confided to Arnold for the inhabitants of Canada. It started
“Friends and Brethren.” The second paragraph runs thus: “Above all
we rejoice that our enemies have been deceived with regard to you.
They have persuaded themselves, they have even dared to say, that
the Canadians were not capable of distinguishing between the
blessings of liberty and the wretchedness of slavery; that
gratifying the vanity of a little circle of nobility would blind
the people of Canada. By such artifices they hoped to bind you to
their views, but they have been deceived; they see with a chagrin
equal to our joy that you are enlightened, generous and virtuous;
that you will not renounce your own rights or serve as instruments
to deprive your fellow subjects of theirs. Come then, my brethren,
unite with us in an undissoluble union, let us run together to the
same goal. We have taken up arms in defence of our liberty, our
property, our wives and our children; we are determined to preserve
them or die. We look forward with pleasure to that date not far
remote, we hope, when the inhabitants of America shall have one
sentiment and the full enjoyment of a free government.”
[Illustration: ENDORSEMENT ON SAMUEL ADAMS’ LETTER OF FEBRUARY
21, 1775]
[Illustration: FROM LETTER OF APRIL 8, 1775, TO ADAMS AND HIS
ASSOCIATES]
[Illustration: SAMUEL ADAMS]
[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]
[Illustration: FROM SCHUYLER’S LETTER TO WASHINGTON]
The reference to the little circle of noblesse blinding the
people of Canada shows the line of argument which had been
making the people, until lately so happy, now so discontented
and disloyal. Will any impartial student of Canada under the
French régime say that the Bostonians’ insinuation of oppression
as being the habitual lot of the French Canadian peasants, was
founded on fact? They had succeeded so far in unsettling for
a time a people newly enfranchised with powers hitherto not
entrusted to them, but the reaction will follow and the argument
of slavery and oppression will fall on deaf ears. To the credit
of the clergy, seigneurs and professional classes of this period
be it said that they saved Canada.
If the French habitant was weak in 1775, watching which way to
jump, he will be strong in 1812 and 1813 and the victory of
Chateauguay, though but a “bush fight,” will serve to consolidate
the British rule in Canada. It has been noticed that the French
Canadian loyalty is of the “head” rather than of the “heart.”
But the analogy between French Canadians and Scotchmen has also
been pointed out. The latter point with pride to Bannockburn as
well as to Waterloo. They, with the help of time, have a hearty
affection for the Empire. So it is with the French Canadians in a
more and more growing manner.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] There must have been a miscellaneous collection of canoes,
and one or two bateaux.
[2] A transcript lately issued by the Canadian Antiquarian and
Numismatic Society of Montreal, of the expense book of the
commissary under Arnold which has entries from February to May,
1776, goes to show that, to give the invader his due, large sums
of money were disbursed for beef and other supplies. During the
war bread was very dear and wheat was scarce. A brown loaf cost
thirty _sols_ or 1 s. and 3 d. a pound; white, 25 _sols_, or 1 s.
½ d. a pound.
CHAPTER IX
MONTREAL, AN AMERICAN CITY SEVEN MONTHS UNDER CONGRESS
1776
THE CONGRESS ARMY EVACUATES MONTREAL
MONTREAL UNDER CONGRESS--GENERAL WOOSTER’S TROUBLES--MONEY AND
PROVISIONS SCARCE--MILITARY RULE--GENERAL CONFUSION--THE
CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY, AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS--THE COMMISSIONERS:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, SAMUEL CHASE AND CHARLES CARROL--FLEURY
MESPLET, THE PRINTER--THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONERS--NEWS
OF THE FLIGHT FROM QUEBEC--MONTREAL A STORMY SEA--THE
COMMISSIONERS FLY--THE WALKERS ALSO--THE EVACUATION BY THE
CONGRESS TROOPS--NOTES: I. PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED; II.
DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES.
Meanwhile the efforts of Montgomery and Arnold with a force
of about one thousand, five hundred men, among whom were the
Canadians under Major Duggin, formerly a Quebec barber, were
engaged in besieging Quebec, a more difficult task than they
expected. On the last day of 1775 Montgomery met his death.
Arnold was wounded in the foot and many of the congress soldiers
had caught the smallpox. Still the siege went on, although under
great depression. The death of Montgomery had placed General
Wooster in command of the province till the appointment of
General Charles Lee in February. “For God’s sake,” wrote Arnold
to Wooster at Montreal on December 31st, “order as many men as
you can possibly spare consistent with the safety of Montreal.”
But Wooster had his own troubles. The Canadians around him could
not be relied on. Besides he had no cash. Price, of Montreal,
who had enticed the Americans over, had enabled them to subsist
as an army, having already advanced about £20,000; but now he
was “almost out of that article himself,” and could find no one
in the city willing to lend. (Price to General Schuyler, January
5th.) Wooster, therefore, looked upon Montreal as the place to be
reserved for a retreat. “I shall not be able to spare any men to
reinforce Colonel Arnold,” he wrote to Schuyler on January 5th.
“What they will do at Quebec for want of money God only knows,
but none can be spared from Montreal.” Yet in the last week of
January Wooster had been enabled to send about one hundred and
twenty from Montreal.
During February Wooster’s letters from Montreal were gloomy:
“Our flour is nearly expended, we have not more than enough for
the army for one week; we can purchase no provisions or wood
or pay for the transporting of anything without hard cash. Our
credit sinks daily. All the provisions and wood that we want for
the army for two or three weeks to come must be purchased and
transported to camp by the middle of March. There will be no
passing for a month or six weeks; these things must be provided
immediately, or the consequences will be dreadful.”
In Montreal, Wooster found other trouble. The clergy were in
favour of the British régime. On January 6th, writing to Warner,
the commandant wrote: “The clergy refuse absolution to all who
have shown themselves our friends and preach damnation to all
those who will not take up arms against us.” Then there was
nothing but paper money, which had little value, seeing that
it might never be redeemed. At Quebec and Montreal men were
forced to serve congress, even when legally freed. Quarrels
between the military authorities such as that between Schuyler
and Wooster were not edifying to the Canadians, used to harmony
in government. A mutiny arose among the soldiers who refused to
go to serve at Quebec. Six ring leaders were flogged. On the
14th of January an ordinance of General Wooster appeared at the
church doors forbidding anyone speaking against congress under
penalty of being sent out of the province. It is to be owned
that orders were given for the soldiers to live peacefully and
honestly with their Canadian brethren, but in spite of this,
there were many individual abuses, at least. The people began to
feel that the strangers who came to them as suppliants to succour
them, ruled them with military law at times despotic. General
Lee gave an order to General Wooster which made the Montreal
merchants consider their trade injured; he was told “to suffer
the merchants of Montreal not to send any of their woolen cloths
out of the town.”
The loyalists were named _tories_ and Wooster became convinced
“of the great necessity of sending many of their leaders out
of the province,” and he would have sent Hertel de Rouville,
the Sulpician Montgolfier, and many others out of the way, and
it is said no less than forty sleds of indignant tories made
the journey to Albany.[1] Carleton, be it remembered, took a
long time before he requested Walker to leave the country. When
expostulated with by a number of citizens Wooster answered: “I
regard the whole of you as enemies and rascals.” He was unwise
enough to have the churches shut up on Christmas eve. Altogether
the reports, sent to Schuyler and others, indicated that there
was great confusion in Montreal and Canada. Soon it began to
appear as if nothing but terror was keeping the Canadians. A
plot was laid as early as January to overcome the garrison of
Montreal.[2] Secretly many were combining under the royal flag.
[Illustration: FROM THE COMMISSIONERS’ LETTER TO CONGRESS, MAY 1,
1776]
[Illustration: FROM THOMAS WALKER’S LETTER TO ADAMS, MAY 30, 1776]
[Illustration: POSTSCRIPT OF ARNOLD’S LETTER TO CLINTON, MAY 12,
1776]
[Illustration: FROM CARLETON’S LETTER TO GERMAIN, MAY 25, 1776]
[Illustration: FROM MONTGOMERY’S LETTER TO MONTREAL, NOVEMBER 12,
1775]
Meanwhile at Quebec, Carleton pursued Fabian tactics and would
not venture out into the open. He had seen this mistake made
by Wolfe, and he had not been his quarter-master-general for
nothing, so he waited for the ships from England to come, as
indeed they did, at last, on May 6th, the Surprise leading,
followed by the Isis and the Martin. The flight of the Americans
to Montreal soon began.
At Montreal exciting circumstances had occurred at the American
headquarters, the Château de Ramezay, which had been that of
Gage, Burton and other British commandants since it had ceased
being the seat of the East India Fur Company under the French
regime.
On April 26th its doors had opened to General John Thomas on
his arrival to take command of the army before Quebec, and
its council chamber had been the scene of hasty conference
with Arnold and other gentlemen. It was now to receive the
commissioners from congress, long asked for by Montgomery and
Schuyler, but only named and appointed on the 15th of February
by the resolution “that a committee of three (two of whom to be
members of congress) to be appointed to proceed to Canada, there
to pursue such instructions as shall be given them by congress.”
The instructions given later directed the commissioners to
represent to the Canadians in the strongest terms that it was
the earnest desire of congress to adopt them as a side colony
under the protection of the Union and to urge them to take a part
in the contest then on, that the people should be guaranteed
“the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion,” that the
clergy should have the full, perfect and peaceable possession
and enjoyment of all their estates and the entire ecclesiastical
administration beyond an assurance of full religious liberty
and civil privileges to every sect of Christians should be
left in the hands of the good people of that province and such
legislature as they should constitute. The commissioners started
from New York on April 2d. They were men of mark--the great
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and Charles Carroll,
of Carrollton, described by John Adams as a “gentleman of
independent fortune, perhaps the largest in America, one hundred
and fifty or two hundred thousand pounds sterling, educated in
some university in France, though a native of America, of great
abilities and learning, complete master of the French language,
a professor of the Roman Catholic religion, yet a warm, a firm,
a zealous supporter of the rights of America in whose cause he
has hazarded his all.” With the commissioners was adjoined John
Carroll, the brother of Charles. He was a clever ecclesiastic,
become through the suppression of the Society of Jesus, an
ex-Jesuit who was afterwards to become the first archbishop
of Baltimore. Much reliance was placed on his intermediary
overtures to the Canadian clergy. On their arrival at St. John’s
the commissioners felt their first check. They had carried no
hard cash with them. They were brought up at once against the
fundamental difficulty. In their letter to congress on May 1st
the commissioners wrote, “It is impossible to give you a just
idea of the lowness of continental credit here from the want
of hard money and the prejudice it is to our affairs. Not the
most trifling service can be purchased without an appearance
of instant pay in silver or gold. The express we sent from St.
John’s to inform the general of our arrival there and to request
carriages for La Prairie, had to wait at the ferry till a friend,
passing, changed a dollar for us into silver.” This friend, a
Mr. McCartney, had also to pay for the calèches for La Prairie or
they would have had to remain stranded.
They reached Montreal on April 27th and were received by Arnold
with some ostentation at the Château, where guests among the
French ladies were invited to meet them. That night after supper
the commissioners lodged in Thomas Walker’s house.
Walker’s house was that originally built by Bécancourt, which
became the depôt of the Compagnie des Indes. It passed finally
into the McGill family. It stood immediately west of the Château
de Ramezay. It was demolished in 1903.
With the commissioners there came about the same time the French
printer, Fleury Mesplet. He was brought, along with his printing
press, to spread campaign literature for the congress. His press
was soon installed in the basement of the Château. It had been
his press in Philadelphia from which the original proclamation
of 1775 to the Canadians originated. He became the first printer
of Montreal. The first book published by him is supposed to be
“Réglement de la Confrèrie de l’Adoration Perpetuelle du Saint
Sacrément et de la Bonne Mort, chez F. Mesplet et C. Berger,
1776.”[3] Another book bearing the same date, 1776, and published
by Mesplet at Montreal, is “Jonathan et David, ou le Triomphe de
L’Amitié,” tragedie en trois actes, representèe par les ecoliers
de Montréal, a Montréal chez Fleury Mesplet et C. Berger,
Imprimeurs et Libraires, 1776.
John Carroll early began to get in touch with the clergy, but he
found an impenetrable barrier--the clergy had nothing to gain
by swerving from their allegiance to England. What more than
the Quebec act could the provincials give them? They feared
the intolerance of the Americans. Had they not seen Wooster’s
conduct? They were now offering religious freedom, but the clergy
could not forget the letter addressed by congress to the British
people in 1774, after the Quebec act, containing this significant
sentence: “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British
parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a
religion that has deluged your island in blood and dispersed
impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every
part of the world.”
The political arguments of the commissioners were of no avail,
either. The great Continental Congress was there before their
eyes, and the great Continental Congress was bankrupt. The paper
money was discredited. Not all Charles Carrol’s wealth was of
avail, unless it were in hard cash. An urgent request was sent to
Philadelphia to send £20,000 in specie. Only one-twelfth of this
could be promised.
