SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE
UNDER CONFEDERATION
1867-1914
CONFEDERATION--IMPRESSIONS OF--FUNERAL OF D’ARCY M’GEE--PRINCE
ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT--THE SECOND FENIAN RAID--THE “SILVER”
NUISANCE--ORGANIZATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD--RUN ON
A SAVINGS BANK--FUNERAL OF SIR GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER--NEW
BALLOT ACT--THE “BAD TIMES”--THE NATIONAL POLICY--THE ICE
RAILWAY--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD CONTRACT--THE FORMATION
OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA--OTHER CONGRESSES--THE
FIRST WINTER CARNIVAL--FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ST. JEAN
BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--THE GREAT ALLEGORICAL PROCESSION AND
CAVALCADE--THE MONUMENT NATIONAL--THE RIEL REBELLION--SMALLPOX
EPIDEMIC AND RIOTS--THE FLOODS OF 1886--THE FIRST
REVETMENT WALL--THE JESUITS ESTATES BILL AND THE EQUAL
RIGHTS PARTY--LA GRIPPE--THE COMTE DE PARIS--ELECTRICAL
CONVENTION--HISTORIC TABLETS PLACED--THE TWO HUNDRED AND
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLE MARIE--THE BOARD OF TRADE
BUILDING BURNT--THE CITY RAILWAY ELECTRIFIED--HOME RULE FOR
IRELAND--VILLE MARIA BURNT--THE “SANTA MARIA”--CHRISTIAN
ENDEAVOURERS CONVENTION--THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY AS A PUBLIC
MUSEUM--MAISONNEUVE MONUMENT--LAVAL UNIVERSITY--QUEEN
VICTORIA’S DIAMOND JUBILEE--MONTREAL AND THE BOER WAR--THE
VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL--TURBINE STEAMERS--A
JAPANESE LOAN COMPANY--FIRST AUTOMOBILE FATALITY--FIRES AT
MCGILL--ECLIPSE OF SUN--THE WINDSOR STATION ACCIDENT--THE
“WITNESS” BUILDING BURNT--THE OPENING OF THE ROYAL EDWARD
INSTITUTE--GREAT CIVIC REFORM--THE DEATH OF EDWARD VII--THE
“HERALD” BUILDING BURNT--THE EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS--MONTREAL A
WORLD CITY--THE DRY DOCK--THE “TITANIC DISASTER”--CHILD WELFARE
EXHIBITION--MONTREAL AND THE WAR OF 1914 231
PART II
SPECIAL PROGRESS
CHAPTER XXIV
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
EARLY CHAPELS AND CHURCHES--THE FIRST PARISH CHURCH--OTHER
CHURCHES STANDING AT THE FALL OF MONTREAL--NOTRE DAME DE
VICTOIRE--- NOTRE DAME OF PITIE--THE “RECOLLET”--THE PRESENT
NOTRE DAME CHURCH--ERECTION AND OPENING--THE “OLD AND
NEW”--THE TOWERS AND BELLS--THE ECCLESIASTICAL DIOCESE OF
QUEBEC--THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL--THE DIVISION OF THE CITY
INTO PARISHES--THE CHURCHES AND “RELIGIOUS”--ENGLISH-SPEAKING
CATHOLICS--ST. PATRICK’S, IRISH NATIONAL CHURCH, ETC. NOTE: THE
“RELIGIOUS” COMMUNITIES OF MEN AND WOMEN 251
CHAPTER XXV
OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
ANGLICANISM--EARLY BEGINNINGS--FIRST “CHRIST CHURCH”--THE BISHOPS
OF MONTREAL--HISTORY OF EARLY ANGLICAN CHURCHES.
PRESBYTERIANISM--ST. GABRIEL’S STREET CHURCH--ITS OFFSHOOTS--THE
FREE KIRK MOVEMENT--THE CHURCH OF TODAY.
METHODISM--FIRST CHAPEL ON ST. SULPICE, 1809--THE DEVELOPMENT OF
METHODIST CHURCHES.
THE BAPTISTS--FIRST CHAPEL OF ST. HELEN STREET--FURTHER GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT--PRESENT CHURCHES.
CONGREGATIONALISM--CANADA EDUCATION AND HOME MISSIONARY
SOCIETY--FIRST CHURCH ON ST. MAURICE STREET--CHURCHES OF TODAY.
UNITARIANISM--FIRST SERMON IN CANADA, 1832--ST. JOSEPH STREET
CHAPEL--THE CHURCHES OF THE MESSIAH.
HEBREWS--SHEARITH ISRAEL--SHAAC HASHOMOYIM AND OTHER
CONGREGATIONS.
SALVATION ARMY--ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
OTHER DENOMINATIONS.
A RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF MONTREAL FOR 1911 271
CHAPTER XXVI
1760-1841
SCHOOL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL BEFORE THE CESSION
NEW MOVEMENT FOR BOYS--THE COLLEGE OF MONTREAL--THE BEGINNINGS
OF ENGLISH EDUCATION--THE FIRST ENGLISH SCHOOLMASTERS BEFORE
1790--A REPORT OF 1790 FOR THE SCHOOLS OF CANADA--THE DESIRE
TO REAR UP A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION--THE JESUITS’
ESTATES--THE “CASE” AGAINST AMHERST’S CLAIM TO THE JESUITS’
ESTATES AND FOR THEIR DIVERGENCE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION--NEW
ENGLISH MOVEMENT FOR A GENERAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION--THE
ACT OF 1801--THE ROYAL INSTITUTION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
LEARNING--NEVER A POPULAR SUCCESS--ITS REFORM IN 1818--A
COUNTERPOISE--THE FABRIQUE ACT OF 1824--REVIEW OF SCHOOLS UNDER
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--SUBSIDIZED SCHOOLS--REVIEW OF CATHOLIC
SCHOOLS--LAY SCHOOLS--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT ON EDUCATION. NOTE:
THE JESUITS’ ESTATES 293
CHAPTER XXVII
1841-1914
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AFTER THE UNION
THE RISE OF THE “SCHOOL COMMISSIONS OF MONTREAL”
EDUCATION AFTER THE REBELLION--THE EDUCATIONAL ACT OF
1846--THE PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
COMMISSIONERS--NORMAL SCHOOLS--THE AMENDED SCHOOL ACT
OF 1868-69--THE CHARTER--THE PROTESTANT HIGH SCHOOL--THE
PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--HISTORY OF
SCHOOLS--LIST OF CATHOLIC COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--PRESENT
SCHOOLS UNDER COMMISSION--INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC SCHOOL
COMMISSIONS--THE ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH THE CENTRAL
COMMISSION--“NUNS”--“BROTHERS”--“LAITY.”
NOTE: SECONDARY EDUCATION--TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL--VOCATIONAL 305
CHAPTER XXVIII
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
I. M’GILL UNIVERSITY
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--JAMES M’GILL--CHARTER OBTAINED--THE
“MONTREAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE” SAVES M’GILL--NEW LIFE IN
1829--THE RECTOR OF MONTREAL--THE MERCHANTS’ COMMITTEE--M’GILL
IN 1852--THE HISTORY OF THE FACULTIES--BUILDINGS--DEVELOPMENT
SINCE 1895--RECENT BENEFACTORS--MACDONALD COLLEGE--THE
STRATHCONA ROYAL VICTORIA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN. NOTE: THE UNION
THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT--THE JOINT BOARDS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL,
ANGLICAN, PRESBYTERIAN AND WESLEYAN AFFILIATED COLLEGES.
II. LAVAL UNIVERSITY (MONTREAL DISTRICT)
THE STORY OF ITS COMPONENT PARTS--EVOLUTION FROM THE “ECOLES
DE LATIN”--COLLEGE DE ST. RAPHAEL--ENGLISH STUDENTS--COLLEGE
DECLAMATIONS--THE PETIT SEMINAIRE ON COLLEGE STREET--THE
COLLEGE DE MONTREAL--THE SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY,
CLASSICS, LAW AND MEDICINE--THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “JAM
DUDUM”--DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS--AFFILIATED
BODIES--THE FACULTIES AND SCHOOLS. NOTE: NAMES OF EARLY
“ENGLISH” STUDENTS AT THE “COLLEGE” 325
CHAPTER XXIX
GENERAL CULTURE
I. THE LIBRARY MOVEMENT
FRENCH:--L’OEUVRE DES BONS LIVRES, 1844--THE CABINET DE LECTURE
PAROISSIAL, 1857.
ENGLISH:--“MONTREAL LIBRARY” AND MONTREAL NEWS ROOM,
1821--MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 1844--THE FRASER
INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 1870--ITS EARLY LITIGATIONS--ITS PUBLIC
OPENING IN 1885--OTHER LIBRARIES.
II. LITERARY AND LEARNED SOCIETIES
THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1827--THE MECHANICS INSTITUTE,
1828--LA SOCIETE HISTORIQUE, 1856--CONFERENCE DES INSTITUTEURS,
1857--THE “INSTITUT CANADIEN”--CERCLE LITTERAIRE DE VILLE
MARIE, 1857--UNION CATHOLIQUE, 1858--(THE GUIBORD CASE)--THE
ANTIQUARIAN AND NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION, 1862--THE “ECOLE
LITTERAIRE” 1892--ST. JAMES LITERARY SOCIETY, 1898--THE
“DICKENS’ FELLOWSHIP” 1909--OTHER LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS--THE
“BURNS SOCIETY”--THE ALLIANCE FRANCAISE--THE CANADIAN CLUB,
1905.
III. ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS
FOREWORD:--INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC EXCLUSIVENESS.
ART:--EARLY ART IN CANADA--THE MODERN MOVEMENT--THE MONTREAL
SOCIETY OF ARTISTS--THE ART ASSOCIATION OF MONTREAL--ITS
HISTORY--ITS PAINTINGS--MONTREAL ART COLLECTIONS--THE ART
SCHOOL--MONTREAL ARTISTS--THE WOMAN’S ART SOCIETY--THE CHATEAU
DE RAMEZAY--THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS--THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF
CANADA--OUTSTANDING ARTISTS.
THE DRAMA:--PLAYS IN 1804--THE FIRST THEATRE ROYAL BUILT IN
1825--THE SECOND OPENED IN 1850--OTHER THEATRES TO THE
PRESENT--AMATEUR THEATRICAL ASSOCIATIONS--THE DRAMATIC LEAGUE.
MUSIC:--MODERN SOCIETIES--SOCIETE DE STE CECILE--SOCIETE
DE MONTAGNARDS--AMATEUR MUSICAL LEAGUE--MENDELSSOHN
CHOIR--MONTREAL PHILHARMONIC--INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.
NEWSPAPERS:--MONTREAL HISTORIES 349
CHAPTER XXX
NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE POPULATION
1834, THE YEAR OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST
NATIONAL SOCIETIES.
ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--REORGANIZATION IN 1843--THE
“MONUMENT NATIONAL”--EDUCATION AND SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS--THE
FRENCH-CANADIAN SPIRIT--PRESIDENTS.
ST. GEORGE’S SOCIETY--A CELEBRATION IN 1821--OBJECT--EARLIEST
OFFICERS--THE HISTORY OF ST. GEORGE’S HOME--PRESIDENTS.
ST. ANDREW’S SOCIETY--ORGANIZATION AND FIRST OFFICERS--JOINT
PROCESSIONS OF NATIONAL SOCIETIES--EARLIEST CHARITABLE
ACTIVITIES--THE HEALTH OF THE POPE--THE LORD ELGIN
INCIDENT--THE CRIMEAN WAR--SUBSCRIPTION TO A PATRIOTIC
FUND--THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HOME BEGINS--THE HISTORY
OF ST. ANDREW’S HALL--CONDOLENCE ON DEATH OF D’ARCY
MCGEE--PRESIDENTS.
ST. PATRICK’S SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY NON-DENOMINATIONAL--EARLY
PRESIDENTS--THE REORGANIZATION IN 1856--FIRST OFFICERS--FIRST
SOIREE--FIRST ANNIVERSARY DINNER--NATIONAL SOCIETIES
PRESENT--THE TOASTS--IRISH COMPANIES IN CORPUS CHRISTI
PROCESSION--IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION--T. D’ARCY
M’GEE--EMIGRATION WORK--ST. PATRICK’S HALL--PRESIDENTS.
IRISH PROTESTANT BENEVOLENT SOCIETY--EARLY
MEMBERS--WORKS--PRESIDENTS.
GERMAN SOCIETY--HISTORY AND PRESIDENTS.
WELSH SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY THE “WELSH UNION OF
MONTREAL”--AFTERWARD--ITS OBJECT--PRESIDENTS.
NEWFOUNDLAND SOCIETY--ORIGIN--PRESIDENTS.
THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT--THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.
OTHER NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CENSUS OF POPULATION FOR 1911 369
CHAPTER XXXI
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
FIGHTING FIRE--DARKNESS--FLOODS--DROUGHT
1. FIRE FIGHTING--THE FIRE OF 1765--“THE CASE OF THE CANADIANS
OF MONTREAL”--THE EXTENT OF THE FIRE--FIRE PRECAUTIONS
SUGGESTED--OTHER HISTORICAL FORCES--THE MONTREAL FIRE FORCES OF
THE PAST AND PRESENT.
