Volume II Part 28 (1/2)
”The length of your residence in the province; the advantages derived to our society from the example of private virtues shown by yourself and your family; your lords.h.i.+p's uniform prudent and paternal attention, under every change of time and circ.u.mstance, to the true interests of his Majesty's subjects entrusted to your immediate care, and that grat.i.tude which we feel (and must be permitted to repeat), excite in our minds the warmest sentiments of personal attachment, of which allow us to tender you the strongest a.s.surance.
”Under these impressions, we view your lords.h.i.+p's intended departure with the deepest regret; and submitting to your determination to leave us with unfeigned reluctance, we entreat you to accept our most sincere wishes for the future prosperity of yourself and all your family.”
In the Montreal address we have the following expressions of sentiment and feelings:
”The inhabitants of Montreal, penetrated with grat.i.tude for the happiness enjoyed by them under your lords.h.i.+p's administration of the government of this province during a great number of years, embrace the present opportunity of your intended departure for Great Britain to entreat you to receive their humble acknowledgments and accept their most sincere wishes for your health and prosperity, and for that of all your family.
”The prudence and moderation which distinguished your conduct in the province a.s.sured internal peace and tranquillity, and in reflecting infinite honour on your lords.h.i.+p, have fully justified the confidence reposed in you by our august Sovereign, and a.s.sured to you the affections of the inhabitants.”
The grateful and affectionate answers of Lord Dorchester to both addresses may be easily conceived. The comparatively happy state of things indicated by these addresses continued, with interruptions, for about ten years after Lord Dorchester's departure.
Lord Dorchester was succeeded by General Prescott, who became lieutenant-governor, until he was relieved the 31st of July, 1799, by the appointment of Sir Robert S. Milnes, who acted as lieutenant-governor of the province during the ensuing six years, when the senior Executive Councillor, Thomas Dunn, succeeded to the administration of the government for two years, until the appointment, in 1807, of Sir James Craig as lieutenant-governor and commander-in-chief, under whose administration the reign of discord and strife of race became predominant, with the natural results which in long years afterwards ensued. These matters, however, do not come within the province of my history of the Loyalists of America.
But it is to be observed that though the French had much to complain of, having scarcely any representation in the Legislative Council, none in the Executive, and none in the Provincial Board of Education, called the ”Royal Inst.i.tution,” which had the care of education in the province,[169] and therefore had to depend alone upon their own elected representatives in the House of a.s.sembly for the protection of their rights and feelings; yet they evinced a loyalty through all these years, and through the war of 1812-1815, not excelled by the British inhabitants of Lower Canada, or of any other colony, notwithstanding the efforts of French and American emissaries to create disaffection in the province. A remarkable ill.u.s.tration of the loyalty of the French in Lower Canada occurred in 1805: ”The horrors of the French revolution had pa.s.sed by, but Great Britain and France were still engaged in a desperate war. By land, on the continent of Europe, the French, under Napoleon I., were everywhere victorious against the countries in alliance with Great Britain. But England by sea was more than a match for France; and on October 21st, 1805, won the battle of _Trafalgar_, by which the French naval power was destroyed. The news of this victory reached Canada early in January, 1806. The Canadians of French origin immediately showed that they felt less sympathy for their own race, and less pride in its military prowess, than gratification at the naval success of the empire of which they formed a part. They indulged in patriotic songs, and testified their interest by illuminations and other modes of rejoicing.”[170]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 151: Bancroft, Vol. VII., Chap. xiv., pp. 157, 158.]
[Footnote 152: ”The excitement in England and Canada on the pa.s.sage of the Act was, however, only a breeze compared to the storm of indignation which it raised in the thirteen other provinces when the news reached them; and there is no doubt but that the pa.s.sage of this Act was 'the last drop' which overflowed the cup of colonial patience, and led directly to the Declaration of Independence.” (Tuttle's History of the Dominion of Canada, Chap, lix., pp. 295, 296.)]
[Footnote 153: ”The provisions of the Quebec Act dissatisfied all parties when they came to be executed. The French majority, being represented by less than one-fourth of the number of members in the Council, thought themselves but little better off than when a purely military government. The English party considered themselves injured because the trial by jury, in civil cases, had been taken away. The absence of a representative form of government, and of the privileges of the _Habeas Corpus_ Act, made them feel that they were denied the rights of British subjects.
”n.o.body being satisfied, and the Governor (Sir Frederick Haldimand, whose governors.h.i.+p lasted from 1778 to 1785) being very arbitrary, discontent reigned in the provinces. There were loud complaints, not only of the Governor's tyranny, but also that justice was not fairly administered by the judges in the course of law.
”Many persons, on slight grounds, were thrown into prisons, were sent to England, and at length, 1785, the unpopular Governor demanded his own recall.
”The English Government saw that steps must be taken to put an end to the general discontent. But this could not be done without making such changes as might satisfy the increasing English and Protestant population as well as the French and Roman Catholics. Nor could such changes be made on the instant, or without due preparation. Accordingly, in the first instance, _trial by jury_ in civil cases, and the law of _habeas corpus_, was introduced into the province (in 1788). Next it was determined to procure further and more perfectly reliable information about all its internal affairs, and find out, it possible, the best modes of removing the causes of complaint.
