William James, who published in London in 1818, “a full and

correct account of the military occurrences of the late war

between Great Britain and the United States of America,” says

of General Hampton’s force, now prepared against Montreal, that

it “has been stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry,” but we

have no American authority for supposing that the latter exceeded

180 or the former 5,520, making a total of 5,700 men accompanied

by ten pieces of cannon. This army, except the small militia

force attached to it, was the same that, with General Dearborn at

its head, paraded across the line and back to Plattsburg in the

autumn of 1812. During the twelve months that had since elapsed,

the men had been drilled under an officer, Major-General Izard,

who had served one or two campaigns in the French army. Troops

were all in uniform, well clothed and equipped; in short, General

Hampton commanded, if not the most numerous, certainly the most

effective regular army which the United States were able to send

into the field during the war.

At Montreal there was bustle and stir in getting the additional

forces out which were to join Lieutenant-Colonel Salaberry of

the Canadian Fencibles, who commenced operations to check the

American advance as soon as he had learned that the Americans

had crossed the lines. But the whole of the force that went to

meet Hampton between October 21st and 29th was only about eight

hundred rank and file, with 172 Indians under Captain Lamotte at

the settlements of Chateauguay. The battle of Chateauguay and its

results may now be told by Sir George Prevost in his dispatch

from Montreal to Earl Bathurst.

“Headquarters, Montreal, October 30, 1813.

“My Lord:

“On the 8th instant I had the honour to report to Your Lordship

that Major-General Hampton had occupied with a considerable force

of regulars and militia a portion of the Chateauguay River,

near the settlement of the Four Corners. Early on the 21st the

American army crossed the line of separation between Lower Canada

and the United States, surprised the small party of Indian

warriors and drove in a picket of sedentary militia posted at the

junction of the Outard and Chateauguay Rivers, where it encamped,

and proceeded in establishing a road of communication with its

last position for the purpose of bringing forward its artillery.

Major-General Hampton having completed his arrangements on the

24th, commenced on the following day his operations against my

advanced posts. At about 11 o’clock in the forenoon of the 26th

his cavalry and light troops were discovered advancing on both

banks of the Chateauguay by a detachment covering a working

party of habitants employed in felling timber for the purpose

of constructing _abattis_.[6] Lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry

(sic), who had the command of the advanced piquets composed of

the light infantry company of the Canadian Fencibles and two

companies of Voltigeurs on the north side of the river, made so

excellent a disposition of his little band that he checked the

advance of the enemy’s principal column led by Major-General

Hampton in person and accompanied by Brigadier-General Izard;

while the American Light Brigade under Colonel McCarty was in

like manner repulsed in its progress on the south side of the

river by the spirited advance of the right flank company of the

Third Battalion of the embodied militia under Captain Daly,

supported by Captain Bruyer’s Company of Chateauguay Chasseurs;

Captains Daly and Bruyers being both wounded and their companies

having sustained some loss, their position was immediately

taken up by a flank company of the first battalion of embodied

militia; the enemy rallied and repeatedly returned to the attack,

which terminated only with the day in his complete disgrace and

defeat; being foiled at all points by a handful of men who, by

their determined bravery, maintained their position and screened

from insult the working parties who continued their labours

unconcerned. Having fortunately arrived at the scene of action

shortly after its commencement, I witnessed the conduct of the

troops on this glorious occasion, and it was a great satisfaction

to me to render on the spot that praise which had become so

justly their due. I thanked Major-General De Watteville for the

wise measures taken by him for the defense of this position and

lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry for the judgment displayed by him

in the choice of his ground and the bravery and skill with which

he maintained it; I acknowledged the highest praise to belong to

the officers and men engaged that morning for their gallantry

and readiness, and I called upon all the troops in advance as

well for a continuance of that zeal, steadiness and discipline as

for that patient endurance of hardship and privations which they

hitherto evinced; and I particularly noticed the able support

lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry received from Captain Ferguson in

command of the Canadian Fencibles and from Capt. J.B. Duchesnay

and Capt. J. Duchesnay and adjutant Hedder, of the Voltigeurs,

and also from adjutant O’Sullivan of the sedentary militia and

from Captain La Motte, belonging to the Indian warriors.

“Almost the whole of the British troops being pushed forward for

the defence of Upper Canada, that of the lower province must

depend in a great degree on the valour and continued exertion

of its incorporated battalions and its sedentary militia until

the Seventieth Regiment and the two battalions of marines daily

expected should arrive.

“It is therefore highly satisfactory to state to Your Lordship

that there appears a determination among all classes of His

Majesty’s Canadian subjects to persevere in a loyal and

honourable line of conduct. By a report of the prisoners taken

from the enemy in the affair on the Chateauguay, the American

force is stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, with 10 field

pieces. The British advanced force actually engaged did not

exceed 300. The enemy suffered severely from our fire and from

their own; some detached corps in the woods fired on each other.

“I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a return of

the killed and wounded on the 26th. I avail myself of this

opportunity to solicit from his royal highness, the prince

regent, as a mark of his gracious approbation of the conduct of

the embodied battalions of the Canadian Militia five pair of

colours for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth battalions.

“I have the honour to be, etc.,

“GEORGE PREVOST.

“Return of killed, wounded and missing of his Majesty’s forces in

the action of the enemy in the advance on Chateauguay on the 26th

of October, 1813.

“Canadian fencible infantry, light Company; three rank and file

killed; one sergeant, three rank and file wounded.

“Third battalion embodied militia, flank company; two rank and

file killed; one captain, six rank and file wounded; four rank

and file missing.

“Chateauguay Chasseurs; one captain wounded.

“Total: Five rank and file killed, two captains, one sergeant,

thirteen rank and file wounded; four rank and file missing.

“Names of officers wounded: Third battalion embodied

militia--Captain Daly twice wounded, severely. Chateauguay

Chasseurs: Captain Bruyers, slightly.

“EDWARD BAYNES, Adjutant-General.

Right Hon. Earl Bathurst.”

The slight number of the British forces opposed to the Americans

could hardly be believed after the disorganization of the

latter. When Captain Debartzch of the militia was sent to the

headquarters of General Hampton with a flag and announced the

number of the opposing force, Hampton, scarcely able to keep his

temper, insisted that the British force amounted to 7,000 men for

he asked, “What, then, made the woods ring with rifles?”

This incident must be told. In the early course of the fight the

Americans opened a spirited fight upon the Canadians and drove

the skirmishers stationed near the left behind the front edge

of the _abattis_. “The Americans,” says William James, already

quoted, “Although they did not occupy one foot of the abattis nor

lieutenant-colonel de Saluberry retire one inch from the ground

on which he had been standing, celebrated this partial retiring

as a retreat. They were not a little surprised, however, to hear

their Huzzas repeated by the Canadians, accompanied by a noise

ten times more terrific than even ‘Colonel Boerstler’s stentorian

voice.’ By way of animating his little band when thus momentarily

pressed, colonel de Saluberry ordered his bugle men to sound the

advance. This was heard by lieutenant-colonel McDonell, who,

thinking that the colonel was in want of support, caused his

own bugler to answer, and immediately advanced with two of his

companies. He at the same time sent ten or twelve bugle men into

the adjoining woods with orders to separate and blow with all

their might. This little _ruse de guerre_ led the Americans to

believe that they had more thousands than hundreds to contend

with and deterred them from even attempting to penetrate the

_abattis_. They contented themselves with a long shot warfare in

which, from the nature of the defences, they were almost the only

sufferers.”

The Americans, after bungling the battle, delayed at Four

Corners, but on November 11th Hampton, feeling himself unsafe,

broke up his encampment and retreated to Plattsburg.

Chateauguay had served Montreal well and the tide of war again

rolled away from its gates.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Withrow “History of Canada,” pp. 301-302.

[2] William Hull was born in Derby, Connecticut, on June 24,

1753. He graduated with honors from Yale at the age of nineteen,

studied law and was admitted to practice. He allied himself with

the Revolutionary party and obtained a commission from Congress

eventually rising to the rank of a colonel. At the conclusion

of peace he held a judicial office in Massachusetts and served

for eight years as a senator. In 1805 he was appointed the first

governor of the territory of Michigan and was commissioned a

brigadier general in the army of the United States on April 8,

1812. He was court-martialed for his surrender of Detroit in 1814

and after a trial of three months he was ordered to be shot,

but President Madison remitted his sentence in consideration of

his services in the Revolutionary war. His name was, however,

dropped from the army lists. He died at Newton, Massachusetts, in

November, 1825.

[3] Their arrival at Quebec is thus described by A.W. Cochran,

assistant civil secretary to the governor general in a letter

to his mother: “Both men and officers are a shabby looking set

as ever you set your eyes on, and reminded me of Falstaff’s men

very forcibly. Some of the officers talked very big and assured

us that before long there would be 100,000 men in Canada and

that they soon would have Quebec from us.” Later on, writing to

his father from Montreal on October 10th he further expresses

his views on the Americans: “The Americans, I think, bid fair

to rival and surpass the French in gasconading as well as in

everything that is dishonorable, base and contemptible. * * *

Yankees cannot tell a plain story like other folks; they cannot

help ‘immersing the wig in the ocean’ as Sterne says of the

Frenchmen.”

[4] The spot chosen was Grenadier Island, eighteen miles from

Sacketts Harbour.

[5] “Wilkinson’s Memoirs,” Vol. III, Appendix No. 1.

[6] Abattis. These were obstructions made by felled timber which

served as a succession of breastworks.

CHAPTER XIV

SIDE LIGHTS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

1776-1825

THE “GAZETTE DU COMMERCE ET LITTERAIRE”--A RUNAWAY SLAVE--GUY

CARLETON’S DEPARTURE--GENERAL HALDIMAND IN MONTREAL--MESPLET’S

PAPER SUSPENDED--POET’S CORNER--THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

DISCUSSED--FIRST THEATRICAL COMPANY: THE “BUSY BODY”--LORD

NELSON’S MONUMENT--A RUNAWAY, RED CURLY HAIRED AND BANDY

LEGGED APPRENTICE--LAMBERT’S PICTURE OF THE PERIOD--MINE HOST

OF THE “MONTREAL HOTEL”--THE “CANADIAN COURANT”--AMERICAN

INFLUENCE--THE “HERALD”--WILLIAM GRAY AND ALEXANDER

SKAKEL--BEGINNINGS OF COMMERCIAL LIFE--DOIGE’S DIRECTORY--MUNGO

KAY--LITERARY CELEBRITIES--HERALD “EXTRAS”--WATERLOO--POLITICAL

PSEUDONYMS--NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION--THE ABORTIVE “SUN”--A

PICTURE OF THE CITY IN 1818--THE BLACK RAIN OF 1819--OFFICIAL,

MILITARY AND ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE--ORIGIN OF ART, MUSIC, ETC.

Colonel Moses Hazen, who took command of Montreal, on April 1,

1776, for the congressional cause, was shrewd when in order to

strengthen their position he wrote to General Schuyler for a

printer, and Benjamin Franklin did a good thing for Montreal when

he brought Fleury Mesplet, the French printer, and his plant with

him, to the Château de Ramezay as an adjunct to the commission

which was to seduce the French Canadians from their allegiance.

Though this aim failed Mesplet remained behind on his own account

after the commissioners had returned on their bootless quest and

after publishing two works he started the “Gazette du Commerce et

Littéraire Pour Le Ville et District de Montreal” which first saw

light in French on Wednesday, June 3, 1778. His previous address

to the public announced that the subscription was to be two and

a half Spanish dollars per annum. Subscribers would pay one

Spanish dollar for every advertisement inserted in the said paper

during three weeks successively, non-subscribers one and one-half

Spanish dollars, and the paper was to be a quarter sheet. The

first number was rather literary than commercial. Advertisements

came with the second number. Jean Bernard exhorts the public not

to throw their wood-fuel ashes away. He would buy them at ten

coppers a bushel. In number four occurs the advertisement: “Ran

away on the 14th instant, a slave belonging to the widow Dufy

Desaulnier, aged about thirty-five years, dressed in striped

calico, of medium height and tolerable stoutness. Whoever will

bring her back will receive a reward of $6, and will be repaid

any costs that may be proved to have been incurred in finding

her.”

The Gazette du Commerce did not realize its name for some time,

there being in the small community a dearth of such, as Mesplet

deplored in the first paragraph of No. 1. Very little political

news ever filtered through the Gazette, but the arrival and

departure of governors was safe; consequently he printed the

address of Colonel Sevestre commanding the militia at Montreal

to Sir Guy Carleton, who finished his term of office in July,

1778; and the reply commending the virtues and experience of his

successor, General Haldimand.

The issue of August 12, 1778, records the latter’s visit thus:

“On the 8th instant at 6 P.M. General Haldimand made his entrance

into the town amid discharges of artillery from the citadel

and the vessels in the harbour. The English merchants were in

the front, followed by the Canadian Militia and the regulars,

the whole forming a line from the Quebec gate to the Company’s

house, where His Excellency now resides. A band of 600 Indians,

with Messrs. St. Luc de la Corne and Campbell, their officers

and interpreters at the head, came out of the town and welcomed

the new Governor with cries which proclaimed the joy they felt

at his arrival. The citizens of the two nations proved their

gratification by their enthusiasm and cheerful countenances.”

The next number does not appear, apparently being suppressed by

the new Governor, but in the succeeding week it again was issued

through the good graces of certain leading citizens who had

procured him this liberty. He promises gratitude to the Governor

and the succeeding numbers are strictly literary subjects, such

as discussions on the opinions of Voltaire and the utility of the

establishment of an Academy of Science.

In April, 1779, Mesplet invited criticism on a recent judicial

decision, for which he was summoned to court and reprimanded

against any repetition of the offence. But he was recalcitrant

and in the fall he was arrested and taken to Quebec, the paper

being suspended apparently till 1785.