There were other grievances, but most were from the non-payment
of money lent or furnished for supplies. On the commissioners
fell the superintendence of the army. This was no easy task, as
provisions were giving out. Smallpox was breaking out among the
soldiers. The commissioners were not trained to rule the army
and in the confused state of affairs they recognized the failure
of their mission. In their letter of May 17th to congress they
said: “The possession of this country must finally be settled
by the sword. We think our stay here no longer of service to the
publick * * * and we await with impatience the further orders of
the congress.”
[Illustration: FROM FRANKLIN’S LETTER TO CHASE AND CARROLL]
[Illustration: FROM CHASE AND CARROLL’S LETTER TO THOMAS]
[Illustration: JOHN CARROLL]
[Illustration: FRANKLIN MEMORIAL TABLET (ENGLAND)]
[Illustration: CHARLES CARROLL]
[Illustration: LETTER FROM CHASE AND CARROLL TO GENERAL WOOSTER]
[Illustration: CARROLL’S REPORT ON MRS. WALKER’S CONDUCT]
The commissioners in their first report from Montreal blamed
Wooster and declared him totally unfit for his command; the state
of Canada was desperate; everything was in confusion, there was
no discipline, the army unpaid, credit exhausted. “Such is our
extreme want of flour that we were obliged yesterday to seize
by force sixteen barrels to supply the garrison with bread. We
cannot find words to describe our miserable condition.”
To crown the difficulty of the commissioners, the news of the
Quebec disaster and flight reached their ears on the 9th of May.
“Every military plan and hope staggered under the shock. Montreal
became a stormy sea.” Dreading that one of the British frigates,
which were ascending the river but with an unfavourable wind,
would run up and cut them off, the commissioners began to prepare
to leave the city.
The state of Montreal after the news of Quebec, is well described
by Justin H. Smith in “Our Fight for the Fourteenth Colony,”
(Vol. II, page 374): “Montreal is listening eagerly for his drum
(Captain Young’s of St. Anne’s Fort).” Hazen had declared a month
before, “There is nothing but plotting and preparations making
against us throughout the whole district.” When it was proposed
to abandon the town after the news of the flight from Quebec
arrived, Arnold feared the people would attack his departing
troops. On all sides the tories whom Ripley had found very plenty
in March but mostly living like woodchucks underground, were now
showing noses and even feet. The commissioners, getting daily
intimations of plots hatching and insurrections intended, had
abandoned perforce the rôle of dispensing pure liberty, filled
the jails with malcontents and sent others into the exile they
had lately protested against, but these measures did not reach
the seat of the trouble. Night after night a rising was talked of
and expected; Lieutenant Colonel Vose would go round the barrack,
waken the men coming down with smallpox and make them dress
themselves and load their guns. “If they do take us it shall not
be for nothing,” he quietly said.
On the morning of May 17th Benjamin Franklin left, accompanied by
Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Price.[4] Next day he was joined by Father
Carroll and the party ascended Lake Champlain for New York.
Walker joined them later and both were left at Albany, “civilly
but coldly.” So he passes out of the history of Montreal.
The other commissioners, Carroll and Chase, left Montreal on May
29th for Chambly for a council of war; on the 31st they left St.
John’s; on the 2d of June they left for Crown Point, a distance
of 106 miles. Thus ended their unsuccessful mission.
How finally the congress troops were driven out of the country,
how the additional reinforcements arrived at Quebec on June 1st
under Burgoyne, is Canadian history beyond that of Montreal.
Suffice it to say that by June 17th things had become so hot in
Montreal for Arnold who saw that the junction of the Canadas with
the colonies was now at an end, that the evacuation commenced on
this day. In two hours, the sick, the baggage and the garrison,
reduced by this time to 300 men, embarked on eleven bateaux and
in two hours more a procession of carts, escorted by the troops,
set out from Longueuil for La Prairie.[5]
Wilkinson, who was Arnold’s aide-de-camp in Montreal, has placed
it on record “that among the property on the bateaux was the
merchandise obtained by Arnold in Montreal. It was transferred
to Albany and sold for Arnold’s benefit.” “This transaction is
notorious,” says Wilkinson (Volume I, page 58), “and excited
discontent and clamour in the army; yet it produced no regular
inquiry, although it hurt him in the esteem of every man of
honour and determined me to leave his family on the first proper
occasion.”
NOTE I
PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED
That those of the French Canadians of the better class who sided
with the Bostonians were very few is evinced by a list sent by
Carleton to Lord George Germain on May 9, 1777. There is only one
French name mentioned and that is Pelissier, of Three Rivers,
who was a Frenchman from France. The list is referred to in
a postscript by Carleton as follows: “Enclosed your Lordship
will receive a list of principal leaders of sedition here. We
have still too many remaining amongst us that have the same
inclination, though they at present act with more caution and so
much subtlety as to avoid the punishment they justly deserve.”
The enclosure is headed “List of the principal persons settled in
the province who very zealously served the rebels in the winter
of 1775-1776 and fled upon their leaving it, the place they were
settled at, and the country are natives of as England, Scotland,
Ireland, America or France.”
At Quebec two Englishmen, two Scotchmen and seven Americans are
named. At Three Rivers, Pelissier, a Frenchman. At Montreal were
named:
Thomas Walker E Lived many years at Boston.
Price A} Great zealots, originally barbers.
Heywood A}
Edward Antill A Lieutenant colonel and * * *
Moses Hazen A Half-pay lieutenant of the 44th.
Colonel of the rebel army.
Joseph Bendon or Bindon E
William Macarty or McCartney A
Joseph Tory and two brothers A
David Salisbury Franks A
Livingston and two brothers A The eldest, lieutenant colonel;
second, major; and youngest, captain.
John Blake A Carried goods down to the colonies
in winter and did not return. The
first known to be a rank rebel.
---- Blakeley A
NOTE II
DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES
Lossing’s Field Book--Vol. I, p. 195--thus describes the dress of
the invaders: “Each man of the three rifle companies (Morgan’s,
Smith’s and Hendrick’s) bore a rifle-barreled gun, a tomahawk or
small axe, and a long knife, usually called a scalping knife,
which served for all purposes in the woods. His underdress, by
no means in a military style, was covered by a deep ash-coloured
hunting shirt,--leggings and moccasins, if the latter could be
procured. It was a silly fashion of those times for riflemen
to ape the manners of the savages. The Canadians who first
saw these (men) emerge from the woods said they were vêtus en
toile--‘clothed in linen.’ The word ‘toile’ was changed to
‘tôle,’ iron plated. By a mistake of a single word the fears of
the people were greatly increased, for the news spread that the
mysterious army that descended from the wilderness was clad in
sheet-iron.
“The flag used by what was called the Continental troops, of
which the force led into Canada by Arnold and Montgomery was a
part, was of plain crimson, and perhaps sometimes it may have
had a border of black. On the 1st of January, 1776, the army was
organized and the new flag then adopted was first unfurled at
Cambridge at the headquarters of General Washington, the present
residence of the poet Longfellow.
“That flag was made up of thirteen stripes, seven red and six
white, but the Union was the Union of the British flag of that
day, blue bearing the Cross of St. Andrew combined with the Cross
of St. George and a diagonal red cross for Ireland. This design
was used by the American army till after the 14th of June, 1777,
when Congress ordered that the Union should be changed, the Union
of the English flag removed and in its place there should be a
simple blue field with thirteen white stars, representing the
thirteen colonies declared to be states.
“Since then there has been no change in the flag, except that a
star is added as each new state is admitted.”
W.C. HOWELLS.[6]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Among those banished by Wooster was St. Luc de la Corne. He
had been well treated under the British régime and was one of the
first legislative council formed by Carleton. He is reported to
have been a trimmer during the late troubles.
[2] One advantage in holding Montreal was that British supplies
and presents for the savages could not reach the interior that
way. Yet the Americans had little means of supplying the Indian
trade. To meet the difficulty, the commissioners, desirous of
being on good terms with the Indians up country, offered early
on their arrival, passports to all traders who would enter
into certain engagements to do nothing in the upper country
prejudicial to the continental interests.
[3] The first book published in Canada is believed to be
“Catéchisme du Diocèse de Sens Imprimé a Quebec, chez Brown et
Gilmour, 1765.” The latter were the proprietors of the Quebec
Gazette, the first journal, established on June 21, 1764. The
Gazette Littéraire appeared in French, June 3, 1778, and in
French and English.
[4] Mrs. Price, according to Franklin’s letter to the
commissioners, had three wagon-loads of baggage with her. The
Walkers “took such liberties in taunting at our conduct in Canada
that it almost came to a quarrel. I think they both have an
excellent talent in making themselves enemies and I believe even
here they will never be long without them.” (Franklin’s Works,
Vol. VIII, pp. 182-3.)
[5] On July 4, 1776, the American Congress adopted the
Declaration of Independence and in 1781, on July 9th, the
Articles of Confederation were ratified.
[6] Cf. Lemoine’s “Picturesque Quebec.”
CHAPTER X
THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST
1776-1791
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791
REOCCUPATION BY BRITISH--COURTS REESTABLISHED--CONGRESS’ SPECIAL
OFFER TO CANADA--LAFAYETTE’S PROJECTED RAID--UNREST AGAIN--THE
LOYALTY OF FRENCH CANADIANS AGAIN BEING TEMPTED--QUEBEC
ACT PUT INTO FORCE--THE MERCHANTS BEGIN MEMORIALIZING FOR
A REPEAL AND AN ASSEMBLY--HALDIMAND AND HUGH FINLAY OPPOSE
ASSEMBLY--MEETINGS AND COUNTER MEETINGS--CIVIC AFFAIRS--THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROJECTED “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE”--THE FIRST
NOTIONS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--THE MONTREAL CITIZENS’
COMMITTEE REPORT--THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALIST--THE DIVISION OF
THE PROVINCE PROJECTED--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791. NOTE:
MONTREAL NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN 1784.
Montreal was again occupied by the British in the last week
of June.[1] Sir John Johnson arrived about this time with 200
followers. On June 28th Carleton held a meeting in the Jesuit
church of about three hundred Iroquois who offered their
services. The Caughnawagas, of whom some were present, were
blamed for their neutrality during the war. An arrangement was
entered into for the services of the Iroquois for a year. As the
ceremony ended the braves passed by Carleton, each one giving
him his hand. On July 18th Carleton, still in Montreal, received
a deputation of about one hundred and eighty Indians from the
west offering their active service to their great father, the
king of England, and to their father Carleton. They were received
graciously and sent away happy.
Before leaving, Carleton issued commissions for the creation of
judges in the districts of Montreal and Quebec; a court of appeal
was established and judges were given authority to examine into,
and report on, the damages suffered during the invasion of the
Congress troops.
On the 20th of July 4 the governor returned to Quebec to
reestablish the courts of justice and to restore the legislative
council to its functions. Mr. Fraser, who had been judge of the
Court of Common Pleas at Montreal since 1764 was at this time a
prisoner among the rebels. In the meantime Carleton, unable to
get on with Lord St. Germain, the secretary in England, resigned
his position on June 27th, but he did not leave the country till
June 27th of the following year, 1777, when he was replaced by
Haldimand.
Meanwhile Congress still eyed Canada with longing. On the 4th of
July the eleventh article of “confederation and perpetual union”
provided that Canadas acceding to the confederation and joining
in the measures of the Union “shall be admitted into and entitled
to all the advantages of this union, but no other colony shall be
admitted to the same unless such admission shall be agreed to by
nine states.” In 1793 another bill was introduced into the United
States Congress for the admission of Canada, as one or more of
the United States, whenever asked with the consent of Great
Britain.
During the year 1777 young Marquis de Lafayette, who had joined
the continental army and had become a major general, backed by
Silas Deane, Major General Horatio Gates and those who thought
they could use him as a Frenchman to promote the political views
of the congress in Canada, was appointed with an independent
command to make an inroad into Canada, Montreal being his
objective. He was to prevail upon the people to confederate with
the States, but there was not wanting opposition to ruin the
Canada expedition lest it should ruin Congress, among these being
Gouverneur Morris and Arnold. Finally the mortified Lafayette
was recalled to the “grand army.” But those who promoted him
on the grounds of using him and the affection of the French in
Canada for France, as a lever in the present situation were soon
rejoiced with an alliance with France. Lafayette’s projected
descent on Montreal had come to naught, but what could be
expected now that the news of an alliance between France and
America became known? The symptoms became evident of universal
unrest. Montreal, already in ferment, was further disturbed in
November by a proclamation to the Canadians which was spread
broadcast through the parishes and seems to have unsettled many
of the best minds as well as those of the hitherto disaffected,
but who were settling down to loyalty again. It came from the
Comte d’Estaing, who had sailed from Toulon in May, 1778, in
command of a French fleet of twelve ships of the line and six
frigates, to throw in their lot with the Americans. It was a
move long thought of secretly, perhaps long previously nurtured
in the circle of the seigneurs around Montreal. The longings
for the old régime, it had been thought, had died down. The
new appeal carried weight not for any love for Congress or
sense of injustice or tyranny evoked on the part of the English
government, but from the powerful reminiscences it awoke. It is
said that even the clergy wavered.
