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.
The Noblesse of the district of Montreal are now to play a great part in the making of the constitutional history of Canada. They had appreciated the government of Murray and had petitioned for his continuance but in vain. At the same time while thanking the king for the appointment of the Bishop Briand which was a great concession, they asked for two favours: first, the suppression of the Land Register, the expense of which exhausted the colony without its drawing any profit therefrom; second, that all the subjects of this province without any distinction of religion should be admitted to all offices without any other qualifications but those of talent and personal merit; for to be excluded by the state from having any participation in it is not to be a member of the state. This petition was signed by Chevalier D’Ailleboust and thirty-nine other seigneurs and was endorsed as received on February 3, 1767.
The grievance of the seigneurs in the latter request was briefly this: that though the French Canadians were not obliged by the Royal Instructions of 1763 to take the oath of the test of allegiance, supremacy and religious abjuration, yet these oaths were obligatory on all who would hold an appointment under government such as members of the proposed assembly, civil and military officials, etc. Hence the constant effort of the noblesse to remove this odious civil disability continued until in 1774 the act of Quebec made it disappear and saw a formula substituted which was acceptable to all honest and conscientious “new subjects.” The following oath, afterwards taken almost textually by Bishop Briand, in the light of today will be seen to be quite adequate:
“Je, A.B. promets et jure sincèrement que Je serai fidèle et porterai vraie allégeance à Sa Majesté le roi George, que Je le défendrai de tout mon pouvoir contre toutes conspirations perfides et tous attentats quelconques, dirigés contre sa personne, sa couronne et sa dignité; et que Je ferai tous mes efforts pour découvrir et faire connaitre à Sa Majesté, ses heretiers et successeurs, toutes trahisons et conspirations perfides et tous attentats que Je saurai dirigés contre lui ou chacun d’eux; et tout cela, Je le jure sans aucune équivoque subterfuge mental ou restriction secrète, renoncant pour m’en relever, à tous pardons et dispenses de personne ou pouvoir quelconques.
“Ainsi que Dieu me soit en aide,”
The same form taken from the English was as follows:
“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George, and that I will defend him to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against His Person, Crown and Dignity, and that I will do my utmost endeavor to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies and attempts which I shall know to be against him or any of them; And all this I do swear without any equivocation, mental evasion or secret reservation and renouncing all pardons and dispensations from any Person or Power whichever to the Contrary.
“So help me God.”
After the recall of Murray the seigneurs and clergy had looked forward to the arrival of the new lieutenant governor, Sir Guy Carleton, who reached Quebec on September 23, 1766, to relieve Col. Aemiluis Irving, who had acted for nearly three months as administrator on the departure of General Murray. He did not become governor-in-chief until October 25, 1769, Murray yielding up the government about April, 1768.
It may be noted that Carleton’s first message to the Council is one which promulgated the doctrine Salvation through Harmony or, Safety in Concord, which under the form of “Concordia Salus” is that now recognized as the official motto of the City of Montreal:
“Gentlemen of the Council:
“I return you Thanks for your kind and dutiful Address and for the Respect shown to His Majesty’s Commission; I doubt not but I shall always find your hearty Concurrence to Everything I shall propose for the Good of His Service.
“My present Demand is that all may join to preserve good Humour and a perfect Harmony, first among His Majesty’s natural born Subjects, also between His Subjects by Birth and His Subjects by Acquisition, so that no Distinction may be noted but the great Difference between good men and bad. As the Good and Happiness of His People is the first Object with the King, our Sovereign, we must all know, nothing would be more acceptable to them; We must all Feel nothing can be more agreeable to the great Laws of Humanity.
“Quebec, 24th Sept., 1766.”
The new Governor soon found that in proportion to the arrogance of the English-speaking minority demanding an assembly in which they would be the sole representatives, the noblesse were becoming increasingly restless, for while accepting the English criminal law they demanded their French civil code and customs unmodified. Carleton was inclined to accept this view, but Masères, the attorney-general, who had presented lengthy reports on the situation and had pointed out his own remedies, argued that the English law should be the basis of jurisdiction with the admission of certain sections of Canadian law and customs which would have been acceptable to the English inhabitants, also. He recommended the immediate preparation of a code reviving the French law relating to tenure, dower and inheritance of landed property, and the distribution of the effects of persons who died intestate.
What may have influenced Carleton in his willingness to concede so much to the demand of the seigneurs was the fear of the movement spreading in Canada among the seigneurs to cast off British rule. His attention was drawn to Montreal as the center of the secret negotiations and dissatisfaction. General Murray in his letter of October 29, 1764, had already pointed out to the Lords of Trade and Plantation the difficulties likely to be created there if the Canadians were not accepted on juries. “I beg leave,” he says, “further 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 province. 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.” (“Canadian Archives,” Vol. II, page 233.)
One of the causes of General Murray’s allusions to plots at Montreal at this time may have been the presence of Ensign William Forsyth who had commanded an independent patrol of Scotch settlers in New Hampshire during the Indian war along the border, shortly after the session of Canada in 1763. He had been wounded and escaped to Montreal. He was related to several of the Canadian noblesse, particularly that of the Denys family. It is suggested that on the occasion of this visit there may have been planted the germs of an alliance between the French noblesse and the Scotch legitimists in favour of a Stuart dynasty which afterwards ripened into a more complete understanding.
On January 7, 1763, a petition signed by ninety-five of the chief inhabitants, including Montrealers such as Guy, and Jacques Hervieux, was presented to the king, protesting against the attitude of the British minority in excluding them from the law courts and asking for a confirmation of the privileges contained in Murray’s act for French Canadians. “Who are they that wish to proscribe us? About thirty English merchants of whom fifteen at the most are settled. Who are the proscribed? Ten thousand heads of families who breathe only submission to Your Majesty’s orders.”
Can it be wondered that at Montreal, the headquarters of the seigneurs, there is much dissatisfaction? The seigneurs at this time in petitioning the king for the maintenance of General Murray complained: “Our hopes have been destroyed by the establishment of the civil government that had been so highly extolled; we saw rise with it cabal, trial and confusion.” This may be taken as their prevailing attitude of mind.
On the 25th of November, 1767, Carleton wrote a remarkable letter in which, forecasting the possibility of a French war surprising the province, he recommends “The building of a citadel within the town of Quebec that the troops might have a fort capable of being defended by their numbers till succour could be sent them from home or from the neighbouring colonies; for should a French war surprise the province in its present condition the Canadian officers sent from France with troops might assemble such a body of people as will render the king’s dominion over the province very precarious while it depends on a few troops in an extensive fort open in many places.” (“Archives,” Series Q, Vol. V, page 250.)
Again Carleton, in the same letter to Shelburne, feared the possibility of former French officers, especially those who left after the capitulation, being sent back to Canada to lead an uprising. He knew these had been encouraged to return to France and were being upkept as a separate body with pay. “For these reasons,” he says, “I imagine, an edict was published in 1672, declaring that, notwithstanding the low state of the king’s finances, the salary of the captains of the colony troops of Canada should be raised from 450 livres, the establishment by which their pay was fixed at first, to 600 livres a year, to be paid quarterly, upon the footing of officers in full pay, by the treasurer of the colonies, at the quarters assigned them by His Majesty in Tourraine, and that such of them as did not repair thither should be struck off, the king’s intentions being that the said officers should remain in that province until further orders, and not depart from thence without a written leave from the secretary of state for the marine department.
“A few of these officers had been sent to the other colonies, but the greater part still remained in Tourraine, and the arrears due to those who have remained any time in this country are punctually discharged, upon their emigration, from them and obedience to the above mentioned injunction.
“By the secretary of state’s letter a certain quantity of wine, duty free, is admitted to enter the towns where these Canadian officers quarter, for their use according to their several ranks.”
In a further letter to Shelburne of December, 1767, he again clearly recognized the difficult political situation. “The most advisable method in my opinion for removing the present as well as for preventing future evils is to repeal that ordinance (of September 17, 1764) as null and void in its own nature and for the present leave the Canadian laws almost entire; such alterations might be afterwards made in them as time and occurrences rendered the same advisable so as to reduce them to that system His Majesty shall think fit, without risking the dangers of too much precipitation; or else such alterations might be made in the old and new laws judged necessary to be inevitably introduced and publish the whole as a Canadian code as was practiced by Edward I after the conquest of Wales.”
Meanwhile the seigneurs were not idle. In 1767 there was an assembly at Montreal of the noblesse presided over by the Chevalier D’Ailleboust and the petition was signed of remonstrance to the king, dated February 3d, already quoted, against discrimination against them.
This leads us to ask the question: Did the seigneurial body meet in open or secret conclave when their interests were to be safeguarded? Both kinds of conclaves would seem likely. It is certain, however, that such meetings were as far as possible prevented. Garneau “Histoire du Canada,” 4th edit., (Vol. II, page 400) relates that in 1766 Hertel de Rouville in the name of the seigneurs of Montreal applied for permission for the seigneurs to meet, which was granted on condition that two of the Supreme Council should be present with power to dissolve the gathering. When the seigneurs assembled General Burton, who had not been warned, wrote to the magistrates who replied that all was in order. “In any case,” replied the suspicious general, “if you have any need of assistance I will send it you.” The meeting was called by Hertel de Rouville “by a particular order of the Governor and Council” who doubtless thought by conciliating the seigneurs, so far the responsible representatives of the people, that peaceful relations could be maintained with the new subjects.
A document recently unearthed by Mr. Massicotte, at the Court House archives, reveals that on the 3d of March, 1766, the Montreal merchants met in the house of James Crofton, inn-keeper “to protect against the meeting of the seigneurs held in the public court house on Friday, February 21st, 1766.” Their declaration before Edward William Gray, “Notary and Tabellion Publick,”[1] protested that the seigneurs had been unconstitutionally chosen at the different parish meetings to represent the inhabitants of the seignories as agents “without the knowledge or consent of the magistrates of the districts, the commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces or the inhabitants of the city;” that these separate meetings not only for the entire exclusion of His Majesty’s ancient British subjects in general but of the mercantile part of His Majesty’s new subjects, did not make for unity or content. They further protested that “several of His Majesty’s British subjects who are possessed of seignories never received an order or summons to this said meeting.” The declaration further states that upon the principal English and French citizens assembling at the courthouse in order to be present at and know the cause of the public meeting they were informed by Adam Mabane, Esq., one of His Majesty’s council for the province that their presence was not necessary, as the meeting did not regard them and ordered them out. There were two of His Majesty’s justices of the peace present, Isaac Todd and Thomas Brashay, who “the public, thinking they had been given sanction to it, expressed them in such a manner that they sent down their resignation to the governor.” The malcontents withdrew under the impression that representatives for the people were being chosen without their consent. They flattered themselves, however, that when the house of assembly promised in His Majesty’s proclamation should come “His Majesty’s ancient subjects will be permitted at least to have a share in the choice of their representatives.”
The document written in English and French is signed in the former by John Wells, R. Stenhouse, Mathew Lessey, Samuel Holmes, John Stenhouse, G. Young, Joseph Howard, Lawrence Ermatinger, Mathew Wade, James Price, Thomas Barron, Jonas Desaulles, Richard Dobie, William Haywood, John Blake, and in the French by Jean Orilliat, Le Cavelier Pappalon, Le Prohon Dissan, Guy, Am. Hubert, St. Germain, Gagnée, Hervieux, Jacques Hervieux, Lg Bourassa, C. Depré, P. Le Duc, Pillet, Augé, Chenville. The witnesses to both documents are B. Frobisher, John Thomson.[2] The names of the seigneurs given as present at the meeting are, (1) Claude Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, (2) Roch St. Ours Deschaillons, (3) Jacques Michel Hertel de Rouville, (4) Joseph, Michel Legardeur Sr. de Croiselle-Montesson, (5) Joseph Boucher de Niverville, (6) Joseph Godfrey de Normanville, (7) Louis François Pierre Paul Margane de Lavaltrie, (8) Hyacinthe Godfrey de Lintot, (9) Pierre Louis Boucher de Niverville, (10) Louis Gordian or Louis Charles, D’Ailleboust, (11) René Ovide Hertel de Rouville, (12.) Louis Joseph Godefroy de Tonnancourt, (13) Jean François Nepveu, Seigneur d’Autray, (14) Jacques Hyacinthe Simon dit Delorme, Seigneur Delorme (or St. Hyacinthe), (15) Jean Baptiste Normand, Seigneur de Repentigny, (16) Charles Etienne Crevier, Seigneur de St. François, (17) Joseph de Fleury, Sr. d’Archambault, (18) René Boudier de la Breyère, (19) Abbé Etienne Montgolfier (Superior of the Seminary and Seigneur of the Isle of Montreal).
Carleton writing to Earl of Shelburne, one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries (given in Q 5, page 260, “Canadian Archives”), may again be quoted as indicating the grounds on which his toleration of such meetings as the one above recorded.[3]
“Quebec, 25th November, 1767.
“The king’s forces in this province, supposing them compliant to their allowance and all in perfect health, rank and file, would amount to 1,627 men. The king’s old subjects in this province, supposing them all willing, might furnish about five hundred men able to bear arms, exclusive of his troops; that is, supposing all the king’s troops and old subjects collected in Quebec; with two months’ hard labor they might put the works in a tolerable state of repair and would amount to about one-third the forces necessary for its defense. The new subjects could send into the field about eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms; of which number above one-half had 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. As the common people are greatly to be influenced by their Seigneurs, I annex a Return[4] of the noblesse of Canada, showing with tolerable exactness their age; rank and present place of abode, together with such natives of France as served in the colony troops so early in life as to give them a knowledge of the country, an acquaintance and influence over the people equal to natives of the same rank; from whence it appears that there are in France and in the French service about one hundred officers, all ready to be sent back in case of a war to a country they are intimately acquainted with and with the assistance of some troops to stir up a people accustomed to pay them implicit obedience. It further shows there remain in Canada not more than seventy of those who ever had been in the French service; not one of them in the king’s service nor any one who from any motive whatever is induced to support his government and dominion; gentlemen who have lost their employment at least by becoming his subjects and as they are not bound by any offices of trust or profit we should only deceive ourselves by supposing they would be active in the defense of a people that has deprived them of their honours, privileges, profits and laws and in their stead have introduced much expence, chicannery and confusion with a deluge of new laws unknown and unpublished. Therefore, all circumstances considered, while matters continue in their present state, the most we can hope for from the gentlemen who remain in this province is a passive neutrality on all occasions, a respectful submission to government and deference for the king’s commission in whatever hand it may be lodged; this they almost to a man have persevered in since my arrival, notwithstanding much pains have been taken to engage them in parties by a few whose duty and whose office should have taught them better. * * *
“Having arrayed the strength of His Majesty’s old and new subjects and shewn the great superiority of the latter, it may not be amiss to observe there is not the least probability this present superiority should ever be diminished. On the contrary ’tis more than probable it will increase and strengthen daily. The Europeans who migrate never will prefer the long inhospitable winters of Canada to the more cheerful climates and more fruitful soil of His Majesty’s southern provinces; the few old subjects at present in this province have been mostly left here by accident and are either disbanded officers, soldiers or followers of the army, who not knowing how to dispose of themselves elsewhere, settled where they could at the Reduction; or else they are adventurers in trade or such as could not remain at home, who set out to mend their fortunes at the opening of this new channel for commerce, but experience has taught almost all of them that this trade requires a strict frugality they are strangers to, or to which they will not submit; so that some from more advantageous views elsewhere, others from necessity, have already left this province and I fear many more for the same reason will follow their example in a few years; but while this severe climate and the poverty of the country discourages all but the natives, its healthfulness is such that these multiply daily so that, barring a catastrophe shocking to think of, this country must to the end of time be peopled by a Canadian race who already have taken such a firm root and got to so great a height that any new stock transplanted will be totally hid and imperceptible amongst them except in the towns of Quebec and Montreal.”
This last consideration no doubt largely influenced Carleton in his readiness to uphold the ancient laws and customs. He had not the vision of an English-speaking Dominion such as that of today, of which the British merchants of Montreal and Quebec of the early days with all their faults were laying the sure foundation by their commercial enterprise and dogged pertinacity.
Writing again to Shelburne on December 24, 1767, Carleton reminds his Lordship that the colony had submitted to His Majesty’s arms on certain conditions. He doubtless had in view, good tory as he was, the objection of the noblesse to the institution of a democratic representative assembly already urged by the merchants of Quebec and Montreal with their experience of such in the English colonies, as inimical to the established order of things, for the system of laws so long in vogue before the act of 1763 maintained the subordination between the different social divisions from the highest to the most humble ranks and upheld the harmony now being threatened, thus keeping this far-off province in its loyalty to the crown.
On January 20, 1768, he again wrote recommending the inclusion, in the Council and the army, of a number of the noblesse. By this means he said: “We would at least succeed in dividing the Canadians and in case of war we would have a certain number on our side who would stimulate the zeal of the national troops of the king. Besides, the nobles would have reason to hope that their children without having received their education in France and without serving in the French service would be able to support their families in the service of the king, their master, in the exercise of offices which would prevent them from descending to the level of the common people through the division and the subdivision of their lands in each generation.” (Constitutional Documents, French Edit.)
On April 12, 1788, he again champions the noblesse and even recommends that the ceremony of seigneurial feudalism be kept up as under the ancient régime. “All lands here,” he says, “are dependent on His Majesty’s Château of St. Louis and I am persuaded that nothing can be more agreeable to the people and more suitable to secure the allegiance of the new subjects as well as the payment of fines, dues and rights which take the place of quit rents in this colony as a formal requisition, enjoining all who hold their lands directly from the king to render him foi et homage in his Château of St. Louis. The oaths taken by the vassals on this occasion are very solemn and binding and involve serious obligations; they are obliged in consequence to produce what they call here their ‘aveux et dénombrement,’ i. e., an exact return of their tenants and their revenue. In addition they have to pay their dues to their sovereign and to take arms to defend him in the case of an attack on the province.” (Constitutional Documents, French Edit.)
A letter of Carleton to Lord Hillsborough of November 20, 1768, is headed “Secret Correspondence” (“Archives,” Series Q, Vol. V, page 890).[5] It shows that others besides Murray and Carleton had been viewing with suspicion the actions of the noblesse who were thought to be meditating a revolt. “My Lord,” writes Carleton, “since my arrival in this province I have not been able to make any discovery that induces me to give credit to the paper of intelligence inclosed in Your Lordship’s letter of the 20th of May, last, nor do I think it probable the chiefs of their own free notion in time of peace dare assemble in numbers, consult and resolve on a revolt; that an assembly of military men should be so ignorant as to fancy they could defend themselves by a few fire ships only against any future attack from Great Britain after their experience in fifty-nine. Notwithstanding this and their decent and respectful obedience to the king’s government hitherto, I have not the least doubt of their secret attachment to France and think this will continue as long as they are excluded from all employment under the British government and are certain of being reinstated at least in their former commissions under that of France by which chiefly they supported themselves and families. When I reflect that France naturally has the affections of all the people, that to make no mention of fees of office and of the vexations of the law, we have done nothing to gain one man in the province by making it his private interest to remain the king’s subject, and that the interests of many would be greatly promoted by a revolution, I own my not having discovered a treasonable correspondence never was proof sufficient to convince me that it did not exist in some degree, but I am inclined to think if such a message had been sent, very few were intrusted with the secret; perhaps the court of France informed a year past by Mons. de Chatelet that the king proposed raising such a regiment of his new subjects caused this piece of intelligence to be communicated to create a jealousy of the Canadians and prevent a measure that might fix their attachments to the British government and probably of those savages who have always acted with them; however that may be, on receiving this news from France last spring, most of the gentlemen in the province applied to me and begged to be admitted to the king’s service, assuring me that they would take every opportunity to testify their zeal and gratitude for so great a mark of favour and tenderness, extended not only to them but to their posterity.”
