Part 123

Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to 2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the Province. Three objections were made against continuing these Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart. The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for 'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively the Church of England, which was established by law in the mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made, every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not cleared for years the people complained that they were not utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. … The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr. Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

_W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, chapter 16._

ALSO IN: _J. McMullen, History of Canada, chapters 19-20._

_Earl of Durham, Report and Dispatches._

_Sir F. B. Head, Narrative._

_Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in Lower Canada, (House of Commons, February 20, 1837)._

{382}

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838. The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression. The Burning of the Caroline.

"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of the population was disaffected to the government, there were some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall, and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were formed in the market square during the night and well armed. In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and discharged men from both the naval and military services. … Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and adherents in the course of the night and following day, and, seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day, at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence, the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford (where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf, fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over the Falls.

_Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations, volume 2, chapter 12._

"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth. But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

_W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada. chapter 16, section 15._

On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was very commonly called "the Patriot War."

ALSO IN: _C. Lindsey, Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie, volume 2._

_J. C. Dent, Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841. International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the Caroline. The McLeod Case.

The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D. 1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an American named Durfree was killed. The British government avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van Buren [President of the United States] went out of office whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. … In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree, and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States. … Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act. Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him, diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with the British government. … His first step was to instruct the Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence, furnishing them with authentic information that the destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. … {383} This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities, who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions between England and the United States.

_H. C. Lodge, Daniel Webster, chapter 8._

ALSO IN: _W. H. Seward, Works, chapter 2, pages 547-588._

_D. Webster, Works, volume 6, pages 247-269._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867. Reunion of the provinces. The opposition of races. Clear Grits and Conservatives.

"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before: it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province; and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the measure was directed against their nationality. But since the Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed under a Governor-General with a single legislature, consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before, of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House elected by the people. Each province was to have the same number of representatives, although the population of the French Province was at that time much larger than that of the British Province. The French language was proscribed in official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent, constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes, necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.' Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to their leaders, became politically dominant. The British factions began to bid against each other for their support, and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing the use of the French language in official proceedings was repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual. The Premiership was divided between the English and the French leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of patronage; of public funds they got more than their full share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods they contributed far less than their quota to the public revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in contravention of the principle of religious equality and severance of the Church from the State. In time it was recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have a majority from each section of the Province. This practically almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party, playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege, by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus come over the character and relations of parties. French Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis of the Conservative party. British Canada became the stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was its fruit."

_Goldwin Smith, Canada and the Canadian Question, chapter 7._

ALSO IN: _W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const., pages 149-185._

_J. G. Bourinot, Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada, chapter 5._

CANADA: A. D. 1842. Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the Ashburton Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866. The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its abrogation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

CANADA: A. D. 1864. The St. Albans Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871. Fenian invasions.

The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866, expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900 men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway. Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded. {384} Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men, was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie, and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back. The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and, though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota, the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure. These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of citizen soldiery however resulted."

_G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, pages 468-470._

ALSO IN: _G. T. Denison, Jr., The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie. Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion. Official Report of General John O'Neill._

CANADA: A. D. 1867. Federation of the provinces of British North America in the Dominion of Canada. The constitution of the Dominion.

"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867, when the provinces of British North America were brought more closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865, the administration of government in Canada had become surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing character. … Parties at last were so equally balanced on account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration, and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years. From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there were no less than five different ministries in charge of the public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically at a dead-lock. … It was at this critical juncture of affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case of the failure of the larger scheme. … It was a happy coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were about considering a maritime union at the time the leading statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the decision to consider the question of the larger union at Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates from all the British North American provinces assembled in conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions, which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, being at last in full accord, through the action of their respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties, and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same year. … The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec [Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian Parliament. … The title of Dominion did not appear in the Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the union bill was finally drafted."

_T. G. Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, chapter 6-7 (with foot-note)._