CHAPTER 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.