Montreal, 1535-1914. Vol. 2. Under British Rule, 1760-1914

by William H. Atherton · English · Gutenberg #48244 · 2,163,686 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Montreal, 1535-1914. Vol. 2. Under British Rule, 1760-1914

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Montreal, 1535-1914. Vol. 2. Under British Rule, 1760-1914

Author: William H. Atherton

Release date: February 12, 2015 [eBook #48244]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48244

Credits: E-text prepared by Charlene Taylor, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries (https://archive.org/details/toronto)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONTREAL, 1535-1914. VOL. 2. UNDER BRITISH RULE, 1760-1914 ***

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 48244-h.htm or 48244-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/48244/pg48244-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48244/48244-h.zip)

Project Gutenberg has the other volume of this work.
Volume I: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47809

Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/montrealunderthe02atheuoft

Transcriber’s note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: Benj^n).

MONTREAL 1535-1914

Under British Rule 1760-1914

WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON, Ph. D.

_Qui manet in patria et patriam cognoscere temnit
Is mihi non civis, sed peregrinus erit_

VOLUME II

[Illustration]

Illustrated

The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company
Montreal Vancouver Chicago
1914

PREFACE

The history of “Montreal Under British Rule” is the “Tale of Two
Cities”, of a dual civilization with two main racial origins, two
mentalities, two main languages, and two main religions. It is
the story of two dominant races growing up side by side under the
same flag, jealously preserving their identities, at some times
mistrusting one another, but on the whole living in marvelous
harmony though not always in unison, except on certain well
defined common grounds of devotion to Canada and the Empire, and
of the desire of maintaining the noble traditions and the steady
progress of their city.

Montreal of today is a cosmopolitan city, but it is
preponderatingly French-Canadian in its population. This fact
makes it necessary to give especial attention to the history of
two-thirds of the people. There has, therefore, been an effort in
these pages, while recognizing this, to respect the rights of the
minority, and open-handed justice has been observed.

The position of a dispassionate onlooker has been taken as far
as possible in the narration of the domestic struggles in the
upbuilding of the city through the crucial turnstiles of Canadian
history under British rule--the Interregnum, the establishment
of civil government, the Quebec act, the Constitutional act,
the Union, and the Confederation. This attitude of equipoise,
while disappointing to partisans, has been justified if it helps
to present an unbiased account of different periods of history
and serves to maintain the city’s motto of “Concordia Salus”--a
doctrine which has been upheld throughout this work. _Tout savoir
c’est tout pardonner._

Charles Dickens in his visit to Montreal in 1842 observed that
it was a “heart-burning town.” There is no need to renew the
occasion for such a title in the city of today.

It only remains to express thankful indebtedness to those, too
numerous to mention, who have assisted in the compilation of
certain information otherwise difficult of access, and also to
thank a number of friends, prominent citizens of Montreal, who
in connection with the movement for city improvement and the
inculcation of civic pride have encouraged the author to embark
on the laborious but pleasant task of preparing this second
volume of the history of “Montreal Under British Rule,” as a
sequel to the first volume of “Montreal Under the French Régime.”

WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON.
December, 1914.

NOTE TO THE READER

In presenting the second volume to the reader the writer would
observe that its first part deals mainly with the story of city
progress under the various changes of the political and civic
constitution, with certain chapters of supplementary annals and
sidelights of general progress. The second part treats in detail,
for the sake of students and as a reference book, the special
advancement of the city through its various eras in religion,
education, culture, population, public service, hospital,
charitable, commercial, financial, transportation and city
improvement growth, and in so doing the author has desired to
present the histories of the chief associations that have in the
past or in the present been mainly responsible for the upbuilding
of a no mean city.

W.H.A.

CONTENTS

PART I

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS

CHAPTER I

THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL

1760

“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”

AMHERST’S LETTER REVIEWING EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE
CAPITULATION--THE SURRENDER OF ARMS--THE REVIEW OF BRITISH
TROOPS--THE DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH TROOPS--END OF THE
PECULATORS--VAUDREUIL’S CAPITULATION CENSURED--DEPARTURE OF
THE PROVINCIAL TROOPS--ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
COLONY--DEPARTURE OF AMHERST--THE TWO RACES LEFT BEHIND. NOTES:
(1) THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT.--(2) THE POPULATION OF CANADA
AT THE FALL 3

CHAPTER II

THE INTERREGNUM

1760-1763

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

BRIGADIER GAGE, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL--THE ADDRESS OF THE
MILITIA AND MERCHANTS--GOVERNMENT BY THE MILITARY BUT NOT
“MARTIAL LAW”--THE CUSTOM OF PARIS STILL PREVAILS--COURTS
ESTABLISHED--THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRENCH-CANADIAN MILITIA CAPTAINS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE--SENTENCES FROM THE REGISTERS
OF THE MONTREAL COURTS--GOVERNOR GAGE’S ORDINANCES--TRADE--THE
PORT--GAGE’S REPORT TO PITT ON THE STATE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
MONTREAL--THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECLARATION OF THE DEFINITIVE
TREATY OF PARIS--REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF THE
PAPER MONEY--LEAVE TO THE FRENCH TO DEPART--LAST ORDINANCES OF
GAGE--HIS DEPARTURE 13

CHAPTER III

THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS

1763

THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT

THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE--SECTION RELATING TO
CANADA--CATHOLIC DISABILITIES AND THE PHRASE “AS FAR AS THE
LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT”--THE TREATY RECEIVED WITH DELIGHT
BY THE “OLD” SUBJECTS BUT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT BY THE “NEW”--THE
INEVITABLE STRUGGLES BEGIN, TO CULMINATE IN THE QUEBEC ACT
OF 1774--OPPOSITION AT MONTREAL, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE
SEIGNEURS--THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ACTION--CIVIL COURTS AND
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ESTABLISHED--MURRAY’S ACTION IN ALLOWING
“ALL SUBJECTS OF THE COLONY” TO BE CALLED UPON TO ACT AS JURORS
VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE BRITISH PARTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL--THE
PROTEST OF THE QUEBEC GRAND JURY--SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS
IN 1766 TO SUIT ALL PARTIES--GOVERNOR MURRAY’S COMMENT
ON MONTREAL, “EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE
HATCHED THERE”--MURRAY AND THE MONTREAL MERCHANTS--A TIME OF
MISUNDERSTANDING. NOTE: LIST OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNORS 25

CHAPTER IV

CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

1764

RALPH BURTON, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL, BECOMES MILITARY
COMMANDANT--FRICTION AMONG MILITARY COMMANDERS--JUSTICES
OF PEACE CREATED--FIRST QUARTER SESSIONS--MILITARY
VERSUS CITIZENS--THE WALKER OUTRAGE--THE TRIAL--WALKER
BOASTS OF SECURING MURRAY’S RECALL--MURRAY’S DEFENSE
AFTER HIS RECALL--THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ABUSE THEIR
POWER--CENSURED BY THE COUNCIL AT QUEBEC--COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ESTABLISHED--PIERRE DU CALVET--CARLETON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE
“DISTRESSES OF THE CANADIANS” 35

CHAPTER V

THE PRELIMINARY STRUGGLE FOR AN ASSEMBLY

THE BRITISH MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL

“VERY RESPECTABLE MERCHANTS”--A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON
BRITISH LINES PROMOTED BY THEM--INOPPORTUNE--VARIOUS
MEMORIALS TO GOVERNMENT--THE MEETINGS AT MILES PRENTIES’
HOUSE--CRAMAHE--MASERES--COUNTER PETITIONS 45

CHAPTER VI

THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774

THE NOBLESSE OF THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

THE GRIEVANCES OF THE SEIGNEURS--MONTREAL THE
HEADQUARTERS--“EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE
HATCHED THERE”--PETITIONS--CARLETON’S FEAR OF A FRENCH
INVASION--A SECRET MEETING--PROTESTS OF MAGISTRATES TODD AND
BRASHAY--PROTESTS OF CITIZENS--CARLETON’S CORRESPONDENCE FOR
AN AMENDED CONSTITUTION IN FAVOUR OF THE NOBLESSE--THE QUEBEC
ACT--ANGLICIZATION ABANDONED 51

CHAPTER VII

THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775

MONTREAL THE SEAT OF DISCONTENT

THE QUEBEC ACT, A PRIMARY OCCASION OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION--MONTREAL BRITISH DISLOYAL--THE COFFEE HOUSE
MEETING--WALKER AGAIN--MONTREAL DISAFFECTS QUEBEC--LOYALTY
OF HABITANTS AND SAVAGES UNDERMINED--NOBLESSE, GENTRY AND
CLERGY LOYAL--KING GEORGE’S BUST DESECRATED--“DELENDA EST
CANADA”--“THE FOURTEENTH COLONY”--BENEDICT ARNOLD AND ETHAN
ALLEN--BINDON’S TREACHERY--CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FEEBLY
ANSWERED--MILITIA CALLED OUT--LANDING OF THE REBELS--ENGLISH
OFFICIAL APATHY--MONTREAL’S PART IN THE DEFENCE OF CANADA--THE
FIRST SOLELY FRENCH-CANADIAN COMPANY OF MILITIA--NOTE: THE
MILITIA 63

CHAPTER VIII

MONTREAL BESIEGED

1775

THE SECOND CAPITULATION

ETHAN ALLEN--HABITANTS’ AND CAUGHNAWAGANS’ LOYALTY TAMPERED
WITH--PLAN TO OVERCOME MONTREAL--THE ATTACK--ALLEN
CAPTURED--WALKER’S FARM HOUSE AT L’ASSOMPTION BURNED--WALKER
TAKEN PRISONER TO MONTREAL--CARLETON’S FORCE FROM MONTREAL
FAILS AT ST. JOHN’S--CARLETON LEAVES MONTREAL--MONTREAL
BESIEGED--MONTGOMERY RECEIVES A DEPUTATION OF CITIZENS--THE
ARTICLES OF CAPITULATION--MONTGOMERY ENTERS BY THE RECOLLECT
GATE--WASHINGTON’S PROCLAMATION 71

CHAPTER IX

MONTREAL, AN AMERICAN CITY SEVEN MONTHS UNDER CONGRESS

1776

THE CONGRESS ARMY EVACUATES MONTREAL

MONTREAL UNDER CONGRESS--GENERAL WOOSTER’S TROUBLES--MONEY AND
PROVISIONS SCARCE--MILITARY RULE--GENERAL CONFUSION--THE
CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY, AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS--THE COMMISSIONERS:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, SAMUEL CHASE AND CHARLES CARROL--FLEURY
MESPLET, THE PRINTER--THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONERS--NEWS
OF THE FLIGHT FROM QUEBEC--MONTREAL A STORMY SEA--THE
COMMISSIONERS FLY--THE WALKERS ALSO--THE EVACUATION BY THE
CONGRESS TROOPS--NOTES: I. PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED; II.
DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES 79

CHAPTER X

THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST

1776-1791

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791

REOCCUPATION BY BRITISH--COURTS REESTABLISHED--CONGRESS’ SPECIAL
OFFER TO CANADA--LAFAYETTE’S PROJECTED RAID--UNREST AGAIN--THE
LOYALTY OF FRENCH CANADIANS AGAIN BEING TEMPTED--QUEBEC
ACT PUT INTO FORCE--THE MERCHANTS BEGIN MEMORIALIZING FOR
A REPEAL AND AN ASSEMBLY--HALDIMAND AND HUGH FINLAY OPPOSE
ASSEMBLY--MEETINGS AND COUNTER MEETINGS--CIVIC AFFAIRS--THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROJECTED “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE”--THE FIRST
NOTIONS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--THE MONTREAL CITIZENS’
COMMITTEE REPORT--THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS--THE DIVISION OF
THE PROVINCE PROJECTED--THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791. NOTE:
MONTREAL NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN 1784 87