2. THE LIGHTING OF MONTREAL--OIL LAMPS, 1815--GAS,
1836--ELECTRICITY--FIRST EXPERIMENTS IN THE STREETS, 1879--THE
ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES--NOTES ON INTRODUCTION OF THE
TELEGRAPH--FIRE ALARM--ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
3. FLOODS, EARLY AND MODERN, 1848, 1857, 1861, 1865, 1886--THE
PRACTICAL CESSATION IN 1888.
4. THE CITY WATER SUPPLY--THE MONTREAL WATER WORKS--PRIVATE
COMPANIES--THE MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS--THE PUMPING PLANTS--THE
WATER FAMINE OF 1913 397
CHAPTER XXXII
LAW AND ORDER
JAILS--POLICE SERVICES--COURTHOUSE--LAW OFFICERS
EARLY PUNISHMENTS--FIRST CASES OF THE MAGISTRATES--GEORGE THE
“NAGRE”--“EXECUTION FOR MURDER”--OTHER CRIMES PUNISHED BY
DEATH--SOLDIER DESERTIONS--A PUBLIC EXECUTION--THE JAILS--- THE
JAIL TAX TROUBLES--OBNOXIOUS TOASTS--THE NEW JAIL OF 1836--ITS
POPULATIONS--THE NEW BORDEAUX PRISON--OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY
PRISONS--THE EARLY POLICING OF MONTREAL--THE LOCAL POLICE
FORCE OF 1815--THE POLICE FORCE AFTER THE REBELLION OF
1837-1838--POLICE CHIEFS--MODERN LAW COURTS AND JUDGES--THE
HISTORY OF THE BAR--THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF MONTREAL--THE
RECORDERS--THE ARCHIVES. SUPPLEMENT--THE JUDGES OF THE HIGHER
COURTS FROM 1764 TO 1914--THE SHERIFFS OF MONTREAL--THE
PROTHONOTARIES--THE COURTHOUSE SITES--THE BATONNIERS 413
CHAPTER XXXIII
HOSPITALS
THE HOTEL DIEU: JEANNE MANCE--THE HOSPITALIERES OF LA FLECHE--THE
HOTEL DIEU CHAPEL--ST. PATRICK’S HOSPITAL--THE MIGRATION TO
PINE AVENUE--THE PRESENT MODERN HOSPITAL.
THE GENERAL HOSPITAL: “THE LADIES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY”--THE HOUSE
OF RECOVERY--THE MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL--ITS BENEFACTORS AND
ITS ADDITIONS--THE EARLY TRAINING OF NURSES--THE ANNEX OF 1913.
THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL: THE LAVAL MEDICAL FACULTY--THE OLD
DONEGANI HOTEL--THE LADY PATRONESSES--MODERN DEVELOPMENT.
THE WESTERN HOSPITAL: THE BISHOPS COLLEGE MEDICAL FACULTY--THE
WOMEN’S HOSPITAL.
THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL: IN MEMORY OF QUEEN VICTORIA--ITS
DESCRIPTION--ITS INCORPORATION--ITS EQUIPMENT.
THE HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL: FIRST ORGANIZED
WORK--INCORPORATION--THE FIRST HOSPITAL--THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENTS--THE PHILLIPS TRAINING SCHOOL FOR NURSES.
THE HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE: EARLY TREATMENT OF INSANE--THE
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOSPITALS ST. JEAN DE DIEU AT
LONGUE POINTE AND THE PROTESTANT ASYLUM AT VERDUN.
CIVIC HOSPITALS: THE SMALLPOX HOSPITAL--“CONTAGIOUS”
HOSPITALS--HOSPITAL ST. PAUL--ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL.
TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARIES: THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE--PIONEER
TUBERCULOSIS CLINIC IN CANADA--PUBLIC HEALTH EXHIBITIONS--THE
INSTITUTE BRUCHESI: ITS DEVELOPMENT--THE GRACE DART HOME--CIVIC
AID.
CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS: THE CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL--STE.
JUSTINE. OTHER HOSPITAL ADJUNCT ASSOCIATIONS. NOTE: MEDICAL
BOARDS: PRIVATE, PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL 433
CHAPTER XXXIV
SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENTS
I. CARE OF THE AGED, FOUNDLINGS AND INFANTS.
II. RELIEF MOVEMENTS.
III. SICK VISITATION AND NURSING BODIES.
IV. MOVEMENTS FOR THE “UNFORTUNATES.”
V. VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE HANDICAPPED.
VI. IMMIGRATION WORK.
VII. HUMANITARIAN MOVEMENTS FOR BOYS.
VIII. HEBREW SOCIAL WORKS.
IX. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENTS.
X. MOVEMENTS FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
XI. TEMPERANCE MOVEMENTS.
XII. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF WORKERS.
XIII. RECENT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
XIV. MUNICIPAL CHARITIES. 457
CHAPTER XXXV
COMMERCIAL HISTORY BEFORE THE UNION
MONTREAL’S EARLY BUSINESS FIRMS--A PROPHECY AT BEGINNING
OF NINETEENTH CENTURY--CULTIVATION OF HEMP--ST. PAUL
STREET--SLAVES IN MONTREAL--DOCTORS AND DRUGS IN
1815--WHOLESALE FIRMS IN 1816--FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE
OF TRADE--NOTRE DAME STREET--M’GILL STREET--FRENCH CANADIAN
BUSINESSES--SHIP CARGOES--THE SHOP FRONTS IN 1839 527
CHAPTER XXXVI
COMMERCIAL HISTORY SINCE THE UNION
THE RISE OF MODERN MANUFACTURES AND INDUSTRIES
MONTREAL CENTER OF CANADIAN TRADE--LORD ELGIN’S OPINION OF THE
CANADA CORN ACT--TRADE DEPRESSION BEGINNING IN 1847--SUGAR
AND FLOUR INDUSTRIES--THE PANIC OF 1860--A PROSPEROUS
DECADE--ANOTHER DEPRESSION--THE NATIONAL POLICY--PROSPERITY
AGAIN IN THE EIGHTIES--ST. CATHERINE STREET--THE RISE
OF FURTHER INDUSTRIES--THE RISE OF THE COMMERCIAL
ASSOCIATIONS--THE COMMITTEE OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES--THE BOARD
OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES IN CANAL, PORT, RAILWAY, CANADIAN AND
EMPIRE EXPANSION--ITS INTEREST IN CIVIC GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL
CIVIC BETTERMENT--ITS BUILDING--ITS SOCIAL FUNCTIONS--THE
“CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE”--ITS ORIGIN--THE OTHER MERCHANTS’
ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CITY--A TRIBUTE TO THE MERCHANTS OF
MONTREAL. NOTES: PRESIDENTS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE--CENSUS
(1912) OF MONTREAL MANUFACTURES 535
CHAPTER XXXVII
FINANCE
MONTREAL BANKING AND INSURANCE BODIES
I. BANKING: HAMILTON’S PLAN FOLLOWED BY THE FIRST BANK OF THE
UNITED STATES IN 1791--1792, THE ATTEMPTED CANADA BANKING
COMPANY AT MONTREAL--DELAY THROUGH AMERICAN WAR OF 1812--1815,
RENEWED AGITATION FOR A BANK CHARTER FOR MONTREAL--1817,
THE FIRST BANK OF MONTREAL WITHOUT A CHARTER--ITS FIRST
OFFICERS--OTHER BANKS FOLLOW--THE QUEBEC BANK--THE RIVAL
“BANK OF CANADA”--THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA--MOLSONS
BANK--THE MERCHANTS BANK--BANQUE JACQUES CARTIER, PREDECESSOR
TO BANQUE PROVINCIALE--THE ROYAL BANK--THE BANQUE
D’HOCHELAGA--THE MONTREAL CITY AND DISTRICT BANK--BANKS WITH
HEAD OFFICES ELSEWHERE--MONTREAL BANK CLEARINGS WITH CANADIAN
AND NORTH AMERICAN CITIES.
II. INSURANCE: THE PIONEER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA--THE
“PHOENIX”--THE “AETNA”--IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES--THE GREAT
FIRE OF 1854--LATER COMPANIES. A. LIFE INSURANCE: THE PIONEER
COMPANIES--THE SCOTTISH AMICABLE AND SCOTTISH PROVIDENT
COMPANIES. B. MISCELLANEOUS INSURANCE 553
CHAPTER XXXVIII
TRANSPORTATION
I
SHIPPING--EARLY AND MODERN
BY RIVER AND STREAM
MONTREAL HEAD OF NAVIGATION--LAKE ST. PETER--JACQUES CARTIER’S
DIFFICULTIES--THE GRADUAL DEEPENING OF THE CHANNEL--THE LACHINE
CANAL IN 1700--ITS FURTHER HISTORY--MONTREAL THE HEAD OF THE
CANAL SYSTEM OF CANADA.
II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONTREAL SHIPPING
A--SAILING VESSELS
BIRCH BARK CANOE--BATEAU--DURHAM BOAT--SHIPBUILDING IN MONTREAL.
B--STEAM VESSELS
JOHN MOLSON’S ACCOMMODATION, 1809--PASSENGER FARES BETWEEN
MONTREAL AND QUEBEC--PASSAGE DESCRIBED--THE TORRANCES--INLAND
NAVIGATION--THE RICHELIEU AND ONTARIO COMPANY--THE FIRST UPPER
DECK STEAMER TO SHOOT THE LACHINE RAPIDS.
C--ATLANTIC LINERS
THE ROYAL WILLIAM FIRST OCEAN STEAMER AND PIONEER OF THE
OCEAN LINERS--ITS CONNECTION WITH MONTREAL--MAIL SERVICE TO
MONTREAL--THE GENOVA--- ARRIVAL IN MONTREAL IN 1853--DINNER TO
CAPTAIN PATON--THE CRIMEAN WAR--THE MONTREAL OCEAN STEAMSHIP
COMPANY--THE FIRST CANADIAN ATLANTIC SHIP COMPANY--THE ALLAN
LINE--EARLY BOATS--MAIL CARRIERS--1861 DISASTERS--SUBSEQUENT
SUCCESS--THE PRESENT MONTREAL ALLAN SERVICE--THE CANADIAN
PACIFIC RAILWAY STEAMSHIP LINES--OTHER LINES--THE SHIPPING AND
THE WAR OF 1914--THE GREAT ARMADA 569
CHAPTER XXXIX
TRANSPORTATION
I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL--HERIOT’S DESCRIPTION
IN 1815--T.S. BROWN IN 1818--THE ISLAND WHARF--THE
CREEK--THE PRIMITIVE WHARVES--THE “POINTS”--THE RIVER
FRONT--THE SPRING FLEET--FIREWOOD RAFTS--TOW BOATS--THE
EVERETTA--AN ACCOUNT OF 1819--BOUCHETTE’S PLAN OF 1824--THE
FIRST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, “THE TRINITY BOARD”--FIRST
REPORT--LATEST REPORT--EARLY ENGINEERS--REVIEW OF HARBOUR IN
1872--A TRANSFORMATION FROM 1818--GRAIN ELEVATORS--NUMBER
OF VESSELS--MARKET AND WOOD BOATS--THE BONSECOURS
MARKET--1875 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT NOW CARRIED OUT--FLOATING
DOCK--DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT HARBOUR--ITS FACILITIES FOR
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT--THE DESIRE TO LENGTHEN THE SHIPPING SEASON.
II
HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS--THE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS FROM 1830 TO THE
PRESENT TIME.
III
CUSTOMS--SHIPPING FEDERATION--THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY--IMPORTS AND
EXPORTS 585
CHAPTER XL
TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL
IV
MONTREAL AND THE RAILWAYS OF CANADA
MONTREAL THE CENTRE OF RAILWAY COMMUNICATION--THE FIRST
RAILWAY--THE SNAKE RAIL AND THE “KITTEN”--“THE CHAMPLAIN AND
THE ST. LAWRENCE”--THE SECOND RAILWAY. THE ATLANTIC AND ST.
LAWRENCE--THE AMALGAMATION INTO THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
1. ITS HISTORY--ITS PRESIDENTS--AN INTERESTING REPORT AT
CONFEDERATION--NEW FREIGHT YARDS--CHAS. M. HAYS AND THE GRAND
TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY--THE BUILDING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGES BY
THE GRAND TRUNK RAILROAD.
2. THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY--ITS FINANCIERS--TWIN TO
CONFEDERATION--OPPOSITION TO PROMOTERS--EARLY FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES--NO BIG FORTUNES MADE--ROLLING STOCK--A
REAL EMPIRE BUILDER--HELPING NEW INDUSTRIES--HUGE LAND
HOLDINGS--IRRIGATION OF BARREN LANDS.
3. OTHER SYSTEMS--THE “INTERCOLONIAL”--THE CANADIAN NORTHERN AND
ITS MOUNTAIN TUNNEL 607
CHAPTER XLI
TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD
I
THE ANCIENT AND MODERN POSTAL SERVICE OF MONTREAL
ANCIENT ROADS--THE “GRAND VOYER”--GOOD ROADS MOVEMENT--THE
EVOLUTION OF ROADS--“POST” MASTERS RECOGNIZED IN
1780--THE EARLY POSTAL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL AND BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN--BURLINGTON THE TERMINUS--EARLY LETTER RATES--MAIL
ADVERTISEMENTS--THE QUEBEC TO MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE--EARLY
POSTOFFICE IN MONTREAL--OCEAN AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE--THE
PRESENT POSTOFFICE--ITS HISTORICAL TABLETS BY FLAXMAN--THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM--THE POSTMASTERS OF MONTREAL.