By 1788 Mesplet’s paper was enlarged from quarter to foolscap

four pages, printed in double columns in French and English. It

seems to have become more of a newspaper and news a month old was

served up to eager Montrealers. In 1789 there was still little

commercial news, but there was a “Poet’s Corner” and several

poems of Robert Burns, then rising to fame, are honoured there.

In this year political discussion, a subject in the early days

tabooed, appears in the Gazette. A correspondent discussing the

burning question of a House of Assembly sums up thus:

“We are all Canadians and subjects of Great Britain. The

distinction of old and new subjects ought to have been done away

with long since. The prosperity of this country must depend on

the unanimity that prevails amongst us. I am of the opinion that

much good may be derived from a House of Assembly. Yet I fear

the consequent evils, one of which is taxing a country unable to

support the dignity of a House. The peasantry would not easily

digest what that House of Assembly might impose and few, if any,

of their class would be able to share in the legislation. It

will, therefore, be the policy of Government to procrastinate

this event until the province is really and fully Anglified,

when, perhaps, a House of Assembly may be better known and

received with the united voice of approbation.”

Up to this year the paper was published by F. Mesplet, 40 Notre

Dame Street. In 1795 it passed into the hands of Thomas A. Turner

and was issued from an office on the corner of Notre Dame Street

and St. Jean Baptiste. By 1804 it had passed over to E. Edward,

135 St. Paul Street.

The date of November 10, 1804, records the movement for the first

theatre in Montreal.

“Mr. Ormsby from the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, respectfully

informs the ladies and gentlemen of Montreal that he intends,

with their approbation, establishing a company of comedians

in Canada, to perform in Montreal and Quebec alternately. The

theatre in this city is fitted up in that large and commodious

house next door to the Post Office, where will be presented on

Monday evening, 19th inst., a comedy in five acts called ‘The

Busy Body,’ to which will be added the much admired farce called

‘The Sultan.’

“N.B. Particulars in advertisement for the evening: Boxes, 5s;

gallery, 2s. 6d. Tickets to be had at Mr. Hamilton’s Tavern, the

Montreal Hotel and at the theatre where places for the boxes may

be taken.”

The news of the death and victory of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar

on October 21, 1805, reached Montreal in the winter of 1805-6

and was the occasion of great activity among the inhabitants, so

that immediately a subscription was taken up to raise their first

monument. A committee was appointed and these in conjunction with

Six Alexander Mackenzie, Thomas Forsyth and John Gillespie, then

in London, took steps to raise it. The Governor-General, Sir J.

Craig, having given the magistrates a piece of ground for general

improvement, these granted a portion of it, at the upper end of

the new market place, as a site for the intended column. The

foundation stone was laid on August 17, 1809, and the monument

was built of grey compact limestone of the district.

The four panel ornaments were of artificial stone invented by

Coade & Seeley, of London. The battle of the Nile is represented

on the north side. That on the east represents the interview

between Lord Nelson and the Prince Regent of Denmark on the

landing of Lord Nelson after the engagement off Copenhagen.

The panel on the south side facing the river commemorates the

battle of Trafalgar. The west side has the neatest panel, being

ornamented with cannon, anchors and other appropriate naval

trophies with a circular wreath surrounding the whole inscription:

In Memory of

The Right Honorable Vice-Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson

Duke of Bronté

Who terminated his career of Naval glory in the memorable

Battle of Trafalgar

On the 21st of October, 1805,

After inculcating by Signal

This Sentiment

Never to be forgotten by his Country,

“ENGLAND EXPECTS EVERY MAN WILL DO HIS DUTY.”

This monumental column was erected by the

Inhabitants of Montreal

In the year 1808.

The expense of this column when complete with the iron railing

was £1,300. In the first cut stone at the east corner of the

base, a plate of lead was deposited bearing the following

inscription:

“In memory of the Right Honourable Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson,

Duke of Bronté, who terminated his career of naval glory on the

21st of October, 1805, this monumental pillar was erected by a

subscription of the inhabitants of Montreal, whereof the Hon. Sir

John Johnston, Knight and Baronet, the Hon. James Monk, Chief

Justice of Montreal, John Richardson, John Ogilvie and Louis

Chaboillez, Esquires, were a committee appointed for carrying it

into execution, and the same was erected under the direction of

William Gilmore, stone cutter and mason, from designs obtained

from Mitchell, an architect in London.--17th August, 1809.”

Returning to the Gazette, a sidelight of 1806 thrown by an

advertisement of William Gilmore, dated 7th June, reveals to us

the apprenticeship system as then in vogue. It may seem to some

an industrial tyranny.

“Ran away from the subscriber: Alexander Thompson, an indentured

apprentice, about 22 years of age, 5 ft. 5 in. in height, red

curly hair and bandy legs. All persons are hereby forbid hiring

him under penalty of law. Any person who will bring him back

shall receive three pence reward, no charges paid.”

Thus far the Gazette. The history of the Gazette of today, its

successor, may be found in “Montreal, the Commercial Metropolis

of Canada,” 1907.

Let us now present a side light of about this period.

At this time the Montreal Hotel was one of the chief hotels and

it was kept by a Mr. Dillon who had some reputation as a water

colourist of local scenes.

John Lambert, who visited the United States and Canada in 1806,

1807 and 1808, has the following picture: “The only open place

or square in the town,” he says in his account of Montreal,

“except the two markets, under the French Government was the

place where the garrison troops were paraded. The French Catholic

church occupies the whole of the east side of this square; and

on the south side, adjoining some private houses, is a very good

tavern, called the Montreal Hotel, kept by Mr. Dillon. During my

stay in this city I lodged at his house and found it superior

to any in Canada; everything in it is neat, cleanly and well

conducted.” From his characterization of the landlord, one is

somewhat disappointed that he does not mention his artistic

gift. “The old gentleman,” he says, “came out in the retinue of

Lord Dorchester; he is a very ingenious character.” But then,

instead of commending his water colors, as one would naturally

expect, Lambert concludes his notice of Dillon in these words:

“and fond of expressing his attachment to his King and country

by illuminations and firing his pedereroes off in the square.”

Lambert also refers to the new parade ground. “At the back of

the town, just behind the new courthouse, is the parade ground

where the troops are exercised.” And, after some further words of

description, he proceeds to suggest a truly attractive picture

of suburban Montreal in the early nineteenth century. “Here,” he

says, “the inhabitants walk of an evening and enjoy a beautiful

view of the suburbs of St. Lawrence and St. Antoine, and the

numerous gardens, orchards and plantations of the gentry, adorned

with neat and handsome dwelling houses.” These, with green fields

interspersed, lead up to the mountain from which the island and

the city have taken the name of Montreal.

We will now turn to a new literary venture.

[Illustration: About 1875 NELSON’S MONUMENT The building on

the left is the house originally built in 1720 by Baron de

Becancourt. It became the store of the Campagnie des Indes,

which in the French times answered to the Hudson’s Bay Company.

This was also the residence of the Hon. James McGill, founder of

McGill University. It was demolished in 1903.]

After the Gazette there came the “Canadian Courant” founded

at Montreal in 1807 by Nahum Mower, a native of Worcester,

Massachusetts. There came with him Stephen Mills, who was born

in Rozalton, Vermont. The latter remained at Montreal till 1810,

when he went to Kingston, where he founded the Kingston Gazette.

He became a minister in 1835. These two New Englanders placed a

distinctly American stamp on the new paper. The name “Canadian”

was revolutionary to the old British colonists, but it pleased

the French. The “Courant” lasted until between 1835 and 1840.

That it should have continued its existence so long, looked on

with suspicion by the chief English residents as democratic

and revolutionary, would suggest that it was subsidized either

by American merchants, for the trade relations now between

the two countries were becoming intimate and profitable, or

by the government of the United States, who, baulked in their

revolutionary designs hitherto, were still desirous of seducing

the neighbouring “Fourteenth” colony from its allegiance.

Nahum Mower left in 1829, and in his valedictory he claims to

have made good his pledge in the first number that he “should

make it his duty to become a good subject and endeavour others

to continue so.” He worshiped, till 1813, when he sold his pew,

in St. Gabriel’s Church, the only non-Anglican church then

in existence, and the temporary home of all English-speaking

non-conformists. Still he was accused of undue intimacy with the

enemies of the British Connexion in Canada, especially during the

troublous times of 1812 and the years of apprehension after.

The Canadian Courant had an early rival in the Montreal Herald,

which published its first number on Saturday, October 19, 1811.

Its first printer and founder was a young Scotchman, William

Gray, of Huntly, Aberdeenshire, born on August 12, 1789. He

arrived in Montreal in June, 1811. In 1812, May 25th, he was

married to Agnes Smith, of Aberdeen, by the Reverend Mr.

Somerville. William Gray, as surmised by Doctor Campbell in his

“History of St. Gabriel’s Church,” seems to have been related in

some degree of cousinship to Alexander Skakel, the most noted of

the Montreal early British schoolmasters. He died at the early

age of thirty-three, on February 28, 1822, having caught a cold

on a journey in a Durham boat on his way from Toronto to attend

to his business affairs, on hearing that in his absence his

office had been mobbed by a crowd of French-Canadians, displeased

with the tone of some of his articles. This young editor has left

behind him a record of personal probity, good discernment and

strong personal courage. His task in 1811 was no easy one--to

establish an independent and unsubsidized paper in a small town.

The files of the early Herald give a contemporary picture of

life of the community. Canada then had about four hundred

thousand inhabitants, of whom most were in the Lower province;

about four thousand five hundred regular British troops were

mostly stationed there, also. Upper Canada consisted of only a

few settlements, scattered here and there on the highways. Fur

trading was the basic industry of the colony and its headquarters

was at Montreal, the home and storage centre of the wealthy fur

traders of the Beaver Hall Club. Agriculture was neglected till

after the War of 1812, when it became realized that farming

should be the staple industry of the colony. Unskilled labour

was then performed by French Canadians, for there was yet no

British immigrant labouring class. The skilled artisans came

mostly from across the border, but the lesser storekeepers and

merchants, chiefly Scotch, with an admixture of English and

Yankees, were beginning to build up the permanent commerce of the

city that was not always to be exclusively that of the fur trade.

Among the business men then building up Montreal trade who were

already well established before the war of 1812 were Alexander

Henry, auctioneer; Benaiah Gibb, merchant; John Dillon, lumber

merchant; James Brown, book-seller and owner of the Gazette;

Peter McCutcheon, merchant; James and Andrew McGill, Forsyth,

Richardson & Company, Maitland, Garden & Auldjo, Woolrich &

Cooper, John Shuter, Samuel Gerrard, John Molson & Son, brewers

and steamboat proprietors; Daniel Arnoldi, surgeon, and others.

The first home of the Herald, as far as ascertainable, was the

23 St. Paul Street given in Doige’s Directory of Montreal in

1819, the first systematic list of Montreal addresses. There

is no proof of its having moved from elsewhere since 1811. On

either side of it were two taverns, the Montreal Academy, a

famous school kept by William Ryan, the residence of Joseph

Papineau, eminent notary and public notary and father of the

famous Louis Joseph, who was to become the “patriot” leader, and

a small bookshop kept by a J. Russell. Near at hand, following

Doige’s numbering, was the commissariat office and the residence

of Colonel McKey, of the Indian Department, while a few doors

away was the house of Peter McCutcheon, the famous merchant who

afterward took the name of McGill. The “Canadian Courant” was

established at 92 St. Paul Street, barely thirty doors from the

Herald, and shared its premises with Daniel Campbell, a grocer.

William Gray lived above his printing premises, as did his editor

in 1819, Doctor Christie, and probably the latter’s predecessor,

Mungo Kay, who was a Montreal merchant before he took to the

journalist’s pen. At that date, and indeed for many long years,

most of the storekeepers on St. Paul Street lived over their

places of business. St. Paul Street was then the chief retail

street; it ran the southern length of the town from the eastern

fortifications of the Quebec suburbs to the western ones, ending

at the present McGill Street. At either end there was a generous

supply of taverns to meet the needs of those coming in from the

country. In between them was a close succession of groceries,

tailor shops, dry goods houses, hardware stores, druggists,

bootmakers, glaziers, plumbers and the like. The Gazette at this

period had its home on St. François Xavier Street.

The newspapers of the period received an addition by the advent

of the first French-Canadian paper issued in Montreal, the

“Spectateur.” They frequently had “brushes” with one another. In

1814, on July 2, a writer for the Herald, probably Mungo Kay,

addressed an ode to a French-Canadian writer in the Spectator

whom he calls “a certain gros bourgeois” and rallying him

concerning a story, evidently known, of his efforts to cozen a

certain negro:

See, wrapt in whirlwinds, from his stand

On leathern wings he takes his flight,

And on fell Mungo, with unequal hand

Sped rancorous the rodures of the night;

In deeds of darkness are their chief delight.

And see, advancing ’thwart the storm

Deception with his blotted form;

Who tried the sable African to charm,

But failed in his attempt to make him green,

Albeit he the Justice did alarm,

Who quaked with fear that he ’mong Truth’s friends should be seen.

[Illustration: THE PRESS BUILDINGS: The Herald]

[Illustration: THE PRESS BUILDINGS: La Presse]

[Illustration: THE PRESS BUILDINGS: The Star]

[Illustration: THE PRESS BUILDINGS: La Patrie]

Next week another satiric poem was addressed to certain

“Spectators” who had two urns.

“One flows for B. and M----r warm with praise,

And one for M----o bitter gall displays.”

For B. read Brown (John), the owner of the Gazette; for M----r,

Mower (Nahum), the proprietor of the Courant; and M----o for

Mungo Kay. Mungo Kay is credited by the Gazette in an obituary

notice of him in 1813 on his death on September 18th, as having

as editor for nearly seven years justified his choice of motto:

“Aninos Novitate Tenebo”--“I will hold attention by means of

novelty.” This was not meant to be satire but a tribute to his

efforts to obtain the earliest intelligence. The Herald early

began its “extra special additions.” In 1812, before it had been

a year in existence, the Quebec Gazette reprinted such a special

edition with the following acknowledgment:

“We beg the editors of the Herald to accept our thanks for their

attention in transmitting the intelligence of the surrender of

General Hull. This is not the first time that the public has been

indebted to them for early intelligence.”