CHAPTER XI

THE FUR TRADERS OF MONTREAL

THE GREAT NORTH WEST COMPANY

MERCHANTS--NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINS--UP COUNTRY
TRADE--EARLY COMPANIES--NORTH WEST COMPANY--CHARLES GRANT’S
REPORT--PASSES--MEMORIALS--GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES--RIVAL
COMPANIES--THE X.Y. COMPANY--JOHN JACOB ASTOR’S COMPANIES---
ASTORIA TO BE FOUNDED--THE JOURNEY OF THE MONTREAL
CONTINGENT--ASTORIA A FAILURE--THE GREAT RIVAL--THE HUDSON’S
BAY COMPANY--SIR ALEXANDER SELKIRK--THE AMALGAMATION OF THE
NORTH WEST AND HUDSON’S BAY COMPANIES IN 1821--THE BEAVER CLUB 97

CHAPTER XII

FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS

MONTREAL THE SEAT OF JACOBINISM

THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST--MONTREAL REPRESENTATIVES--FRENCH AND
ENGLISH USED--THE FRENCH REVOLUTION--MUTINY AT QUEBEC--THE
DUKE OF KENT--INVASION FEARED FROM FRANCE--MONTREAL
DISAFFECTED--ATTORNEY GENERAL MONK’S REPORT--THE FRENCH
SEDITIONARY PAMPHLETS--PANEGYRIC ON BISHOP BRIAND--MONTREAL
ARRESTS--ATTORNEY GENERAL SEWELL’S REPORT--M’LEAN--ROGER’S
SOCIETY--JEROME BONAPARTE EXPECTED 105

CHAPTER XIII

THE AMERICAN INVASION OF 1812

MONTREAL AND CHATEAUGUAY

FRENCH CANADIAN LOYALTY

THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF 1812--THE CHESAPEAKE--JOHN HENRY--HOW
THE NEWS OF INVASION WAS RECEIVED IN MONTREAL--THE
MOBILIZATION--GENERAL HULL--THE MONTREAL MILITIA--FRENCH AND
ENGLISH ENLIST--MONTREAL THE OBJECTIVE--OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF
THE BATTLE OF CHATEAUGUAY--COLONEL DE SALABERRY--RETURN OF
WOUNDED--THE EXPLANATION OF THE FEW BRITISH KILLED 115

CHAPTER XIV

SIDE LIGHTS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

1776-1825

THE “GAZETTE DU COMMERCE ET LITTERAIRE”--A RUNAWAY SLAVE--GUY
CARLETON’S DEPARTURE--GENERAL HALDIMAND IN MONTREAL--MESPLET’S
PAPER SUSPENDED--POET’S CORNER--THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
DISCUSSED--FIRST THEATRICAL COMPANY: THE “BUSY BODY”--LORD
NELSON’S MONUMENT--A RUNAWAY RED CURLY HAIRED AND BANDY
LEGGED APPRENTICE--LAMBERT’S PICTURE OF THE PERIOD--MINE HOST
OF THE “MONTREAL HOTEL”--THE “CANADIAN COURANT”--AMERICAN
INFLUENCE--THE “HERALD”--WILLIAM GRAY AND ALEXANDER
SKAKEL--BEGINNINGS OF COMMERCIAL LIFE--DOIGE’S DIRECTORY--MUNGO
KAY--LITERARY CELEBRITIES--HERALD “EXTRAS”--WATERLOO--POLITICAL
PSEUDONYMS--NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION--THE ABORTIVE “SUN”--A
PICTURE OF THE CITY IN 1818--THE BLACK RAIN OF 1819--OFFICIAL,
MILITARY AND ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE--ORIGIN OF ART, MUSIC, ETC. 123

CHAPTER XV

BUREAURACY vs. DEMOCRACY

THE PROPOSED UNION OF THE CANADAS

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT--MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS--FRENCH-CANADIANS
AIM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR POLITICAL POWER--THE “COLONIAL” OFFICE
AND THE BUREAUCRATIC CLASS VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE
ASSEMBLY--L. J. PAPINEAU AND JOHN RICHARDSON--PETITIONS FOR
AND AGAINST UNION--THE MONTREAL BRITISH PETITION OF 1822--THE
ANSWER OF L.J. PAPINEAU--THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL--THE BILL FOR
UNION WITHDRAWN. NOTES: NAMES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE FROM
1796 TO 1833--MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL
DISTRICT, 1791-1829--PETITION OF MONTREAL BRITISH--1822 133

CHAPTER XVI

MURMURS OF REVOLUTION

RACE AND CLASS ANTAGONISM

“CANADA TRADE ACTS”--LORD DALHOUSIE BANQUETED AFTER BEING
RECALLED--MOVEMENT TO JOIN MONTREAL AS A PORT TO UPPER
CANADA--THE GOVERNOR ALLEGED TO BE A TOOL--EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL--RIOTOUS ELECTION AT MONTREAL--DR. TRACY VERSUS
STANLEY BAGG--THE MILITARY FIRE--THE “MINERVE” VERSUS THE
GAZETTE AND HERALD--THE CHOLERA OF 1832--MURMURS OF THE COMING
REVOLT--MONTREAL PETITION FOR AND AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL
CHANGES--MR. NELSON BREAKS WITH PAPINEAU--THE NINETY-TWO
RESOLUTIONS--MR. ROEBUCK, AGENT FOR THE REFORM PARTY,
ADVOCATES SELF-GOVERNMENT--FRENCH-CANADIAN EXTREMISTS--THE
ELECTIONS--PUBLIC MEETING OF “MEN OF BRITISH AND IRISH
DESCENT”--TWO DIVERGENT MENTALITIES--THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ASSOCIATIONS--PETITIONS TO LONDON--LORD GOSFORD APPOINTED
ROYAL COMMISSIONER--HIS POLICY OF CONCILIATION REJECTED--MR.
PAPINEAU INTRANSIGEANT--RAISING VOLUNTEER CORPS FORBIDDEN--THE
DORIC CLUB--“RESPONSIBLE” GOVERNMENT DEMANDED 139

CHAPTER XVII

MONTREAL IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR

1837-1838

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO REMAIN CROWN-APPOINTED--THE SIGNAL FOR
REVOLT--FIRST INSURRECTIONARY MEETING. AT ST. OURS--DR. WOLFRED
NELSON--CONSTITUTIONAL MEETINGS--THE PARISHES--THE SEDITIONARY
MANIFESTO OF “LES FILS DE LIBERTE” AT MONTREAL--REVOLUTIONARY
BANNERS--IRISH REJECT REVOLUTIONARY PARTY--MGR. LARTIGUE’S
MANDEMENT AGAINST CIVIL WAR--THE FRACAS BETWEEN THE DORIC
CLUB AND THE FILS DE LIBERTE--RIOT ACT READ--THE “VINDICATOR”
GUTTED--MILITARY PROCEEDINGS--WARRANTS FOR ARREST--PAPINEAU
FLIES--RELEASE OF PRISONERS AT LONGUEUIL--COMMENCEMENT
OF HOSTILITIES--ST. DENIS--LIEUTENANT WEIR’S DEATH--GEN.
T.S. BROWN--ST. CHARLES--ST. EUSTACHE--CAPTURE OF WOLFRED
NELSON--SECOND MANDEMENT OF BISHOP LARTIGUE--DAY OF
THANKSGIVING--CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED--THE INDEPENDENCE OF
CANADA PROCLAIMED BY “PRESIDENT NELSON”--THE REGIMENTS LEAVE
THE CITY--LORD DURHAM ARRIVES--AMNESTY AND SENTENCES--DURHAM
RESIGNS--THE SECOND INSURRECTION--MARTIAL LAW IN MONTREAL--SIR
JOHN COLBORNE QUASHES REBELLION--STERN REPRISALS--ARRESTS--TRUE
BILLS--POLITICAL EXECUTIONS--“CONCORDIA SALUS” 149

CHAPTER XVIII

PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION

1841

HOME RULE FOR THE COLONY

THE DURHAM REPORT--THE RESOLUTIONS AT THE CHATEAU DE
RAMEZAY--LORD SYDENHAM--THE PROCLAMATION OF UNION AT
MONTREAL--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AT LAST 159

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 CAVAZZI 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 163

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 181

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 195

CHAPTER XXII

CONSTITUTIONAL LIFE UNDER CONFEDERATION

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL INFLUENCE

MONTREAL AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL
POLITICS--CONFEDERATION TESTED--CARTIER AND THE PARTI ROUGE
AT MONTREAL--ASSASSINATION OF THOMAS D’ARCY M’GEE--THE
HUDSON’S BAY TRANSFER--THE METIS AND THE RIEL REBELLION--LORD
STRATHCONA--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL--RESIGNATION
OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD--SECOND FENIAN RAID--THE “NATIONAL
POLICY”--VOTING REFORM--TEMPERANCE BILL--ORANGE RIOTS--SECOND
NORTH WEST REBELLION--THE “SIXTY-FIFTH REGIMENT”--THE
MANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION--PROMINENT CITIZENS--BRITISH
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF--BOER WAR--“STRATHCONA HORSE”--THE
NATIONALIST LEAGUE--RECIPROCITY AND FEAR OF ANNEXATION--THE
ELECTIONS OF 1911--NAVAL BILL--PROVINCIAL POLITICS--MONTREAL
MEMBERS--PROVINCIAL OVERSIGHT OVER MONTREAL--HOME RULE--THE
INTERNATIONAL WAR OF 1914--THE FIRST CONTINGENT--MONTREAL’S
ACTION 219

CHAPTER XXIII

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE

UNDER CONFEDERATION

1867-1914

CONFEDERATION--IMPRESSIONS OF--FUNERAL OF D’ARCY M’GEE--PRINCE
ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT--THE SECOND FENIAN RAID--THE “SILVER”
NUISANCE--ORGANIZATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD--RUN ON
A SAVINGS BANK--FUNERAL OF SIR GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER--NEW
BALLOT ACT--THE “BAD TIMES”--THE NATIONAL POLICY--THE ICE
RAILWAY--THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD CONTRACT--THE FORMATION
OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA--OTHER CONGRESSES--THE
FIRST WINTER CARNIVAL--FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ST. JEAN
BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--THE GREAT ALLEGORICAL PROCESSION AND
CAVALCADE--THE MONUMENT NATIONAL--THE RIEL REBELLION--SMALLPOX
EPIDEMIC AND RIOTS--THE FLOODS OF 1886--THE FIRST
REVETMENT WALL--THE JESUITS ESTATES BILL AND THE EQUAL
RIGHTS PARTY--LA GRIPPE--THE COMTE DE PARIS--ELECTRICAL
CONVENTION--HISTORIC TABLETS PLACED--THE TWO HUNDRED AND
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLE MARIE--THE BOARD OF TRADE
BUILDING BURNT--THE CITY RAILWAY ELECTRIFIED--HOME RULE FOR
IRELAND--VILLE MARIA BURNT--THE “SANTA MARIA”--CHRISTIAN
ENDEAVOURERS CONVENTION--THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY AS A PUBLIC
MUSEUM--MAISONNEUVE MONUMENT--LAVAL UNIVERSITY--QUEEN
VICTORIA’S DIAMOND JUBILEE--MONTREAL AND THE BOER WAR--THE
VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL--TURBINE STEAMERS--A
JAPANESE LOAN COMPANY--FIRST AUTOMOBILE FATALITY--FIRES AT
MCGILL--ECLIPSE OF SUN--THE WINDSOR STATION ACCIDENT--THE
“WITNESS” BUILDING BURNT--THE OPENING OF THE ROYAL EDWARD
INSTITUTE--GREAT CIVIC REFORM--THE DEATH OF EDWARD VII--THE
“HERALD” BUILDING BURNT--THE EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS--MONTREAL A
WORLD CITY--THE DRY DOCK--THE “TITANIC DISASTER”--CHILD WELFARE
EXHIBITION--MONTREAL AND THE WAR OF 1914 231

PART II

SPECIAL PROGRESS

CHAPTER XXIV

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

EARLY CHAPELS AND CHURCHES--THE FIRST PARISH CHURCH--OTHER
CHURCHES STANDING AT THE FALL OF MONTREAL--NOTRE DAME DE
VICTOIRE--- NOTRE DAME OF PITIE--THE “RECOLLET”--THE PRESENT
NOTRE DAME CHURCH--ERECTION AND OPENING--THE “OLD AND
NEW”--THE TOWERS AND BELLS--THE ECCLESIASTICAL DIOCESE OF
QUEBEC--THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL--THE DIVISION OF THE CITY
INTO PARISHES--THE CHURCHES AND “RELIGIOUS”--ENGLISH-SPEAKING
CATHOLICS--ST. PATRICK’S, IRISH NATIONAL CHURCH, ETC. NOTE: THE
“RELIGIOUS” COMMUNITIES OF MEN AND WOMEN 251

CHAPTER XXV

OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS

ANGLICANISM--EARLY BEGINNINGS--FIRST “CHRIST CHURCH”--THE BISHOPS
OF MONTREAL--HISTORY OF EARLY ANGLICAN CHURCHES.