The passage following is prophetic of the active interference which ten years later France was to take in the American war against Great Britain. “When I consider further that the king’s dominion here is maintained but by a few troops necessarily dispersed without a place of security for their magazines, for their arms or for themselves, amidst a numerous military people, the gentlemen all officers of experience, poor, without hopes that they or their descendants will be admitted into the service of their present sovereign, I can have no doubt but France as soon as determined to begin a war will attempt to regain Canada, should it be intended only to make a diversion while it may reasonably be undertaken with a little hazzard should it fail, and where so much may be gained should it succeed. But should France begin a war in hopes the British colonies will push matters to extremities, and she adopts the project of supporting them in their independent notions, Canada, probably, will then become the principal scene where the fate of America may be determined. Affairs in this situation, Canada in the hands of France would no longer present itself as an enemy to the British colony but as an ally, a friend and protector of their independency.”
The sympathy, respect and even fear of the seigneurs which Carleton evinced in his reports home largely influenced the final passage of the Quebec act. Their firmness and persistency in their demand for their privileges and their influence over the habitant and the possibility of their allegiance being tampered with by France made them prevail over the small but active minority of the commercial class. At this time preparations were being made in London for the settlement of the Quebec difficulty. Secrecy was being observed in high quarters. Lord Hillsborough’s answer, January 4, 1769, to Carleton’s last is also secret, “acknowledging your secret dispatch of November 21st before His Majesty. The remarks you make upon the state and temper of His Majesty’s new subjects will be of great utility in the consideration of the measures now under deliberation and do evince both the propriety and necessity of extending to that grave and faithful people a reaonable participation in those establishments which are to form the basis of the future government of Quebec.” He fears, however, although he agreed with Carleton’s recommendation, that prejudice being so strong it will be difficult to admit them to military offices.
The following summary of investigations conducted for the governments at this time may now be added as evidence of the military strength of the party Carleton wished to conciliate.
Noblesse in the Province of Quebec:
Captains having the order of St. Louis 9 Captains named in the order but not invested 1 Captains who have not the order 4 Lieutenants having the order 1 Lieutenants 16 Ensigns 2 Officers de Reserve 2 Cadets 23 Have never been in the service 44 In the upper country who have never been in the service 6 ---- Total 126 (At least eighty-five of these are reported as in the Montreal district.)
Noblesse in France:
Grand Croix 1 Governors, lieutenant governors, majors, aide majors, captains and lieutenants of ships of war, having the order of St. Louis 26 Aide-majors and captains not having the order 6 Lieutenants 12 Ensigns 19 Canadian officers in actual service whose parents have remained in Canada 15 ---- Total 79
Natives of France who came over to Canada as cadets, served and were preferred in the colony troops and were treated in France as Canadian officers:
Captains not having the Croix of St. Louis 7 Had the rank of captain in 1760, raised to lieutenant in France, Knight of St. Louis 1 Lieutenants 7 Was captain in the colony troops at Mississippi, came to Canada in 1760 and is raised to the rank of colonel in the Spanish service at Mississippi; Knight of St. Louis 1 Having had civil employment 5 Officers of the port 2 ---- Total 23
The case of the seigneurs and that of the merchants was by this time well understood in England by the colonial authorities and the parliament. The insistent demand for an assembly had been well presented by Masères, while the no less repeated opposition to it in the form of an amended constitution to guarantee French-Canadian liberties had been equally well presented by the seigneurs and their upholders. It remained for legislators to settle which was the more opportune, the delay of the assembly or the immediate concessions of favours to the conquered race.
The session of 1774 was drawing to a close but the culminating point looked to with such eagerness on both sides of the Atlantic, the Quebec act, was not introduced till May 17th, when it quickly passed the three readings in the house of lords. On the 26th it reached the second reading in the commons when the serious opposition began. The debate was continued on June 6th, 7th, 8th and 19th, on which latter day the bill was carried in committee by eighty-three to forty. On the third reading the final vote was fifty-six to twenty. The House of Lords received the bill and its amendments for further consideration on June 17th and the bill was passed on June 22d. The house was prorogued.
The Quebec Act restored the French civil law in toto. It declared that Roman Catholics were to enjoy the free exercise of their religion, though the clergy might only levy tithes on their own subjects. It amended the oath of allegiance so as to make it possible for an honest Roman Catholic to take it.
The act was in a sense a formal renunciation of the British government to Anglicize the province of Quebec.[6] It was the logical ratification of the British government’s promises to protect the laws and institutions of the French-Canadians. It was also a wise move. We know the views of Murray and Carleton. General Haldimand, writing in 1780, six years after it had been tried, confirms this thus: “It requires little penetration to discover that had the system of government solicited by the old subjects been adopted in Canada this colony would, in 1775, have become one of the United States of America.”
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. Gray was the first English notary of Montreal, being named such October 7, 1765; on August 15, 1768, he became an advocate; on the 1st of May, 1776, he succeeded Mr. Turner as sheriff. In 1784 he accepted the position of sub-director of the post in the city.
[2] The above names are not given with this fullness. Some are obscure, hence Mr. Massicotte’s identification of them is used here. (Canadian Antiquarian, January, 1914.)
[3] The object of this letter is to urge the strengthening of the fort at Quebec against the possibility of an uprising.
[4] (Canadian Archives, Q 5, page 269.) This is printed in full in Canadian Archives for 1888, page 44.
[5] This letter does not appear among the state papers in the Canadian Archives.
[6] Cf. F.P. Walton, Dean of the Faculty of Law, McGill University, in an article in the University Magazine, April, 1908, entitled “After the Cession.”
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.
The Quebec act, which was hailed by the leaders of the French-Canadians as their Magna Charta, was received with execration in England and America. On the day of the prorogation of Parliament, June 22d, the mayor of London, attended by the recorder, several aldermen and 150 of the common council, went to St. James with a petition to the king to withhold his assent from the bill. The lord chamberlain receiving them, told them that it was too late, that the king was then on the point of going to parliament to give his consent to a bill agreed on by both houses of parliament and that they must not expect an answer. Among other objections this petition claimed: “that the Roman Catholic religion which is known to be idolatrous and bloody is established by this bill and no legal provision is made for the free exercise of our reformed faith nor the security of our Protestant fellow subjects of the church of England in the true worship of Almighty God according to their consciences.”
In the American colonies the Quebec act largely precipitated the American Revolution then being concocted. Strong protest was made, as for example, that shown by the delegates of Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, in the address to the people of England; “By another act the Dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modeled and governed as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests by civil as well as by religious prejudices, that by their numbers, swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to administration so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasion be fit instruments in the hands of power to reduce the ancient free Protestant colonies to the same state of slavery as themselves.” Again speaking of the Quebec Act, it adds “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion which has deluged your Island in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.” The Quebec act added fuel to the fire of discontent and the people were ready for war if the Congress said so. The congress of Philadelphia at the same time published a long, bombastic and revolutionary address signed by Henry Middleton, president.
“To the inhabitants of the province of Quebec.”
“We do not ask you to commence hostilities against the government of our common sovereign but we submit it to your consideration whether it may not be expedient to you to meet together in your several towns and districts and elect deputies who after meeting in a provincial congress may chose delegates to represent your province in the continental congress to be held at Philadelphia on the 10th of May, 1775.” An unanimous vote had been resolved “That you should be invited to accede to our federation.” It is interesting to note that, forgetful of the previous letter to the British parliament breathing religious intolerance just referred to, the artful Americans now used also the following argumentum ad hominem: “We are too well acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your nation to imagine that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. You know that the transcendent nature of freedom, elevates those who unite in the cause above all such low-minded infirmities.”
This was printed for wide circulation in Canada and the question of sending the delegates was eagerly discussed in Montreal’s affected circles.
The Quebec act was one of the causes of grievance which led to the American Revolution; it was one of the acts of tyranny specified in the Declaration of Independence, “For abolishing the free system of English law in a neighbouring province (Canada), establishing therein an arbitrary government and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rules into these colonies.”
But how was the bill received in Montreal? Truth to tell, Montreal was the seat of discontent in Canada. Its infection was carried to Quebec. Sir Guy Carleton, who shortly after the passage of the Quebec bill left England with his young wife,[1] the Lady Maria Howard, the third daughter of Thomas, the second Earl of Effingham, to resume his office as governor general, tells how the trouble started at Montreal in his letter to Dartmouth, dated Quebec, 11th of November, 1774. We are there informed that at Quebec there were addresses of loyal acceptation of the situation. “I believe,” wrote Carleton, “that most of them who signed this address were disposed to act up to their declaration, which probably would have been followed by those who did not, if their brethren at Montreal had not adopted very different measures. Whether the minds of the latter are of a more turbulent turn or that they caught the fire from some colonists settled among them, or in reality letters were received from the general congress, as reported, I know not; certain it is, however, that shortly after the said congress had published in all the American papers their approbation of the Suffolk County Resolves[2] in the Massachusetts Assembly, a report was spread at Montreal that letters of importance had been received from the general congress and all the British there flocked to the coffee house to hear the news. Grievances were publicly talked of and various ways for obtaining redress proposed, but that the government might not come to a true knowledge of their intentions a meeting was appointed at the house of a person then absent, followed by several others at the same place and a committee of four named, consisting of Mr. Walker, Mr. Todd, Mr. Price and Mr. Blake, to take care of their interests and prepare plans of redress. Mr. Walker now takes the lead. * * * Their plans being prepared and a subscription commenced, the committee set out for Quebec, attended in form by their secretary, a nephew of Mr. Walker and by profession a lawyer.”
Carleton proceeds to describe how the Montreal emissaries worked up the Quebecers[3] through several “town meetings” to join in petitions, for a repeal of the Quebec act, which were sent to “His Majesty, to the Lords spiritual and temporal, to the Honourable, the Commons.” The chief grievances were that they had lost the protection of the English laws and had thrust on them the laws of Canada which are ruinous to their properties as thereby they lose the invaluable privilege of trial by juries; that in matters of a criminal nature the habeas corpus act is dissolved and they are subjected to arbitrary fines and imprisonment at the will of the governor and council. Masères was entrusted with the promotion of their cause. The petitions were signed on November 12th. In February secret agents from congress were in Montreal to see if an aggressive policy could be safely pursued.
The majority of the English population was on the side of the discontented provinces. The French-Canadian habitants were encouraged to remain neutral, being plied with specious arguments to undermine their loyalty to the king. They were told that they had nothing to lose from the government by this position and everything to gain from the congress faction who threatened reprisals if they became actively opposed to them. But the noblesse, the gentry and the clergy were against the congress, for the Quebec act had guaranteed them the securities for the rights they most valued; they knew that there was little to hope for from the Americans. The Quebec act came into operation on May 1st and an instance of the unsettled state of men’s minds in Montreal is remembered by the incident of the desecration of the king’s bust on this day. It was discovered daubed with black and decorated with a necklace of potatoes, and a cross attached with the words “voila le pape du Canada et le sot Anglais.”[4] Kingsford, following Sanguinet, says that the perpetrator of the foolish insult, for such it was intended to be, was never discovered. The act was regarded as insolent and disloyal and it caused great excitement. A public meeting was called at which 100 guineas were subscribed to discover the perpetrators. The company of grenadiers of the Twenty-Six made a proclamation by beat of drum offering a reward of $200 and a free pardon excepting the person who had disfigured it to any one giving information which would lead to the discovery of the offenders. The principal French-Canadians were greatly annoyed at this proceeding, the words being in French. It was claimed, however, that they were written by an English speaking revolutionist.
On April 19th the affair at Lexington, the commencement of a civil revolution, took place and rapidly the news of it spread. Montreal was well posted. The leaders of the provincial sympathizers here reported to the leaders of congress the easy fall of Canada to the insurgents. Canada was more feverishly coveted at this time than ever. In 1712 Dummers had written: “I am sure it has been the cry of the whole country ever since Canada was delivered up to the French,--Canada est delenda.” In 1756 Governor Livingston of New Jersey had cried: “Canada must be demolished--Delenda est Carthago,--or we are undone.” And now Canada was desired as the “fourteenth colony.”
In Montreal those who had received in the coffee house John Brown, John Adams’ ambassador, were still keeping up communications led by Thomas Walker, Price and others. At last the Congressists thought the conquest was being made, relying on the presumed neutrality of the Canadians. Ticonderoga had fallen in the beginning of May to the revolutionary party under Ethan Allen’s self-constituted forces. The road to Canada was being cleared. Benedict Arnold, sailing from Ticonderoga, had arrived unexpectedly on the morning of the 18th of May at Fort St. John’s and captured the small war sloop there and took prisoners the sergeant and ten men in charge of the military garrison. A second landing was made by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys at St. John’s on the 18th and 19th with a party said to be three hundred strong, as Carleton was informed at Quebec. There was great consternation in Montreal when the news of the seizure of Ticonderoga and Crown Point and the first capture of St. John’s was brought by Moses Hazen,[5] a merchant of Montreal now living near St. John’s. The military was immediately put in motion by Colonel Templer who dispatched Colonel Preston with a regiment of one hundred men of the Twenty-sixth and this would have cut off Allen’s descent up the lake with his bateaux had not Bindon, a friendly Montreal merchant, hurried on horseback from Longueuil to St. John’s to apprize Allen of the approach of the party from Montreal.[6]
Allen before embarking gave a letter to this same Bindon addressed to one Morrison and the British merchants at Montreal, lovers of liberty, demanding a supply of provisions, ammunition and spirituous liquors which some of them were inclined enough to furnish had they not been prevented. (Carleton to Dartmouth, June 7, 1775, from Montreal.) Bindon in returning to Montreal fell across Colonel Preston who would have detained him but he rode off and, crossing the St. Lawrence, found his way to Montreal with his letters. On arriving he added to the excitement of Montreal--it being market day--by reporting that Preston’s detachment had been defeated. Colonel Templer called a meeting of the citizens for 3 o’clock at the Récollet church to consider the situation. It was numerously attended and it was resolved to take arms for the common defense. During the proceedings Templer received a letter from Preston detailing Bindon’s reprehensible conduct. Bindon was himself present and turned pale as the facts were read. The meeting was adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning when it was held on St. Anne’s common. Templer proposed that the inhabitants should form themselves into companies of thirty and elect their officers. Several well known citizens were chosen to make the roll of those willing to serve.[7] They were of the old Canadian families known for their loyalty. Preston’s detachment returned to Montreal, the men greatly infuriated against Bindon. They had learned that it was from no fault of his they had not been intercepted in the woods and shot down. So soon as they were dismissed for parade they went in search of him. When he was found the men forcibly led him to the pillory with the intention of hanging him, but they were without a ladder and the officers rescued Bindon before one could be obtained. But he was arrested and carried before the magistrates, when he pleaded guilty to imprudence but protested his innocence. To save his character he played the part of a loyalist and took service in the force organized for defense. The action of the troops with regard to Bindon was the occasion of a public meeting called by the party for congress.
Meanwhile a call for volunteers was met by an insignificant enrollment of fifty Canadians who set out for St. John’s under Lieutenant McKay, to remain there until relieved by the Twenty-sixth regiment. Carleton moved the troops from Quebec thither, also. The few troops at Three Rivers were also sent; the garrison of Montreal as well. Carleton arrived at Montreal on May 26th. He found how poorly the French-Canadians had responded to the call to organize themselves into companies. In St. Lawrence suburb the commissioners sent to enroll volunteers had been met by the women with threats of stoning. The loyalty of the French-Canadians had been sorely tampered with. There is not a family resemblance between the letters written by Carleton about the quality of their obedience, before the Quebec act and after. On June 7, 1775, Carleton wrote from Montreal to Dartmouth gloomily reviewing the situation and telling of the preparations for the safety of St. John’s. “The little force we have in the Province was immediately set in Motion and ordered to assemble at or near St. John’s; the Noblesse of this Neighbourhood were called upon to collect their Inhabitants in order to defend themselves. The Savages of these parts likewise had the same orders but though the Gentlemen testified great Zeal, neither their Entreaties or their Example could prevail upon the People; a few of the Gentry consisting principally of the Youth residing in this place and its Neighbourhood, formed a small Corps of Volunteers under the Command of Mr. Samuel McKay and took post at St. John’s; the Indians showed as much Backwardness as the Canadian Peasantry. * * * Within these few Days the Canadians and Indians seemed to return a little to their senses, the Gentry and Clergy had been very useful on this occasion and shewn great Fidelity and Warmth for His Majesty’s Service, but both have lost much of their influence over the People. I proposed trying to form a Militia and if their minds are favourably disposed will raise a Battalion upon the same plan as the other Corps in America, as to Numbers and Experience, and were it established I think it might turn out a great public Utility; but I have my doubts as to whether I shall be able to succeed.
“These Measures that formerly would have been extremely popular require at present a great Degree of Caution and Circumspection; so much have the Minds of the People been tainted by the Cabals and Intrigues, I have from time to time given to your Lordship some information of. I am as yet uncertain whether I shall find it advisable to proceed in the forementioned Undertaking; to defame their King and treat with Insolence and Disrespect, upon all Occasions to speak with the utmost contempt of His Government, to forward Sedition and applaud Rebellion, seems to be what too many of his British-American Subjects in those parts think their undoubted Right.” (Constitutional Documents, 1760-1791, page 450.)
On the 9th of June, Carleton, by proclamation, authorized the calling out of the militia throughout the whole province according to the provisions of the old law, reinstating officers appointed by Murray, Gage and Burton. The movement was not popular even with the new subjects, uninfluenced by the discontent of the disloyalists who feared in the return of the old militia the exactions of the French régime. Chief Justice Hey, then in Montreal, prevailed upon some of the dissatisfied “old” but “loyal” subjects to enroll for good example, which done, they were joined by the French-Canadians so that a sufficient force was ready for a review before General Carleton.
The Indians of Caughnawaga at first hesitated in their loyalty, which had also been tampered with, but they were also brought to serve. At this time Colonel Johnson arrived in Montreal with 300 Indians of the six nations; a council of 600 Indians was held and all agreed to take the field in defense, but not to commence hostilities. The congressists had endeavoured to persuade them to neutrality and the leaven was still working.
July was drawing to a close. Carleton left Montreal by way of Longueuil to inspect the militia at Sorel and then proceeded to Quebec, where he arrived on August 2d, to make preparations for the establishment of the new Legislative Council. This met for the first time on August 17th but it was adjourned on September 7th on account of news of the congress troops again appearing on the Richelieu. The lieutenant governor, Cramahé, writing to Dartmouth from Quebec on September 21st, tells the circumstances how on the news of the rebel army approaching, Carleton set out for Montreal in great haste; that “on the 7th inst. the Rebels landed in the woods near St. John’s and were beat back to their Boats by a Party of Savages encamped at that Place. In this Action the Savages behaved with great Spirit and Resolution and had they remained firm to our Interests probably the Province would have been Saved for this Year, but finding the Canadians in General adverse to taking up Arms for the Defence of their Country, they withdrew and made their peace. After their Defeat the Rebels returned to the Isle aux Noix, where they continued till lately, sending out some Parties and many Emisaries to debauch the Minds of the Canadians and Indians.”
Cramahé adds that no means had been left untried to bring the Canadian peasantry to a sense of their duty and to engage them to take up arms in defense of the province but to no purpose. “The Justice must be done to the Gentry, Clergy and most of the Burgeoisie that they have shewn the Greatest Zeal and Fidelity to the King’s Service and Exerted their best Endeavours to reclaim their infatuated Countrymen. Some Troops and a Ship of War or two would, in all likelihood, have prevented this general Defection.”[8]
Chief Justice Hey, writing at the end of August to the Lord Chancellor, says in a postscript dated September 11th “that all there was to trust to was about five hundred men, two war boats at St. John’s and Chambly; that the situation is desperate and that Canada would shortly be in complete possession of the rebels.” In a further postscript of September 17th he adds that not one hundred Canadians, except in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, are with the king. He holds himself ready to return, to be of more use in England. Carleton, sick at heart with disappointment at the ingratitude of the Canadians who would not march to defend their own country, the uncertainty of the Indians, and the disloyalty of many of the old subjects, and crippled by an inadequate army which was nearly all enclosed in Forts Chambly and St. John’s, nevertheless determined to act boldly on the defensive until General Gage should send from Boston the two regiments earnestly asked for.