News in those days was hard to obtain, but even if a month late

it was read with avidity, for the Napoleonic wars, involving the

peace and security of the mother country and their own colony,

which became involved in all British quarrels, found a passionate

source of interest in the truly colonial loyalists of Montreal,

who were surrounded by ill-wishers, secret or open, on all

sides. It is amusing, however, to read the account of the Battle

of Waterloo under the single line caption “Highly Interesting

Intelligence,” the art of display headlines not then having

become so pronounced.

The news of the victory of Waterloo reached Montreal in July,

1815. Montreal in its joy bethought itself of the widows

and children of those who fell in the fateful battle and in

consequence of a meeting called in the courthouse an amount of

£2,717 16s 8d was soon raised, which was later added to largely.

Of local or colonial news, there being little or none, there was

scant supply. But after 1815 the Montreal papers begin to have

criticisms on matters nearer home. A class of writers now arose,

especially in the Herald, the most daring unofficial paper of the

period, who dealt ably and trenchantly on questions of policy

and administration in Canada. These were written mostly under

mythological pseudonyms to avoid personal responsibility and

attack. This continued for many years. The anonymity of many has

not yet been disclosed in literature, although there must have

been many at Montreal to whom the real authorship was an open

secret. “Nerva,” who wrote in the Herald much to inflame public

opinion, has been disclosed later by the Montreal Gazette in an

obituary notice, to have been the Hon. Samuel Gale, afterwards a

famous justice of the superior court. Others, like “Aristides,”

an early critic of the House of Assembly; “A true Jacobin,”

a violent satirist of abuses in the police administration;

“Observer,” complaining of extortion and sale of justice by

police court officials; “Alfred,” with his suggestion that a

strip of land ten miles wide should be laid and kept absolutely

waste along the American frontiers as the only real safeguard

against renewed invasion after the peace of 1814 (this same

writer also protests earnestly against the insidious effects

of Webster’s republican spelling book); “Veritas,” with his

crushing exposure of the incapacity of Sir George Prevost--these

contributed letters, together with outspoken editorial utterances

written by Gray or Skakel, causing a fluttering in the dovecots

of officialdom.

In 1815 bills of indictment were found against the editor and

printer of the Herald for libel on the commander in chief, but as

Sir George Prevost was recalled the case never came to trial.

The earliest extant copy known of the Herald is dated March 2,

1812. It was a paper 13 inches by 20½ inches, and contained

four pages of four columns, which latter, in 1814, was changed

to five. It started with a circulation of 170 subscribers, 150

being Montrealers. On its third anniversary the statement was

given in the paper that the “weekly distribution rather exceeds

one thousand impressions.” The price was $4.00 per annum. In

August a larger sheet appeared, 15 inches wide by 21½ inches

deep, and was divided into five columns, the editor calling

his paper “a quarter larger than our former or any other paper

published in North America,” and adding “The Herald has more

circulation, probably by some hundred, than any other paper in

Canada.” The enlargement of the sheet, which was followed by

frequent supplementary sheets on a Wednesday, indicate the growth

of advertising and commercial correspondence, and the immense

increase of commerce after the peace. Indeed, at the time an

attempt was made to establish a fourth Montreal paper, “The

Sun.” Its promoters were Lane, a printer on St. Paul Street, and

Bowman, a stationer on St. François Xavier Street. It only lasted

a few issues.

Anti-American animadversions, however, still survived. The

democratic leaders of the time were accused of being supplied

with Yankee money and Yankee ideals. Samuel Sherwood, an American

by birth and an early leader for popular government, was accused

by the Herald of having given traitorous support and advice to

the Americans during the War of 1812 and of keeping the “Sun” and

the Canadian Courant supplied with “Jacobin” information from

American sources.

A picture of the pigmy city of the period, written in 1870 by

Mr. T.S. Brown in a small, forgotten pamphlet entitled “Montreal

Fifty Years Ago”, may fitly help to illustrate this period:

“On the 28th of May, 1818, I first landed at Montreal. On my left

was a dirty creek running down inside of a warehouse, being the

outlet of a ditch, now tunnelled, that then, as a part of the old

fortifications, ran around the city, westerly from the Champ de

Mars through Craig street, with dilapidated banks, the receptacle

of all sorts of filth. Above and below there was a revetment of

a few hundred feet; except this, the beach and river bank were

in their natural state. Just above the Grey Nunnery there was a

cottage with a garden running down to the river, and adjoining

this a ship yard where vessels continued to be built for some

years later. Further on, the place of the Lachine Canal was a

common with three windmills and the graves of three soldiers shot

for desertion. The Island Wharf was then a little island, far off

and alone.

“The city gates and fortifications, such as they were, had

been removed some time previous. A remnant of walls remained

at the corner of McGill and Commissioners streets, and between

Bonsecours street and Dalhousie Square there was a mound of earth

55 feet high, called the ‘citadel.’ The old rampart on Great St.

James street had been levelled, but there was no building on the

west side between St. François Xavier and McGill streets. The

northern portion had been a cemetery and an old powder magazine

still stood in the middle of the street.... I came into the city

through a narrow passage leading to the Custom House Square, then

the ‘Old Market,’ a low, wooden shed-like building; and along

the south side of the square was a row of old women seated at

tables with eatables for sale. Capital street was a succession

of drinking houses carrying on an active business from morning

until night.... The largest was that of Thomas l’Italien (Thomas

Delvecchio), facing the Market with a clock, on which small

figures came out to strike the hours, to the continued wonderment

of all, and next came Les trois Rois, of Joseph Donegani. This

was the center of trade. A new market of similar construction

had been erected on the present Jacques Cartier Square, running

from Nelson’s monument (opposite to which was the guard house,

jail, pillory and courthouse) to St. Paul street, but it was not

liked. Everybody crowded to the little space of the Old Market

and habitant vehicles so filled St. Paul street in each direction

that constables were often sent to drive them down to the new

market....

“Along the beach were moored several small ships and brigs,

constituting the spring fleet.... The city was bounded by the

river on the east, by Bonsecours street and the Citadel on

the north, Craig street on the west, and McGill street on the

south; within which limits all the ‘respectable’ people with few

exceptions resided. The population in it was nearly as great as

today--the upper part of nearly every store being occupied as a

dwelling. All the houses in Notre Dame street were dwellings--in

its whole length there were but two shops and three auction

rooms. The cross streets’ buildings were nearly all dwellings

and commercial business was almost confined to St. Paul street.

Wholesale stores, except the establishment of Gillespie, Moffat

& Company, were small indeed compared to the growth of after

years.... There were numerous shops for country trade, all doors

and no windows, always open winter and summer, with a goodly

portion of the stock displayed outside, where salesmen without

number were stationed to accost and bring in customers, who were

often dragged forcibly....

“Nunneries occupied more space than now--the Hotel Dieu making

an ugly break in St. Paul street. Of churches there were few....

The city was composed of one and two story houses, very few of

three stories, built, with very few exceptions, of rubble stone,

plastered over. All the stores and many of the houses had iron

doors and shutters; many buildings had vaulted cellars and many

had the garret floored with heavy logs, covered with several

inches of earth, and flat paving stones, with a stone staircase

outside, so that a roof might burn without doing other damage....

“Four streets leading to the country--St. Mary’s, St. Laurent,

St. Joseph and St. Antoine--were bordered by houses, mostly of

wood--one story, but intervening streets were short and vacant

ground extensive. Log fences divided fields on the west of Craig

street as far as Beaver Hall Hill, which was a grassy lawn with

a long, one-story wooden building across the summit and a garden

behind. All to the west of this was open fields where now stands

the city of our richest people....

“Village primitiveness had not disappeared in Montreal fifty

years ago. Old men sat out on the doorsteps to gossip with

passing friends and often the family would be found there of an

evening. In the suburbs neighbours would collect for a dance in

the largest house and any respectable passer-by was welcomed if

he chose to step in.... Business relations were more intimate

between French and English fifty years ago than now, and I think

there was more kindly feeling.... But social relations were much

as they are now, the races keeping separate in their charities,

their amusements and their gatherings. The English were more

dominant--they were more generally the employers, the French the

employed.”

November of 1819 was marked by an alarming natural phenomenon.

On Sunday the 9th a dense black rain descended, depositing a

substance which to the eye and taste resembled common soot. On

the following Tuesday, after a dark morning of gloom, with the

sun clouds at times greenish black, pitch black, dingy orange

colour and blood red, so that some thought that the history of

Pompeii or Herculaneum was to be repeated, and feared that Mount

Royal, reported already to be the extinct crater of a volcano,

was again in activity. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon rain fell

again of the same sooty character mid fearful lightning and

thunder. At 4 o’clock the summit of the steeple of Notre Dame

Church was struck with lightning. The tocsin sounded a fire

alarm; the steeple was on fire. The people gathered on Place

d’Armes and before the conflagration was extinguished, the great

cross fell with a crash, breaking into many pieces. The rain had

deposited greater quantities of the sooty substance than on the

Sunday preceding and “as it flowed through the streets it carried

on its surface a dense foam resembling soapsuds. The evening

again became darker and thus ended a day which may be classed

among the _dies atri_ of Montreal.”

At this time there was a certain official society life in the

city which was fostered by the young military officers from the

old country, to whom, apart from their extravagances, the colony

is largely indebted for its heritage of culture, literature

and art. The religious situation was filled by three Catholic

churches, the Notre Dame parish church, built in 1672; the

Bonsecours Chapel, rebuilt in 1771, and the “Recollets,” built

in 1695, and loaned at different periods to the Anglicans and

Presbyterians till they had their own temples. There were two

Protestant churches, the Anglican Christ Church, which was the

old disused Jesuit church till 1803, but which was now in its

own edifice on Notre Dame Street in 1814, and the Presbyterian

or Scotch chapel on St. Gabriel’s Street, built in 1792. The

religious horizon was not clear. The Catholics and Presbyterians,

or non-Conformist group, both had grudges against the Anglicans,

arising from the question of the clergy reserves by which,

according to the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Anglicans were

the established church and reserves of land were provided for

their growth and expansion to the exclusion of other Protestant

denominations, who resented this privilege in a new country,

especially by the “Church of Scotland,” who claimed equal rights

to establishment, and the Catholics who had become civilly

crippled and disestablished since the conquest, when they came

under the same condition of the civil disabilities meted out to

the Catholics in the old country.

The government officials and most of the British military

officers therefore attended the Anglican services, while the

fur lords and the traders, those of St. Gabriel’s church. The

newspapers took sides. The Gazette followed the government

party, while the Courant and the Herald voiced the views of

the dissentients. In 1825 the Herald was bought by Archibald

Ferguson, a rich merchant of Montreal, for the express purpose

of upholding the rights of the Presbyterian church to a share in

the clergy reserves, on the ground that the Scottish Church in

Canada should be considered as much an established church as that

of the Anglicans. Eventually it gradually came to be recognized

in the courts that there were three “established” churches in

Canada, the Anglicans, the Scottish and the Catholics.[1] But

the increasing number of non-conformist bodies arising could

not brook this, and so the old opposition against the “clergy

reserves” was renewed and it was not till 1854 that this long

burning question was settled by total diversion of the reserves

from all religious purposes.

We may now return to the story of the Constitutional struggles

again about to commence and in which Montreal was to take a

leading part.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The historical development of the churches of Montreal is

specially treated in the second part of this volume.

CHAPTER XV

BUREAURACY vs. DEMOCRACY

THE PROPOSED UNION OF THE CANADAS

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT--MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS--FRENCH-CANADIANS

AIM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR POLITICAL POWER--THE “COLONIAL” OFFICE

AND THE BUREAUCRATIC CLASS VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE

ASSEMBLY--L. J. PAPINEAU AND JOHN RICHARDSON--PETITIONS FOR

AND AGAINST UNION--THE MONTREAL BRITISH PETITION OF 1822--THE

ANSWER OF L.J. PAPINEAU--THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL--THE BILL FOR

UNION WITHDRAWN. NOTES: NAMES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE FROM

1796 TO 1833--MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL

DISTRICT, 1791-1829--PETITION OF MONTREAL BRITISH--1822.

The new Constitution of 1791 was honestly framed with the desire

of giving a measure of representative government, but it was

used, before long, by an oligarchy of the bureaucratic classes to

whom the governors were victims. In Lower Canada the bureaucratic

party opposed the French-Canadians and many of those of British

origin. Furthermore there was added the development of a race

enmity which ended so disastrously in the uprising of the

“patriots” in 1837. The political situation was tense for half a

century. The fight for mastery was between the legislative and

executive council appointed by the Governor, and the legislative

assemblies elected by the people.

Montreal felt the strain keenly. Viewed municipally its affairs

were regulated from Quebec. The Parliament there exercising

similar powers to those of our municipal council of today, but

greater. The justices of the peace nominated by the executive

council of the Province were but the executive arm carrying out

the will of Quebec.

The constitutional struggles of this period so affected the life

of Montreal, that to preserve a true picture we must still study

their history. Passion always showed itself there more than

elsewhere.

The war with the United States being over, the prevailing

sentiment of all parties was one of loyalty to Great Britain. To

none was this more attributable than to the French-Canadians,

for they saw that an alliance with the States would swamp them

politically and subvert their religion. They turned their

attention to securing a strong hold on the management of

government with the intention of strengthening the position

granted them by the Quebec and Constitutional acts in the

retainment of their laws, institutions and customs. They were

learning self-government. They were beginning to demand a form

of responsible government. Not, indeed, as it was afterwards

understood, for it took the form only of desiring an elective

council, one that, being outside crown nomination, would give

them real power to control revenues. This the Governors, acting

under instructions from the Colonial Office, were not prepared to

grant. Canada was to be ruled as a colony from Downing Street. It

was in _statu pupillari_.

