CHAPTER XVI

MURMURS OF REVOLUTION

RACE AND CLASS ANTAGONISM

“CANADA TRADE ACTS”--LORD DALHOUSIE BANQUETED AFTER BEING RECALLED--MOVEMENT TO JOIN MONTREAL AS A PORT TO UPPER CANADA--THE GOVERNOR ALLEGED TO BE A TOOL--EXECUTIVE COUNCIL--RIOTOUS ELECTION AT MONTREAL--DR. TRACY VERSUS STANLEY BAGG--THE MILITARY FIRE--THE “MINERVE” VERSUS THE GAZETTE AND HERALD--THE CHOLERA OF 1832--MURMURS OF THE COMING REVOLT--MONTREAL PETITION FOR AND AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES--MR. NELSON BREAKS WITH PAPINEAU--THE NINETY-TWO RESOLUTIONS--MR. ROEBUCK, AGENT FOR THE REFORM PARTY, ADVOCATES SELF-GOVERNMENT--FRENCH-CANADIAN EXTREMISTS--THE ELECTIONS--PUBLIC MEETING OF “MEN OF BRITISH AND IRISH DESCENT”--TWO DIVERGENT MENTALITIES--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS--PETITIONS TO LONDON--LORD GOSFORD APPOINTED ROYAL COMMISSIONER--HIS POLICY OF CONCILIATION REJECTED--MR. PAPINEAU INTRANSIGEANT--RAISING VOLUNTEER CORPS FORBIDDEN--THE DORIC CLUB--“RESPONSIBLE” GOVERNMENT DEMANDED.

The bill for the proposed union, shorn of the notion of union, came up in the Imperial parliament and passed as the “Canadian Trade Acts.” Its object was to secure Upper Canada from the possible injustice and caprice of the legislature of Lower Canada and the imposition and payment of duties. The act was challenged in the house of Quebec, but to no avail. In 1824 the president of the United States claimed the free navigation of the St. Lawrence to the ocean. This was objected to by the legislative council as pernicious to the interests of British trade and the merchants of Montreal in a petition of February 20, 1826, combatted the admission of the claim.

The constitutional record of the next few years of Montreal shows the growth of contention between the English and French population. In 1828 this came temporarily to a head in the petition and counter petition for the recall of Lord Dalhousie, the Governor General. Messrs. Denis B. Viger and Cuvillier were the bearers of a petition from Montreal. Lord Dalhousie was in consequence appointed commander in chief in India. At a banquet held in Montreal on June 7, 1828, with the Hon. John Richardson in the chair, a farewell was given to Lord Dalhousie prior to his leaving Canada, approving of his just government.

In 1831 a movement began to be advocated, especially in Upper Canada, that the island of Montreal should be separated from the Lower province and added to the Upper, so that this might have a seaport of its own, with power to regulate the duty on the imports without interference from Quebec. It was argued that in a few years the Upper province would be in advance of Lower Canada in agriculture and population. The movement found favour among the British party in Montreal but was strongly resented by those of French-Canadian birth. The house in session in 1832 rejected it as a premeditated and unprovoked spoilation in violation of the Capitulation treaty. This year, Montreal was incorporated as a city with a charter. (William V, Cap. 39.)

It was a charge against the legislative council that it consisted largely of officials holding their places at the pleasure of the crown and therefore irresponsible to the people and subversive of its interests. A view of the position of the legislative council may be seen from the returns that Gov. Gen. Sir James Kempt (1828-1830) was requested to furnish to the colonial office. These showed that the legislative council consisted of twenty-three members, twelve of whom held office under the crown, sixteen were Protestants and seven Roman Catholics. The executive council consisted of nine members, only one being unconnected with government, and all were Protestants with one exception.

In order to gain confidence and to remove the suspicion that the legislative council was under the influence of local government and guided in its proceedings by the will of the Governor, which he alleged to be an absolute misrepresentation, Sir James advised that one or two of the most important of the assemblymen should be advanced to the legislature.