The proclamation was dated from the “Languedoc in the harbour of
Boston, October 28, 1778.” It opened with the statement that the
undersigned was authorized by His Majesty to offer assistance to
all who were born to taste the sweets of his government. “You
were born French. There is no other house so august as that of
Henry IV, under which the French can be happy and serve with
delight.” He did not need to appeal to the companions in arms of
M. le Marquis de Lévis, to those who had seen the brave Montcalm
fall in their defence. “Could such fight against their kinsmen?
At their names alone the arms should fall from their hands.” The
priests were promised particular protection and consideration
against temporal interests. He then argued that it were better
for a vast monarchy having the same religion, the same customs
and the same language to unite for commerce and wealth with their
powerful neighbours of the United States than with strangers
of another hemisphere who as jealous despots would doubtless,
sooner or later, treat them as a conquered race. “I will not
suggest to a whole people when it is gaining the right to think
and act, and understand its interest, that to link itself with
the United States is to seek its happiness; but I will declare,
as formally I do in the name of His Majesty who authorized and
commanded me so to act, that all the former subjects of North
America who will no longer recognize the supremacy of England may
count on His Majesty’s protection and support.”
[Illustration: DECLARATION ADRESSÉE AU NOM DU ROI A TOUS LES
ANCIENS FRANCOIS DE L’AMÉRIQUE SEPTENTRIONALE. Le soussigné
autorisé par Sa Majesté, & revetu par là, du plus beau des
Titres; de celui qui efface tous les autres: chargé au nom du
Pere de la Patrie & du Protecteur bienfaisant de ses sujets,
d’offrir un appui à ceux qui étoient nés pour goûter les douceurs
de son Gouvernement; à tous ses Compatriotes de l’Amérique
Septentrionale. Vous êtes nés François, vous n’avez pû cesser
de l’être: une Guerre qui ne nous avoit été annoncée que par
l’enlévement de presque tous nos Matelots, & dont nos ennemis
communs n’ont dû les principaux succès qu’aux courage, au
talent, & au nombre des Braves Américains qui les combattent
aujourdhui, vous a arraché, ce qui est le plus cher à tous les
hommes, jusqu’au nom de votre patrie; vous forcer à porter
malgré vous des mains parricides contra elle, seroit le comble
des malheurs, vous en êtes ménacés: une nouvelle Guerre doit
vous faire redouter qu’on ne vous oblige à subit cette loi
la plus révoltante de l’esclavage: cette Guerre à commence
comme la précédente, par les dépradations de la partie le plus
intéressante de notre commerce. Les prisons de l’Amérique
contiennent depuis trop longtems un grand nombre de François
infortunés; vous entendez leurs gemissemens. Cette Guerre à été
déclarée par le message du mois de Mars dernier, par l’Acte le
plus authentique de la Souveraineté ADDRESS TO THE ANCIENT FRENCH
OF NORTH AMERICA]
[Illustration: WILLIAM PITT]
[Illustration: MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE]
This proclamation which said ten words for France and one for
Congress, did not please even the leaders of the Revolution.
Washington viewed it with suspicion for he suspected it meant
eventual separation with the advantage all for the French. In
Canada it was most successful. It played adroitly upon the hopes,
ambitions, pride, vanity, race instincts and dearest memories, so
that Haldimand noted in 1779 “a very visible alteration amongst
all ranks of men.” This alteration continued for some time for
Haldimand wrote later: “I have for many months observed in the
Canadian gentry expectations of a revolution.”
The war of 1775 had delayed the putting into force of the Quebec
act of 1774. In 1777 the work of readjustment took place. But
on the 2d of April, 1778, the merchants of Quebec and Montreal,
through a committee of them then in London, returned to the
charge of petitioning Lord George Germain for the repeal of
the Quebec act. They again demanded trial by juries and the
commercial laws of England. They claimed that the Quebec act
reintroduced the feudal system and in consequence the system
of forced corvées and other compulsory services without any
emoluments whatever during the war; hence discontent and
dissatisfaction with His Majesty’s government had crept up. For
these reasons the memorialists “humbly entreat Your Lordship to
take into consideration the dangerous and confused situation
of this colony and grant us your Patronage and assistance in
endeavoring to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act, the source
of these Grievances, and an establishment in its stead of a
free Government by an assembly or Representation of the People
agreeable to His Majesty’s Royal Promise contained in the
proclamation made in the year 1763.”
Haldimand in 1780, after an experience of upwards of two years in
the country, wrote to Germain a direct negative. “It Requires
but Little Penetration to Discover that had the System of
Government Solicited by the Old subjects been adopted in Canada
this colony would in 1775 have become one of the United States
of America. * * * On the other hand the Quebec Act alone has
prevented, or can in any Degree prevent, the Emissaries of France
from succeeding in their Efforts to withdraw the Canadian Clergy
and Noblesse from their allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain.
For this reason among many others this is not the time for
innovations and it cannot be Sufficiently inculcated on the part
of Government that the Quebec Act is a Sacred Charter granted by
the king and Parliament to the Canadians as a Security for their
Religion, Laws and property. * * * The clamour about the trial by
juries and Civil Causes is calculated for the Meridian in London;
in Canada Moderate and upright Men are convinced of the abuses
to which that institution is liable in a Small Community where
the jurors may be all Traders and very frequently either directly
or indirectly connected with the Parties. * * * Be assured, My
Lord, that however good the institution of Juries may be found
in England, the People of this Country have a great aversion to
them.”
On September 2d the definitive treaty of peace and friendship
between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America
was signed at Paris. As soon as this was known the British
population at Montreal with that of Quebec again began agitating
for a change in the constitution. Their numerical strength was
little, but their activity great. Four years later Mr. Hugh
Finlay, postmaster general and member of the council, writing on
October 2, 1784, to Sir Evan Nepean criticizing the agitation for
an assembly says: “The advocates for a House of Assembly in this
Province take it for granted that the people in general wish to
be represented; but that is only a guess for I will venture to
affirm that not a Canadian landowner in fifty ever once thought
on the Subject and were it proposed to him he would readily
declare his incapacity to Judge of the Matter. Although the
Canadian Peasants are far from being a stupid race they are at
present an ignorant people from want of instruction; not a man in
500 among them can read. The Females in this Country have a great
advantage over the males in point of Education. * * * Before we
think of a house of Assembly for this country let us lay the
Foundation for useful Knowledge to fit the people to Judge of
their Situation and deliberate for the future wellbeing of the
Province. The first step towards this desirable End is to have
a free School in every Parish. Let the schoolmasters be English
if we would make Englishmen of the Canadians; let the Masters be
Roman Catholic if it is necessary, for perhaps the people at the
instigation of their Priests would not put their children under
the tuition of a Protestant.”
The English population of Quebec and Montreal did not think
with Finlay, for two days later, on November 24th, at Quebec,
they presented a petition for a House of Assembly outlining a
definite plan which they had never done before, having always
left it to his Majesty’s pleasure. It was the most numerously
signed document as yet appearing, bearing over two hundred and
thirty-three Quebec names, with, about eighteen of Three Rivers
and two hundred-forty-six in Montreal.
On November 30th, a counter meeting was held in a convent of
the Recollects and the objections of the French Canadians to
the petition above were registered, at the same time an address
was drawn up to the king briefly stating that the House of
Assembly “is not the unanimous wish nor the general Desire of
your Canadian People who through Poverty and the misfortunes of
a recent war of which this colony has been the Theatre are not
in condition to bear the Taxes which must necessarily ensue and
that in many respects the petition for it appears contrary to and
inconsistent with the wellbeing of the New Catholic Subjects of
Your Majesty.” On the 25th of February next, 1785, the seigneurs
and leading men were authorized at meetings held in the parishes
to sign a petition against any change as advocated by the
petition of 1784.
While the constitutional struggle is going on and preparations
are being made for the drafting of some inevitable amendments
to the Quebec act, we may now turn to an important move being
agitated to promote a larger sense of civic progress and
municipal freedom. The history of the future municipality of
Montreal may now be said to be in its conceptional stage.
In November of 1786 the merchants and citizens of Montreal,
Quebec and Three Rivers were taken into consideration by a
committee of the Council of Legislature who asked them to give
their views on the state of the external and internal commerce
and the police of the province. The Montreal names given in the
invitation are: Neven Sylvestre, E.W. Gray, St. George Dupré,
James McGill, Pierre Guy, James Finlay, J.S. Goddard, Pierre
Messiere, Pierre Fortier, Hertel de Rouville, John Campbell,
Edward Southouse, Alexander Fraser, Jacques Le Moyne, Benj.
Frobisher, Stephen de Lancey, Esq., and Messrs. Jacob Jordan,
Isaac Todd, Forsyth J. Blondeau, P. Perinault, Richard Dobie,
F. Chaboillez, McBeth and William Pollard, merchants. These
who appreciated the courtesy of being taken into consideration
thought it their duty to “call in and collect the general voice
of our citizens without delay.” “The report of the Merchants
of Montreal by their Committee to the Honorable Committee of
Council on Commercial Affairs and Police” subsequently appeared
dated Montreal, 23d January, 1787, and contained observations
on various points: e. g., “the establishment of a chamber of
commerce duly incorporated.”
This had been already promoted in Quebec ten years previously
and a plan presented on April 3, 1777. The object of this Quebec
plan, according to Shortt and Doughty (Constitutional Documents)
was to avoid bringing commercial matters into the regular courts
where under the Quebec act the French and not the English civil
law was made the basis of decision. The virtual effect of this
plan, had it been authorized, would have been to set up a
legislative, executive and judicial system within the Province
to govern the trade relations of the members of the Chamber;
and this in time must have involved the trade of others dealing
with them. The observation of the Montreal committee on this is:
“However beneficial to Trade and Commerce, Institutions of this
nature be considered, yet we are of opinion that the same would
prove ineffectual and inexpedient at this time; considering the
connection that subsists more or less among the Trading People of
this Place.” Observations were also returned on “Holding tenures
and the abolition of Circuits,” “The present establishment of
Appeals in Commercial Causes,” “The establishment of a Court of
Chancery” on “a register of all deeds,” on a “Bankrupt Law,” and
on the subject of Police in city administration in general.
There also were a number of important observations made of a
historical value. The first to be quoted heralds the idea of a
charter of corporation for Montreal. The question had also been
put for Quebec: “Whether or not we should apply for a charter,
incorporating a select number of citizens on some good and
Improved Plan with Powers to make By-laws, deeds, Civil and
Criminal Causes under certain restrictions, whether under the
stile and Title of Recorder, Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council
of the City and County of Quebec and the Precincts and Liberties
thereof or under any other Denomination,”--and similarly for
a like charter for Montreal. The observation of the Montreal
Committee was as follows:
“The bad state of the Police of this Town calls loudly for Reform
and tho’ Government in its Wisdom has attended thereto by the
Appointment of an Inspector of Police, yet we are sorry that the
Appointment has in no wise proven adequate to the Intent, and
by Experience we find that the exertions of the Magistrates are
not sufficient to remedy the Evil complained of. We beg leave
to point out as the only remedy that can be applied with Effect
the incorporating by Charter, of a select number of the Citizens
of Montreal on a good and approved Plan with such Powers and
privileges as are usually granted to Corporations for the purpose
of Police only. And we further beg to request that in case the
Honorable Council should approve of this move and Government
inclined to grant the same, That it be recommended to His
Excellency, Lord Dorchester, to bestow on the Corporations such
lots of Ground and Houses, the Property of the Crown, within the
Town and Suburbs of Montreal as Government has no present use for
in order to the same being applied towards the Erecting Schools,
workhouses and other Establishments of Public Utility.”
Other observations followed on the necessity of regulations to
reduce the number of liquor licenses for public houses, and for
the avoidance of fires, to enact that no wooden fence or building
of wood of what description soever be erected in the town of
Montreal in future under a severe penalty.
But the idea of a Municipal Corporation though now sown was not
to fructify till many years later. In the meantime the civic
government by justices of the peace or magistrates obtained as
before.
We must now return to the final stages of the Constitutional
struggle for an Assembly. An important factor has now entered
into the political aspect of the province, namely the advent of
the United Empire Loyalists, now beginning to leave the United
States for a wider freedom to settle on the lands above Montreal,
as were also the disbanded troops, a move which did much more
than anything else to promote the movement for an assembly, and
to point the direction in which the amendments to the Quebec act
must follow.
On April 11, 1786, Sir John Johnson, then in London, presented a
petition from the officers of the disbanded troops praying for a
change in the tenure of land. They prayed for the establishment
of a district from Point au Baudet upwards, distinct from the
province of Quebec, in which they prayed that “the blessings of
the British laws and of the British government and an exemption
from the French tenures,” might be extended to them. There is no
doubt, as Lord Dorchester[2] remarked in his letter of June 13,
1787, that the English party had gained strength by the arrival
of the loyalists and the desire for an Assembly would no doubt
increase.
At this time the movement for dividing the country into an upper
and lower province began. It was thought premature by Dorchester.
But the act of 1791 thought otherwise. By February 9, 1789,
according to the letter of Hugh Finlay, “the great question
whether a House of Assembly would contribute to the welfare of
this Province in its present state has been so fully discussed
that the subject is entirely exhausted; both old and New Subjects
here who have openly declared their sentiments now Composedly
await the decision of the British Parliament with respect to
Canadian affairs.”