The history of the next twenty-five years and more reveals the

efforts of the two classes; on the one hand, of the Governors,

the legislative council, the office holders under government,

British and French-Canadians and the wealthier British merchants,

whose interests lay in being in combination with the governing

classes; and on the other, the majority of the people feeling

their power, using their new freedom and striving democratically

to make their numerical superiority give them the dominance they

thought their right. Add to this the natural tendency of any

democratic assembly to assert itself and to claim the fullest of

powers for itself. Hence the House of Assembly, reflecting the

people, is seen to be in constant opposition to the executive

council, sometimes extravagantly asserting itself and running

to extremes. Thus attacked, the bureaucratic party grew nearer

together. Hence two spirits of suspicion and race enmity were

being formed. All this was reflected in the life of the people

and nowhere more strongly than in Montreal.

It would be tedious to follow the various sessions of Parliament,

even to watch the Montreal county and town representatives such

as the members for Montreal West, L.J. Papineau, the son of

Joseph Papineau, now being in the ascendant and the incarnation

of the most advanced Canadian pretensions, and Mr. Richardson,

a Montreal merchant, a member of the council of legislature

who represented the British minority, strongly siding with the

government. The tension existing between the two parties was

voiced by Mr. Richardson in 1821, when he exclaimed: “How can

we (the legislative council) rescind our resolutions when there

is a secret committee sitting in the House of Assembly which

is, perhaps, deliberating on the appointment of the governor of

their choice and on the removal of the person now in the castle,

and putting their own in his place. The committee even sits

without the knowledge of several members of the house of which

there is no example in England except in the times of Charles

I. The committee is, perhaps, a committee of public safety.”

(“Christie,” Vol. II, page 72.)

The words produced a hurricane. The assembly passed resolutions

calling for Mr. Richardson’s removal from all posts of honour.

The adverse state of feeling may be best described by the passion

aroused over a supposed act for the union of the two provinces in

1822, when the legislatures were to be united under the name of

“the legislative council and assembly of the Canadas.” The bill

was introduced in the English parliament by Sir Wilmot Horton,

Under Secretary of State of the Colonies. It was opposed by Sir

James McIntosh and others on the ground that Canada had not been

made aware of the contemplated changes, which was very true.

Consequently the bill was delayed.

In November Lower and Upper Canada were preparing their petitions

for and against the proposed union, both French and English names

being attached to the petition. Quebec was against it; Montreal

district was divided. The French constitutional committee also

refuted it. The names of those present embrace the Honourables:

L.J. Papineau (chairman); Chs. de St. Ours, M.L. C.; L.R.C. de

Léry, M.L.C.; P.D. Debartzch, M.L.C.; Chs. de Salaberry, C.K. and

M.L.C.; and Messrs. Louis Guy, Frs. Derivières, D.B. Viger, M.P.

P., J. Bouthillier, J. Bedard, J.R. Roland, H. Cuvillier, M.P.P.,

H. Henry, M.P.P., F.A. Quesnel, M.P.P., Louis Bourdage, M.P.P.,

F.A. Larocque, J. Quesnel, and R.J. Kimber. Eventually L.J.

Papineau and Mr. John Neilson were chosen to proceed to England

to represent the non-union case. Lower Canada as such prepared

a petition against the union. It is claimed to have been signed

by 60,000 by signature or by a mark. The Montreal bulky petition

of twenty-nine pages in favour of the union from His Majesty’s

“dutiful and loyal subjects of British birth and descent,

inhabitants of the city and county of Montreal” bore 1,452

signatures and the date, December, 1822. The committee in charge

of forwarding the petition was: John Richardson (chairman);

C. W. Grant; J. Stuart; S. Gerrard; George Garden; Fred’k W.

Ermatinger; Samuel Gale; G. Moffatt; John Molson; John Fleming.

Mr. Stuart was chosen to present the case for union in England.

The petition represented that the division of the Province of

Quebec into two provinces has been prolific of evil; that it

has resulted in that the English population of Lower Canada has

been rendered inefficient from the comparative smallness of

their numbers since the whole power of the representative branch

of the government had been given to the French-Canadians, so

that of fifty members who represent Lower Canada only ten are

English; that the assembly may indeed be said to be exclusively

in possession of the uneducated peasantry of the country,

under the management and control of a few of their countrymen

whose personal importance, in opposition to the interests of

the country at large, depend on the continuance of the present

vicious system; that the speaker elected by the assembly was

never of English origin “although if regard had been had to

ability, knowledge and other qualifications, a preference must

have been given to persons of that description;” that the

French-Canadian population hitherto unused to political power

had not used it with moderation, so that British emigration had

been prevented; that the advancement of the colony was paralyzed;

agriculture and “all commercial enterprise and improvement have

been crippled and obstructed and the country remains with all

the foreign characteristics which it possessed at the time of

the conquest; that is, in all particulars French. The division

into two provinces would result in Upper Canada availing itself

of the advantages offered to trade with American seaports

through the new canal system being elaborated by the state of

New York. Secondly it has resulted in the continual disputes

between Upper and Lower Canada respecting revenues from import

duties, which can only be settled by the union of the provinces

under one legislature. The petition refers to the desire of the

French to establish a separate nation under the nature of the

“Nation Canadienne.” The petitioners in conclusion beg leave to

“specify succinctly the benefits to be expected from a Union of

the Provinces. By this measure the political evils complained

of in both Provinces would be removed. The French population

in Lower Canada, now divided from their fellow subjects by

their national peculiarities and prejudices and with an evident

disposition under the present system to become a separate people,

would be gradually assimilated to the British population of

both Provinces; and with it moulded into one people of British

character and with British feelings. All opposition of interest

and cause of difference between the Provinces would be forever

extinguished: an efficient Legislature, capable of conciliating

the interests of the Colony with those of the Mother Colony, and

providing for the security and advancing the agricultural and

commercial prosperity of the country, would be established, by

means of which the international improvement of both Provinces

would not only be rapidly promoted with the consequent benefits

thereto arising from Great Britain, but the strength and capacity

to resist foreign oppression be greatly increased: the tie of

connection between the Colony and the Parent State would be

strengthened and confirmed and a lasting dependence of the

Canadas on the latter be ensured, to the mutual advantage of

both.”

Having given the British view of the situation it would only be

just to give that of the other side. Analysis of their various

petitions shows that they relied mainly on the wisdom of the

Government in its past enactments which had been successful so

that the country was progressing in agriculture and commerce

in spite of great obstacles. The differences that had arisen

between Upper and Lower Canada relative to revenues were not in

consequence of the division of the two provinces but of temporary

causes which could easily be removed by the acts of the executive

legislature. The Union of the Provinces would only resuscitate

dissension resulting from differences of language, religion,

laws and other local interests. The new bill was directed

against the dearest interests of nine-tenths of the population

of this province. Allusion was made to the injustice of the new

bill which would make English the language of debate, would

exclude many from being elected to the Assembly and would give

humiliating preference to the members of the Assembly from Upper

Canada by affording the minority an equal representation with

those of the Lower Province, whose population was five times as

numerous.

It may be well here to allow the criticisms of Mr. L.J. Papineau

to supply an element underlying the opposition of the opponents

of the bill. In a letter to Mr. R.J. Wilmot, M.P., 23 Montague

Square, London, Mr. Papineau alluding, doubtless, to the Montreal

pro-union petition of which he had known, and speaking for

his committee, wishes to dispel the odious aspersions on the

great body of the people in this province, contained in several

communications intended for England: “such as assertions that

the opposition, manifested in this province on the part of the

population so stigmatized, is the effect of prejudices alone;

alluding to their supposed attachment for France and French

principles; calling them foreigners (foreigners in their own

land!). The bill in question, say these friends of the union,

being so well calculated to Anglify the country which is to be

ultimately peopled by the British race. * * * The preposterous

calumny against the Canadians of French origin as to their

supposed attachment for France requires no further answer than

that which is derived from their uniform conduct during the wars

and the loyalty evinced by them on every occasion. They are not

foreigners in this, the land of their birth; they claim rights

as British subjects in common with every other subject of His

Majesty in these colonies. By what they call Anglifying the

country is meant the depriving the great majority of the people

of this province of all that is dear to men, their laws, usages,

institutions and religion. An insignificant minority wish for

a change and are desirous of ruling against every principle of

justice by destroying what they call Canadian influence, that is

to say, the influence of the majority of men entitled to the same

rights as themselves, of the great mass of the natives. * * * Great

Britain wants no other Anglifying in this country than that which

is to be found in the loyalty and affection of the inhabitants,

no other British race than that of natural born subjects, loyal

and affectionate.”

The opinion of the legislative council of Lower Canada is finally

to be recorded. In its petition it gives its fixed and determined

opinion that the union of the two legislatures in one would only

tend directly to enfeeble and embarrass His Majesty’s government

and finally to create discontent in the minds of His Majesty’s

faithful subjects in this colony. Upper Canada was quite

satisfied with the existing conditions. The chief agitators,

therefore, for the bill were to be found in Montreal and with

them sided the Eastern Townships.

The bill for the union was withdrawn. When it was brought up

later it was more wisely thought out. It did not tread on

established prejudices and rights and it brought with it the

panacea of true responsible government. But at the present date

this was not fully seen. The great objective was to become

independent of the colonial office by a representative and

elective legislative council. It was hoped thus to control all

expenditures. Hence the members of the lower assembly, not

content with the exercise of mere municipal legislation, were

ever asserting their rights in the latter regard and the Colonial

Office as often, checking their aspirations.

NOTE I

NAMES OF JUSTICES OF PEACE OF MONTREAL FROM 1796-1833

James McGill

John McKindlay

St. George Dupré

Charles Blake

Louis Porlier

Thomas McCord

Pierre Vallèe

John Lilly

Robert Cruickshank

Patrick Murray

John McGill

James Finlay

Neveu Sylvestre

Alexander Henry

Gabriel Franchere

James Walker

James Alexander Grant

Joseph Frobisher

John Richardson

Isaac Winslow Clarke

Alexander Auldjo

William Maitland

James Hughes

Simon McTavish

James Dunlop

Thomas Forsyth

John Lees

Louis Chaboillez

Jean P. Leprohon

Jean Bouthillier

Francois Desrivièrés

Jean Durocher

Jean Marie Mondelet

François Rolland

Paul Lacroix

Etienne St. Dizier

James Caldwell

Henry Deschambault

Henry McKenzie

James Milne

William McGillivray

Jean Jorand

L.C. Deléry

Chartier de Lothbinière

Joseph Turgeon

Archibald N. McLeod

Louis Guy

Thomas Porteious

Joseph Senet

Francois Ant. Larocque

William Robertson

Pierre de Boucherville

Hughes Heney

Charles Fremont

Alexandre Malbut

Henry Bing

Louis Marchand

Thomas A. Turner

Angus Shaw

Pierre de Rocheblave

James Miller

Fred W. Ermatinger

Samuel Safe

George Auldjo

James Leslie

John Gray

George Moffatt

Jonas Wurtele

George Garden

William Lunn

Horatio Gates

N.B. Doucet

Henry Griffin

Peter McGill

Robert Frost

D.C. Napier

Thomas Barron

William McKay

William Prady

John Fleming

Charles de Montenac

David Ross

Touissant Pothier

Denis Benjamin Viger

Joseph Shuter

John Fisher

Jules Quesnel

Adam McNider

Pierre Lukin

Benjamin Holmes

Andre Jobin

Austin Cavillier

Joseph Roy

Joseph Masson

William Hall

John McKenzie

J.P. Saveuse de Beaujeu

John Forsyth

Jos. Ant. Gagnon

Tancrede Bouthillier

NOTE II

MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM MONTREAL DISTRICT FROM

1792-1829

COUNTY OF MONTREAL MONTREAL

SESSION MONTREAL WEST EAST

1 Joseph Papineau James McGill James Frobisher

James Walker J.B. Durocher John Richardson

2 J.M. Ducharme Joseph Papineau A. Auldjo

E. Guy D. Viger L.C. Foucher

3 Joseph Papineau James McGill P.L. Panet

Thomas Walker Joseph Perinault F. Badgeley

4 Benjamin Frobisher James McGill John Richardson

L. Roy Portelance Louis Chaboillez J.M. Mondelet

5 J.B. Durocher Wm. McGillvray J. Stuart

L. Roy Portelance D.B. Viger J.M. Mondelet

6 J.B. Durocher E.B. Viger J. Stuart

L. Roy Portelance Thomas McCord Jos. Papineau

7 J.B. Durocher E.N. St. Dizier Stephen Sewell

L. Roy Portelance A.N. McLeod Joseph Papineau

8 James Stuart L.J. Papineau Sauveuse de Beaujeu

Aug. Richer James Fraser George Platt

9 James Stuart L.J. Papineau L. Roi Portelance

August Richer F. Souligny John Molson

10 Joseph Perrault L.J. Papineau Hughes Heney

Joseph Valois George Garden Thomas Busby

11 Joseph Perrault L.J. Papineau Hughes Heney

Joseph Valois George Garden Thomas Thain

12 Joseph Perrault L.J. Papineau Hughes Heney

Joseph Valois P. de Rocheblave James Leslie

13 Joseph Perrault L.J. Papineau Hughes Heney

Joseph Valois Robert Nelson James Leslie

CHAPTER XVI

MURMURS OF REVOLUTION

RACE AND CLASS ANTAGONISM

“CANADA TRADE ACTS”--LORD DALHOUSIE BANQUETED AFTER BEING

RECALLED--MOVEMENT TO JOIN MONTREAL AS A PORT TO UPPER

CANADA--THE GOVERNOR ALLEGED TO BE A TOOL--EXECUTIVE

COUNCIL--RIOTOUS ELECTION AT MONTREAL--DR. TRACY VERSUS

STANLEY BAGG--THE MILITARY FIRE--THE “MINERVE” VERSUS THE

GAZETTE AND HERALD--THE CHOLERA OF 1832--MURMURS OF THE COMING

REVOLT--MONTREAL PETITION FOR AND AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL

CHANGES--MR. NELSON BREAKS WITH PAPINEAU--THE NINETY-TWO

RESOLUTIONS--MR. ROEBUCK, AGENT FOR THE REFORM PARTY,

ADVOCATES SELF-GOVERNMENT--FRENCH-CANADIAN EXTREMISTS--THE

ELECTIONS--PUBLIC MEETING OF “MEN OF BRITISH AND IRISH

DESCENT”--TWO DIVERGENT MENTALITIES--THE CONSTITUTIONAL

ASSOCIATIONS--PETITIONS TO LONDON--LORD GOSFORD APPOINTED ROYAL

COMMISSIONER--HIS POLICY OF CONCILIATION REJECTED--MR. PAPINEAU

INTRANSIGEANT--RAISING VOLUNTEER CORPS FORBIDDEN--THE DORIC

CLUB--“RESPONSIBLE” GOVERNMENT DEMANDED.