PRESBYTERIANISM--ST. GABRIEL’S STREET CHURCH--ITS OFFSHOOTS--THE
FREE KIRK MOVEMENT--THE CHURCH OF TODAY.

METHODISM--FIRST CHAPEL ON ST. SULPICE, 1809--THE DEVELOPMENT OF
METHODIST CHURCHES.

THE BAPTISTS--FIRST CHAPEL OF ST. HELEN STREET--FURTHER GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT--PRESENT CHURCHES.

CONGREGATIONALISM--CANADA EDUCATION AND HOME MISSIONARY
SOCIETY--FIRST CHURCH ON ST. MAURICE STREET--CHURCHES OF TODAY.

UNITARIANISM--FIRST SERMON IN CANADA, 1832--ST. JOSEPH STREET
CHAPEL--THE CHURCHES OF THE MESSIAH.

HEBREWS--SHEARITH ISRAEL--SHAAC HASHOMOYIM AND OTHER
CONGREGATIONS.

SALVATION ARMY--ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

OTHER DENOMINATIONS.

A RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF MONTREAL FOR 1911 271

CHAPTER XXVI

1760-1841

SCHOOL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL BEFORE THE CESSION

NEW MOVEMENT FOR BOYS--THE COLLEGE OF MONTREAL--THE BEGINNINGS
OF ENGLISH EDUCATION--THE FIRST ENGLISH SCHOOLMASTERS BEFORE
1790--A REPORT OF 1790 FOR THE SCHOOLS OF CANADA--THE DESIRE
TO REAR UP A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION--THE JESUITS’
ESTATES--THE “CASE” AGAINST AMHERST’S CLAIM TO THE JESUITS’
ESTATES AND FOR THEIR DIVERGENCE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION--NEW
ENGLISH MOVEMENT FOR A GENERAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION--THE
ACT OF 1801--THE ROYAL INSTITUTION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
LEARNING--NEVER A POPULAR SUCCESS--ITS REFORM IN 1818--A
COUNTERPOISE--THE FABRIQUE ACT OF 1824--REVIEW OF SCHOOLS UNDER
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--SUBSIDIZED SCHOOLS--REVIEW OF CATHOLIC
SCHOOLS--LAY SCHOOLS--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT ON EDUCATION. NOTE:
THE JESUITS’ ESTATES 293

CHAPTER XXVII

1841-1914

THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AFTER THE UNION

THE RISE OF THE “SCHOOL COMMISSIONS OF MONTREAL”

EDUCATION AFTER THE REBELLION--THE EDUCATIONAL ACT OF
1846--THE PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
COMMISSIONERS--NORMAL SCHOOLS--THE AMENDED SCHOOL ACT
OF 1868-69--THE CHARTER--THE PROTESTANT HIGH SCHOOL--THE
PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--HISTORY OF
SCHOOLS--LIST OF CATHOLIC COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914--PRESENT
SCHOOLS UNDER COMMISSION--INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC SCHOOL
COMMISSIONS--THE ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH THE CENTRAL
COMMISSION--“NUNS”--“BROTHERS”--“LAITY.”

NOTE: SECONDARY EDUCATION--TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL--VOCATIONAL 305

CHAPTER XXVIII

UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT

I. M’GILL UNIVERSITY

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION--JAMES M’GILL--CHARTER OBTAINED--THE
“MONTREAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE” SAVES M’GILL--NEW LIFE IN
1829--THE RECTOR OF MONTREAL--THE MERCHANTS’ COMMITTEE--M’GILL
IN 1852--THE HISTORY OF THE FACULTIES--BUILDINGS--DEVELOPMENT
SINCE 1895--RECENT BENEFACTORS--MACDONALD COLLEGE--THE
STRATHCONA ROYAL VICTORIA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN. NOTE: THE UNION
THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT--THE JOINT BOARDS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL,
ANGLICAN, PRESBYTERIAN AND WESLEYAN AFFILIATED COLLEGES.

II. LAVAL UNIVERSITY (MONTREAL DISTRICT)

THE STORY OF ITS COMPONENT PARTS--EVOLUTION FROM THE “ECOLES
DE LATIN”--COLLEGE DE ST. RAPHAEL--ENGLISH STUDENTS--COLLEGE
DECLAMATIONS--THE PETIT SEMINAIRE ON COLLEGE STREET--THE
COLLEGE DE MONTREAL--THE SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY,
CLASSICS, LAW AND MEDICINE--THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “JAM
DUDUM”--DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS--AFFILIATED
BODIES--THE FACULTIES AND SCHOOLS. NOTE: NAMES OF EARLY
“ENGLISH” STUDENTS AT THE “COLLEGE” 325

CHAPTER XXIX

GENERAL CULTURE

I. THE LIBRARY MOVEMENT

FRENCH:--L’OEUVRE DES BONS LIVRES, 1844--THE CABINET DE LECTURE
PAROISSIAL, 1857.

ENGLISH:--“MONTREAL LIBRARY” AND MONTREAL NEWS ROOM,
1821--MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 1844--THE FRASER
INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 1870--ITS EARLY LITIGATIONS--ITS PUBLIC
OPENING IN 1885--OTHER LIBRARIES.

II. LITERARY AND LEARNED SOCIETIES

THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1827--THE MECHANICS INSTITUTE,
1828--LA SOCIETE HISTORIQUE, 1856--CONFERENCE DES INSTITUTEURS,
1857--THE “INSTITUT CANADIEN”--CERCLE LITTERAIRE DE VILLE
MARIE, 1857--UNION CATHOLIQUE, 1858--(THE GUIBORD CASE)--THE
ANTIQUARIAN AND NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION, 1862--THE “ECOLE
LITTERAIRE” 1892--ST. JAMES LITERARY SOCIETY, 1898--THE
“DICKENS’ FELLOWSHIP” 1909--OTHER LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS--THE
“BURNS SOCIETY”--THE ALLIANCE FRANCAISE--THE CANADIAN CLUB,
1905.

III. ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS

FOREWORD:--INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC EXCLUSIVENESS.

ART:--EARLY ART IN CANADA--THE MODERN MOVEMENT--THE MONTREAL
SOCIETY OF ARTISTS--THE ART ASSOCIATION OF MONTREAL--ITS
HISTORY--ITS PAINTINGS--MONTREAL ART COLLECTIONS--THE ART
SCHOOL--MONTREAL ARTISTS--THE WOMAN’S ART SOCIETY--THE CHATEAU
DE RAMEZAY--THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS--THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF
CANADA--OUTSTANDING ARTISTS.

THE DRAMA:--PLAYS IN 1804--THE FIRST THEATRE ROYAL BUILT IN
1825--THE SECOND OPENED IN 1850--OTHER THEATRES TO THE
PRESENT--AMATEUR THEATRICAL ASSOCIATIONS--THE DRAMATIC LEAGUE.

MUSIC:--MODERN SOCIETIES--SOCIETE DE STE CECILE--SOCIETE
DE MONTAGNARDS--AMATEUR MUSICAL LEAGUE--MENDELSSOHN
CHOIR--MONTREAL PHILHARMONIC--INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.

NEWSPAPERS:--MONTREAL HISTORIES 349

CHAPTER XXX

NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE POPULATION

1834, THE YEAR OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST
NATIONAL SOCIETIES.

ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION--REORGANIZATION IN 1843--THE
“MONUMENT NATIONAL”--EDUCATION AND SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS--THE
FRENCH-CANADIAN SPIRIT--PRESIDENTS.

ST. GEORGE’S SOCIETY--A CELEBRATION IN 1821--OBJECT--EARLIEST
OFFICERS--THE HISTORY OF ST. GEORGE’S HOME--PRESIDENTS.

ST. ANDREW’S SOCIETY--ORGANIZATION AND FIRST OFFICERS--JOINT
PROCESSIONS OF NATIONAL SOCIETIES--EARLIEST CHARITABLE
ACTIVITIES--THE HEALTH OF THE POPE--THE LORD ELGIN
INCIDENT--THE CRIMEAN WAR--SUBSCRIPTION TO A PATRIOTIC
FUND--THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HOME BEGINS--THE HISTORY
OF ST. ANDREW’S HALL--CONDOLENCE ON DEATH OF D’ARCY
MCGEE--PRESIDENTS.

ST. PATRICK’S SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY NON-DENOMINATIONAL--EARLY
PRESIDENTS--THE REORGANIZATION IN 1856--FIRST OFFICERS--FIRST
SOIREE--FIRST ANNIVERSARY DINNER--NATIONAL SOCIETIES
PRESENT--THE TOASTS--IRISH COMPANIES IN CORPUS CHRISTI
PROCESSION--IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION--T. D’ARCY
M’GEE--EMIGRATION WORK--ST. PATRICK’S HALL--PRESIDENTS.

IRISH PROTESTANT BENEVOLENT SOCIETY--EARLY
MEMBERS--WORKS--PRESIDENTS.

GERMAN SOCIETY--HISTORY AND PRESIDENTS.

WELSH SOCIETY--ORIGINALLY THE “WELSH UNION OF
MONTREAL”--AFTERWARD--ITS OBJECT--PRESIDENTS.

NEWFOUNDLAND SOCIETY--ORIGIN--PRESIDENTS.

THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT--THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.

OTHER NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CENSUS OF POPULATION FOR 1911 369

CHAPTER XXXI

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

FIGHTING FIRE--DARKNESS--FLOODS--DROUGHT

1. FIRE FIGHTING--THE FIRE OF 1765--“THE CASE OF THE CANADIANS
OF MONTREAL”--THE EXTENT OF THE FIRE--FIRE PRECAUTIONS
SUGGESTED--OTHER HISTORICAL FORCES--THE MONTREAL FIRE FORCES OF
THE PAST AND PRESENT.

2. THE LIGHTING OF MONTREAL--OIL LAMPS, 1815--GAS,
1836--ELECTRICITY--FIRST EXPERIMENTS IN THE STREETS, 1879--THE
ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES--NOTES ON INTRODUCTION OF THE
TELEGRAPH--FIRE ALARM--ELECTRIC RAILWAY.

