“I expected,” says Durham in his report, “to find a contest

between a government and a people. I found two nations warring

in the bosom of a single state. I found a struggle not of

principles but of races.” Hence his grand solution was “home

rule” for the colony and the abolition of the Downing Street

restrictive régime of red tape. He was accused by the British of

deserting his own side; he pleased the French-Canadians by this

above recommendation but bitterly disappointed them by making

responsible government dependent on the Union of the Canadas,

for it was feared by this Union with Protestant Ontario their

national existence was jeopardized. But this was precisely what

Durham wanted, trusting in the inevitable growth of immigration:

“I have little doubt,” he says, “that the French, when once

placed in a majority by the legitimate course of events and the

working of natural causes in a minority, would abandon their vain

hopes of nationality.”

Durham looked forward to the time when British North America

should have one parliament only. Thus he foresaw confederation.

Lord Durham’s masterly and statesmanlike report was presented

to the Imperial parliament on January 31, 1839. It advocated

the repeal of the Constitutional Act of 1791, which divided the

two provinces and so created two distinct nationalities, and

it recommended the legislative Union of the Canadas. The bill

proposed for this effect by Lord John Russell was postponed

till next year. Another bill, however, passed to continue the

legislative council in their especial powers till 1842. Canada

was still, therefore, without a constitution.

The new governor general to succeed Sir John Colborne, who had

been invested with the Grand Cross of the Bath for his services,

arrived at Quebec on October 17th. He was Mr. Charles Poulett

Thomson, who had been president of the Board of Trade in England.

He entered on his office on October 19th. He left for Montreal in

October to meet the legislative council, now established there.

The news of the proposed union was grateful, especially at

Montreal, to the British merchant class, who foresaw commercial

expansion and progress. At Quebec there was some dissension,

since the meeting place of the projected union parliament was

likely to be at Montreal, and thus Quebec would lose its ancient

prestige. The measure was not as yet looked on with full favour

by the French-Canadians in general, as it seemed to them to be

a scheme to weaken the influence of their political life and to

be destructive of their national aspirations. On the 11th of

November the legislative council of Lower Canada met and on the

16th six resolutions were passed at the Château de Ramezay.

First: The Union was affirmed to be an indispensable and urgent

necessity. Second: that the determination to reunite the

Provinces received ready acquiescence. Third: that suitable

civil lists should be provided securing the independence of the

judges and maintaining the executive in its functions. Fourth:

that the proportion of debt of Upper Canada contracted for the

improvement of internal communication should be charged to the

revenue of both provinces; the outlay for defraying expenses of

a local character not to be included. Fifth: that the adjustment

and settlement of the terms of Union should be submitted to the

wisdom and justice of the Imperial parliament. Sixth: that a

permanent legislature composed of the people of both Provinces

should be convened as soon as possible.

The resolutions were carried with three dissenters, Messrs.

Cuthbert (Berthier), Neilson (Quebec) and Quesnel (Montreal),

the members of the council supporting the union being Chief

Justice Stuart, Pothier, de Léry and Walker (Quebec), McGill,

de Rocheblave, Gerrard, Christie, Molson, Moffatt (Montreal),

Harwood and Hale (Sherbrooke).

The majority of the legislative assembly being ready for the

union of the provinces, which was an equivalent to yielding

to responsible government power they had held so long and

arbitrarily, must be noted as significant of the trend of

opinion. Some ordinances were passed: first, continuing until

June, 1840, the power to retain arms and gunpowder; second,

continuing the ordinance relating to persons charged with high

treason; third, incorporating the Ecclesiastics of Montreal in

the fief and seignories of St. Sulpice and of Two Mountains--the

conclusion of many years’ negotiations.

On November 18th Mr. Paulett Thomson wrote from Montreal to

Lord John Russell to urge the speedy adoption of the Union by

parliament. He wrote: “All parties look with extreme satisfaction

on the present state of government. * * * The suspension of

all constitutional rights affords to reckless and unprincipled

agitators a constant topic of excitement. * * * All parties,

therefore, without an exception, demand a change. On the nature

of that change there undoubtedly exists some difference of

opinion. The large majority, however, of those whose opinions I

have had the opportunity of learning, both of British and French

origin, and of those, too, whose character and station enable

them to the greatest authority, advocate warmly the establishment

of the union and that upon terms of perfect fairness, not merely

to the two provinces but to the two races within the provinces.”

Mr. Thomson then left for the Upper Province, arriving at Toronto

on November 21st.

The union bill of Lord John Russell received the royal sanction

on July 23, 1840, but it did not take effect till February 10,

1841. On this day the union was solemnly established at Montreal.

Mr. Paulett Thomson now became Lord Sydenham of York and Toronto

in recognition of his part in the union. He took the oath of

office as governor-general in 1840.

February 10, 1841, Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation uniting

Upper and Lower Canada into the province of Canada.

“The choice of this date,” says Kingsford, “was because it was

on this day that the Imperial parliament assented to the act

which had suspended the constitution of Lower Canada three years

previously, and it was thought an act of wisdom to re-establish

on the anniversary of this extreme measure constitutional

liberty, which effectively terminated it. It was also the date of

the conclusion of the treaty of 1763, which ceded Canada to the

British crown, and it was likewise the marriage day of the Queen.

“On that day, in Montreal, in the presence of all the dignitaries

of the church and of civil life, of the commander of the forces,

of officers commanding regiments, and all who could be collected

of the principal citizens, the oath was taken and the two

provinces were established as the province of Canada.

“Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation on this occasion, in which

he urged the inhabitants to be united in sentiment as in name

and reminded them that they were ‘a part of the mighty empire

of England, protected by her arms, assisted by her treasury,

admitted to all the benefits of trade as her citizens, their

freedom guaranteed by her laws, and their rights supported by the

sympathy of their fellow-subjects there.’”

Lord Sydenham lived to call the first session of the United

Province, which met at Kingston on June 14th, when Mr. Cuvillier

was elected speaker, and on July 15th His Excellency gave the

speech from the throne, but he was a sick man and he never lived

to the close of the session. The prorogation of the legislature

had been appointed for September 15th. It was deferred till

September 17th to allow him to be present, since on September

4th he had met an accident horse-riding (taken for his health)

in the neighbourhood of Kingston. He died on September 19th.

“The Success of the Union,” as Kingsford[1] remarks, in the last

chapter of his “History of Canada,” “is Lord Sydenham’s epitaph.”

Responsible government was at last attained. The union so

ardently denied by the British party and needlessly feared by the

other was to bring progress and prosperity to both. The Union was

not a perfect measure, but it redressed many grievances and made

for a more united people.

“The act provided for a legislative council of not less than

twenty members for a legislative assembly in which each section

of the united province would be represented by an equal number

of members--that is to say, forty-two for each, or eighty-four

in all. The speaker of the council was appointed by the crown

and ten members, including the speaker, constituted a quorum. A

majority of voices was to decide and in case of an equality of

votes the speaker had a casting vote. A legislative counsellor

would vacate his seat by continuous absence from two consecutive

sessions. The number of representatives allotted to each province

could not be changed except with the concurrence of two-thirds

of the members of each house. The quorum of the assembly was

to be twenty, including the speaker. The speaker was elected

by the majority and was to have a casting vote in case of the

votes being equal on a question. No person could be elected

to the assembly unless he possessed a free-hold of land and

tenements to the value of £500 sterling over and above all debts

and mortgages. The English language alone was to be used in

legislative records. A session of the legislature should be held

at least every year and each legislative assembly was to have

a duration of four years unless sooner divided.” (Bourinot’s

“Constitution of Canada,” page 35.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mr. Kingsford published, after twelve years of labour the

last of his ten volumes of the “History of Canada,” in 1898.

The preface was signed “Ottawa, 24th of May, 1898.” He died on

September 29, 1898. His work is that of a conscientious historian

and the facts he has marshalled together are invaluable to

students.

CHAPTER XIX

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UNION

KINGSTON THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--THE RACE CRY

RESUSCITATED--LAFONTAINE--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT--MONTREAL

ELECTIONS--RESTRICTION REMOVED ON FRENCH LANGUAGE IN

PARLIAMENT--FREE TRADE MOVEMENT--FINANCIAL DEPRESSION--GEORGE

ETIENNE CARTIER--REBELLION LOSSES BILL--THE BURNING OF THE

PARLIAMENT HOUSE--THE MONTREAL MOVEMENT FOR ANNEXATION

WITH THE STATES--“CLEAR GRITS” AND THE “PARTI ROUGE”--THE

RAILWAY AND SHIPPING ERA--THE GAVAZZI RIOT--THE RECIPROCITY

TREATY--EXIT THE OLD TORYISM--CLERGY RESERVES AND SEIGNEURIAL

TENURE ACTS--THE MILITIA ACT--MONTREALERS ON THE ELECTED

COUNCIL--THE _Année Terribe_ OF 1857--THOMAS D’ARCY MC

GEE--QUEBEC TEMPORARY SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--PROTECTION FOR HOME

INDUSTRIES--CONFEDERATION BROACHED IN MONTREAL--THE TRENT

AFFAIR--ST. ALBAN RAID PROSECUTIONS--THE REMODIFIED CIVIL

CODE--FENIAN RAID EXCITEMENT IN MONTREAL--OTTAWA SEAT OF

GOVERNMENT--THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN ACT--CONFEDERATION.

The seat of the new parliament was chosen for Kingston. This was

naturally regarded jealously by Montreal and Quebec. The Montreal

elections resulted in the sending thither of Mr. Benjamin Holmes

and the Hon. George Moffatt to represent the city at the first

session, which opened for the dispatch of business on the 14th

of June, 1841. Mr. D.B. Viger was elected for the Richelieu

district. Another well known at Montreal, one who had there

conducted the “Minerve,” Mr. Augustus Norbert Morin, sat for

Nicolet.

The language of the house was English. This, together with the

absence of any French name from the new cabinet ministry was a

natural grievance which was seized upon by a part of the French

press and race hatred seemed in danger of being renewed. The

following extract from a British Montreal paper of the day

adverts to this:

“It is but a few weeks since the olive branch has been frankly

and honorably extended, since several English journals earnestly

advocated an oblivion of the past and a reconciliation of the

future. We must own that, however much we respect the attempt,

we never anticipated that it would be successful, and we daily

find in the pages of the Canadien, the French Gazette, the Aurora

and the other small fry, the proof of our prognostication. It

is the truth, a truth boldly and continually proclaimed by the

above mentioned public journals printed in the French language,

that the Canadian leaders and all who aspire to lead this

class of the population, now, as heretofore, must base their

only pretentions to popular support on their utter and entire

abhorrence of everything that is English. The word ‘anti-British’

is the type of their political existence, the only true passports

to the affections of a French constituency. They hate us not

because we are unionists or anti-unionists, whigs, tories,

radicals or conservatives, but because we are British. They hate

us not because we are Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians or

Methodists, but because we are British. They hate us because

we speak English, because we love English laws, because we

admire English constitutions, because we would introduce English

improvements, because we have given them two or three good

English drubbings and are ready to give them again if provoked.

First they hate the Briton, secondly the American and lastly

their seigneurs and clergy are included in the same category, and

if they could only accomplish what they never will, get rid of

the Briton, they would be rapidly ‘used up’ by the Americans, who

would rob their seigneurs, discard their priests and improve the

‘nation Canadienne’ off the face of the earth.”

It is pleasing to find that our newspapers of today do not

reflect a like jarring exchange of bitterness. Montreal has

learned that its “salvation lies in harmony,” according to the

city’s motto, “Concordia Salus.”

The session passed without any hitch. The Union act had stood

its test. The advent of Sir Charles Bagot as governor-general

with his policy of reconciliation saw M. Joseph Remi Vallières

appointed chief justice of the district of Montreal and Dr.

Jean Baptiste Meilleur the superintendent of public instruction

for Lower Canada. When parliament met on September 8, 1842,

Montreal looked with interest for the development likely to

follow on the entrance into the House of Mr. Louis Hippolyte

Lafontaine, an able lawyer who had practiced at Montreal and

who was known to be a born leader of men and to have succeeded

to the position of M. Papineau in popular estimation. His short

imprisonment as a rebel in 1838 added to his prestige. He was an

old parliamentarian, having been in 1830, when only twenty-three

years of age, elected to the assembly of Lower Canada. On October

12th the reconstructed government[1] saw the Hon. L.H. Lafontaine

as attorney-general for Lower Canada (his friend, the Hon. Robert

Baldwin, held the same office for Upper Canada) and the Hon. A.N.

Morin, commissioner of crown lands. These appointments made the

Union more palatable to French-Canadians and it began to appear

that out of evil good was to come.

During the next session of 1843 question of the future location

of the parliament was settled by the choice of Montreal, on the

motion of Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Lafontaine.

The full signification of the term “Responsible Government” now

began to be tested. The new governor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, who

had been sworn in on March 29, 1843, had come from Bengal with

Indian ideas of dictatorship and he acted now independently of

his ministers, making appointments without consultation with

them, so that nine out of ten of the ministers resigned on

November 26th on the ground that by the system of responsible

government adopted in the resolutions of the house in September,

1841, to carry on a government the ministry must not only have

the confidence of the house and through it of the people, but

also of the head of the government. For nine months, therefore,

the country was without a ministry, Sir Charles Metcalfe being

unable to construct one.

At this point Mr. D.B. Viger came into prominence as a supporter of

the governor and it was his efforts to win over the French-Canadians.

Accordingly he visited Montreal and Lower Canada to be followed

by Mr. Draper, but Lafontaine’s hold was too great. The hold-up

of government created much anxiety, and trade and industry were

affected. After great efforts a partial ministry was formed, the

post of attorney-general for Lower Canada being accepted by Mr.

James Smith, of Montreal, Mr. Denis Benjamin Papineau, a brother

of Louis Joseph, becoming commissioner of lands. Other offices

were filled but the completion of the names was left until after

the election.

These were held over the country mid scenes of riot and even

bloodshed. At no place was the party strife more keenly shown

than at Montreal. By an election scheme it is said, to the

surprise of the opposition who ought to have commanded a

majority, the Hon. George Moffatt and Charles Clement Sabrevois

de Bleury, supporters of the newly formed ministry, were elected

against Mr. Lewis Thomas Drummond, a lawyer of Irish Catholic

origin, afterwards a well known judge, and Doctor Beaubien. Mr.

