKIRK--THE AMALGAMATION OF THE NORTH WEST AND HUDSON’S BAY COMPANIES IN 1821--THE BEAVER CLUB 97
XII. FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS
MONTREAL THE SEAT OF JACOBINISM
THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST--MONTREAL REPRESENTATIVES--FRENCH AND ENGLISH USED--THE FRENCH REVOLUTION--MUTINY AT QUEBEC--THE DUKE OF KENT--INVASION FEARED FROM FRANCE--MONTREAL DISAFFECTED--ATTORNEY GENERAL MONK’S REPORT--THE FRENCH SEDITIONARY PAMPHLETS--PANEGYRIC ON BISHOP BRIAND--MONTREAL ARRESTS--ATTORNEY GENERAL SEWELL’S REPORT--M’LEAN--ROGER’S SOCIETY--JEROME BONAPARTE EXPECTED 105
Chapter XIII
THE AMERICAN INVASION OF 1812
MONTREAL AND CHATEAUGUAY
FRENCH CANADIAN LOYALTY
THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF 1812--THE CHESAPEAKE--JOHN HENRY--HOW THE NEWS OF INVASION WAS RECEIVED IN MONTREAL--THE MOBILIZATION--GENERAL HULL--THE MONTREAL MILITIA--FRENCH AND ENGLISH ENLIST--MONTREAL THE OBJECTIVE--OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLE OF CHATEAUGUAY--COLONEL DE SALABERRY--RETURN OF WOUNDED--THE EXPLANATION OF THE FEW BRITISH KILLED 115
XIV. SIDE LIGHTS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS
1776-1825
THE “GAZETTE DU COMMERCE ET LITTERAIRE”--A RUNAWAY SLAVE--GUY CARLETON’S DEPARTURE--GENERAL HALDIMAND IN MONTREAL--MESPLET’S PAPER SUSPENDED--POET’S CORNER--THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY DISCUSSED--FIRST THEATRICAL COMPANY: THE “BUSY BODY”--LORD NELSON’S MONUMENT--A RUNAWAY RED CURLY HAIRED AND BANDY LEGGED APPRENTICE--LAMBERT’S PICTURE OF THE PERIOD--MINE HOST OF THE “MONTREAL HOTEL”--THE “CANADIAN COURANT”--AMERICAN INFLUENCE--THE “HERALD”--WILLIAM GRAY AND ALEXANDER SKAKEL--BEGINNINGS OF COMMERCIAL LIFE--DOIGE’S DIRECTORY--MUNGO KAY--LITERARY CELEBRITIES--HERALD “EXTRAS”--WATERLOO--POLITICAL PSEUDONYMS--NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION--THE ABORTIVE “SUN”--A PICTURE OF THE CITY IN 1818--THE BLACK RAIN OF 1819--OFFICIAL, MILITARY AND ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE--ORIGIN OF ART, MUSIC, ETC. 123
XV. BUREAURACY vs. DEMOCRACY
THE PROPOSED UNION OF THE CANADAS
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT--MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS--FRENCH-CANADIANS AIM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR POLITICAL POWER--THE “COLONIAL” OFFICE AND THE BUREAUCRATIC CLASS VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY--L. J. PAPINEAU AND JOHN RICHARDSON--PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST UNION--THE MONTREAL BRITISH PETITION OF 1822--THE ANSWER OF L.J. PAPINEAU--THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL--THE BILL FOR UNION WITHDRAWN. NOTES: NAMES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE FROM 1796 TO 1833--MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT, 1791-1829--PETITION OF MONTREAL BRITISH--1822 133
XVI. MURMURS OF REVOLUTION
RACE AND CLASS ANTAGONISM
“CANADA TRADE ACTS”--LORD DALHOUSIE BANQUETED AFTER BEING RECALLED--MOVEMENT TO JOIN MONTREAL AS A PORT TO UPPER CANADA--THE GOVERNOR ALLEGED TO BE A TOOL--EXECUTIVE COUNCIL--RIOTOUS ELECTION AT MONTREAL--DR. TRACY VERSUS STANLEY BAGG--THE MILITARY FIRE--THE “MINERVE” VERSUS THE GAZETTE AND HERALD--THE CHOLERA OF 1832--MURMURS OF THE COMING REVOLT--MONTREAL PETITION FOR AND AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES--MR. NELSON BREAKS WITH PAPINEAU--THE NINETY-TWO RESOLUTIONS--MR. ROEBUCK, AGENT FOR THE REFORM PARTY, ADVOCATES SELF-GOVERNMENT--FRENCH-CANADIAN EXTREMISTS--THE ELECTIONS--PUBLIC MEETING OF “MEN OF BRITISH AND IRISH DESCENT”--TWO DIVERGENT MENTALITIES--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS--PETITIONS TO LONDON--LORD GOSFORD APPOINTED ROYAL COMMISSIONER--HIS POLICY OF CONCILIATION REJECTED--MR. PAPINEAU INTRANSIGEANT--RAISING VOLUNTEER CORPS FORBIDDEN--THE DORIC CLUB--“RESPONSIBLE” GOVERNMENT DEMANDED 139
XVII. MONTREAL IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR
1837-1838
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO REMAIN CROWN-APPOINTED--THE SIGNAL FOR REVOLT--FIRST INSURRECTIONARY MEETING. AT ST. OURS--DR. WOLFRED NELSON--CONSTITUTIONAL MEETINGS--THE PARISHES--THE SEDITIONARY MANIFESTO OF “LES FILS DE LIBERTE” AT MONTREAL--REVOLUTIONARY BANNERS--IRISH REJECT REVOLUTIONARY PARTY--MGR. LARTIGUE’S MANDEMENT AGAINST CIVIL WAR--THE FRACAS BETWEEN THE DORIC CLUB AND THE FILS DE LIBERTE--RIOT ACT READ--THE “VINDICATOR” GUTTED--MILITARY PROCEEDINGS--WARRANTS FOR ARREST--PAPINEAU FLIES--RELEASE OF PRISONERS AT LONGUEUIL--COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES--ST. DENIS--LIEUTENANT WEIR’S DEATH--GEN. T.S. BROWN--ST. CHARLES--ST. EUSTACHE--CAPTURE OF WOLFRED NELSON--SECOND MANDEMENT OF BISHOP LARTIGUE--DAY OF THANKSGIVING--CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED--THE INDEPENDENCE OF CANADA PROCLAIMED BY “PRESIDENT NELSON”--THE REGIMENTS LEAVE THE CITY--LORD DURHAM ARRIVES--AMNESTY AND SENTENCES--DURHAM RESIGNS--THE SECOND INSURRECTION--MARTIAL LAW IN MONTREAL--SIR JOHN COLBORNE QUASHES REBELLION--STERN REPRISALS--ARRESTS--TRUE BILLS--POLITICAL EXECUTIONS--“CONCORDIA SALUS” 149
XVIII. PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION
1841
HOME RULE FOR THE COLONY
THE DURHAM REPORT--THE RESOLUTIONS AT THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY--LORD SYDENHAM--THE PROCLAMATION OF UNION AT MONTREAL--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AT LAST 159
XIX. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UNION
KINGSTON THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--THE RACE CRY RESUSCITATED--LAFONTAINE--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT--MONTREAL ELECTIONS--RESTRICTION REMOVED ON FRENCH LANGUAGE IN PARLIAMENT--FREE TRADE MOVEMENT--FINANCIAL DEPRESSION--GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER--REBELLION LOSSES BILL--THE BURNING OF THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE--THE MONTREAL MOVEMENT FOR ANNEXATION WITH THE STATES--“CLEAR GRITS” AND THE “PARTI ROUGE”--THE RAILWAY AND SHIPPING ERA--THE CAVAZZI RIOT--THE RECIPROCITY TREATY--EXIT THE OLD TORYISM--CLERGY RESERVES AND SEIGNEURIAL TENURE ACTS--THE MILITIA ACT--MONTREALERS ON THE ELECTED COUNCIL--THE Année Terribe OF 1857--THOMAS D’ARCY MC GEE--QUEBEC TEMPORARY SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--PROTECTION FOR HOME INDUSTRIES--CONFEDERATION BROACHED IN MONTREAL--THE TRENT AFFAIR--ST. ALBAN RAID PROSECUTIONS--THE REMODIFIED CIVIL CODE--FENIAN RAID EXCITEMENT IN MONTREAL--OTTAWA SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN ACT--CONFEDERATION 163
XX. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL
EARLY EFFORTS TOWARDS MUNICIPAL HOME RULE--1786--1821--1828--THE FIRST MUNICIPAL CHARTER OF 1831--THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL--JACQUES VIGER FIRST MAYOR--THE RETURN TO THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE CORPORATION IN 1840--CHARTER AMENDMENT, 1851--FIRST MAYOR ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE--CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 1874--THE CITY OF MONTREAL ANNEXATIONS--CIVIC POLITICS--THE NOBLE “13”--1898 CHARTER RECAST, SANCTIONED IN 1899--CIVIC SCANDALS--THE “23”--JUDGE CANNON’S REPORT--THE REFORM PARTY; THE “CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION”--REDUCTION OF ALDERMEN AND A BOARD OF CONTROL, THE ISSUE--THE WOMEN’S CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS--THE NEW REGIME AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL--FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER--THE ELECTIONS OF 1912--ABOLITION OF THE SMALL WARD SYSTEM ADVOCATED--THE ELECTIONS OF 1914--A FORECAST FOR GREATER MONTREAL--SUPPLEMENT: LIST OF MAYORS--CITY REVENUE 181
Chapter XXI
SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE UNDER THE UNION
FOREWORD--MARKED PROGRESS GENERAL--THE EMBRYONIC COSMOPOLIS--THE DEEPENING OF LAKE ST. PETER--FOUNDATION OF PHILANTHROPIES--LIVING CHEAP--THE MONTREAL DISPENSARY--RASCO’S HOTEL AND CHARLES DICKENS--PRIVATE THEATRICALS--MONTREAL AS SEEN BY “BOZ”--DOLLY’S AND THE GOSSIPS--THE MUNICIPAL ACT--ELECTION RIOTS--LITERARY AND UPLIFT MOVEMENTS--THE RAILWAY ERA COMMENCES--THE SHIP FEVER--A RUN ON THE SAVINGS’ BANK--THE REBELLION LOSSES BILL AND THE BURNING OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE--RELIGIOUS FANATICISM--GENERAL D’URBAN’S FUNERAL--A CHARITY BALL--THE GRAND TRUNK INCORPORATORS--EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENTS--THE “BLOOMERS” APPEAR--M’GILL UNIVERSITY REVIVAL--THE GREAT FIRE OF 1852--THE GAVAZZI RIOTS--PROGRESS IN 1853--THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854--THE PATRIOTIC FUND--THE ASIATIC CHOLERA--THE ATLANTIC SERVICE FROM MONTREAL--ADMIRAL BELVEZE’S VISIT--PARIS EXHIBITION PREPARATIONS--“S.S. MONTREAL” DISASTER--THE INDIAN MUTINY--THE FIRST OVERSEAS CONTINGENT--THE ATLANTIC CABLE CELEBRATED--A MAYOR OF THE PERIOD--THE RECEPTION OF ALBERT EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES--FORMAL OPENING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGE--THE GREAT BALL--“EDWARD THE PEACEMAKER”--THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR--MONTREAL FOR THE SOUTH--FEAR OF WAR--CITIZEN RECRUITING--THE MILITARY--OFFICERS OF THE PERIOD--PEACE--THE SOUTHERNERS--THE WAR SCARE--THE BIRTH OF MODERN MILITIA SYSTEM--THE MILITARY FETED--CIVIC PROGRESS--FENIAN THREATS--D’ARCY MCGEE--SHAKESPEARE CENTENARY--GERMAN IMMIGRANTS’ DISASTER--ST. ALBAN’S RAIDERS--RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES TO END--ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CITY COUNCIL--THE FIRST FENIAN RAID--MONTREAL ACTION--MILITARY ENTHUSIASM--THE DRILL HALL--A RETROSPECT AND AN APPRECIATION OF THE LATTER DAYS OF THE UNION 195
XXII. CONSTITUTIONAL LIFE UNDER CONFEDERATION
FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL INFLUENCE
MONTREAL AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL POLITICS--CONFEDERATION TESTED--CARTIER AND THE PARTI ROUGE AT MONTREAL--ASSASSINATION OF THOMAS D’ARCY M’GEE--THE HUDSON’S BAY TRANSFER--THE METIS AND THE RIEL REBELLION--LORD STRATHCONA--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL--RESIGNATION OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD--SECOND FENIAN RAID--THE “NATIONAL POLICY”--VOTING REFORM--TEMPERANCE BILL--ORANGE RIOTS--SECOND NORTH WEST REBELLION--THE “SIXTY-FIFTH REGIMENT”--THE MANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION--PROMINENT CITIZENS--BRITISH PREFERENTIAL TARIFF--BOER WAR--“STRATHCONA HORSE”--THE NATIONALIST LEAGUE--RECIPROCITY AND FEAR OF ANNEXATION--THE ELECTIONS OF 1911--NAVAL BILL--PROVINCIAL POLITICS--MONTREAL MEMBERS--PROVINCIAL OVERSIGHT OVER MONTREAL--HOME RULE--THE INTERNATIONAL WAR OF 1914--THE FIRST CONTINGENT--MONTREAL’S ACTION 219
XXIII. SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE
UNDER CONFEDERATION
1867-1914
CONFEDERATION--IMPRESSIONS OF--FUNERAL OF D’ARCY M’GEE--PRINCE ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT--THE SECOND FENIAN RAID--THE “SILVER” NUISANCE--ORGANIZATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD--RUN ON A SAVINGS BANK--FUNERAL OF SIR GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER--NEW BALLOT ACT--THE “BAD TIMES”--THE NATIONAL POLICY--THE ICE RAILWAY--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD CONTRACT--THE FORMATION OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA--OTHER CONGRESSES--THE FIRST WINTER CARNIVAL--FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--THE GREAT ALLEGORICAL PROCESSION AND CAVALCADE--THE MONUMENT NATIONAL--THE RIEL REBELLION--SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC AND RIOTS--THE FLOODS OF 1886--THE FIRST REVETMENT WALL--THE JESUITS ESTATES BILL AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY--LA GRIPPE--THE COMTE DE PARIS--ELECTRICAL CONVENTION--HISTORIC TABLETS PLACED--THE TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLE MARIE--THE BOARD OF TRADE BUILDING BURNT--THE CITY RAILWAY ELECTRIFIED--HOME RULE FOR IRELAND--VILLE MARIA BURNT--THE “SANTA MARIA”--CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOURERS CONVENTION--THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY AS A PUBLIC MUSEUM--MAISONNEUVE MONUMENT--LAVAL UNIVERSITY--QUEEN VICTORIA’S DIAMOND JUBILEE--MONTREAL AND THE BOER WAR--THE VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL--TURBINE STEAMERS--A JAPANESE LOAN COMPANY--FIRST AUTOMOBILE FATALITY--FIRES AT MCGILL--ECLIPSE OF SUN--THE WINDSOR STATION ACCIDENT--THE “WITNESS” BUILDING BURNT--THE OPENING OF THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE--GREAT CIVIC REFORM--THE DEATH OF EDWARD VII--THE “HERALD” BUILDING BURNT--THE EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS--MONTREAL A WORLD CITY--THE DRY DOCK--THE “TITANIC DISASTER”--CHILD WELFARE EXHIBITION--MONTREAL AND THE WAR OF 1914 231
XXIV. RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
EARLY CHAPELS AND CHURCHES--THE FIRST PARISH CHURCH--OTHER CHURCHES STANDING AT THE FALL OF MONTREAL--NOTRE DAME DE VICTOIRE--- NOTRE DAME OF PITIE--THE “RECOLLET”--THE PRESENT NOTRE DAME CHURCH--ERECTION AND OPENING--THE “OLD AND NEW”--THE TOWERS AND BELLS--THE ECCLESIASTICAL DIOCESE OF QUEBEC--THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL--THE DIVISION OF THE CITY INTO PARISHES--THE CHURCHES AND “RELIGIOUS”--ENGLISH-SPEAKING CATHOLICS--ST. PATRICK’S, IRISH NATIONAL CHURCH, ETC. NOTE: THE “RELIGIOUS” COMMUNITIES OF MEN AND WOMEN 251
XXV. OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
ANGLICANISM--EARLY BEGINNINGS--FIRST “CHRIST CHURCH”--THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL--HISTORY OF EARLY ANGLICAN CHURCHES.
PRESBYTERIANISM--ST. GABRIEL’S STREET CHURCH--ITS OFFSHOOTS--THE FREE KIRK MOVEMENT--THE CHURCH OF TODAY.
METHODISM--FIRST CHAPEL ON ST. SULPICE, 1809--THE DEVELOPMENT OF METHODIST CHURCHES.
THE BAPTISTS--FIRST CHAPEL OF ST. HELEN STREET--FURTHER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT--PRESENT CHURCHES.
CONGREGATIONALISM--CANADA EDUCATION AND HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY--FIRST CHURCH ON ST. MAURICE STREET--CHURCHES OF TODAY.
UNITARIANISM--FIRST SERMON IN CANADA, 1832--ST. JOSEPH STREET CHAPEL--THE CHURCHES OF THE MESSIAH.
HEBREWS--SHEARITH ISRAEL--SHAAC HASHOMOYIM AND OTHER CONGREGATIONS.
SALVATION ARMY--ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
OTHER DENOMINATIONS.
A RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF MONTREAL FOR 1911 271
Chapter XXVI
1760-1841
SCHOOL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL BEFORE THE CESSION
NEW MOVEMENT FOR BOYS--THE COLLEGE OF MONTREAL--THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION--THE FIRST ENGLISH SCHOOLMASTERS BEFORE 1790--A REPORT OF 1790 FOR THE SCHOOLS OF CANADA--THE DESIRE TO REAR UP A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION--THE JESUITS’ ESTATES--THE “CASE” AGAINST AMHERST’S CLAIM TO THE JESUITS’ ESTATES AND FOR THEIR DIVERGENCE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION--NEW ENGLISH MOVEMENT FOR A GENERAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION--THE ACT OF 1801--THE ROYAL INSTITUTION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING--NEVER A POPULAR SUCCESS--ITS REFORM IN 1818--A COUNTERPOISE--THE FABRIQUE ACT OF 1824--REVIEW OF SCHOOLS UNDER THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--SUBSIDIZED SCHOOLS--REVIEW OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS--LAY SCHOOLS--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT ON EDUCATION. NOTE: THE JESUITS’ ESTATES 293
Chapter XXVII
1841-1914
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AFTER THE UNION
THE RISE OF THE “SCHOOL COMMISSIONS OF MONTREAL”
EDUCATION AFTER THE REBELLION--THE EDUCATIONAL ACT OF 1846--THE PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS--NORMAL SCHOOLS--THE AMENDED SCHOOL ACT OF 1868-69--THE CHARTER--THE PROTESTANT HIGH SCHOOL--THE PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--HISTORY OF SCHOOLS--LIST OF CATHOLIC COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--PRESENT SCHOOLS UNDER COMMISSION--INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC SCHOOL COMMISSIONS--THE ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH THE CENTRAL COMMISSION--“NUNS”--“BROTHERS”--“LAITY.”