3. FLOODS, EARLY AND MODERN, 1848, 1857, 1861, 1865, 1886--THE
PRACTICAL CESSATION IN 1888.

4. THE CITY WATER SUPPLY--THE MONTREAL WATER WORKS--PRIVATE
COMPANIES--THE MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS--THE PUMPING PLANTS--THE
WATER FAMINE OF 1913 397

CHAPTER XXXII

LAW AND ORDER

JAILS--POLICE SERVICES--COURTHOUSE--LAW OFFICERS

EARLY PUNISHMENTS--FIRST CASES OF THE MAGISTRATES--GEORGE THE
“NAGRE”--“EXECUTION FOR MURDER”--OTHER CRIMES PUNISHED BY
DEATH--SOLDIER DESERTIONS--A PUBLIC EXECUTION--THE JAILS--- THE
JAIL TAX TROUBLES--OBNOXIOUS TOASTS--THE NEW JAIL OF 1836--ITS
POPULATIONS--THE NEW BORDEAUX PRISON--OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY
PRISONS--THE EARLY POLICING OF MONTREAL--THE LOCAL POLICE
FORCE OF 1815--THE POLICE FORCE AFTER THE REBELLION OF
1837-1838--POLICE CHIEFS--MODERN LAW COURTS AND JUDGES--THE
HISTORY OF THE BAR--THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF MONTREAL--THE
RECORDERS--THE ARCHIVES. SUPPLEMENT--THE JUDGES OF THE HIGHER
COURTS FROM 1764 TO 1914--THE SHERIFFS OF MONTREAL--THE
PROTHONOTARIES--THE COURTHOUSE SITES--THE BATONNIERS 413

CHAPTER XXXIII

HOSPITALS

THE HOTEL DIEU: JEANNE MANCE--THE HOSPITALIERES OF LA FLECHE--THE
HOTEL DIEU CHAPEL--ST. PATRICK’S HOSPITAL--THE MIGRATION TO
PINE AVENUE--THE PRESENT MODERN HOSPITAL.

THE GENERAL HOSPITAL: “THE LADIES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY”--THE HOUSE
OF RECOVERY--THE MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL--ITS BENEFACTORS AND
ITS ADDITIONS--THE EARLY TRAINING OF NURSES--THE ANNEX OF 1913.

THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL: THE LAVAL MEDICAL FACULTY--THE OLD
DONEGANI HOTEL--THE LADY PATRONESSES--MODERN DEVELOPMENT.

THE WESTERN HOSPITAL: THE BISHOPS COLLEGE MEDICAL FACULTY--THE
WOMEN’S HOSPITAL.

THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL: IN MEMORY OF QUEEN VICTORIA--ITS
DESCRIPTION--ITS INCORPORATION--ITS EQUIPMENT.

THE HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL: FIRST ORGANIZED
WORK--INCORPORATION--THE FIRST HOSPITAL--THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENTS--THE PHILLIPS TRAINING SCHOOL FOR NURSES.

THE HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE: EARLY TREATMENT OF INSANE--THE
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOSPITALS ST. JEAN DE DIEU AT
LONGUE POINTE AND THE PROTESTANT ASYLUM AT VERDUN.

CIVIC HOSPITALS: THE SMALLPOX HOSPITAL--“CONTAGIOUS”
HOSPITALS--HOSPITAL ST. PAUL--ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL.

TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARIES: THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE--PIONEER
TUBERCULOSIS CLINIC IN CANADA--PUBLIC HEALTH EXHIBITIONS--THE
INSTITUTE BRUCHESI: ITS DEVELOPMENT--THE GRACE DART HOME--CIVIC
AID.

CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS: THE CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL--STE.
JUSTINE. OTHER HOSPITAL ADJUNCT ASSOCIATIONS. NOTE: MEDICAL
BOARDS: PRIVATE, PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL 433

CHAPTER XXXIV

SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENTS

I. CARE OF THE AGED, FOUNDLINGS AND INFANTS.
II. RELIEF MOVEMENTS.
III. SICK VISITATION AND NURSING BODIES.
IV. MOVEMENTS FOR THE “UNFORTUNATES.”
V. VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE HANDICAPPED.
VI. IMMIGRATION WORK.
VII. HUMANITARIAN MOVEMENTS FOR BOYS.
VIII. HEBREW SOCIAL WORKS.
IX. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENTS.
X. MOVEMENTS FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
XI. TEMPERANCE MOVEMENTS.
XII. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF WORKERS.
XIII. RECENT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
XIV. MUNICIPAL CHARITIES. 457

CHAPTER XXXV

COMMERCIAL HISTORY BEFORE THE UNION

MONTREAL’S EARLY BUSINESS FIRMS--A PROPHECY AT BEGINNING
OF NINETEENTH CENTURY--CULTIVATION OF HEMP--ST. PAUL
STREET--SLAVES IN MONTREAL--DOCTORS AND DRUGS IN
1815--WHOLESALE FIRMS IN 1816--FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE
OF TRADE--NOTRE DAME STREET--M’GILL STREET--FRENCH CANADIAN
BUSINESSES--SHIP CARGOES--THE SHOP FRONTS IN 1839 527

CHAPTER XXXVI

COMMERCIAL HISTORY SINCE THE UNION

THE RISE OF MODERN MANUFACTURES AND INDUSTRIES

MONTREAL CENTER OF CANADIAN TRADE--LORD ELGIN’S OPINION OF THE
CANADA CORN ACT--TRADE DEPRESSION BEGINNING IN 1847--SUGAR
AND FLOUR INDUSTRIES--THE PANIC OF 1860--A PROSPEROUS
DECADE--ANOTHER DEPRESSION--THE NATIONAL POLICY--PROSPERITY
AGAIN IN THE EIGHTIES--ST. CATHERINE STREET--THE RISE
OF FURTHER INDUSTRIES--THE RISE OF THE COMMERCIAL
ASSOCIATIONS--THE COMMITTEE OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES--THE BOARD
OF TRADE--ITS ACTIVITIES IN CANAL, PORT, RAILWAY, CANADIAN AND
EMPIRE EXPANSION--ITS INTEREST IN CIVIC GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL
CIVIC BETTERMENT--ITS BUILDING--ITS SOCIAL FUNCTIONS--THE
“CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE”--ITS ORIGIN--THE OTHER MERCHANTS’
ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CITY--A TRIBUTE TO THE MERCHANTS OF
MONTREAL. NOTES: PRESIDENTS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE--CENSUS
(1912) OF MONTREAL MANUFACTURES 535

CHAPTER XXXVII

FINANCE

MONTREAL BANKING AND INSURANCE BODIES

I. BANKING: HAMILTON’S PLAN FOLLOWED BY THE FIRST BANK OF THE
UNITED STATES IN 1791--1792, THE ATTEMPTED CANADA BANKING
COMPANY AT MONTREAL--DELAY THROUGH AMERICAN WAR OF 1812--1815,
RENEWED AGITATION FOR A BANK CHARTER FOR MONTREAL--1817,
THE FIRST BANK OF MONTREAL WITHOUT A CHARTER--ITS FIRST
OFFICERS--OTHER BANKS FOLLOW--THE QUEBEC BANK--THE RIVAL
“BANK OF CANADA”--THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA--MOLSONS
BANK--THE MERCHANTS BANK--BANQUE JACQUES CARTIER, PREDECESSOR
TO BANQUE PROVINCIALE--THE ROYAL BANK--THE BANQUE
D’HOCHELAGA--THE MONTREAL CITY AND DISTRICT BANK--BANKS WITH
HEAD OFFICES ELSEWHERE--MONTREAL BANK CLEARINGS WITH CANADIAN
AND NORTH AMERICAN CITIES.

II. INSURANCE: THE PIONEER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA--THE
“PHOENIX”--THE “AETNA”--IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES--THE GREAT
FIRE OF 1854--LATER COMPANIES. A. LIFE INSURANCE: THE PIONEER
COMPANIES--THE SCOTTISH AMICABLE AND SCOTTISH PROVIDENT
COMPANIES. B. MISCELLANEOUS INSURANCE 553

CHAPTER XXXVIII

TRANSPORTATION

SHIPPING--EARLY AND MODERN

BY RIVER AND STREAM

MONTREAL HEAD OF NAVIGATION--LAKE ST. PETER--JACQUES CARTIER’S
DIFFICULTIES--THE GRADUAL DEEPENING OF THE CHANNEL--THE LACHINE
CANAL IN 1700--ITS FURTHER HISTORY--MONTREAL THE HEAD OF THE
CANAL SYSTEM OF CANADA.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONTREAL SHIPPING

A--SAILING VESSELS

BIRCH BARK CANOE--BATEAU--DURHAM BOAT--SHIPBUILDING IN MONTREAL.

B--STEAM VESSELS

JOHN MOLSON’S ACCOMMODATION, 1809--PASSENGER FARES BETWEEN
MONTREAL AND QUEBEC--PASSAGE DESCRIBED--THE TORRANCES--INLAND
NAVIGATION--THE RICHELIEU AND ONTARIO COMPANY--THE FIRST UPPER
DECK STEAMER TO SHOOT THE LACHINE RAPIDS.

C--ATLANTIC LINERS

THE ROYAL WILLIAM FIRST OCEAN STEAMER AND PIONEER OF THE
OCEAN LINERS--ITS CONNECTION WITH MONTREAL--MAIL SERVICE TO
MONTREAL--THE GENOVA--- ARRIVAL IN MONTREAL IN 1853--DINNER TO
CAPTAIN PATON--THE CRIMEAN WAR--THE MONTREAL OCEAN STEAMSHIP
COMPANY--THE FIRST CANADIAN ATLANTIC SHIP COMPANY--THE ALLAN
LINE--EARLY BOATS--MAIL CARRIERS--1861 DISASTERS--SUBSEQUENT
SUCCESS--THE PRESENT MONTREAL ALLAN SERVICE--THE CANADIAN
PACIFIC RAILWAY STEAMSHIP LINES--OTHER LINES--THE SHIPPING AND
THE WAR OF 1914--THE GREAT ARMADA 569

CHAPTER XXXIX

TRANSPORTATION

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL--HERIOT’S DESCRIPTION
IN 1815--T.S. BROWN IN 1818--THE ISLAND WHARF--THE
CREEK--THE PRIMITIVE WHARVES--THE “POINTS”--THE RIVER
FRONT--THE SPRING FLEET--FIREWOOD RAFTS--TOW BOATS--THE
EVERETTA--AN ACCOUNT OF 1819--BOUCHETTE’S PLAN OF 1824--THE
FIRST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, “THE TRINITY BOARD”--FIRST
REPORT--LATEST REPORT--EARLY ENGINEERS--REVIEW OF HARBOUR IN
1872--A TRANSFORMATION FROM 1818--GRAIN ELEVATORS--NUMBER
OF VESSELS--MARKET AND WOOD BOATS--THE BONSECOURS
MARKET--1875 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT NOW CARRIED OUT--FLOATING
DOCK--DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT HARBOUR--ITS FACILITIES FOR
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT--THE DESIRE TO LENGTHEN THE SHIPPING SEASON.

HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS--THE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS FROM 1830 TO THE
PRESENT TIME.

III

CUSTOMS--SHIPPING FEDERATION--THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY--IMPORTS AND
EXPORTS 585

CHAPTER XL

TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL

MONTREAL AND THE RAILWAYS OF CANADA

MONTREAL THE CENTRE OF RAILWAY COMMUNICATION--THE FIRST
RAILWAY--THE SNAKE RAIL AND THE “KITTEN”--“THE CHAMPLAIN AND
THE ST. LAWRENCE”--THE SECOND RAILWAY. THE ATLANTIC AND ST.
LAWRENCE--THE AMALGAMATION INTO THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.

1. ITS HISTORY--ITS PRESIDENTS--AN INTERESTING REPORT AT
CONFEDERATION--NEW FREIGHT YARDS--CHAS. M. HAYS AND THE GRAND
TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY--THE BUILDING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGES BY
THE GRAND TRUNK RAILROAD.

2. THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY--ITS FINANCIERS--TWIN TO
CONFEDERATION--OPPOSITION TO PROMOTERS--EARLY FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES--NO BIG FORTUNES MADE--ROLLING STOCK--A
REAL EMPIRE BUILDER--HELPING NEW INDUSTRIES--HUGE LAND
HOLDINGS--IRRIGATION OF BARREN LANDS.

3. OTHER SYSTEMS--THE “INTERCOLONIAL”--THE CANADIAN NORTHERN AND
ITS MOUNTAIN TUNNEL 607

CHAPTER XLI

TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD

THE ANCIENT AND MODERN POSTAL SERVICE OF MONTREAL

ANCIENT ROADS--THE “GRAND VOYER”--GOOD ROADS MOVEMENT--THE
EVOLUTION OF ROADS--“POST” MASTERS RECOGNIZED IN
1780--THE EARLY POSTAL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL AND BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN--BURLINGTON THE TERMINUS--EARLY LETTER RATES--MAIL
ADVERTISEMENTS--THE QUEBEC TO MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE--EARLY
POSTOFFICE IN MONTREAL--OCEAN AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE--THE
PRESENT POSTOFFICE--ITS HISTORICAL TABLETS BY FLAXMAN--THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM--THE POSTMASTERS OF MONTREAL.

STREET TRANSPORTATION

MODERNIZING MONTREAL

MONTREAL IN 1861--THE STREET RAILWAY MOVEMENT--THE “MONTREAL
CITY PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY” CHARTERED--THE HISTORY OF THE
COMPANY--ITS FIRST PROMOTERS--EIGHT PASSENGER CARS, SIX MILES,
HORSE SERVICE IN 1861--THE OPENING UP OF THE STREETS--WINTER
SERVICE OF SLEIGHS--1892 THE BEGINNING OF ELECTRIC ERA--THE
CONVERSION OF THE SYSTEM INTO ELECTRIC TRACTION--THE GRADUAL
GROWTH OF THE COMPANY 623

CHAPTER XLII

1760-1841

CITY IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CESSION

UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

EARLY STREET REGULATIONS--A PICTURE OF MONTREAL HOUSES IN
1795--FURTHER STREETS OPENED--A “CITY PLAN” MOVEMENT IN
1799--HOUSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY--MAP
OF 1801--CITY WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED--CITADEL HILL
REMOVED--FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS--ROAD COMMISSIONERS--PICTURE
OF 1819--IMPROVEMENTS DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF THE
JUSTICES AND THE MUNICIPALITY--PICTURE OF 1839 BY BOSWORTH 635

CHAPTER XLIII

1841-1867

CITY IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE UNION

UNDER THE MUNICIPALITY

GREAT STRIDES AT THE UNION--THE EARLY MARKET PLACES--THE
BONSECOURS MARKET--OTHER MARKETS--PUBLIC PLACES--THE EARLY
SQUARES--PRESENT PARKS--THE EARLY CEMETERIES--THE FIRST JEWISH
CEMETERY--THE DORCHESTER STREET PROTESTANT CEMETERY--DOMINION
SQUARE--MOUNT ROYAL--COTE DES NEIGES--OTHER CEMETERIES--GENERAL
CITY IMPROVEMENT--AREAS OF PUBLIC PLACES 641

CHAPTER XLIV

1867-1914

CITY IMPROVEMENT SINCE CONFEDERATION

THE RISE OF METROPOLITAN MONTREAL

THE METROPOLITAN ASPECT OF MONTREAL IN 1868--EDUCATIONAL
BUILDINGS--THE CITY STREET RAILWAY AIDS SUBURBAN
EXTENSION--FORECAST OF ANNEXATIONS--THE CITY HOMOLOGATED
PLAN--THE ANNEXATION OF SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES IN 1883--TABLE
OF ANNEXATION SINCE 1883--PREFONTAINE’S REVIEW OF THE YEARS
1884-1898--IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE BOARD OF CONTROL--A REVIEW
OF THE LAST TWO DECADES OF METROPOLITAN GROWTH--THE CHANGES
DOWNTOWN--THE GROWTH UPTOWN.

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENTS: 1. STATEMENT OF BUILDINGS. 2. REAL
ESTATE ASSESSMENTS. 3. RECENT BUILDINGS ERECTED OR COMPLETED.
4. THE METROPOLITAN POPULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE
POPULATION OF MONTREAL WITH THE CITIES OF THE CONTINENT. 5. OF
THE WORLD. 6. OPTIMISTIC SPECULATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. 7. VITAL
CITY STATISTICS IN 1912. 8. A PLAN FOR “GREATER MONTREAL”--THE
HISTORY OF THE PRESENT MOVEMENT 651

UNDER ENGLISH RULE

PART I

CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS

CHAPTER

I THE EXODUS--“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW.”
II THE INTERREGNUM--MILITARY RULE.
III THE TREATY OF PARIS--NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
IV CITY GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
V PRELIMINARY STRUGGLES FOR AN ASSEMBLY--THE CASE FOR THE
MERCHANTS.
VI THE QUEBEC ACT--1774. THE CASE FOR THE NOBLESSE.
VII REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775.
VIII MONTREAL BESIEGED.
IX MONTREAL AN AMERICAN CITY.
X THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST. 1791.
XI THE FUR TRADERS.
XII FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS.
XIII THE INVASION OF 1812-1813.
XIV ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
XV BUREAUCRACY AND DEMOCRACY.
XVI MURMURS OF REVOLUTION.
XVII IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR.
XVIII PROCLAMATION OF UNION--RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.
XIX UNDER THE UNION.
XX THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL.
XXI ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.
XXII UNDER CONFEDERATION.
XXIII ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS.

HISTORY OF MONTREAL

CHAPTER I

THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL

1760

“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”

On the capitulation of Montreal in the grey of the early morn of
September 8, 1760, British Rule began and the Régime of France
was ended. On the 9th the victorious Amherst wrote his official
account to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. The
details therein will serve to recapitulate the history of the
final downpour on Montreal during the days preceding its fall,
with the new era commencing, and accordingly we present it to our
readers.

“Camp of Montreal,
9th September, 1760.

Sir:

In Mine of the 26th ultimo I acquainted You with the progress of
the Army after the departure from Oswego and with the Success of
His Majesty’s Arms against Fort Levis, now Fort William Augustus,
where I remained no longer than was requisite to make Such
preparations as I Judged Essentially necessary for the passage of
the army down the River, which took me up to the 30th.

In the morning of the following day I set out and proceeded from
Station to Station to our present Ground, where we arrived on the
6th in the evening, after having in the passage sustained a loss
of Eighty-Eight men drowned,----Batteaus of Regts. seventeen of
Artillery, with Some Artillery Stores, Seventeen Whaleboats, one
Row Galley staved, Occasioned by the Violence of the Current and
the Rapids being full of broken Waves.

The Inhabitants of the Settlements I passed thro’ in my way
hither having abandoned their Houses and run into the Woods I
sent after them; Some were taken and others came of their own
Accord. I had them disarmed and Caused the oath of Allegiance to
be tendered to them, which they readily took; and I accordingly
put them in quiet possession of their Habitations, with Which
treatment they seemed no less Surprised than happy. The troops
being formed and the Light Artillery brought up, the Army lay on
their Arms till the Night of the 6th.

On the 7th, in the morning, two Officers came to an advanced post
with a Letter from the Marquis de Vaudreuil referring me to what
one of them, Colonel Bouguinville, had to say. The Conversation
ended with a Cessation of Arms till 12 o’Clock, when the
Proposals were brought in; Soon after I returned them with the
terms I was willing to grant, Which both the Marquis de Vaudreuil
and Mons. de Lévis, the French General, were very strenuous to
have softened; this Occasioned Sundry Letters to Pass between us
During the day as well as the Night (when the Army again lay on
their Arms), but as I would not on any Account deviate in the
Least from my Original Conditions and I insisted on an Immediate
and Categorical answer Mr. de Vaudreuil, soon after daybreak,
Notified to me that he had determined to Accept of them and two
Sets of them were accordingly Signed by him and me and Exchanged
Yesterday when Colonel Haldimand, with the Grenadiers and the
Light Infantry of the Army took Possession of One of the Gates of
the town and is this day to proceed in fulfilling the Articles
of the Capitulation; By which the French Troops are all to lay
down their arms; are not to serve during the Continuance of the
Present War and are to be sent back to Old France as are also
the Governors and Principal Officers of the Legislature of the
Whole Country, Which I have now the Satisfaction to inform You
is entirely Yielded to the Dominion of His Majesty. On which
Interesting and happy Event I most Sincerely Congratulate you.

Governor Murray, with the Troops from Quebec, landed below the
Town on Sunday last & Colonel Haviland with his Corps (that took
possession of the Isle aux Noix, Abandoned by the enemy on the
28th) Arrived Yesterday at the South Shore Opposite to My Camp. I
am, with great regard,

Sir,
Your most Obedient,
Humble Servant
JEFF AMHERST.

The Honourable Lt. Governor Hamilton.

(Endorsed by Hamilton, Camp Montreal, 7 ber, 1776. General
Amherst, received by Post Tuesday, 23d September.)”[1]

Haldimand, as directed by Amherst on the 9th, received the
submission of the troops of France.

In the French camp, de Lévis reviewed his forces--2,132 of all
ranks. In his Journal they are thus summarized:

Officers present 179
Soldiers 1953
----
2132

Officers returned to France 46
Soldiers invalided 241
----
287
----
Total 2419
Soldiers described as absent from their regiments 927
----
3346

[Illustration: FORTIFICATIONS OF MONTREAL, 1760]

There on the Place d’Armes yielded up their arms, all that was
left of the brave French warriors who had no dishonour in their
submission, surrendering only to the overwhelming superior
numbers of the English conquerors. With de Lévis was the able
de Bourlamaque and the scholarly soldier de Bougainville, with
Dumas, Rocquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne and so many of the
heroes of Ticonderoga and Carillon. There too was de Vaudreuil,
the Governor General, Commander-in-Chief, and last governor of
New France, with his brother, the last Governor of Montreal under
the Old Régime. Haviland’s entourage and the British troops
present could not but admire their late opponents.

The only jarring note of the ceremony was the absence of the
French flags from the usual paraphernalia to be delivered up.
The omission is thus signaled by Amherst, in his official report
of the submission, who after mentioning the surrender of the
two captured British American stands of colours goes on to say
that there were no French colours forthcoming: “The Marquis de
Vaudreuil, generals and commanding officers of the regiment,
giving their word of honour that the battalions had not any
colours; they had brought them with them six years ago; they were
torn to pieces and finding them troublesome in this country they
had destroyed them.”

They had however been but recently destroyed, for the “Journal”
of de Lévis, written by him Cæsar-like in the third person,
tells how, after being unable to shake the determination of de
Vaudreuil to capitulate without the honours of war, de Lévis,
in order to spare his troops a portion of the humiliation they
were to undergo, had ordered them to burn their colours to avoid
the hard condition of handing them over to the enemy. “_M. le
Chevalier de Lévis voyant avec douleur que rien ne pouvoit faire
changer la determination de M. le Marquis de Vaudreuil voulant
épargner aux troupes une partie de l’humiliation quelles alloient
subir, leur ordonna de brûler leurs drapeaux pour se soustraire à
la dure condition de les remettre aux ennemis._”[2] (_Cf. Journal
des Campagnes du Chevalier de Lévis en Canada, 1756-1760. Edited
by l’Abbé H.R. Casgrain, Montreal, C.O. Beauchemin et fils,
1889._)

On the 11th Amherst turned out his whole force and received
Vaudreuil on parade. Between these two, friendly relations had
been established. Place d’Armes was again a scene of colour with
the presence of the British regiments led by Murray, Haviland,
Burton, Gage, Fraser the gallant Highlander, Guy Carleton, who
was to become the famous viceroy of Canada and to die Lord
Dorchester, Lord Howe, and the scholarly Swiss soldier Haldimand.
There were present, too, Sir William Johnston, the baronet of the
Mohawk Valley and leader of the six nations, Major Robert Rogers
of the famous rangers,[3] with his two brothers, and others
of note. No doubt de Vaudreuil’s suite was not far off with
de Lévis, de Bourlamaque, de Bougainville, Dumas, Roquemaure,
Pouchot, Luc de la Corne, with the nefarious Intendant Bigot
and all the principal officers of the colony who had been in
Montreal, the headquarters of government since the fall of Quebec.