Drummond was returned, however, for Port Neuf. Among the new

members of other constituencies Dr. Wolfred Nelson was returned

for Richelieu against D.B. Viger, the president of the new

council, who found a seat, however, elsewhere. John Alexander

Macdonald was returned for Kingston as a supporter of the

government. The new government entered into power with a small

majority. Early in 1844 the government moved from Kingston to

Montreal and Monklands became the home of the governor-general.

On July 1st the Parliament met in Montreal, being dissolved on

September 23d.

On November 12th the general elections began, the like of which

had never been seen in Canada. The voting in these times was

open, lasting for days. Citizens were keen politicians; axe

handles were in readiness; heads were broken and the “claret”

flowed. Party spirit ran high and men were kept drunk in the

taverns so as not to allow them to reach the polls. In this

election at Montreal, Drummond was opposed to Molson, who was

beaten. On November 28th parliament met and was prorogued on

March 29th of the following year.

The removal of the restrictions on the French language in

parliament took place on January 31, 1845. Mr. Lafontaine had

desired to make the motion, but his plan, having become known to

the new government, desirous of furthering a popular move, he was

anticipated by Mr. D.B. Papineau, seconded by the Hon. George

Moffatt of Montreal.

In 1846 the merchants of Montreal held meetings to protest

against the Free Trade movement, then being promoted in England

by Cobden. On January 30, 1847, Lord Elgin, the successor of

Sir Charles Metcalfe, proceeded from Monklands, the home of the

governor-general of Montreal, to be sworn in at Government House.

On May 31st Mr. Peter McGill became speaker of the legislative

council, with a seat in the cabinet of the reconstructed cabinet,

known as the Sherwood-Daly ministry. Mr. D.B. Papineau was the

only French-Canadian in it. Parliamentary life this year was

affected by the evils of the “ship fever” brought over by the

Irish emigrants who had made their exodus after the failure of

the potato crop. The opposition made political capital out of the

event by making the government responsible for the emigration

laws of the country.

On Friday, the 25th of February, 1848, the new parliament was

held at Montreal. Messrs. L.H. Lafontaine and Benjamin Holmes

were returned for the city. On the occasion Mr. L.J. Papineau,

who had been in pleasant exile so long in Paris, although he

could have returned in 1843, found himself elected in the Union

parliament. He was little changed, but his star had waned, while

that of Lafontaine was in the ascendant. On March 10th Mr.

Lafontaine accepted office as Premier and attorney-general and

with his friend Baldwin formed the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry.

During this year the Canadian merchants suffered great commercial

depression, owing to the working out of the free trade act of

1846. “Three-fourths of the merchants were bankrupt and real

estate was practically unmarketable.”

The session of 1849 saw the advent into political life of George

Etienne Cartier, the erstwhile rebel. He was born in Verchères

county, at St. Antoine, but was educated at the college of St.

Sulpice at Montreal. His early law studies were in the office of

M. Edouard Rodier and he was called to the bar and began practice

in Montreal in 1835. He came early under the magnetic influence

of Mr. Papineau and we find him a member of the “Fils de Liberté”

and engaged in the fight under Doctor Nelson at St. Denis, thence

flying as a proscribed man to the States. He quietly returned

later, when the embargo was raised, and settled down again to

practice law at Montreal, but still keeping his attention on

politics.

An important bill came up this session entitled “an act to

provide for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose

property was destroyed during the rebellion in the years 1837 and

1838.” It was called the Rebellion Losses Bill. It would seem

rather belatedly brought in but it had been promised in some

form during the past ten years as a means of indemnifying those

who had suffered from the very great destruction of property

during that agitated period. In 1845 the rebellion losses

committee first sat. On April 18th the commissioners reported

that they recognized 2,276 claims, amounting in the aggregate

to £241,965, and were of the opinion that £100,000 would be

sufficient to pay all real losses. On January 18, 1849, Mr.

Lafontaine moved the belated bill. It made provision for the

appointment of five commissioners to carry out the act and a sum

of £100,000 was appropriated to pay the claims. Those, however,

who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion and who

had been sent to Bermuda, were excepted from claiming any share

in the grant. This, it will be seen, allowed “rebels” who had

not been convicted, an equal right to compensation with the

“loyalists.” Consequently a storm broke out in parliament and

in the country, but especially in Montreal. Various pamphlets

appeared in Montreal at this time, indicating opposition, such

as that entitled “The Question Answered; Did the Ministry intend

to pay Rebels? Montreal, 1849,” supposed to have been written by

the Hon. Alexander Morris, then a law student, and a young tory

journalist, Hugh E. Montgomerie. Yet the government was right in

their inclusion of “rebels” for it would have been very unwise at

that period to reopen the question as to who had been rebels and

who had not. Besides the amnesty granted long since had plastered

over all differences.

Yet, within and without Parliament the opposition was loud,

fierce and tumultuous. The bill, however, passed the third

reading in both houses. For some time previously petitions

from the tories of the opposition body had been pouring in to

Lord Elgin, praying that the bill should either be reserved

for Imperial sanction, or that parliament should be dissolved.

Lord Elgin, who personally did not approve of the diversion

of so much public money from more useful objects, feeling,

however, that while no imperial interests were at stake, that the

principle of responsible government was assented to the bill when

it had passed both houses. This he did on Wednesday afternoon,

the 25th of April, 1849. On this occasion the galleries of the

house were packed with “loyalist” opponents to the bill, and a

tumult immediately arose which was continued as the crowd went

out down the stairs to await Lord Elgin’s departure. When the

governor-general, having finished his business, reached the front

door, a hostile crowd had gathered and the fury of the opponents

to the bill visited itself on him in oppobrious epithets. Groans,

hisses, mud and addled eggs brought for the purpose were hurled

at him. Some say also stones were added and in the midst of this

hostile demonstration he drove off to Monklands, surrounded by

the military, by a long detour east and round the mountain to his

home. Three days afterwards at a special meeting of the Scotch

National Association, the “St. Andrew’s Society,” a resolution

was passed, erasing his name as a patron and an honorary member

of that body.

[Illustration: AUGUSTIN-NORBERT MORIN]

[Illustration: GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER]

[Illustration: ROBERT BALDWIN]

[Illustration: LOUIS-JOSEPH PAPINEAU]

[Illustration: SIR LOUIS-HIPPOLYTE LAFONTAINE]

[Illustration: A.A. DORION]

That night about 8 o’clock the parliament buildings were

burned by an angry mob. It was not unpremeditated, for the day

previously even some of the soldiers were warned to shut their

eyes next day if anything happened, and many did. After the

signing of the bill a meeting was held on Champ de Mars as the

result of printed notices, at which inflammatory speeches were

made. One of the leaders was a Fred Perry, who lived to be sorry

for his deed. “We are not in ’37,” he cried. “If you are men

follow me to the parliament house!” and he drove in a buggy,

surrounded by a sympathetic crowd, some carrying lighted torches

and crying, “To the parliament house.” The parliament building

which had been built as St. Ann’s market and leased to the

government, was a two-story building, the bottom floor of which

was remodeled to contain the government offices, while upstairs,

at the head of a broad staircase, leading off a wide passage,

were two halls, one that of the legislative assembly, a room 342

by 50 feet, and the other of the legislative council. Meanwhile

the house of assembly was discussing the judicature bill, and

it was warned by the noise of the advancing mob. When the crowd

reached the building, at a given signal stones crashed through

the windows like hail. A rush was made by some of the crowd into

the assembly hall from which the members had retreated. One of

the mob named Courtney sat boldly in the Speaker’s chair and

muttered threats about dissolving the parliament. The work of

demolition was begun, sticks being thrown at the glass globes on

the gaseliers that were out of reach. Then there was raised the

cry of “fire!” The gas pipes in the building had been cut and

a light applied. An explosion followed and a blinding sheet of

flame lit up the scene. Then ensued a mad rush of the members

and their friends and enemies to get out of the building. The

mob made no attempt to save it. The fire engines were only used

upon the surrounding property and an eye witness relates that

the soldiers who were ordered to fire on the mob discharged

their shots in the air. In half an hour the whole building was

wrapped in one sheet of flame. The valuable library containing

the archives and records of the colony was destroyed. In the

beginning of the incendiarism lighted torches thrown through the

window began the sad work of destruction. Little was saved but

the mace and the picture of Queen Victoria with the gilt crown

surmounting it. A newspaper account of two days later stated

in effect “that the Queen’s picture was carried away by four

scoundrels.” These have lately been identified as Colonel Wiley,

formerly chief of police, a Scotchman of the name of McGillivray,

from the eastern townships, an employee of the parliament, the

uncle of Mr. Todd, of the Library of Parliament, and Mr. Sanford

Fleming (afterwards Sir).

The latter in reply to the historian, Henry J. Morgan, wrote in

1901:

“Having spent a number of days previously in examining rare

books, I felt I should try to save some of them. I gained an

entrance but the fire had taken possession of the library and

I could do nothing. Turning to the legislative hall I saw the

Queen’s picture. With three other men (then) unknown to me I

made an effort to save it, but it was no easy matter. It was in

a massive gilt frame, firmly bolted to the wall. We at last put

our shoulders underneath and raised the whole, little by little,

allowing it to fall down each time. This was repeated many times

till at last the fastenings gave way and all came down. We laid

it on its face and, not being able to carry very easily the heavy

frame, removed the canvas on its stretching frame and the four of

us carried it out in a horizontal position, a shoulder under each

corner. With difficulty we got it downstairs on account of the

flames passing overhead, but each stooped and covered the picture

to prevent it getting scorched and thus got it to the open door.

Having done so, I left it to be taken to a place of safety by

others, some of whom were connected with the House. I thought

I would return to the chamber to try to save something else,

but I saw nothing of much value which I could myself remove. I

did, however, carry out the gilded crown which had been over the

picture, carrying it to Mack’s Hotel, where I was stopping, and

afterwards took it with me in a tea chest to Toronto, where it

remained in my possession for some years. What afterwards became

of it I am not aware.” The picture of Queen Victoria is in the

House of Commons at Ottawa.

The most unpopular man of the hour after Lord Elgin was Mr. L.H.

Lafontaine, who was in charge of the bill. His stables were burnt

and his house ransacked. There were no proceedings taken against

the rioters and incendiarists, this being an evident sign that

many of those in power secretly sympathized with the movement.

The house of Mr. Hays, on Dalhousie Square, was leased for a

temporary parliament house, but shortly afterwards government

moved to Toronto and Montreal lost its position as the political

capital of Canada.

In August, 1849, the British American League was formed in

Montreal with branches at Toronton, Kingston and elsewhere

in Upper Canada. It had various aims--the chief planks being

opposition to the existing government, a return to a protective

policy, the election of members of the legislative council, and

most important of all, a general union of the British North

American provinces. A meeting was held in Kingston towards the

end of July. Among the chief speakers were George Moffatt and

Hugh E. Montgomerie, of Montreal, John A. Macdonald, of Kingston,

also spoke. The League did not hold together, but the extreme

party soon banded together and in consequence during the month

of October a manifesto “to the people of Canada,” advocating the

annexation of Canada to the United States, appeared in Montreal,

signed by many leading citizens, including the Torrances,

the Redpaths, the Molsons, the Workmans, the Dorions, Luther

Hamilton Holton, Benjamin Holmes, David Lewis Macpherson,

Jacob de Witt, Edward Goff Penny, D. Lorn Macdougall and John

Ross--325 signatures in all. L.J. Papineau threw in his weight

to the movement. Among the subscribers to the manifesto were

justices of the peace, officers of the militia, Queen’s counsels

and others holding commissions at the pleasure of the crown.

Men of different political parties forgot their differences

to promote the scheme. The ebullition was the outcome of the

commercial depression and unpromising outlook then prevailing.

The manifesto, after pointing out the deplorable state of the

country, proceeded to suggest the remedies: the revival of

protection in the markets of the United Kingdom; the protection

of home manufactures; a federal union of the British American

colonies as a federal republic and reciprocal free trade with

the United States. But the most sweeping remedy of all was the

last one suggested, namely, a “friendly and peaceful separation

from British connection; a union upon equitable terms with the

great North American Confederacy of Sovereign States,” in brief,

_annexation_.[2] The movement was known in England and the

Morning Advertiser of London of the period said in comment that

England would be no loser were the Canadas to carry their threat

of annexation into effect; indeed, England would gain.

“The result,” it says, “of careful examination of the Canadian

connection in all its aspects, is, that so far from England being

a sufferer from the renunciation of their allegiance to the

British Crown on the part of the Canadas, she would be an actual

gainer. It is a well ascertained fact that the expenses of the

connection have more than counterbalanced its advantages. The

maintenance of that part of our colonial possessions subjects

us to a yearly expenditure of £800,000 hard cash. Will any one

tell us that the Canadas confer on us benefits at all equivalent

to this? It may, indeed, be debated whether our exports to the

Canadas would not be as great as they have been at any former

period. At any rate we speak advisedly when we say that this

country would be no loser by the secession of the Canadas. That

is certainly the conclusion at which ministers have arrived after

the most able and careful consideration. On that conclusion they

have determined to act. When the session meets we shall see the

fact brought fully before the public, with the ground on which

the cabinet has come to the conclusion at which it arrived.”

Such a statement, from a responsible English journal, sounds

strangely to us even today--but it is of value in reminding us

that at that time Britain was spending some four millions of

dollars annually on the Canadas. Four years later, in 1854, the

annexation movement received its quietus at the hands of Lord

Elgin, when he secured the passage of the Reciprocity Treaty.

As there was no very general support in Canada, the movement

soon collapsed. It was begotten of temporary gloom and despair.

Annexation was thought by serious and well meaning men to be

the necessary remedy--if it could come peaceably. Hence it was

not rebellion. The annexation movement was communicated to the

Upper Province, but it never had as great a hold anywhere as in

Montreal. There was little aftermath beyond the cancelling of the

commissions of those who held them at pleasure, a course deemed

necessary as a protest by the governor general, Lord Elgin.