The bill for the proposed union, shorn of the notion of union,

came up in the Imperial parliament and passed as the “Canadian

Trade Acts.” Its object was to secure Upper Canada from the

possible injustice and caprice of the legislature of Lower Canada

and the imposition and payment of duties. The act was challenged

in the house of Quebec, but to no avail. In 1824 the president of

the United States claimed the free navigation of the St. Lawrence

to the ocean. This was objected to by the legislative council as

pernicious to the interests of British trade and the merchants

of Montreal in a petition of February 20, 1826, combatted the

admission of the claim.

The constitutional record of the next few years of Montreal

shows the growth of contention between the English and French

population. In 1828 this came temporarily to a head in the

petition and counter petition for the recall of Lord Dalhousie,

the Governor General. Messrs. Denis B. Viger and Cuvillier were

the bearers of a petition from Montreal. Lord Dalhousie was in

consequence appointed commander in chief in India. At a banquet

held in Montreal on June 7, 1828, with the Hon. John Richardson

in the chair, a farewell was given to Lord Dalhousie prior to his

leaving Canada, approving of his just government.

In 1831 a movement began to be advocated, especially in Upper

Canada, that the island of Montreal should be separated from the

Lower province and added to the Upper, so that this might have

a seaport of its own, with power to regulate the duty on the

imports without interference from Quebec. It was argued that in a

few years the Upper province would be in advance of Lower Canada

in agriculture and population. The movement found favour among

the British party in Montreal but was strongly resented by those

of French-Canadian birth. The house in session in 1832 rejected

it as a premeditated and unprovoked spoilation in violation of

the Capitulation treaty. This year, Montreal was incorporated as

a city with a charter. (William V, Cap. 39.)

It was a charge against the legislative council that it consisted

largely of officials holding their places at the pleasure of the

crown and therefore irresponsible to the people and subversive

of its interests. A view of the position of the legislative

council may be seen from the returns that Gov. Gen. Sir James

Kempt (1828-1830) was requested to furnish to the colonial

office. These showed that the legislative council consisted of

twenty-three members, twelve of whom held office under the crown,

sixteen were Protestants and seven Roman Catholics. The executive

council consisted of nine members, only one being unconnected

with government, and all were Protestants with one exception.

In order to gain confidence and to remove the suspicion that the

legislative council was under the influence of local government

and guided in its proceedings by the will of the Governor, which

he alleged to be an absolute misrepresentation, Sir James advised

that one or two of the most important of the assemblymen should

be advanced to the legislature.

Lord Aylmer, who succeeded Sir James Kempt, in a private letter

to Mr. Hay said, on the other hand, that the impression on

the public mind was that a sinister influence was continually

operating on the governor, who was being swayed to a very great

extent by the executive council; although this was not the case,

he thought the public should be satisfied on that head. But he

agreed that Mr. Papineau and Mr. Neilson should be advanced. He

disapproved of Mr. Papineau’s public conduct and language, though

he esteemed his private character. “There is,” he wrote to Mr.

Hay, “one consideration which, more than any other, renders it

desirable, in my view of the matter, to make choice of these

gentlemen. A very general opinion prevails in this country that

the person at the head of the government is always more or less

influenced by the executive council which, whether justly or

otherwise, I will not take it upon myself to say, is not held in

general estimation, and it appears to me that the introduction

of two gentlemen enjoying like Mr. Papineau and Neilson the

confidence of the public, into that body and, as it were, behind

the scenes, would go far towards removing the opinion alluded to,

and which I can positively state, as far as regards myself, is

wholly without foundation.”[1]

In 1832 a vacancy occurred in the west ward of Montreal by

the resignation of Mr. Fisher. As it reflects the turbulent

conflicts that had been going on so long in the House at Quebec

and indicates the high pitch of excitement to which minds were

then brought, a lengthy notice is not out of place. It also

foreshadowed the violent scenes of 1837. The candidates were

Mr. Stanley Bagg, a representative of one of the oldest British

firms in Montreal who shared in the views of British party, and

Doctor Tracy, an Irishman attached to the “Vindicator” which had

espoused the extreme views of the assembly; indeed, he had been

recently imprisoned for his censures on the legislative council.

The contest was very close and lasted for some days. On May

21st, when Doctor Tracy was a few votes ahead, there was every

appearance of a riot around the polls. The Fifteenth Regiment

was called out, the riot act was read but the tumult continued.

The account given by Kingsford’s History of Canada, Volume IX,

pp. 481-99, tells graphically what follows. As the poll was

being closed the partisans of Tracy, headed by himself, rushed

against those of the opposite side. The troops were now ordered

to advance and reached the old Montreal Bank, the site of the

present postoffice. The troops were received with volley after

volley of stone. Colonel McIntosh called to the mob to cease

this aggressiveness, or he would give orders to fire. The troops

continued to advance up St. James Street, giving opportunity for

the mob to retire. The stones continued to be thrown. A second

halt was made. The crowd, now composed almost entirely of Tracy’s

supporters, had greatly increased. The attack upon the military

continued. Again Colonel McIntosh threatened to give the order

to fire. According to the evidence of the lieutenant present,

Mr. W. Dawson, from whose testimony this narrative is taken,

several men in the ranks were severely hurt by these missiles.

The colonel was struck, as was the subaltern. Colonel McIntosh,

still hesitating to act, again warned his assailants. It was

all in vain. To judge by the testimony given at the inquest the

mob evidently believed that the military would not dare to act.

They were cruelly mistaken. The first platoon of sixteen men

were ordered to fire; three of the crowd fell dead, two were

wounded. In a few seconds the street was cleared. * * * It was

the first event of this character in Canada and caused a great

sensation. From the violence shown it was dreaded that the riot

might continue. The consequence was that a detachment with some

field pieces was stationed at the Place d’Armes. During the night

pickets paraded the streets. The _Minerve_ in its continuation

of abuse described the event as the massacre of peaceable,

unarmed citizens, and that in order to make the military forget

their crime they had been abundantly supplied with rum. * * *

No arrests were made. * * * The coroner’s inquest was held. Mr.

Papineau attended every day.[2] * * * Nine witnesses testified

that the soldiers fired upon the people as they were dispersing

after the close of the poll. Three witnesses described the act as

the consequence of the riot. No verdict was given.[3] * * * The

coroner, nevertheless, issued warrants for the arrest of McIntosh

and Temple. They were immediately bailed to the amount of £1,000.

The proceedings of the coroner were set aside as illegal, but the

matter did not stop here. These officers were again arrested and

subjected to much annoyance. Finally, in September, the grand

jury returned the indictment with “no bill.” The same result was

obtained in the case of the magistrates, Messrs. Robertson and

Lukin, indicted on a similar criminal charge as having given

orders to the troops.

The action of the military was approved by the grand jury, and

by the commander in chief, the latter being further commended by

Lord Fitzroy Somerset through Lord Aylmer, the governor general.

An address of sympathetic citizens was presented to the two

officers. La Minerve on the 24th of May, 1832, however, was

implacable. “It is difficult,” it says, “not to be convinced

that there was a desire to make a general massacre. It is

clearly proved that the faction hostile to the Canadians has

been preparing for this atrocity for a long time. The party

that we have opposed for thirty years desired today to shoot

us down. * * * They also wished to shoot Mr. Tracy. * * * Mr.

Bagg’s partisans laughingly approached the corpses and saw with

fierce joy the Canadian blood flowing down the street. They have

been seen shaking hands congratulatingly and regretting that the

number of the dead was not greater. * * * Let us never forget the

massacre of our brethren. * * * Let the names of the wrongdoers

who have planned, advised and executed this crime be inscribed in

our annals handed down to infamy and execration.”[4] (History of

Canada, page 109.)

The funeral of the three Canadians was attended by about five

thousand persons and following the bodies were Mr. Papineau, the

speaker of the assembly, the leader of the French-Canadian party

and his chief supporters.

From this date the tone of the newspapers Le Spectateur at Quebec

and La Minerve at Montreal is noticeably inflammatory in the

demand for the redress of their grievances. On the other hand,

the English papers representing the British party, especially

the Gazette and Herald of Montreal, dealt no uncertain blows

in return and Mr. Papineau fared ill. He was looked upon as a

demagogue inciting dissension and making political capital from

the late misfortune of May 21st.

The memory of the riot was not allowed to die down in the

neighbourhood of Montreal and elsewhere. At Longueuil on June

11th a resolution, provoked by the affair of May 21st, set

forth that “the British government deceived by men who are our

envenomed enemies, are following in a line of conduct leading

to our destruction and slavery; that the fate of the Acadians

is being prepared for us, that the neglect of the frequent

demands of our rights on the part of England had tended to break

the contract between her and us.” In these and other meetings

there was generally a protest against granting to capitalists

independently of the colonial legislature a large portion of the

uncultivated lands of the crown. This was aimed at members of the

British party.

Another protest was at immigration from Great Britain. The

parishes were being inoculated with discontent. This last was

emphasized at this period especially, as in 1832 Canada was

suffering from cholera; from June 9th to September 30th, the

number described as having died being 3,292. It was at this date

that Gross Ile, thirty miles below Quebec, was established by

the provincial executive as a quarantine station on the warning

from the home government, having itself suffered its ravages

in the winter of 1831-2. The disease was thought to have been

brought early in June by the “Carrick” with emigrants from Dublin

containing 133 passengers, of whom fifty-nine had died on the

voyage. The malady is supposed to have quickly spread from the

emigrants to others through Quebec and Montreal. Apparently

the disease did not spread in Upper Canada to any extent. The

boards of health lately established did all they could, by the

establishment of hospitals, to stay the disease. The Montreal

board of health reported on the 26th day of June that there had

been from the 10th to the 25th of June inclusive 3,384 cases and

947 deaths. The Fifteenth Regiment suffered severely. But at the

end of June the disease was abating. A correspondent writing from

Montreal on the 25th of June said that the printers, like others,

had deserted their work a fortnight before, but at the date he

wrote activity was resumed, the stores were again opened and the

markets better supplied. On the 6th of July Lord Aylmer wrote:

“The panic in the public mind is rapidly subsiding and the people

are returning to their ordinary occupations, which at one period

of the prevalence of the disease were almost entirely abandoned.”

The arrival of emigrants during 1831 and 1832 had been numerous.

The official returns for 1831 and 1832 give the numbers as being

48,973 and 49,281.

At Montreal the seriousness of the political and social situation

and the menaces that were looming to the peace and to the

security of life and property, was not blinked. Moderate men of

both parties already heard the rumblings of the revolt of 1837.

A meeting was held at the British American Hotel on the 4th of

November with 500 persons present. Mr. Horatio Gates, a prominent

merchant, was in the chair and many other important men discussed

the situation earnestly. A committee was formed to draft the

petition, to the throne, based on the resolutions of the meeting.

The names reveal the inclusion of weighty French-Canadians: “J.C.

Grant, Hypolite Guy, Alex Buchanan, Jules Quesnel, George Auldjo,

Turton Penn, Pierre Bibaud, Dr. W. Caldwell, Dr. B. Rollin,

Augustin Perreault, T.B. Anderson, Felix Souligny, Joseph Masson,

and J.T. Barrett.”

Briefly the resolutions expressed confidence in the present

system of government, desiring no change in the system of

the legislative council which was an essential product of

the legislature; it was stated that the political excitement

of disaffected persons was creating a want of confidence in

the security of property and had embarrassed all commercial

relations, and it was felt now a boundened duty “to declare their

unalterable attachment to the government, etc.”

This action at Montreal was offset by a petition from Montreal

considered in the session, praying for constitutional changes; it

demanded an elective government in every department; it protested

against any system of emigration which, while being beneficial

to the Upper Province was not so to the Lower. It assailed the

officials for the proceedings consequent upon the riot of May

21st at Montreal. Mr. Leslie, a British merchant of Montreal and

extreme supporter of Mr. Papineau, moved the inquiry into the

affairs of the 21st. On this occasion Mr. Andrew Stewart threw

it into the face of Mr. Papineau that he was creating national

distinctions, that he had given rise to the consternation

which he felt, when he should have shown moderation. During

this session Mr. Neilson also took a decided stand against Mr.

Papineau, the first step towards a break in their political

relationship. The discussion on the events of May 21, 1832, was

deferred to next session. The house was prorogued on April 3,

1833.

This year, 1833, was remarkable as that of coming into effect

of the municipal act of Montreal and Quebec, a forward movement

treated of elsewhere. During the session of 1834 the famous

Ninety-two Resolutions introduced by Mr. Bibaud kept up the

agitation for change and redress. In 1834 Mr. Roebuck, who had

left Canada in 1825 and had, as member for Bath, moved in April,

1834, in the house of parliament in London for the appointment

of a committee to enquire into the means of remedying the evils

in the government of Upper and Lower Canada, took a step which

largely fanned the fire of discontent in Montreal. Addressing

the united and permanent committee of the reform party of

Montreal in favour of self-government as then meditated through a

representative elective legislative council, he advised them to

resist the parliament of Great Britain. He advocated peaceable

methods before taking to arms. But they had to fight sooner than

lose all hope of self-government.