Lord Aylmer, who succeeded Sir James Kempt, in a private letter to Mr. Hay said, on the other hand, that the impression on the public mind was that a sinister influence was continually operating on the governor, who was being swayed to a very great extent by the executive council; although this was not the case, he thought the public should be satisfied on that head. But he agreed that Mr. Papineau and Mr. Neilson should be advanced. He disapproved of Mr. Papineau’s public conduct and language, though he esteemed his private character. “There is,” he wrote to Mr. Hay, “one consideration which, more than any other, renders it desirable, in my view of the matter, to make choice of these gentlemen. A very general opinion prevails in this country that the person at the head of the government is always more or less influenced by the executive council which, whether justly or otherwise, I will not take it upon myself to say, is not held in general estimation, and it appears to me that the introduction of two gentlemen enjoying like Mr. Papineau and Neilson the confidence of the public, into that body and, as it were, behind the scenes, would go far towards removing the opinion alluded to, and which I can positively state, as far as regards myself, is wholly without foundation.”[1]

In 1832 a vacancy occurred in the west ward of Montreal by the resignation of Mr. Fisher. As it reflects the turbulent conflicts that had been going on so long in the House at Quebec and indicates the high pitch of excitement to which minds were then brought, a lengthy notice is not out of place. It also foreshadowed the violent scenes of 1837. The candidates were Mr. Stanley Bagg, a representative of one of the oldest British firms in Montreal who shared in the views of British party, and Doctor Tracy, an Irishman attached to the “Vindicator” which had espoused the extreme views of the assembly; indeed, he had been recently imprisoned for his censures on the legislative council. The contest was very close and lasted for some days. On May 21st, when Doctor Tracy was a few votes ahead, there was every appearance of a riot around the polls. The Fifteenth Regiment was called out, the riot act was read but the tumult continued. The account given by Kingsford’s History of Canada, Volume IX, pp. 481-99, tells graphically what follows. As the poll was being closed the partisans of Tracy, headed by himself, rushed against those of the opposite side. The troops were now ordered to advance and reached the old Montreal Bank, the site of the present postoffice. The troops were received with volley after volley of stone. Colonel McIntosh called to the mob to cease this aggressiveness, or he would give orders to fire. The troops continued to advance up St. James Street, giving opportunity for the mob to retire. The stones continued to be thrown. A second halt was made. The crowd, now composed almost entirely of Tracy’s supporters, had greatly increased. The attack upon the military continued. Again Colonel McIntosh threatened to give the order to fire. According to the evidence of the lieutenant present, Mr. W. Dawson, from whose testimony this narrative is taken, several men in the ranks were severely hurt by these missiles. The colonel was struck, as was the subaltern. Colonel McIntosh, still hesitating to act, again warned his assailants. It was all in vain. To judge by the testimony given at the inquest the mob evidently believed that the military would not dare to act. They were cruelly mistaken. The first platoon of sixteen men were ordered to fire; three of the crowd fell dead, two were wounded. In a few seconds the street was cleared. * * * It was the first event of this character in Canada and caused a great sensation. From the violence shown it was dreaded that the riot might continue. The consequence was that a detachment with some field pieces was stationed at the Place d’Armes. During the night pickets paraded the streets. The _Minerve_ in its continuation of abuse described the event as the massacre of peaceable, unarmed citizens, and that in order to make the military forget their crime they had been abundantly supplied with rum. * * * No arrests were made. * * * The coroner’s inquest was held. Mr. Papineau attended every day.[2] * * * Nine witnesses testified that the soldiers fired upon the people as they were dispersing after the close of the poll. Three witnesses described the act as the consequence of the riot. No verdict was given.[3] * * * The coroner, nevertheless, issued warrants for the arrest of McIntosh and Temple. They were immediately bailed to the amount of £1,000. The proceedings of the coroner were set aside as illegal, but the matter did not stop here. These officers were again arrested and subjected to much annoyance. Finally, in September, the grand jury returned the indictment with “no bill.” The same result was obtained in the case of the magistrates, Messrs. Robertson and Lukin, indicted on a similar criminal charge as having given orders to the troops.