NOTE: SECONDARY EDUCATION--TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL--VOCATIONAL 305
XXVIII. UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
I. M’GILL UNIVERSITY
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--JAMES M’GILL--CHARTER OBTAINED--THE “MONTREAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE” SAVES M’GILL--NEW LIFE IN 1829--THE RECTOR OF MONTREAL--THE MERCHANTS’ COMMITTEE--M’GILL IN 1852--THE HISTORY OF THE FACULTIES--BUILDINGS--DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1895--RECENT BENEFACTORS--MACDONALD COLLEGE--THE STRATHCONA ROYAL VICTORIA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN. NOTE: THE UNION THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT--THE JOINT BOARDS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL, ANGLICAN, PRESBYTERIAN AND WESLEYAN AFFILIATED COLLEGES.
II. LAVAL UNIVERSITY (MONTREAL DISTRICT)
THE STORY OF ITS COMPONENT PARTS--EVOLUTION FROM THE “ECOLES DE LATIN”--COLLEGE DE ST. RAPHAEL--ENGLISH STUDENTS--COLLEGE DECLAMATIONS--THE PETIT SEMINAIRE ON COLLEGE STREET--THE COLLEGE DE MONTREAL--THE SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, CLASSICS, LAW AND MEDICINE--THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “JAM DUDUM”--DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS--AFFILIATED BODIES--THE FACULTIES AND SCHOOLS. NOTE: NAMES OF EARLY “ENGLISH” STUDENTS AT THE “COLLEGE” 325
XXIX. GENERAL CULTURE
I. THE LIBRARY MOVEMENT
FRENCH:--L’OEUVRE DES BONS LIVRES, 1844--THE CABINET DE LECTURE PAROISSIAL, 1857.
ENGLISH:--“MONTREAL LIBRARY” AND MONTREAL NEWS ROOM, 1821--MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 1844--THE FRASER INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 1870--ITS EARLY LITIGATIONS--ITS PUBLIC OPENING IN 1885--OTHER LIBRARIES.
II. LITERARY AND LEARNED SOCIETIES
THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1827--THE MECHANICS INSTITUTE, 1828--LA SOCIETE HISTORIQUE, 1856--CONFERENCE DES INSTITUTEURS, 1857--THE “INSTITUT CANADIEN”--CERCLE LITTERAIRE DE VILLE MARIE, 1857--UNION CATHOLIQUE, 1858--(THE GUIBORD CASE)--THE ANTIQUARIAN AND NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION, 1862--THE “ECOLE LITTERAIRE” 1892--ST. JAMES LITERARY SOCIETY, 1898--THE “DICKENS’ FELLOWSHIP” 1909--OTHER LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS--THE “BURNS SOCIETY”--THE ALLIANCE FRANCAISE--THE CANADIAN CLUB, 1905.
III. ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS
FOREWORD:--INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC EXCLUSIVENESS.
ART:--EARLY ART IN CANADA--THE MODERN MOVEMENT--THE MONTREAL SOCIETY OF ARTISTS--THE ART ASSOCIATION OF MONTREAL--ITS HISTORY--ITS PAINTINGS--MONTREAL ART COLLECTIONS--THE ART SCHOOL--MONTREAL ARTISTS--THE WOMAN’S ART SOCIETY--THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY--THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS--THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA--OUTSTANDING ARTISTS.
THE DRAMA:--PLAYS IN 1804--THE FIRST THEATRE ROYAL BUILT IN 1825--THE SECOND OPENED IN 1850--OTHER THEATRES TO THE PRESENT--AMATEUR THEATRICAL ASSOCIATIONS--THE DRAMATIC LEAGUE.
MUSIC:--MODERN SOCIETIES--SOCIETE DE STE CECILE--SOCIETE DE MONTAGNARDS--AMATEUR MUSICAL LEAGUE--MENDELSSOHN CHOIR--MONTREAL PHILHARMONIC--INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.
NEWSPAPERS:--MONTREAL HISTORIES 349
XXX. NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE POPULATION
1834, THE YEAR OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST NATIONAL SOCIETIES.
ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--REORGANIZATION IN 1843--THE “MONUMENT NATIONAL”--EDUCATION AND SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS--THE FRENCH-CANADIAN SPIRIT--PRESIDENTS.
ST. GEORGE’S SOCIETY--A CELEBRATION IN 1821--OBJECT--EARLIEST OFFICERS--THE HISTORY OF ST. GEORGE’S HOME--PRESIDENTS.
ST. ANDREW’S SOCIETY--ORGANIZATION AND FIRST OFFICERS--JOINT PROCESSIONS OF NATIONAL SOCIETIES--EARLIEST CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES--THE HEALTH OF THE POPE--THE LORD ELGIN INCIDENT--THE CRIMEAN WAR--SUBSCRIPTION TO A PATRIOTIC FUND--THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HOME BEGINS--THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HALL--CONDOLENCE ON DEATH OF D’ARCY MCGEE--PRESIDENTS.
ST. PATRICK’S SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY NON-DENOMINATIONAL--EARLY PRESIDENTS--THE REORGANIZATION IN 1856--FIRST OFFICERS--FIRST SOIREE--FIRST ANNIVERSARY DINNER--NATIONAL SOCIETIES PRESENT--THE TOASTS--IRISH COMPANIES IN CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION--IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION--T. D’ARCY M’GEE--EMIGRATION WORK--ST. PATRICK’S HALL--PRESIDENTS.
IRISH PROTESTANT BENEVOLENT SOCIETY--EARLY MEMBERS--WORKS--PRESIDENTS.
GERMAN SOCIETY--HISTORY AND PRESIDENTS.
WELSH SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY THE “WELSH UNION OF MONTREAL”--AFTERWARD--ITS OBJECT--PRESIDENTS.
NEWFOUNDLAND SOCIETY--ORIGIN--PRESIDENTS.
THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT--THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.
OTHER NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CENSUS OF POPULATION FOR 1911 369
XXXI. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
FIGHTING FIRE--DARKNESS--FLOODS--DROUGHT
1. FIRE FIGHTING--THE FIRE OF 1765--“THE CASE OF THE CANADIANS OF MONTREAL”--THE EXTENT OF THE FIRE--FIRE PRECAUTIONS SUGGESTED--OTHER HISTORICAL FORCES--THE MONTREAL FIRE FORCES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT.
2. THE LIGHTING OF MONTREAL--OIL LAMPS, 1815--GAS, 1836--ELECTRICITY--FIRST EXPERIMENTS IN THE STREETS, 1879--THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES--NOTES ON INTRODUCTION OF THE TELEGRAPH--FIRE ALARM--ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
3. FLOODS, EARLY AND MODERN, 1848, 1857, 1861, 1865, 1886--THE PRACTICAL CESSATION IN 1888.
4. THE CITY WATER SUPPLY--THE MONTREAL WATER WORKS--PRIVATE COMPANIES--THE MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS--THE PUMPING PLANTS--THE WATER FAMINE OF 1913 397
XXXII. LAW AND ORDER
JAILS--POLICE SERVICES--COURTHOUSE--LAW OFFICERS
EARLY PUNISHMENTS--FIRST CASES OF THE MAGISTRATES--GEORGE THE “NAGRE”--“EXECUTION FOR MURDER”--OTHER CRIMES PUNISHED BY DEATH--SOLDIER DESERTIONS--A PUBLIC EXECUTION--THE JAILS--- THE JAIL TAX TROUBLES--OBNOXIOUS TOASTS--THE NEW JAIL OF 1836--ITS POPULATIONS--THE NEW BORDEAUX PRISON--OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PRISONS--THE EARLY POLICING OF MONTREAL--THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE OF 1815--THE POLICE FORCE AFTER THE REBELLION OF 1837-1838--POLICE CHIEFS--MODERN LAW COURTS AND JUDGES--THE HISTORY OF THE BAR--THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF MONTREAL--THE RECORDERS--THE ARCHIVES. SUPPLEMENT--THE JUDGES OF THE HIGHER COURTS FROM 1764 TO 1914--THE SHERIFFS OF MONTREAL--THE PROTHONOTARIES--THE COURTHOUSE SITES--THE BATONNIERS 413
XXXIII. HOSPITALS
THE HOTEL DIEU: JEANNE MANCE--THE HOSPITALIERES OF LA FLECHE--THE HOTEL DIEU CHAPEL--ST. PATRICK’S HOSPITAL--THE MIGRATION TO PINE AVENUE--THE PRESENT MODERN HOSPITAL.
THE GENERAL HOSPITAL: “THE LADIES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY”--THE HOUSE OF RECOVERY--THE MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL--ITS BENEFACTORS AND ITS ADDITIONS--THE EARLY TRAINING OF NURSES--THE ANNEX OF 1913.
THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL: THE LAVAL MEDICAL FACULTY--THE OLD DONEGANI HOTEL--THE LADY PATRONESSES--MODERN DEVELOPMENT.
THE WESTERN HOSPITAL: THE BISHOPS COLLEGE MEDICAL FACULTY--THE WOMEN’S HOSPITAL.
THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL: IN MEMORY OF QUEEN VICTORIA--ITS DESCRIPTION--ITS INCORPORATION--ITS EQUIPMENT.
THE HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL: FIRST ORGANIZED WORK--INCORPORATION--THE FIRST HOSPITAL--THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS--THE PHILLIPS TRAINING SCHOOL FOR NURSES.
THE HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE: EARLY TREATMENT OF INSANE--THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOSPITALS ST. JEAN DE DIEU AT LONGUE POINTE AND THE PROTESTANT ASYLUM AT VERDUN.
CIVIC HOSPITALS: THE SMALLPOX HOSPITAL--“CONTAGIOUS” HOSPITALS--HOSPITAL ST. PAUL--ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL.
TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARIES: THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE--PIONEER TUBERCULOSIS CLINIC IN CANADA--PUBLIC HEALTH EXHIBITIONS--THE INSTITUTE BRUCHESI: ITS DEVELOPMENT--THE GRACE DART HOME--CIVIC AID.
CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS: THE CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL--STE. JUSTINE. OTHER HOSPITAL ADJUNCT ASSOCIATIONS. NOTE: MEDICAL BOARDS: PRIVATE, PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL 433
XXXIV. SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENTS
I. CARE OF THE AGED, FOUNDLINGS AND INFANTS. II. RELIEF MOVEMENTS. III. SICK VISITATION AND NURSING BODIES. IV. MOVEMENTS FOR THE “UNFORTUNATES.” V. VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE HANDICAPPED. VI. IMMIGRATION WORK. VII. HUMANITARIAN MOVEMENTS FOR BOYS. VIII. HEBREW SOCIAL WORKS. IX. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENTS. X. MOVEMENTS FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS. XI. TEMPERANCE MOVEMENTS. XII. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF WORKERS. XIII. RECENT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS. XIV. MUNICIPAL CHARITIES. 457
XXXV. COMMERCIAL HISTORY BEFORE THE UNION
MONTREAL’S EARLY BUSINESS FIRMS--A PROPHECY AT BEGINNING OF NINETEENTH CENTURY--CULTIVATION OF HEMP--ST. PAUL STREET--SLAVES IN MONTREAL--DOCTORS AND DRUGS IN 1815--WHOLESALE FIRMS IN 1816--FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE OF TRADE--NOTRE DAME STREET--M’GILL STREET--FRENCH CANADIAN BUSINESSES--SHIP CARGOES--THE SHOP FRONTS IN 1839 527
XXXVI. COMMERCIAL HISTORY SINCE THE UNION
THE RISE OF MODERN MANUFACTURES AND INDUSTRIES
MONTREAL CENTER OF CANADIAN TRADE--LORD ELGIN’S OPINION OF THE CANADA CORN ACT--TRADE DEPRESSION BEGINNING IN 1847--SUGAR AND FLOUR INDUSTRIES--THE PANIC OF 1860--A PROSPEROUS DECADE--ANOTHER DEPRESSION--THE NATIONAL POLICY--PROSPERITY AGAIN IN THE EIGHTIES--ST. CATHERINE STREET--THE RISE OF FURTHER INDUSTRIES--THE RISE OF THE COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATIONS--THE COMMITTEE OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES--THE BOARD OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES IN CANAL, PORT, RAILWAY, CANADIAN AND EMPIRE EXPANSION--ITS INTEREST IN CIVIC GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL CIVIC BETTERMENT--ITS BUILDING--ITS SOCIAL FUNCTIONS--THE “CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE”--ITS ORIGIN--THE OTHER MERCHANTS’ ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CITY--A TRIBUTE TO THE MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL. NOTES: PRESIDENTS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE--CENSUS (1912) OF MONTREAL MANUFACTURES 535
XXXVII. FINANCE
MONTREAL BANKING AND INSURANCE BODIES
I. BANKING: HAMILTON’S PLAN FOLLOWED BY THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1791--1792, THE ATTEMPTED CANADA BANKING COMPANY AT MONTREAL--DELAY THROUGH AMERICAN WAR OF 1812--1815, RENEWED AGITATION FOR A BANK CHARTER FOR MONTREAL--1817, THE FIRST BANK OF MONTREAL WITHOUT A CHARTER--ITS FIRST OFFICERS--OTHER BANKS FOLLOW--THE QUEBEC BANK--THE RIVAL “BANK OF CANADA”--THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA--MOLSONS BANK--THE MERCHANTS BANK--BANQUE JACQUES CARTIER, PREDECESSOR TO BANQUE PROVINCIALE--THE ROYAL BANK--THE BANQUE D’HOCHELAGA--THE MONTREAL CITY AND DISTRICT BANK--BANKS WITH HEAD OFFICES ELSEWHERE--MONTREAL BANK CLEARINGS WITH CANADIAN AND NORTH AMERICAN CITIES.
II. INSURANCE: THE PIONEER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA--THE “PHOENIX”--THE “AETNA”--IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES--THE GREAT FIRE OF 1854--LATER COMPANIES. A. LIFE INSURANCE: THE PIONEER COMPANIES--THE SCOTTISH AMICABLE AND SCOTTISH PROVIDENT COMPANIES. B. MISCELLANEOUS INSURANCE 553
XXXVIII. TRANSPORTATION
I
SHIPPING--EARLY AND MODERN
BY RIVER AND STREAM
MONTREAL HEAD OF NAVIGATION--LAKE ST. PETER--JACQUES CARTIER’S DIFFICULTIES--THE GRADUAL DEEPENING OF THE CHANNEL--THE LACHINE CANAL IN 1700--ITS FURTHER HISTORY--MONTREAL THE HEAD OF THE CANAL SYSTEM OF CANADA.
II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONTREAL SHIPPING
A--SAILING VESSELS
BIRCH BARK CANOE--BATEAU--DURHAM BOAT--SHIPBUILDING IN MONTREAL.
B--STEAM VESSELS
JOHN MOLSON’S ACCOMMODATION, 1809--PASSENGER FARES BETWEEN MONTREAL AND QUEBEC--PASSAGE DESCRIBED--THE TORRANCES--INLAND NAVIGATION--THE RICHELIEU AND ONTARIO COMPANY--THE FIRST UPPER DECK STEAMER TO SHOOT THE LACHINE RAPIDS.
C--ATLANTIC LINERS
THE ROYAL WILLIAM FIRST OCEAN STEAMER AND PIONEER OF THE OCEAN LINERS--ITS CONNECTION WITH MONTREAL--MAIL SERVICE TO MONTREAL--THE GENOVA--- ARRIVAL IN MONTREAL IN 1853--DINNER TO CAPTAIN PATON--THE CRIMEAN WAR--THE MONTREAL OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY--THE FIRST CANADIAN ATLANTIC SHIP COMPANY--THE ALLAN LINE--EARLY BOATS--MAIL CARRIERS--1861 DISASTERS--SUBSEQUENT SUCCESS--THE PRESENT MONTREAL ALLAN SERVICE--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY STEAMSHIP LINES--OTHER LINES--THE SHIPPING AND THE WAR OF 1914--THE GREAT ARMADA 569
XXXIX. TRANSPORTATION
I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL--HERIOT’S DESCRIPTION IN 1815--T.S. BROWN IN 1818--THE ISLAND WHARF--THE CREEK--THE PRIMITIVE WHARVES--THE “POINTS”--THE RIVER FRONT--THE SPRING FLEET--FIREWOOD RAFTS--TOW BOATS--THE EVERETTA--AN ACCOUNT OF 1819--BOUCHETTE’S PLAN OF 1824--THE FIRST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, “THE TRINITY BOARD”--FIRST REPORT--LATEST REPORT--EARLY ENGINEERS--REVIEW OF HARBOUR IN 1872--A TRANSFORMATION FROM 1818--GRAIN ELEVATORS--NUMBER OF VESSELS--MARKET AND WOOD BOATS--THE BONSECOURS MARKET--1875 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT NOW CARRIED OUT--FLOATING DOCK--DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT HARBOUR--ITS FACILITIES FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT--THE DESIRE TO LENGTHEN THE SHIPPING SEASON.
II
HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS--THE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS FROM 1830 TO THE PRESENT TIME.
III
CUSTOMS--SHIPPING FEDERATION--THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY--IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 585
XL. TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL
IV
MONTREAL AND THE RAILWAYS OF CANADA
MONTREAL THE CENTRE OF RAILWAY COMMUNICATION--THE FIRST RAILWAY--THE SNAKE RAIL AND THE “KITTEN”--“THE CHAMPLAIN AND THE ST. LAWRENCE”--THE SECOND RAILWAY. THE ATLANTIC AND ST. LAWRENCE--THE AMALGAMATION INTO THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
1. ITS HISTORY--ITS PRESIDENTS--AN INTERESTING REPORT AT CONFEDERATION--NEW FREIGHT YARDS--CHAS. M. HAYS AND THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY--THE BUILDING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGES BY THE GRAND TRUNK RAILROAD.
2. THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY--ITS FINANCIERS--TWIN TO CONFEDERATION--OPPOSITION TO PROMOTERS--EARLY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES--NO BIG FORTUNES MADE--ROLLING STOCK--A REAL EMPIRE BUILDER--HELPING NEW INDUSTRIES--HUGE LAND HOLDINGS--IRRIGATION OF BARREN LANDS.
3. OTHER SYSTEMS--THE “INTERCOLONIAL”--THE CANADIAN NORTHERN AND ITS MOUNTAIN TUNNEL 607
XLI. TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD
I
THE ANCIENT AND MODERN POSTAL SERVICE OF MONTREAL
ANCIENT ROADS--THE “GRAND VOYER”--GOOD ROADS MOVEMENT--THE EVOLUTION OF ROADS--“POST” MASTERS RECOGNIZED IN 1780--THE EARLY POSTAL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN--BURLINGTON THE TERMINUS--EARLY LETTER RATES--MAIL ADVERTISEMENTS--THE QUEBEC TO MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE--EARLY POSTOFFICE IN MONTREAL--OCEAN AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE--THE PRESENT POSTOFFICE--ITS HISTORICAL TABLETS BY FLAXMAN--THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM--THE POSTMASTERS OF MONTREAL.