Canada was abandoned at this period by as criminal apathy and ignorance on the part of English officials, as it had been before by the French. As Cramahé had pointed out, some troops and a ship of war or two sent from England, or from Gage in America, would have saved Canada from the invasion of 1775.
The part that Montreal took in the defence of Canada must now be told. When the news of the rebels advancing on to St. John’s reached Montreal, Colonel Prescott, then in command, sent an order to the parishes around the city for fifteen men of each company of militia to join the force at St. John’s. Though no report came from without, the Montreal army men came forward to the number of 120 French and Canadians under the command of de Belestre and de Longueuil, many of the volunteers being young men of family and several being prosperous merchants, this being perhaps the first recorded separate unit composed solely of French-Canadians, ever raised as an arm of Imperial defence. The party for St. John’s departed on September 7th. The loyal British volunteers remained to perform duty in Montreal. Time will discover who were truly loyal and who were not.
The Imperial forces in Canada were now represented by the two companies in Montreal, eighty-two men at Chambly and the garrison of St. John’s, consisting of 505 men of all rank, of the Seventh Royal Fusiliers and the Twenty-sixth Regiment, thirty of the Royal Artillery, eight of Colonel McLean’s newly raised corps from Quebec and fifteen of the Royal Horse and 120 volunteers from Montreal--the whole making a total of 696 in the garrison, not counting some artificers.
Around St. John’s and in the district of the Richelieu the inhabitants were either neutral or, with the majority, actively espousing the congress party, some by taking to the field, others by supplying provisions, assisting in the transport of munitions of war and artillery and giving information.
Surely the morale of the once loyal French-Canadian habitants had been undermined effectively by Walker and other malcontents and had been recently further weakened by the manifesto of General Schuyler from the Isle aux Noix on September 15th to his “dear friends and compatriots, the habitants of Canada,” advising them to join him and escape the common slavery prepared for them. Montgomery’s scouting parties, out for supplies and information, did the rest. Of Richard Montgomery, Schuyler’s second in command, we shall hear more.
NOTE
THE MILITIA
The militia, which was called out for service in the field in 1775, 1776, 1812, 1814, 1837, 1839, with the exception of a few small independent corps, consisted of provisionally organized units armed and equipped from the magazines, the regular army, paid by the British government, drilled, disciplined and often commanded by regular officers. After the denudation of Canada of the regular troops at the time of the Crimean war, it became necessary for the colony to take more provisions for its own defence. In 1855 the military act (18 Victoria, Chapter 77), passed by the Upper Canada, for raising and maintaining at the colonial expense, created the nucleus of our present militia system. The “Trent” excitement of 1861-62 and the Fenian raids of 1867-70 further stimulated the movement. The first Dominion militia act (31 Victoria, Chapter 40) was passed in 1868. The present militia act (4 Edward VII, Chapter 23) received assent on August 15, 1904. According to this statute the militia is divided into active and reserve forces.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Carleton was then in his fiftieth year, his wife in her twenty-second. They were married on May 22, 1772.
[2] Adopted on September 9, 1774.
[3] The Montreal agitators were fiercer than those of Quebec. John McCord, of Quebec, wrote April 27, 1775, to Lieutenant Pettigrew, “I pray God to grant peace at any price; the blood of British subjects is very precious.” Walker, writing to Samuel Adams on April 7th, breathes fire: “Few in this colony dare vent their quip but groan in silence and dream of Lettres de Cachets, confiscations and improvements.” The colonists had declared they would fight for their rights and liberties while they had a drop of their blood left.
[4] “This is the pope of Canada and the fool of England.”
[5] Moses Hazen passed his boyhood at Haverhill, in Massachusetts. He served in the Louisberg expedition, rose to be a captain in the Rangers at the taking of Quebec and was remarked by General Wolfe as a good soldier. Later he obtained a lieutenant’s commission in the 44th Foot and soon after the conquest retired on half pay. We then find his name attached to petitions of the Montreal merchants. At this time he appears to have settled near St. John’s, carrying on not only large farming operations but owning sawmills, a potash house and a forge.
[6] When the Americans appeared there in arms he saw, doubtless, the losses war would bring him and he wished them elsewhere. For a time he “trimmed” successfully, but at last was held suspicious by both parties and was held prisoner by both.
[7] Dupuy-Desauniers, de Longueuil, Panet, St. George Dupré, Mesére, Sanguinet, Guy and Lemoine Despins. (See the Abbé Verreau’s valuable book “Invasion du Canada par les Americains.”)
[8] Constitutional Documents, page 435.
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 PRISONED 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.
While Montgomery at Isle aux Noix is planning his descent on St. John’s, the portal of Canada, twelve miles lower down, it will be well to follow Ethan Allen on his venturesome and abortive attempt to take Montreal. Ethan Allen, of Bennington, was, as Carleton had reported, “an outlaw in the province of New York, who had become famous by his daring capture of Ticonderoga and had been emboldened enough by his success to persuade the New York congress to raise a small regiment of rangers.” Thus this freebooter, with his Green Mountain Boys, became a commissioned officer. He got employment under Schuyler and it was Ethan Allen with John Brown, now Major, who had formerly been sent to Montreal to sound the merchants, who bore Schuyler’s manifesto from Isle aux Noix to the habitants of Canada. From parish to parish he hurried and his ready wit and hustling address captivated the peasant housewives who, being educated better than their husbands, read the proclamation with approval to them. He visited the Caughnawaga Indians and played havoc with their loyalty, receiving beads and wampum from them. His reappointment was from Montgomery, then commencing the investment of St. John’s, who, it is said, wanting to find employment for Allen at a distance from himself, sent him to gather up a recruit of Canadians around Chambly. According to his own account he was easily successful. Writing to Montgomery on September 20th from St. Ours, “You may rely on it,” he says, “that I shall join you in three days with five hundred or more Canadian volunteers. * * * Those that used to be enemies to our cause come cap in hand to me; and I swear by the Lord I can raise three times the number of our army provided you continue the siege.” Yet, on the night of September 23d, when he found himself at Longueuil looking across the St. Lawrence to the city which it was his ambition to capture, he had only about eighty still following. He was returning to St. John’s next morning, and when two miles from Longueuil he met John Brown, now Colonel in command of a considerable force at La Prairie. These two, retiring to a house with some others, conceived the plan of attacking Montreal. The plan was for Brown with two hundred followers to cross over the St. Lawrence in canoes above the town, and Allen’s party below it; each would silently approach the gate at his end of the city; Brown’s party would give three Huzzas! Allen’s would respond and then both would fall to.
It was a brilliant idea and elated Allen. Montreal, captured by a force of two to three thousand and the easy fall of the rest of Canada had been the vision put before congress often enough. “I still maintain my views,” says Colonel Easton before the congress of Massachusetts on June 6, 1775, “that policy demands that the colonies advance an army of two or three thousand men into Canada and environ Montreal. This will inevitably fix and confirm the Canadians and Indians in our interests.” On June 13, 1775, Benedict Arnold wrote to congress, sketching out a plan by which with an army of 2,000 men, Chambly and St. John’s should be cut off with 700 men, 300 more should guard the boats and the line of retreat and a grand division of 1,000 should appear before Montreal, whose gates on the arrival of the Americans were to be opened by friends there “in consequence of a plan for that purpose already entered into by them.”
On May 29th Allen, over confident, had written to the Continental Congress: “Provided I had but 500 men with me at St. John’s when we took the king’s sloop, I would have advanced to Montreal.” On June 2d he wrote to the New York congress: “I will lay my life on it that with 1,500 men and a proper train of artillery I will take Montreal,” and on July 12th to Trumbull that if his Green Mountain Boys had not been formed into a battalion under certain regulations and command he would further “advance then into Canada and invest Montreal.”
Here, then, was Allen to attempt to take the city of his dreams with a smaller force than his dreams provided for! He had forgotten, perhaps, that Carleton was in that city. He was elated that he had added about thirty English Americans to his force, but he was sorry that Thomas Walker had been communicated with at his home in L’Assomption. Night came on. Allen’s little fleet spent all the night being driven backward and forward by the currents, but at last after six crossings were made to land his men in the limited number of available boats, on the morning of the 25th the daring invaders were all landed at Longue Pointe. But they heard no Huzza! from Brown’s party from the other side of the city. Brown had either known better or was jealous of Ethan Allen’s desire to claim the capture of Montreal, as he had done that of Ticonderoga.
Longue Pointe was not unfriendly but thought discretion better than valour. Allen saw himself in a foolish position; his slightness of force would soon be known in Montreal through the escape from his guards of a Montrealer named Desautel going out early to his Longue Pointe farm.
Montreal was in great excitement and confusion at the news of the presence of the notorious New Hampshire incendiary. Even some of the officers took to the ships.[1] It was, however, only at 9 o’clock that Carleton heard the news. There was a hurry and scurry and a beating of drums and the parade ground of the Champ de Mars behind the barracks was filled with the people. Carleton briefly told the citizens of their dangers and ordered them to join the troops at the barracks. The instinct of self-preservation in a common danger made most obey except some, chiefly American colonists, that stepped forward and turned off the contrary way.
At last the Montreal party was ready. They dashed through the Quebec gate, smashing the boats there to cut off the enemies retreat, and hurried up north. The fight with Allen’s men began at 2 o’clock and lasted an hour and three-quarters by the watch. Though carefully using all natural advantages of the ground, ditches and coverts chosen beforehand, Allen himself was compelled to surrender his sword to Peter Johnson, a natural son of Sir William, “providing I can be treated with honour,” he added. The officers received him with politeness, like gentlemen. In the fight Allen lost twelve to fifteen men, killed and wounded; some had fled, but a body of forty prisoners were marched to the city. The defenders had lost only six to eight of their men, so it was a famous victory. When the prisoners were brought before Colonel Prescott in Barrack Yard an extraordinary incident occurred, according to “Allen’s Narrative.”
“Are you the Colonel Allen who took Ticonderoga?” thundered out the British soldier. “The very man,” was the reply. Prescott angrily raised his cane to strike the roughly dressed, dust-stained ranger in a short deerskin coat, breeches of sagathy, and woolen cap. “You had better not strike me, I’m not used to it,” cried the aroused prisoner, shaking his fist at the angry commander of the garrison. Prescott then turned to the habitant prisoners and ordered a sergeant to bayonet them. Allen then stepped between his men and the soldiers and, tearing open his clothes and exposing his shaggy bosom, exclaimed to Prescott: “I am the one to blame. Thrust your bayonets into my breast. I am the sole cause of their taking up arms.” A long pause. Finally muttered Prescott, “I will not execute you now, but you shall grace a halter at Tyburn, ---- ye!” There was no suitable prison in Montreal so Allen was put into the hold of the Gaspé in the harbour to wait until he should be shipped to England for trial.
Montreal was saved for the present; and Allen’s failure, as the governor reported it, gave a favourable turn to the minds of the people and many began now to come back to loyalty. It seems strange, the impunity with which known plotters had been hitherto treated. Carleton would now make an example. He turned his eyes sternly upon Thomas Walker. Already Mrs. Walker had been told that her husband must quit the country. Now an order for arrest on the charge of high treason was issued. Prescott handed the warrant to Captain Bellair. On the night of the 5th-6th of October in their comfortable farm house at L’Assomption they were surprised by a posse of twenty regulars and twelve Canadians. Walker, determined to resist, shot into the crowd, who fusilladed back. At last the four corners of the house were fired. As the house began to burn, the smoke within almost suffocated Mrs. Walker, so that he took her to a window and held her by the shoulders while she lowered herself in her nightdress as far as she could, clinging to the windowsill. Finally she was rescued by one of the soldiers setting a ladder to the wall. The floor that Walker was standing on was in flames, and on the promise of good treatment from the soldiers, he surrendered. Their property was plundered and destroyed and the farm house wrecked. The Walkers were given some wraps to cover their unfinished attire and were hurried to Prescott at Montreal. Charged with rebellion, Walker was taken to the barracks and for thirty-three days and nights he was confined in his solitary cell on a straw pallet under a heavy load of irons. Then he was taken to Lisotte’s armed schooner and buried in the hold prison, to be taken for trial over seas. It was a terrifying example to all, a leading citizen, a wealthy merchant, a Montreal magistrate and a felon! Truly a warning to traitors.
Using this as a propitious moment Carleton issued another levy of men from the militia around Montreal. That October he was so encouraged that he assembled on St. Helen’s island, facing Montreal, seven or eight hundred men, counting Indians, and later on the afternoon of October 30th pushed off, accompanied by Luc la Corne and Lorimier with thirty-five or forty boats for the shore of Longueuil to bear relief to the invested fort of St. John’s. Alan Maclean was to go from Quebec to meet Carleton at St. John’s. But as they approached the harbour they were met with such havoc by a force under Seth Warner that had been making use of Longueuil Castle and who had a four-pounder emptying grape and a goodly backing of musketry at the landing, and quickly playing upon the astonished flotilla, so that it turned around, bearing some forty or fifty dead and as many wounded. No American received a scratch.
The grand stroke had failed. Maclean’s force heard the bad news and many began to desert. It was a game of battledore and shuttlecock for the French Canadian peasantry. It was not that their want of loyalty was to be blamed as the practical politics of the affair. It was a war of Englishmen again Englishmen, and they were for the winners. The loss of Chambly was the turning point in the siege of St. John’s which had been going on since September 18th. Chambly had been surrendered by Major Stafford after a siege of one day and a half, on October 17th, a sorry event, for it was well supplied with winter provisions and ammunition. The rebels, with the aid of others, were able for six weeks to reinforce Montgomery at St. John’s, when he would have been forced by the approach of winter to retire. Thus on the morning of the 3d of November, at 10 o’clock, the surrender of St. John’s was made by Colonel Preston to Montgomery.
The fall of Montreal was now assured and with winter approaching, Montgomery secured his position at Chambly, St. John’s and the Richeleau district. At Longueuil, Warren was posted with 300 men. The complacent Indians at Caughnawaga willingly enough received an order to remain neutral. Everything was ready for the march on Montreal and Montgomery advanced to La Prairie, there collecting all the boats and bateaux available for the transportation of the troops across the river to the city. On the 11th of November news came to Carleton in Montreal that Montgomery was crossing over. It was now his policy to leave. The capture was inevitable and he had prepared for it since the fall of St. John’s. He spiked the guns and burned the bateaux he could not use and caused the munitions, provisions and baggage to be loaded on the three armed sloops. About one hundred and twenty regular troops were embarked on the vessels available. In the evening at 5 o’clock Carleton went aboard. Brigadier Prescott and the military and staff accompanied. Eleven sail went down to Quebec. At Lavaltrie, twelve miles west of Sorel, owing to contrary winds the flotilla was detained during the 13th and 14th of November. On the 15th a written summons came from Colonel Easton calling on Carleton to capitulate. On the night of the 16th and 17th of November Carleton went on the barge of Captain Bouchette and arrived at Quebec on Sunday, November 19th, escaping the batteries erected beyond Sorel to intercept the fleet at Lavaltrie.
On the same day this fleet was visited by Major Brown with a peremptory order to surrender. Prescott saw no way out of it; he first threw the powder into the St. Lawrence and then surrendered. The congress troops now took charge of the fleet and with a favourable north wind convoyed the army and fleet back to Montreal. Walker, a prisoner in irons in the hold, was released as soon as possible. The fleet arrived on November 22d. The prisoners were ordered by Montgomery to parade on the river front the following morning before the market and then lay down their arms.
We must go back to the 11th of November and visit defenseless Montreal. The loyalists were sad, as having been at a funeral, in the passing away of its defenders. The discontented, now that Montreal was on the point of changing hands, openly abandoned their arms and threw off their disguise. That night Montgomery’s force encamped on St. Paul’s Island. On Sunday morning, about 9 o’clock, when many were going to church, news arrived that Montgomery was coming from the island to Point St. Charles and a committee of twelve citizens was appointed to go to meet him. Meanwhile he had arrived and the inhabitants of the suburbs west of the city had assured him of their neutrality. He had also received encouraging messages from the disaffected within the city, for Bindon, now a sentry at one of the embrasures, traitorously allowed a partner of Price, whom we have mentioned as in league with the Boston party, and another, to communicate with the congress party now advancing. Montgomery must have learnt that there was a strong following in the city prepared to side with him and that those opposed to him were handicapped for want of ammunition and provision. It was reliance on these elements within and without the city, with the knowledge that few were willing to take up arms against him, that made it possible for Montgomery with his slight force to capture a city of 1,200 inhabitants.
The deputation meeting him was told that he gave them four hours to consider the terms on which they would accede to his authority. Being told that he must not approach nearer the city, he answered that it was somewhat cold weather and he immediately sent fifty men to occupy the Récollet suburb, and before 4 o’clock his whole force was established there. This made an uproar in the town and the loyalists were for shooting on them. The articles of capitulation were prepared and presented to Montgomery. “I will examine them and reply soon,” said he. They demanded that “The religious orders should enjoy their rights and properties, that both the French and English should be maintained in the free exercise of their religion, that trade in the interior and upper part of the provinces and beyond the seas should be uninterrupted, that passports on legitimate business should be granted, that the citizens and inhabitants of Montreal should not be called upon to bear arms against the mother country, that the inhabitants of Montreal and of every part of the province, who have borne arms for the defense of the province then prisoners, should be released, that the courts of justice should be reestablished and the judges elected by the people, that the inhabitants of the city should not be forced to receive the troops, that no habitant of the country parishes and no Indians should be admitted into the city until the commandant had taken possession of it and made provision for its safety.”
The general in reply stated first, “that owing to the city of Montreal having neither ammunition, adequate artillery, troops nor provisions and not having it in its power to fulfill one article of the treaty, it could claim no title to its capitulation, yet the continental army had a generous disdain of every act of oppression and violence; they are come for the express purpose of giving liberty and security.”[2] He accepted most of the provisions laid down. But from the unhappy differences of Great Britain and the colonies he was unable to engage that trade should be continued with the mother country. In acceding to the demands he made it understood that the engagements entered upon by him would be binding on his successors.
Next day, the 13th of November, the congress troops, many of whom wore the scarlet uniforms of the British troops found in the military stores at St. John’s and Chambly, entered by the Recollet gate (at the corner of McGill and Notre Dame streets) and, receiving the keys to the storehouses of the city, marched proudly along Notre Dame Street to the barracks opposite what is now known as Jacques Cartier Square.
The capture of Montreal was quickly made known in the American province. “Dispatches for His Excellency, General Washington; news of Montreal’s quiet submission of that city to the victorious arms of the United Colonies of America” was soon announced in the New England Chronicle.
Montgomery remained in Montreal until November 28th. News came of the success of the detachment placed at Sorel. For, on the 22d, as already stated, the eleven vessels captured by Colonel Easton at Lavaltrie were brought into Montreal with Colonel Prescott and the military prisoners and the released Thomas Walker. One reason for Montgomery’s delay was due to the expectancy of the arrival of the detachments he had ordered. He now left General David Wooster in command of the detachment kept behind in the city and went down the river to join Benedict Arnold, who had been unsuccessful in his attack on Quebec, and to take command of the besieging forces. For unless Quebec were taken, Canada could not be said to have been subdued.