In the beginning of November of this year, 1849, the government

offices were removed to Toronto. In the early part of 1850

a party known as the “Clear grits,” composed of the more

progressive of the reform party in Upper Canada, and dissatisfied

with the slowness of ministry, elaborated a programme which,

among other heads, advocated, first, the complete application

of the elective principle from the highest to the lowest

member of the government, and, secondly, universal suffrage. A

corresponding but more radical movement was organized at Montreal

for Lower Canada by L.J. Papineau, under the title of “La Parti

Rouge.” Its members were mostly young French-Canadians, although

a number of British radicals were with them, such as L.H.

Holton, and others. The “Parti Rouge” pronounced in favour of

the repeal of the Union, of a republican form of government and

of annexation to the States. “La Parti Rouge,” says La Minerve,

the organ of the “bleus,” “has been formed at Montreal under

the auspices of Mr. Papineau in hatred of English institutions,

of our constitution, declared to be vicious, and above all, of

responsible government which is regarded as a takein, with ideas

of innovation in religion and in politics, accompanied by a

profound hatred for the clergy and with the very formal and very

pronounced intention of annexing Canada to the United States.” By

the end of the year the prospects of trade had so brightened that

with this annexation and other desperate remedies were forgotten.

In October the first provincial exhibition of agricultural and

industrial products was held at Montreal.

During the session of 1851, the legislation for railways was of

primary importance to Montreal; if it was to keep its place as

the center of transportation by land as it had been by water it

would now enter into its new railroad era forced by the competing

enterprises of the adjoining republics. In October the great

Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry resigned. Mr. Lafontaine resumed his

law practice at Montreal. In the month of August, 1853, he became

chief justice of Lower Canada and held that position to his

death, February 26, 1864. Ten years previously, in 1854, he was

created a baronet. Sir L. Hippolyte Lafontaine’s name and fame

stand high in the remembrance of Montreal.

On the 6th of November the existing parliament was dissolved. In

the following elections Mr. John Young was returned from Montreal

and was given a place in the Hincks-Morin cabinet as commissioner

of public works. Mr. Papineau was defeated in Montreal, but found

a seat for the county of Two Mountains. In the early part of 1852

Mr. Hincks visited England and arranged for the capitalizing

of the Grand Trunk Railway to proceed westward from Montreal.

Consequently during the fourth parliament’s first session at

Quebec, which opened on August 19th, conspicuous among the acts

passed was one to incorporate the Grand Trunk Railway. Other

acts interesting to Montrealers were the municipal loan fund act

to enable municipalities to borrow money on the credit of the

province for local improvement, an act for the establishment

of a trans-Atlantic line of steamers and the appropriating of

£19,000 sterling per annum for the purpose. The contract was

secured by McKean, McLarty & Company, of Liverpool, and steamers

began to run during the following spring. Two years later the

contract was annulled and an arrangement was made with Messrs.

Edmonstone, Allan & Company, of Montreal. The small fleet of

the last named company has since developed into the well known

Allan line of trans-Atlantic steamships. On October 23d Mr.

Charles Wilson, mayor of Montreal, was added to the legislative

council. Before the session ended there occurred the famous

Gavazzi riots in Quebec and Montreal, the latter place especially

maintaining its reputation for mob violence. As the government

was afterwards attacked for delay in ordering an unavoidable

and searching investigation into the perpetrators of the fatal

disaster at Montreal the story may be told here rather than in

the ecclesiastical history of the city. During the spring of

1853 Alessandro Gavazzi, an ex-monk, had been giving a course

of lectures in the States, mostly against Romanism. He had

previously been received with success in England. Posing as an

Italian patriot of liberty, with the reputation for impassioned

and eloquent oratory and the added piquancy of being an

ex-priest, he had attracted elsewhere a favourable hearing. But

on his entrance to Lower Canada, at Quebec, he received a check

on June 6th when delivering a lecture on the Inquisition in the

Free Church on St. Ursule Street. A scene of disorder occurred in

the church. The lecturer was attacked in the pulpit, and though

he defended himself right valiantly with a stool, knocking down

some sixteen of his assailants, he was overmastered and thrown on

to the heads of the people below. Confusion reigned. The military

were providentially soon on the scene and quiet obtained. The

proceedings were sufficient to warrant an informal discussion

in the House next day. On the night of the 9th of June Gavazzi

was in Montreal, lecturing in Zion Church on the Haymarket

square, now Victoria Square. Without, to prevent a recurrence of

the Quebec assault, a posse of police was placed opposite the

church, another in the Square and a small body of military, hard

by, in concealment. These were the “Cameronians” but recently

arrived in the city. There was an attempt of a body of Catholic

Irishmen to break a way into the church, but they were repulsed.

On retreating the second time a shot was fired by one of the

intruders who was immediately shot down by a Protestant. Other

shots followed. Confusion reigned. The lecture was hurriedly

concluded and the people made for home. On the church being

attacked the Gavazzi called for three cheers for the Queen and

congratulated his hearers on freedom of speech being maintained.

On their way through the streets shots were fired at them by the

military. Who gave the order to fire has never been discovered.

The mayor, the Hon. Charles Wilson, who had read the riot act,

was accused and denied it. So also did Colonel Hogarth, of the

Twenty-sixth Cameronian Rifles, also accused. It is said that the

soldiers fired, at the order of some one in the crowd, but over

the heads of the people, so that those making their way up Beaver

Hall Hill received the shots. The Cameronians were very unpopular

for a time. About forty were killed or wounded, of whom many were

injured by stones and other missiles. Two women were struck down

and almost trampled to death. The scene was one of frenzied riot,

heightened by the screams of women. Gavazzi made his way between

two clergymen to St. James street, narrowly escaping with his

life. He afterwards escaped from St. Lawrence Hall in an inclosed

cab to the wharf, where the Iron Duke took him to La Prairie.

Thus his career ended in Canada. On June 26th an investigation

was held into the causes of the riot, but nothing was the

outcome and there were no apprehensions, at which there was much

disapproval, as it was thought the affair was being hushed up

as a political move. It is for this reason that the story has

been inserted in this portion. The occasion was made an occasion

of _odium theologicum_. At that time the St. Patrick’s Society,

founded in 1834, was composed of Irishmen of different religions,

but as Mr. Hincks and the mayor, the Hon. Charles Wilson, were

both prominent members, Mr. Hincks was accused of being under the

influence of the Roman Catholic majority for political purposes.

Mr. Drummond, the attorney-general for Lower Canada, being a

Catholic, was also accused in being dilatory in bringing the

rioters to justice.

[Illustration: L.H. HOLTON]

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS HINCKS]

[Illustration: D’ARCY McGEE]

Parliament adjourned on the 14th of June. It did not meet again

till June 13, 1854, just a day within the limit allowed by the

thirty-first clause of the Union act. The chief reason for this

was the absence of the governor and the premier in England and at

Washington, at which latter place, on June 15th, the treaty of

reciprocity was signed between the United States and Canada. The

parliament was dissolved in view of the general elections to come

in July and August, when the attitude of the people on the two

great questions so long postponed, the clergy reserves and the

seigneurial tenure was to be taken as an index of confidence and

trust in the government. Mr. L.H. Holton and Mr. (afterwards Sir)

A.A. Dorion, the leader of the “Parti Rouge,” since Mr. Papineau

did not seek reelection, were returned for Montreal. The country

as a whole had pronounced in favour of the abolition of the

seigneurial tenure and the secularization of the clergy reserves.

The parliament met on the 5th of September. The rejection of the

ministerial candidate, George Etienne Cartier, for speaker in the

assembly, in favour of Mr. Sicotte, indicated to Mr. Hincks and

Mr. Morin that they could not carry on the administration against

the combined opposition of the conservative, clear grits and the

“Parti Rouge.” This was confirmed on September 7th when, on a

question of privilege, the opposition carried it. On September

8th the resignation of the Hincks-Morin ministry was accepted

by Lord Elgin. The government fell without dishonour. It had

obtained the imperial acts enabling the Canadian parliament to

deal with the clergy reserves and the application of the elective

principle to the legislative council. It had completed the

reciprocity treaty with the States and had inaugurated the era of

Canadian railway. Montreal largely shared in the prosperity which

prevailed in its term. The task of forming a new ministry was

entrusted by Lord Elgin to Sir Allan MacNab. With the concurrence

of Mr. Morin, Sir Allan effected a coalition between his own

conservative following and the late liberal government resulting

in the liberal-conservative alliance as the only method possible

of obtaining a majority in the assembly capable of conducting

the administration in accordance with the now accepted principle

of responsible government. The death knell of the old toryism

had been sounded. It also marked the virtual extinction of the

British party in Lower Canada as a separate political body. Since

that date there may be traced the growth of a more united policy

in Montreal in the common welfare.

A bill giving effect to the reciprocity treaty with the United

States was introduced by attorney-general (East), Hon. L.T.

Drummond. The long delayed bill for secularizing the clergy

reserves was introduced by Attorney-General (West), Hon. John A.

Macdonald, and that abolishing the seigneurial tenure originally

introduced by Mr. L.T. Drummond became law. By the former not

only the Anglican establishment, but all churches were deprived

of any participation in the funds accruing from the reserved

lands granted for the support of the Anglican communion since the

commencement of the British régime, a privilege that had been

all along keenly contested by other denominations. It was now

enacted that all proceeds arising from the sale of these lands

should be placed into the hands of the receiver-general, by whom,

after expenses were paid, they were to be apportioned equally

among the several county and city municipalities in proportion to

population.

The Seigneurial Tenure Act while abolishing the system of

feudal rights and duties so long prevailing in Lower Canada,

authorized the governor to provide commissioners to appropriate

indemnifications for the despoiled seigneurs. Thus the two great

questions which had long been exercising Montreal politicians

were at last solved. Parliament was prorogued on the 18th of

December and Lord Elgin concluded his office as governor-general

with credit and honour.

Parliament opened on February 23, 1855. It was marked by the

retirement of Mr. Morin from the ministry. The McNab-Taché

administration was therefore formed. The Crimean war was now on,

and as it became necessary to remove the Imperial Troops from

Canada “a militia act was passed, which was the first step toward

the modern organization of a regular volunteer force in Canada.”

The fifth parliament was opened at Toronto on the 15th of

February, 1856. On Her Majesty’s birthday, May 24th, through the

resignation of Sir Allan McNab, the Taché-Macdonald ministry

assumed the reins, in which John A. Macdonald held the whip hand.

In this session the postponed elective legislative council act

was passed for which imperial authority had already been given.

While those already in the legislative council were to retain

their seats for life, every future member was to be elected

by the people for a term of eight years. This continued till

confederation, in 1867, when the system of appointment for life

was reverted to. The Montreal members in the legislative council

for 1856 were the Honourables Peter McGill, William Morris, Adam

Ferrie, James Ferrier, Denis B. Viger, James Leslie, Frederic

A. Quesnel, Joseph Bourret and Charles Wilson. This year the

stringency in the money market was felt as the result of the

Crimean war.

The year of 1857 is spoken of as _l’année terrible_. The toll of

death was exacted as the price of advancing civilization. Near

Hamilton seventy lives were lost by a train crashing through a

bridge spanning the Desjardins canal. The steamer Montreal which

plied between Montreal and Quebec, was burned so rapidly near

Cape Rouge that about two hundred and fifty emigrants lost their

lives. The harvest was a failure. By the beginning of winter

trade had become almost stagnant. Mercantile disaster which was

to last for a long time stared the wholesale and retail merchants

in the face. Mercantile credit collapsed and every industry was

crippled. Agriculture also shared in the general paralysis. The

cause of this disastrous state was the public extravagance in

that era of public works and railway development. The whirlwind

was being reaped. During the year the Taché-Macdonald government

had sat continuously from February 26th to June 10th. The

premier, Colonel Taché, resigned on November 25th and thereupon

the Hon. John A. Macdonald and the Hon. George Etienne Cartier

formed their administration. At the general elections held in

consequence at Montreal, Mr. A.A. Dorion, leader of the “Rouge

Party,” was one of the few of his party returned, but Mr. Holton

was defeated by the new attorney-general.

A new member for the city was the brilliant young Irishman,

Thomas D’Arcy McGee, who had only been a year in Canada. He

was, however, well known in the United States as a powerful

journalist and public speaker imbued with Irish-American

ideas. He was born in Carlingford, County Louth, in Ireland,

in 1825. In his seventeenth year he went to the States and

began journalism. In 1845 he undertook the editorship of the

“Freeman’s Journal” in Dublin. Becoming identified with the

New Ireland party and involved with Charles Gavan Duffy in the

Smith-O’Brien’s insurrection, he escaped to New York, where he

started the “New York Nation,” which was suppressed by Bishop

Hughes for the attacks on the Irish hierarchy. At Boston he

founded the “American Celt” and continued it at Buffalo for

five years. Gradually he became reconciled to the hierarchy

and received their support, so that his paper was the exponent

in America of Irish Catholic opinions. In 1857 he accepted an

invitation from the Irish party in Montreal to settle here. After

having fulfilled the necessary period of “domicile” he was soon

nominated for parliament, as we have seen.

The new parliament assembled on February 25th. It had become

known after the election that Her Majesty had fixed upon Ottawa

as the permanent seat of government. Parliament had ratified the

choice and a sum of money had been appropriated for the erection

of buildings. But there was serious opposition in many quarters.

It broke out in the House on July 28th, when Mr. Dunkin moved

an address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to reconsider the

decision and have Montreal named instead of Ottawa. Mr. Brown

moved for an amendment for delay in the erection of buildings and

the removal of government offices to Ottawa, and Mr. Piché moved

as a further amendment that “in the opinion of this house Ottawa

ought not to be the permanent government for the province.” The

amendment was carried, supported by the opposition, and being

considered by the minority equivalent to a vote of censure on Her

Majesty, the government resigned on the following day. Mr. George

Brown was put in charge of forming a ministry which was announced

on Monday, August 2d. At once a vote of want of confidence in

the new Brown-Dorion government, moved by Mr. Hector Langevin,

was passed in the Assembly and in the Upper House. On Wednesday

afternoon after having been in office for forty-eight hours

and without having initiated a single act, parliamentary or

administrative, the short-lived administration was forced to

resign. On August 6th George Cartier becoming prime minister, the

Cartier-Macdonald ministry virtually resumed the situation of the

Macdonald-Cartier government of a few days ago. The portfolios,

however, were exchanged and thus, by making use of a statute

of 1857 there was avoided the necessity of the ministers going

to the people for reelection. This was known as the “Double

Shuffle.” The reconstructed government found themselves with a

strong majority. During the session of this year the question of

“protection to home industries,” a live subject at Montreal, came

up for legislation and was followed by the protective tariff of

the following year.