In the Montreal district the seigneurs held their old position
while the merchants never budged from their original demand in
general for an assembly though their plans had been greatly
modified. The next two years were spent in preparing drafts
for the Constitutional act which was passed in 1791 under the
title of “An act to repeal certain Parts of an Act” passed in
the Fourteenth Year of His Majesty’s Reign entitled “an Act
for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the
Province of Quebec in North America and to make further Provision
for the Government of the said Province.”
Owing to the uncertainty of the maintenance of peace with Spain
in 1789, the Canada act was not introduced into parliament until
1790. On the 7th of March, 1791, Pitt introduced the bill to
divide Canada into two provinces. The bill became a law on the
14th of May, 1791. It divided Canada into two parts, Lower and
Upper; each province was to have an executive council appointed
by the crown, Lower Canada to have no less than fifteen members
and Upper Canada no fewer than seven; each was to have a
legislative assembly, the members for Lower Canada to be no less
than fifty and those for Upper Canada to be no less than sixteen.
The long struggle of the Merchants of Montreal for an assembly
was at last ended.
NOTE
MONTREAL NAMES ATTACHED TO THE PETITION FOR AN ASSEMBLY. DATED
NOVEMBER 24, 1784
These are given as an indication of the national origins of the
citizens of the period.[3]
Jacob Jordan,
James McGill,
James Finlay,
Benj^n Frobisher,
Nicholas Bayard,
William Kay,
Alex^r Henry,
J. Blackwood,
Geo. McBeath,
Jn^o Askwith,
William Allen,
Joseph Frobisher,
Hugh Ross,
Angus Cameron,
Alexander Hay,
Charles Paterson,
Sam^l Birnie
James Dyer White
J. McKinnsy,
Jacob Ruhn,
Fran Winton,
John Forsyth,
John Franks,
William Harkness,
Wm. Griffin,
Rosseter Hoyle,
Robert Griffin,
Abraham Hart,
Samuel Gerrard,
Colin Hamilton,
Laurence Taaffe,
W^m H^y McNeill,
Charles Smyth,
Angus Macdonald,
John Smith,
Da^d Lukin,
James Cameron,
G. Young,
Felix Graham,
John Gregory,
J. Grant,
David McCrae,
John Lilly,
Geo. Selby,
W. Maitland,
James Caldwell,
R. Sym,
Robert Jones,
William Taylor,
F. Bleakley,
Jno. Bell,
Alexander Campbell,
I.R. Symes,
Rob^t McGrigor,
James Laing,
R. Gruet,
David Davis,
John Russell,
Thomas Sullivan,
Rich^d Dowie,
(Oliver Church, Late Lieu^t 2d B.K.R.R. New York),
John Dusenberg, Ens^n Late Royal Rangers,
samuel Burch,
Levai Michaels,
Henry J. Jessup,
Isaac H^t Abrams,
Isaac Hall,
John Campbell,
Donald Fisher,
Jos. Forsyth,
(H. Spencer, Lieu^t late 2d B.K.R.R., New York),
Rich^d Pollard,
John Grant,
John McKindlay,
W^m Packer,
John McGill,
Fra^s Badgley,
Peter Pond,
Tho^s Burn,
Dav^d Alex^r Grant,
Alex^r Fraser,
Thomas Frobisher,
John Ogilvy,
Andrew Todd,
Thomas Corry,
Wal^r Mason,
Gor. Moore,
R.J. Wilkinson,
James Noel,
R. Cruickshank,
John Rowland,
E. Edwards,
Thomas Forsyth,
D. Sutherland,
James Grant,
Allan Paterson,
John Ross,
Levy Solomons,
Levy Solomon, Jun^r,
John Turner and Sons,
Uriah Judah,
Ch^y Cramer,
Alex^r Henry,
Adam scott,
Alex^r Mabbut,
Jonas schindler,
William Hunter,
Alex^r Walmsley,
Henry Edge,
Allex^r Martin,
James McNabb,
James Ruott,
Thomas McMurray,
Isaac Judah,
Sam^l Judah,
Laurence Costille,
Saint Louis,
Henry Campbell,
John Bethune,
Nom^d MacLeod,
James MacKenzie,
W^m Murray,
James Finlay, Jun^r,
J. Symington,
J. Pangman,
John Tobias Deluc,
Cuthbert Grant,
Robert Grant,
Tho^s Nadenhuvet,
James Foulis,
William Bruce,
John Macnamara,
Daniel Sullivan,
Finlay Fisher,
John Stewart,
David Mackenzie,
Joseph Anderson,
Paul Heck,
Robert Thomson,
Samuel Heck,
Alex^r Milmine,
Robert Smith,
William Smith,
Jacob Tyler,
Char^s Grimesley,
W^m Grimesley,
Charles Lilly,
Duncan Fisher,
John Ridley,
Alex^r Campbell,
John Milroy,
Joseph Hamly,
Sam^l White,
Sam^l Douney,
C. Rolffs,
W^m Hall,
Geo. McDougall,
Robert Lindsay,
Ja^s Robertson,
Tho^s Breckenridge,
John Foulis,
Francis Crooks,
Geo. Edw. Young,
George Aird,
Joseph Provan,
Simon McTavish,
John Lawrence,
Sam^l Embury,
S. Anderson,
Dan^l Daly,
Rich^d Whitehouse,
James Fraser,
Rich^d Whitehouse,
James Fraser,
Alexander fraser,
Rich^d Whitehouse,
Levi Willard,
Joseph Johnson,
M. Cuthell,
James Leaver,
Tobias Burke,
Rob^t McGinnis,
Rich^d McGinnis,
John Hicks,
George Hicks,
Stephen Milers,
William Tilby,
James Perry,
Edward Corry,
Stephen Waddin,
Peter Smith,
Owen Bowen,
Peter Grant,
J^s Chaorles,
James Fairbairn,
John Hughes,
Ranald McDonald,
Watkin Richard,
jenbaptiste Lafrenay,
Thomas Sare,
And^w Cockburn,
Tho^s Isbusther,
Joseph Landrey,
Robert Withers,
David Ross,
Abram. Holmes,
William Fraser,
William Hassell,
David Ray,
Thomas Busby, Sen^r,
Thomas Busby, Jun^r,
William England,
Conrad Marsteller,
William Creighton,
Hugh Holmes,
Jervis George Turner,
R^d Warffe,
James Nelson,
Philip Cambell,
Duncan Cumins,
Henry Gonnerman,
Firedrick Gonnerman,
John Maxwell,
Tho^s Little,
Christ^r Long,
Edward Gross,
Nicholas Stoneman,
Jn^o Daly,
Tho^s Oakes,
John Grant,
Will^m Wintrope,
Joel Andras,
Thomas Fraser,
Jn^o Lumsden,
William Holmes,
Nicholas Montour,
Patrick Small,
David Rankin,
(Richard Duncan, Late Capn. Royl. Yorkers),
Dunc^n Cameron,
And^w Wilson,
Donald McFonell,
Angus McDonald,
Ed. Umfreville,
John Lockhart Wiseman,
(Parchment Copy)
endorsed: In L^t Gov^r Hamilton’s N^o 2
of 9 Jan., 1785.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Montreal was occupied by General Phillips with the artillery
including a company of the Hesse Hanon and the Twenty-ninth
Regiment. McLeans’ Regiment and that of Sir John Johnson were
quartered on the island and the Ninth Regiment at Ile Jésus.
[2] Sir Guy Carleton returned to Quebec as the Earl of Dorchester
on August 23, 1786.
[3] A special chapter on National origins will be found in Part
II of this volume.
CHAPTER XI
THE FUR TRADERS OF MONTREAL
THE GREAT NORTH WEST COMPANY
MERCHANTS--NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINS--UP COUNTRY
TRADE--EARLY NORTH WEST COMPANY--CHARLES GRANT’S
REPORT--PASSES--MEMORIALS--GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES--RIVAL
COMPANIES--THE X.Y. COMPANY--JOHN JACOB ASTOR’S
COMPANIES--ASTORIA TO BE FOUNDED--THE JOURNEY OF THE MONTREAL
CONTINGENT--ASTORIA A FAILURE--THE GREAT RIVAL--THE HUDSON’S
BAY COMPANY--SIR ALEXANDER SELKIRK--THE AMALGAMATION OF THE
NORTH WEST AND HUDSON’S BAY COMPANIES IN 1821--THE BEAVER CLUB.
After the inefficient and unstable set of trade adventurers,
sutlers and purveyors for the army who came in upon the heels
of Amherst’s conquering band had been sifted, there remained a
strong nucleus of substantial business men, whose connections
were good in credit and in business methods, and who founded the
basis of Montreal’s future mercantile success. We get an idea of
the national origins or religion of some of the early settlers
from the censuses prepared by government for jury service.
In the last of 1765 there are 136 Protestant names and their
birthplace, former occupation and present calling are given. Of
these thirty-seven were from Ireland (mostly soldiers who became
inn-keepers), thirty from England, twenty-six from Scotland,
thirteen from New England, sixteen from Germany, six from
Switzerland and one each from France, Canada, Lapland, Italy and
Guernsey. The origin of three is undetermined.
The earliest merchants, as we have seen, were scored by Murray
and afterwards by Carleton. The records of the “military courts”
from 1760 to 1763 show that there was some cause for it. Yet it
is pleasing to hear Murray writing as early as December, 1760,
confess as follows: “I flatter myself you will pardon the liberty
I take in troubling you with the enclosed (petition); it regards
a set of men who have been very serviceable to His Majesty’s
troops, who have run many risks and who have been induced to pour
in their merchandise here for a laudable prospect of promoting
trade at the invitation of Mr. Amherst, the commander in chief.”
Howard, Chinn and Bostwick was probably the first British firm
in Montreal. Chinn became the deputy provost marshal and got
the licenses from Quebec; he also himself traded up country.
Joseph Howard shortly severed his connection with the firm and
established himself successfully on St. Paul street. William
Bostwick was a hatter but, hats not being in much demand, he
joined the Indian trade.
Jew merchants early settled here; the earliest firm was probably
that of the Levy Brothers, Solomon, Eleazer, Gershom and Simon.
Gershom came with the soldiers, Eleazer in 1763, and the other
two were already settled here by this date. The firm of Ezekiel
Solomon & Company was established in 1764. Tobias Isenhout was
a German sutler who prospered in the Indian trade, but was
murdered in 1771 or 1772 on a business trip by Michel Dué, his
French clerk, who was subsequently hanged under the mutiny act.
The Honourable Conrad Gugy, a Swiss, settled in the Montreal
district and became a legislative councillor. He died in April,
1786, and was buried in the Dorchester street cemetery. Lawrence
Ermantinger arrived in 1762 and became a prosperous merchant.
His name appears on many of the petitions sent from Montreal.
Benjamin Price was another legislative councillor, coming to
Canada in 1762 and died in 1768. James Price, of Price & Haywood,
was from New England, as was his partner. James Price it was who
abetted Ethan Allen in his march on Montreal. The name of Thomas
Walker, another merchant, enters largely into Montreal history,
as we have seen. James Finlay came to Montreal in 1762; he was
the first of the Englishmen to reach the upper Saskatchewan,
wintering at Nipawi House in 1771-2. He was one of those who
established the first Protestant school in the city; one of the
founders of the first Presbyterian church and one of the signers
of the capitulation to Montgomery in 1775. Alexander Henry came
to Montreal with the troops and became a great explorer in
the Indian trade. One of his spells up country lasted fifteen
years. He was one of the founders of the North West Company. In
1796 he retired from the Indian trade and lived to the age of
eighty-four, dying in Montreal on April 4, 1824. The prosperous
city merchants, McGill Brothers, John, James and Andrew, were
all settled by 1774. The firm of McTavish, Frobisher & Company
stands out as the actual founders of the North West Company, the
rivals of the Great Company. Of the Frobisher Brothers, Benjamin
seems to have settled first, before 1765. He died in 1787; Joseph
retired from business in 1798; Thomas died ten years earlier at
the age of forty-four. Simon McTavish came after the others.
The professions were not well represented by the English at
this time. Dr. Daniel Robertson, a retired lieutenant from the
forty-second regiment, practiced medicine in the city after the
conquest and there was a Doctor Huntly. Edward Antill was the
only English lawyer, moving here from New England in 1770. The
first Protestant school master was an Irishman, John Pullman,
brought from New York in 1773. The first Protestant divine was a
Swiss, the Reverend Dr. Chatrand Delisle, who came in 1766. In
striking contrast with latter-day practice, this clergyman’s name
heads the list of the supporters of practically all applicants
for liquor licenses in the city in his time.
The traders who left Montreal for the distant posts had no
license office in the city. Recourse had to be made to Quebec,
and the delay was annoying, although, no doubt, Edward Chinn,
who was the deputy provost marshal, did his best for his fellow
Montreal merchants. The value of the cargoes taken on the
up-country ventures averaged about five hundred pounds, and their
destinations, recorded on the passes, were mostly Oswegatchie,
LaBarge, Niagara, Detroit, Michillimackinac and the Grand
Portage on Lake Superior. The canoe men were voyageurs from
Montreal and the district.