II
STREET TRANSPORTATION
MODERNIZING MONTREAL
MONTREAL IN 1861--THE STREET RAILWAY MOVEMENT--THE “MONTREAL CITY PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY” CHARTERED--THE HISTORY OF THE COMPANY--ITS FIRST PROMOTERS--EIGHT PASSENGER CARS, SIX MILES, HORSE SERVICE IN 1861--THE OPENING UP OF THE STREETS--WINTER SERVICE OF SLEIGHS--1892 THE BEGINNING OF ELECTRIC ERA--THE CONVERSION OF THE SYSTEM INTO ELECTRIC TRACTION--THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE COMPANY 623
Chapter XLII
1760-1841
CITY IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CESSION
UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
EARLY STREET REGULATIONS--A PICTURE OF MONTREAL HOUSES IN 1795--FURTHER STREETS OPENED--A “CITY PLAN” MOVEMENT IN 1799--HOUSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY--MAP OF 1801--CITY WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED--CITADEL HILL REMOVED--FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS--ROAD COMMISSIONERS--PICTURE OF 1819--IMPROVEMENTS DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF THE JUSTICES AND THE MUNICIPALITY--PICTURE OF 1839 BY BOSWORTH 635
Chapter XLIII
1841-1867
CITY IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE UNION
UNDER THE MUNICIPALITY
GREAT STRIDES AT THE UNION--THE EARLY MARKET PLACES--THE BONSECOURS MARKET--OTHER MARKETS--PUBLIC PLACES--THE EARLY SQUARES--PRESENT PARKS--THE EARLY CEMETERIES--THE FIRST JEWISH CEMETERY--THE DORCHESTER STREET PROTESTANT CEMETERY--DOMINION SQUARE--MOUNT ROYAL--COTE DES NEIGES--OTHER CEMETERIES--GENERAL CITY IMPROVEMENT--AREAS OF PUBLIC PLACES 641
Chapter XLIV
1867-1914
CITY IMPROVEMENT SINCE CONFEDERATION
THE RISE OF METROPOLITAN MONTREAL
THE METROPOLITAN ASPECT OF MONTREAL IN 1868--EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS--THE CITY STREET RAILWAY AIDS SUBURBAN EXTENSION--FORECAST OF ANNEXATIONS--THE CITY HOMOLOGATED PLAN--THE ANNEXATION OF SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES IN 1883--TABLE OF ANNEXATION SINCE 1883--PREFONTAINE’S REVIEW OF THE YEARS 1884-1898--IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE BOARD OF CONTROL--A REVIEW OF THE LAST TWO DECADES OF METROPOLITAN GROWTH--THE CHANGES DOWNTOWN--THE GROWTH UPTOWN.
STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENTS: 1. STATEMENT OF BUILDINGS. 2. REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS. 3. RECENT BUILDINGS ERECTED OR COMPLETED. 4. THE METROPOLITAN POPULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE POPULATION OF MONTREAL WITH THE CITIES OF THE CONTINENT. 5. OF THE WORLD. 6. OPTIMISTIC SPECULATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. 7. VITAL CITY STATISTICS IN 1912. 8. A PLAN FOR “GREATER MONTREAL”--THE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT MOVEMENT 651
UNDER ENGLISH RULE
I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS
CHAPTER
I THE EXODUS--“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW.” II THE INTERREGNUM--MILITARY RULE. III THE TREATY OF PARIS--NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT. IV CITY GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. V PRELIMINARY STRUGGLES FOR AN ASSEMBLY--THE CASE FOR THE MERCHANTS. VI THE QUEBEC ACT--1774. THE CASE FOR THE NOBLESSE. VII REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775. VIII MONTREAL BESIEGED. IX MONTREAL AN AMERICAN CITY. X THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST. 1791. XI THE FUR TRADERS. XII FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS. XIII THE INVASION OF 1812-1813. XIV ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS. XV BUREAUCRACY AND DEMOCRACY. XVI MURMURS OF REVOLUTION. XVII IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR. XVIII PROCLAMATION OF UNION--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. XIX UNDER THE UNION. XX THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL. XXI ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS. XXII UNDER CONFEDERATION. XXIII ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
HISTORY OF MONTREAL
I. THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL
1760
“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”
AMHERST’S LETTER REVIEWING EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CAPITULATION--THE SURRENDER OF ARMS--THE REVIEW OF BRITISH TROOPS--THE DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH TROOPS--END OF THE PECULATORS--VAUDREUIL’S CAPITULATION CENSURED--DEPARTURE OF THE PROVINCIAL TROOPS--ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONY--DEPARTURE OF AMHERST--THE TWO RACES LEFT BEHIND. NOTES: (1) THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT.--(2) THE POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL.
On the capitulation of Montreal in the grey of the early morn of September 8, 1760, British Rule began and the Régime of France was ended. On the 9th the victorious Amherst wrote his official account to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. The details therein will serve to recapitulate the history of the final downpour on Montreal during the days preceding its fall, with the new era commencing, and accordingly we present it to our readers.
“Camp of Montreal, 9th September, 1760.
Sir:
In Mine of the 26th ultimo I acquainted You with the progress of the Army after the departure from Oswego and with the Success of His Majesty’s Arms against Fort Levis, now Fort William Augustus, where I remained no longer than was requisite to make Such preparations as I Judged Essentially necessary for the passage of the army down the River, which took me up to the 30th.
In the morning of the following day I set out and proceeded from Station to Station to our present Ground, where we arrived on the 6th in the evening, after having in the passage sustained a loss of Eighty-Eight men drowned,----Batteaus of Regts. seventeen of Artillery, with Some Artillery Stores, Seventeen Whaleboats, one Row Galley staved, Occasioned by the Violence of the Current and the Rapids being full of broken Waves.
The Inhabitants of the Settlements I passed thro’ in my way hither having abandoned their Houses and run into the Woods I sent after them; Some were taken and others came of their own Accord. I had them disarmed and Caused the oath of Allegiance to be tendered to them, which they readily took; and I accordingly put them in quiet possession of their Habitations, with Which treatment they seemed no less Surprised than happy. The troops being formed and the Light Artillery brought up, the Army lay on their Arms till the Night of the 6th.
On the 7th, in the morning, two Officers came to an advanced post with a Letter from the Marquis de Vaudreuil referring me to what one of them, Colonel Bouguinville, had to say. The Conversation ended with a Cessation of Arms till 12 o’Clock, when the Proposals were brought in; Soon after I returned them with the terms I was willing to grant, Which both the Marquis de Vaudreuil and Mons. de Lévis, the French General, were very strenuous to have softened; this Occasioned Sundry Letters to Pass between us During the day as well as the Night (when the Army again lay on their Arms), but as I would not on any Account deviate in the Least from my Original Conditions and I insisted on an Immediate and Categorical answer Mr. de Vaudreuil, soon after daybreak, Notified to me that he had determined to Accept of them and two Sets of them were accordingly Signed by him and me and Exchanged Yesterday when Colonel Haldimand, with the Grenadiers and the Light Infantry of the Army took Possession of One of the Gates of the town and is this day to proceed in fulfilling the Articles of the Capitulation; By which the French Troops are all to lay down their arms; are not to serve during the Continuance of the Present War and are to be sent back to Old France as are also the Governors and Principal Officers of the Legislature of the Whole Country, Which I have now the Satisfaction to inform You is entirely Yielded to the Dominion of His Majesty. On which Interesting and happy Event I most Sincerely Congratulate you.
Governor Murray, with the Troops from Quebec, landed below the Town on Sunday last & Colonel Haviland with his Corps (that took possession of the Isle aux Noix, Abandoned by the enemy on the 28th) Arrived Yesterday at the South Shore Opposite to My Camp. I am, with great regard,
Sir, Your most Obedient, Humble Servant JEFF AMHERST.
The Honourable Lt. Governor Hamilton.
(Endorsed by Hamilton, Camp Montreal, 7 ber, 1776. General Amherst, received by Post Tuesday, 23d September.)”[1]
Haldimand, as directed by Amherst on the 9th, received the submission of the troops of France.
In the French camp, de Lévis reviewed his forces--2,132 of all ranks. In his Journal they are thus summarized:
Officers present 179 Soldiers 1953 ---- 2132
Officers returned to France 46 Soldiers invalided 241 ---- 287 ---- Total 2419 Soldiers described as absent from their regiments 927 ---- 3346
There on the Place d’Armes yielded up their arms, all that was left of the brave French warriors who had no dishonour in their submission, surrendering only to the overwhelming superior numbers of the English conquerors. With de Lévis was the able de Bourlamaque and the scholarly soldier de Bougainville, with Dumas, Rocquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne and so many of the heroes of Ticonderoga and Carillon. There too was de Vaudreuil, the Governor General, Commander-in-Chief, and last governor of New France, with his brother, the last Governor of Montreal under the Old Régime. Haviland’s entourage and the British troops present could not but admire their late opponents.
The only jarring note of the ceremony was the absence of the French flags from the usual paraphernalia to be delivered up. The omission is thus signaled by Amherst, in his official report of the submission, who after mentioning the surrender of the two captured British American stands of colours goes on to say that there were no French colours forthcoming: “The Marquis de Vaudreuil, generals and commanding officers of the regiment, giving their word of honour that the battalions had not any colours; they had brought them with them six years ago; they were torn to pieces and finding them troublesome in this country they had destroyed them.”
They had however been but recently destroyed, for the “Journal” of de Lévis, written by him Cæsar-like in the third person, tells how, after being unable to shake the determination of de Vaudreuil to capitulate without the honours of war, de Lévis, in order to spare his troops a portion of the humiliation they were to undergo, had ordered them to burn their colours to avoid the hard condition of handing them over to the enemy. “M. le Chevalier de Lévis voyant avec douleur que rien ne pouvoit faire changer la determination de M. le Marquis de Vaudreuil voulant épargner aux troupes une partie de l’humiliation quelles alloient subir, leur ordonna de brûler leurs drapeaux pour se soustraire à la dure condition de les remettre aux ennemis.”[2] (Cf. Journal des Campagnes du Chevalier de Lévis en Canada, 1756-1760. Edited by l’Abbé H.R. Casgrain, Montreal, C.O. Beauchemin et fils, 1889.)
On the 11th Amherst turned out his whole force and received Vaudreuil on parade. Between these two, friendly relations had been established. Place d’Armes was again a scene of colour with the presence of the British regiments led by Murray, Haviland, Burton, Gage, Fraser the gallant Highlander, Guy Carleton, who was to become the famous viceroy of Canada and to die Lord Dorchester, Lord Howe, and the scholarly Swiss soldier Haldimand. There were present, too, Sir William Johnston, the baronet of the Mohawk Valley and leader of the six nations, Major Robert Rogers of the famous rangers,[3] with his two brothers, and others of note. No doubt de Vaudreuil’s suite was not far off with de Lévis, de Bourlamaque, de Bougainville, Dumas, Roquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne, with the nefarious Intendant Bigot and all the principal officers of the colony who had been in Montreal, the headquarters of government since the fall of Quebec.
During the three following days the town was definitely occupied by the British, and the arrangements completed for the departure of the French Regulars. The regiments of Languedoc and Berry, with the marine corps, were embarked on the 13th; the regiments of Royal Rousillon and Guyenne on the 14th; on the 16th the regiments of La Reine and Béarn. On the 17th de Lévis, with de Bourlamaque, started for Quebec; de Vaudreuil and Bigot left on the 20th and 21st. By the 22nd every French soldier had left Montreal, except those who had married in the country and who had resolved to remain in it and transfer their allegiance to the new government.[4]
Fate had dealt a severe blow to the brave defenders of Canada whom we now find sailing from Montreal to France, which would appear to have abandoned them. The regulars and the colonial troops, in spite of their jealousies and emulations, were brave men, and duly honoured as such by the British soldiery who saw the vessels bearing on the broad St. Lawrence so many of those who had recently disputed the long drawn out strife for the conquest of Canada. Speaking of this, “the most picturesque and dramatic of American wars,” Parkman continues: “There is nothing more noteworthy than the skill with which the French and Canadian leaders use their advantages; the indomitable spirit with which, slighted and abandoned as they were, they grappled with prodigious difficulties and the courage with which they were seconded by regulars and militia alike. In spite of occasional lapses, the defence of Canada deserves a tribute of admiration.”--(“Montcalm and Wolfe,” Vol. II, p. 382.)
The departures from Montreal and Quebec must have been indeed heart-rending. That from Montreal, since the fall of Quebec, the home of all the high officials of the civil, religious and military governments, was the most striking, as the natural leaders of the colony were mostly there. “There repassed into Europe,” says the French Canadian historian, F.X. Garneau, “about 185 officers, 2,400 soldiers valid and invalid, and fully 500 sailors, domestics, women and children. The smallness of this proved at once the cruel ravages of the war, the paucity of embarkations of succour sent from France, and the great numerical superiority of the victor. The most notable colonists at the same time left the country. Their emigration was encouraged, that of the Canadian officers especially, whom the conquerors desired to be rid of and whom they eagerly stimulated to pass to France. Canada lost by this self-expatriation the most precious portion of its people, invaluable as its members were from their experience, their intelligence and their knowledge of public and commercial affairs.”[5] (Bell’s translation, Vol. II, p. 294.)
The clergy, however, solidly remained at their posts to build up the self-esteem of the people and to rear up a loyal race. Hence the respect and gratitude due to them by the French Canadians of today.
Yet there were many of whom the country was well rid, such as Bigot, Cadet, Péan, Bréard, Varin, Le Mercier, Pénisseault, Maurin, Corpron and others, accused of the frauds and peculations that helped to ruin Canada. A great sigh of relief might well have escaped from the French who had been ruined by them.
Most of the ships provided by the English government weathered the November gales. The vessel L’Auguste containing Saint-Luc de la Corne, his brother, and others, after being storm-tossed and saved from conflagration, finally drove towards the shore, struck and rolled on its side, and became wrecked on the Cap du Nord, Ile Royale. La Corne, with six others, gained the shore, and he reached Quebec before the end of the winter, as his journal tells us. His name was to become familiar at Montreal under the British régime.
The sloop Marie, which had been fitted up to receive the Marquis de Vaudreuil, his family and staff, had an early mishap between Montreal and Three Rivers, having run aground.
M. de Vaudreuil and the staff of officers of the colony arrived at Brest on the English vessel L’Aventure under a flag of truce, with 142 passengers from Canada. Thence, de Vaudreuil wrote to the minister of mariné. On December 5th the latter wrote back acknowledging this letter and that of September from Montreal containing the articles of capitulation, with papers relating thereto. A précis of this letter to Vaudreuil reveals that, although the king was aware of the condition of the colony, in default of the reinforcements it was unable to receive, yet, after the hopes the governor had given, by his letters in the month of June, of holding out some time longer, and his assurances that the last efforts would be put forth to sustain the honour of the king before yielding, His Majesty did not expect to learn so soon of the surrender of Montreal and of the whole colony. Granting the force of all the reasons which led to the capitulation, the king was nevertheless considerably surprised, and less satisfied, at having to submit to conditions so little to his honour, especially in the face of the representations which had been made to him by M. de Lévis on behalf of the military corps of the colony. The king, in reading the memorandum of these representations, which the minister was unable to avoid placing before him, saw in it that, notwithstanding the slight hope of success, Vaudreuil was still in a condition, with the diminished resources remaining to him, to attempt an attack or a defence that might have brought the English to grant a capitulation that would have been more honourable for the troops. The king left him at liberty to remain at Brest for the time, for his health. With regard to the officers who were with him, they could retire to their families or elsewhere. It was sufficient for him to be informed of their place of residence.--(“Canadian Archives,” Vol. III, p. 313.)
Not only was Vaudreuil censured for the capitulation of Montreal, but finally he had the honour of being placed in the Bastille with the peculators whom we have above mentioned.[6] His release, however, was speedy. Whatever his gains might have been from trading in the early part of his career, e. g., as Governor of Louisiana, he reached France from his government of Canada a poor man. The trial of those accused of peculation lasted from December 1, 1761, till the end of March, and on December 10, 1763, the president of the commission rendered his final decision. Vaudreuil with five more were relieved from the accusation, but he died in 1764 less from age than from sorrow.
“In the course of his trial he stood by the Canadian officers, now being slandered by Bigot. ‘Brought up in Canada myself,’ said the late Governor General, ‘I knew them, every one, and I maintain that almost all of them are as upright as they are valorous; in general the Canadians seem to be soldiers born; a masculine and military training early inures them to fatigues and dangers. The annals of their expeditions, their explorations, and their dealings with the aborigines abound in marvelous examples of courage, activity, patience under privation, coolness in peril, and obedience to leaders during services which have cost many of them their lives, but without slackening the ardour of the survivors. Such officers as these, with a handful of armed inhabitants and a few savage warriors, have often disconcerted the projects, paralyzed the preparations, ravaged the provinces, and beaten the troops of Great Britain when eight or ten times more numerous than themselves. In a country with frontiers so vast, such qualities were priceless.’ And he finished by declaring that he would fail in his duty to those generous warriors, and even to the state itself, if he did not proclaim their services, their merits and their innocence.”--(Bell’s translation of Garneau, Vol. II, p. 298.)
Governor Carleton, writing in 1767 to Lord Shelburne, confirms this tribute. “The new subjects could send into the field about eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms, of which number, above one-half have already served with as much valour, with more zeal, and more military knowledge for America, than the regular troops of France that were joined with them.”
Vaudreuil might also have paid a compliment to the brave women of New France, who, like Madeleine de Verchères and others, were ready to fight with the men, and who were true women and wives. “Brave and beautiful,” George III summed them up in a compliment paid at his court in London after the conquest to Madame de Léry, the wife of Chevalier de Léry, the engineer who repaired the fortifications of Montreal: “If all the Canadian ladies resemble you, I have truly made a fine conquest.”
It must not be thought that the departure of the French colonial officers was an entire abandonment of the project of regaining the country. They were to be retained for the French service and possibly for future use in Canada.[7] They were called to Tourraine and there held at the king’s pleasure under pay, to all intents and purposes officers in the French service, and liable to be sent on any service.
“The British provincial troops were sent from Montreal at an early date. The New Hampshire and Rhode Island regiments crossed the river and proceeded to Chambly, thence went to Crown Point. The Connecticut troops were ordered to Oswego and Fort Stanwix; the New York and New Jersey regiments to the lately named Fort William Augustus, at the head of the rapids, and to Oswegatchie (Ogdensburg). Rogers, with four hundred men, bearing letters from Vaudreuil instructing the forts to be given over, was sent to Detroit, Miami, St. Joseph and Michillimackinac.[8] Moncton at the same time received orders to forward regular troops to take permanent possession of these forts.”--(Kingsford, “History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 409.)
The troops that were to remain in Montreal for the winter were now established in their quarters. The French Indians in the neighbourhood were summoned to the city and requested to bring their prisoners; they appeared with several men, women and children, and Johnston established rules and regulations for their future government.