This infused, if possible, more vigour to the pens of the

writers in La Minerve and the Vindicator, of which Doctor

O’Callaghan was editor.[5] Violent attacks on the government

were renewed. French-Canadians were urged to organize for the

revolutionary movement. The moderate French-Canadians were

fearful of the outcome. The British party, in self-defence,

prepared a petition, and a deputation to Quebec to Lord Aylmer

with an address conceived in opposition to the spirit of the

Ninety-two Resolutions. On August 24th Mr. Hume presented Mr.

Bibaud’s Ninety-two Resolutions to the imperial parliament signed

by 18,083 persons. On the 24th of September the supporters of

the Ninety-two Resolutions met and supported resolutions on the

same lines. Among those present was Girod as a delegate from

Verchères; he was a strong adherent of Papineau and later, in

1838, was one of the leaders in the insurrection of St. Eustace.

In October and November the elections took place. In the west

ward of Montreal Papineau and Dr. Robert Nelson were declared

elected by the returning officer Lusignan before the legal time

for the close of the polls had arrived. A protest was made by Mr.

Walker and Mr. Donnellan, the opposing candidates, without avail.

A few days later Mr. Papineau issued a fiery philippic--a common

custom of his--against the Governor General with the effect when

Lord Aylmer visited Montreal later, La Minerve and the Vindicator

appeared with their columns in mourning. In Quebec the new city

council had the insolence to pass a vote not to pay the “visite

de cérémonie” to Lord Aylmer on New Year’s Day.

During November Constitutional Associations were formed in

Montreal and Quebec by the British party who now feared a

separation with the mother country. At Montreal an address was

prepared as a result of a public meeting on November 22d to men

of “British and Irish descent.” It was signed by John Molson,

Jr., and was directed to their fellow countrymen of the Province

of British America for their oppressed brethren of Montreal, and

solicited their “attention to a brief and temperate exposition

of our principles and grievances.” It is a lengthy statement

containing about three thousand words, though not so long as

the grievances of the Ninety-two Resolutions, which occupied

twenty-five pages of the journals of the house in 1834. As we

have not reproduced the latter neither do we those of the British

party, though a perusal of each would give a vivid picture of

the seriousness of the situation and the tension on both sides.

It was the conflict of two mentalities become, for the time,

hopelessly irreconcilable and highly inflamed by the vision

of their real or imaginary grievances and injustices. It was

commercial progress and British expansion versus a conservative

agriculturalism and a “nation Canadienne” for Lower Canada.

[Illustration: Drawn by John Murray. ABOUT 1845 St. James Street,

West. The Bank of Montreal on the right]

In February of 1835 the new parliament met. Its proceedings are

more marked with the signs of the anarchy so soon to become a

thing of fact. In answer to the Governor’s address there was

demanded in the name “of the great body of the people without

distinction, the introduction of the elective principles for

the legislative council.” A petition was also prepared for the

king, in which it was claimed that the people at large “fully

participated in the opinions of the majority of the house.”

The real proportion of the constituencies for and against the

Ninety-two Resolutions was less than three to one,[6] the country

parishes largely contributing to this result. The house was

prorogued on March 18th, having sat only twenty-five days.

Scenting trouble, the “constitutional associations” of Quebec and

Montreal prepared to meet emergencies. Branches were multiplied

in other places when possible. Circulars to public bodies and

prominent men over Canada were diffused. The interest and aid of

the United States were canvassed. The statement of grievances

from Montreal signed by John Molson was a dangerous precedent.

Leading men in London were approached. To meet the activity of

Mr. Roebuck, who had recently been appointed an agent for the

reform party, Mr. Neilson was sent to present a petition to the

king from Quebec, and Mr. William Walker that of Montreal. They

left _via_ New York in April. Mr. Roebuck presented the counter

petition of the House of Assembly to the House of Commons on

March 9, 1835. That from Montreal was presented by Mr. Stuart on

March 16th.

The Canadian difficulties were now so notorious that the king

determined to send an extraordinary commissioner. Lord Gosford

was finally appointed and with him were associated Sir Charles

Grey and Sir George Gibbs. These arrived at Quebec on August 23d.

On September 17th Lord Aylmer with his family left for England.

His term of office had been stormy but while vituperation fell

upon him on one hand, he was otherwise sustained by the strong

minority. Lord Gosford came with a policy of conciliation openly

manifested and openly rejected. He met his parliament within

two months after his arrival. His opening speech as governor

general, the longest on record on such an occasion, was delivered

on October 27, 1835. He unfolded his theory of conciliation

and promises of redresses of grievances. The house, however,

was tuned up only for extremes and showed no readiness for

compromise. This lesson has been since well learned, experience

of the failure of any other course having been abundant. The

concluding words of Lord Gosford’s speech are noteworthy and

impressive. “To the Canadians, both of French and British

origin, and every class and description, I would say, consider

the blessings you might enjoy and the favoured situation in

which but for your own dissensions you would find yourselves

to be placed. The offsprings of the two foremost nations of

mankind, you hold a vast and beautiful country, a fertile soil,

a healthy climate and the noblest river in the world makes your

most remote city a port for the ships of the sea. Your revenue is

triple the amount of your expenditure for the ordinary purposes

of government. You have no direct taxes, no public debt, no poor

who require any aid more than the natural impulses of charity.

If you extend your views beyond the land in which you dwell you

find that you are joint inheritors of the splendid patrimony of

the British empire which constitutes you in the best sense of

the term citizens of the world and gives you a home on every

continent and in every ocean on the globe. There are two paths

open to you. By the one you will advance to the enjoyment of all

the advantages which lie in prospect before you. By the other

I will say no more than you will stop short of these, and will

engage yourselves and those who have no other object than your

prosperity in darker and more difficult courses.”

The existence of the Commission was studiously ignored by the

Assembly. But on the 6th of November an amendment to the draft

in answer to the address was moved, approving of the appointment

of the commission as a proof of the wisdom and magnanimity with

“which the grievances of the province had been listened to,

and now confidently hope that the results of its labours will

be satisfactory to all classes.”[7] Mr. Papineau vehemently

attacked the motion. The commissioners were without legal or

constitutional power. Their report, favourable or not, was

immaterial. The motion was voted down by forty-five to eight. The

governor general’s position as such was, however, recognized.

The “Constitutional” associations of Montreal and Quebec,

composed of those who held substantially by the existing

constitution with certain reforms dictated by expediency, were

meanwhile viewing with dissatisfaction the intransigeant attitude

of the majority of the house. At Montreal it was proposed by the

British population to raise a volunteer corps of 800 strong.

A memorial was sent at the close of December to the Governor

General asking for official sanction for the enrollment and

offering its services to the Government. It was not granted

on the grounds that no rights were in danger and that the

enrollment would endanger public tranquillity. The organization

was proceeded with. Lord Gosford issued a proclamation declaring

it illegal and unconstitutional. The corps was dissolved and in

notifying Lord Gosford he was informed that “As committee men

of the British Rifle Corps we must express to Your Excellency

our regrets that the day has arrived when, in a colony conquered

by British arms, a body of loyal subjects has been treated as

traitors by a British Governor General for no other crime than

that of rousing themselves to protect their persons and property

and to assist in maintaining the rights and privileges granted

them by the constitution.”

In addition a meeting was called and a memorial sent to Lord

Gosford justifying their conduct on the grounds that the

constitution was endangered. They would always be ready to

defend British institutions.[8] It is said that the Doric Club,

a more or less secret society of Britishers, now dated its

formation.

The policy of conciliation was meeting a rebuff on both sides.

The Montreal “Vindicator” later even spoke of “the treacherous

administration of Lord Gosford.”

On the 21st of March, 1836, the parliament was prorogued. There

was the same stubborn determination of the majority of the

assembly to assert itself to overrule the existing constitution

and thus control the situation on the lines of the Ninety-Two

Resolutions so as to make government impossible. It met again on

September 22d. No bills were passed; two were introduced, one

for the appointment of an agent in London, another to amend the

Imperial act of 1791 (an unconstitutional proceeding beyond the

powers of the assembly), with a view of establishing an elective

legislative assembly directly responsible to the representatives

of the people. This appeal for “responsible” government as it

was then vaguely conceived, was always steadfastly pursued as

the basic reform needed to solve all the other grievances under

which the province was suffering. The aim was self-government and

the abolition of the bureaucracy and privileged class incidental

on an appointed legislative council chosen by the Crown. After a

short session of thirteen days in all, the house was prorogued on

October 4th. The parliament of Lower Canada met again on August

18, 1837, but as its members would not transact any business at

all, it was prorogued on August 20th, never to meet again.

The annual meeting of the Montreal Constitutional Association

met in December, 1835. Ward committees were appointed. Among

the principles to be advocated was the abolition of the feudal

tenure, the continued improvement of the harbour of Montreal

and of the canal communications. In February, 1836, Sir John

Colborne was relieved of his position as Lieutenant Governor

of Upper Canada. Before embarking for England he was appointed

Commander-in-Chief of the forces in both provinces. On July 1st

he issued a general order from Montreal on the assumption of

command. In June a movement of a “Constitutional” committee was

afoot in Montreal for the recall of Lord Gosford. It dropped,

however, on opposition from the Quebec Constitutional party.

FOOTNOTES:

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

for 1899.

[2] The Quebec Gazette justified Mr. Papineau’s being present as

he was acting in his profession as an advocate.

[3] These were French Canadians.

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

[5] Dr. O’Callaghan was subsequently returned to the house of

assembly in the new parliament of 1835 as the representative

of Yamaska. There he was unknown but Mr. Papineau’s influence

carried the seat. In the subsequent parliament he became a

staunch lieutenant of his leader.

[6] Mr. Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal and also

a conscientious historian and archaeologist, made a concise

statement of the political strength of the opposing parties in

the counties, towns and boroughs as recorded in the votes at

the last election for and against the spirit of the Ninety-Two

Resolutions on which the election turned.

For Against Not Voting

361,801½ 115,838 35,619½

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

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

One-fourth did not vote, owing to the vacancy in the seat of one

of the representatives. See “Christie,” Vol. V, 238-242.

[7] The commissioners finished their six reports before the end

of 1836. They were eventually doubtless useful to Lord Dunham

in the preparation of his report. The commissioners considered

an elective legislative council undesirable but they formulated

a system of representative government on lines which we now

understand. While granting the government of internal affairs it

strove to preserve the unity of empire.

[8] In the Imperial parliament in 1837 Mr. Robinson quoted La

Minerve of Montreal, which stated that immediate separation

from England was the only means of preserving French Canadian

nationality.

CHAPTER XVII

MONTREAL IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR

1837-1838

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO REMAIN CROWN-APPOINTED--THE SIGNAL FOR

REVOLT--FIRST INSURRECTIONARY MEETING AT ST. OURS--DR. WOLFRED

NELSON--CONSTITUTIONAL MEETINGS--THE PARISHES--THE SEDITIONARY

MANIFESTO OF “LES FILS DE LIBERTE” AT MONTREAL--REVOLUTIONARY

BANNERS--IRISH REJECT REVOLUTIONARY PARTY--MGR. LARTIGUE’s

MANDEMENT AGAINST CIVIL WAR--THE FRACAS BETWEEN THE DORIC

CLUB AND THE FILS DE LIBERTE--RIOT ACT READ--THE “VINDICATOR”

GUTTED--MILITARY PROCEEDINGS--WARRANTS FOR ARREST--PAPINEAU

FLIES--RELEASE OF PRISONERS AT LONGUEUIL--COMMENCEMENT

OF HOSTILITIES--ST. DENIS--LIEUTENANT WEIR’S DEATH--GEN.

T.S. BROWN--ST. CHARLES--ST. EUSTACHE--CAPTURE OF WOLFRED

NELSON--SECOND MANDEMENT OF BISHOP LARTIGUE--DAY OF

THANKSGIVING--CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED--THE INDEPENDENCE OF

CANADA PROCLAIMED BY “PRESIDENT NELSON”--THE REGIMENTS LEAVE

THE CITY--LORD DURHAM ARRIVES--AMNESTY AND SENTENCES--DURHAM

RESIGNS--THE SECOND INSURRECTION--MARTIAL LAW IN MONTREAL--SIR

JOHN COLBORNE QUASHES REBELLION--STERN REPRISALS--ARRESTS--TRUE

BILLS--POLITICAL EXECUTIONS--“CONCORDIA SALUS.”

In the March and April of 1837, the parliament in London

seriously considered the Canadian emergency. On March 6th, Lord

John Russell introduced ten resolutions, which passed. The fourth

stated that it was inadvisable to make the legislative council

of Canada an elective body, but that measures should be taken

to secure for it a greater degree of public confidence, and

the fifth, that while expedient to improve the composition of

the executive council, it was inadvisable to subject it to the

responsibility demanded by the house of assembly.

The news was received with welcome by the British constitutional

party who had clung tenaciously to the crown-appointed executive

as their only hope of adequate representation in the government

of the province. To the national party it came as a signal for

revolt. On May 7th, the first insurrectionary meeting was held

at St. Ours, Dr. Wolfred Nelson having a large share in its

convention. Mr. L.J. Papineau was acclaimed as an O’Connell,

a man called by God as the regenerator of his nation. Other

meetings now began in the parishes of the Montreal district

and Mr. Papineau left his home in Montreal for his mission of

agitation.

On July 6th the constitutional party held a meeting in the

Place d’Armes. On the motion of the Hon. Peter McGill, the Hon.