”Lastly, as a proof of the desire to deal impartially with the King's Canadian subjects, it was decided to send out, as governor, one who had rendered himself acceptable to all cla.s.ses. This was no other than the popular Sir Guy Carleton, who had been made a peer with the t.i.tle of _Lord Dorchester_, who reached Quebec in October, 1786. During the succeeding five years, until 1791, when he again departed (for a short time) to England, the Governor did all in his power to mitigate the bad feelings growing out of the differences of race, creed and language. In order to procure for the English Ministers the information they needed about the internal affairs of the province, he appointed Committees of Inquiry to inquire into all particulars relating to _commerce, education, justice_, the _militia_, and the _tenure_ of _lands_; to make full reports upon these; to suggest changes and improvements by which existing evils might be remedied.” (Dr. Miles' School History of Canada, Chap. v., pp. 181, 182.)
See also Tuttle's History of the Dominion of Canada, Chap. v., p. 322.]
[Footnote 154: It was the discussion on this Bill which produced the first separation between Fox and Burke. The mind of Burke was excited to the highest degree by the principles and horrors of the French revolution, and he had frequently denounced it with the full force of his lofty eloquence; while Fox had repeatedly expressed his admiration of the French revolution. When the Canada Bill was discussed in the House of Commons, Burke commenced his speech by a philippic against the republican principles of the revolutionary Government of France; and concluded by declaring that if by adhering to the British Const.i.tution would cause his friends to desert him, he would risk all, and, as his public duty taught him, exclaim in his last words, ”Fly from the French Const.i.tution!” Fox said in a low voice, ”There is no loss of friends.h.i.+p, I hope.” ”Yes,” retorted Burke, ”there is a loss of friends.h.i.+p. I know the price of my conduct. Our friends.h.i.+p is at an end.” Such a scene followed as had seldom, if ever, been witnessed in the House of Commons.
Members were veritably affected by such an open rupture between those two celebrated statesmen and orators. Fox shed tears; and it was some time before he could sufficiently command his emotions to reply.]
[Footnote 155: This was an under-estimate of the population of both provinces. Later and reliable authorities estimate the population of Lower Canada in 1791 at 150,000, of whom about 15,000 were British; in 1763 the population of Lower Canada was estimated at 65,000; the population had therefore more than doubled during the twenty-seven years of English rule. Before 1782, the English-speaking Protestant inhabitants were very insignificant in number; but after 1782 they increased rapidly, and are estimated at upwards of 15,000, and by some writers as high as 30,000 in the year 1791. The great majority of them, besides, were of cla.s.ses of people accustomed to think for themselves, also officers and disbanded soldiers belonging to the army, and emigrants from the British Isles, who came to make homes for their families in Canada. (Miles' School History of Canada, Part II., Chap.
v., pp. 183, 184.)
It is stated on the best authorities that 10,000 Loyalist emigrants arrived in what was afterwards designated Upper Canada, during the year 1783; in 1791 the population of Upper Canada is stated to have been 12,000.]
[Footnote 156: ”In June, 1786, Sir Guy Carleton, now raised to the peerage as Lord Dorchester, was appointed Governor-General of all the provinces, and Commander-in-Chief of all the forces in British America.
He arrived at Quebec on the 23rd of October, and was joyfully received by all cla.s.ses, but especially by the Canadians, with whom he was a great favourite on account of the mildness and justice with which he had treated them during his former administrations. At the same time there also arrived a new Chief Justice for Quebec, Mr. Smith, who had been Attorney-General for New York, but had been forced to leave on account of his loyalty to the British Crown.” (Tuttle's History of the Dominion of Canada, Chap. lxv., p. 321.)]
[Footnote 157: ”The elections came off during June, and the people exercised their new privilege with prudence and judgment, returning good men; and although the elections were warmly contested in some places, everything pa.s.sed off quietly. There were fifteen English-speaking members elected, amongst whom were some of the leading merchants, such as James McGill, Joseph Frobisher, John Richardson and others, whose descendants are still amongst our leading citizens. Amongst the French elected were many of the most prominent seignors, such as Louis De Salaberry, M.H. De Rouville, Philip Rocheblave, M.E.G.C. De Lotbiniere, M. La Vatrice and others. Altogether, it is generally claimed that the first a.s.sembly of Lower Canada was the best the province ever had.”
(Tuttle's History of the Dominion of Canada, Chap. lxviii., p. 330.)]
[Footnote 158: The French-speaking members nominated Mr. J.A. Parret (Panet), a leading advocate of Quebec; and the English party nominated successively Mr. James McGill, one of the most prominent merchants of Montreal, and William Grant, of Quebec. The feeling was strong on each side to have in the Speaker a gentleman of their own language; but Mr.
Parret (Panet) was ultimately chosen by a large majority, to some extent because _he understood and spoke both languages fluently_. This gentleman occupied the position of Speaker for upwards of twenty years, and fully justified the wisdom of the first a.s.sembly in electing him.--_Ib._, p. 330.
It is singular that in some histories of Canada it should have been stated that the Speaker elected by the first House of a.s.sembly could speak no other tongue than the French language. Mr. Archer, in his History of Canada for the Use of Schools, says: ”By a vote of twenty eight to eighteen, M. Panet, _who could speak no language but his native French_, was chosen” (p. 269). Mr. Withrow, in his excellent History of Canada, says: ”Mr. Panet, a distinguished advocate, _who spoke no language but his native French_, was elected Speaker of the a.s.sembly”