Amherst remained in Montreal till September 26th, when he went down the river to Quebec. He left on October 5th and on the 18th was on Lake Champlain, thence to Albany, which he left on the 21st to arrive in New York on the 28th of October. He never visited Canada again, but he left it, however, well organized.
Immediately after the capitulation of Montreal he had occupied himself with the establishment of a provisional military government with tribunals to administer justice summarily until a definite form of government should be determined. The French division of the province into the three administrative districts of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal was maintained. In a despatch to Pitt dated October 4, 1760, from Quebec (Amériques et Indes Occidentales, No. 699), Amherst renders an account of all the dispositions which he had made since the date of the capitulation of Montreal. Although the greater part of these were military matters, the following items concerning the civil administration may be found:
September 15; I have sent officers with detachments to the different villages to collect the arms and to make them take the oath of allegiance.
September 16; I have named Colonel Burton governor of Three Rivers.
September 17; I have given order to the militia of the town (Montreal) and of the suburbs to give up their arms and to take the oath of allegiance next day, immediately after the embarkation of M. de Vaudreuil.
September 22; I have named Brigadier General Gage governor of Montreal.
On the same day he published a proclamation for the government of Three Rivers similar to the one for Montreal, dated merely September, 1760 (“Amériques et Indes Occidentales”), in which arrangements are made for the transaction of business and amicable arrangements with the new government and the troops.
The new government was only, however, of an ad interim nature, for it was not certain that England would keep Canada. It was this thought that reconciled the Canadians to the new situation.
Meanwhile the British Flag floated over Citadel Hill.
The country was now British. France had been tried in the balance and found wanting. It had lost, through its wavering policy, a fair domain and a noble people. This poignant loss was voiced by de Vaudreuil, the deposed governor general, who, in spite of his faults, was a true Canadian and had visions of its future as one of the proudest jewels in the crown of France, for was it not La Nouvelle France? On quitting his beloved country he paid it this homage in a letter to his minister:
“With these beautiful and vast countries, France loses 70,000 inhabitants[9] of a rare quality; a race of people unequaled for their docility, bravery and loyalty. The vexations they have suffered for many years, more especially during the five years preceding the reduction of Quebec--all without a murmur, or importuning the king for relief--sufficiently manifest their perfect submissiveness.”
The qualities, they had then, remain still the mark of those of the same race living in Montreal of today.
“In all things we are sprung, from Earth’s best blood, have titles manifold.”
As their predecessors took the oath of allegiance to King George II, and became good Britishers, so have their descendants remained today, in the days of George V. “What perished in the capitulation of Montreal,” says Parkman, “was the Bourbon monarchy and the narrow absolutism which fettered the life of New France throughout the Old Régime. What survives today is the vigour of two races striving to make Canada strong and free and reverent of law.”
NOTE I
THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT
Judge Baby of Montreal, in an article in the Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal, 3d Edit., Vol. II, p. 304, has combatted very successfully the traditional view started by Bibaud and followed by Garneau that after the capitulation of Montreal, and the Treaty of Paris, 1763, the seigneurs, the men of learning, and the chief traders and others of the directing classes, left the country. This emigration was from the town but the country places were untouched. He proves that a great many remained outside the civil and military party who had governed the country, and the soldiery who were taken officially to France; that many of the young colonial officers who had thought to have a chance to follow a career in the army or navy of France shortly returned at the call of their fathers whose interest in their lands and whose poverty, heightened by the depreciation of the paper money, would not have induced them to begin life again in France; that even of those who did go to France there were very many who returned, as they had intended; hence the recurrence of names, in the history after the cession, made familiar before it. The long list given by Judge Baby of Seigneurs and gentlemen proved by him to have remained, strengthens his case. An interesting list of French-Canadians remaining in Montreal engaged in business at this time is also given by him as follows:
Guy, Blondeau, Le Pellé De LaHaye, Lequindre Douville, Perthuis, Nivard St. Dizier, Les freres Hervieux, Gaucher-Gamelin, Glasson, Moquin, St. Sauveur, Pothier, Lemoine de Monnière, De Martigny, De Couagne, Desauniers, Mailhot, St. Ange-Charly, Dumas, Magnan, Mitiver, L’Amy, Bruyère, Pierre Chaboillez, Fortier, Lefèbre du Chouquet, Courtheau, Vallée, Cazeau, Charly, Carignan, Auger, Porlier frère, Pommereau, Larocque, Dumeriou, Roy-Portelance, De Vienne, De Montforton, Sanguinet, Campeau, Laframboise, Vauquier, Guillemain, Curot, Dufau, Campion, Lafontaine, Truillier-Lacombe, Périneault, Arillac, Léveillé, Bourassa, Pillet, Hurtubise, Leduc, Monbrun, Landrieu, Mezière, Hilbert, Tabeau, Sombrun, Marchesseau, Avrard, Lasselle, Dumas St. Martin, Beaubien-Desrivières, Réaume, Nolin, Cotté, St. Germain, Ducalvet, L’Eschelle, Beaumont.
The Judge gives the names of many jurisconsults who remained in the country, three of whom eventually became members of the Superior Council; also of doctors; the great majority of the notaries remained in the country. In summing up, he finds “130 seigneurs, 100 gentry, 125 traders of mark, twenty-five jurisconsults, and men of law, twenty-five to thirty doctors and surgeons, notaries of almost the same number”--“were these not,” he asks, “sufficient to face the political, intellectual and other needs of the population then in Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers?”
NOTE II
POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL
M. de Vaudreuil’s estimate of 70,000 population has been challenged by Dr. Kingsford (“History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 413).
Amherst before leaving Canada obtained a census of the population which he reported as 76,172 by parishes and districts.
Companies Number of of Total of Parishes Militia Militia all souls Montreal 46 87 7,331 37,200 Three Rivers 19 19 1,105 6,388 Quebec 43 64 7,976 32,584 --- --- ------ ------ 108 170 16,412 76,172
The census must have been obtained through the French and there is no ground for supposing that they would designedly furnish an incorrect statement. It does not, however, accord with the previous or subsequent tables of population.
The population in 1736 was 39,063; 1737, 39,970; 1739, 42,701; 1754, 55,009. In the fifteen years between the last two dates the population increased 12,003, something less than one-third. If we apply this increase to the next six years we may be justified in estimating the increase at one-eighth, which would place the population at 62,000. It is not provable that in these six years of war the population could have increased upwards of 20,000,--five-elevenths--nearly half of the former total. In 1761 the three governors were called upon to furnish a census of their several districts. The reports were:
(Gage) Montreal 24,957 (Burton) Three Rivers 6,612 (Murray) Quebec 30,211 ------ Total of 61,780
“I am inclined, therefore,” says Kingsford, “to estimate the French population of Canada in 1760 at 60,000 souls, the number of which hitherto has been generally accepted as correctly representing it.”
At the same time Doctor Kingsford placed too much reliance on the census of 1761. It is well known that fear of conscription and other bogies caused the census returns of French-Canadian inhabitants to be minimized for many a long day under British rule. If Amherst’s census of 76,172 is correct, as well as the 61,780, that of the year 1761, then a loss of 14,392 is to be accounted for.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] From R. McCord’s collection.
[2] A detailed and romantic account of their burning on St. Helen’s Island is to be found in “L’Ile de Ste. Helène, Passè, Présent et Avenir, par A. Achintre et J.A. Crevier, M.D., Montreal, 1876.” I have found no historical proof of them being burnt there.--Ed.
[3] Major Rogers’ picture in ranger uniform long decorated the shops of London. His bold, bucanneering deeds caught the popular fancy. The late Lord Amherst recalled long afterward how certain verses traditional in his family had been taught the children of successive Amhersts so long that the meaning of the allusion was forgotten until quite recently, when it was found that they referred to Rogers.
[4] The French troops were only able to leave Quebec on the 22nd and 25th of October.--“Can. Arch. A. and W.I.,” 95, p. 1.
[5] See Appendix for Judge Baby’s criticism and qualification of the extent of this exodus.
[6] The accused numbered fifty-five. Among those condemned either to banishment from France or restitution and fines were: Bigot, the Intendant, Varin, his sub-delegate, and Duchesnaux, his secretary; Cadet, commissary general of Canada, and his agent, Corpron; Péan, captain and aide-major of the marine troops in Canada; Estèbe, the keeper of the King’s stores in Quebec; (all these had operated in Montreal directly or through their agents); Martel de St. Antoine, keeper of the King’s store at Montreal; Maurin, Pénisseault, merchants and operators in Cadet’s offices in this city; and Le Moyne-Despins, a merchant employed in furnishing provisions to the army. See “Montreal Under the French Régime,” Vol. I.
[7] In 1767 Guy Carleton feared an uprising in Canada on the probable return of this body of officers. See letter to Lord Shelburne. (Constitutional Documents--Shortt & Doughty.)
[8] Rogers reached New York, on his return from Detroit, the following February. Owing to the setting in of winter he had been unable to proceed to other forts. He reported that he had found one thousand Canadians in the neighbourhood of Detroit.--“Can. Arch. A. and W.I., 961,” p. 219.
[9] See note at the end of this chapter.
II. THE INTERREGNUM
1760-1763
MILITARY GOVERNMENT
BRIGADIER GAGE, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL--THE ADDRESS OF THE MILITIA AND MERCHANTS--GOVERNMENT BY THE MILITARY BUT NOT “MARTIAL LAW”--THE CUSTOM OF PARIS STILL PREVAILS--COURTS ESTABLISHED--THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRENCH-CANADIAN MILITIA CAPTAINS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE--SENTENCES FROM THE REGISTERS OF THE MONTREAL COURTS--GOVERNOR GAGE’S ORDINANCES--TRADE--THE PORT--GAGE’S REPORT TO PITT ON THE STATE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MONTREAL--THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECLARATION OF THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS--REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF THE PAPER MONEY--LEAVE TO THE FRENCH TO DEPART--LAST ORDINANCES OF GAGE--HIS DEPARTURE.
Brigadier Gage was appointed governor of Montreal on September 21, 1760.[1] He early won the esteem of the townspeople. All his ordinances manifest the desire to act in accordance with justice and in harmony with the people. Montrealers recognized this and shortly after the death of George II, which took place on October 25th, expressed their confidence in their rulers in an address written in English and French. The English version as inserted in the New York Gazette is as follows:
“To his Excellency, General Gage, governor of Montreal and its dependencies.
“The address of the officers of militia and merchants of the city of Montreal.
“Cruel Destiny has thus cutt short the Glorious Days of so Great and so Magnanimous a Monarch! We are come to pour out our Grief unto the paternal Bosom of Your Excellency, the Sole Tribute of Gratitude of a People who will never cease to Exalt the mildness and Moderation of their New Masters. The General who has conquered us has rather treated Us as a Father than a Vanquisher and has left us a precious Pledge[2] by name and deed of his Goodness to Us. What acknowledgements are we not beholden to make for so many Favours? Ha! They shall be forever Engraven in our Hearts in Indelible Characters. We Entreat Your Excellency to continue us the Honour of Your Protection. We will endeavour to Deserve it by Our Zeal and by the Earnest Prayers We shall ever offer up to the Immortal Being for Your Health and Preservation.” (Canadian Archives, A. & W., I, 96, I, page 327.)
The mildness and moderation of the “New Masters” was particularly shown by the retention of existing laws and customs. It will be recalled that Vaudreuil, in the Articles of Capitulation had asked that “French and Canadians should be continued to be governed according to the customs of Paris and the laws and usages established for this country and should not be subject to any other laws than those established under the French dominion.” Whereupon Amherst had replied that this had been answered by the preceding article and especially by the reply to the last (Article 41), asking that the British government should only require a strict neutrality of the Canadians, which said curtly: “They become subjects of the king”--a non-committal reply, which at first looked severe but was, as the conscientious historian, Jacques Viger,[3] has said, just and reasonable under the circumstances. In the event, Amherst granted more than his answer would suggest, for during the Interregnum, the French and British incomers continued to be governed according to the custom of Paris. Hence the gratitude expressed through General Gage was well deserved.
The period of the Interregnum, now beginning (September 8, 1760, to August 10, 1764), which was to last until the promulgation of the treaty of Paris, and the official publication by Governor General Murray of his civil appointment, has been called erroneously by several French historians, “La Regne Militaire,” a term suggestive of military despotism and summary justice. Commander Jacques Viger, M. Labrie, Judge Mondelet and others rejected this erroneous misnomer in the columns of the Journal “La Bibliotheque Canadienne,” being edited in 1827 by Bibaud, the well known historian. For, after examining the documents of the period they came to the conclusion that the name of La Regne Militaire could only be merited because, as most of the official men of the law having been in Government employ had left the country and new justices had to be created who should judge according to “les lois, formes et usages” of the country, the government devolved perforce on the military men and of the “milices,” the only educated men left besides the clergy.
This is made clear by a memoir of October 15, 1777, to the British government on the subject of the administration of justice, drawn up by Judges Panet, Mabane and Dunn, of whom Pierre Panet had been one of the greffiers at Montreal, and the others had had close relations with the military judges. Their testimony is therefore convincing. They state: “Though Canada was conquered by His Majesty’s arms in the fall of 1760, the administration in England did not interfere with the interior government of it till the year 1763. It remained, during that period, as formerly, with three districts, under the separate command of military officers who established in their respective districts, military courts under different forms, indeed, but in which, according to the policy observed in wise nations towards a conquered people the laws and usages of Canada were observed in the rules of decision.”
The basis of the new military government was the placard issued by General Amherst from Montreal on the 22d of September, 1760, in which he announced the new order of the government for the old and new subjects, and outlined the new form of military government throughout the three districts, by the appointment in each parish of the officers of the militia, the commandant of the regular troops and a third court of further appeal to the governor, as the future demonstrators of justice, and then left it to the local governors of the other two divisions of the country to establish their own courts. These officers of militia were the most competent at the time to carry on the traditional “custom of Paris” as they were mostly appointed from the Seigneurs of the district and the educated class.
Accordingly on October 28, 1760, General Gage issued his orders establishing tribunals of militia officers to regulate civil disputes among individuals and a second tribunal of appeal before the regular military court, with a final court of appeal to himself.
The rest of the document deals with police prohibitions to the inhabitants, not to harbour deserters or to traffic with the soldiers for their arms, clothing, etc., or any other of their accoutrements; it orders chimneys to be swept once a month, and other precautions against fire; carpenters were to be prepared with an adz, the inhabitants with an axe and bucket; also arrangements for safety against snow from falling from houses, the cleansing of the portions before the house and the disposal of garbage, the keeping of the roads and bridges in good order, and regulations concerning the sale of provisions brought in by the country people, the sale to be made in the common market place with the prohibition to town merchants to forestall the citizens by buying up the supplies brought in. The militia captains being no lawyers, were only required by Amherst to dispense law and justice as best they could, being limited to civil cases.
The ordinance of Thomas Gage, governing the administration of justice in his jurisdiction of Montreal by dividing it into five districts with definite powers and the regulations for the upkeep of the courts therein, was dated at Montreal, October 13, 1761. In each of the five districts there was to assemble on the first and fifteenth of each month a court of officers of the “Milice.” These militia courts were to be composed of not more than seven and not less than five members, of which one should hold the rank of captain, the senior to act as president. The officers of militia of each district were summoned to meet in their parishes on the 24th of October to make arrangements for the whole of these courts and to prepare rosters of officers for duty therein.
The Town of Montreal was set apart as a judicial district of its own, with a local board of officers to administer the laws. Appeal was allowed from these courts to three boards of officers of His Majesty’s Troops, one to meet at Montreal, the other at Varennes and the third at St. Sulpice, these courts of appeal to sit on the 20th of each month. A further appeal from these courts to the governor in person was provided for.
In the event of capital crimes, officers of militia were authorized to arrest the criminals and their accomplices and to conduct them under guard to Montreal, the militia officers to furnish with each prisoner an account of the crime and a list of witnesses. In civil cases involving small amounts, not exceeding twenty livres all the officers of the militia were individually granted authority to adjudicate with an appeal to and no further than the militia courts of the districts.
Provision was made for the payment of the militia officers for all of these duties by a scale of fees, a treasurer to be appointed for each court. The officers of militia were especially enjoined to maintain peace and order within their respective districts.
On October 17th the Conseil des Capitaines de Milice de Montreal presented a memorial to the governor expressing their willingness to administer justice gratuitously, as they had done in the past, but requesting as a favour from His Excellency that they be exempted from the obligation to billet troops in their domiciles. They requested that six cords of wood be purchased to heat the chamber in which their sittings were held and that Mr. Panet, their clerk, be compensated for his services at the rate of thirty sols for each sentence. Two militia sergeants had been appointed to act as bailiffs and criers of the court, and a tariff of fees was asked for to provide for their pay. These sergeants, it was also explained, were not only made use of in the administration of justice but also for the district, for the supervision of the statutory labour or corvèe. This memorial, which was signed “R. Decouange,” was approved by the governor.[4]
The inclusion of the French officers in the administration of the affairs of the country was a wise and honest attempt on the part of the British to carry out the promise of the capitulation to retain for the present the laws and customs of the past. In choosing the officers of the militia they were well advised, since the commissions there were held by the Seigneurs and the other notabilities of their respective districts, men who were the best educated and the most esteemed in the country. The choice was politic also, for it secured the continuance of the services of men who, under the old régime, had already been in charge of the conduct of justice, as well as public and communal affairs. Indeed it was to them that there had been intrusted the carrying out of the public works, such as road making and repairs, bridge building, the regulation of statutory labor through corvèes, etc. In the new régime, therefore, the militia officers were practically reinstated in their former functions.
An examination has been made by Judge Mondelet of Three Rivers, of the registers kept of the decisions of the military court of Montreal. These latter have been generally found equitable and founded on positive law; they are legally attested to in most cases, the secretary of the council being a Frenchman skilled in the law, such as was Pierre Panet, the notary, and the minutes are all in French. The first four registers contain the transactions of the “Chambre de Milices” presided over by the captains of the militia, and dealt only with civil cases. The fifth and sixth of these registers contain the criminal decisions of the court martials of the Chambre Militaire of Montreal and that of St. Sulpice, as well as appeals from the “Chambre de Milices.” This court was composed only of officers of the regular army to the number of five. In addition there was the further right of appeal to the governor. The seventh register “appeals to the governor,” records the decisions of General Gage (page 299), and of General Burton (page 95).
By consulting the records we find that order during this period was observed independently of the racial distinctions in the city. We hear of, for instance, early in 1761 of the execution of a grenadier of the Forty-fourth Regiment for robbery, which is balanced by that of a French soldier, formerly of the La Salle Regiment, for the murder of a habitant at Ile Jésus, the execution being carried out in the market place.
It will be interesting here to notice some of the court martials held at Montreal in the years 1761 and 1762. It will be seen that French and English, the “new” and the “old” subjects, came equally under them, being treated with equal justice. The following cases from the “Livre d’orde” reveal this.
Montreal, June 3, 1761, at the court martial general, Lieutenant-Colonel Grant presiding, Jean Marchand of Boucherville, was prosecuted for the murder of Joseph Carpentier, a Canadian,--acquitted.