[Illustration: THE HON. JAMES McGILL A prosperous Montreal
merchant, the founder of McGill University. He was born in
Glasgow, October 6, 1744, and died at Montreal, December 18,
1813.]
The following gives some idea of their ventures:
Monday, April 26, 1771, pass for Edward Chinn’s men--seven
men--£550 merchandise, ten fusils, 500 pounds gunpowder, 350
pounds shot and ball.
No. 10--Ezekial Solomon (April 10, 1772)--two canoes to
Michillimackinac, value £800; twenty men (La Prairie); 1,400
pounds shot and ball.
No. 21--Benj. and Jos. Frobisher--3 canoes for Grand Portage;
merchandise £2,000, fusils 96, powder, 2,000 pounds, shot, etc.,
1,300 pounds; liquor, 260 gals.; men, 28.
No. 10--Jas. and John McGill (March 10, 1773)--3 canoes; value
about £1,500; 48 guns, etc.; 23 men.
No. 65--James Morrison--1 small bateau, Niagara (July 17,
1775)--4 men; 22 bales mdse.; 1 quarter cask wine; 1 bbl. loaf
sugar; 1 bbl. coffee; 1 bbl. salt; 1 bbl. tea; 1 nest brass
kettles.
In the beginning the merchants themselves would join the party;
later, becoming richer, they entrusted it to an agent. On the
return they brought down the pelts to Montreal, whence they were
transferred by river sloops to Quebec for London, with which
there was a close connection. The “Mdse.” carried was for Indian
trade and contained scalping knives, hatchets, paints, blankets,
hosiery, beads, etc.
We have spoken of the Montreal merchants after the capitulation
of the city engaging in the fur trade.[1] As early as 1765 yearly
attempts were made by the first adventurers to trade with the
northwest beyond Michillimackinac, but with little success. In
1768 other adventurers joined, but in 1769 Benjamin and Joseph
Frobisher formed a connection with Messrs. Todd and McGill.
Gradually others were added. At first their canoes had difficulty
in getting beyond Lake La Pluye, for the natives plundered their
goods, but later they reached Lake Bourbon. This encouraged the
traders to persevere and by 1774 new ports were discovered,
hitherto unknown to the French. New adventurers followed in
their wake, independently, and, without regard to the management
of the Indians and the common good of the trade, soon caused
disorder, so that many of the substantial traders retired, there
only remaining at the latter end of 1782 twelve who persevered.
These, convinced by long experience of the advantage that would
arise from a general connection, not only calculated to secure
and promote their mutual interests but also to guard against any
encroachments of the United States on the line of boundary as
ceded them by treaty from Lake Superior to Lake du Bois, entered
upon and concluded articles of agreement under the title of the
North West Company, dividing it into sixteen shares. These were
arranged as follows: Todd & McGill, two shares; Benjamin and
Joseph Frobisher, two shares; McGill & Paterson, two shares;
McTavish & Company, two shares; Holmes & Grant, two shares;
Walker & Company, two shares; McBeath & Company, two shares;
Ross & Company, one share; Oakes & Company, one share. The above
seemed to have been bound together about 1779, but the North
West Company, as such, seems to date from about 1782 and for a
“term of five years” as first promoted. (Benjamin Frobisher to
Doctor McBane, April 1, 1784.)
The story of the North West Company founded at Montreal must now
be told. The war of 1775-6 had sadly interfered with the trade of
Montreal with the Indians up country. Haldimand set to work to
help the traders to rebuild it. A report of April 24, 1780, of
Charles Grant, one of the members of the North West Company, to
Haldimand, reveals the enterprise of the founders of Montreal’s
commercial prosperity, thus, that “at all times the trades of
the upper countries had been considered the staple trade in this
Province but of late years it has been greatly increased, in
so much that it may be reckoned one year with another to have
produced an annual return to Great Britain in Furrs to the amount
of £200,000 sterling, which is an object deserving of all the
encouragement and protection which Government can with propriety
give to that trade. The Indian Trade by every communication is
carried on at a great expense, labour and risk of both men and
property; every year furnishes instances of the loss of men and
goods by accident and otherwise; indeed few of them are able
to purchase with ready money such goods as they want for their
trade. They are consequently indebted from year to year until a
return is made in Furrs to the merchants of Quebec and Montreal
who are importers of goods from England and furnish them on
credit. In this manner the Upper Country Trade is chiefly carried
on by men of low circumstances, destitute of every means to pay
their debts when their trade fails; and if it should be under
great restraints or obstructed a few years the consequences will
prove ruinous to the commercial party of this Province and very
hurtful to the merchants of London, shippers of goods to this
country, besides the loss of so valuable branch of trade in
Great Britain. In these troublesome times the least stop to the
Indian Trade might be very productive of very bad effects, even
among the savages who are at present our friends or neuter, who
on seeing no supply of goods would immediately change sides and
join the enemies of the Government under pretense that the rebels
had got the better of us and that we had not it in our power to
supply them any more. All the property in the Upper Countries
in such a case would become an easy prey to their resentment;
and the lives of all of His Majesty’s Subjects doing business in
these Countries at the time of a rupture of this nature might
probably fall a sacrifice to the fury and rage of disappointed,
uncivilized barbarians.”
He then gives an insight into the value of each canoe load: “I am
informed that of late years, from ninety to one hundred canoes
have annually been employed in the Indian Trade from Montreal
by the communications of the Great River to Michillimackinac,
Lakes Huron and Michigan, LaBarge, and the North West. * * * In
this I shall insert the average value of a canoe load of goods
at the time of departure from Montreal, Michillimackinac and
at the Grand Portage. * * * A canoe load of goods is reckoned
at Montreal worth in dry goods to the amount of £300, first
sterling cost in England, with fifty per cent charges thereon
makes £150; besides that every canoe carries about 200 gallons
of rum and wine which I suppose worth £50 more, so that every
canoe on departure from that place may be said worth £500,
currency of this Province. The charges of all sorts included
together from Montreal to Michillimackinac, £160, and from
thence to the Grand Portage, £90; so it appears that each canoe
at Michillimackinac is worth £660, currency; every canoe is
navigated by eight men for the purpose of transporting the goods
only and when men go up to winter they commonly carry ten.”
[Illustration: From a sketch by R.G. Mathews, Esq. FIRST
RESIDENCE AND STORE OF THE HON. JAMES McGILL]
The report ends with an appeal for the early issue of passes.
For “last year the passes were given out so late that it was
impossible to forward goods to the places of destination,
especially in the North West. Considering the great number of
people in this province immediately interested in the Indian
Trade it is hardly possible to suppose but there may be among
them some disaffected men, but the major part of them I sincerely
believe are sure friends to Government and it would be hard the
whole community should suffer for the sake of a few bad men since
regulations and laws are or may be made sufficiently severe to
prevent in a great measure, or altogether, every effort that
may be made to convey goods to the enemy and if any person,
whatever, should attempt to ignore or violate such regulations
as are made for the safety of the whole, the law ought to be put
into execution against him with the utmost rigour on conviction
of guilt and the offender never should be forgiven offences
committed against the publick in general.” From which we may
learn that our justly honoured pioneer Montreal merchants were
law-abiding citizens and were not among the rebels of 1775-6.
This letter was followed by a memorial from the North West
traders on May 11, 1780, asking for no let or hindrance to the
departure of the canoes. The additional names of Adam Lymburner
and J. Porteous appear adjoined to this.
On October 4, 1784, Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher, the directors
of the North West Company, memorialized General Haldimand,
praying him to recommend to His Majesty’s ministers to grant to
the North West Company an exclusive privilege of trade from Lake
Superior to that country for ten years only as a reward “for
discovering a new passage to the River Ouinipigue and thereby
effectively securing to this Province the Furr trade to the
North West. And in consideration, also, of exploring at their
own expense between the latitudes of 55 and 65, all that Tract
of Country west of Hudson’s Bay to the North Pacific Ocean and
communicating to Government such surveys and other information
respecting that Country as it may be in their power to obtain.”
Mr. Peter Pond, one of the company, in memorializing Governor
Hamilton on the 18th of April in the following year, begs him to
recommend the memorial, already mentioned, of the Frobishers “as
a plan which will be productive of Great National advantages” and
the ten years’ exclusive monopoly as “only a reward for the toil
and expense of such an arduous and public Spirited Enterprise.”
This company gained in strength. While its headquarters were in
Montreal, it had “wintering” partners in the interior posts.
Fort William became the meeting ground of the partners who were
merchant princes of the period for the annual meetings which are
described by Washington Irving in “Astoria” as marked with great
splendour. It provided serious competition for the Hudson’s Bay
Company. The policy of the latter had been only to trade in the
winter with the natives, thus making a close season in summer.
Their posts were at first all on the coast, but the competition
forced them also to seek interior quarters. The contributions
to our geographical knowledge provided by the earlier explorers
of the first North West Company include the first overland
journey to the Pacific Ocean made by Sir Alexander Mackenzie in
1793 and his previous descent in 1789 from Lake Athabasca to the
Arctic Ocean by the Mackenzie River, called after this explorer,
from Montreal. The discovery of the Peace River must also be
attributed to him.
In 1798, troubles arising among the partners, the seceding
party formed a rival firm popularly known as the “X.Y.” from
those initials following the W. in N.W. Company.[2] Jealous
and rancourous friction arose again and the two companies were
amalgamated in 1804 into one firm called the North West Company.
It became a powerful body, purely Canadian and with exclusive
privileges. Sir Alexander Mackenzie was its moving spirit and his
cousin Roderick became one of the chief agents.
Meanwhile the great North West Company by 1806 had spread over
the continent from the Great Lakes to the remote side of the
Rocky Mountains and had established a trading post at Columbia
River. By 1812 it had fifty agents, seventy interpreters and
over one thousand one hundred voyageurs. Thus when the partners,
mostly Scotchmen, met at Fort William they were surrounded by
retainers and they acted like barons of old, the story of their
feasting and lavishness lighting up the tale of the otherwise
dreary days--the old north west days--and when they met at
their famous Beaver Club in Montreal they added considerable
magnificence to the social life of the city.
Meanwhile another rival to the North West Company was arising in
the person of the founder of the Astor family. John Jacob Astor,
born in the honest little village of Waldorf, near Heidelberg,
on the banks of the Rhine, arrived in America in a ship bound
for Baltimore in the month of January, 1783. In 1784 he settled
in New York and soon turned his attention exclusively to the fur
trade. The peltry trade not being regularly organized in the
United States, he determined to go to Canada, the seat of the
main supply. Accordingly he made annual visits to Montreal and
thence shipped furs to London, as trade was not allowed otherwise
than directly with the old country.
In 1794 or 1795 a treaty with Great Britain lifted the trade
restrictions and a direct commercial intercourse was established
with the United States. Mr. Astor then made a contract with the
North West Company and he was now enabled to ship furs direct
from Montreal to the United States for the home supply. In 1809
he obtained a charter from the legislature of New York state
incorporating a company under the name of “The American Fur
Company.” In 1811 he bought out the Anglo-Canadian Company,
the “Mackinaw,” whose headquarters were at Michillimackinac,
and merging it into the American Fur Company, called it the
“South West Company,” or the “Pacific Fur Company,” as it
afterwards became known. He associated with himself, as his
agents several of those who had hitherto served the North West
Company of Montreal, among these being Alexander McKay, who
had accompanied Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1789 and 1793, Duncan
McDougal and Donald Mackenzie. He planned headquarters at the
north of the Columbia River. Accordingly the expedition was sent
out in duplicate to the mouth of the Columbia River, one-half
going on a six-months’ voyage around Cape Horn in a sailing
vessel, the Iroquois, the other marching overland or canoeing
on lakes and rivers in eighteen months from Montreal via the
Mississippi and the Missouri, to the mouth of the Columbia River.
[Illustration: ERECTED 1759 John Jacob Astor, the founder of the
Astor fortunes, is said to have lived in this building, on the
southwest corner of Vaudreuil and Ste. Therese streets, still
standing, and stored here Canadian beaver, racoon and muskrat
skins, Canadian coatings, etc., all of which he sold in 1789 at
No. 81 Queen Street, New York.]
[Illustration: OLD ST. GABRIEL CHURCH ON ST. GABRIEL STREET
Erected in 1792, standing till recently. The first “Scotch”
Church in the Province. Its chief supporters were the Scotch
fur-traders of the North-West Company. The bell in the steeple
of this church is said to have been “the first Protestant bell
sounded in Canada.”]
The voyageurs he got at Montreal in July, 1810, were not of
the best, for the old rival North West Company had secretly
interdicted the prime hands from engaging in the new service. It
was not long after the party left Lachine for St. Anne’s that the
“recruits enlisted at Montreal were fit to vie with the rugged
regiment of Falstaff; some were able-bodied but inexpert; others
were expert but lazy; while a third class were expert but totally
worn, being brokendown veterans incapable of toil.” (“Astoria,”
by Washington Irving, Chapter XII.)