Wooster’s first action was to disseminate Washington’s proclamation confided to Arnold for the inhabitants of Canada. It started “Friends and Brethren.” The second paragraph runs thus: “Above all we rejoice that our enemies have been deceived with regard to you. They have persuaded themselves, they have even dared to say, that the Canadians were not capable of distinguishing between the blessings of liberty and the wretchedness of slavery; that gratifying the vanity of a little circle of nobility would blind the people of Canada. By such artifices they hoped to bind you to their views, but they have been deceived; they see with a chagrin equal to our joy that you are enlightened, generous and virtuous; that you will not renounce your own rights or serve as instruments to deprive your fellow subjects of theirs. Come then, my brethren, unite with us in an undissoluble union, let us run together to the same goal. We have taken up arms in defence of our liberty, our property, our wives and our children; we are determined to preserve them or die. We look forward with pleasure to that date not far remote, we hope, when the inhabitants of America shall have one sentiment and the full enjoyment of a free government.”
The reference to the little circle of noblesse blinding the people of Canada shows the line of argument which had been making the people, until lately so happy, now so discontented and disloyal. Will any impartial student of Canada under the French régime say that the Bostonians’ insinuation of oppression as being the habitual lot of the French Canadian peasants, was founded on fact? They had succeeded so far in unsettling for a time a people newly enfranchised with powers hitherto not entrusted to them, but the reaction will follow and the argument of slavery and oppression will fall on deaf ears. To the credit of the clergy, seigneurs and professional classes of this period be it said that they saved Canada.
If the French habitant was weak in 1775, watching which way to jump, he will be strong in 1812 and 1813 and the victory of Chateauguay, though but a “bush fight,” will serve to consolidate the British rule in Canada. It has been noticed that the French Canadian loyalty is of the “head” rather than of the “heart.” But the analogy between French Canadians and Scotchmen has also been pointed out. The latter point with pride to Bannockburn as well as to Waterloo. They, with the help of time, have a hearty affection for the Empire. So it is with the French Canadians in a more and more growing manner.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] There must have been a miscellaneous collection of canoes, and one or two bateaux.
[2] A transcript lately issued by the Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Society of Montreal, of the expense book of the commissary under Arnold which has entries from February to May, 1776, goes to show that, to give the invader his due, large sums of money were disbursed for beef and other supplies. During the war bread was very dear and wheat was scarce. A brown loaf cost thirty sols or 1 s. and 3 d. a pound; white, 25 sols, or 1 s. ½ d. a pound.
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.
Meanwhile the efforts of Montgomery and Arnold with a force of about one thousand, five hundred men, among whom were the Canadians under Major Duggin, formerly a Quebec barber, were engaged in besieging Quebec, a more difficult task than they expected. On the last day of 1775 Montgomery met his death. Arnold was wounded in the foot and many of the congress soldiers had caught the smallpox. Still the siege went on, although under great depression. The death of Montgomery had placed General Wooster in command of the province till the appointment of General Charles Lee in February. “For God’s sake,” wrote Arnold to Wooster at Montreal on December 31st, “order as many men as you can possibly spare consistent with the safety of Montreal.”
But Wooster had his own troubles. The Canadians around him could not be relied on. Besides he had no cash. Price, of Montreal, who had enticed the Americans over, had enabled them to subsist as an army, having already advanced about £20,000; but now he was “almost out of that article himself,” and could find no one in the city willing to lend. (Price to General Schuyler, January 5th.) Wooster, therefore, looked upon Montreal as the place to be reserved for a retreat. “I shall not be able to spare any men to reinforce Colonel Arnold,” he wrote to Schuyler on January 5th. “What they will do at Quebec for want of money God only knows, but none can be spared from Montreal.” Yet in the last week of January Wooster had been enabled to send about one hundred and twenty from Montreal.
During February Wooster’s letters from Montreal were gloomy: “Our flour is nearly expended, we have not more than enough for the army for one week; we can purchase no provisions or wood or pay for the transporting of anything without hard cash. Our credit sinks daily. All the provisions and wood that we want for the army for two or three weeks to come must be purchased and transported to camp by the middle of March. There will be no passing for a month or six weeks; these things must be provided immediately, or the consequences will be dreadful.”
In Montreal, Wooster found other trouble. The clergy were in favour of the British régime. On January 6th, writing to Warner, the commandant wrote: “The clergy refuse absolution to all who have shown themselves our friends and preach damnation to all those who will not take up arms against us.” Then there was nothing but paper money, which had little value, seeing that it might never be redeemed. At Quebec and Montreal men were forced to serve congress, even when legally freed. Quarrels between the military authorities such as that between Schuyler and Wooster were not edifying to the Canadians, used to harmony in government. A mutiny arose among the soldiers who refused to go to serve at Quebec. Six ring leaders were flogged. On the 14th of January an ordinance of General Wooster appeared at the church doors forbidding anyone speaking against congress under penalty of being sent out of the province. It is to be owned that orders were given for the soldiers to live peacefully and honestly with their Canadian brethren, but in spite of this, there were many individual abuses, at least. The people began to feel that the strangers who came to them as suppliants to succour them, ruled them with military law at times despotic. General Lee gave an order to General Wooster which made the Montreal merchants consider their trade injured; he was told “to suffer the merchants of Montreal not to send any of their woolen cloths out of the town.”
The loyalists were named tories and Wooster became convinced “of the great necessity of sending many of their leaders out of the province,” and he would have sent Hertel de Rouville, the Sulpician Montgolfier, and many others out of the way, and it is said no less than forty sleds of indignant tories made the journey to Albany.[1] Carleton, be it remembered, took a long time before he requested Walker to leave the country. When expostulated with by a number of citizens Wooster answered: “I regard the whole of you as enemies and rascals.” He was unwise enough to have the churches shut up on Christmas eve. Altogether the reports, sent to Schuyler and others, indicated that there was great confusion in Montreal and Canada. Soon it began to appear as if nothing but terror was keeping the Canadians. A plot was laid as early as January to overcome the garrison of Montreal.[2] Secretly many were combining under the royal flag.
Meanwhile at Quebec, Carleton pursued Fabian tactics and would not venture out into the open. He had seen this mistake made by Wolfe, and he had not been his quarter-master-general for nothing, so he waited for the ships from England to come, as indeed they did, at last, on May 6th, the Surprise leading, followed by the Isis and the Martin. The flight of the Americans to Montreal soon began.
At Montreal exciting circumstances had occurred at the American headquarters, the Château de Ramezay, which had been that of Gage, Burton and other British commandants since it had ceased being the seat of the East India Fur Company under the French regime.
On April 26th its doors had opened to General John Thomas on his arrival to take command of the army before Quebec, and its council chamber had been the scene of hasty conference with Arnold and other gentlemen. It was now to receive the commissioners from congress, long asked for by Montgomery and Schuyler, but only named and appointed on the 15th of February by the resolution “that a committee of three (two of whom to be members of congress) to be appointed to proceed to Canada, there to pursue such instructions as shall be given them by congress.” The instructions given later directed the commissioners to represent to the Canadians in the strongest terms that it was the earnest desire of congress to adopt them as a side colony under the protection of the Union and to urge them to take a part in the contest then on, that the people should be guaranteed “the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion,” that the clergy should have the full, perfect and peaceable possession and enjoyment of all their estates and the entire ecclesiastical administration beyond an assurance of full religious liberty and civil privileges to every sect of Christians should be left in the hands of the good people of that province and such legislature as they should constitute. The commissioners started from New York on April 2d. They were men of mark--the great Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, described by John Adams as a “gentleman of independent fortune, perhaps the largest in America, one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand pounds sterling, educated in some university in France, though a native of America, of great abilities and learning, complete master of the French language, a professor of the Roman Catholic religion, yet a warm, a firm, a zealous supporter of the rights of America in whose cause he has hazarded his all.” With the commissioners was adjoined John Carroll, the brother of Charles. He was a clever ecclesiastic, become through the suppression of the Society of Jesus, an ex-Jesuit who was afterwards to become the first archbishop of Baltimore. Much reliance was placed on his intermediary overtures to the Canadian clergy. On their arrival at St. John’s the commissioners felt their first check. They had carried no hard cash with them. They were brought up at once against the fundamental difficulty. In their letter to congress on May 1st the commissioners wrote, “It is impossible to give you a just idea of the lowness of continental credit here from the want of hard money and the prejudice it is to our affairs. Not the most trifling service can be purchased without an appearance of instant pay in silver or gold. The express we sent from St. John’s to inform the general of our arrival there and to request carriages for La Prairie, had to wait at the ferry till a friend, passing, changed a dollar for us into silver.” This friend, a Mr. McCartney, had also to pay for the calèches for La Prairie or they would have had to remain stranded.
They reached Montreal on April 27th and were received by Arnold with some ostentation at the Château, where guests among the French ladies were invited to meet them. That night after supper the commissioners lodged in Thomas Walker’s house.
Walker’s house was that originally built by Bécancourt, which became the depôt of the Compagnie des Indes. It passed finally into the McGill family. It stood immediately west of the Château de Ramezay. It was demolished in 1903.
With the commissioners there came about the same time the French printer, Fleury Mesplet. He was brought, along with his printing press, to spread campaign literature for the congress. His press was soon installed in the basement of the Château. It had been his press in Philadelphia from which the original proclamation of 1775 to the Canadians originated. He became the first printer of Montreal. The first book published by him is supposed to be “Réglement de la Confrèrie de l’Adoration Perpetuelle du Saint Sacrément et de la Bonne Mort, chez F. Mesplet et C. Berger, 1776.”[3] Another book bearing the same date, 1776, and published by Mesplet at Montreal, is “Jonathan et David, ou le Triomphe de L’Amitié,” tragedie en trois actes, representèe par les ecoliers de Montréal, a Montréal chez Fleury Mesplet et C. Berger, Imprimeurs et Libraires, 1776.
John Carroll early began to get in touch with the clergy, but he found an impenetrable barrier--the clergy had nothing to gain by swerving from their allegiance to England. What more than the Quebec act could the provincials give them? They feared the intolerance of the Americans. Had they not seen Wooster’s conduct? They were now offering religious freedom, but the clergy could not forget the letter addressed by congress to the British people in 1774, after the Quebec act, containing this significant sentence: “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has deluged your island in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”
The political arguments of the commissioners were of no avail, either. The great Continental Congress was there before their eyes, and the great Continental Congress was bankrupt. The paper money was discredited. Not all Charles Carrol’s wealth was of avail, unless it were in hard cash. An urgent request was sent to Philadelphia to send £20,000 in specie. Only one-twelfth of this could be promised.
There were other grievances, but most were from the non-payment of money lent or furnished for supplies. On the commissioners fell the superintendence of the army. This was no easy task, as provisions were giving out. Smallpox was breaking out among the soldiers. The commissioners were not trained to rule the army and in the confused state of affairs they recognized the failure of their mission. In their letter of May 17th to congress they said: “The possession of this country must finally be settled by the sword. We think our stay here no longer of service to the publick * * * and we await with impatience the further orders of the congress.”
The commissioners in their first report from Montreal blamed Wooster and declared him totally unfit for his command; the state of Canada was desperate; everything was in confusion, there was no discipline, the army unpaid, credit exhausted. “Such is our extreme want of flour that we were obliged yesterday to seize by force sixteen barrels to supply the garrison with bread. We cannot find words to describe our miserable condition.”
To crown the difficulty of the commissioners, the news of the Quebec disaster and flight reached their ears on the 9th of May. “Every military plan and hope staggered under the shock. Montreal became a stormy sea.” Dreading that one of the British frigates, which were ascending the river but with an unfavourable wind, would run up and cut them off, the commissioners began to prepare to leave the city.
The state of Montreal after the news of Quebec, is well described by Justin H. Smith in “Our Fight for the Fourteenth Colony,” (Vol. II, page 374): “Montreal is listening eagerly for his drum (Captain Young’s of St. Anne’s Fort).” Hazen had declared a month before, “There is nothing but plotting and preparations making against us throughout the whole district.” When it was proposed to abandon the town after the news of the flight from Quebec arrived, Arnold feared the people would attack his departing troops. On all sides the tories whom Ripley had found very plenty in March but mostly living like woodchucks underground, were now showing noses and even feet. The commissioners, getting daily intimations of plots hatching and insurrections intended, had abandoned perforce the rôle of dispensing pure liberty, filled the jails with malcontents and sent others into the exile they had lately protested against, but these measures did not reach the seat of the trouble. Night after night a rising was talked of and expected; Lieutenant Colonel Vose would go round the barrack, waken the men coming down with smallpox and make them dress themselves and load their guns. “If they do take us it shall not be for nothing,” he quietly said.
On the morning of May 17th Benjamin Franklin left, accompanied by Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Price.[4] Next day he was joined by Father Carroll and the party ascended Lake Champlain for New York. Walker joined them later and both were left at Albany, “civilly but coldly.” So he passes out of the history of Montreal.
The other commissioners, Carroll and Chase, left Montreal on May 29th for Chambly for a council of war; on the 31st they left St. John’s; on the 2d of June they left for Crown Point, a distance of 106 miles. Thus ended their unsuccessful mission.
How finally the congress troops were driven out of the country, how the additional reinforcements arrived at Quebec on June 1st under Burgoyne, is Canadian history beyond that of Montreal. Suffice it to say that by June 17th things had become so hot in Montreal for Arnold who saw that the junction of the Canadas with the colonies was now at an end, that the evacuation commenced on this day. In two hours, the sick, the baggage and the garrison, reduced by this time to 300 men, embarked on eleven bateaux and in two hours more a procession of carts, escorted by the troops, set out from Longueuil for La Prairie.[5]
Wilkinson, who was Arnold’s aide-de-camp in Montreal, has placed it on record “that among the property on the bateaux was the merchandise obtained by Arnold in Montreal. It was transferred to Albany and sold for Arnold’s benefit.” “This transaction is notorious,” says Wilkinson (Volume I, page 58), “and excited discontent and clamour in the army; yet it produced no regular inquiry, although it hurt him in the esteem of every man of honour and determined me to leave his family on the first proper occasion.”
NOTE I
PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED
That those of the French Canadians of the better class who sided with the Bostonians were very few is evinced by a list sent by Carleton to Lord George Germain on May 9, 1777. There is only one French name mentioned and that is Pelissier, of Three Rivers, who was a Frenchman from France. The list is referred to in a postscript by Carleton as follows: “Enclosed your Lordship will receive a list of principal leaders of sedition here. We have still too many remaining amongst us that have the same inclination, though they at present act with more caution and so much subtlety as to avoid the punishment they justly deserve.” The enclosure is headed “List of the principal persons settled in the province who very zealously served the rebels in the winter of 1775-1776 and fled upon their leaving it, the place they were settled at, and the country are natives of as England, Scotland, Ireland, America or France.”
At Quebec two Englishmen, two Scotchmen and seven Americans are named. At Three Rivers, Pelissier, a Frenchman. At Montreal were named:
Thomas Walker E Lived many years at Boston. Price A} Great zealots, originally barbers. Heywood A} Edward Antill A Lieutenant colonel and * * * Moses Hazen A Half-pay lieutenant of the 44th. Colonel of the rebel army.
Joseph Bendon or Bindon E William Macarty or McCartney A Joseph Tory and two brothers A David Salisbury Franks A Livingston and two brothers A The eldest, lieutenant colonel; second, major; and youngest, captain. John Blake A Carried goods down to the colonies in winter and did not return. The first known to be a rank rebel. ---- Blakeley A
NOTE II
DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES
Lossing’s Field Book--Vol. I, p. 195--thus describes the dress of the invaders: “Each man of the three rifle companies (Morgan’s, Smith’s and Hendrick’s) bore a rifle-barreled gun, a tomahawk or small axe, and a long knife, usually called a scalping knife, which served for all purposes in the woods. His underdress, by no means in a military style, was covered by a deep ash-coloured hunting shirt,--leggings and moccasins, if the latter could be procured. It was a silly fashion of those times for riflemen to ape the manners of the savages. The Canadians who first saw these (men) emerge from the woods said they were vêtus en toile--‘clothed in linen.’ The word ‘toile’ was changed to ‘tôle,’ iron plated. By a mistake of a single word the fears of the people were greatly increased, for the news spread that the mysterious army that descended from the wilderness was clad in sheet-iron.
“The flag used by what was called the Continental troops, of which the force led into Canada by Arnold and Montgomery was a part, was of plain crimson, and perhaps sometimes it may have had a border of black. On the 1st of January, 1776, the army was organized and the new flag then adopted was first unfurled at Cambridge at the headquarters of General Washington, the present residence of the poet Longfellow.
“That flag was made up of thirteen stripes, seven red and six white, but the Union was the Union of the British flag of that day, blue bearing the Cross of St. Andrew combined with the Cross of St. George and a diagonal red cross for Ireland. This design was used by the American army till after the 14th of June, 1777, when Congress ordered that the Union should be changed, the Union of the English flag removed and in its place there should be a simple blue field with thirteen white stars, representing the thirteen colonies declared to be states.
“Since then there has been no change in the flag, except that a star is added as each new state is admitted.”
W.C. HOWELLS.[6]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Among those banished by Wooster was St. Luc de la Corne. He had been well treated under the British régime and was one of the first legislative council formed by Carleton. He is reported to have been a trimmer during the late troubles.
[2] One advantage in holding Montreal was that British supplies and presents for the savages could not reach the interior that way. Yet the Americans had little means of supplying the Indian trade. To meet the difficulty, the commissioners, desirous of being on good terms with the Indians up country, offered early on their arrival, passports to all traders who would enter into certain engagements to do nothing in the upper country prejudicial to the continental interests.
[3] The first book published in Canada is believed to be “Catéchisme du Diocèse de Sens Imprimé a Quebec, chez Brown et Gilmour, 1765.” The latter were the proprietors of the Quebec Gazette, the first journal, established on June 21, 1764. The Gazette Littéraire appeared in French, June 3, 1778, and in French and English.
[4] Mrs. Price, according to Franklin’s letter to the commissioners, had three wagon-loads of baggage with her. The Walkers “took such liberties in taunting at our conduct in Canada that it almost came to a quarrel. I think they both have an excellent talent in making themselves enemies and I believe even here they will never be long without them.” (Franklin’s Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 182-3.)
[5] On July 4, 1776, the American Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and in 1781, on July 9th, the Articles of Confederation were ratified.
[6] Cf. Lemoine’s “Picturesque Quebec.”
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 LOYALIST--THE DIVISION OF THE PROVINCE PROJECTED--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791. NOTE: MONTREAL NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN 1784.
Montreal was again occupied by the British in the last week of June.[1] Sir John Johnson arrived about this time with 200 followers. On June 28th Carleton held a meeting in the Jesuit church of about three hundred Iroquois who offered their services. The Caughnawagas, of whom some were present, were blamed for their neutrality during the war. An arrangement was entered into for the services of the Iroquois for a year. As the ceremony ended the braves passed by Carleton, each one giving him his hand. On July 18th Carleton, still in Montreal, received a deputation of about one hundred and eighty Indians from the west offering their active service to their great father, the king of England, and to their father Carleton. They were received graciously and sent away happy.
Before leaving, Carleton issued commissions for the creation of judges in the districts of Montreal and Quebec; a court of appeal was established and judges were given authority to examine into, and report on, the damages suffered during the invasion of the Congress troops.
On the 20th of July 4 the governor returned to Quebec to reestablish the courts of justice and to restore the legislative council to its functions. Mr. Fraser, who had been judge of the Court of Common Pleas at Montreal since 1764 was at this time a prisoner among the rebels. In the meantime Carleton, unable to get on with Lord St. Germain, the secretary in England, resigned his position on June 27th, but he did not leave the country till June 27th of the following year, 1777, when he was replaced by Haldimand.
Meanwhile Congress still eyed Canada with longing. On the 4th of July the eleventh article of “confederation and perpetual union” provided that Canadas acceding to the confederation and joining in the measures of the Union “shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union, but no other colony shall be admitted to the same unless such admission shall be agreed to by nine states.” In 1793 another bill was introduced into the United States Congress for the admission of Canada, as one or more of the United States, whenever asked with the consent of Great Britain.
