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.”