Tuesday, June 30, William Bewen accused of having intoxicated soldiers and of selling rum without license, is found guilty, having been accessory to his associate, Isaac Lawrence, who has the habit of selling rum to the soldiers,--condemned to receive 200 stripes of the cat-o’-nine tails, and to be driven from the town at the beat of the drum. (First of July, Isaac Lawrence similarly condemned.)
August 6, Joseph Lavalleé and François Herpin, inhabitants of Montreal, prosecuted for theft,--acquitted.
Joseph Burgen, one of those who came following the army, is accused and convicted for theft, and condemned to be hanged by the neck until death shall ensue. The General approved the sentence, but pardoned him on the condition that he left this government without delay.
August 13, George Skipper and Bellair, bakers, accused and arraigned by Captain Disnay for having sold bread, which had not the requisite weight,--acquitted.
September 19, John Charlette and one named Lameure, Canadians, are indicted for having solicited Joseph Myard, a drummer, to desert. Charlette is acquitted and Lameure is found guilty and condemned to receive 300 blows from the whip. He is pardoned by the General.
December 13, William Morris, accused of having kept a dissolute house, is condemned to a fine of £5.
December 24, two Canadians prosecuted for having the property of the King in their possession. One is acquitted and the other found guilty and condemned to receive 400 stripes of the lash. The General approves the sentence, but reduces the lashes to fifty.
For 1762, we may choose an incident which shows the growth of the tendency towards the unpleasant relations between the Montreal English merchants and the military, which afterwards had such serious results, and helped to occasion the recall of General Murray.
February 26, Mr. Grant and Edward Chinn, merchants, accused of having insulted Ensign Nott of the Fourth Battalion of the Sixth Regiment of Royal Americans, are found guilty and condemned, Mr. Grant to a fine of £30 and Mr. Chinn to a fine of £20, “which sums will be employed according to the direction of the General to the relief of the unhappy poor in Montreal.” Pardon is to be asked of Ensign Nott in the presence of the garrison of Montreal in the following terms, namely--“Ensign Nott I am very sorry for having been guilty of assault in your regard and very humbly ask your pardon.” The General approved the sentence, but reduced the fine of Mr. Grant to £20. Mr. Forrest Oakes was also prosecuted for a like offence and condemned also to ask pardon of Ensign Nott, and to undergo fourteen days’ imprisonment. The General reduced the imprisonment to twenty-four hours and exempted Mr. Oakes from asking pardon, because it appeared to him that the injuries received had been reciprocal.
From these judgments, we may see that, while the Chambre de Justice of Chambre de Milices judged purely civil affairs, all criminal affairs, great and small, were relegated to the “Council of War,” otherwise called the “Court Martial,” which performed the functions nowadays of the courts of Quarter Sessions and criminal courts of King’s Bench. The “General” was the final court of appeal.
A glance at some of the ordinances of this period will further illustrate the life of the town. On November 27 Governor Gage found it necessary to issue ordinances against merchants, who without permission of the governor, went to sell their merchandise and intoxicating liquors in the country places. On the 13th of January, 1762, there occurred a further ordinance, explaining the former and forbidding in addition the sale of liquors to soldiers and savages, and fixing the quantity lawful to be sold to the inhabitants at one time. These merchants were probably newcomers from the English colonies now drifting into the city and anxious to make good quickly rather than scrupulously.
On the 12th of May regulations were issued concerning the amount of cords of wood that should be furnished to the troops.
On July 26th, Gage endeavors to arrange for the money exchange values. He orders that six livres tournois shall be equal to eight shillings, or ten sols of Montreal money.
On July 31st, Gage has his mind on the repair of the fortifications, “seeing that they are falling into ruin and wishing to carry on the old regulations for the common good, following in this time of uncertainty, the ancient usages, which are not opposed to the service of the king,” and therefore he ordered that there shall be imposed every year commencing with 1762, a sum, of which a third shall be paid by the Seminary of St. Sulpice and the other two-thirds by the regular and secular communities and the inhabitants of the said Town of Montreal, for repairs to commence in the following spring, but that the gate, on which they are working, shall be made perfect this year, and “that the said imposition, for which the money shall be remitted to a person named by the Chambre of Militia of the said Montreal, shall not surpass the sum of 6,000 livres each year” and shall continue until the entire repair of the said enclosure is made, at the end of which repairs, the present ordinance shall remain null and void.
On August 3d, Gage seeing that different standards of weights and measures were being used, and to prevent frauds slipping into the commercial life of the city, established that, in Montreal, the English standard yard measure should be used according to the standard to be kept by the “major of the place.” This regulation it was hoped would suit both the English and French.
On October 18th he has to settle the prices, which the bakers of the town should charge for various kinds of bread.
On November 15th, foreseeing the future possibilities of Montreal trade, Governor Gage issued an ordinance for the establishment of a Customs House and he orders Thomas Lambs to be recognized as its director, and Richard Oakes as the visitor of the said Custom House in Montreal.
The following will interest Montreal merchants of today, being significant of the first loosening of restrictions upon Montreal on the part of Quebec. “All ship owners and others interested in trade are warned that all of the vessels coming from Europe or the colonies charged on account of merchants and others, who wish to come there to do business, can follow their destinations up to the city of Montreal without being discharged and re-charged with merchandise at Quebec under any pretext whatever, unless they are suspected of carrying goods of contraband, in the design of making illicit trade.”
On the 7th of January, 1763, regulations forbidding excess speed of the carriages and horses in the streets of Montreal and suburbs had to be laid down.
On the 4th of April Gage issued an ordinance establishing the Custom House at Montreal, with regulations to the captains of ships and officers, sailors and others to carry out the regulations issued, which show that all the paraphernalia and customary duty of ships reporting to the customs, avoiding smuggling, etc., were now full of vigour. Montreal was beginning to be a port of some pretensions.
All these regulations show that the British authorities, while affirming the customs of the country and maintaining the law, as known by the people and administered by their own men of ability and learning, the captains of the militia, of whom many were of the noblesse, providing progressive trade regulations, required for the development of the port and of the up-country commerce, of which the headquarters were at Montreal, were wise rulers.
The care with which the inhabitants were instructed in the knowledge of political events happening outside of their own sphere, the participation in their own judicial code by their own officers, thus beginning, as it were, to be permitted for the first time to participate in their duty of taking part in the government, the justice with which they were treated by the conquerors, the faithful fulfilment of dues for service received, brought about a unity with the English soldiery and the new governors, that disposed the conquered people to feel little regret at the departure of the French Régime from Canada.
Many there were, who were still borne up by the hope that the expected peace would restore Canada to France, but the majority were indifferent and if anything glad to have things remain as they were. The position at Montreal may be summed up in the words of General Gage’s report to Amherst, dated March 20, 1762, sent on to London the same year.[5]
“I feel the highest satisfaction that I am able to inform you that during my command of this government I have made it my constant care and attention that the Canadians should be treated agreeable to His Majesty’s kind and humane intentions. No invasion on their property or assault on their person has gone unpunished. All reproaches on their subjection by the fate of arms, revilings on their customs or country and all reflections on their religion, have been discountenanced and forbid. No distinction has been made between the Briton and Canadian, but equally regarded as subjects of the same prince. The soldiers live peaceably with the inhabitants and they reciprocally acquire an affection for each other.”
Those who know the British soldier will not be surprised to hear that in the distress that fell upon the French Canadians in 1761, mostly through the non-payment of the obligations incurred by the French government, for the redemption of the paper money not yet liquidated since the capitulation, the soldiers gave each one a day’s provisions monthly to relieve the immediate distress. Quebec suffered most. Montreal merchants came to the rescue and swelled the general subscription lists.
As Governor Gage was on the spot, his official report may be further largely quoted as that of an historian of Montreal. After the above opening remarks on the amicable relations existing between the French-Canadians and British, he continues: “The Indians have been treated on the same principles of humanity. They have had immediate justice for all their wrongs and no tricks or artifices have hitherto been attempted to defraud them in their trade.”
He sends a return of the present state of the troops and artillery and a report of the fortifications. Speaking of those of Montreal he notes: “Upon a height within the city is a small square work of wood, completed since the capitulation, provided with a few pieces of artillery and capable of containing seventy or eighty men.”
“The soil produces all sorts of summer grains. In some parts of the government the wheat is sown in autumn. Every kind of pulse and other vegetables to which I may add some fruits, viz., apples, pears, plums, melons, etc. Cider is made here, but as yet in small quantities. In general every fruit tree hardy enough to withstand the severity of the winter will produce in the summer, which affords sufficient heat to bring most kinds of fruit to maturity.”
Reporting as befits one stationed at the center and headquarters of the fur trade on the profits to the French king from the posts he says, “I must conclude His Majesty gained very little from this commerce.”
He then records what must have been of great importance to the interests of the British merchants of Montreal desirous of up-country trade. “Immediately after we became masters of this country all monopolies were abolished and all incumbrances upon trade were removed. The traders chose their posts without the obligation of purchasing them and I can by no means think the French management in giving exclusive grants of trade at particular posts for the sake of the sale thereof or the sale of permits to trade at the free posts worthy our imitation. The Indians, of course, paid dearer for their goods and the trade in general must have been injured by the monopolies.”
Summing up the gain to France of Canada he says: “The only immediate importance and advantage the French king derived from Canada was the preventing the extension of the British colonies, the consumption of the commodities and manufactures of France and the trade of pelletry. She had no doubt views to further advantages that the country might in time supply her with hemp, cordage, iron, masts and generally all kinds of naval stores. The people in general seemed well enough disposed to their new masters.
“The only causes of dislike which I can discover proceed from the fear of money, and the difference of religion. I understand Canada to be on the same footing in respect of this money as all the French colonies and if France pays any of them I don’t see how she can avoid paying the bills of exchange drawn from Canada in the same proportion as she pays the rest. It is the Canadians only who would be sufferers by an exception, as Canadian bills to a very large amount are in the possession of French merchants and the rest may be sent to France and nobody be able to distinguish which is French and which Canadian property.”
Speaking of the second cause of dislike, the difference of religion, he says: “The people having enjoyed a free and undisturbed exercise of their religion ever since the capitulation of their country, their fears in that particular are much abated, but there still remains a jealousy. It is to be hoped that in time this jealousy will wear off and certainly in this, much will depend upon the clergy. Perhaps methods may be found hereafter to supply the curés of this country with priests well affected. But whilst Canada is stocked as she is now with corps of priests detached from seminaries in France, on whom they depend and to whom they pay obedience, it is natural to conceive that neither the priests nor those they can influence will ever bear that love and affection to a British government which His Majesty’s auspicious reign would otherwise engage from the Canadians as well as from his other subjects.”
In passing it may be noted that Gage’s fears were never realized, for to the Canadian clergy is due the credit of having saved Canada to English rule, as will be seen afterwards. A last quotation is interesting as bearing on the question of the exodus in 1760 after the capitulation. “No persons have left this government to go to France except those who held military and civil employment under the French king. Nor do I apprehend any emigration at the peace, being persuaded that the present inhabitants will remain under the British dominion. I perceive none preparing to leave the government or that seem inclined to do it unless it is a few ladies whose husbands are already in France, and they propose to leave the country when peace is made, if their husbands should not rather choose to return to Canada.”
Meanwhile the peace was eagerly looked forward to. The proclamations of the 26th of November, given from the Palace of St. James in London, having reference to the preliminaries for peace and the cessation of hostilities, prepared the minds of all for further intelligence. This was eventually given by Thomas Gage from his Château of Montreal on the 17th of May, 1763, in which the definitive treaty of peace made between their Brittannic and very Christian and Catholic majesties, signed on the 6th of February, and ratified on the 10th of March, was made known. On this occasion Gage indicated to the people the chief portions bearing upon their rights, especially that of the exercise of their religion according to the rights of the Roman church “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and secondly that whereby the inhabitants of His Christian Majesty had permission to leave Canada in safety and liberty, the limit fixed for this emigration being the space of eighteen months, to count from the day of the exchange of the treaty. He communicated to the captains of his government a letter from Monseigneur de Choiseul, which had reference to the payment of debts due and relating to the redemption of the paper money, which was still in circulation, although the English governors sought to prohibit it. It was set forth that the Most Christian King would pay the sum due to the new subjects of Great Britain, but that the amount must not be confounded with the money held by the French subjects.
On May 27, the governor of Montreal issued through the captains of Militia of Montreal regulations concerning the liquidation of this paper money, directing the captains to make a declaration of the amount in their possession. They were to place the amount held by them in the hand of Pierre Panet, Notaire et Greffier of Montreal, appointed for this purpose, between the first and thirtieth of June, designating the character of the notes, with the name of the holder and other safeguards to be observed, upon which certificates of receipt would be given. Care was to be taken that the money, which they brought, should belong to them and that they did not lend their names to anyone. Fault in this regard would lead to prosecution for falsifying. For this transaction a fee of five sous was to be paid for every thousand livres so deposited. Money was received from 7 o’clock in the morning to midday and from 2 o’clock to 5, except on Sundays and holidays. This must have caused great excitement in the city. Great care was taken to instruct the habitants of the value of their money and warn them against becoming the victims of speculators.[6]
Meanwhile preparations were being made for the removal of General Gage from the post, which he had filled with excellent judgment and with habitual prudence.
On August 5th, Gage issued some further ordinances regulating the transport of merchandise and ammunition to the savages, seeing that these latter had again been making incursions into the country.
On August 18 he upheld a complaint of the established merchants against the peddlers who were underselling the merchants in the streets, forbidding anyone to sell in the public places of the city, the streets and even the squares, river banks and suburbs.
On the 16th of September he issued an ordinance concerning certain uncultivated lands in the districts of the Government, which had been granted with titles of concessions “en fief” under the former régime, and on which there had been no ground broken as yet, on account of wars or other events. Those having these should present their credentials or applications at once, so as to have them recognized, to avoid any conflict with future concessions.
General Gage left Montreal with the esteem of all. He was presented with an affectionate address by the captains of the Chambre de Milice, over which he had presided as the Chief Judge, and he replied to them by a letter on October 15, 1763, begging them to accept his testimony in recognition of the services which they had rendered to the king of the country, trusting that they would continue the same for the public good and that their service, for which they had already required so great a reputation among their own compatriots, would not fail to draw upon them the good-will and protection of the king. Certainly Gage might safely boast, as he had done in his letter to Amherst, of the peaceful state of Montreal under his government. He had helped to forge the links of intimacy that bound the noblesse and the British officials, the militia and the military officers, which made for the harmonious transition between the old and the new régimes. Whether or not the alliance was an unmixed blessing is shown by subsequent events.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Before leaving, General Amherst appointed military governors for three districts. Their tenures of office were as follows: District of Montreal, General Thomas Gage, September, 1760, to October, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, October, 1763, to August, 1764. District of Quebec, General James Murray, September, 1760, to August, 1764. District of Three Rivers, Colonel Ralph Burton, September, 1760, to May, 1762; Colonel F. Haldimand, May, 1762, to March, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, March, 1763, to October, 1763; Colonel F. Haldimand, October, 1763, to August, 1764.
[2] The French runs: “Et nous a laissé un gage precieux, etc.” The word “pledge” instead of “gage” in the English translation destroys the delicate double entendre and compliment, evidently meant in the French version.
[3] The first mayor of Montreal.
[4] For the above abstracts of the ordinance of October 13th and October 17th see “The Canadian Militia,” by Captain Ernest J. Chambers, 1907.
[5] This was prepared for Pitt according to the order of Lord Egremont in his dispatch to Sir Jeffrey Amherst of December 12, 1761, in which the king approves of the system of military government established in the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. He instructs Amherst to send for His Majesty’s information a full account of the newly acquired country. In response to this command communicated to Murray, Burton and Gage, reports from the latter were prepared and forwarded to Amherst. These reports were among the documents submitted to the Board of Trade for their information in preparing a plan of government for the territories ceded to Britain by the treaty of Paris of 1763.
[6] The same arrangements were carried out at Quebec and Three Rivers and Murray reported that the total amount of the paper money in circulation was nearly 17,000,000 of livres, that, in the government of Montreal alone, being 7,980,298-8-4. Kingsford, History of Canada, Vol. V, page 181, remarks: “An attempt to depreciate the value of this paper was made by the court of France in which it was pointed out that from the discredit to which it had fallen it had been purchased at 80 to 90 per cent discount; that it did not represent the value of what had been received, owing to the high price paid for the articles obtained; that the bills of exchange of 1759 were paid in part and that bills that remained were only such as had been issued after this payment. The British reply was that the court of France, having been the cause of the discredit alleged had no right to profit by it, that the prices paid for supplies had been established by the intendant, that the date of the ordinances could not constitute a reason why they should not be paid, that such paper money was the currency of the colony issued by France, consequently the country was responsible for it.”
III. THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS
1763
THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT
THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE--SECTION RELATING TO CANADA--CATHOLIC DISABILITIES AND THE PHRASE “AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT”--THE TREATY RECEIVED WITH DELIGHT BY THE “OLD” SUBJECTS BUT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT BY THE “NEW”--THE INEVITABLE STRUGGLES BEGIN, TO CULMINATE IN THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774--OPPOSITION AT MONTREAL, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SEIGNEURS--THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ACTION--CIVIL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ESTABLISHED--MURRAY’S ACTION IN ALLOWING “ALL SUBJECTS OF THE COLONY” TO BE CALLED UPON TO ACT AS JURORS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE BRITISH PARTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL--THE PROTEST OF THE QUEBEC GRAND JURY--SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN 1766 TO SUIT ALL PARTIES--GOVERNOR MURRAY’S COMMENT ON MONTREAL, “EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE HATCHED THERE”--MURRAY AND THE MONTREAL MERCHANTS--A TIME OF MISUNDERSTANDING. NOTE: LIST OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNORS.
Before proceeding further it will be well to set before the reader some special portions of “The definitive treaty of peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the king of Spain, concluded at Paris the 10th day of February, 1763, to which the king of Portugal acceded on the same day.”
Section IV relating to Canada was as follows:
“His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guarantees the whole of it and with all its dependencies to the King of Great Britain. Moreover his most Christian Majesty accedes and guarantees to his said Britannic Majesty in full right, Canada with all its dependencies as well as the island of Cape Breton and all the other islands and coasts in the Gulph and river of St. Lawrence and in general everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands and coasts with the sovereignty, property, possessions and all rights acquired by treaty or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the crown of France have had till now over the said countries, lands, islands, places, coasts and their inhabitants, so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King and to the Crown of Great Britain and that in the most ample manner and form, without restriction and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guarantee under any pretense, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned.
“His Britannic Majesty on his side agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will in consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty further agrees that the French inhabitants or others who have been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada may retire with all safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper and may sell their estates provided it be to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons without being restrained in their emigration under any pretense whatever except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions; the term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen months to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.”
The definitive treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763, proclaimed by Governor Gage in Montreal on May 17th, was received with delight by the English merchants, for they looked forward eagerly for the civil government to be set up in which they, but a handful, hoped by the right of conquest to assume the high hand. They had long chafed under what they, more than the “Canadians,” chose to call military despotism. They had looked upon the amicable temporary participation of the Canadians in their own government, with eyes of envy. They were of the same metal as the British merchants of Quebec who, relying on their undoubted energy in developing the commercial interests of the country, and in their self-satisfaction, so aggrandized their own importance that they wished to rule solely, so that they early petitioned his Majesty for a representative assembly in this province as in all the other provinces of His Majesty. “There are,” they said, “a sufficient number of loyal and interested Protestants outside the military officers to form a legislative assembly, and the new subjects of His Majesty, if he should believe it proper, could be authorized to elect Protestants without having to take oath against their conscience.” (See constitutional documents, Doughty & Shortt.)