George Moffatt took the chair. Messrs. Quesnel and de Bleury

were elected vice presidents. Among the resolutions proposed

were those of the necessity of the connections with the mother

country for the prosperity and advancement of the colony and the

necessity of resisting any attempts at dismemberment. A similar

meeting was held at Quebec on July 31st, on which day the news of

the death of William IV reached Canada. On August 1st Victoria

was proclaimed Queen of British North America.

The country districts outside of Montreal were fomenting

revolt. At St. Eustache and St. Benoit “anti-coercion” meetings

were held, as well as at Napierville, seven miles west of the

Richelieu. On August 18th the last parliament of Lower Canada was

called but was prorogued on the members refusing to legislate

because of want of confidence in the Imperial government in

London through its failure to grant their demands. Forty years

later the House of Assembly was reestablished as that of the

Province of Quebec. The proceedings of the last assembly

were regarded by the constitutional association as a virtual

annihilation of the constitution and an address was issued on

September 4th to this effect and signed by the Hon. Peter McGill

and Mr. Badgley as secretary. This address given in full in the

Montreal Gazette on the 9th of September advocates the union of

the legislatures of the two provinces as affording a solution by

giving a fair share of proportional representation to the British

population.

On the 5th of September the new society “Les Fils de Liberté”

held a meeting in Montreal. The members were to meet as a

military corps with arms for the purpose of being drilled

as if under sanction of the government. Its motto was to be

“En Avant!” On October 1st it published a manifesto of which

certain paragraphs clearly disclose its seditionary purpose.

“The authority of a parent state over a colony can only exist

during the pleasure of the colonists; for the country, being

established and settled by them, belongs to them by right and

may be separated from all foreign connection, whenever the

inconveniences, resulting from an executive power residing abroad

and ceasing to harmonize with the local legislature, makes such a

step necessary to the inhabitants for the pursuit of happiness.”

Again: “The separation as commenced between parties which will

never be cemented but which will go on increasing until one of

those sudden, those unforeseen events that attend the march

of time, affords us a fit opportunity for assuming our rank

among the independent sovereignties of America. Two splendid

opportunities have been lost. Let us not be unprepared for the

third.”

Writing on October 6th Sir John Colborne, an old Peninsular

veteran who had fought at Waterloo and was now the commander

in chief of the forces, says: “The game which Mr. Papineau is

playing cannot be mistaken and we must be prepared to expect that

if four hundred or five hundred persons be allowed to parade the

streets of Montreal at night, singing revolutionary songs, the

excited parties will come in collision.” On the 7th of October

the offer of a British rifle corps in Montreal was again politely

declined. Yet those of British, Irish and United States origin

were facing the inevitable conflict foreseen by them.

It soon came. On October 23d a meeting took place at St. Charles

on the Richelieu. Dr. Wolfred Nelson took the chair. Mr.

Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, L.M. Viger, Lacoste, Coté, Girod,

and others, being present among the speakers. It was a fine

day and the militia were there. Flags in abundance streamed out

with inscriptions such as “Long live Papineau and the elective

system!” “Down with Debartzch!”[1] “Independence, Lord of the

Eagle Heart and Lion Eye!” “The Canadians know how to die but

not to surrender!” “Papineau and the Majority of the House of

Assembly!” “An elective council, a _sine qua non_ of liberty: I

will conquer or die for her!” A death’s head and cross-bones with

the words “Legislative Council.” (See Montreal Gazette, Tuesday,

31st October, 1837.)

It is said that on this occasion Papineau, fearing the excitement

prevalent, counseled moderation, but Wolfred Nelson rejoined:

“Well, I differ from Mr. Papineau. I think the time has come to

melt our spoons and make balls of them.” A wooden pillar with a

cap of liberty was erected with an inscription in French that

was dedicated to Papineau by his grateful brother patriots of

1837. Lengthy resolutions were passed of no uncertain seditionary

tendency. The British soldiers were encouraged to desert and

assistance was promised. On the same day a great meeting of

constitutionalists was held in Montreal with Peter McGill in the

chair; 7,000 persons were said to be present. The note struck

was the need of organization in anticipation of crimes now

threatening civil life. On this occasion the Irish, abhorring

attempts to connect them with the rebellious party, declared

their readiness to repel by force, if necessary, the enemies of

the constitution.

Next day, October 24th, Monseigneur Lartigue, who had become the

first Catholic bishop of Montreal on September 8, 1835, issued a

mandement taking the view that revolt to constituted authorities

was against the doctrine of the Catholic church. It condemned the

proceedings of the revolutionary leaders at public meetings. He

bade the faithful not to be seduced, and called upon the country

to reflect on the horrors of civil war. On November 6th what Sir

John Colborne had feared, took place. The Doric Club, a kind

of secret society recently founded and joined by a number of

the British and Irish young men, met the “Fils de Liberté.” It

had been reported that the “Fils de Liberté” were to proceed in

procession and to hold a demonstration in the Place d’Armes and

there plant a tree of liberty. A proclamation was issued calling

upon all to refrain from the procession. About 2 o’clock the

“Fils de Liberté” began to muster at Bonacina’s Tavern at the

corner of St. James and McGill streets, opposite the American

church which then stood there. A party of “loyalists” watching

the proceedings provoked the “Fils de Liberté” to chase them

up St. James street, breaking the windows of the loyalists’

houses, among them being that of Doctor Robertson. The members

of the Doric Club now came to the rescue, changing the face of

affairs and driving the opponents “pell mell” down St. Lawrence

Main Street in confusion until they were dispersed. In the early

course of the fracas “Gen.” Thomas Storrow Brown, a leader, or at

least a sympathizer of the “Fils de Liberté,” received an injury

which resulted in the loss of an eye.

The riot act was read in the afternoon and the First Royals and

the artillery, with some field guns, marched through the streets

headed by two French-Canadian magistrates, Mr. Desrivières and

Mr. John Donegani. The loyalists marched to Bonsecours Street and

were, with difficulty, restrained from attacking Mr. Papineau’s

house. The office of the Vindicator on St. Lambert’s Hill, near

Fortification Lane, was gutted, type, presses, paper, etc., being

thrown into the street.

This paper in the reform and malcontent interest had made

itself particularly obnoxious to the constitutionalists. Such

incitements as the following had been appearing in its columns:

“Henceforth there must be no peace in the province, no quarter

for the plunderers. Agitate! Agitate!! Agitate!!! Destroy the

revenues; denounce the oppressors. Everything is lawful when

the fundamental liberties are endangered. The guards die,

they never surrender.” During that night the main guard was

strengthened; pickets were placed on St. Lawrence Main, Place

d’Armes and in the Quebec suburbs. The Montreal Royal Artillery

patroled the streets and Griffintown was paraded by a body of

independent mechanics. On November 9th Sir John made Montreal his

headquarters and his firm conduct gave confidence in contrast

with the dilatory methods of Lord Gosford. Soon Montreal began

to receive fugitives from the parishes, many of these being

magistrates and militia officers and others under government who

had been forced by threats to resign.

On the 12th of November a proclamation was issued against

meetings for military drills. All public assemblies and

processions were forbidden. Volunteer corps of riflemen,

artillery and cavalry were now raised under the authority of the

Government. A new commission of the peace was issued for the

Montreal district. Sixty-one of the former had been struck off.

On November 16th[2] warrants were issued for the arrest of

twenty-six insurgents, among them being Mr. Papineau, Doctor

O’Callaghan, Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown and the accredited leaders

of the “Fils de Liberté.” The principal leaders escaped, Mr.

Papineau flying to Doctor Nelson at St. Denis.

On the same day Lieutenant Ermatinger with a party of eighteen of

the Montreal cavalry was sent to St. John’s to arrest three who

had been instrumental in forcing the resignation of government

officials. They were returning with the prisoners when they were

surprised at Longueuil by a rescue party of two or three hundred

and after some heavy firing the assailants departed with the

rescued prisoners. This victory organized by Mr. Bonaventure

Viger and others, gave courage to the insurrectionists and was

the commencement of hostilities. To counteract the dangers

arising from the éclat of the release, an address to the parishes

was issued and signed by thirteen French-Canadian magistrates of

Montreal, D.B. Viger, Pierre de Rocheblave, Louis Guy, Edouard M.

Leprohon, Etienne Guy, P.R. Leclerc, W.B. Donegani, Charles J.

Rodier, Alexis Laframbroise, Jules Quesnel, Felix Souligny, P.J.

LaCroix, and N.G. Barron, counseling submission to law and order.

“Those who urge you to these excesses,” it said, “are not your

true friends. They have already abandoned you and will abandon

you in a moment of danger, whilst we, who recall you to the paths

of peace, believe ourselves to be the most devoted servants of

the country.”

The insurrection feared was likely to be confined to the counties

bordering on the Richelieu and to the county of Two Mountains

north of Montreal. Consequently detachments of military were sent

from Montreal to the disaffected districts, such as St. Denis

and St. Charles. At St. Denis on November 23d Colonel Gore’s

detachment besieged Madame St. Germain’s storehouse, whither Dr.

Wolfred Nelson had retreated with a number of men and from which

Papineau had already fled early in the day. Gore left behind him

thirteen of the defenders killed, and of his own, six dead, five

wounded, and a spiked howitzer. On the morning of November 23d

the tragedy of the death of Lieutenant Weir of the Thirty-second

regiment took place. He had been sent with dispatches and was

captured by Doctor Nelson’s patrol. He was given to a Captain

Jalibert to be taken in a wagon to St. Charles. On the way

thither Weir attempted to escape. It was alleged that he was

brutally cut down. The autopsy disclosed many sword wounds and

pistol shots. His body was found in the Richelieu weighted down

with stones, lying on its face in two feet of water. On December

8th it was buried with much solemnity. In 1839 Jalibert was tried

for murder but was acquitted.

At St. Charles the insurgents were under the leadership of

Thomas Storrow Brown who, from being in the iron retail trade in

Montreal, now became “General” in the absence of the accredited

leaders. He had lost an eye in the riot of November 6th and was

looked upon as a patriot. At St. Charles the curé, M. Blanchet,

lent his support to the insurgents, one of the few examples

of the clergy meddling in this trying time. The other was M.

Chartier of St. Eustache, who was afterward interdicted by Mgr.

Bourget for his conduct. The engagement at St. Charles took place

on November 24th. Of Colonel Wetherall’s detachment, the official

report gives one sergeant, two rank and file killed, eighteen

wounded, ten seriously. It is difficult to chronicle the returns

of the insurgents. One statement is that 152 of the insurgents

were killed and 300 wounded. The tradition in the village today

is that forty-two were left on the field and a great many

wounded. It is certain that thirty prisoners were received in

Montreal.

In the north of Montreal the insurrection broke down after the

news of St. Charles, so that even at St. Eustache the opposition

offered by Amery Girod and Doctor Chenier collapsed on December

14th, though it is said not without the loss of seventy killed.

The loss of military is reported as one private killed, one

corporal and seven privates wounded. Sir John Colborne had been

in charge of the column. This returned to Montreal on the 16th

with 106 prisoners from the insurrectionary district, including

St. Eustache. The Abbé Chartier escaped to the States; Amery

Girod fled but on the fourth day of his flight he blew his brains

out to avoid falling into the hands of the police. Doctor Chenier

fell pierced with a ball as he was escaping from the window of

the parish church.

On the 29th of November a proclamation had been issued offering

£500 for the apprehension, among others, of Dr. Wolfred Nelson,

Thomas Storrow Brown, Doctor O’Callaghan, Doctor Coté and

Drolet of St. Marie. On December 1st a proclamation offered

£1,000 for the arrest of Mr. Papineau. Mr. Papineau and his

faithful companion, Doctor O’Callaghan, had fled together from

St. Denis to St. Hyacinthe and after the news of the disaster

at St. Charles they made for Swanston in Vermont. Afterwards

he spent some years in Paris. Doctor O’Callaghan never returned

to Montreal, although permitted with Wolfred Nelson and Thomas

Storrow Brown by the _nolle sequi_ of 1843, secured through

Mr. Hippolyte Lafontaine, attorney general under the Union. He

became distinguished at New York as a peaceful translator and

editor of the documentary history of New York. Dr. Wolfred Nelson

escaped in the direction of the United States, but was captured

on December 12th, worn out with hunger and cold, and was taken

back prisoner to Montreal. His courage and uprightness, however,

entitled him to the respectful treatment he was there accorded.

On December 5th martial law was proclaimed and the banks conveyed

their “specie” to the citadel. On January 8, 1838, Mgr. Lartigue

issued a second mandement in which he blamed those who turned a

deaf ear to the clergy, who had warned them against the danger

of listening to the “coryphèes d’une faction” with whom they had

become infatuated.

On February 20th a day of thansgiving was held for the

termination of rebellion and the renewal of peace. This day

also marked the handing over of the administration of Lord

Gosford to Sir John Colborne, who entered on his authority on

the 27th. In the meantime, in London, it had been determined to

send Lord Durham as special commissioner. The act suspending

the constitution of Canada reached Canada in February and

was proclaimed on the 20th of March. A special council[3] of

the legislature was appointed and gazetted on April 5th with

a summons to meet on the 18th. This provisional council was

afterwards dissolved by Lord Durham on his arrival.

About the beginning of March an abortive attempt to arouse

insurgents was made under Robert Nelson, brother of Wolfred, and

Doctor Coté, on the frontier, who were both arrested and handed

to the civil power. Six hundred “patriots” surrendered on this

occasion to General Wool of the United States army. At this time

a fatuous declaration of the independence of Canada appeared in

the Montreal papers signed by Robert Nelson, _president_, by

order of the Provincial Government: the proclamation accompanying

it was also signed by Nelson as Commander-in-Chief.

About the end of April the Glengarry and Lancaster Regiments

marched through Montreal on their way home, their presence being

no longer required, owing to the proclamation of the termination

of martial law on April 27th.