During the year 1777 young Marquis de Lafayette, who had joined the continental army and had become a major general, backed by Silas Deane, Major General Horatio Gates and those who thought they could use him as a Frenchman to promote the political views of the congress in Canada, was appointed with an independent command to make an inroad into Canada, Montreal being his objective. He was to prevail upon the people to confederate with the States, but there was not wanting opposition to ruin the Canada expedition lest it should ruin Congress, among these being Gouverneur Morris and Arnold. Finally the mortified Lafayette was recalled to the “grand army.” But those who promoted him on the grounds of using him and the affection of the French in Canada for France, as a lever in the present situation were soon rejoiced with an alliance with France. Lafayette’s projected descent on Montreal had come to naught, but what could be expected now that the news of an alliance between France and America became known? The symptoms became evident of universal unrest. Montreal, already in ferment, was further disturbed in November by a proclamation to the Canadians which was spread broadcast through the parishes and seems to have unsettled many of the best minds as well as those of the hitherto disaffected, but who were settling down to loyalty again. It came from the Comte d’Estaing, who had sailed from Toulon in May, 1778, in command of a French fleet of twelve ships of the line and six frigates, to throw in their lot with the Americans. It was a move long thought of secretly, perhaps long previously nurtured in the circle of the seigneurs around Montreal. The longings for the old régime, it had been thought, had died down. The new appeal carried weight not for any love for Congress or sense of injustice or tyranny evoked on the part of the English government, but from the powerful reminiscences it awoke. It is said that even the clergy wavered.
The proclamation was dated from the “Languedoc in the harbour of Boston, October 28, 1778.” It opened with the statement that the undersigned was authorized by His Majesty to offer assistance to all who were born to taste the sweets of his government. “You were born French. There is no other house so august as that of Henry IV, under which the French can be happy and serve with delight.” He did not need to appeal to the companions in arms of M. le Marquis de Lévis, to those who had seen the brave Montcalm fall in their defence. “Could such fight against their kinsmen? At their names alone the arms should fall from their hands.” The priests were promised particular protection and consideration against temporal interests. He then argued that it were better for a vast monarchy having the same religion, the same customs and the same language to unite for commerce and wealth with their powerful neighbours of the United States than with strangers of another hemisphere who as jealous despots would doubtless, sooner or later, treat them as a conquered race. “I will not suggest to a whole people when it is gaining the right to think and act, and understand its interest, that to link itself with the United States is to seek its happiness; but I will declare, as formally I do in the name of His Majesty who authorized and commanded me so to act, that all the former subjects of North America who will no longer recognize the supremacy of England may count on His Majesty’s protection and support.”
This proclamation which said ten words for France and one for Congress, did not please even the leaders of the Revolution. Washington viewed it with suspicion for he suspected it meant eventual separation with the advantage all for the French. In Canada it was most successful. It played adroitly upon the hopes, ambitions, pride, vanity, race instincts and dearest memories, so that Haldimand noted in 1779 “a very visible alteration amongst all ranks of men.” This alteration continued for some time for Haldimand wrote later: “I have for many months observed in the Canadian gentry expectations of a revolution.”
The war of 1775 had delayed the putting into force of the Quebec act of 1774. In 1777 the work of readjustment took place. But on the 2d of April, 1778, the merchants of Quebec and Montreal, through a committee of them then in London, returned to the charge of petitioning Lord George Germain for the repeal of the Quebec act. They again demanded trial by juries and the commercial laws of England. They claimed that the Quebec act reintroduced the feudal system and in consequence the system of forced corvées and other compulsory services without any emoluments whatever during the war; hence discontent and dissatisfaction with His Majesty’s government had crept up. For these reasons the memorialists “humbly entreat Your Lordship to take into consideration the dangerous and confused situation of this colony and grant us your Patronage and assistance in endeavoring to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act, the source of these Grievances, and an establishment in its stead of a free Government by an assembly or Representation of the People agreeable to His Majesty’s Royal Promise contained in the proclamation made in the year 1763.”
Haldimand in 1780, after an experience of upwards of two years in the country, wrote to Germain a direct negative. “It Requires but Little Penetration to Discover that had the System of Government Solicited by the Old subjects been adopted in Canada this colony would in 1775 have become one of the United States of America. * * * On the other hand the Quebec Act alone has prevented, or can in any Degree prevent, the Emissaries of France from succeeding in their Efforts to withdraw the Canadian Clergy and Noblesse from their allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain. For this reason among many others this is not the time for innovations and it cannot be Sufficiently inculcated on the part of Government that the Quebec Act is a Sacred Charter granted by the king and Parliament to the Canadians as a Security for their Religion, Laws and property. * * * The clamour about the trial by juries and Civil Causes is calculated for the Meridian in London; in Canada Moderate and upright Men are convinced of the abuses to which that institution is liable in a Small Community where the jurors may be all Traders and very frequently either directly or indirectly connected with the Parties. * * * Be assured, My Lord, that however good the institution of Juries may be found in England, the People of this Country have a great aversion to them.”
On September 2d the definitive treaty of peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America was signed at Paris. As soon as this was known the British population at Montreal with that of Quebec again began agitating for a change in the constitution. Their numerical strength was little, but their activity great. Four years later Mr. Hugh Finlay, postmaster general and member of the council, writing on October 2, 1784, to Sir Evan Nepean criticizing the agitation for an assembly says: “The advocates for a House of Assembly in this Province take it for granted that the people in general wish to be represented; but that is only a guess for I will venture to affirm that not a Canadian landowner in fifty ever once thought on the Subject and were it proposed to him he would readily declare his incapacity to Judge of the Matter. Although the Canadian Peasants are far from being a stupid race they are at present an ignorant people from want of instruction; not a man in 500 among them can read. The Females in this Country have a great advantage over the males in point of Education. * * * Before we think of a house of Assembly for this country let us lay the Foundation for useful Knowledge to fit the people to Judge of their Situation and deliberate for the future wellbeing of the Province. The first step towards this desirable End is to have a free School in every Parish. Let the schoolmasters be English if we would make Englishmen of the Canadians; let the Masters be Roman Catholic if it is necessary, for perhaps the people at the instigation of their Priests would not put their children under the tuition of a Protestant.”
The English population of Quebec and Montreal did not think with Finlay, for two days later, on November 24th, at Quebec, they presented a petition for a House of Assembly outlining a definite plan which they had never done before, having always left it to his Majesty’s pleasure. It was the most numerously signed document as yet appearing, bearing over two hundred and thirty-three Quebec names, with, about eighteen of Three Rivers and two hundred-forty-six in Montreal.
On November 30th, a counter meeting was held in a convent of the Recollects and the objections of the French Canadians to the petition above were registered, at the same time an address was drawn up to the king briefly stating that the House of Assembly “is not the unanimous wish nor the general Desire of your Canadian People who through Poverty and the misfortunes of a recent war of which this colony has been the Theatre are not in condition to bear the Taxes which must necessarily ensue and that in many respects the petition for it appears contrary to and inconsistent with the wellbeing of the New Catholic Subjects of Your Majesty.” On the 25th of February next, 1785, the seigneurs and leading men were authorized at meetings held in the parishes to sign a petition against any change as advocated by the petition of 1784.
While the constitutional struggle is going on and preparations are being made for the drafting of some inevitable amendments to the Quebec act, we may now turn to an important move being agitated to promote a larger sense of civic progress and municipal freedom. The history of the future municipality of Montreal may now be said to be in its conceptional stage.
In November of 1786 the merchants and citizens of Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers were taken into consideration by a committee of the Council of Legislature who asked them to give their views on the state of the external and internal commerce and the police of the province. The Montreal names given in the invitation are: Neven Sylvestre, E.W. Gray, St. George Dupré, James McGill, Pierre Guy, James Finlay, J.S. Goddard, Pierre Messiere, Pierre Fortier, Hertel de Rouville, John Campbell, Edward Southouse, Alexander Fraser, Jacques Le Moyne, Benj. Frobisher, Stephen de Lancey, Esq., and Messrs. Jacob Jordan, Isaac Todd, Forsyth J. Blondeau, P. Perinault, Richard Dobie, F. Chaboillez, McBeth and William Pollard, merchants. These who appreciated the courtesy of being taken into consideration thought it their duty to “call in and collect the general voice of our citizens without delay.” “The report of the Merchants of Montreal by their Committee to the Honorable Committee of Council on Commercial Affairs and Police” subsequently appeared dated Montreal, 23d January, 1787, and contained observations on various points: e. g., “the establishment of a chamber of commerce duly incorporated.”
This had been already promoted in Quebec ten years previously and a plan presented on April 3, 1777. The object of this Quebec plan, according to Shortt and Doughty (Constitutional Documents) was to avoid bringing commercial matters into the regular courts where under the Quebec act the French and not the English civil law was made the basis of decision. The virtual effect of this plan, had it been authorized, would have been to set up a legislative, executive and judicial system within the Province to govern the trade relations of the members of the Chamber; and this in time must have involved the trade of others dealing with them. The observation of the Montreal committee on this is: “However beneficial to Trade and Commerce, Institutions of this nature be considered, yet we are of opinion that the same would prove ineffectual and inexpedient at this time; considering the connection that subsists more or less among the Trading People of this Place.” Observations were also returned on “Holding tenures and the abolition of Circuits,” “The present establishment of Appeals in Commercial Causes,” “The establishment of a Court of Chancery” on “a register of all deeds,” on a “Bankrupt Law,” and on the subject of Police in city administration in general.
There also were a number of important observations made of a historical value. The first to be quoted heralds the idea of a charter of corporation for Montreal. The question had also been put for Quebec: “Whether or not we should apply for a charter, incorporating a select number of citizens on some good and Improved Plan with Powers to make By-laws, deeds, Civil and Criminal Causes under certain restrictions, whether under the stile and Title of Recorder, Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City and County of Quebec and the Precincts and Liberties thereof or under any other Denomination,”--and similarly for a like charter for Montreal. The observation of the Montreal Committee was as follows:
“The bad state of the Police of this Town calls loudly for Reform and tho’ Government in its Wisdom has attended thereto by the Appointment of an Inspector of Police, yet we are sorry that the Appointment has in no wise proven adequate to the Intent, and by Experience we find that the exertions of the Magistrates are not sufficient to remedy the Evil complained of. We beg leave to point out as the only remedy that can be applied with Effect the incorporating by Charter, of a select number of the Citizens of Montreal on a good and approved Plan with such Powers and privileges as are usually granted to Corporations for the purpose of Police only. And we further beg to request that in case the Honorable Council should approve of this move and Government inclined to grant the same, That it be recommended to His Excellency, Lord Dorchester, to bestow on the Corporations such lots of Ground and Houses, the Property of the Crown, within the Town and Suburbs of Montreal as Government has no present use for in order to the same being applied towards the Erecting Schools, workhouses and other Establishments of Public Utility.”
Other observations followed on the necessity of regulations to reduce the number of liquor licenses for public houses, and for the avoidance of fires, to enact that no wooden fence or building of wood of what description soever be erected in the town of Montreal in future under a severe penalty.
But the idea of a Municipal Corporation though now sown was not to fructify till many years later. In the meantime the civic government by justices of the peace or magistrates obtained as before.
We must now return to the final stages of the Constitutional struggle for an Assembly. An important factor has now entered into the political aspect of the province, namely the advent of the United Empire Loyalists, now beginning to leave the United States for a wider freedom to settle on the lands above Montreal, as were also the disbanded troops, a move which did much more than anything else to promote the movement for an assembly, and to point the direction in which the amendments to the Quebec act must follow.
On April 11, 1786, Sir John Johnson, then in London, presented a petition from the officers of the disbanded troops praying for a change in the tenure of land. They prayed for the establishment of a district from Point au Baudet upwards, distinct from the province of Quebec, in which they prayed that “the blessings of the British laws and of the British government and an exemption from the French tenures,” might be extended to them. There is no doubt, as Lord Dorchester[2] remarked in his letter of June 13, 1787, that the English party had gained strength by the arrival of the loyalists and the desire for an Assembly would no doubt increase.
At this time the movement for dividing the country into an upper and lower province began. It was thought premature by Dorchester. But the act of 1791 thought otherwise. By February 9, 1789, according to the letter of Hugh Finlay, “the great question whether a House of Assembly would contribute to the welfare of this Province in its present state has been so fully discussed that the subject is entirely exhausted; both old and New Subjects here who have openly declared their sentiments now Composedly await the decision of the British Parliament with respect to Canadian affairs.”
In the Montreal district the seigneurs held their old position while the merchants never budged from their original demand in general for an assembly though their plans had been greatly modified. The next two years were spent in preparing drafts for the Constitutional act which was passed in 1791 under the title of “An act to repeal certain Parts of an Act” passed in the Fourteenth Year of His Majesty’s Reign entitled “an Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America and to make further Provision for the Government of the said Province.”
Owing to the uncertainty of the maintenance of peace with Spain in 1789, the Canada act was not introduced into parliament until 1790. On the 7th of March, 1791, Pitt introduced the bill to divide Canada into two provinces. The bill became a law on the 14th of May, 1791. It divided Canada into two parts, Lower and Upper; each province was to have an executive council appointed by the crown, Lower Canada to have no less than fifteen members and Upper Canada no fewer than seven; each was to have a legislative assembly, the members for Lower Canada to be no less than fifty and those for Upper Canada to be no less than sixteen.
The long struggle of the Merchants of Montreal for an assembly was at last ended.
NOTE
MONTREAL NAMES ATTACHED TO THE PETITION FOR AN ASSEMBLY. DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1784
These are given as an indication of the national origins of the citizens of the period.[3]
Jacob Jordan, James McGill, James Finlay, Benj^n Frobisher, Nicholas Bayard, William Kay, Alex^r Henry, J. Blackwood, Geo. McBeath, Jn^o Askwith, William Allen, Joseph Frobisher, Hugh Ross, Angus Cameron, Alexander Hay, Charles Paterson, Sam^l Birnie James Dyer White J. McKinnsy, Jacob Ruhn, Fran Winton, John Forsyth, John Franks, William Harkness, Wm. Griffin, Rosseter Hoyle, Robert Griffin, Abraham Hart, Samuel Gerrard, Colin Hamilton, Laurence Taaffe, W^m H^y McNeill, Charles Smyth, Angus Macdonald, John Smith, Da^d Lukin, James Cameron, G. Young, Felix Graham, John Gregory, J. Grant, David McCrae, John Lilly, Geo. Selby, W. Maitland, James Caldwell, R. Sym, Robert Jones, William Taylor, F. Bleakley, Jno. Bell, Alexander Campbell, I.R. Symes, Rob^t McGrigor, James Laing, R. Gruet, David Davis, John Russell, Thomas Sullivan, Rich^d Dowie, (Oliver Church, Late Lieu^t 2d B.K.R.R. New York), John Dusenberg, Ens^n Late Royal Rangers, samuel Burch, Levai Michaels, Henry J. Jessup, Isaac H^t Abrams, Isaac Hall, John Campbell, Donald Fisher, Jos. Forsyth, (H. Spencer, Lieu^t late 2d B.K.R.R., New York), Rich^d Pollard, John Grant, John McKindlay, W^m Packer, John McGill, Fra^s Badgley, Peter Pond, Tho^s Burn, Dav^d Alex^r Grant, Alex^r Fraser, Thomas Frobisher, John Ogilvy, Andrew Todd, Thomas Corry, Wal^r Mason, Gor. Moore, R.J. Wilkinson, James Noel, R. Cruickshank, John Rowland, E. Edwards, Thomas Forsyth, D. Sutherland, James Grant, Allan Paterson, John Ross, Levy Solomons, Levy Solomon, Jun^r, John Turner and Sons, Uriah Judah, Ch^y Cramer, Alex^r Henry, Adam scott, Alex^r Mabbut, Jonas schindler, William Hunter, Alex^r Walmsley, Henry Edge, Allex^r Martin, James McNabb, James Ruott, Thomas McMurray, Isaac Judah, Sam^l Judah, Laurence Costille, Saint Louis, Henry Campbell, John Bethune, Nom^d MacLeod, James MacKenzie, W^m Murray, James Finlay, Jun^r, J. Symington, J. Pangman, John Tobias Deluc, Cuthbert Grant, Robert Grant, Tho^s Nadenhuvet, James Foulis, William Bruce, John Macnamara, Daniel Sullivan, Finlay Fisher, John Stewart, David Mackenzie, Joseph Anderson, Paul Heck, Robert Thomson, Samuel Heck, Alex^r Milmine, Robert Smith, William Smith, Jacob Tyler, Char^s Grimesley, W^m Grimesley, Charles Lilly, Duncan Fisher, John Ridley, Alex^r Campbell, John Milroy, Joseph Hamly, Sam^l White, Sam^l Douney, C. Rolffs, W^m Hall, Geo. McDougall, Robert Lindsay, Ja^s Robertson, Tho^s Breckenridge, John Foulis, Francis Crooks, Geo. Edw. Young, George Aird, Joseph Provan, Simon McTavish, John Lawrence, Sam^l Embury, S. Anderson, Dan^l Daly, Rich^d Whitehouse, James Fraser, Rich^d Whitehouse, James Fraser, Alexander fraser, Rich^d Whitehouse, Levi Willard, Joseph Johnson, M. Cuthell, James Leaver, Tobias Burke, Rob^t McGinnis, Rich^d McGinnis, John Hicks, George Hicks, Stephen Milers, William Tilby, James Perry, Edward Corry, Stephen Waddin, Peter Smith, Owen Bowen, Peter Grant, J^s Chaorles, James Fairbairn, John Hughes, Ranald McDonald, Watkin Richard, jenbaptiste Lafrenay, Thomas Sare, And^w Cockburn, Tho^s Isbusther, Joseph Landrey, Robert Withers, David Ross, Abram. Holmes, William Fraser, William Hassell, David Ray, Thomas Busby, Sen^r, Thomas Busby, Jun^r, William England, Conrad Marsteller, William Creighton, Hugh Holmes, Jervis George Turner, R^d Warffe, James Nelson, Philip Cambell, Duncan Cumins, Henry Gonnerman, Firedrick Gonnerman, John Maxwell, Tho^s Little, Christ^r Long, Edward Gross, Nicholas Stoneman, Jn^o Daly, Tho^s Oakes, John Grant, Will^m Wintrope, Joel Andras, Thomas Fraser, Jn^o Lumsden, William Holmes, Nicholas Montour, Patrick Small, David Rankin, (Richard Duncan, Late Capn. Royl. Yorkers), Dunc^n Cameron, And^w Wilson, Donald McFonell, Angus McDonald, Ed. Umfreville, John Lockhart Wiseman,
(Parchment Copy) endorsed: In L^t Gov^r Hamilton’s N^o 2 of 9 Jan., 1785.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Montreal was occupied by General Phillips with the artillery including a company of the Hesse Hanon and the Twenty-ninth Regiment. McLeans’ Regiment and that of Sir John Johnson were quartered on the island and the Ninth Regiment at Ile Jésus.
[2] Sir Guy Carleton returned to Quebec as the Earl of Dorchester on August 23, 1786.
[3] A special chapter on National origins will be found in Part II of this volume.
XI. THE FUR TRADERS OF MONTREAL
THE GREAT NORTH WEST COMPANY
MERCHANTS--NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINS--UP COUNTRY TRADE--EARLY 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.
After the inefficient and unstable set of trade adventurers, sutlers and purveyors for the army who came in upon the heels of Amherst’s conquering band had been sifted, there remained a strong nucleus of substantial business men, whose connections were good in credit and in business methods, and who founded the basis of Montreal’s future mercantile success. We get an idea of the national origins or religion of some of the early settlers from the censuses prepared by government for jury service. In the last of 1765 there are 136 Protestant names and their birthplace, former occupation and present calling are given. Of these thirty-seven were from Ireland (mostly soldiers who became inn-keepers), thirty from England, twenty-six from Scotland, thirteen from New England, sixteen from Germany, six from Switzerland and one each from France, Canada, Lapland, Italy and Guernsey. The origin of three is undetermined.