The government offices having been removed from Toronto,

parliament met at Quebec on January 29th, for the government

offices were not removed to Ottawa till 1865, where the first

session was held in 1866. During this year the principle of

Confederation began to be broached tentatively but surely, by the

opposition party led by Mr. George Brown. A reform convention in

Toronto held in November drew up a series of resolutions which,

when compared with the British North American act of 1867, show

a clear family likeness. At Montreal similar meetings were held

under the auspices of Messrs. Dorion, Drummond, McGee and others

for the same purpose of approving a federal union, but as yet the

movement was weak in Lower Canada.

The sixth parliament met at Quebec for its fourth and last

session on the 16th of March, 1861. By a proclamation of the

governor-general on the 10th of June it came to an end.

On the 8th of November there occurred in mid-ocean, during

the Civil war in the States between the North and South, the

“Trent Incident,” which caused a commotion at Montreal and

throughout Canada. The British Mail steamer Trent had on board

the Confederate envoys, Messrs. Mason and Slidell, when they were

forcibly taken prisoners by Captain Wilkes of the United States

sloop of war San Jacinto. War looked inevitable and the Canadian

Volunteers were augmented, drilled and ready for war. Regular

military troops arrived also from England. The first day of the

new year, 1862, saw the envoys delivered back to England and the

danger of war was over. One result of the “Trent” affair was a

great deepening of the Canadian sympathy, especially at Montreal,

with the southern Confederacy.

In 1862 the Cartier-Macdonald government fell, on the occasion of

their “Militia Bill,” on May 21st, and on the 24th the Macdonald

(J.S.)-Sicotte ministry was sworn in, being succeeded on May 26,

1863, by the Macdonald (J.S.)-Dorion combination, which only

lasted till the 2d of March, 1864, when the Taché-Macdonald

(J.A.) again came into power. It was agreed upon, that the

government should be pledged to introduce the federal principle

into Canada and to aim at a confederation in which all British

America should be “united under a general legislature based upon

the federal principle.”

The idea of confederation as a remedy for government ills had

occupied attention at intervals with increasing acuteness even

before the Union of 1841. It had not been confined to Upper and

Lower Canada, for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward

Island had long discussed the idea of a union among themselves.

Various political dreamers had forecasted it, no doubt following

the lead of the United States. A meeting for the purpose being

called at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the coalition

government of Canada sent eight ministers[3] to confer with

their representatives on the merits of a larger scheme of union

between all the provinces with the result that by agreement a

further convention was to be held at Quebec on a day named by

the governor general. His excellency fixed upon October 10th and

notified the respective lieutenant governors of Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The result was

the pledge to promote the projected confederation.

During the fall of this year, 1864, Montreal was the scene of

the St. Alban’s Raid prosecutions. As already said, Canada and

Montreal especially had sympathized with the Southerners. Many

refugees had found a home here. Canada being so close to the

frontier was, therefore, frequently used as the basis of southern

plots. In the summer two vessels plying on Lake Erie and Lake

Ontario, belonging to American merchants, had been seized and

partially plundered by the southern refugees. In September St.

Albans, a little town in Vermont, on the frontier, was raided by

twenty-three southerners from Canada under the command of Bennett

H. Young, an ex-Confederate soldier, who escaped to Canada on

captured horses with $223,000 booty, after having plundered

three local banks and shot one of the cashiers. Their excuse

was that they were representatives of the Confederate States of

America and they were there to retaliate the outrages committed

by General Sherman. In November the trial of the captured rioters

took place at Montreal and on March 30th they were discharged.

Parliament met on the 19th of January. It was prorogued on

the 18th of March. During the following month four of the

administration, J.A. Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and Galt,

proceeded to England to discuss with the imperial government

the scheme of confederation. The delegates returned in time for

the opening of the last session of the Canadian legislature at

Quebec on the 8th of August. The premier, Sir E.P. Taché, had

died full of honours on the 30th of July. He was succeeded by Sir

N.F. Belleau. During this session the bill was passed to carry

out the recommendation of the commissioners appointed in 1857

“to reduce into one code to be called the civil code of Lower

Canada those provisions of the laws of Lower Canada which relate

to civil matters and are of a general and permanent character.”

Attorney-General Cartier who had introduced the bill appointing

the commission in 1857 had the satisfaction of seeing its labours

adopted in 1865. The code came into operation in 1866. This was

welcomed by the jurists of Montreal and Quebec, as it simplified

the law, reducing order out of chaos; the abolition of the

seigneurial tenure act of 1854 had rendered the codification very

necessary. Parliament closed on the 18th of September. The public

offices were removed to Ottawa during the autumn, but for a time

the cabinet meetings were held at Montreal.

In the beginning of 1866 a delegation was sent by the government

to Washington to obtain a renewal of the reciprocity treaty

which came to an end this year. The mission was a failure. St.

Patrick’s day, March 17th, was looked forward to in Canada by

more than those of Irish nationality. For although during the

year 1865 rumours had gone around that the Fenian Brotherhood of

the States, organized about this time with a branch in Ireland

to liberate Ireland, had determined to invade Canada as a base

of their operations against England, they were not taken very

seriously. But in 1866 the announcement of combined movements

upon Canada to commence on St. Patrick’s day forced serious

preparation for their reception and caused great anxiety over the

country and much recruiting in volunteer circles. St. Patrick’s

day passed and nothing happened. Beginning, however, in April

and gaining strength in May and June, the filibustering Fenians

massed their forces at various points, such as that marked by the

raid under O’Neill upon the Niagara frontier in June, that of

Ogdensburg, menacing a march upon Ottawa, and that at St. Albans

on the Vermont frontier, where 1,800 men had collected on June

7th to pass over into Canada. In Montreal doubtless they hoped

to find some sympathizers. None of these movements met eventual

success and quiet was successfully maintained on the frontier by

both governments. But these were the occasion of military ardour,

shown by the enrollments of the militia and of general patriotism.

The parliament met at Ottawa on the 8th of June in the midst

of the Fenian excitement. The address of His Excellency, the

governor general, forecasted the hope that the next time

parliament met at Ottawa it would be under the confederation

of Province. It lasted to the 15th of August. About three months

later a joint delegation of the representatives of Canada, Nova

Scotia, and New Brunswick met on December 4th in London at the

Westminster Palace Hotel and a conference was held. Prince Edward

Island and Newfoundland had seceded from the project. The upshot

of the negotiations was such that on the 22d of May, 1867, the

Confederation Act, technically known as “the British North

American Act, 1867,” was proclaimed at Windsor Castle by Her

Majesty, Queen Victoria, appointing the 1st of July following as

the date upon which it should come into force. This act joined

Canada (Upper and Lower), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into

one Dominion, under the name of CANADA. There should be one

federal parliament, consisting of the Queen, represented by the

governor general, an _upper house_ consisting of seventy-two

_life_ members appointed by the Crown, and a House of Commons

_elected_ on the principle of representation by population. Its

jurisdiction was to affect matters concerning the Dominion at

large. Each of the four provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia

and New Brunswick was to have a provincial legislature to manage

its internal affairs. Each was to have a lieutenant governor. In

Ontario the legislature consisted only of a house of assembly. In

the other three provinces a council was added.

[Illustration]

[Illustration: CONFEDERATION SISTERS Arranged from studies of the

Cartier monument (G.W. Hill) being erected in 1914]

In the following year the northwest territories were added to the

Dominion, in 1870 Manitoba, in 1871 British Columbia, and in 1873

Prince Edward Island, and in 1905 the new provinces of Alberta

and Saskatchewan were established. Since confederation the

history of Canada has been one of continued commercial and social

development. The British North American act was the Magna Charta

of Canadian nationhood.

Montreal is proud of the share it took in the promotion of

Confederation.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT FROM THE

CONSTITUTIONAL ACT, 1791 TO CONFEDERATION, 1867

MEMBERS

Montreal (County)--

Papineau, Joseph July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Walker, James July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Ducharme, Jean-Marie July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

Guy, Et. July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

Papineau, Joseph July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

Walker, Thomas July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

Frobisher, Benjamin August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808

Roy Portelance, Louis August 6, 1804, to March 22, 1814

Durocher, Jean Baptiste June 18, 1808, to July 12, 1811

Stuart, James December 4, 1811, to February 9, 1820

Richer, Augustin May 13, 1814, to February 9, 1820

Perrault, Joseph April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830

Valois, Joseph April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830

Montreal (East)--

Frobisher, Joseph July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Richardson, John July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Papineau, Joseph July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

Viger, Denis July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

Panet, Pierre Louis July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

Badgley, Fra July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

McGill, James August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808

Chaboillez, Louis August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808

Mondelet, Jean-Marie June 18, 1808, to October 2, 1809

Stuart, James June 18, 1808, to March 1, 1810

Papineau, Joseph November 23, 1809, to March 22, 1814

Sewell, Stephen April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814

Beaujeu, Saveuse de May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816

Platt, George May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816

Roy Portelance, Louis April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820

Molson, John April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820

Heney, Hughes April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830

Busby, Thomas April 11, 1820, to May 29, 1820

Thain, Thomas July 25, 1820, to July 6, 1824

Leslie, James August 28, 1824, to September 2, 1830

Montreal (West)--

McGill, James July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Durocher, Jean-Baptiste July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796

Auldjo, Alex July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

Foucher, Louis Charles July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800

McGill, James July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

Périnault, Joseph July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804

Richardson, John August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808

Mondelet, Jean-Marie August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808

McGillivray, William June 18, 1808, to October 2, 1809

Viger, Denis Benjamin June 18, 1808, to March 1, 1810

McCord, Thomas November 23, 1809, to March 1, 1810

St. Dizier, Et. N. April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814

McLeod, Arch. N. April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814

Papineau, Louis Joseph May 13, 1814, to September 2, 1830

Fraser, James May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816

Vinet dit Soulignay, Félix April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820

Garden, George April 11, 1820, to July 6, 1824

Rocheblave, Pierre de August 28, 1824, to July 5, 1827

Nelson, Robert August 25, 1827, to September 2, 1830

Montreal (County)--

Valois, Joseph October 26, 1830, to October 9, 1834

Perrault, Joseph October 26, 1830, to August 28, 1831

Mondelet, Dominique October 13, 1831, to November 24, 1832

Papineau, l’hon. Louis Joseph November 22, 1834, to November 3, 1835

Cherrier, Côme November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838

Jobin, André November 25, 1835, to March 27, 1838

Montreal (East)--

Heney, Hughes October 26, 1830, to February 28, 1832

Leslie, James October 26, 1830, to March 27, 1838

Berthelet, Oliver April 6, 1832, to October 9, 1834

Roy, Joseph November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838

Montreal (West)--

Papineau, l’hon. Louis Joseph October 26, 1830, to March 27, 1838

Fisher, John October 26, 1830, to March 26, 1832

Tracey, Daniel May 22, 1832, to July 18, 1832

Nelson, Robert November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838

Montreal (City)--

Moffatt, l’hon. George April 8, 1841, to October 30, 1843

Holmes, Benjamin April 8, 1841, to September 23, 1844

Beaubien, Pierre November 22, 1843, to September 23, 1844

Moffatt, l’hon. George November 12, 1844, to December 6, 1847

Bleury, Charles-Clément Sabrevois de Nov. 12, 1844, to Dec. 6, 1847

Lafontaine, l’hon. Louis-Hippolyte Jan. 24, 1848, to Nov. 6, 1851

Holmes, Benjamin January 24, 1848, to November 6, 1851

Young, l’hon. John December 6, 1851, to June 23, 1854

Badgley, l’hon. William December 6, 1851, to June 23, 1854

Montreal (County)--

Delisle, Alexandre-Maurice April 8, 1841, to July 13, 1843

Jobin, André October 26, 1843, to November 6, 1851

Valois, Michel-François December 10, 1851, to June 23, 1854

Montreal (City)--

Dorion, Antoine-Aimé July 28, 1854, to June 10, 1861

Holton, Luther-Hamilton July 28, 1854, to November 28, 1857

Young, l’hon. John July 28, 1854, to November 28, 1857

Rose, John December 28, 1857, to June 10, 1861

McGee, Thomas D’Arcy December 28, 1857, to June 10, 1861

Montreal (Center)--

Rose, l’hon. John July 9, 1861, to July 1, 1866

Montreal (East)--

Cartier, l’hon. George-Etienne July 9, 1861, to July 1, 1867

Montreal (West)--

McGee, Thomas D’Arcy June 26, 1861, to July 1, 1867

Montreal (County)--

Hochelaga

Laporte, Joseph July 24, 1854, to November 28, 1857

Jacques-Cartier

Valois, Michel-François July 20, 1854, to November 28, 1857

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Sometimes called the “First Baldwin-Lafontaine Government.”

[2] See Dent, “The Last Forty Years of Canada,” Vol. II, pp.

180-1.

[3] The eight were J.A. Macdonald, George Brown, George Etienne

Cartier, A.T. Gault, T. D’Arcy McGee, H.L. Langevin, W. McDougall

and Alexander Campbell. Of these fathers of confederation,

Montreal records with pride the names of Cartier and McGee,

its sometime political representatives. The two especially did

much to disarm the strong opposition in certain quarters in the

province of Quebec.

CHAPTER XX

THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL

EARLY EFFORTS TOWARDS MUNICIPAL HOME RULE--1786--1821--1828--THE

FIRST MUNICIPAL CHARTER OF 1831--THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF

MONTREAL--JACQUES VIGER FIRST MAYOR--THE RETURN TO THE JUSTICES

OF THE PEACE--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE

CORPORATION IN 1840--CHARTER AMENDMENT, 1851--FIRST MAYOR

ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE--CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 1874--THE CITY OF

MONTREAL ANNEXATIONS--CIVIC POLITICS--THE NOBLE “13”--1898

CHARTER RECAST, SANCTIONED IN 1899--CIVIC SCANDALS--THE

“23”--JUDGE CANNON’S REPORT--THE REFORM PARTY; THE “CITIZENS’

ASSOCIATION”--REDUCTION OF ALDERMEN AND A BOARD OF CONTROL, THE

ISSUE--THE WOMEN’S CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS--THE NEW REGIME AND THE

BOARD OF CONTROL--FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER--THE ELECTIONS

OF 1912--ABOLITION OF THE SMALL WARD SYSTEM ADVOCATED--THE

ELECTIONS OF 1914--A FORECAST FOR GREATER MONTREAL--SUPPLEMENT:

LIST OF MAYORS--CITY REVENUE.