II
STREET TRANSPORTATION
MODERNIZING MONTREAL
MONTREAL IN 1861--THE STREET RAILWAY MOVEMENT--THE “MONTREAL
CITY PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY” CHARTERED--THE HISTORY OF THE
COMPANY--ITS FIRST PROMOTERS--EIGHT PASSENGER CARS, SIX MILES,
HORSE SERVICE IN 1861--THE OPENING UP OF THE STREETS--WINTER
SERVICE OF SLEIGHS--1892 THE BEGINNING OF ELECTRIC ERA--THE
CONVERSION OF THE SYSTEM INTO ELECTRIC TRACTION--THE GRADUAL
GROWTH OF THE COMPANY 623
CHAPTER XLII
1760-1841
CITY IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CESSION
UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
EARLY STREET REGULATIONS--A PICTURE OF MONTREAL HOUSES IN
1795--FURTHER STREETS OPENED--A “CITY PLAN” MOVEMENT IN
1799--HOUSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY--MAP
OF 1801--CITY WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED--CITADEL HILL
REMOVED--FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS--ROAD COMMISSIONERS--PICTURE
OF 1819--IMPROVEMENTS DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF THE
JUSTICES AND THE MUNICIPALITY--PICTURE OF 1839 BY BOSWORTH 635
CHAPTER XLIII
1841-1867
CITY IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE UNION
UNDER THE MUNICIPALITY
GREAT STRIDES AT THE UNION--THE EARLY MARKET PLACES--THE
BONSECOURS MARKET--OTHER MARKETS--PUBLIC PLACES--THE EARLY
SQUARES--PRESENT PARKS--THE EARLY CEMETERIES--THE FIRST JEWISH
CEMETERY--THE DORCHESTER STREET PROTESTANT CEMETERY--DOMINION
SQUARE--MOUNT ROYAL--COTE DES NEIGES--OTHER CEMETERIES--GENERAL
CITY IMPROVEMENT--AREAS OF PUBLIC PLACES 641
CHAPTER XLIV
1867-1914
CITY IMPROVEMENT SINCE CONFEDERATION
THE RISE OF METROPOLITAN MONTREAL
THE METROPOLITAN ASPECT OF MONTREAL IN 1868--EDUCATIONAL
BUILDINGS--THE CITY STREET RAILWAY AIDS SUBURBAN
EXTENSION--FORECAST OF ANNEXATIONS--THE CITY HOMOLOGATED
PLAN--THE ANNEXATION OF SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES IN 1883--TABLE
OF ANNEXATION SINCE 1883--PREFONTAINE’S REVIEW OF THE YEARS
1884-1898--IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE BOARD OF CONTROL--A REVIEW
OF THE LAST TWO DECADES OF METROPOLITAN GROWTH--THE CHANGES
DOWNTOWN--THE GROWTH UPTOWN.
STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENTS: 1. STATEMENT OF BUILDINGS. 2. REAL
ESTATE ASSESSMENTS. 3. RECENT BUILDINGS ERECTED OR COMPLETED.
4. THE METROPOLITAN POPULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE
POPULATION OF MONTREAL WITH THE CITIES OF THE CONTINENT. 5. OF
THE WORLD. 6. OPTIMISTIC SPECULATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. 7. VITAL
CITY STATISTICS IN 1912. 8. A PLAN FOR “GREATER MONTREAL”--THE
HISTORY OF THE PRESENT MOVEMENT 651
UNDER ENGLISH RULE
PART I
CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS
CHAPTER
I THE EXODUS--“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW.”
II THE INTERREGNUM--MILITARY RULE.
III THE TREATY OF PARIS--NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
IV CITY GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
V PRELIMINARY STRUGGLES FOR AN ASSEMBLY--THE CASE FOR THE
MERCHANTS.
VI THE QUEBEC ACT--1774. THE CASE FOR THE NOBLESSE.
VII REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775.
VIII MONTREAL BESIEGED.
IX MONTREAL AN AMERICAN CITY.
X THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST. 1791.
XI THE FUR TRADERS.
XII FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS.
XIII THE INVASION OF 1812-1813.
XIV ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
XV BUREAUCRACY AND DEMOCRACY.
XVI MURMURS OF REVOLUTION.
XVII IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR.
XVIII PROCLAMATION OF UNION--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.
XIX UNDER THE UNION.
XX THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL.
XXI ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
XXII UNDER CONFEDERATION.
XXIII ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
HISTORY OF MONTREAL
CHAPTER I
THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL
1760
“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”
AMHERST’S LETTER REVIEWING EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE
CAPITULATION--THE SURRENDER OF ARMS--THE REVIEW OF BRITISH
TROOPS--THE DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH TROOPS--END OF THE
PECULATORS--VAUDREUIL’S CAPITULATION CENSURED--DEPARTURE OF
THE PROVINCIAL TROOPS--ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
COLONY--DEPARTURE OF AMHERST--THE TWO RACES LEFT BEHIND. NOTES:
(1) THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT.--(2) THE POPULATION OF CANADA
AT THE FALL.
On the capitulation of Montreal in the grey of the early morn of
September 8, 1760, British Rule began and the Régime of France
was ended. On the 9th the victorious Amherst wrote his official
account to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. The
details therein will serve to recapitulate the history of the
final downpour on Montreal during the days preceding its fall,
with the new era commencing, and accordingly we present it to our
readers.
“Camp of Montreal,
9th September, 1760.
Sir:
In Mine of the 26th ultimo I acquainted You with the progress of
the Army after the departure from Oswego and with the Success of
His Majesty’s Arms against Fort Levis, now Fort William Augustus,
where I remained no longer than was requisite to make Such
preparations as I Judged Essentially necessary for the passage of
the army down the River, which took me up to the 30th.
In the morning of the following day I set out and proceeded from
Station to Station to our present Ground, where we arrived on the
6th in the evening, after having in the passage sustained a loss
of Eighty-Eight men drowned,----Batteaus of Regts. seventeen of
Artillery, with Some Artillery Stores, Seventeen Whaleboats, one
Row Galley staved, Occasioned by the Violence of the Current and
the Rapids being full of broken Waves.
The Inhabitants of the Settlements I passed thro’ in my way
hither having abandoned their Houses and run into the Woods I
sent after them; Some were taken and others came of their own
Accord. I had them disarmed and Caused the oath of Allegiance to
be tendered to them, which they readily took; and I accordingly
put them in quiet possession of their Habitations, with Which
treatment they seemed no less Surprised than happy. The troops
being formed and the Light Artillery brought up, the Army lay on
their Arms till the Night of the 6th.
On the 7th, in the morning, two Officers came to an advanced post
with a Letter from the Marquis de Vaudreuil referring me to what
one of them, Colonel Bouguinville, had to say. The Conversation
ended with a Cessation of Arms till 12 o’Clock, when the
Proposals were brought in; Soon after I returned them with the
terms I was willing to grant, Which both the Marquis de Vaudreuil
and Mons. de Lévis, the French General, were very strenuous to
have softened; this Occasioned Sundry Letters to Pass between us
During the day as well as the Night (when the Army again lay on
their Arms), but as I would not on any Account deviate in the
Least from my Original Conditions and I insisted on an Immediate
and Categorical answer Mr. de Vaudreuil, soon after daybreak,
Notified to me that he had determined to Accept of them and two
Sets of them were accordingly Signed by him and me and Exchanged
Yesterday when Colonel Haldimand, with the Grenadiers and the
Light Infantry of the Army took Possession of One of the Gates of
the town and is this day to proceed in fulfilling the Articles
of the Capitulation; By which the French Troops are all to lay
down their arms; are not to serve during the Continuance of the
Present War and are to be sent back to Old France as are also
the Governors and Principal Officers of the Legislature of the
Whole Country, Which I have now the Satisfaction to inform You
is entirely Yielded to the Dominion of His Majesty. On which
Interesting and happy Event I most Sincerely Congratulate you.
Governor Murray, with the Troops from Quebec, landed below the
Town on Sunday last & Colonel Haviland with his Corps (that took
possession of the Isle aux Noix, Abandoned by the enemy on the
28th) Arrived Yesterday at the South Shore Opposite to My Camp. I
am, with great regard,
Sir,
Your most Obedient,
Humble Servant
JEFF AMHERST.
The Honourable Lt. Governor Hamilton.
(Endorsed by Hamilton, Camp Montreal, 7 ber, 1776. General
Amherst, received by Post Tuesday, 23d September.)”[1]
Haldimand, as directed by Amherst on the 9th, received the
submission of the troops of France.
In the French camp, de Lévis reviewed his forces--2,132 of all
ranks. In his Journal they are thus summarized:
Officers present 179
Soldiers 1953
----
2132
Officers returned to France 46
Soldiers invalided 241
----
287
----
Total 2419
Soldiers described as absent from their regiments 927
----
3346
[Illustration: FORTIFICATIONS OF MONTREAL, 1760]
There on the Place d’Armes yielded up their arms, all that was
left of the brave French warriors who had no dishonour in their
submission, surrendering only to the overwhelming superior
numbers of the English conquerors. With de Lévis was the able
de Bourlamaque and the scholarly soldier de Bougainville, with
Dumas, Rocquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne and so many of the
heroes of Ticonderoga and Carillon. There too was de Vaudreuil,
the Governor General, Commander-in-Chief, and last governor of
New France, with his brother, the last Governor of Montreal under
the Old Régime. Haviland’s entourage and the British troops
present could not but admire their late opponents.
The only jarring note of the ceremony was the absence of the
French flags from the usual paraphernalia to be delivered up.
The omission is thus signaled by Amherst, in his official report
of the submission, who after mentioning the surrender of the
two captured British American stands of colours goes on to say
that there were no French colours forthcoming: “The Marquis de
Vaudreuil, generals and commanding officers of the regiment,
giving their word of honour that the battalions had not any
colours; they had brought them with them six years ago; they were
torn to pieces and finding them troublesome in this country they
had destroyed them.”
They had however been but recently destroyed, for the “Journal”
of de Lévis, written by him Cæsar-like in the third person,
tells how, after being unable to shake the determination of de
Vaudreuil to capitulate without the honours of war, de Lévis,
in order to spare his troops a portion of the humiliation they
were to undergo, had ordered them to burn their colours to avoid
the hard condition of handing them over to the enemy. “_M. le
Chevalier de Lévis voyant avec douleur que rien ne pouvoit faire
changer la determination de M. le Marquis de Vaudreuil voulant
épargner aux troupes une partie de l’humiliation quelles alloient
subir, leur ordonna de brûler leurs drapeaux pour se soustraire à
la dure condition de les remettre aux ennemis._”[2] (_Cf. Journal
des Campagnes du Chevalier de Lévis en Canada, 1756-1760. Edited
by l’Abbé H.R. Casgrain, Montreal, C.O. Beauchemin et fils,
1889._)
On the 11th Amherst turned out his whole force and received
Vaudreuil on parade. Between these two, friendly relations had
been established. Place d’Armes was again a scene of colour with
the presence of the British regiments led by Murray, Haviland,
Burton, Gage, Fraser the gallant Highlander, Guy Carleton, who
was to become the famous viceroy of Canada and to die Lord
Dorchester, Lord Howe, and the scholarly Swiss soldier Haldimand.
There were present, too, Sir William Johnston, the baronet of the
Mohawk Valley and leader of the six nations, Major Robert Rogers
of the famous rangers,[3] with his two brothers, and others
of note. No doubt de Vaudreuil’s suite was not far off with
de Lévis, de Bourlamaque, de Bougainville, Dumas, Roquemaure,
Pouchot, Luc de la Corne, with the nefarious Intendant Bigot
and all the principal officers of the colony who had been in
Montreal, the headquarters of government since the fall of Quebec.
During the three following days the town was definitely occupied
by the British, and the arrangements completed for the departure
of the French Regulars. The regiments of Languedoc and Berry,
with the marine corps, were embarked on the 13th; the regiments
of Royal Rousillon and Guyenne on the 14th; on the 16th the
regiments of La Reine and Béarn. On the 17th de Lévis, with de
Bourlamaque, started for Quebec; de Vaudreuil and Bigot left on
the 20th and 21st. By the 22nd every French soldier had left
Montreal, except those who had married in the country and who had
resolved to remain in it and transfer their allegiance to the new
government.[4]
Fate had dealt a severe blow to the brave defenders of Canada
whom we now find sailing from Montreal to France, which would
appear to have abandoned them. The regulars and the colonial
troops, in spite of their jealousies and emulations, were brave
men, and duly honoured as such by the British soldiery who saw
the vessels bearing on the broad St. Lawrence so many of those
who had recently disputed the long drawn out strife for the
conquest of Canada. Speaking of this, “the most picturesque
and dramatic of American wars,” Parkman continues: “There is
nothing more noteworthy than the skill with which the French
and Canadian leaders use their advantages; the indomitable
spirit with which, slighted and abandoned as they were, they
grappled with prodigious difficulties and the courage with which
they were seconded by regulars and militia alike. In spite of
occasional lapses, the defence of Canada deserves a tribute of
admiration.”--(“Montcalm and Wolfe,” Vol. II, p. 382.)