The earliest merchants, as we have seen, were scored by Murray and afterwards by Carleton. The records of the “military courts” from 1760 to 1763 show that there was some cause for it. Yet it is pleasing to hear Murray writing as early as December, 1760, confess as follows: “I flatter myself you will pardon the liberty I take in troubling you with the enclosed (petition); it regards a set of men who have been very serviceable to His Majesty’s troops, who have run many risks and who have been induced to pour in their merchandise here for a laudable prospect of promoting trade at the invitation of Mr. Amherst, the commander in chief.”
Howard, Chinn and Bostwick was probably the first British firm in Montreal. Chinn became the deputy provost marshal and got the licenses from Quebec; he also himself traded up country. Joseph Howard shortly severed his connection with the firm and established himself successfully on St. Paul street. William Bostwick was a hatter but, hats not being in much demand, he joined the Indian trade.
Jew merchants early settled here; the earliest firm was probably that of the Levy Brothers, Solomon, Eleazer, Gershom and Simon. Gershom came with the soldiers, Eleazer in 1763, and the other two were already settled here by this date. The firm of Ezekiel Solomon & Company was established in 1764. Tobias Isenhout was a German sutler who prospered in the Indian trade, but was murdered in 1771 or 1772 on a business trip by Michel Dué, his French clerk, who was subsequently hanged under the mutiny act. The Honourable Conrad Gugy, a Swiss, settled in the Montreal district and became a legislative councillor. He died in April, 1786, and was buried in the Dorchester street cemetery. Lawrence Ermantinger arrived in 1762 and became a prosperous merchant. His name appears on many of the petitions sent from Montreal. Benjamin Price was another legislative councillor, coming to Canada in 1762 and died in 1768. James Price, of Price & Haywood, was from New England, as was his partner. James Price it was who abetted Ethan Allen in his march on Montreal. The name of Thomas Walker, another merchant, enters largely into Montreal history, as we have seen. James Finlay came to Montreal in 1762; he was the first of the Englishmen to reach the upper Saskatchewan, wintering at Nipawi House in 1771-2. He was one of those who established the first Protestant school in the city; one of the founders of the first Presbyterian church and one of the signers of the capitulation to Montgomery in 1775. Alexander Henry came to Montreal with the troops and became a great explorer in the Indian trade. One of his spells up country lasted fifteen years. He was one of the founders of the North West Company. In 1796 he retired from the Indian trade and lived to the age of eighty-four, dying in Montreal on April 4, 1824. The prosperous city merchants, McGill Brothers, John, James and Andrew, were all settled by 1774. The firm of McTavish, Frobisher & Company stands out as the actual founders of the North West Company, the rivals of the Great Company. Of the Frobisher Brothers, Benjamin seems to have settled first, before 1765. He died in 1787; Joseph retired from business in 1798; Thomas died ten years earlier at the age of forty-four. Simon McTavish came after the others.
The professions were not well represented by the English at this time. Dr. Daniel Robertson, a retired lieutenant from the forty-second regiment, practiced medicine in the city after the conquest and there was a Doctor Huntly. Edward Antill was the only English lawyer, moving here from New England in 1770. The first Protestant school master was an Irishman, John Pullman, brought from New York in 1773. The first Protestant divine was a Swiss, the Reverend Dr. Chatrand Delisle, who came in 1766. In striking contrast with latter-day practice, this clergyman’s name heads the list of the supporters of practically all applicants for liquor licenses in the city in his time.
The traders who left Montreal for the distant posts had no license office in the city. Recourse had to be made to Quebec, and the delay was annoying, although, no doubt, Edward Chinn, who was the deputy provost marshal, did his best for his fellow Montreal merchants. The value of the cargoes taken on the up-country ventures averaged about five hundred pounds, and their destinations, recorded on the passes, were mostly Oswegatchie, LaBarge, Niagara, Detroit, Michillimackinac and the Grand Portage on Lake Superior. The canoe men were voyageurs from Montreal and the district.
The following gives some idea of their ventures:
Monday, April 26, 1771, pass for Edward Chinn’s men--seven men--£550 merchandise, ten fusils, 500 pounds gunpowder, 350 pounds shot and ball.
No. 10--Ezekial Solomon (April 10, 1772)--two canoes to Michillimackinac, value £800; twenty men (La Prairie); 1,400 pounds shot and ball.
No. 21--Benj. and Jos. Frobisher--3 canoes for Grand Portage; merchandise £2,000, fusils 96, powder, 2,000 pounds, shot, etc., 1,300 pounds; liquor, 260 gals.; men, 28.
No. 10--Jas. and John McGill (March 10, 1773)--3 canoes; value about £1,500; 48 guns, etc.; 23 men.
No. 65--James Morrison--1 small bateau, Niagara (July 17, 1775)--4 men; 22 bales mdse.; 1 quarter cask wine; 1 bbl. loaf sugar; 1 bbl. coffee; 1 bbl. salt; 1 bbl. tea; 1 nest brass kettles.
In the beginning the merchants themselves would join the party; later, becoming richer, they entrusted it to an agent. On the return they brought down the pelts to Montreal, whence they were transferred by river sloops to Quebec for London, with which there was a close connection. The “Mdse.” carried was for Indian trade and contained scalping knives, hatchets, paints, blankets, hosiery, beads, etc.
We have spoken of the Montreal merchants after the capitulation of the city engaging in the fur trade.[1] As early as 1765 yearly attempts were made by the first adventurers to trade with the northwest beyond Michillimackinac, but with little success. In 1768 other adventurers joined, but in 1769 Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher formed a connection with Messrs. Todd and McGill. Gradually others were added. At first their canoes had difficulty in getting beyond Lake La Pluye, for the natives plundered their goods, but later they reached Lake Bourbon. This encouraged the traders to persevere and by 1774 new ports were discovered, hitherto unknown to the French. New adventurers followed in their wake, independently, and, without regard to the management of the Indians and the common good of the trade, soon caused disorder, so that many of the substantial traders retired, there only remaining at the latter end of 1782 twelve who persevered. These, convinced by long experience of the advantage that would arise from a general connection, not only calculated to secure and promote their mutual interests but also to guard against any encroachments of the United States on the line of boundary as ceded them by treaty from Lake Superior to Lake du Bois, entered upon and concluded articles of agreement under the title of the North West Company, dividing it into sixteen shares. These were arranged as follows: Todd & McGill, two shares; Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher, two shares; McGill & Paterson, two shares; McTavish & Company, two shares; Holmes & Grant, two shares; Walker & Company, two shares; McBeath & Company, two shares; Ross & Company, one share; Oakes & Company, one share. The above seemed to have been bound together about 1779, but the North West Company, as such, seems to date from about 1782 and for a “term of five years” as first promoted. (Benjamin Frobisher to Doctor McBane, April 1, 1784.)
The story of the North West Company founded at Montreal must now be told. The war of 1775-6 had sadly interfered with the trade of Montreal with the Indians up country. Haldimand set to work to help the traders to rebuild it. A report of April 24, 1780, of Charles Grant, one of the members of the North West Company, to Haldimand, reveals the enterprise of the founders of Montreal’s commercial prosperity, thus, that “at all times the trades of the upper countries had been considered the staple trade in this Province but of late years it has been greatly increased, in so much that it may be reckoned one year with another to have produced an annual return to Great Britain in Furrs to the amount of £200,000 sterling, which is an object deserving of all the encouragement and protection which Government can with propriety give to that trade. The Indian Trade by every communication is carried on at a great expense, labour and risk of both men and property; every year furnishes instances of the loss of men and goods by accident and otherwise; indeed few of them are able to purchase with ready money such goods as they want for their trade. They are consequently indebted from year to year until a return is made in Furrs to the merchants of Quebec and Montreal who are importers of goods from England and furnish them on credit. In this manner the Upper Country Trade is chiefly carried on by men of low circumstances, destitute of every means to pay their debts when their trade fails; and if it should be under great restraints or obstructed a few years the consequences will prove ruinous to the commercial party of this Province and very hurtful to the merchants of London, shippers of goods to this country, besides the loss of so valuable branch of trade in Great Britain. In these troublesome times the least stop to the Indian Trade might be very productive of very bad effects, even among the savages who are at present our friends or neuter, who on seeing no supply of goods would immediately change sides and join the enemies of the Government under pretense that the rebels had got the better of us and that we had not it in our power to supply them any more. All the property in the Upper Countries in such a case would become an easy prey to their resentment; and the lives of all of His Majesty’s Subjects doing business in these Countries at the time of a rupture of this nature might probably fall a sacrifice to the fury and rage of disappointed, uncivilized barbarians.”
He then gives an insight into the value of each canoe load: “I am informed that of late years, from ninety to one hundred canoes have annually been employed in the Indian Trade from Montreal by the communications of the Great River to Michillimackinac, Lakes Huron and Michigan, LaBarge, and the North West. * * * In this I shall insert the average value of a canoe load of goods at the time of departure from Montreal, Michillimackinac and at the Grand Portage. * * * A canoe load of goods is reckoned at Montreal worth in dry goods to the amount of £300, first sterling cost in England, with fifty per cent charges thereon makes £150; besides that every canoe carries about 200 gallons of rum and wine which I suppose worth £50 more, so that every canoe on departure from that place may be said worth £500, currency of this Province. The charges of all sorts included together from Montreal to Michillimackinac, £160, and from thence to the Grand Portage, £90; so it appears that each canoe at Michillimackinac is worth £660, currency; every canoe is navigated by eight men for the purpose of transporting the goods only and when men go up to winter they commonly carry ten.”
The report ends with an appeal for the early issue of passes. For “last year the passes were given out so late that it was impossible to forward goods to the places of destination, especially in the North West. Considering the great number of people in this province immediately interested in the Indian Trade it is hardly possible to suppose but there may be among them some disaffected men, but the major part of them I sincerely believe are sure friends to Government and it would be hard the whole community should suffer for the sake of a few bad men since regulations and laws are or may be made sufficiently severe to prevent in a great measure, or altogether, every effort that may be made to convey goods to the enemy and if any person, whatever, should attempt to ignore or violate such regulations as are made for the safety of the whole, the law ought to be put into execution against him with the utmost rigour on conviction of guilt and the offender never should be forgiven offences committed against the publick in general.” From which we may learn that our justly honoured pioneer Montreal merchants were law-abiding citizens and were not among the rebels of 1775-6.
This letter was followed by a memorial from the North West traders on May 11, 1780, asking for no let or hindrance to the departure of the canoes. The additional names of Adam Lymburner and J. Porteous appear adjoined to this.
On October 4, 1784, Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher, the directors of the North West Company, memorialized General Haldimand, praying him to recommend to His Majesty’s ministers to grant to the North West Company an exclusive privilege of trade from Lake Superior to that country for ten years only as a reward “for discovering a new passage to the River Ouinipigue and thereby effectively securing to this Province the Furr trade to the North West. And in consideration, also, of exploring at their own expense between the latitudes of 55 and 65, all that Tract of Country west of Hudson’s Bay to the North Pacific Ocean and communicating to Government such surveys and other information respecting that Country as it may be in their power to obtain.”
Mr. Peter Pond, one of the company, in memorializing Governor Hamilton on the 18th of April in the following year, begs him to recommend the memorial, already mentioned, of the Frobishers “as a plan which will be productive of Great National advantages” and the ten years’ exclusive monopoly as “only a reward for the toil and expense of such an arduous and public Spirited Enterprise.”
This company gained in strength. While its headquarters were in Montreal, it had “wintering” partners in the interior posts. Fort William became the meeting ground of the partners who were merchant princes of the period for the annual meetings which are described by Washington Irving in “Astoria” as marked with great splendour. It provided serious competition for the Hudson’s Bay Company. The policy of the latter had been only to trade in the winter with the natives, thus making a close season in summer. Their posts were at first all on the coast, but the competition forced them also to seek interior quarters. The contributions to our geographical knowledge provided by the earlier explorers of the first North West Company include the first overland journey to the Pacific Ocean made by Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1793 and his previous descent in 1789 from Lake Athabasca to the Arctic Ocean by the Mackenzie River, called after this explorer, from Montreal. The discovery of the Peace River must also be attributed to him.
In 1798, troubles arising among the partners, the seceding party formed a rival firm popularly known as the “X.Y.” from those initials following the W. in N.W. Company.[2] Jealous and rancourous friction arose again and the two companies were amalgamated in 1804 into one firm called the North West Company. It became a powerful body, purely Canadian and with exclusive privileges. Sir Alexander Mackenzie was its moving spirit and his cousin Roderick became one of the chief agents.
Meanwhile the great North West Company by 1806 had spread over the continent from the Great Lakes to the remote side of the Rocky Mountains and had established a trading post at Columbia River. By 1812 it had fifty agents, seventy interpreters and over one thousand one hundred voyageurs. Thus when the partners, mostly Scotchmen, met at Fort William they were surrounded by retainers and they acted like barons of old, the story of their feasting and lavishness lighting up the tale of the otherwise dreary days--the old north west days--and when they met at their famous Beaver Club in Montreal they added considerable magnificence to the social life of the city.
Meanwhile another rival to the North West Company was arising in the person of the founder of the Astor family. John Jacob Astor, born in the honest little village of Waldorf, near Heidelberg, on the banks of the Rhine, arrived in America in a ship bound for Baltimore in the month of January, 1783. In 1784 he settled in New York and soon turned his attention exclusively to the fur trade. The peltry trade not being regularly organized in the United States, he determined to go to Canada, the seat of the main supply. Accordingly he made annual visits to Montreal and thence shipped furs to London, as trade was not allowed otherwise than directly with the old country.
In 1794 or 1795 a treaty with Great Britain lifted the trade restrictions and a direct commercial intercourse was established with the United States. Mr. Astor then made a contract with the North West Company and he was now enabled to ship furs direct from Montreal to the United States for the home supply. In 1809 he obtained a charter from the legislature of New York state incorporating a company under the name of “The American Fur Company.” In 1811 he bought out the Anglo-Canadian Company, the “Mackinaw,” whose headquarters were at Michillimackinac, and merging it into the American Fur Company, called it the “South West Company,” or the “Pacific Fur Company,” as it afterwards became known. He associated with himself, as his agents several of those who had hitherto served the North West Company of Montreal, among these being Alexander McKay, who had accompanied Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1789 and 1793, Duncan McDougal and Donald Mackenzie. He planned headquarters at the north of the Columbia River. Accordingly the expedition was sent out in duplicate to the mouth of the Columbia River, one-half going on a six-months’ voyage around Cape Horn in a sailing vessel, the Iroquois, the other marching overland or canoeing on lakes and rivers in eighteen months from Montreal via the Mississippi and the Missouri, to the mouth of the Columbia River.
The voyageurs he got at Montreal in July, 1810, were not of the best, for the old rival North West Company had secretly interdicted the prime hands from engaging in the new service. It was not long after the party left Lachine for St. Anne’s that the “recruits enlisted at Montreal were fit to vie with the rugged regiment of Falstaff; some were able-bodied but inexpert; others were expert but lazy; while a third class were expert but totally worn, being brokendown veterans incapable of toil.” (“Astoria,” by Washington Irving, Chapter XII.)
These two parties together founded “Astoria” at the mouth of the Columbia. But most of Astor’s employees were British subjects derived from men of the North West and Mackinaw Companies, and when the 1812 War broke out between the United States and Great Britain a British warship came up the Pacific coast and promptly turned it into “Fort George.” Forthwith the North West Company bought up the derelict property of Mr. Astor’s company. British employees and a few Americans in the concern retreated inland and after almost incredible suffering from the attacks of unfriendly Indians succeeded in reaching the Mississippi.” (“Pioneers in Canada,” by Sir Harry Johnston.)
But the most powerful rival of the North West Company was to be found in the person of Lord Selkirk, who had bought two-fifths of the stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company. In May, 1811, he prevailed on the directors to grant him 160,000 square miles of territory in fee simple on condition he should establish a colony and furnish from the settlers men required by the company at a certain rate. In 1811 ninety persons, mostly Highland cotters from Sutherlandshire, with some emigrants from the west of Ireland, reached Hudson’s Bay, sent by Selkirk. Others followed in subsequent years. This may be regarded as the beginning of the North West Red River settlement. Its history was one of bitter rivalry for the Montreal company. This was felt all the more since Lord Selkirk, being a Douglas and a Scot, had after the failure of this first settlement in Canada at Buldoon received much hospitality and attention at Montreal from the Scottish merchants of the company, who had given him so much inside information on the subject of the fur trade industry that he had turned his thoughts to the Hudson’s Bay Company and become for many years the most determined opponent of his hosts. This opposition, to the extent of bloodshed, did not cease till the union of the two bodies as the reestablished Hudson’s Bay Company in 1821.
But the competition with Selkirk’s Hudson’s Bay party had brought sorry losses to both; no dividends were able to be paid by the North West and there was a loss of men on either side in the sanguinary incursions into one another’s territories. The amalgamation of 1821 was therefore not too soon. The union was followed by the gift of the government to the impoverished companies of the exclusive trade of the territory which, under the names of the Hudson’s Bay and North West territories, extended from Labrador to the Pacific and from Red River to the Arctic Ocean. The Hudson’s Bay Company, as the amalgamated company was called, held Rupert’s Land by perpetual charter and the rest of the territory, including Vancouver Island, granted to it in 1848 by special license till 1859, maintaining under its supreme rule about four million square miles. In 1860 it employed five surgeons, eighty-seven clerks, sixty-seven postmasters, 1,200 permanent servants and 500 voyageurs, making with temporary employees about three thousand men on its payroll, while about one hundred thousand Indians were actively engaged in supplying it with furs. Its profits were enormous, being from May 31, 1852, to May 31, 1862, an annual average of £81,000 on a paid-up capital of £400,000. In 1863 the company was reorganized with a capital of £2,000,000, with Sir Edmund Head as governor. After confederation the northwestern territories and Manitoba were joined to the Dominion on the indemnification of £3,000,000. This will be told in its place. Henceforth the old company, no longer a feudal government, is to play its part as one of the mercantile bodies of Canada, but one which still has a great civilizing power in the northern wilds of Canada.
THE BEAVER CLUB
“The members of the famous Beaver Club, constituted perhaps the most picturesque and magnificent aristocracy that has ever dominated the life of any young community on this continent, with the possible exception of the tobacco lords of Virginia. The majority of them were adventurous Scotsmen, but they included French-Canadians, Englishmen and a few Irishmen, and were thoroughly cosmopolitan by taste and associations.”
The Beaver Club was instituted at Montreal in the year 1785, by the merchants then carrying on the Indian trade of Canada. Originally the club consisted of but nineteen members, all voyageurs, having wintered in the Indian Country, and having been in the trade from their youth. Subsequently the membership was extended to fifty-five, with ten Honorary Members.
On the first Wednesday in December of each year, the social gatherings were inaugurated by a dinner at which all members residing in the town were expected to be present.
The club assumed powers which would, in the present day, be strongly resisted; among the most notable of them was the rule, that “no member shall have a party at his house on club days, nor accept invitations; but if in town, must attend, except prevented by indisposition.”
The meetings were held fortnightly from December to April and there was, in addition, a summer club for the captains of the fur vessels, who, in some instances, were honorary members.
The object of the meetings (as set forth in the rules) was “to bring together, at stated periods, during the winter season, a set of men highly respectable in society, who had passed their best days in a savage country and had encountered the difficulties and dangers incident to a pursuit of the fur trade of Canada.”
The members recounted the perils they had passed through and after passing around the Indian emblem of peace (the calumet), the officer appointed for the purpose, made a suitable harangue.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The effect of the conquest on the fur trade in the Northwest, according to Mr. Beckles Wilson, “The Great Company,” was that for awhile the Indians and the voyageurs and coureurs de bois awaited patiently for the French traders. Many of the French thus cut off intermarried with the Indians and virtually lived as such.