On May 29th Lord Durham arrived with his large staff. One of his

early acts was to issue on the 28th of June an amnesty to all

who had engaged in the late insurrection on giving security for

their good behaviour applicable to those in custody or who had

fled. There was an exception made for eight who were to be

sent without trial to the convict station of Bermuda. These were

Dr. Wolfred Nelson, R.S.M. Bouchette, Bonaventure Viger, Simeon

Marchesseault, Godda, Dr. L.H. Masson, Gauvin, and Desirivières.

Death penalties were to be awarded to L.J. Papineau, Doctor

O’Sullivan, Thomas S. Brown, John Brown (father and son), George

Etienne Cartier and others if they should return of their own

accord. This was afterward annulled. On the 7th of July, Durham

left Quebec for Montreal and the west. In Montreal he was well

received. His stay in the country as a commissioner was, however,

very short. For on September 25th, as the Imperial government

disallowed these ordinances, Durham notified his resignation

to the British government, remaining at his post till November

1st, when he sailed for Quebec.[4] Sir John Colborne assumed the

administration on this day. On the 16th of January, 1839, he

became governor general.

[Illustration: LORD DURHAM]

The second insurrection opened on November 4th, when Robert

Nelson entered Napierville to declare himself President of the

Republic of Canada. During the summer Nelson, Coté, Mailhot and

others of the refugees on the Vermont and New York frontiers had

been organizing the insurrection among the _habitants_ of the

counties of the Richelieu extending west to Beauharnois. The

district of the Two Mountains did not rise this time.

Sir John Colborne was at Sorel when he heard of the Richelieu

gatherings. Posting to Montreal he proclaimed martial law and by

the 7th and 8th of November the military was dispatched from the

city under Sir James Macdonell. The campaign was over by November

10th, when the resistance at Beauharnois was suppressed. Yet but

for the decisive action of Colborne it might have been serious.

Sir John wrote that no fewer than thirteen thousand habitants

had assembled between the 3d and 8th of November expecting to be

furnished arms by their Vermont and New York sympathizers.

If the second insurrection was of less importance its reprisals

were more serious. The first rebellion had passed without the

judicial shedding of any blood and with a generous amnesty. On

the second revolt it was thought necessary by Sir John Colborne

to put the fear of the law into all further harbourers of

treason. A special court martial was constituted in Montreal, and

many suspects were imprisoned. In Montreal 679 had been arrested

in December, and in January following 129 more. Sir Hippolyte

Lafontaine was one, but he was released on December 13th. Mr.

D.B. Viger refused to give a security for his good conduct and

he was kept prisoner until he was specially and unconditionally

released by Governor General Lord Sydenham. Those arrested

elsewhere were few. Of those convicted and sentenced to death,

twenty-seven were pardoned on security of good behaviour. Four

were bound not to come within a stated distance of the frontier.

Of the prisoners tried in Montreal, sixty-eight were embarked

at Quebec on the transport “Buffalo” for New South Wales,

accompanied by eighty-three from Upper Canada. Later, within five

years, they returned, pardoned, to the Province.

In September, 1839, the trial of Jalibert and others for

the murder of Lieutenant Weir took place, and the prisoners

were released. The grand jury found true bills against Louis

Joseph Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, Robert Nelson and E.B.

O’Callaghan. The political executions which took place in

Montreal as the aftermath of the January insurrection were twelve

in number. Six were convicted as murderers and five zealous

insurgents of 1838. The last was a foreign adventurer. The

executions were as follows:

Friday, December 21, 1839: Joseph Narcisse Cardinal, a notary

and member of the Assembly for Beauharnois. Joseph Duquette, a

young man who had followed his leader, Cardinal, in the attack of

Caughnawaga.

Eighteenth of January, 1839: Pierre Theophile Decoigne, notary of

Napierville, a leader in the insurrection of January, 1838, at

Napierville. Joseph Jacques Robert, a farmer and leader. François

Xavier Hamelin, a lieutenant of Robert; Ambroise Sanguinet, a

captain; Charles Sanguinet, his brother, a lieutenant; who all

four had been engaged in the murder, in 1838, of one, Walker,

living at La Tortue, seven miles from La Prairie.

Fifteenth of February, 1839: Pierre René Narbonne, a house

painter, present at Napierville. Marie Thomas, Chevalier de

Lorimier, a lawyer, who had been prominent in the insurrection

and had been engaged in the seizure of the “Lord Brougham”;

François Nicholas and Amable Daunais, both acquitted of murder of

Chartrand in 1837, but retaken on the occasion of their presence

in the engagement of Odelltown, and Charles Hinderlang, taken at

Odelltown, a foreign adventurer.

On the eve of their execution[5] the five last named were allowed

to give a supper to their “compatriotes” imprisoned with them.

It was a sorry repast. The Chevalier de Lorimier is reported to

have said on this occasion: “Can my country ever forget that we

die for her upon the scaffold? We have lived as patriots--as

patriots let us die. Down with the tyrants! Their reign is over!”

Next day, as Hindelang was approaching the gallows, de Lorimier

called to him: “Courage, mon ami! the end is near!” “Death is

nothing to a Frenchman,” was the reply. On his arrival at the

scaffold Hindelang addressed the crowd. “On this scaffold, raised

by English hands, I declare that I die with the conviction of

having done my duty. The sentence which condemns me is unjust,

but I willingly forgive my judges. The cause for which I die is

noble and great. I am proud of it and I fear not to die. The

blood shed will be redeemed by blood. Let the blameworthy bear

the responsibility. Canadians! In bidding you adieu I bequeath to

you the device of France! ‘Vive liberté.’” Nicholas also made a

short address: “I have only one regret,” he said, “and that is,

to die before seeing my country free, but Providence will end

by having pity on it, for there is no country in the world more

badly governed.” The Chevalier de Lorimier was the last to suffer

the extreme penalty. When he was cut down, a brief letter was

found on his breast addressed to his wife and children. It ended,

“Adieu, my tender wife, once more adieu! Live and be happy.

(Signed) Your unhappy husband, Chevalier de Lorimier.”[6]

Among the prominent Montrealers arrested in 1838 and 1839 the

following names are found: Louis H. Lafontaine, Denis B. Viger,

Charles Mondelet, François Desrivières, advocates; L.J. Harkins,

D. Chopin, Aug. Racicot, George Dillon, Henry Badeau, Louis

Coursolles, F. Pigeon, Cyrille David, François Blanchard, Louis

Morin, William Brown, T. Willing, J.A. Labadie, J.B. Choquette,

Derome P. de Boucherville, J. Donegani, M. de Marchand, Felix

Goulet, Avila Weilbrenner, Richard Dillon, H. Hamelin, J.B.

Houlée, A. Dupère, M. Bourbonnière, Samuel Newcombe, Pierre

Lussier, François Lauzon, Luc Dufresne, E.A. Dubois, Bouthillier,

John Fullum, François Contant, François St. Marie, E. Hauschman,

J.E. Coderre, P. Coté, Jérémie Hippolyte, Jérémie Barrette,

Leandre Ducharme, John McDonald, J. Berthelet, A. Perrault, E.R.

Fabre, G.J. Vallée, Jean Dubrec, A.B. Lesperance, Jean Leclaire,

Chevalier de Lorimier, François Cinq Mars, J.P.B. Belleville,

S. Reeves, J.S. Ney Smith, Celestin Beausoleil, Louis Dubois,

Jérémie Longpré, etc.

It is a significant commentary on the sad troubles of 1837-8

that the names of several prominent British Montrealers are

to be found as actively sympathizing with the insurgents.

The fact, too, that the “Vindicator,” conducted by Doctor

O’Callaghan, could find sufficient English readers to support

it, is another indication of a wider sympathy than usually

recognized. A man like Dr. Wolfred Nelson who had lived with

the French habitants at St. Denis, spoke their language and

understood their grievances, a man of uprightness, sincerity

and disinterestedness, would never have resisted authority and

risked his reputation and fortune unless the irksomeness of

the situation had become intolerable.[7] Writing from jail at

Montreal on the 18th of June, 1838, to Lord Durham, he said on

behalf of his fellow prisoners: “We rebelled neither against

Her Majesty’s person nor her government, but against colonial

misgovernment. * * * We remonstrated; we were derided. The press

assailed us with calumny and contumely; invective was exhausted;

we were goaded on to madness and were compelled to show we had

the spirit of resistance to repel injuries or to be deemed a

captive, degraded and recreant people. We took up arms not to

attack others but to defend ourselves.”

His imprisonment and his loss of fortune effected his health,

but without repining he boldly played the game of life. In 1843

a “nolle sequi” allowed him to return to practice medicine in

Montreal. He was shortly elected to the Assembly under the Union.

He became twice mayor of his native city. He was one of the first

harbour commissioners and became the inspector of prisons. In

siding with the insurgents he was no hair-brained enthusiast or

adventurer and he died without the stain of reproach--an honoured

citizen.

It has been felt necessary to delay long on this unpleasant part

of civic history because it exemplifies the evil of different

races living together with mistrust and misunderstanding of one

another. If they would but strive to see each other’s viewpoints

and would read each other’s history there would be an end of

racial prejudices.

“Tout savoir, c’est tout pardonner.” May the mutual

misunderstanding of 1837-8 never occur again. “Concordia Salus,”

the motto chosen by Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal,

for the city arms, should never be forgotten.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mr. Debartzch, of St. Charles, a legislative councillor, had

till this date been a strenuous upholder of Mr. Papineau. The

turn of events seemed to him to be unconstitutional and he became

opposed to the new insurrectionary methods. He was now accounted

a traitor. He escaped to Montreal with his family.

[2] On November 16th Mr. Turton Penn, one of the justices of

the peace, signed the order for the imprisonment of Charles A.

Leblanc (afterwards sheriff), Jean Dubrec, Amable Simard, Georges

de Boucherville, Andre Ouimet and François Tavernier accused of

high treason on November 17th, Jean François Bossé Lionnais, and

on the 18th Louis Michel Viger (Beau Viger), the president of the

recently founded Banque du Peuple and father of D.B. Viger were

imprisoned; on the 21st Michel Vincent, and on the 26th, Narcisse

Lamothe suffered the same fate.

[3] The following constituted the first special council,

District of Quebec: The Honorable C.E.C. de Léry (Quebec); the

Honorable James Stuart (Quebec); John Wilson, Esq., and William

Walker, Esq. (Quebec); Amable Dionne, Esq. (Kamouraska); Charles

Casgrain, Esq. (Rivière Oulle); the Honorable R.P. de Sales de la

Terrière (Eboulements), District of Montreal: The Honorable T.

Pothier; P. McGill; P. de Rocheblave (Montreal); Samuel Gerrard,

Esq.; Jules Quesnel, Esq.; W.P. Christie, Esq.; Turton Penn,

Esq.; and John Molson, Esq. (Montreal); the Honorable J. Cuthbert

(Berthier); the Honorable B. Joliette (St. Paul Lavaltrie);

Joseph E. Fairbault, Esq. (L’Assomption); Paul H. Knowlton,

Esq. (Brome); Icabod Smith, Esq. (Stanstead). District of Three

Rivers: Joseph Dionne, Esq. (St. Pierre les Becquets); Etienne

Mayrand, Esq. (Rivière du Loup).

[4] Lord Durham did not live to see the eventual success of the

Union recommended by his famous report. Prematurely worn out, he

died at Cowes on the 28th of July, 1840.

[5] See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

[6] See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

[7] Writing a reminiscence of Montreal from 1818 to 1868. Mr.

Thomas Storrow Brown has the following allusion to 1837-8:

“Mixing much with these French Canadians, I became interested

in the cause. I thought the stipulation of the capitulation had

not been fulfilled to a ceded people and when grown to manhood

a sense of justice, that generous inheritance from a British

ancestry, urged me to a knight errancy in their battle that

terminated in the overthrow of my own fortunes and that after

years of hard struggle to regain a lost position, all for no

thanks or even recognition of service.”

CHAPTER XVIII

PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION

1841

HOME RULE FOR THE COLONY

THE DURHAM REPORT--THE RESOLUTIONS AT THE CHATEAU DE

RAMEZAY--LORD SYDENHAM--THE PROCLAMATION OF UNION AT

MONTREAL--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AT LAST.

Durham was wisely lenient with the political prisoners waiting

for trial at Montreal, but his injudicious step in securing

confessions, through an intermediary, from Doctor Nelson and

his companions--by inducing them to place themselves at his

discretion, and then his condemnation of them without trial to

be transported to Bermuda, forbidding them to return under pain

of high treason, and his extraordinary ordinance declaring that

Papineau and the fifteen others who had escaped and had neither

confessed nor been found guilty should suffer death if they

returned to Lower Canada--was held in the English parliament,

on the initiative of his enemy, Lord Brougham, to be utterly

subversive of the principles of English colonial law. Accordingly

his ordinance was disallowed; hence his resignation and return

to England. He died about eighteen months later, a broken man.

But he did much for Canada and his famous report stands out a

masterpiece of statesmanship. It is to the credit of Adam Thom,

of Montreal, to have been associated in its compilation as

Durham’s secretary for the purpose.

This report of Durham has had far reaching effect. It was

based on a study of the situation. He found an acute political

association as follows:

The Assembly complained that the constitutional government

given them in 1791 was a mockery. They could elect members but

members who had no control, who might fret and fume and froth

but could not appoint a single crown servant. In name it was a

representative body, French, Catholic and popularly elected.

The legislative council was all powerful, its members nominated

by the government, and holding their offices permanently, but

British, Protestant and exclusive, and above all the clatter

was the Executive Council and the governor, who were dependent

hand and foot on Downing Street officialdom and from it received

instructions, so that the few ruled the many, independently of

the council’s representation of the latter. Thus a race war had

developed, the majority, French, savagely demanding their rights

of popular representation and the minority, British, desirous of

keeping the upper hand. Thus the French Assembly developed into

a permanent opposition to everything British till it flamed out

into recourse to arms when British and French paired off into

distinct camps.