These two parties together founded “Astoria” at the mouth of the
Columbia. But most of Astor’s employees were British subjects
derived from men of the North West and Mackinaw Companies, and
when the 1812 War broke out between the United States and Great
Britain a British warship came up the Pacific coast and promptly
turned it into “Fort George.” Forthwith the North West Company
bought up the derelict property of Mr. Astor’s company. British
employees and a few Americans in the concern retreated inland and
after almost incredible suffering from the attacks of unfriendly
Indians succeeded in reaching the Mississippi.” (“Pioneers in
Canada,” by Sir Harry Johnston.)
But the most powerful rival of the North West Company was to be
found in the person of Lord Selkirk, who had bought two-fifths
of the stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company. In May, 1811, he
prevailed on the directors to grant him 160,000 square miles of
territory in fee simple on condition he should establish a colony
and furnish from the settlers men required by the company at a
certain rate. In 1811 ninety persons, mostly Highland cotters
from Sutherlandshire, with some emigrants from the west of
Ireland, reached Hudson’s Bay, sent by Selkirk. Others followed
in subsequent years. This may be regarded as the beginning of the
North West Red River settlement. Its history was one of bitter
rivalry for the Montreal company. This was felt all the more
since Lord Selkirk, being a Douglas and a Scot, had after the
failure of this first settlement in Canada at Buldoon received
much hospitality and attention at Montreal from the Scottish
merchants of the company, who had given him so much inside
information on the subject of the fur trade industry that he
had turned his thoughts to the Hudson’s Bay Company and become
for many years the most determined opponent of his hosts. This
opposition, to the extent of bloodshed, did not cease till the
union of the two bodies as the reestablished Hudson’s Bay Company
in 1821.
But the competition with Selkirk’s Hudson’s Bay party had
brought sorry losses to both; no dividends were able to be paid
by the North West and there was a loss of men on either side
in the sanguinary incursions into one another’s territories.
The amalgamation of 1821 was therefore not too soon. The union
was followed by the gift of the government to the impoverished
companies of the exclusive trade of the territory which, under
the names of the Hudson’s Bay and North West territories,
extended from Labrador to the Pacific and from Red River to
the Arctic Ocean. The Hudson’s Bay Company, as the amalgamated
company was called, held Rupert’s Land by perpetual charter and
the rest of the territory, including Vancouver Island, granted to
it in 1848 by special license till 1859, maintaining under its
supreme rule about four million square miles. In 1860 it employed
five surgeons, eighty-seven clerks, sixty-seven postmasters,
1,200 permanent servants and 500 voyageurs, making with temporary
employees about three thousand men on its payroll, while about
one hundred thousand Indians were actively engaged in supplying
it with furs. Its profits were enormous, being from May 31,
1852, to May 31, 1862, an annual average of £81,000 on a paid-up
capital of £400,000. In 1863 the company was reorganized with a
capital of £2,000,000, with Sir Edmund Head as governor. After
confederation the northwestern territories and Manitoba were
joined to the Dominion on the indemnification of £3,000,000. This
will be told in its place. Henceforth the old company, no longer
a feudal government, is to play its part as one of the mercantile
bodies of Canada, but one which still has a great civilizing
power in the northern wilds of Canada.
THE BEAVER CLUB
“The members of the famous Beaver Club, constituted perhaps
the most picturesque and magnificent aristocracy that has ever
dominated the life of any young community on this continent, with
the possible exception of the tobacco lords of Virginia. The
majority of them were adventurous Scotsmen, but they included
French-Canadians, Englishmen and a few Irishmen, and were
thoroughly cosmopolitan by taste and associations.”
The Beaver Club was instituted at Montreal in the year 1785,
by the merchants then carrying on the Indian trade of Canada.
Originally the club consisted of but nineteen members, all
voyageurs, having wintered in the Indian Country, and having been
in the trade from their youth. Subsequently the membership was
extended to fifty-five, with ten Honorary Members.
On the first Wednesday in December of each year, the social
gatherings were inaugurated by a dinner at which all members
residing in the town were expected to be present.
The club assumed powers which would, in the present day, be
strongly resisted; among the most notable of them was the rule,
that “no member shall have a party at his house on club days, nor
accept invitations; but if in town, must attend, except prevented
by indisposition.”
The meetings were held fortnightly from December to April and
there was, in addition, a summer club for the captains of the fur
vessels, who, in some instances, were honorary members.
The object of the meetings (as set forth in the rules) was “to
bring together, at stated periods, during the winter season,
a set of men highly respectable in society, who had passed
their best days in a savage country and had encountered the
difficulties and dangers incident to a pursuit of the fur trade
of Canada.”
The members recounted the perils they had passed through and
after passing around the Indian emblem of peace (the calumet),
the officer appointed for the purpose, made a suitable harangue.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The effect of the conquest on the fur trade in the Northwest,
according to Mr. Beckles Wilson, “The Great Company,” was that
for awhile the Indians and the _voyageurs_ and _coureurs de bois_
awaited patiently for the French traders. Many of the French thus
cut off intermarried with the Indians and virtually lived as such.
[2] The new North West Company were composed of Gregory and
McLeod, now independent. It was first called the “little
Company,” or the “Potties,” an American corruption of the French
“Les Petit.” Later it developed into the X.Y. Company, or Sir
Alexander Mackenzie’s Company. Alexander Mackenzie and his
cousin, Roderick Mackenzie, became the chief agents of the new
company. (Alexander Mackenzie was knighted in 1799.)
CHAPTER XII
FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS
MONTREAL THE SEAT OF JACOBINISM
THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST--MONTREAL REPRESENTATIVES--FRENCH AND
ENGLISH USED--THE FRENCH REVOLUTION--MUTINY AT QUEBEC--THE
DUKE OF KENT--INVASION FEARED FROM FRANCE--MONTREAL
DISAFFECTED--ATTORNEY GENERAL MONK’S REPORT--THE FRENCH
SEDITIONARY PAMPHLETS--PANEGYRIC ON BISHOP BRIAND--MONTREAL
ARRESTS--ATTORNEY GENERAL SEWELL’S REPORT--M’LEAN--ROGER’S
SOCIETY--JEROME BONAPARTE EXPECTED.
The persistence of the English merchants had at last secured
constitutional government with an assembly. It was inaugurated
by the lieutenant-governor, Sir Alured Clarke, in the absence of
Lord Dorchester in England, the day of its coming into effect
being December 26, 1791. The division of the province into
twenty-one counties with four town buroughs was made later in
1792, viz., Gaspé, Cornwallis, Devon, Hertford, Dorchester,
Buckinghamshire, Richelieu, Bedford, Surry (sic), Kent,
Huntingdon, York, Montreal, Northumberland, Orleans, Effingham,
Leinster, Warwick, St. Maurice, Hampshire and Quebec. Each county
returned two members except Gaspé, Bedford and New Orleans,
returning one each. Quebec and Montreal were to return four each,
Three Rivers two and William Henry (Sorel) one; in all fifty
members.
The house met on December 17, 1792, there being about sixteen
members of British origin, a proportion more or less maintained
for forty-six years. The Catholic members, objecting to take the
oath prescribed by the act of 1791, were allowed by Sir Alured
Clarke to take that of the act of 1774. The meeting was held in
the Bishop’s palace of Quebec hired by government and altered and
repaired at a cost of £428. Chief Justice Smith was nominated
speaker of the legislative council, the fifteen (legal number)
members being J.G. Chaussegros de Léry, Hugh Finlay, Picotté de
Belestre, Thomas Dunn, Paul Roc de St. Ours, Edward Harrison,
François Baby, John Collins, Joseph de Longueuil, Charles de la
Naudière, George Pownal, R.A. de Boucherville, John Fraser, and
Sir Henry Caldwell, Receiver General, subsequently named.
The assembly met to chose a speaker. Mr. Joseph Antoine Panet,
a lawyer of eminence in Quebec, was appointed. Montreal was
represented in the west ward by James McGill and J.B. Durocher
and in the east ward by Joseph Frobisher and John Richardson, the
county being represented by James Walker and Mr. Joseph Papineau.
French and English were both used from the beginning, being
accepted as a matter of course without any formal resolution.[1]
The first formal vote on the subject was taken a year later, on
December 27, 1792, when the following motion was proposed by Mr.
Grant, who accepted an amendment by Mr. Papineau “that it be an
instruction of the committee of the whole house charged with the
correctness of the minutes (or journals) that the digest they may
prepare as the journal of the house from the commencement to the
time of reference shall be in the English or French language, as
it may have been entered in the original minutes without drawing
into precedent for the future.”
Number 9 of the rules for conducting the business of the assembly
ran:
“No motion shall be debated or put unless the same be in writing
and seconded. When a motion is seconded it shall be read in
English and French by the speaker if he is master of both
languages. If not, the speaker shall read in either of the two
languages most familiar to him and the reading in the other
language shall be at the table by the clerk or his deputy before
the debate.”
On the method of keeping the journals:
“Resolved, that this house shall keep its journal in two
registers, in one of which the proceedings of the house and the
motion shall be wrote in the French language, with a translation
of the motions originally made in the English language; and in
the other shall be entered the proceedings of the house and the
motions in the English language with a translation of the motions
originally made in the French language.”
Finally it was resolved that the rules for introduction of bills
should be as follows:
“The bills relative to the criminal laws of England enforced
in this province and to the rights of the Protestant clergy as
specified in the act of the thirty-first year of His Majesty,
Chapter 31, shall be introduced in the English language; and the
bills relative to the laws, customs, usages and civil rights of
this province shall be introduced in the French language in order
to preserve the unity of the texts.”
On the 9th of May, 1793, Sir Alured Clarke in his speech from
the throne was forced to make allusions to the first French
revolution, which had been already four years in progress before
the opening of the assembly of Lower Canada in December, 1792.
The Bastille had fallen on June 17, 1789. “At the first meeting
of the legislature I congratulated you,” he said, “upon the
flattering prospects which opened to your view and upon the
flourishing and tranquil state of the British empire, then at
peace with all the world; since that period, I am sorry to find,
its tranquility has been disturbed by the unjustifiable and
unprecedented conduct of the persons exercising the supreme power
in France, who, after deluging their own country with the blood
of their own fellow citizens and embruing their hands in that
of their sovereign, have forced His Majesty and the surrounding
nations of Europe in a contest which involves the first interests
of society.”
The king of France had been executed on January 21st and war with
Great Britain had been declared on February 1st, although Great
Britain had made every effort to avoid hostility. Washington
had issued the proclamation of neutrality on April 22d, warning
Americans of the penalties incurred by its infraction. The
revolted provinces had first shown great sympathy with the French
revolutionists. On the news of the evacuation of the allied
forces which began on September 20, 1793, all New England seems
to have lost its head: McMaster in his “History of the People
of the United States” (Vol. II, page 13-14) says: “Both men and
women seemed for a time to have put away their wits and gone
mad with republicanism. Their dress, their speech, their daily
conduct were all regulated on strict republican principles.
There must be a flaming liberty cap in every house. There must
be a cockade in every hat, there must be no more use of the old
titles, Sir and Mr. and Dr. and Rev., etc.”
But later when the excesses of the Revolution began to be known
excitement somewhat cooled. It was no pleasure, consequently,
to Washington to hear on the day of the proclamation of
neutrality that Genet, sent as minister by the French republic,
had arrived at Charleston. Genet was well received on his way
to Philadelphia, but was chilled by the reception given by
Washington and left in a rage. (Archives Report, 1891, Douglas
Brymner.)
Lower Canada was not uninfluenced by all this. Genet’s agents,
or those of his successor, Fauchet, for Genet was superseded in
February, 1794, had succeeded in creating a disaffected spirit
among people. At Quebec there was an open manifestation of
sedition on the parade. Kingsford tells how Prince Edward (Duke
of Kent)[2] was in command of the Seventh Fusileers at Quebec
when a threatened mutiny was suppressed. Several were charged on
a plot to seize the Prince, the general and the officers. One
man was sentenced to be shot, but at the Prince’s interception
was spared. Three men were severally sentenced to 500, 700 and
400 lashes, one being a sergeant. The details cannot be traced.
(Kingsford, Vol. VII, page 383.)
A descent on Canada by way of St. John’s and Lake Champlain
was reported to be meditated by congress. In April, 1794, the
authorities of Vermont had, as reported to Lord Dorchester, made
an offer to Congress to undertake the conquest of Canada without
assistance from the federal government, provided the troops were
allowed to plunder the inhabitants, and in order to facilitate
communications with the seditious of Montreal, Mason lodges were
instituted in Vermont under pretended charters from lodges in
Montreal.
On September 23d Dorchester arrived in Quebec; shortly Sir
Alured Clarke returned to England. The second parliament was
opened on November 11th. In January M. Chartier de Lothbinière
succeeded M. Panet as speaker, the latter having been made judge
of Common Pleas. At the end of November, 1793, Dorchester issued
proclamations to take means against the French emissaries in the
country. In May, 1794, orders were issued for the embodiment
of 2,000 militia to be ready for service. The extent of the
poisonous and seditious influences at work is shown by the fact
that out of the 7,000 men fit for service in forty-two parishes
only 900 men obeyed the law. Lord Dorchester attributed this
unwillingness to serve as due more to long absence from military
duty than disloyalty. The habitants were, however, dissatisfied,
for though the hand of the government was easy they claimed to
be oppressed by the expenses of the law and to be unprotected
against the exactions of their seigneurs as they had been under
the French intendants. (Dorchester to Dundas, May 24, 1794.)