[2] The new North West Company were composed of Gregory and McLeod, now independent. It was first called the “little Company,” or the “Potties,” an American corruption of the French “Les Petit.” Later it developed into the X.Y. Company, or Sir Alexander Mackenzie’s Company. Alexander Mackenzie and his cousin, Roderick Mackenzie, became the chief agents of the new company. (Alexander Mackenzie was knighted in 1799.)
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.
The persistence of the English merchants had at last secured constitutional government with an assembly. It was inaugurated by the lieutenant-governor, Sir Alured Clarke, in the absence of Lord Dorchester in England, the day of its coming into effect being December 26, 1791. The division of the province into twenty-one counties with four town buroughs was made later in 1792, viz., Gaspé, Cornwallis, Devon, Hertford, Dorchester, Buckinghamshire, Richelieu, Bedford, Surry (sic), Kent, Huntingdon, York, Montreal, Northumberland, Orleans, Effingham, Leinster, Warwick, St. Maurice, Hampshire and Quebec. Each county returned two members except Gaspé, Bedford and New Orleans, returning one each. Quebec and Montreal were to return four each, Three Rivers two and William Henry (Sorel) one; in all fifty members.
The house met on December 17, 1792, there being about sixteen members of British origin, a proportion more or less maintained for forty-six years. The Catholic members, objecting to take the oath prescribed by the act of 1791, were allowed by Sir Alured Clarke to take that of the act of 1774. The meeting was held in the Bishop’s palace of Quebec hired by government and altered and repaired at a cost of £428. Chief Justice Smith was nominated speaker of the legislative council, the fifteen (legal number) members being J.G. Chaussegros de Léry, Hugh Finlay, Picotté de Belestre, Thomas Dunn, Paul Roc de St. Ours, Edward Harrison, François Baby, John Collins, Joseph de Longueuil, Charles de la Naudière, George Pownal, R.A. de Boucherville, John Fraser, and Sir Henry Caldwell, Receiver General, subsequently named.
The assembly met to chose a speaker. Mr. Joseph Antoine Panet, a lawyer of eminence in Quebec, was appointed. Montreal was represented in the west ward by James McGill and J.B. Durocher and in the east ward by Joseph Frobisher and John Richardson, the county being represented by James Walker and Mr. Joseph Papineau. French and English were both used from the beginning, being accepted as a matter of course without any formal resolution.[1] The first formal vote on the subject was taken a year later, on December 27, 1792, when the following motion was proposed by Mr. Grant, who accepted an amendment by Mr. Papineau “that it be an instruction of the committee of the whole house charged with the correctness of the minutes (or journals) that the digest they may prepare as the journal of the house from the commencement to the time of reference shall be in the English or French language, as it may have been entered in the original minutes without drawing into precedent for the future.”
Number 9 of the rules for conducting the business of the assembly ran:
“No motion shall be debated or put unless the same be in writing and seconded. When a motion is seconded it shall be read in English and French by the speaker if he is master of both languages. If not, the speaker shall read in either of the two languages most familiar to him and the reading in the other language shall be at the table by the clerk or his deputy before the debate.”
On the method of keeping the journals:
“Resolved, that this house shall keep its journal in two registers, in one of which the proceedings of the house and the motion shall be wrote in the French language, with a translation of the motions originally made in the English language; and in the other shall be entered the proceedings of the house and the motions in the English language with a translation of the motions originally made in the French language.”
Finally it was resolved that the rules for introduction of bills should be as follows:
“The bills relative to the criminal laws of England enforced in this province and to the rights of the Protestant clergy as specified in the act of the thirty-first year of His Majesty, Chapter 31, shall be introduced in the English language; and the bills relative to the laws, customs, usages and civil rights of this province shall be introduced in the French language in order to preserve the unity of the texts.”
On the 9th of May, 1793, Sir Alured Clarke in his speech from the throne was forced to make allusions to the first French revolution, which had been already four years in progress before the opening of the assembly of Lower Canada in December, 1792. The Bastille had fallen on June 17, 1789. “At the first meeting of the legislature I congratulated you,” he said, “upon the flattering prospects which opened to your view and upon the flourishing and tranquil state of the British empire, then at peace with all the world; since that period, I am sorry to find, its tranquility has been disturbed by the unjustifiable and unprecedented conduct of the persons exercising the supreme power in France, who, after deluging their own country with the blood of their own fellow citizens and embruing their hands in that of their sovereign, have forced His Majesty and the surrounding nations of Europe in a contest which involves the first interests of society.”
The king of France had been executed on January 21st and war with Great Britain had been declared on February 1st, although Great Britain had made every effort to avoid hostility. Washington had issued the proclamation of neutrality on April 22d, warning Americans of the penalties incurred by its infraction. The revolted provinces had first shown great sympathy with the French revolutionists. On the news of the evacuation of the allied forces which began on September 20, 1793, all New England seems to have lost its head: McMaster in his “History of the People of the United States” (Vol. II, page 13-14) says: “Both men and women seemed for a time to have put away their wits and gone mad with republicanism. Their dress, their speech, their daily conduct were all regulated on strict republican principles. There must be a flaming liberty cap in every house. There must be a cockade in every hat, there must be no more use of the old titles, Sir and Mr. and Dr. and Rev., etc.”
But later when the excesses of the Revolution began to be known excitement somewhat cooled. It was no pleasure, consequently, to Washington to hear on the day of the proclamation of neutrality that Genet, sent as minister by the French republic, had arrived at Charleston. Genet was well received on his way to Philadelphia, but was chilled by the reception given by Washington and left in a rage. (Archives Report, 1891, Douglas Brymner.)
Lower Canada was not uninfluenced by all this. Genet’s agents, or those of his successor, Fauchet, for Genet was superseded in February, 1794, had succeeded in creating a disaffected spirit among people. At Quebec there was an open manifestation of sedition on the parade. Kingsford tells how Prince Edward (Duke of Kent)[2] was in command of the Seventh Fusileers at Quebec when a threatened mutiny was suppressed. Several were charged on a plot to seize the Prince, the general and the officers. One man was sentenced to be shot, but at the Prince’s interception was spared. Three men were severally sentenced to 500, 700 and 400 lashes, one being a sergeant. The details cannot be traced. (Kingsford, Vol. VII, page 383.)
A descent on Canada by way of St. John’s and Lake Champlain was reported to be meditated by congress. In April, 1794, the authorities of Vermont had, as reported to Lord Dorchester, made an offer to Congress to undertake the conquest of Canada without assistance from the federal government, provided the troops were allowed to plunder the inhabitants, and in order to facilitate communications with the seditious of Montreal, Mason lodges were instituted in Vermont under pretended charters from lodges in Montreal.
On September 23d Dorchester arrived in Quebec; shortly Sir Alured Clarke returned to England. The second parliament was opened on November 11th. In January M. Chartier de Lothbinière succeeded M. Panet as speaker, the latter having been made judge of Common Pleas. At the end of November, 1793, Dorchester issued proclamations to take means against the French emissaries in the country. In May, 1794, orders were issued for the embodiment of 2,000 militia to be ready for service. The extent of the poisonous and seditious influences at work is shown by the fact that out of the 7,000 men fit for service in forty-two parishes only 900 men obeyed the law. Lord Dorchester attributed this unwillingness to serve as due more to long absence from military duty than disloyalty. The habitants were, however, dissatisfied, for though the hand of the government was easy they claimed to be oppressed by the expenses of the law and to be unprotected against the exactions of their seigneurs as they had been under the French intendants. (Dorchester to Dundas, May 24, 1794.)
The district of Montreal was reported to be universally disaffected, though the British subjects were loyal and well disposed. The militia law was opposed. At Côte de Neiges a party of habitants had become possessed of arms and were determined to defend themselves if attacked. As said, information was received that a Freemasons’ lodge had been established at Montreal in connection with a lodge in Vermont for the sole purpose of carrying out a traitorous correspondence with the disaffected. On all sides it was reported that the French were coming to seize Canada.
Attorney General Monk, writing from Quebec to Dundas on May 3, 1794, gives an alarming picture of the spread of French revolutionary principles becoming general. He states that threats were used by disaffected new subjects against the loyal new subjects; that it was astonishing to find the same savagery exhibited here as in France, in so short a period for corruption; that blood alliances did not check the menaces upon the non-compliant peasants of burning their houses, of death, emboweling, decapitation and carrying their heads on poles; that religion was being thrown aside. The intrigues had been traced to Genet and the French consuls; that correspondence had been carried on between the disaffected Canadians of the United States and Canada, and that French emissaries had been sent to prepare the people to follow the example of France.
A pamphlet, extracts from which have been preserved, was circulated in January, 1794, under the title of “les Français Libres a Leurs frères les Canadiens.” This pamphlet deserves the extracts extant being made known as indicating a picture of the feelings of the seditionary party. They are to be found in French in the Canadian Government Archives, Q 62, page 224.
The object was to encourage the Canadians “to emulate the example of the people of America and of France. Break then, with a government which degenerates from day to day, and which has become the most cruel enemy of the liberty of the people. Everywhere are found traces of the despotism, the avidity, the cruelties of the king of England. It is time to overthrow a throne which has been seated so long on hypocrisy and imposture. In no way fear George III with his soldiers, too small in number to successfully oppose your valour. The moment is favourable and insurrection is for you the holiest of duties. Remember that being born French you will always be envied and persecuted by the kings of England and that this title will be more than ever today a reason for exclusion from all offices. Also what advantages have you drawn from the constitution which has been given you since your representatives have been assembled? Have they presented you with a single good law? Have they corrected any abuse? Have they had the power to free your commerce from its shackles? No! And why not? Because all the means of corruption have been secretly and publicly employed to make the balance weigh in favour of the English. They have dared to impose an odious veto which the king of England has reserved only to prevent the destruction of abuses and to paralyze all your movements; here is the present which the vile stipendaries have dared to offer you as a monument of the beneficence of the English government. Canadians, arm yourselves. Call to your assistance your friends, the Indians; count on the help of your neighbours and on that of Frenchmen.”
A resumé is given of the advantages that Canadians will obtain in throwing over the English domination.
1. Canada will be a free and independent state.
2. It can form alliances with France and the United States.
3. The Canadians will choose their own government; they will themselves name the members of the legislative body and the executive power.
4. The veto will be abolished.
5. All persons who have obtained the right of citizenship in Canada can be named for all offices.
6. The Corvées will be abolished.
7. Commerce will enjoy a more extensive liberty.
8. There will be no longer any privileged company for the fur trade. The new government will encourage this trade.
9. The seigneurial droits will be abolished. The lods et ventes, the millrights, the tolls, the lumber reservations, work for the service of the seigneur, etc., will be equally abolished.
10. Hereditary titles will be also abolished. There will be no lords, seigneurs or nobles.
11. All cults will be free. Catholic priests named by the people as in the primitive church will enjoy a treatment analogous to their ability.
12. Schools will be established in the parishes and towns; there will be printing offices; institutions for the high sciences; medicine and mathematics. Interpreters will be trained who, known for their good morals, will be encouraged to civilize the savage nations and by this means to extend the trade with them.
In spite of these inflammatory circulars, and outside those immediately disaffected, the majority of the Canadians were in good disposition with the government. They would have resisted an American invasion without hesitation. When their own people tampered with them and offered to regain Canada to the French it is only natural that many should have been unsettled. But it must clearly be understood that the reports of the French emissaries being in the country were not the dreams of visionaries. It was expected in many quarters that Napoleon, the First Consul, would have redemanded Canada at the general treaty of peace. Canada was desired for the French “as an outlet for French products and for the means of speculation to an infinite number of Frenchmen who have no resources in their own country.” The last quotation occurs in a letter dated January 12, 1803, from France by an ex-Canadian, Mr. Imbert, to a brother of Judge Panet.
Yet a panegyric on the occasion of the death of Bishop Briand in 1794 reveals a change of opinion undergoing at this period with regard to the relations of the English and the French. “Ah!” cried the preacher, “how the perspective of our future formerly spread out bitterness in all Christian families! Each one mourned his unhappy plight and was afflicted not to be able to leave a country where the kingdom of God seemed about to be forever destroyed. No one could be persuaded that our conquerors, strangers to our soil, to our language, our law, our customs, our worship, could ever be able to give back to Canada what it had just lost in the change of masters. Generous nation! which has made us see with so much evidence how this prejudgment was false; industrious nation! which has made riches sprout forth which the bosom of this land enclosed; beneficent nation! which daily gives to Canada new proofs of your liberality; No! no! you are not our enemies, nor those of our properties which your laws protect, nor those of our religion, which you respect. Pardon this first mistrust in a people which had not yet the honour of knowing you.”
At Montreal some important arrests were made; one, Duclos, an active agent of the United States who had moved among the people confidently foretelling the invasion of the French, and a traitor named Costello, who was proved to have been diligent in circulating the incendiary pamphlets in French. To meet this disaffection Constitutional Associations were formed in Montreal and Quebec of the leading French Canadian and British loyalists. Gradually the sedition died down. But during the great fear of a French invasion there had been no little doubt and uncertainty among the mercantile classes as to the fate of the vessels that might be dispatched with cargoes on the St. Lawrence. Jay’s treaty, 19th of November, 1794, with Great Britain, for the amicable adjustment of all differences between it and the United States, was a potent factor in making for peace. It was finally agreed to in the senate of the United States in 1795, although the sympathizers of the French fought it determinedly.
In April, 1796, Dorchester, who had sent in his resignation, received official information that Gen. Robert Prescott had been appointed lieutenant governor of Lower Canada and commander-in-chief in North America. Prescott arrived at Quebec on the 18th of June and Dorchester sailed in July, being wrecked on the island of Anticosti, but, being taken off by a ship of war, reached his destination in safety. On the 18th of June, 1796, Sir Robert Prescott, Lord Dorchester’s successor, did not find matters in the province in a satisfactory state. The French republican designs on Canada were still represented in the Montreal district by many sympathizers. Riots were caused and the magistrates of Montreal seemed to have acted weakly, if not with connivance, so that a new commission of the peace was issued with several names omitted. The ostensible cause was opposition to the execution of the Road Bill, but in reality it was a disaffection stirred up by emissaries from the French republic, then in the province.
Attorney General Sewell had been sent to Montreal to get information and he reported the above to the executive council at Quebec on Sunday, October 30, 1796, on the authority of Messrs. de Lothbinière, McGill, Richardson, Murray, Papineau and others. He reported: “That a pamphlet of most seditious tendencies, signed by Adet, the embassador from the French republic to the United States, was now in circulation in the district. That this pamphlet bore the arms of the French republic and was addressed to the Canadians assuring them that France, having now conquered Spain, Austria and Italy, had determined to subdue Great Britain and meant to begin with her colonies; that she thought it her duty in the first instance to turn her attention to the Canadians, to relieve them from the slavery under which they groaned, and was taking steps for that purpose; that it pointed out the supposed advantages which the republican form of government possessed over the British and concluded that in a short time there would only be heard the cry of ‘Vive la Republique!’ from Canada to Paris.” The attorney-general added that he had heard at Montreal that the French republic intended to raise troops in Canada and had actually sent four officers’ commissions into the country. This brought a proclamation from Lieutenant-Governor Prescott, commander-in-chief, ordering the arrest of seditious persons, especially “certain foreigners being alien enemies who are lurking and lying concealed in various parts of the province.” This proclamation was ordered to be published for three successive weeks in the Quebec Gazette and Montreal papers in both languages, and also copies to be printed to be affixed to the church doors in the province. During the rest of the year various people were examined in Montreal, which revealed the existence of a widespread revolt organized by agitators.
On May 17th at the recent assizes for the district of Quebec and Montreal a number had been arrested and tried. Attorney-General Sewell in his report to Prescott on May 12, 1797, mentions among the several indictments preferred the following:
“High Treason: Inciting persons to assemble in a riotous manner for the purpose of opposing the execution of the Road Act; Conspiracy to prevent the market of Montreal being supplied with Provisions until the inhabitants of that city should unite with those of the Country in their opposition to the Road Act.
“Assault on a Constable in the execution of his office under the Road Act.
“Riot and assault on a justice of the peace in the execution of his Office.
“Riots, assaults on and false Imprisonment of different overseers of the High Roads.
“Riots and Rescue of Persons apprehended for the offence last above mentioned from the hands of the sheriff’s officers. Assault on the sheriff of Montreal in the execution of his Office and Rescue of a Prisoner from his custody for an offence against Government.
“Seditious Conversation and Libels on the House of Assembly.
“The number of Persons indicted in Montreal for the above offences amounted in all to nineteen, of which four for High Treason have not yet been tried. Thirteen were tried and of that number eleven were convicted and received Judgment. The remaining Two absconded.
“The number of persons indicted at Quebec for the above offences amounted to twenty-four, of which twenty-three were convicted and received punishment.”
It is needless to review these cases. As, however, the name of McLean stands out in this sedition, he must be noticed. This man was not arrested till May 10, 1797, although information of his seditionary mission work on the borders of Canada and the United States was in the hands of the authorities in December, 1796. On July 7th he was tried and found guilty and executed on the 21st. On various occasions he had been known to be in Montreal planting sedition. He was in close touch with Ira Allen, of Vermont, who had been on board the “Olive Branch” from Ostend with 20,000 stand of arms. He tried to explain that these were purchased for the Vermont militia. But there is no doubt that they were furnished by the Directory in Paris for the army of the Lower Canadians in an expedition in which McLean was to be interested. Among McLean’s papers was found one from Adet confirming this.
The attempts of the French on Canada already mentioned under the dates of 1796 and 1797 seemed never to have entirely relaxed. In 1801 Lieutenant-Governor Milnes became warned that persons were plotting for the subversion of Canada and that a society of “a parcel of Americans” had been formed in Montreal, proceeding on the principles of Jacobinism and Illuminism, having one Rogers as leader, it being supposed that he was the only one who knew the real objects of the society, which had increased from six to sixty-one members. Six were arrested and held for trial but Rogers escaped. Attorney-General Sewell made a report of his investigation. Rogers was a New England schoolmaster who had settled a short time before at Carillon, forty miles west of Montreal. The society formed by him was composed “of sundry individuals of desperate fortunes,” and among them were many of the persons concerned in McLane’s (sic) conspiracy, particularly Ira Allen and Stephen Thorn, who were lately arrived from France. The pretext on which Rogers founded his society was to search for treasure. The depositions accompanying Sewell’s report implicate Ira Allen and his Vermont marauders as bent on plundering Canada. In this regard Montreal was especially aimed at. The trouble died down somewhat in 1802 when peace with France was proclaimed, but on June 1, 1803, long before any steps could be taken after the declaration of war again, French emissaries were in the province sapping the loyalty, some of them being in Montreal. Again, this was no visionary conception, but a reality. A keen lookout was maintained on strangers. Mr. Richardson, a magistrate of Montreal, was appointed secret agent. One of those to be watched was Jerome Bonaparte, the brother of the First Consul of France. His description is as follows, as sent by Barclay from New York, 2d December, 1803, to Milnes: “Jerome Bonaparte appears about twenty-one years of age, five feet, six or seven inches high, slender make, sallow complexion, sharp and prominent chin, cropped dark hair, short, but he sometimes adds a queue and is powdered; dark eyes.” Jerome had arrived at New York about November 20th and was reported to be making, via Albany, for Lake Champlain, where there was “a Frenchman named Rous, who is notorious for assisting deserters. McLean, hung for treason, is particularly intimate with Rous.” Richardson came to terms with this Rous, whom he employed as a spy. The attempt on Canada by the French was temporarily abandoned, the reason, given by Pichon, Chargé d’affaires at Washington, being that Great Britain was too powerful by sea.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] One of the first statutes was an act to prevent gun powder drawn in ships and other vessels into the harbour of Montreal and to guard against the careless transportation of the same into the powder magazines.
[2] He landed at Quebec in August, 1791, and left Canada in 1794. On the 13th of September, in passing through Montreal, he received a complimentary address. He went up country probably as far as Niagara, returning through Montreal in September of 1792. On December 6, 1793, Chief Justice Smith died at Quebec. His remains were interred on December 8th, and were attended to the grave by H.R.H. Prince Edward.--(Quebec Gazette, Thursday, December 12, 1793.)