The action of the military was approved by the grand jury, and by the commander in chief, the latter being further commended by Lord Fitzroy Somerset through Lord Aylmer, the governor general. An address of sympathetic citizens was presented to the two officers. La Minerve on the 24th of May, 1832, however, was implacable. “It is difficult,” it says, “not to be convinced that there was a desire to make a general massacre. It is clearly proved that the faction hostile to the Canadians has been preparing for this atrocity for a long time. The party that we have opposed for thirty years desired today to shoot us down. * * * They also wished to shoot Mr. Tracy. * * * Mr. Bagg’s partisans laughingly approached the corpses and saw with fierce joy the Canadian blood flowing down the street. They have been seen shaking hands congratulatingly and regretting that the number of the dead was not greater. * * * Let us never forget the massacre of our brethren. * * * Let the names of the wrongdoers who have planned, advised and executed this crime be inscribed in our annals handed down to infamy and execration.”[4] (History of Canada, page 109.)

The funeral of the three Canadians was attended by about five thousand persons and following the bodies were Mr. Papineau, the speaker of the assembly, the leader of the French-Canadian party and his chief supporters.

From this date the tone of the newspapers Le Spectateur at Quebec and La Minerve at Montreal is noticeably inflammatory in the demand for the redress of their grievances. On the other hand, the English papers representing the British party, especially the Gazette and Herald of Montreal, dealt no uncertain blows in return and Mr. Papineau fared ill. He was looked upon as a demagogue inciting dissension and making political capital from the late misfortune of May 21st.

The memory of the riot was not allowed to die down in the neighbourhood of Montreal and elsewhere. At Longueuil on June 11th a resolution, provoked by the affair of May 21st, set forth that “the British government deceived by men who are our envenomed enemies, are following in a line of conduct leading to our destruction and slavery; that the fate of the Acadians is being prepared for us, that the neglect of the frequent demands of our rights on the part of England had tended to break the contract between her and us.” In these and other meetings there was generally a protest against granting to capitalists independently of the colonial legislature a large portion of the uncultivated lands of the crown. This was aimed at members of the British party.

Another protest was at immigration from Great Britain. The parishes were being inoculated with discontent. This last was emphasized at this period especially, as in 1832 Canada was suffering from cholera; from June 9th to September 30th, the number described as having died being 3,292. It was at this date that Gross Ile, thirty miles below Quebec, was established by the provincial executive as a quarantine station on the warning from the home government, having itself suffered its ravages in the winter of 1831-2. The disease was thought to have been brought early in June by the “Carrick” with emigrants from Dublin containing 133 passengers, of whom fifty-nine had died on the voyage. The malady is supposed to have quickly spread from the emigrants to others through Quebec and Montreal. Apparently the disease did not spread in Upper Canada to any extent. The boards of health lately established did all they could, by the establishment of hospitals, to stay the disease. The Montreal board of health reported on the 26th day of June that there had been from the 10th to the 25th of June inclusive 3,384 cases and 947 deaths. The Fifteenth Regiment suffered severely. But at the end of June the disease was abating. A correspondent writing from Montreal on the 25th of June said that the printers, like others, had deserted their work a fortnight before, but at the date he wrote activity was resumed, the stores were again opened and the markets better supplied. On the 6th of July Lord Aylmer wrote: “The panic in the public mind is rapidly subsiding and the people are returning to their ordinary occupations, which at one period of the prevalence of the disease were almost entirely abandoned.” The arrival of emigrants during 1831 and 1832 had been numerous. The official returns for 1831 and 1832 give the numbers as being 48,973 and 49,281.

At Montreal the seriousness of the political and social situation and the menaces that were looming to the peace and to the security of life and property, was not blinked. Moderate men of both parties already heard the rumblings of the revolt of 1837. A meeting was held at the British American Hotel on the 4th of November with 500 persons present. Mr. Horatio Gates, a prominent merchant, was in the chair and many other important men discussed the situation earnestly. A committee was formed to draft the petition, to the throne, based on the resolutions of the meeting. The names reveal the inclusion of weighty French-Canadians: “J.C. Grant, Hypolite Guy, Alex Buchanan, Jules Quesnel, George Auldjo, Turton Penn, Pierre Bibaud, Dr. W. Caldwell, Dr. B. Rollin, Augustin Perreault, T.B. Anderson, Felix Souligny, Joseph Masson, and J.T. Barrett.”