The departures from Montreal and Quebec must have been indeed
heart-rending. That from Montreal, since the fall of Quebec,
the home of all the high officials of the civil, religious and
military governments, was the most striking, as the natural
leaders of the colony were mostly there. “There repassed into
Europe,” says the French Canadian historian, F.X. Garneau, “about
185 officers, 2,400 soldiers valid and invalid, and fully 500
sailors, domestics, women and children. The smallness of this
proved at once the cruel ravages of the war, the paucity of
embarkations of succour sent from France, and the great numerical
superiority of the victor. The most notable colonists at the
same time left the country. Their emigration was encouraged,
that of the Canadian officers especially, whom the conquerors
desired to be rid of and whom they eagerly stimulated to pass to
France. Canada lost by this self-expatriation the most precious
portion of its people, invaluable as its members were from their
experience, their intelligence and their knowledge of public and
commercial affairs.”[5] (Bell’s translation, Vol. II, p. 294.)
[Illustration: SIR GUY CARLETON]
[Illustration: GENERAL JAMES MURRAY]
[Illustration: LORD JEFFREY AMHERST]
The clergy, however, solidly remained at their posts to build up
the self-esteem of the people and to rear up a loyal race. Hence
the respect and gratitude due to them by the French Canadians of
today.
Yet there were many of whom the country was well rid, such as
Bigot, Cadet, Péan, Bréard, Varin, Le Mercier, Pénisseault,
Maurin, Corpron and others, accused of the frauds and peculations
that helped to ruin Canada. A great sigh of relief might well
have escaped from the French who had been ruined by them.
Most of the ships provided by the English government weathered
the November gales. The vessel L’Auguste containing Saint-Luc de
la Corne, his brother, and others, after being storm-tossed and
saved from conflagration, finally drove towards the shore, struck
and rolled on its side, and became wrecked on the Cap du Nord,
Ile Royale. La Corne, with six others, gained the shore, and he
reached Quebec before the end of the winter, as his journal tells
us. His name was to become familiar at Montreal under the British
régime.
The sloop Marie, which had been fitted up to receive the Marquis
de Vaudreuil, his family and staff, had an early mishap between
Montreal and Three Rivers, having run aground.
M. de Vaudreuil and the staff of officers of the colony arrived
at Brest on the English vessel L’Aventure under a flag of
truce, with 142 passengers from Canada. Thence, de Vaudreuil
wrote to the minister of mariné. On December 5th the latter
wrote back acknowledging this letter and that of September
from Montreal containing the articles of capitulation, with
papers relating thereto. A précis of this letter to Vaudreuil
reveals that, although the king was aware of the condition of
the colony, in default of the reinforcements it was unable to
receive, yet, after the hopes the governor had given, by his
letters in the month of June, of holding out some time longer,
and his assurances that the last efforts would be put forth to
sustain the honour of the king before yielding, His Majesty
did not expect to learn so soon of the surrender of Montreal
and of the whole colony. Granting the force of all the reasons
which led to the capitulation, the king was nevertheless
considerably surprised, and less satisfied, at having to submit
to conditions so little to his honour, especially in the face
of the representations which had been made to him by M. de
Lévis on behalf of the military corps of the colony. The king,
in reading the memorandum of these representations, which the
minister was unable to avoid placing before him, saw in it that,
notwithstanding the slight hope of success, Vaudreuil was still
in a condition, with the diminished resources remaining to
him, to attempt an attack or a defence that might have brought
the English to grant a capitulation that would have been more
honourable for the troops. The king left him at liberty to
remain at Brest for the time, for his health. With regard to the
officers who were with him, they could retire to their families
or elsewhere. It was sufficient for him to be informed of their
place of residence.--(“Canadian Archives,” Vol. III, p. 313.)
Not only was Vaudreuil censured for the capitulation of
Montreal, but finally he had the honour of being placed in the
Bastille with the peculators whom we have above mentioned.[6]
His release, however, was speedy. Whatever his gains might have
been from trading in the early part of his career, e. g., as
Governor of Louisiana, he reached France from his government
of Canada a poor man. The trial of those accused of peculation
lasted from December 1, 1761, till the end of March, and on
December 10, 1763, the president of the commission rendered his
final decision. Vaudreuil with five more were relieved from the
accusation, but he died in 1764 less from age than from sorrow.
“In the course of his trial he stood by the Canadian officers,
now being slandered by Bigot. ‘Brought up in Canada myself,’
said the late Governor General, ‘I knew them, every one, and
I maintain that almost all of them are as upright as they are
valorous; in general the Canadians seem to be soldiers born; a
masculine and military training early inures them to fatigues and
dangers. The annals of their expeditions, their explorations, and
their dealings with the aborigines abound in marvelous examples
of courage, activity, patience under privation, coolness in
peril, and obedience to leaders during services which have cost
many of them their lives, but without slackening the ardour of
the survivors. Such officers as these, with a handful of armed
inhabitants and a few savage warriors, have often disconcerted
the projects, paralyzed the preparations, ravaged the provinces,
and beaten the troops of Great Britain when eight or ten times
more numerous than themselves. In a country with frontiers
so vast, such qualities were priceless.’ And he finished by
declaring that he would fail in his duty to those generous
warriors, and even to the state itself, if he did not proclaim
their services, their merits and their innocence.”--(Bell’s
translation of Garneau, Vol. II, p. 298.)
Governor Carleton, writing in 1767 to Lord Shelburne, confirms
this tribute. “The new subjects could send into the field about
eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms, of which number,
above one-half have 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.”
Vaudreuil might also have paid a compliment to the brave women
of New France, who, like Madeleine de Verchères and others, were
ready to fight with the men, and who were true women and wives.
“Brave and beautiful,” George III summed them up in a compliment
paid at his court in London after the conquest to Madame de Léry,
the wife of Chevalier de Léry, the engineer who repaired the
fortifications of Montreal: “If all the Canadian ladies resemble
you, I have truly made a fine conquest.”
It must not be thought that the departure of the French colonial
officers was an entire abandonment of the project of regaining
the country. They were to be retained for the French service
and possibly for future use in Canada.[7] They were called to
Tourraine and there held at the king’s pleasure under pay, to all
intents and purposes officers in the French service, and liable
to be sent on any service.
“The British provincial troops were sent from Montreal at an
early date. The New Hampshire and Rhode Island regiments crossed
the river and proceeded to Chambly, thence went to Crown Point.
The Connecticut troops were ordered to Oswego and Fort Stanwix;
the New York and New Jersey regiments to the lately named Fort
William Augustus, at the head of the rapids, and to Oswegatchie
(Ogdensburg). Rogers, with four hundred men, bearing letters from
Vaudreuil instructing the forts to be given over, was sent to
Detroit, Miami, St. Joseph and Michillimackinac.[8] Moncton at
the same time received orders to forward regular troops to take
permanent possession of these forts.”--(Kingsford, “History of
Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 409.)
The troops that were to remain in Montreal for the winter were
now established in their quarters. The French Indians in the
neighbourhood were summoned to the city and requested to bring
their prisoners; they appeared with several men, women and
children, and Johnston established rules and regulations for
their future government.
Amherst remained in Montreal till September 26th, when he went
down the river to Quebec. He left on October 5th and on the
18th was on Lake Champlain, thence to Albany, which he left on
the 21st to arrive in New York on the 28th of October. He never
visited Canada again, but he left it, however, well organized.
Immediately after the capitulation of Montreal he had occupied
himself with the establishment of a provisional military
government with tribunals to administer justice summarily until
a definite form of government should be determined. The French
division of the province into the three administrative districts
of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal was maintained. In a
despatch to Pitt dated October 4, 1760, from Quebec (Amériques
et Indes Occidentales, No. 699), Amherst renders an account of
all the dispositions which he had made since the date of the
capitulation of Montreal. Although the greater part of these
were military matters, the following items concerning the civil
administration may be found:
September 15; I have sent officers with detachments to the
different villages to collect the arms and to make them take the
oath of allegiance.
September 16; I have named Colonel Burton governor of Three
Rivers.
September 17; I have given order to the militia of the town
(Montreal) and of the suburbs to give up their arms and to
take the oath of allegiance next day, immediately after the
embarkation of M. de Vaudreuil.
September 22; I have named Brigadier General Gage governor of
Montreal.
On the same day he published a proclamation for the government
of Three Rivers similar to the one for Montreal, dated merely
September, 1760 (“Amériques et Indes Occidentales”), in which
arrangements are made for the transaction of business and
amicable arrangements with the new government and the troops.
The new government was only, however, of an _ad interim_ nature,
for it was not certain that England would keep Canada. It was
this thought that reconciled the Canadians to the new situation.
Meanwhile the British Flag floated over Citadel Hill.
The country was now British. France had been tried in the balance
and found wanting. It had lost, through its wavering policy, a
fair domain and a noble people. This poignant loss was voiced by
de Vaudreuil, the deposed governor general, who, in spite of his
faults, was a true Canadian and had visions of its future as one
of the proudest jewels in the crown of France, for was it not La
Nouvelle France? On quitting his beloved country he paid it this
homage in a letter to his minister:
“With these beautiful and vast countries, France loses 70,000
inhabitants[9] of a rare quality; a race of people unequaled
for their docility, bravery and loyalty. The vexations they
have suffered for many years, more especially during the five
years preceding the reduction of Quebec--all without a murmur,
or importuning the king for relief--sufficiently manifest their
perfect submissiveness.”
The qualities, they had then, remain still the mark of those of
the same race living in Montreal of today.
“In all things we are sprung, from
Earth’s best blood, have titles manifold.”
As their predecessors took the oath of allegiance to King George
II, and became good Britishers, so have their descendants
remained today, in the days of George V. “What perished in
the capitulation of Montreal,” says Parkman, “was the Bourbon
monarchy and the narrow absolutism which fettered the life of
New France throughout the Old Régime. What survives today is the
vigour of two races striving to make Canada strong and free and
reverent of law.”
NOTE I
THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT
Judge Baby of Montreal, in an article in the Canadian Antiquarian
and Numismatic Journal, 3d Edit., Vol. II, p. 304, has combatted
very successfully the traditional view started by Bibaud and
followed by Garneau that after the capitulation of Montreal, and
the Treaty of Paris, 1763, the seigneurs, the men of learning,
and the chief traders and others of the directing classes, left
the country. This emigration was from the town but the country
places were untouched. He proves that a great many remained
outside the civil and military party who had governed the
country, and the soldiery who were taken officially to France;
that many of the young colonial officers who had thought to have
a chance to follow a career in the army or navy of France shortly
returned at the call of their fathers whose interest in their
lands and whose poverty, heightened by the depreciation of the
paper money, would not have induced them to begin life again in
France; that even of those who did go to France there were very
many who returned, as they had intended; hence the recurrence
of names, in the history after the cession, made familiar
before it. The long list given by Judge Baby of Seigneurs and
gentlemen proved by him to have remained, strengthens his case.
An interesting list of French-Canadians remaining in Montreal
engaged in business at this time is also given by him as follows:
Guy, Blondeau, Le Pellé De LaHaye, Lequindre Douville, Perthuis,
Nivard St. Dizier, Les freres Hervieux, Gaucher-Gamelin, Glasson,
Moquin, St. Sauveur, Pothier, Lemoine de Monnière, De Martigny,
De Couagne, Desauniers, Mailhot, St. Ange-Charly, Dumas, Magnan,
Mitiver, L’Amy, Bruyère, Pierre Chaboillez, Fortier, Lefèbre du
Chouquet, Courtheau, Vallée, Cazeau, Charly, Carignan, Auger,
Porlier frère, Pommereau, Larocque, Dumeriou, Roy-Portelance,
De Vienne, De Montforton, Sanguinet, Campeau, Laframboise,
Vauquier, Guillemain, Curot, Dufau, Campion, Lafontaine,
Truillier-Lacombe, Périneault, Arillac, Léveillé, Bourassa,
Pillet, Hurtubise, Leduc, Monbrun, Landrieu, Mezière, Hilbert,
Tabeau, Sombrun, Marchesseau, Avrard, Lasselle, Dumas St.
Martin, Beaubien-Desrivières, Réaume, Nolin, Cotté, St. Germain,
Ducalvet, L’Eschelle, Beaumont.
The Judge gives the names of many jurisconsults who remained
in the country, three of whom eventually became members of
the Superior Council; also of doctors; the great majority of
the notaries remained in the country. In summing up, he finds
“130 seigneurs, 100 gentry, 125 traders of mark, twenty-five
jurisconsults, and men of law, twenty-five to thirty doctors and
surgeons, notaries of almost the same number”--“were these not,”
he asks, “sufficient to face the political, intellectual and
other needs of the population then in Quebec, Montreal and Three
Rivers?”
NOTE II
POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL
M. de Vaudreuil’s estimate of 70,000 population has been
challenged by Dr. Kingsford (“History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p.
413).