During the three following days the town was definitely occupied
by the British, and the arrangements completed for the departure
of the French Regulars. The regiments of Languedoc and Berry,
with the marine corps, were embarked on the 13th; the regiments
of Royal Rousillon and Guyenne on the 14th; on the 16th the
regiments of La Reine and Béarn. On the 17th de Lévis, with de
Bourlamaque, started for Quebec; de Vaudreuil and Bigot left on
the 20th and 21st. By the 22nd every French soldier had left
Montreal, except those who had married in the country and who had
resolved to remain in it and transfer their allegiance to the new
government.[4]

Fate had dealt a severe blow to the brave defenders of Canada
whom we now find sailing from Montreal to France, which would
appear to have abandoned them. The regulars and the colonial
troops, in spite of their jealousies and emulations, were brave
men, and duly honoured as such by the British soldiery who saw
the vessels bearing on the broad St. Lawrence so many of those
who had recently disputed the long drawn out strife for the
conquest of Canada. Speaking of this, “the most picturesque
and dramatic of American wars,” Parkman continues: “There is
nothing more noteworthy than the skill with which the French
and Canadian leaders use their advantages; the indomitable
spirit with which, slighted and abandoned as they were, they
grappled with prodigious difficulties and the courage with which
they were seconded by regulars and militia alike. In spite of
occasional lapses, the defence of Canada deserves a tribute of
admiration.”--(“Montcalm and Wolfe,” Vol. II, p. 382.)

The departures from Montreal and Quebec must have been indeed
heart-rending. That from Montreal, since the fall of Quebec,
the home of all the high officials of the civil, religious and
military governments, was the most striking, as the natural
leaders of the colony were mostly there. “There repassed into
Europe,” says the French Canadian historian, F.X. Garneau, “about
185 officers, 2,400 soldiers valid and invalid, and fully 500
sailors, domestics, women and children. The smallness of this
proved at once the cruel ravages of the war, the paucity of
embarkations of succour sent from France, and the great numerical
superiority of the victor. The most notable colonists at the
same time left the country. Their emigration was encouraged,
that of the Canadian officers especially, whom the conquerors
desired to be rid of and whom they eagerly stimulated to pass to
France. Canada lost by this self-expatriation the most precious
portion of its people, invaluable as its members were from their
experience, their intelligence and their knowledge of public and
commercial affairs.”[5] (Bell’s translation, Vol. II, p. 294.)

[Illustration: SIR GUY CARLETON]

[Illustration: GENERAL JAMES MURRAY]

[Illustration: LORD JEFFREY AMHERST]

The clergy, however, solidly remained at their posts to build up
the self-esteem of the people and to rear up a loyal race. Hence
the respect and gratitude due to them by the French Canadians of
today.

Yet there were many of whom the country was well rid, such as
Bigot, Cadet, Péan, Bréard, Varin, Le Mercier, Pénisseault,
Maurin, Corpron and others, accused of the frauds and peculations
that helped to ruin Canada. A great sigh of relief might well
have escaped from the French who had been ruined by them.

Most of the ships provided by the English government weathered
the November gales. The vessel L’Auguste containing Saint-Luc de
la Corne, his brother, and others, after being storm-tossed and
saved from conflagration, finally drove towards the shore, struck
and rolled on its side, and became wrecked on the Cap du Nord,
Ile Royale. La Corne, with six others, gained the shore, and he
reached Quebec before the end of the winter, as his journal tells
us. His name was to become familiar at Montreal under the British
régime.

The sloop Marie, which had been fitted up to receive the Marquis
de Vaudreuil, his family and staff, had an early mishap between
Montreal and Three Rivers, having run aground.

M. de Vaudreuil and the staff of officers of the colony arrived
at Brest on the English vessel L’Aventure under a flag of
truce, with 142 passengers from Canada. Thence, de Vaudreuil
wrote to the minister of mariné. On December 5th the latter
wrote back acknowledging this letter and that of September
from Montreal containing the articles of capitulation, with
papers relating thereto. A précis of this letter to Vaudreuil
reveals that, although the king was aware of the condition of
the colony, in default of the reinforcements it was unable to
receive, yet, after the hopes the governor had given, by his
letters in the month of June, of holding out some time longer,
and his assurances that the last efforts would be put forth to
sustain the honour of the king before yielding, His Majesty
did not expect to learn so soon of the surrender of Montreal
and of the whole colony. Granting the force of all the reasons
which led to the capitulation, the king was nevertheless
considerably surprised, and less satisfied, at having to submit
to conditions so little to his honour, especially in the face
of the representations which had been made to him by M. de
Lévis on behalf of the military corps of the colony. The king,
in reading the memorandum of these representations, which the
minister was unable to avoid placing before him, saw in it that,
notwithstanding the slight hope of success, Vaudreuil was still
in a condition, with the diminished resources remaining to
him, to attempt an attack or a defence that might have brought
the English to grant a capitulation that would have been more
honourable for the troops. The king left him at liberty to
remain at Brest for the time, for his health. With regard to the
officers who were with him, they could retire to their families
or elsewhere. It was sufficient for him to be informed of their
place of residence.--(“Canadian Archives,” Vol. III, p. 313.)

Not only was Vaudreuil censured for the capitulation of
Montreal, but finally he had the honour of being placed in the
Bastille with the peculators whom we have above mentioned.[6]
His release, however, was speedy. Whatever his gains might have
been from trading in the early part of his career, e. g., as
Governor of Louisiana, he reached France from his government
of Canada a poor man. The trial of those accused of peculation
lasted from December 1, 1761, till the end of March, and on
December 10, 1763, the president of the commission rendered his
final decision. Vaudreuil with five more were relieved from the
accusation, but he died in 1764 less from age than from sorrow.

“In the course of his trial he stood by the Canadian officers,
now being slandered by Bigot. ‘Brought up in Canada myself,’
said the late Governor General, ‘I knew them, every one, and
I maintain that almost all of them are as upright as they are
valorous; in general the Canadians seem to be soldiers born; a
masculine and military training early inures them to fatigues and
dangers. The annals of their expeditions, their explorations, and
their dealings with the aborigines abound in marvelous examples
of courage, activity, patience under privation, coolness in
peril, and obedience to leaders during services which have cost
many of them their lives, but without slackening the ardour of
the survivors. Such officers as these, with a handful of armed
inhabitants and a few savage warriors, have often disconcerted
the projects, paralyzed the preparations, ravaged the provinces,
and beaten the troops of Great Britain when eight or ten times
more numerous than themselves. In a country with frontiers
so vast, such qualities were priceless.’ And he finished by
declaring that he would fail in his duty to those generous
warriors, and even to the state itself, if he did not proclaim
their services, their merits and their innocence.”--(Bell’s
translation of Garneau, Vol. II, p. 298.)

Governor Carleton, writing in 1767 to Lord Shelburne, confirms
this tribute. “The new subjects could send into the field about
eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms, of which number,
above one-half have already served with as much valour, with more
zeal, and more military knowledge for America, than the regular
troops of France that were joined with them.”

Vaudreuil might also have paid a compliment to the brave women
of New France, who, like Madeleine de Verchères and others, were
ready to fight with the men, and who were true women and wives.
“Brave and beautiful,” George III summed them up in a compliment
paid at his court in London after the conquest to Madame de Léry,
the wife of Chevalier de Léry, the engineer who repaired the
fortifications of Montreal: “If all the Canadian ladies resemble
you, I have truly made a fine conquest.”

It must not be thought that the departure of the French colonial
officers was an entire abandonment of the project of regaining
the country. They were to be retained for the French service
and possibly for future use in Canada.[7] They were called to
Tourraine and there held at the king’s pleasure under pay, to all
intents and purposes officers in the French service, and liable
to be sent on any service.

“The British provincial troops were sent from Montreal at an
early date. The New Hampshire and Rhode Island regiments crossed
the river and proceeded to Chambly, thence went to Crown Point.
The Connecticut troops were ordered to Oswego and Fort Stanwix;
the New York and New Jersey regiments to the lately named Fort
William Augustus, at the head of the rapids, and to Oswegatchie
(Ogdensburg). Rogers, with four hundred men, bearing letters from
Vaudreuil instructing the forts to be given over, was sent to
Detroit, Miami, St. Joseph and Michillimackinac.[8] Moncton at
the same time received orders to forward regular troops to take
permanent possession of these forts.”--(Kingsford, “History of
Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 409.)

The troops that were to remain in Montreal for the winter were
now established in their quarters. The French Indians in the
neighbourhood were summoned to the city and requested to bring
their prisoners; they appeared with several men, women and
children, and Johnston established rules and regulations for
their future government.

Amherst remained in Montreal till September 26th, when he went
down the river to Quebec. He left on October 5th and on the
18th was on Lake Champlain, thence to Albany, which he left on
the 21st to arrive in New York on the 28th of October. He never
visited Canada again, but he left it, however, well organized.

Immediately after the capitulation of Montreal he had occupied
himself with the establishment of a provisional military
government with tribunals to administer justice summarily until
a definite form of government should be determined. The French
division of the province into the three administrative districts
of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal was maintained. In a
despatch to Pitt dated October 4, 1760, from Quebec (Amériques
et Indes Occidentales, No. 699), Amherst renders an account of
all the dispositions which he had made since the date of the
capitulation of Montreal. Although the greater part of these
were military matters, the following items concerning the civil
administration may be found:

September 15; I have sent officers with detachments to the
different villages to collect the arms and to make them take the
oath of allegiance.

September 16; I have named Colonel Burton governor of Three
Rivers.

September 17; I have given order to the militia of the town
(Montreal) and of the suburbs to give up their arms and to
take the oath of allegiance next day, immediately after the
embarkation of M. de Vaudreuil.

September 22; I have named Brigadier General Gage governor of
Montreal.

On the same day he published a proclamation for the government
of Three Rivers similar to the one for Montreal, dated merely
September, 1760 (“Amériques et Indes Occidentales”), in which
arrangements are made for the transaction of business and
amicable arrangements with the new government and the troops.

The new government was only, however, of an _ad interim_ nature,
for it was not certain that England would keep Canada. It was
this thought that reconciled the Canadians to the new situation.

Meanwhile the British Flag floated over Citadel Hill.

The country was now British. France had been tried in the balance
and found wanting. It had lost, through its wavering policy, a
fair domain and a noble people. This poignant loss was voiced by
de Vaudreuil, the deposed governor general, who, in spite of his
faults, was a true Canadian and had visions of its future as one
of the proudest jewels in the crown of France, for was it not La
Nouvelle France? On quitting his beloved country he paid it this
homage in a letter to his minister:

“With these beautiful and vast countries, France loses 70,000
inhabitants[9] of a rare quality; a race of people unequaled
for their docility, bravery and loyalty. The vexations they
have suffered for many years, more especially during the five
years preceding the reduction of Quebec--all without a murmur,
or importuning the king for relief--sufficiently manifest their
perfect submissiveness.”

The qualities, they had then, remain still the mark of those of
the same race living in Montreal of today.