The citizens of Montreal, as already narrated, had had in

view for many years under the British rule, the introduction

of a responsible form of Home Rule in municipal affairs. As

early as 1786, on the invitation of the Superior Council, they

had reported in favour of the incorporation by charter of a

municipality, but notwithstanding, the system of government by

justices of the peace was continued. At a meeting of October

23, 1821, the citizens again agitated for a charter. In 1828

a great meeting was held on December 6th and resolutions were

passed to the effect that in the flourishing state of the

growth of population and the progress of trade the government

by magistrates was not sufficient to provide for municipal

advance in the future; that among the evils due to insufficient

powers granted to the magistrates was the inefficiency of police

regulations and the want of an efficient system of bookkeeping

in the appropriation of the revenues of the town; the deplorable

state for many years of the water front and the lands adjoining

the “little river,” which by their unhealthy condition, had

become dangerous to the well being of the great part of the

surrounding population; the lack of means and authority for

undertaking and executing a preconceived and general plan of

improvement, it being left to the individual to put obstacles

to the proper growth of the town which narrowness of view and

self-interest might suggest to the delay in growth and the

increase of avoidable expenses. The citizens concluded by

demanding from the legislature the incorporation of the town. The

committee formed to present the petition was as follows: For the

town, J.B. Rolland, P. McGill, J. Quesnell and A. Laframbroise;

for the districts of St. Antoine, St. Ann and the Recollets,

John Fry, Father Desautels, John Torrance, Charles de Lorimier,

C. Wagner and H. Corse; for St. Lawrence, C.S. Delorme, A.

Tullock (Père), A. Tullock (Fils), John Baptiste Castonguay,

B. Hall and Louis de Chantal; for the Quebec and St. Louis

districts, John Richelieu, Louis Parthenais, Francis Derome and

C.S. Rodier.

In 1830 the harbour commission was appointed as a partial remedy.

In 1831 the first act incorporating the city of Montreal was

presented on March 31st for the sanction of His Majesty,

which was given on April 12, 1832, its publication being by

proclamation of the governor general on June 5th following. On

the 18th of July, 1833, the city council unanimously adopted

the seal of the arms of the city, the Beaver,[1] the Rose, the

Shamrock and the Thistle, and its motto, “Concordia Salus.”

By this act under the name of “The Corporation of the City of

Montreal” the city was divided into eight wards, East, West, St.

Ann, St. Joseph, St. Antoine, St. Lawrence, St. Louis and St.

Mary. Each was to elect two councillors with certain financial

qualifications, and these sixteen were to elect from their number

one to act as mayor to whom a salary not exceeding four hundred

dollars should be granted. The right of citizenship was to be

accorded to every man attaining the age of twenty-one years and

possessing real estate in the limits of the city and having

resided therein for twelve months prior to the election. Every

elector became a member of the corporation. The corporation

acquired powers to borrow, acquire and possess property, to take

action at law, to be in turn liable to legal prosecution and

to have a seal. The other powers granted them were similar to

those exercised hitherto by the justices of the peace for the

government and maintenance of the city. The act was not to remain

in force after May 1, 1836.

On the first Monday in May, 1833, the justices of the peace met

to appoint the first Monday of June as the day of election of

the councillors. These, when elected, met on June 5th in the

courthouse for the first séance. Jacques Viger, who acted as

secretary, was elected the first mayor, the councillors being

John Donegani, William Forbes, Joseph Gauvin, Alexander Lusignan,

John McDonell, Robert Nelson, C.S. Rodier, Joseph Roy, John

Torrance, Augustin Tullock, John Turney, Guillaume J. Vallée,

François Dérome, Mahum Hall, Julien Perrault, and Turton Penn.

The secretary appointed was Francis Auger. On the first Monday

of June, each year, half of the council had to be replaced or

re-elected. The charter required that each regulation of the

council before taking effect should be submitted for approbation

to the court of King’s Bench after having been published in the

newspapers and by town criers.

This charter remained in force till May 1, 1836, when for

unaccountable reasons its renewal was refused, and the justices

of the peace again ruled the city till August, 1840. These,

following the official lists, were: Denis B. Viger, Peter

McGill, Pierre de Rocheblave, William Robertson, Lawrence Kidd,

James Miller, Austin Cuvillier, James Quesnel, Adam L. McNiver,

Joseph Shuter, William Hall, Jos. Ant. Gagnon, Daniel Arnoldi,

E.M. Leprohon, George S. Holt, Joseph T. Barrett, Jacob DeWitt,

Pierre Lukin, Turton Penn, Thomas Cringan, Joseph Masson, Henry

Corse, John Molson, Sidney Bellingham, James Browne, Pierre E.

Leclere, John Donegani, Guillaume J. Vallée, Charles Lamontagne,

Henri Desrivières, Theophile Dufort, Benjamin Hart, James McGill

Desrivières, Charles S. Rodier, John Jones, Charles Tate, Hugh E.

Barron, Alexis Laframboise, J. Bte. Castonguay, Patrice Lacombe,

Olivier Berthelet, Paul Jos. LaCroix, Thomas B. Wragg, M.J.

Hayes, Etienne Guy, Logan Fuller, François P. Bruneau, Pierre

Louis Panet, Hugh Brodie, Joseph Baby, Alexander Buchanan, John

Dyke and William Evans. The clerks of the justices were Delisle

and Delisle, then Delisle and Brehaut.

[Illustration: SEAL OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL]

During this period Lord Durham arrived and his report

animadverting on the absence of municipal government in Montreal

and Quebec, doubtless caused the reintroduction of the municipal

council under the name of the mayor, the aldermen and the

citizens of the city of Montreal. The governor, Mr. C. Poulett

Thomson (afterwards Lord Sydenham) was authorized to name the

first council for the first term to end on December 2, 1842. His

choice was as follows: Mayor, the Hon. Peter McGill; councillors,

Jules Quesnel, Adam Ferrier, C.S. Rodier, J.G. McKenzie, C.S.

De Bleury, J.M. Tobin, Olivier Berthelet, F. Bruneau, Hippolyte

Guy, John Donegani, Charles Tate, J.W. Dunscomb, Thomas Philipps,

Colin Campbell, Stanley Bagg, Archibald Hume, D. Handside and

William Molson. On September 12, J.P. Sexton was appointed city

clerk and remained in office till 1858.

In 1843 the second council was elected by the people from six

wards only, viz., East, Center, West, Queen, St. Lawrence and St.

Mary. These councillors, two for each ward, elected the mayor

from among themselves, as well as six other citizens under the

title of aldermen who all composed the council as follows: Mayor,

Joseph Bourret; aldermen, Joseph Masson, Benjamin Holmes, William

Molson, Joseph Roy, Joseph Redpath, C.S. De Bleury; councillors,

James Ferrier, Pierre Jodoin, Peter Dunn, William Lunn, William

Watson, Olivier Frechette, Pierre Beaubien, P.A. Gagnon, François

Trudeau, François Perrin, and John Mathewson. The six wards into

which the city was divided were: East, Center, West, Queen, St.

Lawrence and St. Mary. In 1845 the city was divided into nine

wards, the city wards being East, Center and West and having each

three representatives in the council, the other six, called the

suburban wards, only having two councillors each. Thus the whole

council had twenty-one members.

This system obtained till 1852,[2] when by the statute Victoria,

14, 15, chapter 128, passed in 1851, the election of the mayor

passed from the council to the people at large. The first thus

elected was the Hon. Charles Wilson. The number of the aldermen

was raised to nine and each of the suburban wards received the

same rights as the city wards to three representatives. This

brought the council up to twenty-seven members. The statute of

1851 only imposed four quarterly sessions of the council, but the

mayor had the right, however, to call special meetings. As an

instance of the parochial measures then engaging the thoughts of

our municipal rulers, we may quote the following relating to the

breaking of a monopoly:

“Mayor Wolfred Nelson, in his address to the Council in 1854,

after alluding to the pestilence which had visited the city and

the poverty which followed, said: ‘The misery in which we have

been involved would have been immeasurably greater had not the

Council adopted energetic measures having the effect of breaking

down a cursed monopoly--that of firewood--by purchasing several

hundred cords of firewood and selling it in small lots at cost

price; as well as of arresting the most extraordinary practice

of converting our greatest thoroughfares, the wharves, into wood

yards by speculators and monopolists, who prevented the purchase

of wood in small quantities from the boats. The adoption of

these measures in one week reduced the price of fuel over one

quarter, at a period when it had been boasted that it would be

worth ten or twelve dollars a cord during the winter. Instead of

this exhorbitant rate the best wood can now be obtained for $6 a

cord.’”

In 1859 Charles Glackmeyer was appointed city clerk and remained

in office till 1892, when he was succeeded by L.O. David till

today.

In 1874 (Victoria 37, Chapter 41) the charter was amended and

the name of the corporation was changed to that of “The City of

Montreal.” The distinction between aldermen and councillors was

abolished, the title for all being that of aldermen, who were all

elected by the people.

The history of Greater Montreal now begins in the annexation of

the rural municipalities. In 1883 the new Hochelaga ward added

three aldermen; in 1886 that of St. Jean Baptiste three others;

in 1887 St. Gabriel ward also added three.

Commenting on the state of civic politics under this charter a

contemporary has the following chatty appreciation:[3]

“For many years the English-speaking element had dominated in

civic affairs by virtue of a very small majority in the City

Council, and there was just a little tendency among the city

fathers forming that majority, not only to dominate but to

domineer. They were not disposed to be unjust to the citizens

who formed the majority of the electorate, but they showed a

lack of tact amounting at times to a want of delicacy in dealing

with and speaking of the diverse elements of the population.

The French-Canadians had the good sense to elect their ablest

men. To be quite frank there was a long period during which the

English-speaking people seemed to think that almost anybody was

good enough to make an alderman. The result was inevitable.

Each ward was represented by three aldermen, one retiring each

year and the English-speaking majority in the Center Ward was

in 1880 only a little one. It took just three years of good

electioneering work to replace three English-speaking aldermen

by three French-Canadians. The latter element now dominated the

Council and to prevent accident Hochelaga was annexed in 1883.

This not only brought in three more French-Canadian aldermen on

December 1, 1883, but it brought in Raymond Préfontaine, who was

a host in himself, and who almost immediately became the ruling

spirit in civic affairs. Of course, most of the English-speaking

aldermen did not take kindly to the new régime and Raymond

Préfontaine got his full share of their hot shot and it hurt

him as much as water hurts a duck’s back. The attitude of most

of the English journalists (including the writer) must have

been consoling to the Council minority, on account of the sweet

sympathy expressed. ‘The Honest Minority,’ the ‘Noble Thirteen,’

the ‘Faithful Anti-Monopolists’ were among the compliments

lavished by a discriminating press; and were taken not only

seriously but appreciatively by the recipients, some of whom were

in the habit of discussing on the floor of the Council their

own sterling qualities with a frankness which left nothing to

be desired. One of the noblest Romans of them all could seldom

speak of his own honesty (and he had no false delicacy about

introducing the subject), without shedding tears and sobbing.

Strangers might have imagined he was crying over his lost

opportunities, but he wasn’t; it was just his way.

“Time is apt to and ought to modify our judgments of our

fellowmen. Let it be said for Raymond Préfontaine by one who

generally disagreed with his plans and disapproved of his public

actions that among his qualities were some decidedly good

ones. He was a man of his word and a man of ideas and infinite

resource. He was the first public man to set about systematic

modernizing and development of Montreal. When he talked about

electric cars and electric lighting, he was laughed to scorn by

the ‘Noble Minority’ in the Council and the rest of the nobility

outside the Council. He went in for street widening and permanent

paving (no doubt at an expensive rate) and he added to the size

of the debt as well as to the size of the city. He was, in fact,

Montreal’s Baron Haussmann. The Baron was ‘fired’ by the Olivier

government for his financial extravagance; he only borrowed a

hundred million dollars, from 1865 to 1869; but he made the

modern Paris.

“The Noble Thirteen and their admirers, like the coloured troops

in the American Civil war fought nobly against Mr. Préfontaine’s

schemes and predicted unmerciful disaster if the City Passenger

Railway were electrified. To the plea that electric railways

were a success elsewhere the opposition replied triumphantly and

without fear of contradiction ‘but New York isn’t Montreal’--and

neither Alderman Préfontaine nor any of his followers ever dared

to take up the challenge and prove that New York was Montreal.

“Then the Noble Thirteen had its own troubles. One, at least,

lost his patent of nobility by voting wrong on the gas question;

another was laid out on the City Passenger Railway Monopoly; a

third was promoted to the retired list because his popularity

threatened to make him a dangerous rival to another nobleman in

a parliamentary election. Strenuous opponents of ‘monopoly’ in

street railways became first lukewarm, then indifferent, then

apologetic, and finally strenuous supporters of Monopoly with

the biggest ‘M’ in the printer’s upper case. Most of the Noble

Thirteen have gone to a better world, which is a good thing for

them, because if they were still in the Council, they would miss

the old admiration dreadfully.”

The city charter was recast in 1898 and the work was confided to

the mayor, Raymond Préfontaine, Aldermen Rainville, Beausoleil,

Martineau, Laporte, McBride, Ames and Archambault, aided by the

city law officers and the heads of departments. This commission

revised and examined clause by clause the preliminary draft

prepared by Messrs. Choquette and Weir, appointed revising

advocates in conjunction with the city clerk and the city

attorneys. The new charter, a progressive document, was

sanctioned on the 10th of March, 1899. By it Montreal was divided

into seventeen wards called respectively East, Center, West, St.

Ann, St. Antoine South, St. Antoine West, St. Antoine East, St.