Amherst before leaving Canada obtained a census of the population
which he reported as 76,172 by parishes and districts.
Companies Number
of of Total of
Parishes Militia Militia all souls
Montreal 46 87 7,331 37,200
Three Rivers 19 19 1,105 6,388
Quebec 43 64 7,976 32,584
--- --- ------ ------
108 170 16,412 76,172
The census must have been obtained through the French and there
is no ground for supposing that they would designedly furnish
an incorrect statement. It does not, however, accord with the
previous or subsequent tables of population.
The population in 1736 was 39,063; 1737, 39,970; 1739, 42,701;
1754, 55,009. In the fifteen years between the last two dates the
population increased 12,003, something less than one-third. If
we apply this increase to the next six years we may be justified
in estimating the increase at one-eighth, which would place
the population at 62,000. It is not provable that in these six
years of war the population could have increased upwards of
20,000,--five-elevenths--nearly half of the former total. In 1761
the three governors were called upon to furnish a census of their
several districts. The reports were:
(Gage) Montreal 24,957
(Burton) Three Rivers 6,612
(Murray) Quebec 30,211
------
Total of 61,780
“I am inclined, therefore,” says Kingsford, “to estimate the
French population of Canada in 1760 at 60,000 souls, the number
of which hitherto has been generally accepted as correctly
representing it.”
At the same time Doctor Kingsford placed too much reliance on
the census of 1761. It is well known that fear of conscription
and other bogies caused the census returns of French-Canadian
inhabitants to be minimized for many a long day under British
rule. If Amherst’s census of 76,172 is correct, as well as the
61,780, that of the year 1761, then a loss of 14,392 is to be
accounted for.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] From R. McCord’s collection.
[2] A detailed and romantic account of their burning on St.
Helen’s Island is to be found in “L’Ile de Ste. Helène, Passè,
Présent et Avenir, par A. Achintre et J.A. Crevier, M.D.,
Montreal, 1876.” I have found no historical proof of them being
burnt there.--Ed.
[3] Major Rogers’ picture in ranger uniform long decorated the
shops of London. His bold, bucanneering deeds caught the popular
fancy. The late Lord Amherst recalled long afterward how certain
verses traditional in his family had been taught the children
of successive Amhersts so long that the meaning of the allusion
was forgotten until quite recently, when it was found that they
referred to Rogers.
[4] The French troops were only able to leave Quebec on the 22nd
and 25th of October.--“Can. Arch. A. and W.I.,” 95, p. 1.
[5] See Appendix for Judge Baby’s criticism and qualification of
the extent of this exodus.
[6] The accused numbered fifty-five. Among those condemned either
to banishment from France or restitution and fines were: Bigot,
the Intendant, Varin, his sub-delegate, and Duchesnaux, his
secretary; Cadet, commissary general of Canada, and his agent,
Corpron; Péan, captain and aide-major of the marine troops in
Canada; Estèbe, the keeper of the King’s stores in Quebec; (all
these had operated in Montreal directly or through their agents);
Martel de St. Antoine, keeper of the King’s store at Montreal;
Maurin, Pénisseault, merchants and operators in Cadet’s offices
in this city; and Le Moyne-Despins, a merchant employed in
furnishing provisions to the army. See “Montreal Under the French
Régime,” Vol. I.
[7] In 1767 Guy Carleton feared an uprising in Canada on the
probable return of this body of officers. See letter to Lord
Shelburne. (Constitutional Documents--Shortt & Doughty.)
[8] Rogers reached New York, on his return from Detroit, the
following February. Owing to the setting in of winter he had been
unable to proceed to other forts. He reported that he had found
one thousand Canadians in the neighbourhood of Detroit.--“Can.
Arch. A. and W.I., 961,” p. 219.
[9] See note at the end of this chapter.
CHAPTER II
THE INTERREGNUM
1760-1763
MILITARY GOVERNMENT
BRIGADIER GAGE, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL--THE ADDRESS OF THE
MILITIA AND MERCHANTS--GOVERNMENT BY THE MILITARY BUT NOT
“MARTIAL LAW”--THE CUSTOM OF PARIS STILL PREVAILS--COURTS
ESTABLISHED--THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRENCH-CANADIAN MILITIA CAPTAINS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE--SENTENCES FROM THE REGISTERS
OF THE MONTREAL COURTS--GOVERNOR GAGE’S ORDINANCES--TRADE--THE
PORT--GAGE’S REPORT TO PITT ON THE STATE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
MONTREAL--THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECLARATION OF THE DEFINITIVE
TREATY OF PARIS--REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF THE
PAPER MONEY--LEAVE TO THE FRENCH TO DEPART--LAST ORDINANCES OF
GAGE--HIS DEPARTURE.
Brigadier Gage was appointed governor of Montreal on September
21, 1760.[1] He early won the esteem of the townspeople. All his
ordinances manifest the desire to act in accordance with justice
and in harmony with the people. Montrealers recognized this and
shortly after the death of George II, which took place on October
25th, expressed their confidence in their rulers in an address
written in English and French. The English version as inserted in
the New York Gazette is as follows:
“To his Excellency, General Gage, governor of Montreal and its
dependencies.
“The address of the officers of militia and merchants of the city
of Montreal.
“Cruel Destiny has thus cutt short the Glorious Days of so Great
and so Magnanimous a Monarch! We are come to pour out our Grief
unto the paternal Bosom of Your Excellency, the Sole Tribute
of Gratitude of a People who will never cease to Exalt the
mildness and Moderation of their New Masters. The General who has
conquered us has rather treated Us as a Father than a Vanquisher
and has left us a precious Pledge[2] by name and deed of his
Goodness to Us. What acknowledgements are we not beholden to make
for so many Favours? Ha! They shall be forever Engraven in our
Hearts in Indelible Characters. We Entreat Your Excellency to
continue us the Honour of Your Protection. We will endeavour to
Deserve it by Our Zeal and by the Earnest Prayers We shall ever
offer up to the Immortal Being for Your Health and Preservation.”
(Canadian Archives, A. & W., I, 96, I, page 327.)
The mildness and moderation of the “New Masters” was particularly
shown by the retention of existing laws and customs. It will
be recalled that Vaudreuil, in the Articles of Capitulation
had asked that “French and Canadians should be _continued_ to
be governed according to the customs of Paris and the laws and
usages established for this country and should not be subject
to any other laws than those established under the French
dominion.” Whereupon Amherst had replied that this had been
answered by the preceding article and especially by the reply
to the last (Article 41), asking that the British government
should only require a strict neutrality of the Canadians, which
said curtly: “They become subjects of the king”--a non-committal
reply, which at first looked severe but was, as the conscientious
historian, Jacques Viger,[3] has said, just and reasonable under
the circumstances. In the event, Amherst granted more than his
answer would suggest, for during the Interregnum, the French and
British incomers continued to be governed according to the custom
of Paris. Hence the gratitude expressed through General Gage was
well deserved.
The period of the Interregnum, now beginning (September 8, 1760,
to August 10, 1764), which was to last until the promulgation of
the treaty of Paris, and the official publication by Governor
General Murray of his civil appointment, has been called
erroneously by several French historians, “_La Regne Militaire_,”
a term suggestive of military despotism and summary justice.
Commander Jacques Viger, M. Labrie, Judge Mondelet and others
rejected this erroneous misnomer in the columns of the Journal
“La Bibliotheque Canadienne,” being edited in 1827 by Bibaud,
the well known historian. For, after examining the documents
of the period they came to the conclusion that the name of _La
Regne Militaire_ could only be merited because, as most of the
official men of the law having been in Government employ had left
the country and new justices had to be created who should judge
according to “_les lois, formes et usages_” of the country, the
government devolved perforce on the _military_ men and _of the_
“_milices_,” the only educated men left besides the clergy.
This is made clear by a memoir of October 15, 1777, to the
British government on the subject of the administration of
justice, drawn up by Judges Panet, Mabane and Dunn, of whom
Pierre Panet had been one of the _greffiers_ at Montreal, and the
others had had close relations with the military judges. Their
testimony is therefore convincing. They state: “Though Canada
was conquered by His Majesty’s arms in the fall of 1760, the
administration in England did not interfere with the interior
government of it till the year 1763. It remained, during that
period, as formerly, with three districts, under the separate
command of military officers who established in their respective
districts, military courts under different forms, indeed, but in
which, _according to the policy observed in wise nations towards
a conquered people the laws and usages of Canada were observed in
the rules of decision_.”
The basis of the new military government was the placard issued
by General Amherst from Montreal on the 22d of September, 1760,
in which he announced the new order of the government for the
old and new subjects, and outlined the new form of military
government throughout the three districts, by the appointment
in each parish of the officers of the militia, the commandant
of the regular troops and a third court of further appeal to
the governor, as the future demonstrators of justice, and then
left it to the local governors of the other two divisions of
the country to establish their own courts. These officers of
militia were the most competent at the time to carry on the
traditional “custom of Paris” as they were mostly appointed from
the Seigneurs of the district and the educated class.
Accordingly on October 28, 1760, General Gage issued his orders
establishing tribunals of militia officers to regulate civil
disputes among individuals and a second tribunal of appeal before
the regular military court, with a final court of appeal to
himself.
The rest of the document deals with police prohibitions to the
inhabitants, not to harbour deserters or to traffic with the
soldiers for their arms, clothing, etc., or any other of their
accoutrements; it orders chimneys to be swept once a month, and
other precautions against fire; carpenters were to be prepared
with an adz, the inhabitants with an axe and bucket; also
arrangements for safety against snow from falling from houses,
the cleansing of the portions before the house and the disposal
of garbage, the keeping of the roads and bridges in good order,
and regulations concerning the sale of provisions brought in by
the country people, the sale to be made in the common market
place with the prohibition to town merchants to forestall the
citizens by buying up the supplies brought in. The militia
captains being no lawyers, were only required by Amherst to
dispense law and justice as best they could, being limited to
civil cases.
The ordinance of Thomas Gage, governing the administration of
justice in his jurisdiction of Montreal by dividing it into
five districts with definite powers and the regulations for the
upkeep of the courts therein, was dated at Montreal, October 13,
1761. In each of the five districts there was to assemble on the
first and fifteenth of each month a court of officers of the
“_Milice_.” These militia courts were to be composed of not more
than seven and not less than five members, of which one should
hold the rank of captain, the senior to act as president. The
officers of militia of each district were summoned to meet in
their parishes on the 24th of October to make arrangements for
the whole of these courts and to prepare rosters of officers for
duty therein.
The Town of Montreal was set apart as a judicial district of
its own, with a local board of officers to administer the laws.
Appeal was allowed from these courts to three boards of officers
of His Majesty’s Troops, one to meet at Montreal, the other at
Varennes and the third at St. Sulpice, these courts of appeal to
sit on the 20th of each month. A further appeal from these courts
to the governor in person was provided for.
In the event of capital crimes, officers of militia were
authorized to arrest the criminals and their accomplices and to
conduct them under guard to Montreal, the militia officers to
furnish with each prisoner an account of the crime and a list of
witnesses. In civil cases involving small amounts, not exceeding
twenty _livres_ all the officers of the militia were individually
granted authority to adjudicate with an appeal to and no further
than the militia courts of the districts.
Provision was made for the payment of the militia officers
for all of these duties by a scale of fees, a treasurer to be
appointed for each court. The officers of militia were especially
enjoined to maintain peace and order within their respective
districts.
On October 17th the _Conseil des Capitaines de Milice de
Montreal_ presented a memorial to the governor expressing their
willingness to administer justice gratuitously, as they had done
in the past, but requesting as a favour from His Excellency that
they be exempted from the obligation to billet troops in their
domiciles. They requested that six cords of wood be purchased to
heat the chamber in which their sittings were held and that Mr.
Panet, their clerk, be compensated for his services at the rate
of thirty _sols_ for each sentence. Two militia sergeants had
been appointed to act as bailiffs and criers of the court, and
a tariff of fees was asked for to provide for their pay. These
sergeants, it was also explained, were not only made use of in
the administration of justice but also for the district, for the
supervision of the statutory labour or _corvèe_. This memorial,
which was signed “R. Decouange,” was approved by the governor.[4]
The inclusion of the French officers in the administration of
the affairs of the country was a wise and honest attempt on the
part of the British to carry out the promise of the capitulation
to retain for the present the laws and customs of the past. In
choosing the officers of the militia they were well advised,
since the commissions there were held by the Seigneurs and the
other notabilities of their respective districts, men who were
the best educated and the most esteemed in the country. The
choice was politic also, for it secured the continuance of the
services of men who, under the old régime, had already been in
charge of the conduct of justice, as well as public and communal
affairs. Indeed it was to them that there had been intrusted
the carrying out of the public works, such as road making and
repairs, bridge building, the regulation of statutory labor
through corvèes, etc. In the new régime, therefore, the militia
officers were practically reinstated in their former functions.