“In all things we are sprung, from
Earth’s best blood, have titles manifold.”

As their predecessors took the oath of allegiance to King George
II, and became good Britishers, so have their descendants
remained today, in the days of George V. “What perished in
the capitulation of Montreal,” says Parkman, “was the Bourbon
monarchy and the narrow absolutism which fettered the life of
New France throughout the Old Régime. What survives today is the
vigour of two races striving to make Canada strong and free and
reverent of law.”

NOTE I

THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT

Judge Baby of Montreal, in an article in the Canadian Antiquarian
and Numismatic Journal, 3d Edit., Vol. II, p. 304, has combatted
very successfully the traditional view started by Bibaud and
followed by Garneau that after the capitulation of Montreal, and
the Treaty of Paris, 1763, the seigneurs, the men of learning,
and the chief traders and others of the directing classes, left
the country. This emigration was from the town but the country
places were untouched. He proves that a great many remained
outside the civil and military party who had governed the
country, and the soldiery who were taken officially to France;
that many of the young colonial officers who had thought to have
a chance to follow a career in the army or navy of France shortly
returned at the call of their fathers whose interest in their
lands and whose poverty, heightened by the depreciation of the
paper money, would not have induced them to begin life again in
France; that even of those who did go to France there were very
many who returned, as they had intended; hence the recurrence
of names, in the history after the cession, made familiar
before it. The long list given by Judge Baby of Seigneurs and
gentlemen proved by him to have remained, strengthens his case.
An interesting list of French-Canadians remaining in Montreal
engaged in business at this time is also given by him as follows:

Guy, Blondeau, Le Pellé De LaHaye, Lequindre Douville, Perthuis,
Nivard St. Dizier, Les freres Hervieux, Gaucher-Gamelin, Glasson,
Moquin, St. Sauveur, Pothier, Lemoine de Monnière, De Martigny,
De Couagne, Desauniers, Mailhot, St. Ange-Charly, Dumas, Magnan,
Mitiver, L’Amy, Bruyère, Pierre Chaboillez, Fortier, Lefèbre du
Chouquet, Courtheau, Vallée, Cazeau, Charly, Carignan, Auger,
Porlier frère, Pommereau, Larocque, Dumeriou, Roy-Portelance,
De Vienne, De Montforton, Sanguinet, Campeau, Laframboise,
Vauquier, Guillemain, Curot, Dufau, Campion, Lafontaine,
Truillier-Lacombe, Périneault, Arillac, Léveillé, Bourassa,
Pillet, Hurtubise, Leduc, Monbrun, Landrieu, Mezière, Hilbert,
Tabeau, Sombrun, Marchesseau, Avrard, Lasselle, Dumas St.
Martin, Beaubien-Desrivières, Réaume, Nolin, Cotté, St. Germain,
Ducalvet, L’Eschelle, Beaumont.

The Judge gives the names of many jurisconsults who remained
in the country, three of whom eventually became members of
the Superior Council; also of doctors; the great majority of
the notaries remained in the country. In summing up, he finds
“130 seigneurs, 100 gentry, 125 traders of mark, twenty-five
jurisconsults, and men of law, twenty-five to thirty doctors and
surgeons, notaries of almost the same number”--“were these not,”
he asks, “sufficient to face the political, intellectual and
other needs of the population then in Quebec, Montreal and Three
Rivers?”

NOTE II

POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL

M. de Vaudreuil’s estimate of 70,000 population has been
challenged by Dr. Kingsford (“History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p.
413).

Amherst before leaving Canada obtained a census of the population
which he reported as 76,172 by parishes and districts.

Companies Number
of of Total of
Parishes Militia Militia all souls
Montreal 46 87 7,331 37,200
Three Rivers 19 19 1,105 6,388
Quebec 43 64 7,976 32,584
--- --- ------ ------
108 170 16,412 76,172

The census must have been obtained through the French and there
is no ground for supposing that they would designedly furnish
an incorrect statement. It does not, however, accord with the
previous or subsequent tables of population.

The population in 1736 was 39,063; 1737, 39,970; 1739, 42,701;
1754, 55,009. In the fifteen years between the last two dates the
population increased 12,003, something less than one-third. If
we apply this increase to the next six years we may be justified
in estimating the increase at one-eighth, which would place
the population at 62,000. It is not provable that in these six
years of war the population could have increased upwards of
20,000,--five-elevenths--nearly half of the former total. In 1761
the three governors were called upon to furnish a census of their
several districts. The reports were:

(Gage) Montreal 24,957
(Burton) Three Rivers 6,612
(Murray) Quebec 30,211
------
Total of 61,780

“I am inclined, therefore,” says Kingsford, “to estimate the
French population of Canada in 1760 at 60,000 souls, the number
of which hitherto has been generally accepted as correctly
representing it.”

At the same time Doctor Kingsford placed too much reliance on
the census of 1761. It is well known that fear of conscription
and other bogies caused the census returns of French-Canadian
inhabitants to be minimized for many a long day under British
rule. If Amherst’s census of 76,172 is correct, as well as the
61,780, that of the year 1761, then a loss of 14,392 is to be
accounted for.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] From R. McCord’s collection.

[2] A detailed and romantic account of their burning on St.
Helen’s Island is to be found in “L’Ile de Ste. Helène, Passè,
Présent et Avenir, par A. Achintre et J.A. Crevier, M.D.,
Montreal, 1876.” I have found no historical proof of them being
burnt there.--Ed.

[3] Major Rogers’ picture in ranger uniform long decorated the
shops of London. His bold, bucanneering deeds caught the popular
fancy. The late Lord Amherst recalled long afterward how certain
verses traditional in his family had been taught the children
of successive Amhersts so long that the meaning of the allusion
was forgotten until quite recently, when it was found that they
referred to Rogers.

[4] The French troops were only able to leave Quebec on the 22nd
and 25th of October.--“Can. Arch. A. and W.I.,” 95, p. 1.

[5] See Appendix for Judge Baby’s criticism and qualification of
the extent of this exodus.

[6] The accused numbered fifty-five. Among those condemned either
to banishment from France or restitution and fines were: Bigot,
the Intendant, Varin, his sub-delegate, and Duchesnaux, his
secretary; Cadet, commissary general of Canada, and his agent,
Corpron; Péan, captain and aide-major of the marine troops in
Canada; Estèbe, the keeper of the King’s stores in Quebec; (all
these had operated in Montreal directly or through their agents);
Martel de St. Antoine, keeper of the King’s store at Montreal;
Maurin, Pénisseault, merchants and operators in Cadet’s offices
in this city; and Le Moyne-Despins, a merchant employed in
furnishing provisions to the army. See “Montreal Under the French
Régime,” Vol. I.

[7] In 1767 Guy Carleton feared an uprising in Canada on the
probable return of this body of officers. See letter to Lord
Shelburne. (Constitutional Documents--Shortt & Doughty.)

[8] Rogers reached New York, on his return from Detroit, the
following February. Owing to the setting in of winter he had been
unable to proceed to other forts. He reported that he had found
one thousand Canadians in the neighbourhood of Detroit.--“Can.
Arch. A. and W.I., 961,” p. 219.

[9] See note at the end of this chapter.

CHAPTER II

THE INTERREGNUM

1760-1763

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

Brigadier Gage was appointed governor of Montreal on September
21, 1760.[1] He early won the esteem of the townspeople. All his
ordinances manifest the desire to act in accordance with justice
and in harmony with the people. Montrealers recognized this and
shortly after the death of George II, which took place on October
25th, expressed their confidence in their rulers in an address
written in English and French. The English version as inserted in
the New York Gazette is as follows:

“To his Excellency, General Gage, governor of Montreal and its
dependencies.

“The address of the officers of militia and merchants of the city
of Montreal.

“Cruel Destiny has thus cutt short the Glorious Days of so Great
and so Magnanimous a Monarch! We are come to pour out our Grief
unto the paternal Bosom of Your Excellency, the Sole Tribute
of Gratitude of a People who will never cease to Exalt the
mildness and Moderation of their New Masters. The General who has
conquered us has rather treated Us as a Father than a Vanquisher
and has left us a precious Pledge[2] by name and deed of his
Goodness to Us. What acknowledgements are we not beholden to make
for so many Favours? Ha! They shall be forever Engraven in our
Hearts in Indelible Characters. We Entreat Your Excellency to
continue us the Honour of Your Protection. We will endeavour to
Deserve it by Our Zeal and by the Earnest Prayers We shall ever
offer up to the Immortal Being for Your Health and Preservation.”
(Canadian Archives, A. & W., I, 96, I, page 327.)

The mildness and moderation of the “New Masters” was particularly
shown by the retention of existing laws and customs. It will
be recalled that Vaudreuil, in the Articles of Capitulation
had asked that “French and Canadians should be _continued_ to
be governed according to the customs of Paris and the laws and
usages established for this country and should not be subject
to any other laws than those established under the French
dominion.” Whereupon Amherst had replied that this had been
answered by the preceding article and especially by the reply
to the last (Article 41), asking that the British government
should only require a strict neutrality of the Canadians, which
said curtly: “They become subjects of the king”--a non-committal
reply, which at first looked severe but was, as the conscientious
historian, Jacques Viger,[3] has said, just and reasonable under
the circumstances. In the event, Amherst granted more than his
answer would suggest, for during the Interregnum, the French and
British incomers continued to be governed according to the custom
of Paris. Hence the gratitude expressed through General Gage was
well deserved.

The period of the Interregnum, now beginning (September 8, 1760,
to August 10, 1764), which was to last until the promulgation of
the treaty of Paris, and the official publication by Governor
General Murray of his civil appointment, has been called
erroneously by several French historians, “_La Regne Militaire_,”
a term suggestive of military despotism and summary justice.
Commander Jacques Viger, M. Labrie, Judge Mondelet and others
rejected this erroneous misnomer in the columns of the Journal
“La Bibliotheque Canadienne,” being edited in 1827 by Bibaud,
the well known historian. For, after examining the documents
of the period they came to the conclusion that the name of _La
Regne Militaire_ could only be merited because, as most of the
official men of the law having been in Government employ had left
the country and new justices had to be created who should judge
according to “_les lois, formes et usages_” of the country, the
government devolved perforce on the _military_ men and _of the_
“_milices_,” the only educated men left besides the clergy.

This is made clear by a memoir of October 15, 1777, to the
British government on the subject of the administration of
justice, drawn up by Judges Panet, Mabane and Dunn, of whom
Pierre Panet had been one of the _greffiers_ at Montreal, and the
others had had close relations with the military judges. Their
testimony is therefore convincing. They state: “Though Canada
was conquered by His Majesty’s arms in the fall of 1760, the
administration in England did not interfere with the interior
government of it till the year 1763. It remained, during that
period, as formerly, with three districts, under the separate
command of military officers who established in their respective
districts, military courts under different forms, indeed, but in
which, _according to the policy observed in wise nations towards
a conquered people the laws and usages of Canada were observed in
the rules of decision_.”

The basis of the new military government was the placard issued
by General Amherst from Montreal on the 22d of September, 1760,
in which he announced the new order of the government for the
old and new subjects, and outlined the new form of military
government throughout the three districts, by the appointment
in each parish of the officers of the militia, the commandant
of the regular troops and a third court of further appeal to
the governor, as the future demonstrators of justice, and then
left it to the local governors of the other two divisions of
the country to establish their own courts. These officers of
militia were the most competent at the time to carry on the
traditional “custom of Paris” as they were mostly appointed from
the Seigneurs of the district and the educated class.

Accordingly on October 28, 1760, General Gage issued his orders
establishing tribunals of militia officers to regulate civil
disputes among individuals and a second tribunal of appeal before
the regular military court, with a final court of appeal to
himself.