Briefly the resolutions expressed confidence in the present system of government, desiring no change in the system of the legislative council which was an essential product of the legislature; it was stated that the political excitement of disaffected persons was creating a want of confidence in the security of property and had embarrassed all commercial relations, and it was felt now a boundened duty “to declare their unalterable attachment to the government, etc.”

This action at Montreal was offset by a petition from Montreal considered in the session, praying for constitutional changes; it demanded an elective government in every department; it protested against any system of emigration which, while being beneficial to the Upper Province was not so to the Lower. It assailed the officials for the proceedings consequent upon the riot of May 21st at Montreal. Mr. Leslie, a British merchant of Montreal and extreme supporter of Mr. Papineau, moved the inquiry into the affairs of the 21st. On this occasion Mr. Andrew Stewart threw it into the face of Mr. Papineau that he was creating national distinctions, that he had given rise to the consternation which he felt, when he should have shown moderation. During this session Mr. Neilson also took a decided stand against Mr. Papineau, the first step towards a break in their political relationship. The discussion on the events of May 21, 1832, was deferred to next session. The house was prorogued on April 3, 1833.

This year, 1833, was remarkable as that of coming into effect of the municipal act of Montreal and Quebec, a forward movement treated of elsewhere. During the session of 1834 the famous Ninety-two Resolutions introduced by Mr. Bibaud kept up the agitation for change and redress. In 1834 Mr. Roebuck, who had left Canada in 1825 and had, as member for Bath, moved in April, 1834, in the house of parliament in London for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the means of remedying the evils in the government of Upper and Lower Canada, took a step which largely fanned the fire of discontent in Montreal. Addressing the united and permanent committee of the reform party of Montreal in favour of self-government as then meditated through a representative elective legislative council, he advised them to resist the parliament of Great Britain. He advocated peaceable methods before taking to arms. But they had to fight sooner than lose all hope of self-government.

This infused, if possible, more vigour to the pens of the writers in La Minerve and the Vindicator, of which Doctor O’Callaghan was editor.[5] Violent attacks on the government were renewed. French-Canadians were urged to organize for the revolutionary movement. The moderate French-Canadians were fearful of the outcome. The British party, in self-defence, prepared a petition, and a deputation to Quebec to Lord Aylmer with an address conceived in opposition to the spirit of the Ninety-two Resolutions. On August 24th Mr. Hume presented Mr. Bibaud’s Ninety-two Resolutions to the imperial parliament signed by 18,083 persons. On the 24th of September the supporters of the Ninety-two Resolutions met and supported resolutions on the same lines. Among those present was Girod as a delegate from Verchères; he was a strong adherent of Papineau and later, in 1838, was one of the leaders in the insurrection of St. Eustace.

In October and November the elections took place. In the west ward of Montreal Papineau and Dr. Robert Nelson were declared elected by the returning officer Lusignan before the legal time for the close of the polls had arrived. A protest was made by Mr. Walker and Mr. Donnellan, the opposing candidates, without avail. A few days later Mr. Papineau issued a fiery philippic--a common custom of his--against the Governor General with the effect when Lord Aylmer visited Montreal later, La Minerve and the Vindicator appeared with their columns in mourning. In Quebec the new city council had the insolence to pass a vote not to pay the “visite de cérémonie” to Lord Aylmer on New Year’s Day.

During November Constitutional Associations were formed in Montreal and Quebec by the British party who now feared a separation with the mother country. At Montreal an address was prepared as a result of a public meeting on November 22d to men of “British and Irish descent.” It was signed by John Molson, Jr., and was directed to their fellow countrymen of the Province of British America for their oppressed brethren of Montreal, and solicited their “attention to a brief and temperate exposition of our principles and grievances.” It is a lengthy statement containing about three thousand words, though not so long as the grievances of the Ninety-two Resolutions, which occupied twenty-five pages of the journals of the house in 1834. As we have not reproduced the latter neither do we those of the British party, though a perusal of each would give a vivid picture of the seriousness of the situation and the tension on both sides. It was the conflict of two mentalities become, for the time, hopelessly irreconcilable and highly inflamed by the vision of their real or imaginary grievances and injustices. It was commercial progress and British expansion versus a conservative agriculturalism and a “nation Canadienne” for Lower Canada.