An examination has been made by Judge Mondelet of Three Rivers,
of the registers kept of the decisions of the military court of
Montreal. These latter have been generally found equitable and
founded on positive law; they are legally attested to in most
cases, the secretary of the council being a Frenchman skilled
in the law, such as was Pierre Panet, the notary, and the
minutes are all in French. The first four registers contain the
transactions of the “Chambre de Milices” presided over by the
captains of the militia, and dealt only with civil cases. The
fifth and sixth of these registers contain the criminal decisions
of the court martials of the _Chambre Militaire_ of Montreal
and that of St. Sulpice, as well as appeals from the “Chambre de
Milices.” This court was composed only of officers of the regular
army to the number of five. In addition there was the further
right of appeal to the governor. The seventh register “appeals to
the governor,” records the decisions of General Gage (page 299),
and of General Burton (page 95).
By consulting the records we find that order during this period
was observed independently of the racial distinctions in the
city. We hear of, for instance, early in 1761 of the execution
of a grenadier of the Forty-fourth Regiment for robbery, which
is balanced by that of a French soldier, formerly of the La
Salle Regiment, for the murder of a habitant at Ile Jésus, the
execution being carried out in the market place.
It will be interesting here to notice some of the court martials
held at Montreal in the years 1761 and 1762. It will be seen
that French and English, the “new” and the “old” subjects,
came equally under them, being treated with equal justice. The
following cases from the “Livre d’orde” reveal this.
Montreal, June 3, 1761, at the court martial general,
Lieutenant-Colonel Grant presiding, Jean Marchand of
Boucherville, was prosecuted for the murder of Joseph Carpentier,
a Canadian,--acquitted.
Tuesday, June 30, William Bewen accused of having intoxicated
soldiers and of selling rum without license, is found guilty,
having been accessory to his associate, Isaac Lawrence, who has
the habit of selling rum to the soldiers,--condemned to receive
200 stripes of the cat-o’-nine tails, and to be driven from the
town at the beat of the drum. (First of July, Isaac Lawrence
similarly condemned.)
August 6, Joseph Lavalleé and François Herpin, inhabitants of
Montreal, prosecuted for theft,--acquitted.
Joseph Burgen, one of those who came following the army, is
accused and convicted for theft, and condemned to be hanged
by the neck until death shall ensue. The General approved the
sentence, but pardoned him on the condition that he left this
government without delay.
August 13, George Skipper and Bellair, bakers, accused and
arraigned by Captain Disnay for having sold bread, which had not
the requisite weight,--acquitted.
September 19, John Charlette and one named Lameure, Canadians,
are indicted for having solicited Joseph Myard, a drummer, to
desert. Charlette is acquitted and Lameure is found guilty and
condemned to receive 300 blows from the whip. He is pardoned by
the General.
December 13, William Morris, accused of having kept a dissolute
house, is condemned to a fine of £5.
December 24, two Canadians prosecuted for having the property
of the King in their possession. One is acquitted and the other
found guilty and condemned to receive 400 stripes of the lash.
The General approves the sentence, but reduces the lashes to
fifty.
For 1762, we may choose an incident which shows the growth of the
tendency towards the unpleasant relations between the Montreal
English merchants and the military, which afterwards had such
serious results, and helped to occasion the recall of General
Murray.
February 26, Mr. Grant and Edward Chinn, merchants, accused of
having insulted Ensign Nott of the Fourth Battalion of the Sixth
Regiment of Royal Americans, are found guilty and condemned, Mr.
Grant to a fine of £30 and Mr. Chinn to a fine of £20, “which
sums will be employed according to the direction of the General
to the relief of the unhappy poor in Montreal.” Pardon is to be
asked of Ensign Nott in the presence of the garrison of Montreal
in the following terms, namely--“Ensign Nott I am very sorry for
having been guilty of assault in your regard and very humbly ask
your pardon.” The General approved the sentence, but reduced the
fine of Mr. Grant to £20. Mr. Forrest Oakes was also prosecuted
for a like offence and condemned also to ask pardon of Ensign
Nott, and to undergo fourteen days’ imprisonment. The General
reduced the imprisonment to twenty-four hours and exempted Mr.
Oakes from asking pardon, because it appeared to him that the
injuries received had been reciprocal.
From these judgments, we may see that, while the Chambre de
Justice of Chambre de Milices judged purely civil affairs, all
criminal affairs, great and small, were relegated to the “Council
of War,” otherwise called the “Court Martial,” which performed
the functions nowadays of the courts of Quarter Sessions and
criminal courts of King’s Bench. The “General” was the final
court of appeal.
A glance at some of the ordinances of this period will further
illustrate the life of the town. On November 27 Governor Gage
found it necessary to issue ordinances against merchants,
who without permission of the governor, went to sell their
merchandise and intoxicating liquors in the country places. On
the 13th of January, 1762, there occurred a further ordinance,
explaining the former and forbidding in addition the sale of
liquors to soldiers and savages, and fixing the quantity lawful
to be sold to the inhabitants at one time. These merchants
were probably newcomers from the English colonies now drifting
into the city and anxious to make good quickly rather than
scrupulously.
On the 12th of May regulations were issued concerning the amount
of cords of wood that should be furnished to the troops.
On July 26th, Gage endeavors to arrange for the money exchange
values. He orders that six _livres tournois_ shall be equal to
eight shillings, or ten _sols_ of Montreal money.
On July 31st, Gage has his mind on the repair of the
fortifications, “seeing that they are falling into ruin and
wishing to carry on the old regulations for the common good,
following in this time of uncertainty, the ancient usages, which
are not opposed to the service of the king,” and therefore he
ordered that there shall be imposed every year commencing with
1762, a sum, of which a third shall be paid by the Seminary of
St. Sulpice and the other two-thirds by the regular and secular
communities and the inhabitants of the said Town of Montreal, for
repairs to commence in the following spring, but that the gate,
on which they are working, shall be made perfect this year, and
“that the said imposition, for which the money shall be remitted
to a person named by the Chambre of Militia of the said Montreal,
shall not surpass the sum of 6,000 _livres_ each year” and shall
continue until the entire repair of the said enclosure is made,
at the end of which repairs, the present ordinance shall remain
null and void.
On August 3d, Gage seeing that different standards of weights and
measures were being used, and to prevent frauds slipping into the
commercial life of the city, established that, in Montreal,
the English standard yard measure should be used according to the
standard to be kept by the “major of the place.” This regulation
it was hoped would suit both the English and French.
[Illustration: IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD REGIME St. Amable Street,
a narrow thoroughfare west of the lower part of Jaques Cartier
Square and near the spot where the Chateau de Vaudreuil once
stood, was a fashionable quarter in the gay days before the
“Capitulation.” The house marked by a projecting sign “The
Woodbine” is said to have been the site of a saloon for two
hundred years.]
On October 18th he has to settle the prices, which the bakers of
the town should charge for various kinds of bread.
On November 15th, foreseeing the future possibilities of Montreal
trade, Governor Gage issued an ordinance for the establishment of
a Customs House and he orders Thomas Lambs to be recognized as
its director, and Richard Oakes as the visitor of the said Custom
House in Montreal.
The following will interest Montreal merchants of today, being
significant of the first loosening of restrictions upon Montreal
on the part of Quebec. “All ship owners and others interested in
trade are warned that all of the vessels coming from Europe or
the colonies charged on account of merchants and others, who wish
to come there to do business, can follow their destinations up to
the city of Montreal without being discharged and re-charged with
merchandise at Quebec under any pretext whatever, unless they
are suspected of carrying goods of contraband, in the design of
making illicit trade.”
On the 7th of January, 1763, regulations forbidding excess speed
of the carriages and horses in the streets of Montreal and
suburbs had to be laid down.
On the 4th of April Gage issued an ordinance establishing the
Custom House at Montreal, with regulations to the captains
of ships and officers, sailors and others to carry out the
regulations issued, which show that all the paraphernalia and
customary duty of ships reporting to the customs, avoiding
smuggling, etc., were now full of vigour. Montreal was beginning
to be a port of some pretensions.
All these regulations show that the British authorities, while
affirming the customs of the country and maintaining the law, as
known by the people and administered by their own men of ability
and learning, the captains of the militia, of whom many were of
the noblesse, providing progressive trade regulations, required
for the development of the port and of the up-country commerce,
of which the headquarters were at Montreal, were wise rulers.
The care with which the inhabitants were instructed in the
knowledge of political events happening outside of their own
sphere, the participation in their own judicial code by their
own officers, thus beginning, as it were, to be permitted for
the first time to participate in their duty of taking part in
the government, the justice with which they were treated by the
conquerors, the faithful fulfilment of dues for service received,
brought about a unity with the English soldiery and the new
governors, that disposed the conquered people to feel little
regret at the departure of the French Régime from Canada.
Many there were, who were still borne up by the hope that the
expected peace would restore Canada to France, but the majority
were indifferent and if anything glad to have things remain as
they were. The position at Montreal may be summed up in the words
of General Gage’s report to Amherst, dated March 20, 1762, sent
on to London the same year.[5]
“I feel the highest satisfaction that I am able to inform you
that during my command of this government I have made it my
constant care and attention that the Canadians should be treated
agreeable to His Majesty’s kind and humane intentions. No
invasion on their property or assault on their person has gone
unpunished. All reproaches on their subjection by the fate of
arms, revilings on their customs or country and all reflections
on their religion, have been discountenanced and forbid. No
distinction has been made between the Briton and Canadian, but
equally regarded as subjects of the same prince. The soldiers
live peaceably with the inhabitants and they reciprocally acquire
an affection for each other.”
Those who know the British soldier will not be surprised to hear
that in the distress that fell upon the French Canadians in 1761,
mostly through the non-payment of the obligations incurred by the
French government, for the redemption of the paper money not yet
liquidated since the capitulation, the soldiers gave each one
a day’s provisions monthly to relieve the immediate distress.
Quebec suffered most. Montreal merchants came to the rescue and
swelled the general subscription lists.
As Governor Gage was on the spot, his official report may be
further largely quoted as that of an historian of Montreal. After
the above opening remarks on the amicable relations existing
between the French-Canadians and British, he continues: “The
Indians have been treated on the same principles of humanity.
They have had immediate justice for all their wrongs and no
tricks or artifices have hitherto been attempted to defraud them
in their trade.”
He sends a return of the present state of the troops and
artillery and a report of the fortifications. Speaking of those
of Montreal he notes: “Upon a height within the city is a small
square work of wood, completed since the capitulation, provided
with a few pieces of artillery and capable of containing seventy
or eighty men.”
“The soil produces all sorts of summer grains. In some parts
of the government the wheat is sown in autumn. Every kind of
pulse and other vegetables to which I may add some fruits, viz.,
apples, pears, plums, melons, etc. Cider is made here, but as yet
in small quantities. In general every fruit tree hardy enough to
withstand the severity of the winter will produce in the summer,
which affords sufficient heat to bring most kinds of fruit to
maturity.”
Reporting as befits one stationed at the center and headquarters
of the fur trade on the profits to the French king from the posts
he says, “I must conclude His Majesty gained very little from
this commerce.”
He then records what must have been of great importance to
the interests of the British merchants of Montreal desirous
of up-country trade. “Immediately after we became masters of
this country all monopolies were abolished and all incumbrances
upon trade were removed. The traders chose their posts without
the obligation of purchasing them and I can by no means think
the French management in giving exclusive grants of trade at
particular posts for the sake of the sale thereof or the sale
of permits to trade at the free posts worthy our imitation. The
Indians, of course, paid dearer for their goods and the trade in
general must have been injured by the monopolies.”
Summing up the gain to France of Canada he says: “The only
immediate importance and advantage the French king derived from
Canada was the preventing the extension of the British colonies,
the consumption of the commodities and manufactures of France
and the trade of pelletry. She had no doubt views to further
advantages that the country might in time supply her with hemp,
cordage, iron, masts and generally all kinds of naval stores.
The people in general seemed well enough disposed to their new
masters.
“The only causes of dislike which I can discover proceed from
the fear of money, and the difference of religion. I understand
Canada to be on the same footing in respect of this money as all
the French colonies and if France pays any of them I don’t see
how she can avoid paying the bills of exchange drawn from Canada
in the same proportion as she pays the rest. It is the Canadians
only who would be sufferers by an exception, as Canadian bills to
a very large amount are in the possession of French merchants and
the rest may be sent to France and nobody be able to distinguish
which is French and which Canadian property.”
Speaking of the second cause of dislike, the difference
of religion, he says: “The people having enjoyed a free
and undisturbed exercise of their religion ever since the
capitulation of their country, their fears in that particular
are much abated, but there still remains a jealousy. It is to
be hoped that in time this jealousy will wear off and certainly
in this, much will depend upon the clergy. Perhaps methods may
be found hereafter to supply the _curés_ of this country with
priests well affected. But whilst Canada is stocked as she is
now with corps of priests detached from seminaries in France, on
whom they depend and to whom they pay obedience, it is natural to
conceive that neither the priests nor those they can influence
will ever bear that love and affection to a British government
which His Majesty’s auspicious reign would otherwise engage from
the Canadians as well as from his other subjects.”
In passing it may be noted that Gage’s fears were never realized,
for to the Canadian clergy is due the credit of having saved
Canada to English rule, as will be seen afterwards. A last
quotation is interesting as bearing on the question of the
exodus in 1760 after the capitulation. “No persons have left
this government to go to France except those who held military
and civil employment under the French king. Nor do I apprehend
any emigration at the peace, being persuaded that the present
inhabitants will remain under the British dominion. I perceive
none preparing to leave the government or that seem inclined to
do it unless it is a few ladies whose husbands are already in
France, and they propose to leave the country when peace is made,
if their husbands should not rather choose to return to Canada.”
