THE RUSSELL RESOLUTIONS
When the legislature of Lower Canada met in the autumn of 1836, Lord
Gosford earnestly called its attention to the estimates of the current
year and the accounts showing the arrears unpaid. Six months, however,
had passed by, and there was no sign of the redress of grievances. The
royal commission, indeed, had not completed its investigations. The
Assembly, therefore, refused once more to vote the necessary supplies.
'In reference to the demand for a supply,' they told the governor,
'relying on the salutary maxim, that the correction of abuses and the
redress of grievances ought to precede the grant thereof, we have been
of opinion that there is nothing to authorize us to alter our
resolution of the last session.'
This answer marked the final and indubitable breakdown of the policy of
conciliation without concession. This was recognized by {58} Gosford,
who soon afterwards wrote home asking to be allowed to resign, and
recommending the appointment of a governor whose hands were 'not
pledged as mine are to a mild and conciliatory line of policy.'
Two alternatives were now open to the British ministers--either to make
a complete capitulation to the demands of the _Patriotes_, or to deal
with the situation in a high-handed way. They chose the latter course,
though with some hesitation and perhaps with regret. On March 6, 1837,
Lord John Russell, chancellor of the Exchequer in the Melbourne
administration and one of the most liberal-minded statesmen in England,
introduced into the House of Commons ten resolutions dealing with the
affairs of Canada. These resolutions recited that since 1832 no
provision had been made by the Assembly of Lower Canada for defraying
the charges for the administration of justice or for the support of the
civil government; that the attention of the Assembly had been called to
the arrears due; and that the Assembly had declined to vote a supply
until its demands for radical political changes were satisfied. The
resolutions declared that though both the bodies in question might be
improved in respect of their composition, it {59} was inadvisable to
grant the demand to make the Legislative Council elective, or to
subject the Executive Council to the responsibility demanded by the
House of Assembly. In regard to the financial question, the
resolutions repeated the offer made by Lord Aylmer and Lord
Gosford--namely, to hand over to the Assembly the control of the
hereditary, territorial, and casual revenues of the Crown, on condition
that the Assembly would grant a permanent civil list. But the main
feature of the resolutions was the clause empowering the governor to
pay out of the public revenues, without authorization of the Assembly,
the moneys necessary for defraying the cost of government in the
province up to April 10, 1837. This, though not exactly a suspension
of the constitution of Lower Canada and a measure quite legally within
the competency of the House of Commons, was a flat negative to the
claim of the Lower-Canadian Assembly to control over the executive
government, through the power of the purse or otherwise.
A long and important debate in Parliament followed on these
resolutions. Some of the chief political leaders of the day took part
in the discussion. Daniel O'Connell, the great {60} tribune of the
Irish people, took up the cudgels for the French Canadians. Doubtless
it seemed to him that the French Canadians, like the Irish, were
victims of Anglo-Saxon tyranny and bigotry. Sir George Grey, the
colleague of Gosford, Lord Stanley, a former colonial secretary, and
William Ewart Gladstone, then a vigorous young Tory, spoke in support
of the resolutions. The chief opposition came from the Radical wing of
the Whig party, headed by Hume and Roebuck; but these members were
comparatively few in number, and the resolutions were passed by
overwhelming majorities.
[Illustration: Wolfred Nelson. From a print in the Chateau de Ramezay.]
As soon as the passage of the resolutions became known in Canada,
Papineau and his friends began to set the heather on fire. On May 7,
1837, the _Patriotes_ held a huge open-air meeting at St Ours, eleven
miles above Sorel on the river Richelieu. The chief organizer of the
meeting was Dr Wolfred Nelson, a member of the Assembly living in the
neighbouring village of St Denis, who was destined to be one of the
leaders of the revolt at the end of the year. Papineau himself was
present at the meeting and he spoke in his usual violent strain. He
submitted a resolution declaring that 'we cannot but {61} consider a
government which has recourse to injustice, to force, and to a
violation of the social contract, anything else than an oppressive
government, a government by force, for which the measure of our
submission should henceforth be simply the measure of our numerical
strength, in combination with the sympathy we may find elsewhere.' At
St Laurent a week later he used language no less dangerous. 'The
Russell resolutions,' he cried, 'are a foul stain; the people should
not, and will not, submit to them; the people must transmit their just
rights to their posterity, even though it cost them their property and
their lives to do so.'