The district of Montreal was reported to be universally
disaffected, though the British subjects were loyal and well
disposed. The militia law was opposed. At Côte de Neiges a party
of habitants had become possessed of arms and were determined to
defend themselves if attacked. As said, information was received
that a Freemasons’ lodge had been established at Montreal in
connection with a lodge in Vermont for the sole purpose of
carrying out a traitorous correspondence with the disaffected. On
all sides it was reported that the French were coming to seize
Canada.
Attorney General Monk, writing from Quebec to Dundas on May
3, 1794, gives an alarming picture of the spread of French
revolutionary principles becoming general. He states that
threats were used by disaffected new subjects against the
loyal new subjects; that it was astonishing to find the same
savagery exhibited here as in France, in so short a period for
corruption; that blood alliances did not check the menaces upon
the non-compliant peasants of burning their houses, of death,
emboweling, decapitation and carrying their heads on poles; that
religion was being thrown aside. The intrigues had been traced
to Genet and the French consuls; that correspondence had been
carried on between the disaffected Canadians of the United States
and Canada, and that French emissaries had been sent to prepare
the people to follow the example of France.
A pamphlet, extracts from which have been preserved, was
circulated in January, 1794, under the title of “les Français
Libres a Leurs frères les Canadiens.” This pamphlet deserves the
extracts extant being made known as indicating a picture of the
feelings of the seditionary party. They are to be found in French
in the Canadian Government Archives, Q 62, page 224.
The object was to encourage the Canadians “to emulate the
example of the people of America and of France. Break then,
with a government which degenerates from day to day, and which
has become the most cruel enemy of the liberty of the people.
Everywhere are found traces of the despotism, the avidity, the
cruelties of the king of England. It is time to overthrow a
throne which has been seated so long on hypocrisy and imposture.
In no way fear George III with his soldiers, too small in number
to successfully oppose your valour. The moment is favourable
and insurrection is for you the holiest of duties. Remember
that being born French you will always be envied and persecuted
by the kings of England and that this title will be more than
ever today a reason for exclusion from all offices. Also what
advantages have you drawn from the constitution which has been
given you since your representatives have been assembled? Have
they presented you with a single good law? Have they corrected
any abuse? Have they had the power to free your commerce
from its shackles? No! And why not? Because all the means of
corruption have been secretly and publicly employed to make
the balance weigh in favour of the English. They have dared to
impose an odious veto which the king of England has reserved
only to prevent the destruction of abuses and to paralyze all
your movements; here is the present which the vile stipendaries
have dared to offer you as a monument of the beneficence of the
English government. Canadians, arm yourselves. Call to your
assistance your friends, the Indians; count on the help of your
neighbours and on that of Frenchmen.”
A resumé is given of the advantages that Canadians will obtain in
throwing over the English domination.
1. Canada will be a free and independent state.
2. It can form alliances with France and the United States.
3. The Canadians will choose their own government; they will
themselves name the members of the legislative body and the
executive power.
4. The veto will be abolished.
5. All persons who have obtained the right of citizenship in
Canada can be named for all offices.
6. The Corvées will be abolished.
7. Commerce will enjoy a more extensive liberty.
8. There will be no longer any privileged company for the fur
trade. The new government will encourage this trade.
9. The seigneurial _droits_ will be abolished. The _lods et
ventes_, the millrights, the tolls, the lumber reservations, work
for the service of the seigneur, etc., will be equally abolished.
10. Hereditary titles will be also abolished. There will be no
lords, seigneurs or nobles.
11. All cults will be free. Catholic priests named by the
people as in the primitive church will enjoy a treatment
analogous to their ability.
12. Schools will be established in the parishes and towns;
there will be printing offices; institutions for the high
sciences; medicine and mathematics. Interpreters will be trained
who, known for their good morals, will be encouraged to civilize
the savage nations and by this means to extend the trade with
them.
In spite of these inflammatory circulars, and outside those
immediately disaffected, the majority of the Canadians were in
good disposition with the government. They would have resisted
an American invasion without hesitation. When their own people
tampered with them and offered to regain Canada to the French
it is only natural that many should have been unsettled.
But it must clearly be understood that the reports of the
French emissaries being in the country were not the dreams of
visionaries. It was expected in many quarters that Napoleon, the
First Consul, would have redemanded Canada at the general treaty
of peace. Canada was desired for the French “as an outlet for
French products and for the means of speculation to an infinite
number of Frenchmen who have no resources in their own country.”
The last quotation occurs in a letter dated January 12, 1803,
from France by an ex-Canadian, Mr. Imbert, to a brother of Judge
Panet.
Yet a panegyric on the occasion of the death of Bishop Briand
in 1794 reveals a change of opinion undergoing at this period
with regard to the relations of the English and the French.
“Ah!” cried the preacher, “how the perspective of our future
formerly spread out bitterness in all Christian families! Each
one mourned his unhappy plight and was afflicted not to be able
to leave a country where the kingdom of God seemed about to be
forever destroyed. No one could be persuaded that our conquerors,
strangers to our soil, to our language, our law, our customs, our
worship, could ever be able to give back to Canada what it had
just lost in the change of masters. Generous nation! which has
made us see with so much evidence how this prejudgment was false;
industrious nation! which has made riches sprout forth which the
bosom of this land enclosed; beneficent nation! which daily gives
to Canada new proofs of your liberality; No! no! you are not our
enemies, nor those of our properties which your laws protect,
nor those of our religion, which you respect. Pardon this first
mistrust in a people which had not yet the honour of knowing you.”
At Montreal some important arrests were made; one, Duclos,
an active agent of the United States who had moved among the
people confidently foretelling the invasion of the French, and
a traitor named Costello, who was proved to have been diligent
in circulating the incendiary pamphlets in French. To meet this
disaffection Constitutional Associations were formed in Montreal
and Quebec of the leading French Canadian and British loyalists.
Gradually the sedition died down. But during the great fear of a
French invasion there had been no little doubt and uncertainty
among the mercantile classes as to the fate of the vessels that
might be dispatched with cargoes on the St. Lawrence. Jay’s
treaty, 19th of November, 1794, with Great Britain, for the
amicable adjustment of all differences between it and the United
States, was a potent factor in making for peace. It was finally
agreed to in the senate of the United States in 1795, although
the sympathizers of the French fought it determinedly.
In April, 1796, Dorchester, who had sent in his resignation,
received official information that Gen. Robert Prescott
had been appointed lieutenant governor of Lower Canada and
commander-in-chief in North America. Prescott arrived at Quebec
on the 18th of June and Dorchester sailed in July, being wrecked
on the island of Anticosti, but, being taken off by a ship of
war, reached his destination in safety. On the 18th of June,
1796, Sir Robert Prescott, Lord Dorchester’s successor, did
not find matters in the province in a satisfactory state. The
French republican designs on Canada were still represented in the
Montreal district by many sympathizers. Riots were caused and the
magistrates of Montreal seemed to have acted weakly, if not with
connivance, so that a new commission of the peace was issued with
several names omitted. The ostensible cause was opposition to the
execution of the Road Bill, but in reality it was a disaffection
stirred up by emissaries from the French republic, then in the
province.
Attorney General Sewell had been sent to Montreal to get
information and he reported the above to the executive council at
Quebec on Sunday, October 30, 1796, on the authority of Messrs.
de Lothbinière, McGill, Richardson, Murray, Papineau and others.
He reported: “That a pamphlet of most seditious tendencies,
signed by Adet, the embassador from the French republic to the
United States, was now in circulation in the district. That
this pamphlet bore the arms of the French republic and was
addressed to the Canadians assuring them that France, having now
conquered Spain, Austria and Italy, had determined to subdue
Great Britain and meant to begin with her colonies; that she
thought it her duty in the first instance to turn her attention
to the Canadians, to relieve them from the slavery under which
they groaned, and was taking steps for that purpose; that it
pointed out the supposed advantages which the republican form
of government possessed over the British and concluded that
in a short time there would only be heard the cry of ‘Vive la
Republique!’ from Canada to Paris.” The attorney-general added
that he had heard at Montreal that the French republic intended
to raise troops in Canada and had actually sent four officers’
commissions into the country. This brought a proclamation from
Lieutenant-Governor Prescott, commander-in-chief, ordering the
arrest of seditious persons, especially “certain foreigners being
alien enemies who are lurking and lying concealed in various
parts of the province.” This proclamation was ordered to be
published for three successive weeks in the Quebec Gazette and
Montreal papers in both languages, and also copies to be printed
to be affixed to the church doors in the province. During the
rest of the year various people were examined in Montreal, which
revealed the existence of a widespread revolt organized by
agitators.
On May 17th at the recent assizes for the district of Quebec and
Montreal a number had been arrested and tried. Attorney-General
Sewell in his report to Prescott on May 12, 1797, mentions among
the several indictments preferred the following:
“High Treason: Inciting persons to assemble in a riotous manner
for the purpose of opposing the execution of the Road Act;
Conspiracy to prevent the market of Montreal being supplied with
Provisions until the inhabitants of that city should unite with
those of the Country in their opposition to the Road Act.
“Assault on a Constable in the execution of his office under the
Road Act.
“Riot and assault on a justice of the peace in the execution of
his Office.
“Riots, assaults on and false Imprisonment of different overseers
of the High Roads.
“Riots and Rescue of Persons apprehended for the offence last
above mentioned from the hands of the sheriff’s officers. Assault
on the sheriff of Montreal in the execution of his Office and
Rescue of a Prisoner from his custody for an offence against
Government.
“Seditious Conversation and Libels on the House of Assembly.
“The number of Persons indicted in Montreal for the above
offences amounted in all to nineteen, of which four for High
Treason have not yet been tried. Thirteen were tried and of that
number eleven were convicted and received Judgment. The remaining
Two absconded.
“The number of persons indicted at Quebec for the above offences
amounted to twenty-four, of which twenty-three were convicted and
received punishment.”
It is needless to review these cases. As, however, the name of
McLean stands out in this sedition, he must be noticed. This man
was not arrested till May 10, 1797, although information of his
seditionary mission work on the borders of Canada and the United
States was in the hands of the authorities in December, 1796. On
July 7th he was tried and found guilty and executed on the 21st.
On various occasions he had been known to be in Montreal planting
sedition. He was in close touch with Ira Allen, of Vermont, who
had been on board the “Olive Branch” from Ostend with 20,000
stand of arms. He tried to explain that these were purchased
for the Vermont militia. But there is no doubt that they were
furnished by the Directory in Paris for the army of the Lower
Canadians in an expedition in which McLean was to be interested.
Among McLean’s papers was found one from Adet confirming this.
The attempts of the French on Canada already mentioned under the
dates of 1796 and 1797 seemed never to have entirely relaxed. In
1801 Lieutenant-Governor Milnes became warned that persons were
plotting for the subversion of Canada and that a society of “a
parcel of Americans” had been formed in Montreal, proceeding on
the principles of Jacobinism and Illuminism, having one Rogers
as leader, it being supposed that he was the only one who knew
the real objects of the society, which had increased from six
to sixty-one members. Six were arrested and held for trial but
Rogers escaped. Attorney-General Sewell made a report of his
investigation. Rogers was a New England schoolmaster who had
settled a short time before at Carillon, forty miles west of
Montreal. The society formed by him was composed “of sundry
individuals of desperate fortunes,” and among them were many of
the persons concerned in McLane’s (sic) conspiracy, particularly
Ira Allen and Stephen Thorn, who were lately arrived from France.
The pretext on which Rogers founded his society was to search for
treasure. The depositions accompanying Sewell’s report implicate
Ira Allen and his Vermont marauders as bent on plundering Canada.
In this regard Montreal was especially aimed at. The trouble died
down somewhat in 1802 when peace with France was proclaimed,
but on June 1, 1803, long before any steps could be taken after
the declaration of war again, French emissaries were in the
province sapping the loyalty, some of them being in Montreal.
Again, this was no visionary conception, but a reality. A keen
lookout was maintained on strangers. Mr. Richardson, a magistrate
of Montreal, was appointed secret agent. One of those to be
watched was Jerome Bonaparte, the brother of the First Consul
of France. His description is as follows, as sent by Barclay
from New York, 2d December, 1803, to Milnes: “Jerome Bonaparte
appears about twenty-one years of age, five feet, six or seven
inches high, slender make, sallow complexion, sharp and prominent
chin, cropped dark hair, short, but he sometimes adds a queue
and is powdered; dark eyes.” Jerome had arrived at New York
about November 20th and was reported to be making, via Albany,
for Lake Champlain, where there was “a Frenchman named Rous, who
is notorious for assisting deserters. McLean, hung for treason,
is particularly intimate with Rous.” Richardson came to terms
with this Rous, whom he employed as a spy. The attempt on Canada
by the French was temporarily abandoned, the reason, given by
Pichon, Chargé d’affaires at Washington, being that Great Britain
was too powerful by sea.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] One of the first statutes was an act to prevent gun powder
drawn in ships and other vessels into the harbour of Montreal and
to guard against the careless transportation of the same into the
powder magazines.