There were only about two hundred Protestants, and these not all educated or upright men, in the whole country at this time--in Quebec 144, in Montreal 56. Yet they desired to represent the whole people and to exclude the “new subjects” from every position of trust under the new civil government. At the time of Murray’s recall in 1766 they had reached the number of 450.
The Canadians were not prepared for the new turn of the tide. In consequence we shall see that between 1763 and 1774 the country was in an unsettled state, owing to the conflict inevitable between the two forces of the old and new régimes striving for recognition.
Under the military law the “new subjects” had been entrusted with a share in the government. The English rulers were officers and gentlemen who respected the claims of the Seigneurs as well as of the simple habitants, and moreover their religion was held in honour. They had been led to believe that this happy state would continue. Gage and Murray in their report to Egremont seem to hint how they were hoodwinked. “Canadians are very ignorant and extremely tenacious of their religion. Nothing can contribute to make them staunch subjects to His Majesty as the new government giving them every reason to imagine no alteration is to be attempted in that point.”
Thus when the “new subjects” came to understand that they were only to “profess the worship of their religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and that that permission was to be interpreted along the lines of the Catholic civil disabilities in England, they felt that they were proscribed men who had been ensnared by roseate promises of a wise interpretation of British liberty to be extended to them as new subjects.
The situation was impossible and at once there began the inevitable struggle and the long series of accommodations that were eventually to culminate in the Quebec act of 1774, the Magna Charta of French Canadians. The significance of this act cannot be understood unless the religious proscription in the policy of the new government be understood. Hence the opposition among the Seigneurs in Montreal, their headquarters, was secretly fostered, which later alarmed Carleton so much, as we shall see. The French Canadian clergy and Seigneurs of Montreal looked upon the new change of government as an attempt to Anglicize their religion as well as their laws. And they were not far wrong. In a letter to Governor Murray, the secretary of state, Lord Egremont, wrote from Whitehall on August 13, 1763, acquainting him that the King had been graciously pleased to confer on him the civil government of Canada and making special reference to the qualification, “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” which laws, he explains, prohibit absolutely all Popish hierarchy in any of the dominions belonging to the Crown of Great Britain and can only admit of a toleration of the exercise of that religion; this matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the exercise of that religion; the French ministers proposed to insert the words comme ci-devant in order that the Romish religion should continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their government; and they did not give up their point until they were plainly told that it would be deceiving them to admit those words, for the king had not the power to tolerate that religion in any other manner than as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. “These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may arise on this subject.”
The intention was precisely to tolerate for a time the Romish religion and gradually to supplant it. The royal instructions to Governor Murray, given from the court of St. James by King George on the 7th day of December, 1763, leave no doubt on this head. The intention to suppress the natural growth of the Catholic church in Canada by crippling it forever at its fountain head by giving no guarantee of the recognition of the Episcopal power and jurisdiction, had already been foreshadowed in the two clauses submitted by Vaudreuil in the terms of the capitulation of Montreal.
Article XXX: “If by the treaty of peace Canada shall remain in the power of His Britannic Majesty, His Most Christian Majesty shall continue to name the bishop of the colony, who shall always be of the Roman communion and under whose authority the people shall exercise the Roman religion: ‘Refused.’”
Article XXXI: “The bishop shall, in case of need, establish new parishes and provide for the building of his cathedral and his Episcopal palace; and in the meantime he shall have the liberty to dwell in towns or parishes as he shall judge proper. He shall be at liberty to visit his diocese with the ordinary ceremonies and exercise also the jurisdiction which his predecessor exercised under the French dominion, save that an oath of fidelity or a promise to do nothing contrary to His Britannic Majesty’s service, may be required of him: ‘This article is comprised under the foregoing.’”
The reason for this was signalized in the instructions later to Murray, Carleton and Haldimand in the clause beginning:
“And to the end that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the lord bishop of London may take place in our province under your government as conveniently as possible,” etc.
Section XXXII reads: “You are not to admit of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the See of Rome or of any other foreign jurisdiction whatsoever in the province under your government.”
Section XXXIII: “And to the end that the Church of England may be established both in principle and practice and that the said inhabitants may by degrees be induced to embrace the Protestant religion and their children be brought up in the principles of it, we do hereby declare it to be our intention when the said province shall have been accurately surveyed and divided into townships, districts, precincts or parishes in such manner as shall be hereinafter directed, all possible encouragement shall be given to the erecting of Protestant schools in the same districts, townships and precincts by settling, appointing and allotting proper quantities of land for that purpose and also for a glebe and maintenance for a Protestant minister and Protestant schoolmaster, and you are to consider and report to us by our Commissions for Trade and Plantation by what other means the Protestant religion may be promoted, established and encouraged in our province under your government.”
This instruction to Murray is repeated in those to Governor Carleton, 1768, and to Governor Haldimand, 1778.
Let us see how the civil government worked out. It was proclaimed on April 10, 1764, the delay being caused to allow the French Canadians the eighteen months, stipulated by the treaty of Paris, in which they might leave the country. Murray had been appointed governor-general of the province of Quebec by the commission of November 21, 1763, and the instructions were dated on December 7th. But Murray had not promulgated the new dignity accorded him till on September 17th, 1764, the first great act of the new régime being opened by his ordinance establishing civil courts. It may be briefly stated as follows: there was to be a Superior Court of judicature or King’s Bench, which should be held at Quebec twice a year at the Hilary term commencing on January 1st and at Trinity term on June 21st. Its president should be the chief justice of Canada. This was William Gregory. This man, with the attorney-general, Suckling, were soon removed for incompetency. Later in 1766 a Michaelmas term was added. Montreal and Three Rivers were to have the chief justices’ court of assizes and jail delivery after Hilary once a year.
Strangely enough, though not unnaturally, Murray had inserted a clause in the act which was afterwards violently objected to by the English merchants as going beyond his commission, viz., that all the subjects of the colony could be called upon without distinction to take their place on the jury. Murray had to explain this to the English government and accordingly with the copy of the above act sent, he remarked to the following effect: “As there are only two hundred Protestant subjects in the province, the greater part of which is composed of disbanded soldiers of small fortunes and of little capacity, it is considered unjust to prevent the Roman Catholic new subjects from taking part on juries, for such an exclusion would constitute the said two hundred Protestants perpetual judges of the lives and fortunes not only of the eighty thousand new subjects but of all the military in this province. Moreover, if the Canadians are not admitted to juries many will emigrate.” Murray felt that his position might not carry, for he adds: “This arrangement is nothing else than a temporary expedient to leave affairs in their present state until the pleasure of His Majesty on this critical and difficult point be made known.”
Besides the superior court there should be an inferior court of “Common Pleas” to settle civil cases involving sums of beyond ten louis. Beyond twenty louis there was appeal allowed to the superior court. If desired there could be juries called in this court. French advocates and proctors could practice in this court, though not in the superior court. Murray explains the liberty taken by him in allowing this: “Because we have not as yet a single English advocate or proctor understanding the French language.” He also observed that the court of common pleas was established solely for the protection of the French Canadian.
In addition to the other two courts, Justices of the Peace were established at Quebec and Montreal who should hold quarter sessions. These officers of the magistracy, according to Murray’s instructions, had to be Protestants. One justice was to have jurisdiction in disputes to the value of five pounds; two were required for cases to the value of ten pounds. Three justices should form a quorum to hold quarter sessions, to adjudicate in cases from ten pounds to thirty pounds. Two justices were to sit weekly in rotation in Quebec and Montreal.
Finally there should be elected in every parish in the country bailiffs and sub-bailiffs. The elections were to take place every 21st day of June and they were to enter upon their duties on September 29th. “We call them bailiffs,” commenced Murray, “because the new subjects understand the word better than that of constables.” The word constable, will, however, better explain the nature of their multifarious duties.
We now have a view of the change in the law courts in Montreal: a yearly session of the king’s court and of the court of common pleas, quarter sessions held by the justices of the peace, and in the parishes, the bailiffs or constables.
Hardly had the courts erected by the act of September 7th been held, than the grand jury of Quebec protested vehemently at the new courts and especially at the privileges given the new subjects. Their opposition was expected by Murray for his comment, sent with the act, ran: that some of the English merchants residing here of whom only ten or a dozen at most possess any settled property in this province, are very dissatisfied at the privileges granted to the Canadians to act on juries; the reason of this is very evident as their influence is restrained by the measure.
Britishers on the jury who thought the favours to Catholics unconstitutional were only victims of their narrow prejudices formed by the prevailing intolerance then existing in England and its colonies. The toleration to Catholics according to the phrase “as far as the laws of Great Britain allow” was not the wide freedom we see nowadays.
A protest against allowing the latter class to practice in the courts or to serve on juries was made early by the Protestant members of the grand jury of Quebec on October 16, 1764, as follows: “That by the definitive treaty the Roman religion was only tolerated in the province of Quebec as far as the laws of Great Britain had met. It was and is enacted by the third act, January 1st, chapter V, section 8, ‘No Papist or Popish recusant convict shall practice the common law as a counsellor, clerk, attorney or solicitor, nor shall practice the civic law as advocate or proctor, nor practice physick, nor be an apothecary, nor shall be a judge, minister, clerk or steward of or in any court, nor shall bear any office or charge as captain, master, or governor, or bear any office of charge of, or, in any ship, castle or fortress, but be utterly disabled for the same, and every person herein shall forfeit one hundred pounds, half to the king and half to them that shall sue.’ We therefore believe that the admitting of persons of Romish religion, who own the authority, supremacy and jurisdiction of the church of Rome, as jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and liberties, tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant religion and His Majesty’s power, authority, right and possession of the province to which we belong.” Later these jurors pretended that they had never meant to exclude Catholic jurors, but only as jurors when Protestants were contestants. The above argument shows their original intrinsigeance.
Later, in February, 1766, modifications were introduced; when the contestants were British the jury should be British; when Canadians, Canadians; when the contestants were mixed the jury should also be mixed. These conflicts were inevitable in unsettled times when two peoples were of different mental outlooks, politically, racially and religiously. The melting pot of time will solve such difficulties, when the viewpoints of both parties would be more sympathetically understood. In the meantime the historical situation at the time was painful.
Governor Murray’s letter to the Lords of Trade, written a few days after the presentment of the jury is a fair and statesman-like view of the difficult period.
“Quebec, 29th of October, 1764.
“* * * Little, very little, will content the new subjects, but nothing will satisfy the licentious fanaticks trading here, but the expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be indulged with a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Roman Catholics at home, would soon get the better of every national antipathy to their conquerors and become the most faithful and most useful set of men in this American empire.
“I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident, too, my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers from emigrating directly and certain I am, unless the Canadians are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest part of this valuable people.”
His letter immediately continues with the following allusion which helps us to place the position of Montreal in the above general constitutional crisis then affecting the colony. “I beg leave further,” says Murray, “to represent to your Lordship that a lieutenant governor at Montreal is absolutely necessary. That town is in the heart of the most populous part of the provinces. It is surrounded by the Indian nations and is 180 miles from the capital. It is there that the most opulent priests live and there are settled the greatest part of the French noblesse. Consequently every intrigue to our disadvantage will be hatched there.”
A postscript to this letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, gives Murray’s appreciation of some of the great commercial class: “P.S.--I have been informed that Messrs. William McKenzie, Alexander McKenzie and William Grant have been soliciting their friends in London to prevail upon Your Lordship to get them admitted into his Majesty’s council of this province. I think it my duty to acquaint Your Lordships that the first of these men is a notorious smuggler and a turbulent man, the second a weak man of little character and the third a conceited boy. In short it will be impossible to do business with any of them.”
This postscript indicates the strain and bitter personal relations between Murray and some of the British commercial element in the colony, who finally succeeded in obtaining his recall.
Unfortunately, Murray was not always as discreet or as just in the consideration of his opponents, as his position justified. He was a soldier rather than a peace maker. In addition, others besides the British merchant did not see eye to eye with him in the interpretation of the new Treaty of Paris or in the application of English laws in Canada.
They retorted as did the Quebec traders, that the governor “doth frequently treat them with a rage and rudeness of language and demeanour as dishonourable to the trust he holds of Your Majesty as painful to those who suffer from it.”
In commenting on this period, Prof. F.P. Walton, dean of the faculty of Law at McGill University, has the following criticism (Cf. University Magazine, April, 1908):
He is speaking of the charge against Murray’s interpretation of the new situation of the application of the new civil government.
“It is probable,” he says, “that at no period in the history of Canada were legal questions so much discussed among the mass of the population as in the first ten years of the English régime. This is not surprising when we consider that the question whether the English or the French law was in force in the Province was one of no little difficulty. It was contended with much plausibility that Murray’s Ordinances were of no legal validity because, under the King’s proclamation, legislative authority in the Province was to be exercised only by the governor with the consent of a council and assembly, and that no assembly had ever been summoned. This is not the place for a discussion of this subject. I prefer the view of those who maintain that the English law was introduced by the proclamation of 1763. The case of Campbell and Hall is sufficient authority for the proposition, that the King had the power without parliament to alter the law of Quebec. It seems to me that the natural construction of the proclamation itself is, that the King intended to introduce the English law there and then. Murray, as Masères says in his very convincing argument, ‘meant only to erect and constitute courts of judicature to administer a system of laws already in being, to wit, the laws of England.’ The whole affair was to a great extent a misunderstanding. The English government had no intention to force the English laws on an unwilling people. They understood that they were giving ‘Home Rule’ to the Province of Quebec, and expected that the Canadians would abrogate such parts of the English law as they did not consider suitable, and would re-enact the portions of the old French law which they desired to retain. They did not foresee that, owing to the impracticability of calling an assembly, the Province would be left without any authority competent to legislate.”
It was, indeed, a time of great misunderstanding.
NOTE
GOVERNORS UNDER BRITISH RULE
As it may be convenient henceforth to omit mention of the advent of successive governors, this list is appended for the purpose of reference.
* (Gen. Jeffrey Amherst) 1760 * Gen. James Murray 1763 P. Aemilius Irving (President) 1766 * Gen. Sir Guy Carleton (Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor General) 1766 H.G. Cramahé 1770 * Gen. Sir Guy Carleton 1774 * Gen. Frederick Haldimand 1778 Henry Hamilton (Lieutenant Governor) 1784 Henry Hope (Lieutenant Governor) 1785 * Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) 1786
ON THE DIVISION OF THE TWO CANADAS
Alured Clarke 1791 * Lord Dorchester 1793 * Maj.-Gen. Robert Prescott 1796 Sir. R.S. Milnes 1799 Hon. Thomas Dunn 1805 * Sir James H. Craig 1807 Hon. Thomas Dunn 1811 * Sir George Prevost 1811 Sir Gordon Drummond 1815 Gen. John Wilson 1816 * Sir John Sherbrooke 1816 * Duke of Richmond 1818 Sir James Monk 1819 Sir Peregrine Maitland 1820 * Earl of Dalhousie 1820 Sir. F.N. Burton 1824 * Earl of Dalhousie 1825 Sir James Kempt 1828 * Lord Alymer 1830 * Earl of Gosford 1835 * Sir John Colborne 1838 * Earl of Durham 1838 * C. Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham) 1839
UNDER THE UNION
* Baron Sydenham (Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson) 1841 R.D. Jackson (Administrator) 1841 * Sir Charles Bagot 1842 * Sir Charles Metcalfe 1843 * Earl Cathcart 1845 * Earl of Elgin 1847 W. Rowan (Administrator) 1853 * Sir Edmund Head 1854 * Lord Viscount Monck 1861
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
* The Rt. Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G. 1867 * The Rt. Hon. Lord Lisgar, G.C.M.G. (Sir John Young) 1868 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dufferin, K.P., K.C.B., G.C.M.G. 1872 * The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lome, K.T., G.C.M.G., P.C. 1878 * The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G. 1883 * The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley of Preston, G.C.B. 1888 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Minto, G.C.M.G. 1898 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G. 1893 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl Grey, G.C.M.G. 1904 * Field Marshal, H.R.H., The Duke of Connaught, K.C., G.C.M.G. 1911
----
Those not marked * acted only as administrators. When a governor had acted as administrator immediately before becoming governor, the earlier date is given. The names of all the ad interim administrators are not given.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS OF QUEBEC
(After Confederation)
The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau (re-appointed) Hon. Rene Edouard Caron Hon. Luc Letellier de St. Just Hon. Theodore Robitaille Hon. Louis François Rodique Masson Hon. Auguste Real Angers Hon. Sir J.A. Chapleau Hon. L.A. Jetté Hon. L.A. Jetté (re-appointed) Hon. Sir Charles A.P. Pelletier Hon. Sir François Langelier
IV. CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
1764
RALPH BURTON, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL, BECOMES MILITARY COMMANDANT--FRICTION AMONG MILITARY COMMANDERS--JUSTICES OF PEACE CREATED--FIRST QUARTER SESSIONS--MILITARY VERSUS CITIZENS--THE WALKER OUTRAGE--THE TRIAL--WALKER BOASTS OF SECURING MURRAY’S RECALL--MURRAY’S DEFENSE AFTER HIS RECALL--THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ABUSE THEIR POWER--CENSURED BY THE COUNCIL AT QUEBEC--COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTABLISHED--PIERRE DU CALVET--CARLETON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE “DISTRESSES OF THE CANADIANS.”
The governor of Three Rivers, Ralph Burton, proclaimed to the Montrealers on October 29, 1763, his nomination by General Amherst as governor of Montreal in succession to General Gage. He announced that the civil justice would be administered by the same courts as hitherto. His ordinances have nothing striking beyond one ordering all who had gunpowder in their homes, and there were many, to take it to the powder magazine, and another announcing that on April 24, 1764, all who in accordance with the definitive treaty of peace wished to leave for France must within three weeks send in their declarations with their exact descriptions and the number of their household they propose to take with them. In August, Murray reported that only 270 men, women and children, mostly officers and their families, left the colony.
On August 10th military rule ended in Montreal but Burton continued on as military commandant.
Burton resigned his governorship in July, 1764. As the position of governor was not to be continued at Montreal or Quebec, no one succeeded him. He was confirmed, however, as Brigadier. Yet, although in command of a few troops, he refused to recognize Murray as his military superior, hence complications and conflicts arose. Murray wrote in indignation that if Burton were removed it would be better for himself and everybody. Murray is accused by his enemies of quarreling with everybody, but it is evidently hard on a governor general to have his wings clipped by having under him in a civil capacity a commander who took his orders from General Gage of New York. Where the military rights and civil duties of Burton at Montreal or of Haldimand at Three Rivers and Murray at Quebec, began and ended, was a harassing doubt to all three.