Lawrence, St. Louis, St. James South, St. James North, St. Mary

West, St. Mary East, Hochelaga, St. Jean Baptiste, St. Gabriel

and St. Denis. In 1903 Duvernay Ward was formed with a part of

St. Jean Baptiste Ward. Among the clauses of this charter was one

giving power to the council to extend the limits of the city and

to annex municipalities. The elections now began to take place

every two years instead of annually. The mayor’s qualifications

required that he should possess real estate in the city under his

own name to the value of $10,000. His yearly salary was not to

exceed four thousand dollars. The property qualification for an

alderman was fixed at $2,000 and his yearly indemnity at $600,

with an additional sum of $200 for every chairman of a permanent

committee. These permanent committees were appointed at the

first monthly meeting in February for the year and apportioned

the general superintendents and administration of the various

city departments among themselves. These were supplemented by an

occasional special committee. The council assembled once a month,

on the second Monday, but the mayor could convoke a special

meeting on notice given to each alderman. Five members of the

council could also call a special meeting. The mayor could only

cast his vote when there was an equality of votes.

The fault of the civic administration under this charter was

in the ever-growing abuses arising from the system of standing

committees of aldermen conflicting with one another, delaying

the course of business. Towards its close corruption and

inefficiency were rampant under the monopoly of a few who became

stigmatized in the mouths of the citizens as the “23.” In 1909 a

royal commission was appointed to examine into the malversations

under the late administration. On December 12, 1909, Mr. Justice

Cannon presented his report, in which he named twenty-three of

the aldermen as guilty of malpractices. Twenty-two of these were

not returned in the subsequent elections. The following general

conclusion may be taken as a summary of his recommendations and

findings:

1. The administration of the affairs of the city of Montreal

by its Council has, since 1892, been saturated with corruption

arising especially from the patronage plague.

2. The majority of the aldermen have administered the committees

and the council in such a manner as to favor the private

interests of their relatives and friends, to whom contracts

and positions were distributed to the detriment of the general

interests of the city and of the taxpayers.

3. As a result of this administration, the annual revenue of

$5,000,000 has been spent as follows: 25 per cent in bribes and

malversation of all kinds; as for the balance, the greater part

has been employed in works of which the permanence has very often

been ephemeral.

6. As for the division and the representation of the city by

wards, all agree in condemning this system, which gave rise

to patronage and to its abuses. I recommend to the citizens

of Montreal, after a serious study of this question, to

adopt another system creating a council composed of aldermen

representing the entire city and working in unity for its growth

and prosperity.

7. The council of today is composed of groups and coteries

struggling one with another with such bitterness that they

necessarily lose sight of the high interests of the community.

Meanwhile many of the prominent citizens, about 1908, began to

prepare for a charter reform. In 1909 the “Citizens’ Association”

was formed for governmental reform. Its president was an

ex-mayor, Mr. Hormisdas Laporte, and the honorary treasurer

was Mr. James Morgan, a prominent merchant and a good citizen,

who personally contributed to the funds of the campaign, begun

then and carried on for some years, very substantial sums

of money and its other adherents, men of solid and approved

citizenship. The object of the charter reformers was to remedy

the prevalent abuses by a reduction of the number of aldermen

to one representative to each ward, making thirty-one in the

council, and by a curtailment of their powers, reducing them to

a purely legislative body, with no executive power in financial

matters. This latter function was to be held by a body of four

commissioners or “controllers” and the mayor elected from the

city at large. It was hoped that by this adaptation of the

“commission” form of government, then obtaining great prominence

in muncipal literature in the United States, where the method was

being practiced, that the waste of civic energy, time and money

would be best secured by a small executive board elected by the

people at large and uninfluenced by ward politics. The charter

for the Board of Control, (9 Edw. Chap. 82) of 1909, at the

request of Farquhar Robertson, Charles Chaput, Victor Morin, S.D.

Vallières and others, was accordingly secured from the provincial

government after a plebiscite had been previously taken in favour

of this great radical change of government, the most important

since the original municipal charter in 1831. The new form had

already been foreseen by Mayor Wilson Smith in his valedictory

address in 1896. He said:

“The question has been frequently discussed, both in the Council

and outside of it, as to whether the aldermen should be paid

for their services. I have to acknowledge that one result of my

experience has been to change my mind on this subject. I am now

decidedly of the opinion that not only should the aldermen be

remunerated for their services, but that they should be relieved,

as far as possible, of attending to purely administrative duties.

And it is worthy of serious consideration whether it would not be

in the best interests of the city to appoint paid Commissioners

to superintend all details, in connection with the civic

administration. These Commissioners might have associated with

them the heads of the departments, with the Mayor as chairman,

who might form an Advisory Board, and submit all matters to the

City Council, which would act as a legislative body, but their

recommendations should be subject to a veto of a two-thirds vote

of the Council. The Commissioners might be three in number, one

of whom could be elected by the rate-payers generally, one by

the real estate owners, and one by a two-thirds vote of the City

Council; said Commissioners to be under the control of the City

Council, and subject to dismissal for cause, by a two-thirds vote

of the Council.”

In virtue of the recent change in the charter, the new Board of

Control was invested with the following powers:

1. To prepare the annual budget and to submit it to the council;

2. To recommend every expense, no expense or matter referring to

city finances being able to be adopted unless recommended by the

controllers;

3. The council on the report of the controllers to be charged with

the granting of franchises and privileges by regulation, resolutions,

contracts, by the issue of debentures and contraction of loans;

4. The controllers were further to prepare contracts and plans,

to ask for tenders, to decide all formalities relating to the

latter, to receive and to open such;

5. To inspect or oversee public works;

6. To employ the money voted by the council for the purpose

designed;

7. To nominate and suspend all employees, except those nominated

by the council whose nomination, suspension and dismissal should

be made by the council on the recommendation of the controllers;

8. No report or recommendation made by the controllers to be

executed without the acceptation of the majority of the council;

9. No amendment to a report or recommendation of the controllers

to be made without the approbation of two-thirds of the members

of the council present at the meeting.

The work now to be given to the Board of Control was that

hitherto done by eleven committees of the aldermen of seven

members in each.

The Citizens’ Association undertaking the campaign for good

government and the conduct of the forthcoming elections formed

up in the middle of 1909, and was hailed by all good citizens,

receiving the support of all public and volunteer associations

having a civic tendency. About this time an important association

was formally inaugurated on April 12, 1909, by His Excellency

Earl Grey entitled the “City Improvement League,” and lent its

aid in the campaign of education on good government and civic

progress. Other societies also cooperated. The women associations

under the local Council of Women on the English-speaking side,

and La Fédération Nationale St. Jean Baptiste on the French,

entered more largely than ever before into the movement for civic

progress and influenced the women voters for clean government.

The choice of the people for the new officers was made on

February 1, 1910, when the “whole slate for the board” prepared

by the Citizens’ Association was unanimously adopted at the

polls as follows: Mayor, J.J. Guerin, M.D.; controllers, E.P.

Lachapelle, M.D., president of the Provincial Board of Health;

L.N. Dupuis, merchant; Joseph Ainey, labour candidate; and F.L.

Wanklyn, a civil engineer and former manager of the Montreal

Street Railway. (The latter resigned in the fall of 1911 and

was succeeded by the election in the spring of 1912 of Mr. C.H.

Godfrey.) The thirty-one wards were represented as follows:

East L.A. Lapointe

Centre J.Z. Resther

West S.J. Carter *

St. Ann T. O’Connell *

St. Joseph U.H. Dandurand

St. Andrew Joseph Ward *

St. George Leslie H. Boyd, K.C. *

St. Louis Jean B. Lamoureaux

St. Laurent James Robinson *

Papineau J.A.E. Gauvin

St. Mary J.P. Roux, M.D.

St. Jacques A.N. Brodeur

Lafontaine Eudore Dubeau

Hochelaga J.H. Garceau, M.D.

St. Jean Baptiste Noé Leclaire

St. Gabriel Patrick Monahan *

St. Denis Ernest D. Tétreau

Duvernay Ludger Clément

St. Henry O. Letourneau, M.D.

St. Cunegonde N. Lapointe

Mount Royal A.E. Prud’homme, N.P.

De Lorimier George Mayrand, N.P.

Laurier N. Turcot

Notre Dame de Graces George Marcil

St. Paul M. Judge

Ahuntsic T. Bastien

Emard J.U. Emard, K.C.

Longue Pointe E. Larivière

Bordeaux E. Lussier

Cote des Neiges A.S. Deguire

Rosemount J.N. Drummond *

* English-Speaking.

The consequent dispatch in city business, the improvement in

public works, the strengthening of heads of departments in the

city hall, hitherto hampered by aldermanic interference, and the

abolition of patronage secured universal approbation of the new

form of civic government. After awhile the spirit of opposition

among a certain number of the aldermen began to jeopardize the

early universal acceptance of the board of control system.

Again the Citizens’ Association, with its backing, had to seek

to strengthen the hands of the Board of Control. The following

extracts from the Secretary of the Board of Trade’s annual report

(Mr. George Hadrill) will indicate the new phase:

“In 1908, it being evident that the City Council, while

comprising some good and capable men, was sadly misgoverning this

city, your Council, with representatives of other organizations,

endeavoured to secure such amendment of the City Charter as

would provide for a reduction in the number of Aldermen and for

the election of a Board of Commissioners. This effort resulted

successfully in 1909, but unfortunately the amendments to the

Charter submitted by the Citizens Committee were so changed

in their passage through the Legislature that the Board of

Commissioners did not possess the full powers it was intended to

give them, and the result has been that, while the Commissioners

have done much for the City, many of their plans for its

advantage have been frustrated by the City Council and hence the

hope for improvement in the condition of the City has been only

partially realized. Your Council, therefore, in October last,

joined with the following other organizations in an endeavour

to secure such further amendments to the City Charter as would

give the Board of Commissioners all executive powers, leaving

with the City Council the general legislative powers and the

making of by-laws: Montreal Trades and Labour Council, Canadian

Manufacturers’ Association, La Chambre de Commerce, Montreal

Citizens’ Association, Association Immobilière Montréal, Montreal

Business Men’s League.

The substance of these amendments was as follows:

“That the Commissioners shall prepare the annual budget and the

supplementary budget, and submit each to the City Council, which

shall have the power to amend them by a two-thirds majority, or

to reject them by a majority.

“That in the event of the budget not being adopted, amended or

rejected within a certain period, it would be considered adopted.

“That once the budget is adopted, with or without amendment, the

entire control of the expenditure, within the limits prescribed

by the budget, would be left to the Board of Commissioners.

“That the Board of Commissioners shall have the appointment,

suspension, dismissal and full control in all respects of all

employees, including the heads of departments.

“That the initiative as to loans and franchises shall be with the

Board of Commissioners, subject to approval by the City Council,

who could amend or reject by a two-thirds majority.

“That the general legislative power and the making of by-laws

shall be with the City Council, but the Board of Commissioners

shall have all executive powers.

“That if any change in the composition of the City Council is

decided upon, it would best be obtained by dividing the city into

five wards (each to elect three aldermen), such division to be

made equitably in proportion to population, assessed value and

possible growth.

“Amendments to the City Charter Bill, based upon the foregoing,

were presented to the Private Bills Committee at Quebec by the

Citizens Association, the Board of Trade and other leading

associations resulted in their adoption, with a slight change

and thus the Board of Commissioners is now in possession of the

powers necessary for the proper discharge of its duties.”

It is to be noted that, by a strange oversight of the framers

of the amended charter, the following important clause in the

original charter for the Board of Control was omitted: “To make

all recommendations involving the expenditure of money. No

recommendation involving the expenditure of money, and affecting

in any manner whatever the finances of the city shall be adopted

by the Council without it having been previously submitted to the

Board of Commissioners and approved by them.” There was, however,

added the power to conclude without tender, urgent purchase of

materials not exceeding the value of $2,500.

The elections of 1912, in which the four controllers, who had

completed their term of four years, did not compete, resulted

in the election of Mr. L.A. Lavallée, K.C., as the next mayor.

Among the new aldermen elected were several of those who had

been scored in Judge Cannon’s report, so short-lived is a city’s

remembrance. During the next two years the position of the Board

of Control was further jeopardized by organized opposition from

the part of the council, but the evident value of the system

still retained the favour of the people.

In preparation for the campaign of 1914 the chief civic bodies of

the city called together by the Citizens Association sought to

diminish the number of the aldermen further by a redistribution

of the city into five districts with three aldermen to each,

with the object of the abolition of the small ward system

as such. An amendment to the charter was prepared for five

districts with three aldermen to each, and presented to the

legislative committee of the Provincial Government at Quebec.

Its delegation obtained a lukewarm reception as its opponents,

within the Council, fearing to be reduced in number in the

city hall, had forestalled the deputation by previous action.

In addition it was thought that the redistribution demanded

was premature. The “status quo” therefore remained, and at the

municipal elections of 1914 the organized reaction against

the Citizens Association leading the reform party was very

clearly marked in the results of the poll. An attempt was made

to vilify the Citizens Association for its efforts to provide

a harmonious “slate” representative of the different elements

in the city; disorganization and want of cohesion reigned among

those otherwise interested in good government, and the unwritten

law which should have offered the mayoralty this year to an

English-speaking citizen was broken.

This election was the most important of recent years, the

positions of mayor, four controllers and thirty-two aldermen

being vacant. The mayor elected was the Mr. Médéric Martin, the

controllers being Mr. Joseph Ainey, E. Napoléon Hébert, Thomas

Coté and Duncan McDonald. The personnel of the Council was

likewise overwhelmingly French Canadian.

This Government is now under trial. Let us repeat the city’s

motto “Concordia Salus.”

There are not wanting signs in forecast that the reduction of the

number of wards will take place on the lines above indicated.

Montreal civic students of this period, seeing the growth of the

Greater Montreal, are groping towards some coherent system, which

will eventually embrace the whole island while securing the local

government of its various subdistricts or municipality. Another

movement of the future connected with the foregoing will be a

larger measure of Civic Home Rule, than is at present allowed by

the Province of Quebec.