[2] He landed at Quebec in August, 1791, and left Canada in
1794. On the 13th of September, in passing through Montreal, he
received a complimentary address. He went up country probably
as far as Niagara, returning through Montreal in September of
1792. On December 6, 1793, Chief Justice Smith died at Quebec.
His remains were interred on December 8th, and were attended to
the grave by H.R.H. Prince Edward.--(Quebec Gazette, Thursday,
December 12, 1793.)
CHAPTER XIII
THE AMERICAN INVASION OF 1812
MONTREAL AND CHATEAUGUAY
FRENCH CANADIAN LOYALTY
THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF 1812--THE CHESAPEAKE--JOHN HENRY--HOW
THE NEWS OF INVASION WAS RECEIVED IN MONTREAL--THE
MOBILIZATION--GENERAL HULL--THE MONTREAL MILITIA--FRENCH AND
ENGLISH ENLIST--MONTREAL THE OBJECTIVE--OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF
THE BATTLE OF CHATEAUGUAY--COLONEL DE SALABERRY--RETURN OF
WOUNDED--THE EXPLANATION OF THE FEW BRITISH KILLED.
The loyalty of the British and French Canadians was again to be
tested during the American war of 1812, which involved Canada in
war as a dependency of England.
Its causes were as follows: In 1806, on November 1st, Napoleon
issued his “Berlin decree” declaring a blockade on the entire
British coast, and let loose French privateers against her
shipping and that of neutral nations trading with her. Great
Britain retaliated by the celebrated “orders in council which
declared all traffic with France contraband and the vessels
prosecuting it with their cargoes, liable to seizure.”[1] By both
of these the United States was injured in its carrying trade.
Congress, therefore, in the following year superceded President
Jefferson’s contra-embargo on all shipping, domestic and foreign,
in the harbours of the United States, by a “non-intercourse
act” prohibiting all commerce with either belligerent till the
“obnoxious decree” or “orders” were removed.
Another cause conspired to fan the war feeling to a flame. Great
Britain, pressed by the difficulty of manning her immense fleets,
asserted the “right of search” of American vessels for deserters
from her navy. The United States frigate “Chesapeake” resisted
this right, sanctioned by international law, but was compelled by
a broadside from H.M. Ship Leopard (June, 1807) to submit. The
British government disavowed the violence of this act and offered
reparation. But the democratic party was clamorous for war and
eager to seduce from their allegiance and annex to the United
States, the provinces of British North America.
A further cause exasperating the United States, was the
publication of the secret correspondence of a Captain Henry,
an adventurer, sent by Sir James Craig, Governor General of
Canada, in 1809 to ascertain the state of feeling in New England
towards Great Britain. Henry reported a disposition to secede
from the Union and subsequently offered his correspondence to
the American government, demanding therefor the exorbitant sum
of $50,000, which he received from the secret service fund.
His information was authentic but unimportant and the British
government repudiated his agency, but the war party in Congress
was implacable.
This John Henry had lived as a boy in Montreal, after which he
crossed the border. In 1807 he applied through merchants in
Montreal for the office of puisné judge in Upper Canada, it
appearing that he had obtained the favour of the merchants of
Montreal by defending their conduct in a party newspaper. His
correspondence (1808-9) with Sir J. Craig while on his mission,
reveals that for some time in April, 1808, Henry was in Montreal.
On June 18, 1812, James Madison, the president, and Congress
approved the “act declaring war between the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof and the
United States of America and their territories.” This news,
sent by an express of the North West Company, did not reach the
governor, Sir John Prevost, till July 7th. It had, however, been
sent by private means to General Brock in Upper Canada about June
26th by the Hon. John Richardson of Montreal, though others say
by John Jacob Astor, who had extensive fur interests in Canada.
How the news of the war was received in Montreal has been
published recently in the Huntingdon “Gleaner” (under the
editorship of Mr. Robert Sellar). The late Mr. Lewis MacKay of
Huntingdon, then twenty-one years of age, there relates what
he saw as an eye witness. “I recollect very well the day when
word reached Montreal that the American government had declared
war against Britain. It caused great dejection, for the general
belief was that the Americans would come at once and take Canada.
At night especially, there was great alarm. Everything in the
shape of a man was pressed into service. If dogs could have
carried firelocks they would have been taken. I saw at the sentry
posts mere boys too weak to carry their guns which they rested
against their bases.”
Quickly the militia and military were organized. Colonel Baynes,
adjutant general, writing to Brock from Quebec on July 3d, says:
“The flank companies here are on the march and 2,000 militia will
form a chain of posts from St. John’s to La Prairie. The town
militia of Montreal and Quebec to the number of 3,000 from each
city have volunteered, and are being embodied and drilled, and
will take their part in garrison duty to relieve the troops. The
proclamation for declaring martial law is prepared and will be
speedily issued. All aliens will be required to take the oath of
allegiance or immediately quit the Province.”
Writing from Montreal on August 17th, Sir George Prevost wrote to
Lord Bathurst, secretary of war: “A part of the Forty-ninth
Regiment has already proceeded from Montreal to Kingston and
has been followed by the remainder of the Newfoundland Regiment
of some picked Veterans; the other companies of the Forty-ninth
Regiment will proceed to the same destination as soon as
sufficient number of bateaux can be collected. * * * From
Kingston to Montreal the Frontier line appears at present secure.
* * * The Eighth or King’s Regiment has arrived this M(ornin)g
from Quebec to relieve the Forty-ninth Regiment. This fine and
effective Regt. of the Eighth, together with a Chain of Troops
established in the vicinity of this place, consisting of regular
and militia Forces, the whole amounting to near four thousand,
five hundred men, effectually serve to keep in check the enemy
in this quarter where alone they are in any strength and to
prevent any Attempt to carry on a Predatory Warfare against this
flourishing portion of Lower Canada.”
[Illustration: MONTREAL IN 1810 A view of the city of Montreal
and the river St. Lawrence from the mountain, by E. Walsh,
Forty-ninth Regiment, 1810.]
Brock made preparations to meet the American general, William
Hull, who was early in July descending on Canada from Detroit. He
had soon to return in hot haste and on August 16th surrendered
Detroit to Sir Isaac Brock.[2] Brock paroled many of the
prisoners but the rest he sent to Montreal on their way to Quebec
for embarkation. The Montreal Herald of Tuesday, September 12,
1812, facetiously describes their entry thus:
“Montreal, September 12th.
“Last Sunday evening the inhabitants of this city were gratified
with an exhibition equally novel and interesting. That General
Hull should have entered our city so soon at the head of his
troops rather exceeded our expectations. We were, however, happy
to see him and received him with all the honours due to his rank
and importance as a public character. The following particulars
relative to his journey and reception at Montreal may not be
uninteresting to our readers.
“General Hull and suite, accompanied by about twenty-five
officers and three hundred and fifty soldiers, left Kingston
under an escort of 130 men commanded by Major Heathcote of the
Newfoundland Regiment. At Cornwall the escort was met by Captain
Gray of the quartermaster general’s department who took charge
of the prisoners of war and from thence proceeded with them to
Lachine, where they arrived about 2 o’clock on Sunday afternoon.
At Lachine Captains Richardson and Ogilvie, with their companies
of Montreal militia and a company of the King’s, commanded by
Captain Blackmore formed the escort till they were met by Colonel
Auldjo with the remainder of the flank companies of the militia,
upon which Captain Blackmore’s Company fell out and presented
arms as the general passed with the others, and then returned
to Lachine, leaving the prisoners to be guarded by the Montreal
militia alone.” Then follows the order of march in procession
into the town through the illuminated streets to the Château de
Ramezay:
“When they arrived at the governor’s house the general was
conducted in and presented to his Excellency, Sir George Prevost.
He was received with the greatest politeness and invited to take
up his residence there during his stay in Montreal. The officers
were quartered in Holmes Hotel and the soldiers were marched to
Quebec Gate Barracks. The general appears to be about sixty years
of age and bears his misfortune with a degree of resignation that
but few men in similar circumstances are fitted with.”
General Hull was exchanged for thirty British soldiers taken by
the Americans. The rest of the prisoners proceeded to Quebec.[3]
Montrealers were elated at Hull’s capture, but they knew well
that revenge was being prepared. Montreal was still the objective
of the congress army as of old. Their secretary of state had said
that “Montreal was the apple of his eye. Why waste men and money
upon distant frontiers? Strike at their vitals, then you will
paralyze their extremities. Capture Montreal and you will starve
de Rottenburg and Proctor. In Montreal your troops will find
winter quarters and an English Christmas.”
The Montreal militia, therefore, had to keep up their drill in
earnest. On November 19th there was a call to arms on a report
the city was to be attacked. The militia left the city to meet
the foe, but on November 28th returned from “their pleasure trip”
unscathed, for either the enemy had disappeared or it was a false
alarm.
But it was not only volunteers for the militia that were being
required. Men were wanted for the front. Lewis MacKay describes
how Colonel McDonell (or Macdonnell) of Glengarry (who was
afterwards mortally wounded and whose remains were buried beside
those of Brock) came to Montreal to enlist men for his regiment.
“The men he brought with him were mostly from Glengarry. As I
spoke Gaelic I got amongst them. I enlisted with them, but on
examination was rejected because I was not up to the standard in
height. I was transferred to the Voltigeurs. There was nothing
doing in Montreal but raising troops of cavalry and regiments,
and they took everybody that offered, almost. The bounty was
$100, but the pay was very small. There were French among the
Glengarries and there were old country men in the Voltigeurs.
* * * Among others in Montreal was Captain Coleman of the Eighth
Dragoons. He got liberty to raise a troop for himself. He was
rich and bought horses with his own money and men were keen
to enlist with him. Wanting me as his body servant he got me
transferred from the Voltigeurs. When he had got his complement
of men the government did the rest, giving uniforms, saddles,
arms, etc. The troop got the name of the ‘French Troop’ and were
ordered to Upper Canada.”
The enthusiastic readiness of the French Canadians to protect
their country and the _camaraderie_ with which the different
subjects, old and new, now joined side by side, are also
evidenced in glancing at the lists of militia records of the
times. A picture is preserved by Dunlop of the good times of
the two corps “formed of the gentlemen of Montreal,” of whom
he says, “that if their discipline was commendable their
commissariat was beyond all praise. Long lines of carts were to
be seen bearing in casks and hampers of the choicest wines, to
say nothing of the venison, turkeys, hams and all other esculents
necessary to recruit their strength under the fatigues of war.
With them the Indian found a profitable market for his game, and
the fisherman for his fish. There can be little doubt that a
gourmand would greatly prefer the comfort of dining with a mess
of privates of these distinguished corps to the honour and glory
of being half starved (of which he ran no small risk) at the
table of the Governor-General himself.”
[Illustration: LETTER OF DE LORIMIER (1812) A call to arms]
While, therefore, the struggle was in the Upper Province, the
attack on Montreal was, however, reserved for the next year
and the Montreal militia, with men like Lieut. Col. Charles
de Salaberry, Lieutenant McDonell, Captains Jean Baptiste and
Jucherau Duchesnay, Daly and Ferguson, Bruyère and la Motte,
with adjutants O’Sullivan and Hedder--all to be mentioned in
despatches--were to give the Americans no cause to doubt either
British or French Canadian loyalty to the British flag.
The chance came to save Montreal in 1813, on October 21st, when
the militia battalions of Montreal and the district took the
field at Chateauguay to prevent the advance on the city by the
American army under General Hampton. It was a glorious victory
for the militia.
The attack on Montreal was planned by Major-General Wilkinson,
who had arrived about the end of August, 1813, in Sacketts
Harbour to take charge of the troops of the North American
frontier. There in his council of officers it was determined: “To
rendezvous the whole of the troops on the lake in the vicinity[4]
and in cooperation with our squadron to make a bold feint upon
Kingston; step down the St. Lawrence; lock up the enemy in our
rear to starve or surrender; or oblige him to follow us without
artillery, baggage or provisions, or eventually to lay down his
arms; to sweep the St. Lawrence of armed craft; and in concert
with the division of Major-General Hampton to take Montreal.”[5]
Montreal was therefore the main object of attack. “Montreal is
the safer and greater object,” wrote Armstrong to the Secretary
of War, fearing hard blows at Kingston, the weaker place, “and
you will find there a small force to encounter.” Montreal offered
no terrors for there were “no fortifications at that city, or
in advance of it,” and only “200 sailors and 400 marines with
the militia, number unknown,” but there were, to be sure, “2,500
regular troops expected daily from Quebec.”
Yet the American force which made its way under Major-General
Hampton from Burlington was a powerful army. It arrived on
October 8th at Chateauguay Four Corners, a small settlement
distant five miles from the national boundary, about forty-six
from Montreal, and about forty-five from the proposed junction of
Hampton’s force with Major-General Wilkinson’s.