On January 11, 1764, letters patent were sent to the first justices of the peace at Montreal, including Moses Hazen, J. Grant, John Rowe, Francis McKay, Thomas Lambe, F. Knife, John Burke, Thomas Walker and others. Among these were two Swiss Protestants, Catholics being excluded from the office as yet, owing to the difficulty of their subscribing to the religious test not being yet solved.
The first general quarter sessions of the peace was held on December 27, 1764, and there were present Moses Hazen, J. Dumas, F. McKay, Thomas Lambe and Francis Knife. The court adjourned. The first case was one of battery and assault.
On August 10, 1764, military rule ceased. The new civil government brought to a head much of the ill feeling existing in the city. The tables were now turned, the merchant class, already become the magistrates, were now in the ascendant and rancours prevailed. The old-time antipathies between the soldiers and citizens at New York and Boston were being reproduced in Montreal. There were no barracks, although the troops had been there four years. Consequently the system of billeting became necessary and caused continual annoyance.
The famous Walker outrage grew out of one of these troubles. Captain Fraser had billeted a Captain Payne on a French-Canadian. In the house lodged one of the new justices of the peace who claimed exemption for the house. In reply he was told that the justices’ rooms were exempt but not the other rooms, and on Payne’s persistence in claiming the billet, the magistrate refused to yield his possession. The case was brought before Justice Walker, who, as a magistrate, ordered Payne to vacate the rooms and on his refusing to comply committed him to jail for contempt. He was released on bail. Two days afterwards, on the 6th of December, 1764, occurred the “Walker outrage,” which has been described more or less fully in various histories of Canada, sometimes incorrectly.
Walker was an Englishman who had lived for many years in Boston, coming to Montreal some time after the close of the war in 1760, where he engaged in trade with the upper country. He was a bold, aggressive man, full of democratic notions, who set himself up as the agent of the people, opposed the actions of Governor Murray in every way, and afterwards had endeavoured to use his influence to have Murray recalled. In many ways he showed that he was no great friend of the Military then established in Montreal.
The outrage on him, dated on the night of the 6th, he attributed to the Military, and was the occasion of the seizure of “John Fraser, Esq.,” Deputy Grand Paymaster; “John Campbell, Esq.,” now Captain of His Majesty’s Twenty-seventh Regiment; “Daniel Disney, Esq.,” now Captain of the Twenty-fourth Regiment; “St. Luke La Corne, Esq.,” (Knight St. Louis), “Samuel Evans,” Lieutenants in His Majesty’s Twenty-eighth Regiment, and “Joseph Howard,” Merchant, all of the City of Montreal, being to their great surprise seized and taken out of their beds in the middle of the night of the 18th inst., November, 1766, by “Edward William Gray, Esq.,” Deputy Provost Martial in and for the district of Montreal, assisted by a party of soldiers with fixed bayonets, and by them hurried down to Quebec, where they were in close custody on the charge of having on or about “the sixth day of December, 1764, feloniously and with malice forethought, and by lying in wait assaulted, wounded and cut off part of the ear of ‘Thomas Walker, Esq.,’ of Montreal in this Province, with intention in so doing to disfigure the said ‘Thomas Walker.’” The informant was “George Magovock” late soldier in the Twenty-eighth Regiment of foot, making oath before “William Hey,” Chief Justice in and for the Province of Quebec.
The Chief Justice was petitioned by the prisoners to be released on bail, but apparently the influence of Walker was so great, that this was not easy. The whole of Montreal was in a great state of irritable excitement, a deputation of the members of the Council, the principal merchants of Montreal and the officers of the Fifteenth, Twenty-seventh, Fifty-second and Royal American Regiments entreated the Chief Justice to grant the petition of the prisoners for bail, asking him to interpose his authority and to mitigate the rigour of the law for gentlemen, “whose honors we are so well convinced, that we offer to become their bail until the trial.”
The petition is signed by the following: Colonel Irving, A. Mabane,[1] Thomas Dunn,[1] J. Goldfrap, F. Mounier, T. Mills, Members of the Council; Thomas Ainslie, Collector of the Customs and Justice of the Peace; J. Marteilhe, J.P.; J. Collins, J.P.; C. Drummond, Comp. of the Customs; J. Porteus, Charles Grant, S. Frazer, J. Woolsey, W. Grant, G. Measam, T. Scott, J. Werden, E. Gray, J. Aitken, Wm. Garett, G. Allsopp, J. Antill, Gridley, H. Boone, J. Watmough, Samuel Jacobs, H. Taylor, F. Grant, S. Lymbery, Amiet, Perras, Dusault, Deplaine, Fleurimont, Fremont, Perrault, Bousseau, Guillemain, Panet, Beaubien, Principal Merchants; La Naudiere, Crois de St. Louis; Captain Grove, Royal Artillery; Colonel Irving, Captain Prescott, Captain-Lieutenant D’Aripe, Lieutenants Mitchel, Lockart, Dunn, Magra, Doctor Roberts, Fifteenth Regiment; Captain Morris, Ensign Winter, Twenty-seventh Regiment; Colonel Jones, Captains Phillips, Williams, Addison, Davidson, Alcock, Geofrey, Lieutenants Neilson, Dinsdale, Smyth, Aderly, Hamilton, Watters, Holland, Hawksley, Adjutant Splain, Ensigns Stubbs, Molesworth, Fifty-second Regiment; Captains Carden, Etherington, Schloser, Tucker, Burin, Rechat, Ensign McKulloch, Royal Americans.
Whatever the whole hubbub was about it was evidently of such importance that the Chief Justice did not see his way to grant the bail, and it was not until two years later that the case came before the Grand Jury in Montreal. Meanwhile the city had been divided in two factions.
On the 28th of February, the cases against all but Captain Disney were thrown out by the Grand Jury,[2] but a true bill was brought against him. This was on a Monday. Francis Masères, who succeeded Suckling as attorney general, prosecuted for the Crown, and Morison, Gregory and Antill defended Town Major Disney.
We may now tell the story in the words of the report of Chief Justice Hey, transmitted to London on his return to Quebec on April 14, 1767.
“The bill against Major Disney being returned on a Monday, I appointed Wednesday for his trial, his Jury, after some few challenges on both sides, was composed of very reputable English merchants residing at Montreal, of very fair characters & as unprejudiced as men could be who had heard so much of so interesting a story.
“The only evidence that affected Major Disney was that of Mr. & Mrs. Walker & Magovock, the substance of which I will take the liberty to state to yr. Lordship as shortly & as truly as my notes & my memory will enable me to do, all the other witnesses speaking to the fact as committed by somebody without any particular knowledge of Major Disney.
“The narrative will perhaps be less perplexed--The house opens with two doors, one a strong one next the street, (within that a sashed one), into the hall where the Family were at supper when the affair began; short on the right hand at the entrance from the street are folding doors which lead into a Parlour, at the further end of which Fronting the Folding doors is ye door of the bed chamber where Mr. Walker keeps his fire arms of which he has great numbers ready loaded. In the hall almost fronting the street doors, are 2 which lead into a kitchen & a back yeard, through which Mrs. Walker & the rest of the family separately made their escape very soon after the entrance of the Ruffians.
“The account which Mr. Walker gave to the Jury upon the trial was that on the 6th of Decr. 1764 at ½ past 8 in the evening Mrs. Walker looked at her watch and said it was time to go to supper--that the cloth was laid in the hall but that he not having been very well that day she was persuading him to stay & eat his supper in the Parlour--that they staid about 10 or 15 minutes in this and other conversation & then went into the hall to supper--that he sat with his back to, & very near the street door--that he had been but a very little time at supper when he heard a rattling of the latch of the door as of Persons wanting to come in in a hurry--that Mrs. Walker said Entre, upon which the outward door was thrown open & thro’ the sash of the inward one he saw a great number of People disguised in various ways, some with little round hats others with their faces blacked, and others with crapes over their faces--that he had time to take so much notice of them as to distinguish 2 Persons whose faces tho’ blacked he was sure he should know again if he saw them--that they burst the inward door & several of them got round to the doors leading to the Parlour as designing to cut off his retreat into that room--that upon turning his head towards that room he received from behind a blow which he believes was given with a broad sword,--that he passed thro’ them into the Parlour receiving many wounds in the passage got to the further end of the room near the chamber door before which stood 2 men who had got before him & prevented his entrance into it--that these 2 with others who had followed him striking and wounding all the way, sett upon him & forced him from the door into window, the curtains of which entangled itself round him and he believes prevented their dashing his brains out against the wall, that he received in the whole no less than 52 contusions besides many cuts with sharp instruments--that he believes during the struggle in the window he was for some little time deprived of his senses, sunk in stupefaction or stunned by some blow, till he heard a voice from the opposite corner of the room say ‘Let me come at him I will dispatch the Villian with my sword’ that this roused him and determined him to sell his life as dear as he could--that ’till this time tho’ he had apprehended & experienced a great deal of violence, he did not think they intended to take away his life because he had seen Major Disney in the outer room & knowing he had done nothing to disoblige him, he did not believe that he would have been amongst them if they had intended to murther him--that he broke from the persons who held him in the window & advanced towards the Part of the room from whence the voice came where 2 persons were standing with their swords in a position ready for making a thrust at him, but does not know whether they actually made a Pass at him or not, that he put by one of their swords with his left hand upon which they both retreated into the corner--that his Eyes at this time being full of blood, he was not capable of distinguishing the features of a face with great accuracy, but from the size & figure & gesture of the person whose sword he parried & from whom he believes the words came, he thought it to be Major Disney--that several of them then seized him at once (one of them in particular taking him up under the right thigh) and carried him towards the fire place with the intention as he believed to throw him upon the fire--that the marks of his bloody fingers were upon the jamb of the chimney--that he turned himself from the fire with great violence & in turning received a blow on his head which the surgeons say must have been given with a Tomahawk--which felled him to the ground & after that a blow upon his Loins which he feels to this day--that then one of them sat or kneeled by him (he lying at his length upon the floor) andeavouring as he imagined to cut his throat--that he resisted it by inclining his head upon his shoulders & putting his hand to the place, a finger of which was cut to the bone--that it was a fortnight before he knew that he had lost his ear, his opinion all along having been that in that operation they intended to cut his throat & believed they had done it--that one of them said the Villian is dead, another Damn him we have done for him, and a third uttered some words but his senses then failed him & he does not recollect what they were.
“This was the whole of the Evidence given by him in Court in the cross-examination great stress was laid upon his positive manner of swearing to Major Disney in disguise upon the transient view which by his own account he had of him, and under the circumstances of terrour and confusion which such an appearance must have occasioned; to which he answered that he had time in the hall before any blow was given to take a distinct view of him, and that he actually did do it, and tho’ it was true he had a crape over his face, yet it was tied so close that he discerned the features and Lineaments of it very perfectly and that he was positive it was Mr. Disney, of his dress other than the crape upon his face he could give no account, and then he was questioned if he had not often declared that he knew nobody but upon slight surprise he said that he remembered Mr. Disney perfectly the next morning, but that he mentioned him to nobody but Mrs. Walker, charging her at the same time to conceal it, because he thought he had suffered by her in discretion in mentioning the name of another Person whose influence with People in Power had prejudiced the inquiry which was then making into the affair.
“Mrs. Walker confirmed all the circumstances of their manner of coming in & swore as directly to Major Disney, that Lieut. Hamilton (as she did for some time believe but has since had occasion to think she was mistaken) was the first that entered that she saw Major Disney among a Groupe of figures very distinctly with a crape over his face and dressed in a Canadian Cotton Night Gown.
“Magovock went thro’ his story as contained in his affidavit a copy of which has been transmitted to your Lordship, not without a manifest confusion of his countenance & a trembling in his voice common to those who have a consciousness that they are telling untruly, & a fear of being detected--his cross examination took a great deal of time in the course of which he contradicted all the other witnesses & himself in circumstances so material that I am persuaded he was not himself present at the transaction.
“Major Disney proved by several witnesses, Dr. Robertson, Madam Landrief, Madam Campbell & Mrs. Howard that he spent that afternoon from 5 till ½ past 9 when he was sent for by Genl. Burton (he being town Major, upon the uproar that this affair had occasioned) at the house of Dr. Robertson--it was a particular festival with the French of whom the company was mostly composed, that he danced ’till supper time with Madam Landrief in the midst of which Genl. Burton’s servant came & called him out--they spoke all very positively to his being present the whole time & the impossibility that he could be absent for 5 minutes without their knowing it.
“Upon this evidence the Jury went out of Court and in about an hour returned with their Verdict Not Guilty--In justice to them and to Major Disney I must declare that I am perfectly satisfied with the Verdict.
“Mr. Walker’s violence of temper and an inclination to find People of rank in the Army concerned in this affair, has made him a Dupe to the artifices of a Villian whose story could not have gained credit but in a mind that came too much prejudiced to receive it, the unhappy consequence of it I fear will be that by mistaking the real objects of his Resentments the public will be disappointed in the satisfaction of seeing them brought to justice.
“_I should inform Your Lordship that the G. Jury inflamed with Mr. Walker’s charge against them are preparing to bring in several actions for words and have presented both him and Mrs. Walker for Perjury--I have endeavoured to put a stop to both and I hope I shall succeed._
“I have the honour to be “My Lord “Yr. Lordship’s most obedt & humble servant, “W. Hey.”
The report of the trial was printed by Brown and Gilmour at Quebec, it being the second book that appeared in Canada. The first book published is generally believed to be “Catechisme du Diocese de Sens Imprimé a Quebec chez, (Brown and Gilmour).” Brown and Gilmour were the printers of the first journal “The Quebec Gazette” published on June 21, 1764. It was printed with columns of English and French and was issued weekly.
Walker was afterward removed on the consideration of the Council from the commission of the peace at Montreal because of his seditionary tendencies and of the frequent accusations of his insolent and overbearing temper which made it impossible for his brother magistrates to associate with him. General Murray reluctantly consented if for no other reasons than his enemies would otherwise see vindictiveness in his actions.
On the 27th of March, 1766, Walker, who had powerful friends in England, was ordered by His Majesty to be restored to the magistracy. On the same day an order from the privy council was issued by the governor of Michillimackinac and Detroit to give him effectual assistance in his business pursuits. At the same time stringent orders were given for the discovery of the perpetrators of the outrage on him. The government offered a reward of two hundred pounds, and of a free pardon and a discharge from the army to any person informing. Montreal inhabitants offered another three hundred pounds. But there was nothing done.
Between the actual outrage and the final acquittal of Captain Disney, Walker had been a thorn in the flesh to Murray. His dismissal from the bench made him no friend of the Governor and he boasted afterwards that he had influenced Murray’s recall.
The first news of this likely recall came in 1765; on February 3d Murray wrote lamenting that Mr. Walker should have known it before himself.
Murray’s position was an unenviable one; his sympathy with the French Canadians was the basis of the anger of the little knot of powerful merchants against him; he was made the scape-goat for the difficulties arising from the bad working of the unfavorable new civil government. In addition he had troubles with the commandants of Montreal and Three Rivers who as military commanders had much independent authority, over which Murray had no control, much to his chagrin. The constitutional documents of this period contain the petitions signed by twenty-one of the merchants for his recall, and that of the seigneurs for his maintenance. Their description of those allied against Murray runs thus: “A cabal of people who have come in the train of the army as well as clerks and agents for the London merchants.” Their testimony to Murray is his justification. “We were suited in the government of Mr. Murray. We knew his character, we were fully satisfied with his probity and his feelings of humanity; he was fitted to bring your new subjects to a regard for the yoke of your kindly domination by his care to make it light.”
On April 1, 1766, Conway, secretary of the colonies, wrote to Murray requesting his immediate return. He left Quebec on June 28th, leaving the government in the hands of the senior councillor, Lieut.-Col. Aemilius Irving; on the same day there arrived the new bishop, M. Briand to fill the vacancy left by Pontbriand, who died in Montreal before the capitulation.
The result of the Walker outbreak was that Murray’s frequent representations that barracks should be built were listened to and in 1765 they were erected, but hardly so, when in February, 1766, they were burned down with all the stores placed there. A public meeting was called to appeal for shelter for the soldiers, who were again billeted upon the inhabitants, but with the promise that by May 1, houses should be hired for them. On his return to London Murray in his report to Shelburne on August 20, 1766, had his revenge on the New England settlers whom he calls broadly the most immoral collection of men he had ever known, and says:
“Magistrates were made and juries composed from four hundred and fifty contemptible sutters and traders. The judge pitched upon to conciliate the minds of seventy-five thousand foreigners to the laws and government of Great Britain was taken from a jail, entirely ignorant of law and of the language of the people.
“* * * On the other hand the Canadians, accustomed to an arbitrary and a sort of military government, are a frugal, industrious and moral race of men who from the just and mild treatment they met with from His Majesty’s military officers that ruled the country for four years past until the establishment of the civil government had greatly got the better of the natural antipathy they had of their conquerers. They consist of the noblesse who are numerous and who pride themselves much upon the antiquity of their families, their own military glory and that of their ancestors. These noblesse are Seigneurs of the whole country and though not rich are in a situation, in that plentiful part of the world where money is scarce and luxury still unknown, to support their dignity. The inhabitants, their tenanciers, who pay only annual quit rent of about a dollar for one hundred acres, are at their ease and comfortable. They have been accustomed to respect and obey the noblesse; their tenure being military they have shared with them the dangers of the field and natural affection has been increased in proportion to the calamities which have been common to both in the country. So they have been taught to respect their Seigneurs and not get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty; they are shocked at the insults which their noblesse and the king’s officers have received from the English traders and lawyers since the civil government took place.”
He adds: “The Canadian noblesse were hated because their birth and behaviour entitled them to respect and the peasants were abhorred because they were saved from the oppression they were threatend with.”
The letter concludes: “I glory in having been accused of war with unfairness in protecting the king’s Canadian subjects and of doing the utmost in my power to gain to my royal master the affections of that great, hardy people whose emigration, if ever it should happen, will be an irreparable loss to this country.”
Though Murray was recalled it must not be assumed that his policy of colonial government was disapproved of by the ministers for it was not until April, 1768, that he relinquished the office of governor in chief. After a time the opposition between the military and the magistrates died down, but the latter now became a fertile source of oppression to the civil population.
Let us then turn our attention to the Montreal justices of the peace. In 1769, reports had reached the Council at Quebec as to the oppresive practices of some of the magistrates of the Montreal district, and in consequence the council addressed to many of them on July 10, 1769, a letter of remonstrance applicable to “those magistrates only who had given occasion for the complaint.”
The circular prepared by a committee of the Council was addressed “To the Justices of the Peace active in and for the district of Montreal.” It opened with a charge that “it appears from facts too notorious to be dispelled that His Majesty’s subjects in general, but more particularly his Canadian subjects, are daily injured and abused to a degree they are no longer able to support nor public justice endure.” The chief charges were of extorting excessive fees from litigants applying freely to the court and that in addition a low class of bailiffs, many of them French Canadians, who provoked and instituted lawsuits among the inhabitants were going about with blank forms signed with the justices’ names ready to be filled up at any moment. Thus abuses were numerous.
In August a committee of the Council sat to consider further the state of the administration of Justice under the justices of peace. A report was prepared and was read on August 29th and September 11th. It was agreed to in the Castle of St. Louis by the council on September 14th, and Acting Attorney General Kneller was instructed to prepare an ordinance on the point.