These meetings were prototypes of many that followed. All over the
province the _Patriotes_ met together to protest against what they
called 'coercion.' As a rule the meetings were held in the country
parishes after church on Sunday, when the habitants were gathered
together. Most inflammatory language was used, and flags and placards
were displayed bearing such devices as '_Papineau et le systeme
electif_,' '_Papineau et l'independence_,' and '_A bas le despotisme_.'
Alarmed by such language, Lord Gosford issued on June 15 a proclamation
calling on all loyal {62} subjects to discountenance writings of a
seditious tendency, and to avoid meetings of a turbulent or political
character. But the proclamation produced no abatement in the
agitation; it merely offered one more subject for denunciation.
During this period Papineau and his friends continually drew their
inspiration from the procedure of the Whigs in the American colonies
before 1776. The resolutions of the _Patriotes_ recalled the language
of the Declaration of Independence. One of the first measures of the
Americans had been to boycott English goods; one of the first measures
of the _Patriotes_ was a resolution passed at St Ours binding them to
forswear the use of imported English goods and to use only the products
of Canadian industry. At the short and abortive session of the
legislature which took place at the end of the summer of 1837, nearly
all the members of the Assembly appeared in clothes made of Canadian
frieze. The shifts of some of the members to avoid wearing English
imported articles were rather amusing. 'Mr Rodier's dress,' said the
Quebec _Mercury_, 'excited the greatest attention, being unique with
the exception of a pair of Berlin gloves, viz.: frock coat of {63}
granite colored _etoffe du pays_; inexpressibles and vest of the same
material, striped blue and white; straw hat, and beef shoes, with a
pair of home-made socks, completed the _outre_ attire. Mr Rodier, it
was remarked, had no shirt on, having doubtless been unable to smuggle
or manufacture one.' But Louis LaFontaine and 'Beau' Viger limited
their patriotism, it appears, to the wearing of Canadian-made
waistcoats. The imitation of the American revolutionists did not end
here. If the New England colonies had their 'Sons of Liberty,' Lower
Canada had its '_Fils de la Liberte_'--an association formed in
Montreal in the autumn of 1837. And the Lower Canada Patriotes
outstripped the New England patriots in the republican character of
their utterances. 'Our only hope,' announced _La Minerve_, 'is to
elect our governor ourselves, or, in other words, to cease to belong to
the British Empire.' A manifesto of some of the younger spirits of the
_Patriote_ party, issued on October 1, 1837, spoke of 'proud designs,
which in our day must emancipate our beloved country from all human
authority except that of the bold democracy residing within its bosom.'
To add point to these opinions, there sprang up all over the country
{64} volunteer companies of armed _Patriotes_, led and organized by
militia officers who had been dismissed for seditious utterances.
Naturally, this situation caused much concern among the loyal people of
the country. Loyalist meetings were held in Quebec and Montreal, to
offset the _Patriote_ meetings; and an attempt was made to form a
loyalist rifle corps in Montreal. The attempt failed owing to the
opposition of the governor, who was afraid that such a step would
merely aggravate the situation. Not even Gosford, however, was blind
to the seriousness of the situation. He wrote to the colonial
secretary on September 2, 1837, that all hope of conciliation had
passed. Papineau's aims were now the separation of Canada from England
and the establishment of a republican form of government. 'I am
disposed to think,' he concluded, 'that you may be under the necessity
of suspending the constitution.'