The system of the financial government of the city by the Board

of Control is not, however, universally approved of, especially

by the aldermen. The fault lies in the manner of election of

the mayor, aldermen and the controllers, all being elected by

the people on a Democratic basis of public favour; hence there

is likelihood of temporary popularity rather than special

professional ability being the criterion in the selection of

controllers and the mayor, who is, by his office, chairman of

their board.

There are, therefore, at present several theories under

discussion which will influence a further change of the latest

charter amendments.

Among these are the following:

(1) The appointment by the Provincial Legislature of a Board

of Control. This militates against the upholders of Civic Home

Rule and is a partial recurrence to the old system of Justices

of the Peace, appointed by Government before the erection of the

municipality.

(2) The removal of the Board of Control and the restitution

of the standing committees as hitherto. This has not proved

successful in the past.

(3) The aldermen to be elected by the city at large through five

or six great divisions.

(4) The election of the councillors by the city at large with the

establishment of a permanent “Board of Works” with at least a

fair proportion of professional men, such as engineers, who shall

be appointed by the people for a long term of usefulness so as

to encourage the best men to devote a life service in the city’s

employ.

(5) The mayor to be elected by the people but not to sit as

chairman of the Board of Control. This Board to be elected only

by the votes of the electors entered as “proprietors” on the

voters list. Thus, with property qualifications for controllers

added perhaps, a more judicious choice could be made. The

election of alderman to be as before or by larger divisions.

Of these modifications the last compromise has more weight.

NOTE 1

MAYORS OF MONTREAL

Term. Name. Elected by.

1833-36 Jacques Viger The Council

(The interval was filled again by the Justices of the Peace.)

1840 Hon. Peter McGill Governor General

1841-42 Hon. Peter McGill (2 terms) The Council

1843-44 Joseph Bourret (2 terms) The Council

1845-46 Hon. James Ferrier The Council

1847 John E. Mills (died in November,

was replaced by Joseph Bourret) The Council

1848 Joseph Bourret The Council

1849-50 E.R. Fabre The Council

1851-52-53 Hon. Charles Wilson (3 terms) The People

1854-55 Wolfred Nelson The People

1856-57 Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) The People

1858-59-60-61 Hon. Charles S. Rodier (4 terms) The People

1862-63-64-65 Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) The People

1866-67 Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) The People

1867-68-69 William Workman (3 terms) The People

1871-72 Charles J. Coursol (2 terms) The People

1873 Francis Cassidy (died in June,

1873, being replaced by Aldis

Bernard) The People

1874 Aldis Bernard The People

1875-76 Sir William Hingston (2 terms) The People

1877-78 Hon. J.L. Beaudry (2 terms) The People

1879-80 Hon. Severe Rivard (2 terms) The People

1881-82-83-84 Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) The People

1885-86 H. Beaugrand (2 terms) The People

1887-88 Sir J.J.C. Abbott (2 terms) The People

1889-90 Jacques Grenier (2 terms) The People

1891-92 Hon. James McShane (2 terms) The People

1893 Alphonse Desjardins The People

1894-95 Hon. J.O. Villeneuve (2 terms) The People

1896-97 R. Wilson Smith (2 terms) The People

1898-99-1900-01[A] Hon. Raymond Préfontaine

(3 terms) The People

1902-03 James Cochrane The People

1904-05 H. Laporte The People

1906-07 H.A. Ekers The People

1908-09 L. Payette The People

1910-11 Hon. J.J. Guerin The People

1912-13 L.A. Lavallée The People

1913-14 Médéric Martin The People

[A] By the new charter to begin with 1900 the term of mayor was

now increased to two years.

NOTE II

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL,

FROM 1880 TO 1912

Assessment on real Business and personal

estate. Water rate. tax.

Current Current Current

Year year Arrears year Arrears year Arrears

1880 $ 582,100.31 $ 190,866.89 $ 327,104.61 $ 37,846.38 $146,148.23 $14,726.00

1881 612,255.49 239,469.45 364,797.47 33,640.71 145,957.06 13,690.77

1882 643,687.06 190,534.03 384,936.51 25,820.51 147,949.57 14,409.82

1883 676,613.03 187,408.78 395,768.74 27,301.43 150,578.69 15,941.73

1884 708,134.15 155,180.45 424,014.38 34,126.87 156,552.32 23,523.55

1885 748,507.00 142,092.33 412,660.04 27,739.88 164,872.65 27,181.73

1886 798,041.29 192,874.42 468,398.72 49,712.67 167,052.18 19,132.84

1887 842,852.25 109,218.52 502,408.72 35,657.91 175,320.72 26,255.86

1888 895,298.75 137,475.38 533,614.60 48,638.03 183,394.44 29,968.13

1889 936,528.54 139,897.14 578,312.19 56,617.51 188,181.97 31,547.90

1890 991,620.11 154,769.43 539,917.37 48,489.27 187,383.57 43,583.58

1891 1,027,719.09 174,498.63 610,401.75 115,879.28 188,398.82 44,661.04

1892 1,129,198.38 208,519.69 532,699.00 76,086.76 190,375.42 49,987.64

1893 1,238,494.32 218,969.31 559,666.06 80,509.28 204,052.81 51,332.26

1894 1,257,092.01 312,836.50 544,739.91 76,061.81 200,414.69 48,692.44

1895 1,270,846.41 307,656.66 524,930.94 81,914.08 194,972.07 55,850.02

1896 1,271,628.00 384,043.97 539,740.82 98,472.93 190,191.66 63,607.71

1897 1,290,911.32 386,608.08 546,515.51 101,250.89 202,234.84 66,407.16

1898 1,313,352.17 394,688.51 589,188.08 183,163.07 204,464.48 56,453.88

1899 1,277,513.19 388,715.13 596,851.18 119,868.04 205,471.49 63,398.28

1900 1,250,163.18 524,900.81 565,239.23 139,196.59 199.447.86 64,879.10

1901 1,304,407.26 580,162.53 663,767.73 140,590.76 233,329.61 71,463.20

1902 1,319,782.89 536,518.81 662,467.11 82,253.19 240,932.44 49,114.44

1903 1,386,212.56 564,227.48 706,285.49 93,339.97 275,618.26 57,703.28

1904 1,486,917.48 531,599.76 737,518.15 92,634.46 272,081.82 42,599.27

1905 1,672,867.93 613,298.99 792,649.33 110,868.30 310,909.06 46,218.33

1906 1,933,357.09 539,999.99 849,222.70 114,373.15 347,924.80 42,512.48

1907 1,979,426.63 721,218.19 885,686.24 131,719.63 364,117.27 48,306.12

1908 2,160,037.12 864,946.19 786,825.16 148,894.53 413,888.74 59,813.81

1909 2,542,513.68 962,555.19 860,925.60 113,733.26 473,248.26 64,269.42

1910 2,915,396.10 1,026,172.07 934,362.14 104,250.34 538,678.14 51,383.66

1911 3,344,172.04 1,328,208.87 1,037,436.56 114,608.06 619,855.08 58,105.94

1912 4,176,083.47 1,547,827.75 1,174,773.84 132,365.69 739,384.95 66,028.93

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL,

FROM 1880 TO 1912 CONTINUED

Year Markets Licenses Recorder’s Miscellaneous Interest Yearly

Court totals

1880 $ 30,366.85 $ 43,635.35 $ 7,770.57 $ 40,008.23 $ 24,956.94 $1,495,616.39

1881 77,709.42 45,001.32 12,665.03 35,824.04 35,706.65 1,617,117.41

1882 80,364.50 48,275.30 14,380.72 35,982.90 26,940.95 1,618,221.87

1883 81,777.71 50,968.15 11,130.62 42,307.44 30,474.54 1,670,270.91

1884 86,853.04 54,077.70 12,019.15 47,597.39 39,541.19 1,732,620.69

1885 85,242.01 60,006.80 11,547.08 41,179.60 24,991.31 1,746,020.43

1886 89,086.77 65,579.00 18,003.98 57,259.56 33,717.82 1,908,859.25

1887 89,279.69 70,264.82 25,053.06 39,491.95 32,589.57 1,948,393.07

1888 88,336.37 74,269.48 26,097.64 33,404.47 45,913.48 2,095,411.27

1889 83,308.64 76,475.15 22,883.41 41,081.31 67,263.63 2,222,097.39

1890 82,705.63 81,365.85 26,269.59 42,269.33 42,557.56 2,240,931.29

1891 85,533.93 81,370.00 23,445.91 53,196.77 34,971.51 2,440,076.73

1892 80,470.91 66,627.00 22,412.25 57,650.17 44,925.52 2,458,952.74

1893 80,686.81 66,654.25 16,314.49 94,004.66 40,471.31 2,651,155.56

1894 76,970.59 66,823.91 17,356.02 92,052.64 56,295.23 2,743,335.75

1895 78,697.98 72,755.23 14,506.19 98,740.43 56,790.92 2,757,660.93

1896 77,362.82 70,767.50 14,372.98 91,194.69 64,678.40 2,866,061.48

1897 77,599.25 79,555.25 17,341.68 99,197.85 54,303.55 2,921,925.38

1898 76,190.41 78,546.00 13,961.57 115,985.25 52,845.73 3,078,839.15

1899 74,419.99 101,009.80 20,569.05 105,263.48 51,649.09 3,004,728.72

1900 75,363.96 121,348.00 31,578.77 121,854.76 63,642.07 3,157,614.33

1901 86,190.48 132,064.77 26,957.69 124,309.24 69,992.61 3,433,235.88

1902 84,790.51 140,955.75 26,032.01 144,287.28 92,085.47 3,379,219.90

1903 90,384.42 151,957.00 25,827.64 144,721.60 58,150.26 3,554,428.96

1904 97,451.78 179,706.50 33,431.38 178,180.65 43,135.00 3,695,256.25

1905 100,761.59 204,688.75 43,186.37 208,713.78 45,399.61 4,149,562.04

1906 102,305.08 223,008.15 38,851.88 293,499.54 56,001.63 4,541,056.49

1907 108,801.41 244,618.07 38,927.38 306,511.29 68,943.86 4,898,276.09

1908 111,260.20 243,418.25 47,944.03 353,515.93 67,700.39 5,258,244.35

1909 112,555.26 261,789.00 37,352.83 361,658.19 107,393.45 5,897,994.14

1910 106,690.76 315,447.50 57,278.12 435,478.08 130,564.67 6,615,701.58

1911 109,407.42 371,252.50 68,100.61 445,024.90 160,661.26 7,656,833.24

1912 112,167.43 422,013.57 80,150.35 566,092.70 173,767.81 9,190,656.49

The annexation of the suburban municipalities, begun in 1883, has

added partially to the revenue.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Before 1815 Commander Jacques Viger had introduced the beaver

into a fancy coat of arms.

[2] In 1844 the council which hitherto sat in a house belonging

to Madame de Beaujeiu, situated between St. Francois Xavier and

St. John streets on Notre Dame Street, and demolished in 1858

on the enlargement of the latter street, was moved to the Hayes

Acqueduct House and sat below the reservoir. In 1852 it held its

first sessions in the Bonsecours Market.

[3] Mr. Henry Dalby, Herald Centennary number, 1913.

CHAPTER XXI

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE UNDER THE UNION

FOREWORD--MARKED PROGRESS GENERAL--THE EMBRYONIC

COSMOPOLIS--THE DEEPENING OF LAKE ST. PETER--FOUNDATION OF

PHILANTHROPIES--LIVING CHEAP--THE MONTREAL DISPENSARY--RASCO’S

HOTEL AND CHARLES DICKENS--PRIVATE THEATRICALS--MONTREAL

AS SEEN BY “BOZ”--DOLLY’S AND THE GOSSIPS--THE MUNICIPAL

ACT--ELECTION RIOTS--LITERARY AND UPLIFT MOVEMENTS--THE

RAILWAY ERA COMMENCES--THE SHIP FEVER--A RUN ON THE SAVINGS’

BANK--THE REBELLION LOSSES BILL AND THE BURNING OF PARLIAMENT

HOUSE--RELIGIOUS FANATICISM--GENERAL D’URBAN’S FUNERAL--A

CHARITY BALL--THE GRAND TRUNK INCORPORATORS--EDUCATIONAL

MOVEMENTS--THE “BLOOMERS” APPEAR--M’GILL UNIVERSITY

REVIVAL--THE GREAT FIRE OF 1852--THE GAVAZZI RIOTS--PROGRESS

IN 1853--THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854--THE PATRIOTIC FUND--THE

ASIATIC CHOLERA--THE ATLANTIC SERVICE FROM MONTREAL--ADMIRAL

BELVEZE’S VISIT--PARIS EXHIBITION PREPARATIONS--“S.S.

MONTREAL” DISASTER--THE INDIAN MUTINY--THE FIRST OVERSEAS

CONTINGENT--THE ATLANTIC CABLE CELEBRATED--A MAYOR OF THE

PERIOD--THE RECEPTION OF ALBERT EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES--FORMAL

OPENING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGE--THE GREAT BALL--“EDWARD

THE PEACEMAKER”--THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR--MONTREAL FOR THE

SOUTH--FEAR OF WAR--CITIZEN RECRUITING--THE MILITARY--OFFICERS

OF THE PERIOD--PEACE--THE SOUTHERNERS--THE WAR SCARE THE

BIRTH OF MODERN MILITIA SYSTEM--THE MILITARY FETED--CIVIC

PROGRESS--FENIAN THREATS--D’ARCY McGEE--SHAKESPEARE

CENTENARY--GERMAN IMMIGRANTS’ DISASTER--ST. ALBAN’S

RAIDERS--RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES TO END--ABRAHAM

LINCOLN AND THE CITY COUNCIL--THE FIRST FENIAN RAID--MONTREAL

ACTION--MILITARY ENTHUSIASM--THE DRILL HALL--A RETROSPECT AND

AN APPRECIATION OF THE LATTER DAYS OF THE UNION.

“Annals and sidelights” best suits the title of this chapter,

and as such are necessarily disjointed, the events recorded

reflect a corresponding note. Therefore, origins and seeds are

only indicated, of many movements which have since grown to great

proportions. These latter, such as primary, secondary, technical,

and university education, the public services of fire, water,

lighting, health, law and order; the commencements of commercial

and financial bodies; the growth of the municipal life, as such;

the development and modernization of the harbour and of our

public places; the progress of general city improvement; the

development of our transportation system by canal, river and

roads by rail and by carriage; the charitable, the religious,

the national, the literary, the intellectual and the artistic

institutions of the city, etc., are left for special historical

treatment in the second part of this volume.