In February of 1835 the new parliament met. Its proceedings are more marked with the signs of the anarchy so soon to become a thing of fact. In answer to the Governor’s address there was demanded in the name “of the great body of the people without distinction, the introduction of the elective principles for the legislative council.” A petition was also prepared for the king, in which it was claimed that the people at large “fully participated in the opinions of the majority of the house.” The real proportion of the constituencies for and against the Ninety-two Resolutions was less than three to one,[6] the country parishes largely contributing to this result. The house was prorogued on March 18th, having sat only twenty-five days.

Scenting trouble, the “constitutional associations” of Quebec and Montreal prepared to meet emergencies. Branches were multiplied in other places when possible. Circulars to public bodies and prominent men over Canada were diffused. The interest and aid of the United States were canvassed. The statement of grievances from Montreal signed by John Molson was a dangerous precedent. Leading men in London were approached. To meet the activity of Mr. Roebuck, who had recently been appointed an agent for the reform party, Mr. Neilson was sent to present a petition to the king from Quebec, and Mr. William Walker that of Montreal. They left _via_ New York in April. Mr. Roebuck presented the counter petition of the House of Assembly to the House of Commons on March 9, 1835. That from Montreal was presented by Mr. Stuart on March 16th.

The Canadian difficulties were now so notorious that the king determined to send an extraordinary commissioner. Lord Gosford was finally appointed and with him were associated Sir Charles Grey and Sir George Gibbs. These arrived at Quebec on August 23d. On September 17th Lord Aylmer with his family left for England. His term of office had been stormy but while vituperation fell upon him on one hand, he was otherwise sustained by the strong minority. Lord Gosford came with a policy of conciliation openly manifested and openly rejected. He met his parliament within two months after his arrival. His opening speech as governor general, the longest on record on such an occasion, was delivered on October 27, 1835. He unfolded his theory of conciliation and promises of redresses of grievances. The house, however, was tuned up only for extremes and showed no readiness for compromise. This lesson has been since well learned, experience of the failure of any other course having been abundant. The concluding words of Lord Gosford’s speech are noteworthy and impressive. “To the Canadians, both of French and British origin, and every class and description, I would say, consider the blessings you might enjoy and the favoured situation in which but for your own dissensions you would find yourselves to be placed. The offsprings of the two foremost nations of mankind, you hold a vast and beautiful country, a fertile soil, a healthy climate and the noblest river in the world makes your most remote city a port for the ships of the sea. Your revenue is triple the amount of your expenditure for the ordinary purposes of government. You have no direct taxes, no public debt, no poor who require any aid more than the natural impulses of charity. If you extend your views beyond the land in which you dwell you find that you are joint inheritors of the splendid patrimony of the British empire which constitutes you in the best sense of the term citizens of the world and gives you a home on every continent and in every ocean on the globe. There are two paths open to you. By the one you will advance to the enjoyment of all the advantages which lie in prospect before you. By the other I will say no more than you will stop short of these, and will engage yourselves and those who have no other object than your prosperity in darker and more difficult courses.”

The existence of the Commission was studiously ignored by the Assembly. But on the 6th of November an amendment to the draft in answer to the address was moved, approving of the appointment of the commission as a proof of the wisdom and magnanimity with “which the grievances of the province had been listened to, and now confidently hope that the results of its labours will be satisfactory to all classes.”[7] Mr. Papineau vehemently attacked the motion. The commissioners were without legal or constitutional power. Their report, favourable or not, was immaterial. The motion was voted down by forty-five to eight. The governor general’s position as such was, however, recognized.