Meanwhile the peace was eagerly looked forward to. The
proclamations of the 26th of November, given from the Palace
of St. James in London, having reference to the preliminaries
for peace and the cessation of hostilities, prepared the minds
of all for further intelligence. This was eventually given by
Thomas Gage from his Château of Montreal on the 17th of May,
1763, in which the definitive treaty of peace made between their
Brittannic and very Christian and Catholic majesties, signed
on the 6th of February, and ratified on the 10th of March, was
made known. On this occasion Gage indicated to the people the
chief portions bearing upon their rights, especially that of
the exercise of their religion according to the rights of the
Roman church “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and
secondly that whereby the inhabitants of His Christian Majesty
had permission to leave Canada in safety and liberty, the limit
fixed for this emigration being the space of eighteen months, to
count from the day of the exchange of the treaty. He communicated
to the captains of his government a letter from Monseigneur de
Choiseul, which had reference to the payment of debts due and
relating to the redemption of the paper money, which was still in
circulation, although the English governors sought to prohibit
it. It was set forth that the Most Christian King would pay the
sum due to the new subjects of Great Britain, but that the amount
must not be confounded with the money held by the French subjects.
On May 27, the governor of Montreal issued through the captains
of Militia of Montreal regulations concerning the liquidation of
this paper money, directing the captains to make a declaration
of the amount in their possession. They were to place the amount
held by them in the hand of Pierre Panet, _Notaire et Greffier_
of Montreal, appointed for this purpose, between the first and
thirtieth of June, designating the character of the notes, with
the name of the holder and other safeguards to be observed,
upon which certificates of receipt would be given. Care was to
be taken that the money, which they brought, should belong to
them and that they did not lend their names to anyone. Fault
in this regard would lead to prosecution for falsifying. For
this transaction a fee of five _sous_ was to be paid for every
thousand _livres_ so deposited. Money was received from 7 o’clock
in the morning to midday and from 2 o’clock to 5, except on
Sundays and holidays. This must have caused great excitement in
the city. Great care was taken to instruct the habitants of the
value of their money and warn them against becoming the victims
of speculators.[6]
Meanwhile preparations were being made for the removal of General
Gage from the post, which he had filled with excellent judgment
and with habitual prudence.
On August 5th, Gage issued some further ordinances regulating the
transport of merchandise and ammunition to the savages, seeing
that these latter had again been making incursions into the
country.
On August 18 he upheld a complaint of the established merchants
against the peddlers who were underselling the merchants in the
streets, forbidding anyone to sell in the public places of the
city, the streets and even the squares, river banks and suburbs.
On the 16th of September he issued an ordinance concerning
certain uncultivated lands in the districts of the Government,
which had been granted with titles of concessions “en fief” under
the former régime, and on which there had been no ground broken
as yet, on account of wars or other events. Those having these
should present their credentials or applications at once, so
as to have them recognized, to avoid any conflict with future
concessions.
General Gage left Montreal with the esteem of all. He was
presented with an affectionate address by the captains of the
_Chambre de Milice_, over which he had presided as the Chief
Judge, and he replied to them by a letter on October 15, 1763,
begging them to accept his testimony in recognition of the
services which they had rendered to the king of the country,
trusting that they would continue the same for the public good
and that their service, for which they had already required
so great a reputation among their own compatriots, would not
fail to draw upon them the good-will and protection of the
king. Certainly Gage might safely boast, as he had done in his
letter to Amherst, of the peaceful state of Montreal under his
government. He had helped to forge the links of intimacy that
bound the _noblesse_ and the British officials, the militia and
the military officers, which made for the harmonious transition
between the old and the new régimes. Whether or not the alliance
was an unmixed blessing is shown by subsequent events.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Before leaving, General Amherst appointed military governors
for three districts. Their tenures of office were as follows:
District of Montreal, General Thomas Gage, September, 1760, to
October, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, October, 1763, to August,
1764. District of Quebec, General James Murray, September, 1760,
to August, 1764. District of Three Rivers, Colonel Ralph Burton,
September, 1760, to May, 1762; Colonel F. Haldimand, May, 1762,
to March, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, March, 1763, to October,
1763; Colonel F. Haldimand, October, 1763, to August, 1764.
[2] The French runs: “_Et nous a laissé un gage precieux_, etc.”
The word “pledge” instead of “gage” in the English translation
destroys the delicate _double entendre_ and compliment, evidently
meant in the French version.
[3] The first mayor of Montreal.
[4] For the above abstracts of the ordinance of October 13th and
October 17th see “The Canadian Militia,” by Captain Ernest J.
Chambers, 1907.
[5] This was prepared for Pitt according to the order of Lord
Egremont in his dispatch to Sir Jeffrey Amherst of December
12, 1761, in which the king approves of the system of military
government established in the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers
and Montreal. He instructs Amherst to send for His Majesty’s
information a full account of the newly acquired country. In
response to this command communicated to Murray, Burton and Gage,
reports from the latter were prepared and forwarded to Amherst.
These reports were among the documents submitted to the Board of
Trade for their information in preparing a plan of government for
the territories ceded to Britain by the treaty of Paris of 1763.
[6] The same arrangements were carried out at Quebec and Three
Rivers and Murray reported that the total amount of the paper
money in circulation was nearly 17,000,000 of _livres_, that, in
the government of Montreal alone, being 7,980,298-8-4. Kingsford,
History of Canada, Vol. V, page 181, remarks: “An attempt to
depreciate the value of this paper was made by the court of
France in which it was pointed out that from the discredit to
which it had fallen it had been purchased at 80 to 90 per cent
discount; that it did not represent the value of what had been
received, owing to the high price paid for the articles obtained;
that the bills of exchange of 1759 were paid in part and that
bills that remained were only such as had been issued after this
payment. The British reply was that the court of France, having
been the cause of the discredit alleged had no right to profit by
it, that the prices paid for supplies had been established by the
intendant, that the date of the ordinances could not constitute a
reason why they should not be paid, that such paper money was the
currency of the colony issued by France, consequently the country
was responsible for it.”
CHAPTER III
THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS
1763
THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT
THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE--SECTION RELATING TO
CANADA--CATHOLIC DISABILITIES AND THE PHRASE “AS FAR AS THE
LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT”--THE TREATY RECEIVED WITH DELIGHT
BY THE “OLD” SUBJECTS BUT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT BY THE “NEW”--THE
INEVITABLE STRUGGLES BEGIN, TO CULMINATE IN THE QUEBEC ACT
OF 1774--OPPOSITION AT MONTREAL, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE
SEIGNEURS--THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ACTION--CIVIL COURTS AND
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ESTABLISHED--MURRAY’S ACTION IN ALLOWING
“ALL SUBJECTS OF THE COLONY” TO BE CALLED UPON TO ACT AS JURORS
VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE BRITISH PARTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL--THE
PROTEST OF THE QUEBEC GRAND JURY--SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS
IN 1766 TO SUIT ALL PARTIES--GOVERNOR MURRAY’S COMMENT
ON MONTREAL, “EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE
HATCHED THERE”--MURRAY AND THE MONTREAL MERCHANTS--A TIME OF
MISUNDERSTANDING. NOTE: LIST OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNORS.
Before proceeding further it will be well to set before the
reader some special portions of “_The definitive treaty of peace
and friendship between His Britannic Majesty, the Most Christian
King, and the king of Spain, concluded at Paris the 10th day of
February, 1763, to which the king of Portugal acceded on the same
day_.”
Section IV relating to Canada was as follows:
“His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he
has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or
Acadia in all its parts, and guarantees the whole of it and with
all its dependencies to the King of Great Britain. Moreover
his most Christian Majesty accedes and guarantees to his said
Britannic Majesty in full right, Canada with all its dependencies
as well as the island of Cape Breton and all the other islands
and coasts in the Gulph and river of St. Lawrence and in general
everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands
and coasts with the sovereignty, property, possessions and all
rights acquired by treaty or otherwise, which the Most Christian
King and the crown of France have had till now over the said
countries, lands, islands, places, coasts and their inhabitants,
so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to
the said King and to the Crown of Great Britain and that in the
most ample manner and form, without restriction and without any
liberty to depart from the said cession and guarantee under any
pretense, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above
mentioned.
“His Britannic Majesty on his side agrees to grant the liberty of
the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will in
consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders that
his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their
religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as
the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty further
agrees that the French inhabitants or others who have been
subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada may retire with all
safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper and may sell
their estates provided it be to the subjects of His Britannic
Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons
without being restrained in their emigration under any pretense
whatever except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions; the
term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of
eighteen months to be computed from the day of the exchange of
the ratification of the present treaty.”
The definitive treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763, proclaimed
by Governor Gage in Montreal on May 17th, was received with
delight by the English merchants, for they looked forward eagerly
for the civil government to be set up in which they, but a
handful, hoped by the right of conquest to assume the high hand.
They had long chafed under what they, more than the “Canadians,”
chose to call military despotism. They had looked upon the
amicable temporary participation of the Canadians in their own
government, with eyes of envy. They were of the same metal as
the British merchants of Quebec who, relying on their undoubted
energy in developing the commercial interests of the country, and
in their self-satisfaction, so aggrandized their own importance
that they wished to rule solely, so that they early petitioned
his Majesty for a representative assembly in this province as in
all the other provinces of His Majesty. “There are,” they said,
“a sufficient number of loyal and interested Protestants outside
the military officers to form a legislative assembly, and the new
subjects of His Majesty, if he should believe it proper, could
be authorized to elect Protestants without having to take oath
against their conscience.” (See constitutional documents, Doughty
& Shortt.)
There were only about two hundred Protestants, and these not all
educated or upright men, in the whole country at this time--in
Quebec 144, in Montreal 56. Yet they desired to represent the
whole people and to exclude the “new subjects” from every
position of trust under the new civil government. At the time of
Murray’s recall in 1766 they had reached the number of 450.
The Canadians were not prepared for the new turn of the tide. In
consequence we shall see that between 1763 and 1774 the country
was in an unsettled state, owing to the conflict inevitable
between the two forces of the old and new régimes striving for
recognition.
Under the military law the “new subjects” had been entrusted with
a share in the government. The English rulers were officers and
gentlemen who respected the claims of the Seigneurs as well as
of the simple habitants, and moreover their religion was held in
honour. They had been led to believe that this happy state would
continue. Gage and Murray in their report to Egremont seem to
hint how they were hoodwinked. “Canadians are very ignorant and
extremely tenacious of their religion. Nothing can contribute to
make them staunch subjects to His Majesty as the new government
giving them every reason to imagine no alteration is to be
attempted in that point.”
Thus when the “new subjects” came to understand that they were
only to “profess the worship of their religion according to the
rights of the Romish church _as far as the laws of Great Britain
permit_,” and that that permission was to be interpreted along
the lines of the Catholic civil disabilities in England, they
felt that they were proscribed men who had been ensnared by
roseate promises of a wise interpretation of British liberty to
be extended to them as new subjects.
The situation was impossible and at once there began the
inevitable struggle and the long series of accommodations that
were eventually to culminate in the Quebec act of 1774, the Magna
Charta of French Canadians. The significance of this act cannot
be understood unless the religious proscription in the policy of
the new government be understood. Hence the opposition among the
Seigneurs in Montreal, their headquarters, was secretly fostered,
which later alarmed Carleton so much, as we shall see. The French
Canadian clergy and Seigneurs of Montreal looked upon the new
change of government as an attempt to Anglicize their religion
as well as their laws. And they were not far wrong. In a letter
to Governor Murray, the secretary of state, Lord Egremont, wrote
from Whitehall on August 13, 1763, acquainting him that the King
had been graciously pleased to confer on him the civil government
of Canada and making special reference to the qualification,
“as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” which laws, he
explains, prohibit absolutely all Popish hierarchy in any of
the dominions belonging to the Crown of Great Britain and can
only admit of a toleration of the exercise of that religion; this
matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the exercise
of that religion; the French ministers proposed to insert the
words _comme ci-devant_ in order that the Romish religion should
continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their
government; and they did not give up their point until they were
plainly told that it would be deceiving them to admit those
words, for the king had not the power to tolerate that religion
in any other manner than as far as the laws of Great Britain
permit. “These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may
arise on this subject.”
The intention was precisely to tolerate for a time the Romish
religion and gradually to supplant it. The royal instructions to
Governor Murray, given from the court of St. James by King George
on the 7th day of December, 1763, leave no doubt on this head.
The intention to suppress the natural growth of the Catholic
church in Canada by crippling it forever at its fountain head by
giving no guarantee of the recognition of the Episcopal power and
jurisdiction, had already been foreshadowed in the two clauses
submitted by Vaudreuil in the terms of the capitulation of
Montreal.
Article XXX: “If by the treaty of peace Canada shall remain in
the power of His Britannic Majesty, His Most Christian Majesty
shall continue to name the bishop of the colony, who shall always
be of the Roman communion and under whose authority the people
shall exercise the Roman religion: ‘Refused.’”