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.
The loyalty of the British and French Canadians was again to be tested during the American war of 1812, which involved Canada in war as a dependency of England.
Its causes were as follows: In 1806, on November 1st, Napoleon issued his “Berlin decree” declaring a blockade on the entire British coast, and let loose French privateers against her shipping and that of neutral nations trading with her. Great Britain retaliated by the celebrated “orders in council which declared all traffic with France contraband and the vessels prosecuting it with their cargoes, liable to seizure.”[1] By both of these the United States was injured in its carrying trade. Congress, therefore, in the following year superceded President Jefferson’s contra-embargo on all shipping, domestic and foreign, in the harbours of the United States, by a “non-intercourse act” prohibiting all commerce with either belligerent till the “obnoxious decree” or “orders” were removed.
Another cause conspired to fan the war feeling to a flame. Great Britain, pressed by the difficulty of manning her immense fleets, asserted the “right of search” of American vessels for deserters from her navy. The United States frigate “Chesapeake” resisted this right, sanctioned by international law, but was compelled by a broadside from H.M. Ship Leopard (June, 1807) to submit. The British government disavowed the violence of this act and offered reparation. But the democratic party was clamorous for war and eager to seduce from their allegiance and annex to the United States, the provinces of British North America.
A further cause exasperating the United States, was the publication of the secret correspondence of a Captain Henry, an adventurer, sent by Sir James Craig, Governor General of Canada, in 1809 to ascertain the state of feeling in New England towards Great Britain. Henry reported a disposition to secede from the Union and subsequently offered his correspondence to the American government, demanding therefor the exorbitant sum of $50,000, which he received from the secret service fund. His information was authentic but unimportant and the British government repudiated his agency, but the war party in Congress was implacable.
This John Henry had lived as a boy in Montreal, after which he crossed the border. In 1807 he applied through merchants in Montreal for the office of puisné judge in Upper Canada, it appearing that he had obtained the favour of the merchants of Montreal by defending their conduct in a party newspaper. His correspondence (1808-9) with Sir J. Craig while on his mission, reveals that for some time in April, 1808, Henry was in Montreal.
On June 18, 1812, James Madison, the president, and Congress approved the “act declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof and the United States of America and their territories.” This news, sent by an express of the North West Company, did not reach the governor, Sir John Prevost, till July 7th. It had, however, been sent by private means to General Brock in Upper Canada about June 26th by the Hon. John Richardson of Montreal, though others say by John Jacob Astor, who had extensive fur interests in Canada.
How the news of the war was received in Montreal has been published recently in the Huntingdon “Gleaner” (under the editorship of Mr. Robert Sellar). The late Mr. Lewis MacKay of Huntingdon, then twenty-one years of age, there relates what he saw as an eye witness. “I recollect very well the day when word reached Montreal that the American government had declared war against Britain. It caused great dejection, for the general belief was that the Americans would come at once and take Canada. At night especially, there was great alarm. Everything in the shape of a man was pressed into service. If dogs could have carried firelocks they would have been taken. I saw at the sentry posts mere boys too weak to carry their guns which they rested against their bases.”
Quickly the militia and military were organized. Colonel Baynes, adjutant general, writing to Brock from Quebec on July 3d, says: “The flank companies here are on the march and 2,000 militia will form a chain of posts from St. John’s to La Prairie. The town militia of Montreal and Quebec to the number of 3,000 from each city have volunteered, and are being embodied and drilled, and will take their part in garrison duty to relieve the troops. The proclamation for declaring martial law is prepared and will be speedily issued. All aliens will be required to take the oath of allegiance or immediately quit the Province.”
Writing from Montreal on August 17th, Sir George Prevost wrote to Lord Bathurst, secretary of war: “A part of the Forty-ninth Regiment has already proceeded from Montreal to Kingston and has been followed by the remainder of the Newfoundland Regiment of some picked Veterans; the other companies of the Forty-ninth Regiment will proceed to the same destination as soon as sufficient number of bateaux can be collected. * * * From Kingston to Montreal the Frontier line appears at present secure. * * * The Eighth or King’s Regiment has arrived this M(ornin)g from Quebec to relieve the Forty-ninth Regiment. This fine and effective Regt. of the Eighth, together with a Chain of Troops established in the vicinity of this place, consisting of regular and militia Forces, the whole amounting to near four thousand, five hundred men, effectually serve to keep in check the enemy in this quarter where alone they are in any strength and to prevent any Attempt to carry on a Predatory Warfare against this flourishing portion of Lower Canada.”
Brock made preparations to meet the American general, William Hull, who was early in July descending on Canada from Detroit. He had soon to return in hot haste and on August 16th surrendered Detroit to Sir Isaac Brock.[2] Brock paroled many of the prisoners but the rest he sent to Montreal on their way to Quebec for embarkation. The Montreal Herald of Tuesday, September 12, 1812, facetiously describes their entry thus:
“Montreal, September 12th.
“Last Sunday evening the inhabitants of this city were gratified with an exhibition equally novel and interesting. That General Hull should have entered our city so soon at the head of his troops rather exceeded our expectations. We were, however, happy to see him and received him with all the honours due to his rank and importance as a public character. The following particulars relative to his journey and reception at Montreal may not be uninteresting to our readers.
“General Hull and suite, accompanied by about twenty-five officers and three hundred and fifty soldiers, left Kingston under an escort of 130 men commanded by Major Heathcote of the Newfoundland Regiment. At Cornwall the escort was met by Captain Gray of the quartermaster general’s department who took charge of the prisoners of war and from thence proceeded with them to Lachine, where they arrived about 2 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. At Lachine Captains Richardson and Ogilvie, with their companies of Montreal militia and a company of the King’s, commanded by Captain Blackmore formed the escort till they were met by Colonel Auldjo with the remainder of the flank companies of the militia, upon which Captain Blackmore’s Company fell out and presented arms as the general passed with the others, and then returned to Lachine, leaving the prisoners to be guarded by the Montreal militia alone.” Then follows the order of march in procession into the town through the illuminated streets to the Château de Ramezay:
“When they arrived at the governor’s house the general was conducted in and presented to his Excellency, Sir George Prevost. He was received with the greatest politeness and invited to take up his residence there during his stay in Montreal. The officers were quartered in Holmes Hotel and the soldiers were marched to Quebec Gate Barracks. The general appears to be about sixty years of age and bears his misfortune with a degree of resignation that but few men in similar circumstances are fitted with.”
General Hull was exchanged for thirty British soldiers taken by the Americans. The rest of the prisoners proceeded to Quebec.[3]
Montrealers were elated at Hull’s capture, but they knew well that revenge was being prepared. Montreal was still the objective of the congress army as of old. Their secretary of state had said that “Montreal was the apple of his eye. Why waste men and money upon distant frontiers? Strike at their vitals, then you will paralyze their extremities. Capture Montreal and you will starve de Rottenburg and Proctor. In Montreal your troops will find winter quarters and an English Christmas.”
The Montreal militia, therefore, had to keep up their drill in earnest. On November 19th there was a call to arms on a report the city was to be attacked. The militia left the city to meet the foe, but on November 28th returned from “their pleasure trip” unscathed, for either the enemy had disappeared or it was a false alarm.
But it was not only volunteers for the militia that were being required. Men were wanted for the front. Lewis MacKay describes how Colonel McDonell (or Macdonnell) of Glengarry (who was afterwards mortally wounded and whose remains were buried beside those of Brock) came to Montreal to enlist men for his regiment. “The men he brought with him were mostly from Glengarry. As I spoke Gaelic I got amongst them. I enlisted with them, but on examination was rejected because I was not up to the standard in height. I was transferred to the Voltigeurs. There was nothing doing in Montreal but raising troops of cavalry and regiments, and they took everybody that offered, almost. The bounty was $100, but the pay was very small. There were French among the Glengarries and there were old country men in the Voltigeurs. * * * Among others in Montreal was Captain Coleman of the Eighth Dragoons. He got liberty to raise a troop for himself. He was rich and bought horses with his own money and men were keen to enlist with him. Wanting me as his body servant he got me transferred from the Voltigeurs. When he had got his complement of men the government did the rest, giving uniforms, saddles, arms, etc. The troop got the name of the ‘French Troop’ and were ordered to Upper Canada.”
The enthusiastic readiness of the French Canadians to protect their country and the camaraderie with which the different subjects, old and new, now joined side by side, are also evidenced in glancing at the lists of militia records of the times. A picture is preserved by Dunlop of the good times of the two corps “formed of the gentlemen of Montreal,” of whom he says, “that if their discipline was commendable their commissariat was beyond all praise. Long lines of carts were to be seen bearing in casks and hampers of the choicest wines, to say nothing of the venison, turkeys, hams and all other esculents necessary to recruit their strength under the fatigues of war. With them the Indian found a profitable market for his game, and the fisherman for his fish. There can be little doubt that a gourmand would greatly prefer the comfort of dining with a mess of privates of these distinguished corps to the honour and glory of being half starved (of which he ran no small risk) at the table of the Governor-General himself.”
While, therefore, the struggle was in the Upper Province, the attack on Montreal was, however, reserved for the next year and the Montreal militia, with men like Lieut. Col. Charles de Salaberry, Lieutenant McDonell, Captains Jean Baptiste and Jucherau Duchesnay, Daly and Ferguson, Bruyère and la Motte, with adjutants O’Sullivan and Hedder--all to be mentioned in despatches--were to give the Americans no cause to doubt either British or French Canadian loyalty to the British flag.
The chance came to save Montreal in 1813, on October 21st, when the militia battalions of Montreal and the district took the field at Chateauguay to prevent the advance on the city by the American army under General Hampton. It was a glorious victory for the militia.
The attack on Montreal was planned by Major-General Wilkinson, who had arrived about the end of August, 1813, in Sacketts Harbour to take charge of the troops of the North American frontier. There in his council of officers it was determined: “To rendezvous the whole of the troops on the lake in the vicinity[4] and in cooperation with our squadron to make a bold feint upon Kingston; step down the St. Lawrence; lock up the enemy in our rear to starve or surrender; or oblige him to follow us without artillery, baggage or provisions, or eventually to lay down his arms; to sweep the St. Lawrence of armed craft; and in concert with the division of Major-General Hampton to take Montreal.”[5]
Montreal was therefore the main object of attack. “Montreal is the safer and greater object,” wrote Armstrong to the Secretary of War, fearing hard blows at Kingston, the weaker place, “and you will find there a small force to encounter.” Montreal offered no terrors for there were “no fortifications at that city, or in advance of it,” and only “200 sailors and 400 marines with the militia, number unknown,” but there were, to be sure, “2,500 regular troops expected daily from Quebec.”
Yet the American force which made its way under Major-General Hampton from Burlington was a powerful army. It arrived on October 8th at Chateauguay Four Corners, a small settlement distant five miles from the national boundary, about forty-six from Montreal, and about forty-five from the proposed junction of Hampton’s force with Major-General Wilkinson’s.
William James, who published in London in 1818, “a full and correct account of the military occurrences of the late war between Great Britain and the United States of America,” says of General Hampton’s force, now prepared against Montreal, that it “has been stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry,” but we have no American authority for supposing that the latter exceeded 180 or the former 5,520, making a total of 5,700 men accompanied by ten pieces of cannon. This army, except the small militia force attached to it, was the same that, with General Dearborn at its head, paraded across the line and back to Plattsburg in the autumn of 1812. During the twelve months that had since elapsed, the men had been drilled under an officer, Major-General Izard, who had served one or two campaigns in the French army. Troops were all in uniform, well clothed and equipped; in short, General Hampton commanded, if not the most numerous, certainly the most effective regular army which the United States were able to send into the field during the war.
At Montreal there was bustle and stir in getting the additional forces out which were to join Lieutenant-Colonel Salaberry of the Canadian Fencibles, who commenced operations to check the American advance as soon as he had learned that the Americans had crossed the lines. But the whole of the force that went to meet Hampton between October 21st and 29th was only about eight hundred rank and file, with 172 Indians under Captain Lamotte at the settlements of Chateauguay. The battle of Chateauguay and its results may now be told by Sir George Prevost in his dispatch from Montreal to Earl Bathurst.
“Headquarters, Montreal, October 30, 1813.
“My Lord:
“On the 8th instant I had the honour to report to Your Lordship that Major-General Hampton had occupied with a considerable force of regulars and militia a portion of the Chateauguay River, near the settlement of the Four Corners. Early on the 21st the American army crossed the line of separation between Lower Canada and the United States, surprised the small party of Indian warriors and drove in a picket of sedentary militia posted at the junction of the Outard and Chateauguay Rivers, where it encamped, and proceeded in establishing a road of communication with its last position for the purpose of bringing forward its artillery. Major-General Hampton having completed his arrangements on the 24th, commenced on the following day his operations against my advanced posts. At about 11 o’clock in the forenoon of the 26th his cavalry and light troops were discovered advancing on both banks of the Chateauguay by a detachment covering a working party of habitants employed in felling timber for the purpose of constructing abattis.[6] Lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry (sic), who had the command of the advanced piquets composed of the light infantry company of the Canadian Fencibles and two companies of Voltigeurs on the north side of the river, made so excellent a disposition of his little band that he checked the advance of the enemy’s principal column led by Major-General Hampton in person and accompanied by Brigadier-General Izard; while the American Light Brigade under Colonel McCarty was in like manner repulsed in its progress on the south side of the river by the spirited advance of the right flank company of the Third Battalion of the embodied militia under Captain Daly, supported by Captain Bruyer’s Company of Chateauguay Chasseurs; Captains Daly and Bruyers being both wounded and their companies having sustained some loss, their position was immediately taken up by a flank company of the first battalion of embodied militia; the enemy rallied and repeatedly returned to the attack, which terminated only with the day in his complete disgrace and defeat; being foiled at all points by a handful of men who, by their determined bravery, maintained their position and screened from insult the working parties who continued their labours unconcerned. Having fortunately arrived at the scene of action shortly after its commencement, I witnessed the conduct of the troops on this glorious occasion, and it was a great satisfaction to me to render on the spot that praise which had become so justly their due. I thanked Major-General De Watteville for the wise measures taken by him for the defense of this position and lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry for the judgment displayed by him in the choice of his ground and the bravery and skill with which he maintained it; I acknowledged the highest praise to belong to the officers and men engaged that morning for their gallantry and readiness, and I called upon all the troops in advance as well for a continuance of that zeal, steadiness and discipline as for that patient endurance of hardship and privations which they hitherto evinced; and I particularly noticed the able support lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry received from Captain Ferguson in command of the Canadian Fencibles and from Capt. J.B. Duchesnay and Capt. J. Duchesnay and adjutant Hedder, of the Voltigeurs, and also from adjutant O’Sullivan of the sedentary militia and from Captain La Motte, belonging to the Indian warriors.
“Almost the whole of the British troops being pushed forward for the defence of Upper Canada, that of the lower province must depend in a great degree on the valour and continued exertion of its incorporated battalions and its sedentary militia until the Seventieth Regiment and the two battalions of marines daily expected should arrive.
“It is therefore highly satisfactory to state to Your Lordship that there appears a determination among all classes of His Majesty’s Canadian subjects to persevere in a loyal and honourable line of conduct. By a report of the prisoners taken from the enemy in the affair on the Chateauguay, the American force is stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, with 10 field pieces. The British advanced force actually engaged did not exceed 300. The enemy suffered severely from our fire and from their own; some detached corps in the woods fired on each other.
“I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a return of the killed and wounded on the 26th. I avail myself of this opportunity to solicit from his royal highness, the prince regent, as a mark of his gracious approbation of the conduct of the embodied battalions of the Canadian Militia five pair of colours for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth battalions.
“I have the honour to be, etc., “GEORGE PREVOST.
“Return of killed, wounded and missing of his Majesty’s forces in the action of the enemy in the advance on Chateauguay on the 26th of October, 1813.
“Canadian fencible infantry, light Company; three rank and file killed; one sergeant, three rank and file wounded.
“Third battalion embodied militia, flank company; two rank and file killed; one captain, six rank and file wounded; four rank and file missing.
“Chateauguay Chasseurs; one captain wounded.
“Total: Five rank and file killed, two captains, one sergeant, thirteen rank and file wounded; four rank and file missing.
“Names of officers wounded: Third battalion embodied militia--Captain Daly twice wounded, severely. Chateauguay Chasseurs: Captain Bruyers, slightly.
“EDWARD BAYNES, Adjutant-General.
Right Hon. Earl Bathurst.”
The slight number of the British forces opposed to the Americans could hardly be believed after the disorganization of the latter. When Captain Debartzch of the militia was sent to the headquarters of General Hampton with a flag and announced the number of the opposing force, Hampton, scarcely able to keep his temper, insisted that the British force amounted to 7,000 men for he asked, “What, then, made the woods ring with rifles?”
This incident must be told. In the early course of the fight the Americans opened a spirited fight upon the Canadians and drove the skirmishers stationed near the left behind the front edge of the abattis. “The Americans,” says William James, already quoted, “Although they did not occupy one foot of the abattis nor lieutenant-colonel de Saluberry retire one inch from the ground on which he had been standing, celebrated this partial retiring as a retreat. They were not a little surprised, however, to hear their Huzzas repeated by the Canadians, accompanied by a noise ten times more terrific than even ‘Colonel Boerstler’s stentorian voice.’ By way of animating his little band when thus momentarily pressed, colonel de Saluberry ordered his bugle men to sound the advance. This was heard by lieutenant-colonel McDonell, who, thinking that the colonel was in want of support, caused his own bugler to answer, and immediately advanced with two of his companies. He at the same time sent ten or twelve bugle men into the adjoining woods with orders to separate and blow with all their might. This little ruse de guerre led the Americans to believe that they had more thousands than hundreds to contend with and deterred them from even attempting to penetrate the abattis. They contented themselves with a long shot warfare in which, from the nature of the defences, they were almost the only sufferers.”
The Americans, after bungling the battle, delayed at Four Corners, but on November 11th Hampton, feeling himself unsafe, broke up his encampment and retreated to Plattsburg.
Chateauguay had served Montreal well and the tide of war again rolled away from its gates.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Cf. Withrow “History of Canada,” pp. 301-302.
[2] William Hull was born in Derby, Connecticut, on June 24, 1753. He graduated with honors from Yale at the age of nineteen, studied law and was admitted to practice. He allied himself with the Revolutionary party and obtained a commission from Congress eventually rising to the rank of a colonel. At the conclusion of peace he held a judicial office in Massachusetts and served for eight years as a senator. In 1805 he was appointed the first governor of the territory of Michigan and was commissioned a brigadier general in the army of the United States on April 8, 1812. He was court-martialed for his surrender of Detroit in 1814 and after a trial of three months he was ordered to be shot, but President Madison remitted his sentence in consideration of his services in the Revolutionary war. His name was, however, dropped from the army lists. He died at Newton, Massachusetts, in November, 1825.
[3] Their arrival at Quebec is thus described by A.W. Cochran, assistant civil secretary to the governor general in a letter to his mother: “Both men and officers are a shabby looking set as ever you set your eyes on, and reminded me of Falstaff’s men very forcibly. Some of the officers talked very big and assured us that before long there would be 100,000 men in Canada and that they soon would have Quebec from us.” Later on, writing to his father from Montreal on October 10th he further expresses his views on the Americans: “The Americans, I think, bid fair to rival and surpass the French in gasconading as well as in everything that is dishonorable, base and contemptible. * * * Yankees cannot tell a plain story like other folks; they cannot help ‘immersing the wig in the ocean’ as Sterne says of the Frenchmen.”
[4] The spot chosen was Grenadier Island, eighteen miles from Sacketts Harbour.
[5] “Wilkinson’s Memoirs,” Vol. III, Appendix No. 1.
[6] Abattis. These were obstructions made by felled timber which served as a succession of breastworks.