The report after stating that although the original powers in matters of property given to justices of the peace by the ordinance of September 14, 1764, were exceedingly grievous and oppressive to the subjects, yet even so “the authority given to the Justices hath been both too largely and too confidently entrusted and requires to be retrenched if not wholly taken away.” It then notices “The Justices of Montreal have in one instance, and probably in many others which have passed without notice, assumed to themselves powers of a nature not fit to be exercised by any Summary Jurisdiction, whatsoever, in consequence of which Titles to Land have been determined and possessions disturbed in a way unknown to the laws of England and inconsistent with the solemnity and deliberation which is due to matters of so high and important a nature. And we are not without information, that even where personal property only has been in dispute, one magistrate in particular under pretense that it was at the desire and request of both the contending parties has by himself exercised a jurisdiction considerably beyond what the ordinance has allowed even to three Justices in full court at their Quarter Sessions.
“From an omission of a similar nature and for want of ascertaining the manner in which their judgments were to be inforced, we find the Magistrates to have assumed another very high and dangerous Authority in the exercise of which Gaols are constantly filled with numbers of unhappy objects and whole families reduced to beggery and ruin.”
Later the report refers to evils “which will probably always be the case when the office of a Justice of Peace is considered as a lucrative one and must infallibly be so when it is his principal, if not, only dependence.”
One consequence of the report was the appointment in the ordinance of a Court of Common Pleas to be held before judges constantly residing in the town of Montreal. This court was now to be independent of, and with the same powers as, that at Quebec. Hitherto the latter had held adjourned meetings on different days at Montreal. The object was to give inexpensive, speedy and expert hearing to Montrealers.
The ordinance passed in the council on February 3, 1770, was translated and soon appears in English and French in the “Gazette.” When it appeared in Montreal it roused strong indignation among the magistrates whose powers were now curtailed. A memorial signed by fifty signatures only was presented on the part of “merchants and others of the city of Montreal” with twenty objections to the Ordinance. Pierre du Calvet, a French Huguenot magistrate, was one of the indignant protestors and his usual high-flown style characterizes his memorial. According to Sir Guy Carleton’s statement to the deputation they had issued handbills calling a meeting of the people to discuss grievances, they had importuned and even insulted several French Canadians because they would not join them. Carleton who had now succeeded Murray in the Government of Canada warned them that they were acting against their own interests, that the firm refusal of the Canadians as well as of most of their countrymen plainly showed the opinion the generality of the public entertained. In his letter to Lord Hillsborough of the 25th of April, 1770, Carleton, however, after pointing out the evils caused by the law as administered by the justices says: “Though I have great reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of some of the justices there are worthy men in the commission of the peace in both districts and particularly in this of Quebec.” (See Brymner’s Canadian Archives Report, 1890, whose abstract is here used.)
To the credit of the better class of Montreal merchants of this period we must clearly dissociate the names of men who like James McGill and others have deserved the city’s most grateful remembrance, from the inferior “grafters,” to use a modern term, then exploiting the people. These were disapproved of by many of their own race. Carleton’s report of them to Lord Hillsborough dated Quebec, 28th of March, 1770, clearly designates the “rascals” of the day. “Your Lordship has already been informed that the Protestants who have settled, or rather sojourned here since the conquest, are composed only of Traders, disbanded soldiers and officers, the latter, one or two excepted, below the Rank of Captains, of those in the Commission of the Peace such as prospered in business could not give up their time to sit as Judges, and when several from accidents and ill-judged undertakings became Bankrupts they naturally sought to repair their broken fortunes at the expense of the people; hence a variety of schemes to increase their business and their own emoluments. Bailiffs of their own creation, mostly French soldiers either disbanded or Deserters, dispersed through the parishes with blank citations, catching at every little feud or dissension among the people, exciting them on to their Ruin and in a manner forcing them to litigate what, if left to themselves, might have been easily accommodated, putting them to extravagant Costs for the Recovery of very small sums; their Lands, at a time there is the greatest scarcity of money and consequently but few Purchasers, exposed to hasty sales for the Payment of the most trifling debts, and the money arising from these sales consumed in exorbitant Fees, while the Creditors reaped little benefit from the Destruction of their unfortunate Debtors. This, My Lords, is but a very faint sketch of the Distresses of the Canadians and the cause of much Reproach to our National Justice and the King’s Government.” (Report Canadian Archives for 1890.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For their action in this case Carleton removed their names from the council.
[2] List of the grand jury of the district of Montreal before which bills were laid against the prisoners charged with the assault on Thomas Walker:
1. Samuel McKay, Esq. (Foreman). 2. M. St. Ours (K. of St. Louis). 3. Isaac Todd. 4. Francis de Bellestre (K. of St. Louis). 5. Louis Mattorell. 6. Mons. Contrecoeur (K. of St. L.). 7. Mons. Niverville (K. of St. L.). 8. Thomas Lynch. 9. Mons. La Bruiere. 10. John Livingston. 11. Jacob Jordan. 12. Mons. Niverville de Trois Rivières. 13. Mons. Normanville. 14. Moses Hazen. 15. Dailbout de Cuisy. 16. Jas. Porteous. 17. Jno. Dumas. 18. Wm. Grant. 19. Samuel Mather. 20. Augustus Bailie. 21. John Jennison.
In a P.S. from Sir Guy Carleton to Lord Shelburne it is stated: “The attorney general at the desire of Mr. Walker objected to the Knights of St. Lewis being of the grand jury as not having taken the oath of allegiance, which objection they immediately removed by cheerfully taking them.”
V. THE PRELIMINARY STRUGGLE FOR AN ASSEMBLY
THE BRITISH MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL
“VERY RESPECTABLE MERCHANTS”--A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON BRITISH LINES PROMOTED BY THEM--INOPPORTUNE--VARIOUS MEMORIALS TO GOVERNMENT--THE MEETINGS AT MILES PRENTIES’ HOUSE--CRAMAHE--MASERES--COUNTER PETITIONS.
Trade passed over almost bodily to the English. The records of the Chambre de Milice de Montreal at present at Quebec reveal even in the civil disputes during the Interregnum of 1760-63 a boom in trade in Montreal such as those of the past never portrayed.
The early traders have been whipped unmercifully by Murray and Carleton but there were certainly some who were recognized as “very respectable merchants.” The British merchants were first at Quebec at its fall, and soon they also followed to Montreal at the Capitulation. Many were weeded out by failure and the climate, but the residue that remained of the class of the canny mercantile adventurers who always adorn the hour of advancing civilization, with the addition of more solid representatives of the large English houses, was the foundation of the enterprising merchant class of Quebec and Montreal, but especially of the latter centre, which quickly seized the control of the wholesale business, particularly the fur trade, the traffic with the Indians and the foreign commerce. Despite the narrowness of their vision and the jealous grasping after power due to them, they considered, as the conquering body, this small group of men by their superior activity, wealth and political skill came to wield great influence in the city and on the country on the whole well and wisely.
Hitherto, we have had to point out some of the weaknesses of those of the less honourable and unsuccessful merchant class, even of those who became magistrates. It remains now to chronicle the action of a well meaning body of the substantial business men at Montreal toward consolidating the constitutional system of the country and developing it along British colonial lines. Their political foresight was ahead of their time. Yet from the earliest days of British rule the English merchants of Montreal, together with those of Quebec, certainly kept before themselves and the Home Government the need of a representative assembly as promised to them, such as they had been familiar with in other British colonies in America. Unfortunately the desire to have this manned by Protestants only was made too evident from the outset and alienated the sympathy of those of the French Canadians otherwise becoming well disposed. Their narrow inherited spirit of intolerance, their conception of British rights, for they came “bearing all the laws of England on their backs,” their belief in their own capabilities, their evident business success and the large capital they invested in Canada,[1] the strong conviction of the ultimate needs of such an institution, if ever the country was to be reduced to the same uniformity as the other colonies where British institutions flourished, blinded them to the inopportuneness of the hour for the establishment of such an assembly. They forgot, imbued as so many of them were with democratic and republican tendencies, that the New British Province was not an infant colony, but one which had been long in existence and impregnated with French feudalism.
Again the upper classes were against the assembly, and the lower not prepared by education[2] or desire, to take their share in popular government; much less were they inclined to be permitted to vote for a class who desired openly and not very discreetly to ignore the political existence of their race.
Still the merchants persisted. An opportunity was given by the departure of Carleton, who had asked leave of absence for a few months to place his views directly before the government, but it was not till 1774 that he returned. During that time his delayed presence in London was valuable for consultation in the preparation of the “Quebec Act.” Carleton left behind his first counsellor, a Swiss Protestant, Hector Theophile Cramahé, to act for him. Carleton departed early in August and on the 9th Cramahé issued a proclamation declaring that the command had temporarily devolved upon him. In 1771, on July 21st, Cramahé was appointed Lieutenant Governor. Shortly after Carleton’s departure Cramahé sent two petitions to him to be presented to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty.
The first was that of the Quebec and Montreal British free-holders, merchants and traders on behalf of themselves and others. His Majesty is reminded of his direction to governors in his Royal proclamation of the 7th of October in the third year of his reign, that general assemblies should be called as soon as the state and circumstances thereof would admit, in such manner as is used in the provinces of America under His Majesty’s immediate government. The arguments adduced are, that such an assembly would strengthen the hands of government, give encouragement and protection to agriculture and commerce, increase the public revenue and in time would be a happy means of uniting the new subjects in a due conformity to the British laws and customs.
The memorialists represented: “That Your Majesty’s British subjects residing in this province have set examples and given every encouragement in their power to promote industry, are the principal importers of British manufactures, carry on three-fourths of the trade of this country, annually return a considerable revenue into Your Majesty’s exchequer in Great Britain; and though the great advantages this country is naturally capable of, are many and obvious, for promoting the trade and manufactures of the mother country, yet for some time past both the landed and commercial interests have been declining and if a General Assembly is not soon ordered by Your Majesty to make and enforce due obedience to laws for encouraging agriculture, regulating the trade, discouraging such importations from the other colonies as impoverish the Province, your petitioners have the greatest reason to apprehend their own ruin as well as that of the province in general.
“That there is now a sufficient number of Your Majesty’s subjects residing in and possessed of real property in this province and who are otherwise qualified to be members of a General Assembly.”
This petition is signed by thirty-one of the principal merchants. It will be noticed that there are only two of these names that appeared on the petition of 1765 for the assembly and the recall of Murray. The whole document is more dignified. The memorialists are men of great weight. Their claim as the developers of commerce is undoubted. The only weakness lay in the concluding clause which is merely the outcome of the traditional intolerance then in vogue but which was to be the chief cause of the delay of their efforts till the act of 1791 at last crowned their efforts. Among the Montreal signatures in the above memorial are those of Alexander Henry, John Porteous, James McGill, Alexander Paterson, Richard Dobie, J. Fraser and Isaac Todd.
The above memorial was set off by that of fifty-nine “Canadian” leaders who appealed for the restoration of their customs and usages according to the laws, customs and regulations under which they were born and which served as the basis and foundations of their possessions. They also ask not to be excluded from offices in the service of the king. The petition is to be presented by Sir Guy Carleton. “It is to this worthy representative of Your Majesty who perfectly comprehends the ambitions of this colony and the customs of this people that we confide our most humble supplications to be conveyed to the foot of your throne.”
The year 1773 saw great activity in the duel; the case of the old and new subjects was being argued in London. The most eminent statesmen and lawyers, state officials, were studying the numerous documents in view of the proposed Quebec act of settlement. The merchants of Montreal and Quebec determined to make a great effort. In the winter of 1772 Thomas Walker, of Montreal, and Zachary Macaulay, of Quebec, had already conferred in London with Masères about the prospect of an Assembly. Mazères, though now a cursitor baron of the exchequer, still kept his interest in Canadian affairs as when attorney general at Quebec. There is no name more prominent among those who contributed to the elucidation of the difficulties of this time than this able man. His Huguenot upbringing, however, somewhat warped his otherwise calm judgment in surveying the French Canadian position, yet his was a warning of the opportunist. “I told them,” wrote Masères to Dartmouth on January 4, 1774, “that I thought a legislative council, consisting of only Protestants and much more numerous than the present, and made perfectly independent of the Governor so as to be neither removable nor suspendible by him on any pretense but only removable by the King in council, would be a better instrument for that province than an assembly for seven or eight years to come, and until the Protestant religion and English manners, laws and affections shall have made a little more progress there and especially an assembly unto which any Catholics shall be admitted.”
The two representatives, however, seemed to have been resolved to push for an Assembly for they were both found to be on the committee organized for that purpose on October 30, 1773, in Quebec at Miles Prenties’ Inn. The meeting was called by John McCord. The circumstances are related by Cramahé’s letter to Dartmouth of December 13th when he inclosed the final petitions sent to him by the merchants. “About six weeks or two months ago a Mr. McCord from the north of Ireland, who settled here soon after the conquest, where he picked up a very comfortable livelihood by the retailing business in which he is a considerable dealer, the article of spiritous liquors especially, summoned the principal inhabitants of this town that are Protestants to meet at a tavern where he proposed to them, applying for a house of assembly.”
The transactions, of the meeting called by McCord and of the subsequent ones, were recorded and sent to Masères by Quebec and Montreal citizens. He was thought to be the right person to approach as their agent, to have their case ventilated in London. They wrote to him on November 8, 1773, “The British inhabitants of whom we are appointed a committee are of very moderate principles. They wish for an assembly as they know that to be the only sure means of conciliating the new subjects, etc.” How the assembly is to be composed is a matter of the most serious consideration; “They would submit that to the wisdom of His Majesty’s council.”
They had evidently become less exacting in their demands that it should be reserved for Protestants. What they really wanted was the Assembly.
The meeting at Miles Prenties’ in the Upper Town held on October 30th resulted in a committee of eleven being formed to draw up a petition for an assembly. The following were the eleven: William Grant, John Wells, Charles Grant, Anthony Vialars, Peter Fargues, Jenkin Williams, John Lees, Zachary Macaulay, Thomas Walker (of Montreal), Malcolm Fraser (secretary), John McCord (chairman). It was resolved that a copy of the minutes be sent to the gentlemen of Montreal. At the second meeting at Prenties’, November 2d (Tuesday), it was resolved to translate the petition into French and that the principal French inhabitants be invited to meet them at Prenties’ on Thursday, November 4th. It was further resolved to send a copy of the minutes and a draft of the petition by next post to Montreal addressed to Mr. Gray, to be communicated to the inhabitants of Montreal. On Thursday, November 4th, of the fifteen invitations sent out only eight French gentlemen appeared. The translation of the petition was read, and the clause on the composition of the assembly according to His Majesty’s wisdom, doubtless noted. After discussion M. Decheneaux and M. Perras undertook to convene a meeting of their fellow French citizens at 2 o’clock on Saturday next, to interest them in furthering the petition.
On Monday, November 8th, the English committee met at Prenties’. Being anxious to know what measures had been taken by the French on Saturday, Malcolm Fraser sent a note by a bearer to M. Perras, M. Decheneaux being out of town. A brief reply was sent back dated Quebec, 8-10th November, saying that the hasty departure of the vessels for Europe had not permitted him to reply according to his desire; “However I have seen some of my fellow citizens who do not appear to me to be disposed to assemble as some of us could wish. ‘Le grand nombre l’emporte et le petit reduit a prendre patience.’”
The next meeting of the committee was to be called at the discretion of the secretary as “the business will depend on the letters to be received from Montreal.”
Cramahé, explaining to Dartmouth, who had succeeded Hillsborough as Colonial Secretary, the want of cooperation by the French, says: “The Canadians, suspecting their only view was to push them forward to ask, without really intending their participation of the privilege, declined joining them here or at Montreal.” Had the petition asked for the abolition of the religious test and the inclusion of Catholics in the assembly the Canadians would have doubtless cooperated. The petition was presented on December 4, 1773; the Quebec (fifty-two) and Montreal (thirty-nine) signatures are both dated November 29th. It was presented to Cramahé as the Lieutenant Governor and he was prayed in accordance with the powers given the Governor by the Royal proclamation of 1763: “To summon and call a general assembly of the freeholders and planters within your government in such a manner as you in your jurisdiction shall judge most proper.” As the words stand it may be argued that the merchants were ready to forego their Protestantism in favour of a mixed assembly, but evidently the acting Governor had his doubts. Cramahé therefore answered cautiously, as was expected, “That the petition was altogether of too much importance for His Majesty’s Council here to advise at a time when the affairs of the province were likely to become an object of public regulation. The petition and his answer would be transmitted to His Majesty’s Secretary of State.”
The second petition already arranged for, and containing the answer of Cramahé, was prepared and sent to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, praying him “to direct Your Majesty’s Governor or Commander in Chief to call a general assembly in such manner and of such constitution and form as to Your Majesty, in your Royal wisdom, shall seem best adapted to secure its peace, welfare and good government.” Besides the copy sent through Cramahé to Dartmouth, the committee sent another to Masères to enable him to present their case and to communicate its purport to their mercantile associates in London. The signatures of the Quebec subscribers, dated December 31, 1773, numbered sixty-one, those of Montreal dated January 10, 1774, reached eighty-one.
Cramahé’s comment on these signatures in his letter to Dartmouth reads: “It may not be amiss to observe that there are not above five among the signers to the two petitions who can be properly styled freeholders and the value of four of these freeholds is very inconsiderable. The number of those possessing houses in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, or farms in the country held of the king for some private seigneur upon paying a yearly acknowledgment, is under thirty.”
As an offset, the memorial to the petition sent by the seigneurs and principal Catholics about February, 1774, and made in opposition to an assembly, urges the granting of their request “because we possess more than ten out of twelve of all the seigneuries of the province and almost all the lands of the other tenures or which are holden by rent service.”
In addition to the petition to the king signed by the “ancient and loyal subjects” of Quebec and Montreal, two memorials to Lord Dartmouth were separately sent by the promoting committees at either place. These seemed to have been presented through Masères since they are not indorsed, as were the petitions to the king, as received through Cramahé.
The Montreal memorial urging the furtherance of their petition is dated Montreal, January 15, 1774, and signed by a committee appointed at a general meeting of the inhabitants of Edw. W. Gray, R. Huntley, Lawrence Ermatinger, Will Haywood, James McGill, James Finlay, Edward Chinn.
The memorial included a new element, viz., “Your Lordship’s memorialists further see with regret the great danger that children born of Protestant parents are in of being utterly neglected for want of a sufficient number of Protestant pastors and thereby exposed to the usual and known assiduity of the Roman Catholic clergy of different orders who are very numerous and who for their own friends have lately established a Seminary for the education of youths in this province, which is the more alarming as it excludes all Protestant teachers of any science whatever.” The name of James McGill, the founder afterwards of McGill University, is significant, therefore, on this petition.
The counter petition and the memorial accompanying it, signed by sixty-five of the noblesse, followed in February, 1774. Thus the duel went on. We delay recounting its outcome till the case for the Seigneurs is more fully disclosed in the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Witness the appeal for Murray’s recall. Thomas Walker is said to have brought ten thousand pounds into the province.
[2] M. Lothbiniere, the representative of the noblesse in London said that he doubted whether more than four or five persons in a parish could read.