Article XXXI: “The bishop shall, in case of need, establish new
parishes and provide for the building of his cathedral and his
Episcopal palace; and in the meantime he shall have the liberty
to dwell in towns or parishes as he shall judge proper. He shall
be at liberty to visit his diocese with the ordinary ceremonies
and exercise also the jurisdiction which his predecessor
exercised under the French dominion, save that an oath of
fidelity or a promise to do nothing contrary to His Britannic
Majesty’s service, may be required of him: ‘This article is
comprised under the foregoing.’”
The reason for this was signalized in the instructions later to
Murray, Carleton and Haldimand in the clause beginning:
“And to the end that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the
lord bishop of London may take place in our province under your
government as conveniently as possible,” etc.
Section XXXII reads: “You are not to admit of any ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the See of Rome or of any other foreign
jurisdiction whatsoever in the province under your government.”
Section XXXIII: “And to the end that the Church of England may
be established both in principle and practice and that the said
inhabitants may by degrees be induced to embrace the Protestant
religion and their children be brought up in the principles of
it, we do hereby declare it to be our intention when the said
province shall have been accurately surveyed and divided into
townships, districts, precincts or parishes in such manner as
shall be hereinafter directed, all possible encouragement shall
be given to the erecting of Protestant schools in the same
districts, townships and precincts by settling, appointing and
allotting proper quantities of land for that purpose and also for
a glebe and maintenance for a Protestant minister and Protestant
schoolmaster, and you are to consider and report to us by our
Commissions for Trade and Plantation by what other means the
Protestant religion may be promoted, established and encouraged
in our province under your government.”
This instruction to Murray is repeated in those to Governor
Carleton, 1768, and to Governor Haldimand, 1778.
Let us see how the civil government worked out. It was proclaimed
on April 10, 1764, the delay being caused to allow the French
Canadians the eighteen months, stipulated by the treaty of Paris,
in which they might leave the country. Murray had been appointed
governor-general of the province of Quebec by the commission of
November 21, 1763, and the instructions were dated on December
7th. But Murray had not promulgated the new dignity accorded him
till on September 17th, 1764, the first great act of the new
régime being opened by his ordinance establishing civil courts.
It may be briefly stated as follows: there was to be a Superior
Court of judicature or King’s Bench, which should be held at
Quebec twice a year at the Hilary term commencing on January 1st
and at Trinity term on June 21st. Its president should be the
chief justice of Canada. This was William Gregory. This man,
with the attorney-general, Suckling, were soon removed for
incompetency. Later in 1766 a Michaelmas term was added. Montreal
and Three Rivers were to have the chief justices’ court of
assizes and jail delivery after Hilary once a year.
Strangely enough, though not unnaturally, Murray had inserted
a clause in the act which was afterwards violently objected to
by the English merchants as going beyond his commission, viz.,
that _all the subjects of the colony_ could be called upon
without distinction to take their place on the jury. Murray had
to explain this to the English government and accordingly with
the copy of the above act sent, he remarked to the following
effect: “As there are only two hundred Protestant subjects in
the province, the greater part of which is composed of disbanded
soldiers of small fortunes and of little capacity, it is
considered unjust to prevent the Roman Catholic new subjects from
taking part on juries, for such an exclusion would constitute
the said two hundred Protestants perpetual judges of the lives
and fortunes not only of the eighty thousand new subjects but of
all the military in this province. Moreover, if the Canadians
are not admitted to juries many will emigrate.” Murray felt that
his position might not carry, for he adds: “This arrangement is
nothing else than a temporary expedient to leave affairs in their
present state until the pleasure of His Majesty on this critical
and difficult point be made known.”
Besides the superior court there should be an inferior court of
“Common Pleas” to settle civil cases involving sums of beyond
ten _louis_. Beyond twenty _louis_ there was appeal allowed to
the superior court. If desired there could be juries called in
this court. French advocates and proctors could practice in this
court, though not in the superior court. Murray explains the
liberty taken by him in allowing this: “Because we have not as
yet a single English advocate or proctor understanding the French
language.” He also observed that the court of common pleas was
established solely for the protection of the French Canadian.
In addition to the other two courts, Justices of the Peace were
established at Quebec and Montreal who should hold quarter
sessions. These officers of the magistracy, according to Murray’s
instructions, had to be Protestants. One justice was to have
jurisdiction in disputes to the value of five pounds; two were
required for cases to the value of ten pounds. Three justices
should form a quorum to hold quarter sessions, to adjudicate in
cases from ten pounds to thirty pounds. Two justices were to sit
weekly in rotation in Quebec and Montreal.
Finally there should be elected in every parish in the country
bailiffs and sub-bailiffs. The elections were to take place
every 21st day of June and they were to enter upon their duties
on September 29th. “We call them bailiffs,” commenced Murray,
“because the new subjects understand the word better than that of
constables.” The word constable, will, however, better explain
the nature of their multifarious duties.
We now have a view of the change in the law courts in Montreal:
a yearly session of the king’s court and of the court of common
pleas, quarter sessions held by the justices of the peace, and in
the parishes, the bailiffs or constables.
Hardly had the courts erected by the act of September 7th
been held, than the grand jury of Quebec protested vehemently
at the new courts and especially at the privileges given the
new subjects. Their opposition was expected by Murray for his
comment, sent with the act, ran: that some of the English
merchants residing here of whom only ten or a dozen at most
possess any settled property in this province, are very
dissatisfied at the privileges granted to the Canadians to act on
juries; the reason of this is very evident as their influence is
restrained by the measure.
Britishers on the jury who thought the favours to Catholics
unconstitutional were only victims of their narrow prejudices
formed by the prevailing intolerance then existing in England and
its colonies. The toleration to Catholics according to the phrase
“as far as the laws of Great Britain allow” was not the wide
freedom we see nowadays.
A protest against allowing the latter class to practice in the
courts or to serve on juries was made early by the Protestant
members of the grand jury of Quebec on October 16, 1764, as
follows: “That by the definitive treaty the Roman religion was
only tolerated in the province of Quebec as far as the laws of
Great Britain had met. It was and is enacted by the third act,
January 1st, chapter V, section 8, ‘No Papist or Popish recusant
convict shall practice the common law as a counsellor, clerk,
attorney or solicitor, nor shall practice the civic law as
advocate or proctor, nor practice physick, nor be an apothecary,
nor shall be a judge, minister, clerk or steward of or in any
court, nor shall bear any office or charge as captain, master,
or governor, or bear any office of charge of, or, in any ship,
castle or fortress, but be utterly disabled for the same, and
every person herein shall forfeit one hundred pounds, half to
the king and half to them that shall sue.’ We therefore believe
that the admitting of persons of Romish religion, who own the
authority, supremacy and jurisdiction of the church of Rome,
as jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and
liberties, tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant
religion and His Majesty’s power, authority, right and possession
of the province to which we belong.” Later these jurors pretended
that they had never meant to exclude Catholic jurors, but only
as jurors when Protestants were contestants. The above argument
shows their original _intrinsigeance_.
Later, in February, 1766, modifications were introduced; when
the contestants were British the jury should be British; when
Canadians, Canadians; when the contestants were mixed the
jury should also be mixed. These conflicts were inevitable
in unsettled times when two peoples were of different mental
outlooks, politically, racially and religiously. The melting pot
of time will solve such difficulties, when the viewpoints of both
parties would be more sympathetically understood. In the meantime
the historical situation at the time was painful.
Governor Murray’s letter to the Lords of Trade, written a
few days after the presentment of the jury is a fair and
statesman-like view of the difficult period.
“Quebec, 29th of October, 1764.
“* * * Little, very little, will content the new subjects, but
nothing will satisfy the licentious fanaticks trading here, but
the expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and
best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be indulged
with a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Roman
Catholics at home, would soon get the better of every national
antipathy to their conquerors and become the most faithful and
most useful set of men in this American empire.
“I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in
the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the
popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart
of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident,
too, my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of
his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of
justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers
from emigrating directly and certain I am, unless the Canadians
are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who
understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest
part of this valuable people.”
His letter immediately continues with the following allusion
which helps us to place the position of Montreal in the above
general constitutional crisis then affecting the colony. “I beg
leave further,” says Murray, “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 provinces.
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.”
A postscript to this letter to the Lords of Trade and
Plantations, gives Murray’s appreciation of some of the great
commercial class: “P.S.--I have been informed that Messrs.
William McKenzie, Alexander McKenzie and William Grant have been
soliciting their friends in London to prevail upon Your Lordship
to get them admitted into his Majesty’s council of this province.
I think it my duty to acquaint Your Lordships that the first of
these men is a notorious smuggler and a turbulent man, the second
a weak man of little character and the third a conceited boy. In
short it will be impossible to do business with any of them.”
This postscript indicates the strain and bitter personal
relations between Murray and some of the British commercial
element in the colony, who finally succeeded in obtaining his
recall.
Unfortunately, Murray was not always as discreet or as just in
the consideration of his opponents, as his position justified.
He was a soldier rather than a peace maker. In addition, others
besides the British merchant did not see eye to eye with him
in the interpretation of the new Treaty of Paris or in the
application of English laws in Canada.
They retorted as did the Quebec traders, that the governor “doth
frequently treat them with a rage and rudeness of language and
demeanour as dishonourable to the trust he holds of Your Majesty
as painful to those who suffer from it.”
In commenting on this period, Prof. F.P. Walton, dean of the
faculty of Law at McGill University, has the following criticism
(Cf. University Magazine, April, 1908):
He is speaking of the charge against Murray’s interpretation of
the new situation of the application of the new civil government.
“It is probable,” he says, “that at no period in the history of
Canada were legal questions so much discussed among the mass of
the population as in the first ten years of the English _régime_.
This is not surprising when we consider that the question whether
the English or the French law was in force in the Province
was one of no little difficulty. It was contended with much
plausibility that Murray’s Ordinances were of no legal validity
because, under the King’s proclamation, legislative authority
in the Province was to be exercised only by the governor with
the consent of a council and assembly, and that no assembly had
ever been summoned. This is not the place for a discussion of
this subject. I prefer the view of those who maintain that the
English law was introduced by the proclamation of 1763. The case
of Campbell and Hall is sufficient authority for the proposition,
that the King had the power without parliament to alter the law
of Quebec. It seems to me that the natural construction of the
proclamation itself is, that the King intended to introduce
the English law there and then. Murray, as Masères says in his
very convincing argument, ‘meant only to erect and constitute
courts of judicature to administer a system of laws already in
being, to wit, the laws of England.’ The whole affair was to a
great extent a misunderstanding. The English government had no
intention to force the English laws on an unwilling people. They
understood that they were giving ‘Home Rule’ to the Province of
Quebec, and expected that the Canadians would abrogate such parts
of the English law as they did not consider suitable, and would
re-enact the portions of the old French law which they desired to
retain. They did not foresee that, owing to the impracticability
of calling an assembly, the Province would be left without any
authority competent to legislate.”
It was, indeed, a time of great misunderstanding.
NOTE
GOVERNORS UNDER BRITISH RULE
As it may be convenient henceforth to omit mention of the advent
of successive governors, this list is appended for the purpose of
reference.
* (Gen. Jeffrey Amherst) 1760
* Gen. James Murray 1763
P. Aemilius Irving (President) 1766
* Gen. Sir Guy Carleton (Lieutenant Governor and Acting
Governor General) 1766
H.G. Cramahé 1770
* Gen. Sir Guy Carleton 1774
* Gen. Frederick Haldimand 1778
Henry Hamilton (Lieutenant Governor) 1784
Henry Hope (Lieutenant Governor) 1785
* Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) 1786
ON THE DIVISION OF THE TWO CANADAS
Alured Clarke 1791
* Lord Dorchester 1793
* Maj.-Gen. Robert Prescott 1796
Sir. R.S. Milnes 1799
Hon. Thomas Dunn 1805
* Sir James H. Craig 1807
Hon. Thomas Dunn 1811
* Sir George Prevost 1811
Sir Gordon Drummond 1815
Gen. John Wilson 1816
* Sir John Sherbrooke 1816
* Duke of Richmond 1818
Sir James Monk 1819
Sir Peregrine Maitland 1820
* Earl of Dalhousie 1820
Sir. F.N. Burton 1824
* Earl of Dalhousie 1825
Sir James Kempt 1828
* Lord Alymer 1830
* Earl of Gosford 1835
* Sir John Colborne 1838
* Earl of Durham 1838
* C. Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham) 1839
UNDER THE UNION
* Baron Sydenham (Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson) 1841
R.D. Jackson (Administrator) 1841
* Sir Charles Bagot 1842
* Sir Charles Metcalfe 1843
* Earl Cathcart 1845
* Earl of Elgin 1847
W. Rowan (Administrator) 1853
* Sir Edmund Head 1854
* Lord Viscount Monck 1861
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
* The Rt. Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G. 1867
* The Rt. Hon. Lord Lisgar, G.C.M.G. (Sir John Young) 1868
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dufferin, K.P., K.C.B., G.C.M.G. 1872
* The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lome, K.T., G.C.M.G., P.C. 1878
* The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G. 1883
* The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley of Preston, G.C.B. 1888
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Minto, G.C.M.G. 1898
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G. 1893
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl Grey, G.C.M.G. 1904
* Field Marshal, H.R.H., The Duke of Connaught, K.C., G.C.M.G. 1911
----