In this place the general social aspect of the life of the city

is chronologically treated, with partial reference at times to

the above as they make their first bow to the public under the

Union. A similar foreword might preface a subsequent chapter of

annals of social life under the Confederation.

The picture presented by Montreal at the beginning of the

Union was one of hopeful promise. The bill, when understood,

was acceptable to most, and it soon became seen, that with

responsible government,--though a daring experiment,--in working

order, peace and prosperity would be assured. The re-birth of

municipal life insured by the new charter was also gratifying.

The mayor and corporation and the institution of the recorder’s

court gave a dignity soothing to civic “amour propre.” City

development in municipal functions, in the public services and

physical embellishments, began to be marked. Trade began to raise

its head, for Montreal was becoming recognized as the commercial

metropolis of Canada. The meeting of April 6, 1841, to organize

the new board of trade, was a significant fact of the period

of progress now anticipated. The improvement in the harbour

facilities, of the water transportation system, and the advent of

the railway era soon to be celebrated, also marked the beginning

of a new period of progress.

The city, too, was coming to be recognized as an embryonic

cosmopolis. It was already beginning to have a mixed population.

Sir Richard Bonnycastle, who visited Montreal in the year before

the Union, has described this in “The Canadas in 1841” (Volume

I, pp. 76-77). “In this city, one is amused by seeing the never

changing lineaments of the long _queue_, the _bonnet rouge_ and

the incessant garrulity of Jean Baptiste, mingling with the

sober demeanour, the equally unchanging feature and the national

plaid of the Highlander, while the untutored sons of labour,

from the green isle of the ocean, are here as thoughtless, as

ragged and as numerous as at Quebec. Amongst all these the shrewd

and calculating citizen from the neighbouring republic drives

his hard bargain with all his wonted zeal and industry, amid

the fumes of Jamaica and gin sling. These remarks apply to the

streets only. In the counting houses, although the races remain

the same, the advantages of situation and of education make the

same differences as in other countries. I cannot, however, help

thinking that the descendant of the Gaul has not gained by being

transplanted; and the vastly absurd notions which a few turbulent

spirits have of late engendered and endeavoured to instil into

the unsophisticated and naturally good mind of the Canadian,

tilling the soil, have tended to restrict the exercise of that

inborn urbanity and suavity which are the Frenchman’s proudest

boast after those of ‘_l’amour et la gloire_.’”

At the beginning of this period great ideas are reflected in the

newspapers, such as the Herald and the Times.

The deepening of Lake St. Peter was a burning theme at the time;

and there is abundant editorial comment in the connection.

“The governor-general has sanctioned the immediate deepening of

Lake St. Peter,” says the editor; “but it appears that there

was great difficulty in getting the proper dredging machines

manufactured.”

“We have other resources at our command,” exclaimed the editor;

“and the manufacturers of New York or Great Britain would gladly

accept orders to any extent. The aid of steam, all powerful

steam, must be invoked. We have no hesitation in saying that the

expenditure of £100,000, if that sum would suffice to deepen Lake

St. Peter, would be submitted to with perfect prudence.

“Few will be dogmatical enough to deny that when the navigation

is free, ships descending the river may avoid the use of steam

tugs; and if we calculate the saving thus effected upon 200

vessels annually at £30 each, the amount thus realized would

suffice to pay the interest on a loan at 6 per cent.

“A brisk, fair, and continuous breeze would ensure the speedy,

safe and cheap progress of ships up the St. Lawrence, and augment

the extent of our commercial marine.”

Referring, in another part of the paper, to the actual

commencement of the work of deepening Lake St. Peter, which only

gave eleven feet of water, the Times says:

“Improvements thus disseminating the germs of future wealth and

prosperity command the applause of every colonist. The spirit of

patriotism must be dormant, indeed, in the breasts of those who

would thwart the efforts of a governor, who has thus identified

himself with the system of internal navigation.

“The repose of the colony has been too long disturbed by those

theoretical revolutions which sprang from the fluctuating

councils of the late Viceroy. A healthier tone of feeling has

been produced; and the practical labours of Sir Charles Bagot bid

fair to soothe the asperities of political warfare. Under his

auspices the deepening of Lake St. Peter has been commenced and

ere his departure, we trust the undertaking will be brought to

maturity.”

Since then something in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 have been

spent between the work of deepening and lighting and buoying

the channel, and the extension and improvement of the port of

Montreal.

The editors of these days had to burn the midnight oil or tallow

candle, for then gas was not general. As for matches, the old

tinder chips dipped in sulphur ind ignited by use of the flint

still prevailed. The rich used wax candles or lamps, but the poor

made their own “dips,” or for the nonce, even small improvised

lamps out of spoons filled with oil. Tallow candle moulds were

the prized possession of many poor houses before the manufactured

candles became cheap on the market. When coal oil came, it was

looked on as a miracle.

The town was inadequately provided with water works, as it was

not till 1845 that the municipality took over the old-fashioned

plant in Montreal, and the old puncheons, driven by horses still

went from door to door distributing the water taken from the

river.

Place d’Armes was still a poor straggling square, though it was

faced by the handsome new Notre Dame Church, opened in 1829. At

this time there still stood the bell tower of the old Parish

Church, standing solitary like a lighthouse till 1843. Crossing

the square the genteel folk, the wives of doctors, lawyers, and

merchants, would come from their residences on St. James and

Craig streets to the Bonsecours Market, not ashamed to carry

their baskets. There the “habitants” from the country could be

seen dressed in blue or gray homespun cloth suits, with their

picturesque, heavy knitted sashes and wearing the tuque and

moccasins in winter.

For as yet, the city was in truth of small size. A four-paged,

demi-zinc copy of the Times and Commercial Advertiser, the first

daily to be printed in Montreal, of the issue of March 3, 1842,

gives a glimpse of this. An advertisement announces that a

three-storey stone house at the head of Coté Street, “enjoys a

commanding situation in a most quiet and healthy part of Montreal

and which nevertheless is within five minutes walk of the

business part of the city.” Splendid dwelling houses are for rent

on Great St. James Street suitable for genteel families.

Yet life was intense and earnest and the bases of many of the

present educational, philanthropic and artistic associations were

being laid. This same number of the Times mentions that the

“The Montreal Provident and Savings Bank, which has just been

projected, under the patronage of the governor-general, and which

is to receive deposits of from one shilling and upwards, is a

patriotic institution, as the directors and all concerned have

only the advantage of the entire community at heart, receiving

nothing for their services, and desiring, chiefly, to extend,

by this means, the basis of social order and morality, and

religion. For these reasons the directors respectfully entreat

the ministers of religion, masters employing numerous bodies

of workmen, and all having influence, to exert the same; and

by the sanction of their names, and the moral weight of their

advice, to induce the numerous classes, for whose use it is

chiefly intended, to avail themselves of the benefits which the

institution holds out for their acceptance.”

Living was cheap and quite a good deal could be bought with

but a little money. Money, however, was scarce and wages were

small. Twenty-five cents would buy a pair of chickens, 15 cents

a pound of butter, 10 cents a dozen eggs and 5 cents a pound of

beef. A man would work for 50 cents a day and walk many miles to

his job. A mechanic who got $1, earned good wages. Clothing was

expensive, and consequently simplicity ruled. Yet furs were cheap

in comparison with the present date. Ladies would wear very large

muffs, capable of holding in their mysterious interiors a week’s

supply of groceries. Long boas were worn twice wound around the

neck, and reaching to the toes. The dresses of the middle class

of women and girls were for the most part print, with thick

homespun for winter wear. Boys would go to the few schools in the

town in “moleskins” as woolen was expensive. They would often

come home on a rainy afternoon with their moleskin trousers

shrunk up to their knees.

The houses of the ordinary working class were built for the most

part of wood and consisted of one storey and a garret. Rents ran

from about two dollars to four dollars a month.

In 1843 a dispensary which is still flourishing today was started

and came as a great supplementary aid to the hospitals of the

city. This was the Montreal Dispensary with which so many of our

best citizens have been connected.

The memory of Rasco’s suggests that of the famous “Dolly,”

J.H. Isaacson, who came out from England as a waiter here in

1838, but afterwards started for himself in a restaurant on St.

François Xavier Street overlooking the Garden of the Seminary.

He later moved to St. James Street, close to St. Lawrence Hall,

a famous hostelry of this period, built in 1851, on the site

where the Royal Bank now stands. His chop house became famous

as “Dolly’s” from the original “Dolly’s” in London. Dolly, a

little typical old John Bull of a Boniface, with shining face

beaming benevolence, with a ready fund of repartee and trenchant

criticism, and resplendent in velvet coat, knee breeches and

irreproachable calves, white silk stockings and silver buckles on

his shoes, was in great favour with the military.

The social life of the period found one of its highest points

of reflex in Rasco’s Hotel, on Bonsecours Street, which still

stands, though with diminished glory. But when it was opened on

May 1, 1836, it was, during the Union, the resort of the fine

people of the time. It had the politicians gathered together

during the rebellion of 1837 and it was for long the home for

banquets. It expressed the social life of the time. The garrison

officers knew it well. Distinguished strangers put up there

as did Charles Dickens, who arrived from Niagara Falls in the

spring of 1842. As private theatricals were then the rage, and

were greatly promoted by the officers to while away the time,

the histrionic ability of the great novelist was called into

requisition at the first Theatre Royal, standing nearly opposite

until it was pulled down to make room for the Bonsecours Market.

In one of the author’s letters from Montreal quoted in Forster’s

“Life of Charles Dickens,” he says: “The theatricals, I think

I told you I had been invited to play with the officers of the

Coldstream Guards here, are ‘A Roland for an Oliver,’ ‘Two

O’Clock in the Morning,’ and either ‘The Young Widow,’ or ‘Deaf

as a Post,’ Ladies (unprofessional) are going to play for the

first time.”

His last letter, dated from Rasco’s Hotel, Montreal, Canada, 26th

of May, 1842, described the private theatricals and inclosed a

bill of the play:

“The play came off last night, the audience, between five and

six hundred strong, were invited as to a party, a regular table

with refreshments being spread in the lobby and saloon. We had

the band of the 23d (one of the finest in the service) in the

orchestra; the theatre was lighted with gas, the scenery was

excellent and the properties were all brought from the private

houses. Sir Charles Bagot, Sir Richard Jackson and their staffs

were present, and as the military portion of the audience were

all in uniform it was really a splendid scene.

“I really believe I was really funny; at least, I know that I

laughed heartily myself and made the part a character such as you

and I know very well--a mixture of F. Harley Yates, Keeley and

‘Jerry Sneak.’ It went with a vim all the way through; and as I

am closing, they have told me that I was so well made up that Sir

Charles Bagot, who sat in the stage box, had no idea who played

‘Mr. Snobbington’ until the piece was over. * * *

“All the ladies were capital and we had no wait or hitch for

an instant. You may suppose this when I tell you that we began

at eight and had the curtain down at eleven. * * * It is their

custom here to prevent heart-burnings, in a very heart-burning

town, whenever they have played in private, to repeat the

performance in public, so on Saturday (substituting, of course,

real actresses for the ladies) we repeat the two first pieces to

a paying audience, for the manager’s benefit. * * * I send you a

bill to which I have appended a key.”

* * * * *

The programme was as follows:

PRIVATE THEATRICALS.

Committee

Mrs. Torrens W.E. Ermatinger, Esq.

Mrs. Berry Capt. Torrens

The Earl of Mulgrave.

Stage Manager Charles Dickens

Queen’s Theatre, Montreal,

Wednesday Evening, May 25, 1842.

Will Be Performed

A ROLAND FOR AN OLIVER.

Mrs. Selborne Mrs. Torrens

Maria Darlington Miss Griffin

Mrs. Fixture Miss Ermatinger

Mr. Selborne Lord Mulgrave

Alfred Highflyer Mr. Charles Dickens

Sir Mark Chase Hon. Mr. Methuen

Fixture Captain Willoughby

Gamekeeper Captain Granville

After the Interlude, in one scene,

(from the French) called

PAST TWO O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING

The Stranger Captain Granville

Mr. Snobbington Mr. Charles Dickens

To conclude with the farce, in one act, entitled

DEAF AS A POST.

Mrs. Plumpley Mrs. Torrens

Amy Templeton Mrs. Charles Dickens

Sophy Walton Mrs. Perry

Sally Maggs Miss Griffin

Captain Templeton Captain Torrens

Mr. Walton Captain Willoughby

Tristram Sappy Doctor Griffin

Crupper Lord Mulgrave

Gallop Mr. Charles Dickens

Montreal, May 24, 1842.

Gazette Office.

[Illustration: RASCO’S HOTEL OPENED IN 1836, ST. PAUL STREET The

leading hotel in the ’30s, standing on site of former palace of

Gov. Gen. Vaudreuil. This building, with original name on it, can

be seen today although changed on lower floors.]

[Illustration: THEATRE ROYAL, AT EASTERN EXTREMITY OF ST. PAUL

STREET Built by subscription in 1825, afterwards owned by Mr.

John Molson.]

[Illustration: PROGRAMME OF DICKENS’ PLAYS GIVEN AT THEATRE ROYAL

DURING THE AUTHOR’S VISIT.]

[Illustration: CHARLES DICKENS]

Dickens visited the Bonsecours Church hard by, and met the

leading citizens in the News Room on St. Sulpice Street, and

cantered with the officers over the mountain or rode out to

Lachine and the Back River. “All the rides in the vicinity,” he

says in his American Notes, “were made doubly interesting by

the bursting out of spring which is here so rapid that it is

but a day’s leap from barren winter to the blooming youth of

summer.” In the same recollections he refers to the quiet manners

of the Canadian people, their self-respect, their hospitality

in Montreal and the unassuming manners of their life. He notes

the modernizing spirit even of that day. “There is a very large

cathedral here, recently erected with two small spires, of

which one is as yet unfinished. In the open space in front of

this edifice stands a solitary, grim-looking square brick tower

which has a quaint and remarkable appearance and which the

wiseacres of this place have consequently determined to pull down

immediately.” This the vandals did in 1843.