It was at this time that the Church first threw its weight openly
against the revolutionary movement. The British government had
accorded to Catholics in Canada a measure of liberty at once just and
generous; and the bishops and clergy were not slow to see that under a
republican form of government, {65} whether as a state in the American
Union or as an independent _nation canadienne_, they might be much
worse off, and would not be any better off, than under the dominion of
Great Britain. In the summer of 1837 Mgr Lartigue, the bishop of
Montreal, addressed a communication to the clergy of his diocese asking
them to keep the people within the path of duty. In October he
followed this up by a Pastoral Letter, to be read in all the churches,
warning the people against the sin of rebellion. He held over those
who contemplated rebellion the penalties of the Church: 'The present
question amounts to nothing less than this--whether you will choose to
maintain, or whether you will choose to abandon, the laws of your
religion.'
The ecclesiastical authorities were roused to action by a great meeting
held on October 23, at St Charles on the Richelieu, the largest and
most imposing of all the meetings thus far. Five or six thousand
people attended it, representing all the counties about the Richelieu.
The proceedings were admirably staged. Dr Wolfred Nelson was in the
chair, but Papineau was the central figure. A company of armed men,
headed by two militia officers who had been dismissed for disloyalty,
and {66} drawn up as a guard, saluted every resolution of the meeting
with a volley. A wooden pillar, with a cap of liberty on top, was
erected, and dedicated to Papineau. At the end of the proceedings
Papineau was led up to the column to receive an address. After this
all present marched past singing popular airs; and each man placed his
hand on the column, swearing to be faithful to the cause of his
country, and to conquer or die for her. All this, of course, was
comparatively innocent. The resolutions, too, were not more violent
than many others which had been passed elsewhere. Nor did Papineau use
language more extreme than usual. Many of the _Patriotes_, indeed,
considered his speech too moderate. He deprecated any recourse to arms
and advised his hearers merely to boycott English goods, in order to
bring the government to righteousness. But some of his lieutenants
used language which seemed dangerous. Roused by the eloquence of their
leader, they went further than he would venture, and advocated an
appeal to the arbitrament of war. 'The time has come,' cried Wolfred
Nelson, 'to melt our spoons into bullets.'
The exact attitude of Papineau during {67} these months of agitation is
difficult to determine. He does not seem to have been quite clear as
to what course he should pursue. He had completely lost faith in
British justice. He earnestly desired the emancipation of Canada from
British rule and the establishment of a republican system of
government. But he could not make up his mind to commit himself to
armed rebellion. 'I must say, however,' he had announced at St
Laurent, 'and it is neither fear nor scruple that makes me do so, that
the day has not yet come for us to respond to that appeal.' The same
attitude is apparent, in spite of the haughty and defiant language, in
the letter which he addressed to the governor's secretary in answer to
an inquiry as to what he had said at St Laurent:
SIR,--The pretension of the governor to interrogate me respecting my
conduct at St Laurent on the 15th of May last is an impertinence which
I repel with contempt and silence.
I, however, take the pen merely to tell the governor that it is false
that any of the resolutions adopted at the meeting of the county of
Montreal, held at St Laurent {68} on the 15th May last, recommend a
violation of the laws, as in his ignorance he may believe, or as he at
least asserts.--Your obedient servant,
L. J. PAPINEAU.
At St Charles Papineau was even more precise in repudiating revolution;
and there is no evidence that, when rebellion was decided upon,
Papineau played any important part in laying the plans. In later years
he was always emphatic in denying that the rebellion of 1837 had been
primarily his handiwork. 'I was,' he said in 1847, 'neither more nor
less guilty, nor more nor less deserving, than a great number of my
colleagues.' The truth seems to be that Papineau always balked a
little at the idea of armed rebellion, and that he was carried off his
feet at the end of 1837 by his younger associates, whose enthusiasm he
himself had inspired. He had raised the wind, but he could not ride
the whirlwind.
[Illustration: South-Western Lower Canada, 1837.]
{69}