The “Constitutional” associations of Montreal and Quebec, composed of those who held substantially by the existing constitution with certain reforms dictated by expediency, were meanwhile viewing with dissatisfaction the intransigeant attitude of the majority of the house. At Montreal it was proposed by the British population to raise a volunteer corps of 800 strong. A memorial was sent at the close of December to the Governor General asking for official sanction for the enrollment and offering its services to the Government. It was not granted on the grounds that no rights were in danger and that the enrollment would endanger public tranquillity. The organization was proceeded with. Lord Gosford issued a proclamation declaring it illegal and unconstitutional. The corps was dissolved and in notifying Lord Gosford he was informed that “As committee men of the British Rifle Corps we must express to Your Excellency our regrets that the day has arrived when, in a colony conquered by British arms, a body of loyal subjects has been treated as traitors by a British Governor General for no other crime than that of rousing themselves to protect their persons and property and to assist in maintaining the rights and privileges granted them by the constitution.”

In addition a meeting was called and a memorial sent to Lord Gosford justifying their conduct on the grounds that the constitution was endangered. They would always be ready to defend British institutions.[8] It is said that the Doric Club, a more or less secret society of Britishers, now dated its formation.

The policy of conciliation was meeting a rebuff on both sides. The Montreal “Vindicator” later even spoke of “the treacherous administration of Lord Gosford.”

On the 21st of March, 1836, the parliament was prorogued. There was the same stubborn determination of the majority of the assembly to assert itself to overrule the existing constitution and thus control the situation on the lines of the Ninety-Two Resolutions so as to make government impossible. It met again on September 22d. No bills were passed; two were introduced, one for the appointment of an agent in London, another to amend the Imperial act of 1791 (an unconstitutional proceeding beyond the powers of the assembly), with a view of establishing an elective legislative assembly directly responsible to the representatives of the people. This appeal for “responsible” government as it was then vaguely conceived, was always steadfastly pursued as the basic reform needed to solve all the other grievances under which the province was suffering. The aim was self-government and the abolition of the bureaucracy and privileged class incidental on an appointed legislative council chosen by the Crown. After a short session of thirteen days in all, the house was prorogued on October 4th. The parliament of Lower Canada met again on August 18, 1837, but as its members would not transact any business at all, it was prorogued on August 20th, never to meet again.

The annual meeting of the Montreal Constitutional Association met in December, 1835. Ward committees were appointed. Among the principles to be advocated was the abolition of the feudal tenure, the continued improvement of the harbour of Montreal and of the canal communications. In February, 1836, Sir John Colborne was relieved of his position as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Before embarking for England he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the forces in both provinces. On July 1st he issued a general order from Montreal on the assumption of command. In June a movement of a “Constitutional” committee was afoot in Montreal for the recall of Lord Gosford. It dropped, however, on opposition from the Quebec Constitutional party.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “Canadian Archives,” Q. 197, p. 78; see report by Dr. Brymner for 1899.

[2] The Quebec Gazette justified Mr. Papineau’s being present as he was acting in his profession as an advocate.

[3] These were French Canadians.

[4] Bibaud, “History of Canada,” Vol. III, p. 109.

[5] Dr. O’Callaghan was subsequently returned to the house of assembly in the new parliament of 1835 as the representative of Yamaska. There he was unknown but Mr. Papineau’s influence carried the seat. In the subsequent parliament he became a staunch lieutenant of his leader.

[6] Mr. Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal and also a conscientious historian and archaeologist, made a concise statement of the political strength of the opposing parties in the counties, towns and boroughs as recorded in the votes at the last election for and against the spirit of the Ninety-Two Resolutions on which the election turned.

For Against Not Voting

361,801½ 115,838 35,619½

Quebec 7,120½ (i.e. ¼) 20,148½ (i.e. ¾)

Montreal 13,714 (i.e. ½) 6,254 (i.e. ¼)

One-fourth did not vote, owing to the vacancy in the seat of one of the representatives. See “Christie,” Vol. V, 238-242.

[7] The commissioners finished their six reports before the end of 1836. They were eventually doubtless useful to Lord Dunham in the preparation of his report. The commissioners considered an elective legislative council undesirable but they formulated a system of representative government on lines which we now understand. While granting the government of internal affairs it strove to preserve the unity of empire.

[8] In the Imperial parliament in 1837 Mr. Robinson quoted La Minerve of Montreal, which stated that immediate separation from England was the only means of preserving French Canadian nationality.