The rest of the document deals with police prohibitions to the
inhabitants, not to harbour deserters or to traffic with the
soldiers for their arms, clothing, etc., or any other of their
accoutrements; it orders chimneys to be swept once a month, and
other precautions against fire; carpenters were to be prepared
with an adz, the inhabitants with an axe and bucket; also
arrangements for safety against snow from falling from houses,
the cleansing of the portions before the house and the disposal
of garbage, the keeping of the roads and bridges in good order,
and regulations concerning the sale of provisions brought in by
the country people, the sale to be made in the common market
place with the prohibition to town merchants to forestall the
citizens by buying up the supplies brought in. The militia
captains being no lawyers, were only required by Amherst to
dispense law and justice as best they could, being limited to
civil cases.

The ordinance of Thomas Gage, governing the administration of
justice in his jurisdiction of Montreal by dividing it into
five districts with definite powers and the regulations for the
upkeep of the courts therein, was dated at Montreal, October 13,
1761. In each of the five districts there was to assemble on the
first and fifteenth of each month a court of officers of the
“_Milice_.” These militia courts were to be composed of not more
than seven and not less than five members, of which one should
hold the rank of captain, the senior to act as president. The
officers of militia of each district were summoned to meet in
their parishes on the 24th of October to make arrangements for
the whole of these courts and to prepare rosters of officers for
duty therein.

The Town of Montreal was set apart as a judicial district of
its own, with a local board of officers to administer the laws.
Appeal was allowed from these courts to three boards of officers
of His Majesty’s Troops, one to meet at Montreal, the other at
Varennes and the third at St. Sulpice, these courts of appeal to
sit on the 20th of each month. A further appeal from these courts
to the governor in person was provided for.

In the event of capital crimes, officers of militia were
authorized to arrest the criminals and their accomplices and to
conduct them under guard to Montreal, the militia officers to
furnish with each prisoner an account of the crime and a list of
witnesses. In civil cases involving small amounts, not exceeding
twenty _livres_ all the officers of the militia were individually
granted authority to adjudicate with an appeal to and no further
than the militia courts of the districts.

Provision was made for the payment of the militia officers
for all of these duties by a scale of fees, a treasurer to be
appointed for each court. The officers of militia were especially
enjoined to maintain peace and order within their respective
districts.

On October 17th the _Conseil des Capitaines de Milice de
Montreal_ presented a memorial to the governor expressing their
willingness to administer justice gratuitously, as they had done
in the past, but requesting as a favour from His Excellency that
they be exempted from the obligation to billet troops in their
domiciles. They requested that six cords of wood be purchased to
heat the chamber in which their sittings were held and that Mr.
Panet, their clerk, be compensated for his services at the rate
of thirty _sols_ for each sentence. Two militia sergeants had
been appointed to act as bailiffs and criers of the court, and
a tariff of fees was asked for to provide for their pay. These
sergeants, it was also explained, were not only made use of in
the administration of justice but also for the district, for the
supervision of the statutory labour or _corvèe_. This memorial,
which was signed “R. Decouange,” was approved by the governor.[4]

The inclusion of the French officers in the administration of
the affairs of the country was a wise and honest attempt on the
part of the British to carry out the promise of the capitulation
to retain for the present the laws and customs of the past. In
choosing the officers of the militia they were well advised,
since the commissions there were held by the Seigneurs and the
other notabilities of their respective districts, men who were
the best educated and the most esteemed in the country. The
choice was politic also, for it secured the continuance of the
services of men who, under the old régime, had already been in
charge of the conduct of justice, as well as public and communal
affairs. Indeed it was to them that there had been intrusted
the carrying out of the public works, such as road making and
repairs, bridge building, the regulation of statutory labor
through corvèes, etc. In the new régime, therefore, the militia
officers were practically reinstated in their former functions.

An examination has been made by Judge Mondelet of Three Rivers,
of the registers kept of the decisions of the military court of
Montreal. These latter have been generally found equitable and
founded on positive law; they are legally attested to in most
cases, the secretary of the council being a Frenchman skilled
in the law, such as was Pierre Panet, the notary, and the
minutes are all in French. The first four registers contain the
transactions of the “Chambre de Milices” presided over by the
captains of the militia, and dealt only with civil cases. The
fifth and sixth of these registers contain the criminal decisions
of the court martials of the _Chambre Militaire_ of Montreal
and that of St. Sulpice, as well as appeals from the “Chambre de
Milices.” This court was composed only of officers of the regular
army to the number of five. In addition there was the further
right of appeal to the governor. The seventh register “appeals to
the governor,” records the decisions of General Gage (page 299),
and of General Burton (page 95).

By consulting the records we find that order during this period
was observed independently of the racial distinctions in the
city. We hear of, for instance, early in 1761 of the execution
of a grenadier of the Forty-fourth Regiment for robbery, which
is balanced by that of a French soldier, formerly of the La
Salle Regiment, for the murder of a habitant at Ile Jésus, the
execution being carried out in the market place.

It will be interesting here to notice some of the court martials
held at Montreal in the years 1761 and 1762. It will be seen
that French and English, the “new” and the “old” subjects,
came equally under them, being treated with equal justice. The
following cases from the “Livre d’orde” reveal this.

Montreal, June 3, 1761, at the court martial general,
Lieutenant-Colonel Grant presiding, Jean Marchand of
Boucherville, was prosecuted for the murder of Joseph Carpentier,
a Canadian,--acquitted.

Tuesday, June 30, William Bewen accused of having intoxicated
soldiers and of selling rum without license, is found guilty,
having been accessory to his associate, Isaac Lawrence, who has
the habit of selling rum to the soldiers,--condemned to receive
200 stripes of the cat-o’-nine tails, and to be driven from the
town at the beat of the drum. (First of July, Isaac Lawrence
similarly condemned.)

August 6, Joseph Lavalleé and François Herpin, inhabitants of
Montreal, prosecuted for theft,--acquitted.

Joseph Burgen, one of those who came following the army, is
accused and convicted for theft, and condemned to be hanged
by the neck until death shall ensue. The General approved the
sentence, but pardoned him on the condition that he left this
government without delay.

August 13, George Skipper and Bellair, bakers, accused and
arraigned by Captain Disnay for having sold bread, which had not
the requisite weight,--acquitted.

September 19, John Charlette and one named Lameure, Canadians,
are indicted for having solicited Joseph Myard, a drummer, to
desert. Charlette is acquitted and Lameure is found guilty and
condemned to receive 300 blows from the whip. He is pardoned by
the General.

December 13, William Morris, accused of having kept a dissolute
house, is condemned to a fine of £5.

December 24, two Canadians prosecuted for having the property
of the King in their possession. One is acquitted and the other
found guilty and condemned to receive 400 stripes of the lash.
The General approves the sentence, but reduces the lashes to
fifty.

For 1762, we may choose an incident which shows the growth of the
tendency towards the unpleasant relations between the Montreal
English merchants and the military, which afterwards had such
serious results, and helped to occasion the recall of General
Murray.

February 26, Mr. Grant and Edward Chinn, merchants, accused of
having insulted Ensign Nott of the Fourth Battalion of the Sixth
Regiment of Royal Americans, are found guilty and condemned, Mr.
Grant to a fine of £30 and Mr. Chinn to a fine of £20, “which
sums will be employed according to the direction of the General
to the relief of the unhappy poor in Montreal.” Pardon is to be
asked of Ensign Nott in the presence of the garrison of Montreal
in the following terms, namely--“Ensign Nott I am very sorry for
having been guilty of assault in your regard and very humbly ask
your pardon.” The General approved the sentence, but reduced the
fine of Mr. Grant to £20. Mr. Forrest Oakes was also prosecuted
for a like offence and condemned also to ask pardon of Ensign
Nott, and to undergo fourteen days’ imprisonment. The General
reduced the imprisonment to twenty-four hours and exempted Mr.
Oakes from asking pardon, because it appeared to him that the
injuries received had been reciprocal.

From these judgments, we may see that, while the Chambre de
Justice of Chambre de Milices judged purely civil affairs, all
criminal affairs, great and small, were relegated to the “Council
of War,” otherwise called the “Court Martial,” which performed
the functions nowadays of the courts of Quarter Sessions and
criminal courts of King’s Bench. The “General” was the final
court of appeal.

A glance at some of the ordinances of this period will further
illustrate the life of the town. On November 27 Governor Gage
found it necessary to issue ordinances against merchants,
who without permission of the governor, went to sell their
merchandise and intoxicating liquors in the country places. On
the 13th of January, 1762, there occurred a further ordinance,
explaining the former and forbidding in addition the sale of
liquors to soldiers and savages, and fixing the quantity lawful
to be sold to the inhabitants at one time. These merchants
were probably newcomers from the English colonies now drifting
into the city and anxious to make good quickly rather than
scrupulously.

On the 12th of May regulations were issued concerning the amount
of cords of wood that should be furnished to the troops.

On July 26th, Gage endeavors to arrange for the money exchange
values. He orders that six _livres tournois_ shall be equal to
eight shillings, or ten _sols_ of Montreal money.

On July 31st, Gage has his mind on the repair of the
fortifications, “seeing that they are falling into ruin and
wishing to carry on the old regulations for the common good,
following in this time of uncertainty, the ancient usages, which
are not opposed to the service of the king,” and therefore he
ordered that there shall be imposed every year commencing with
1762, a sum, of which a third shall be paid by the Seminary of
St. Sulpice and the other two-thirds by the regular and secular
communities and the inhabitants of the said Town of Montreal, for
repairs to commence in the following spring, but that the gate,
on which they are working, shall be made perfect this year, and
“that the said imposition, for which the money shall be remitted
to a person named by the Chambre of Militia of the said Montreal,
shall not surpass the sum of 6,000 _livres_ each year” and shall
continue until the entire repair of the said enclosure is made,
at the end of which repairs, the present ordinance shall remain
null and void.

On August 3d, Gage seeing that different standards of weights and
measures were being used, and to prevent frauds slipping into the
commercial life of the city, established that, in Montreal,
the English standard yard measure should be used according to the
standard to be kept by the “major of the place.” This regulation
it was hoped would suit both the English and French.

[Illustration: IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD REGIME St. Amable Street,
a narrow thoroughfare west of the lower part of Jaques Cartier
Square and near the spot where the Chateau de Vaudreuil once
stood, was a fashionable quarter in the gay days before the
“Capitulation.” The house marked by a projecting sign “The
Woodbine” is said to have been the site of a saloon for two
hundred years.]

On October 18th he has to settle the prices, which the bakers of
the town should charge for various kinds of bread.

On November 15th, foreseeing the future possibilities of Montreal
trade, Governor Gage issued an ordinance for the establishment of
a Customs House and he orders Thomas Lambs to be recognized as
its director, and Richard Oakes as the visitor of the said Custom
House in Montreal.

The following will interest Montreal merchants of today, being
significant of the first loosening of restrictions upon Montreal
on the part of Quebec. “All ship owners and others interested in
trade are warned that all of the vessels coming from Europe or
the colonies charged on account of merchants and others, who wish
to come there to do business, can follow their destinations up to
the city of Montreal without being discharged and re-charged with
merchandise at Quebec under any pretext whatever, unless they
are suspected of carrying goods of contraband, in the design of
making illicit trade.”

On the 7th of January, 1763, regulations forbidding excess speed
of the carriages and horses in the streets of Montreal and
suburbs had to be laid down.

On the 4th of April Gage issued an ordinance establishing the
Custom House at Montreal, with regulations to the captains
of ships and officers, sailors and others to carry out the
regulations issued, which show that all the paraphernalia and
customary duty of ships reporting to the customs, avoiding
smuggling, etc., were now full of vigour. Montreal was beginning
to be a port of some pretensions.

All these regulations show that the British authorities, while
affirming the customs of the country and maintaining the law, as
known by the people and administered by their own men of ability
and learning, the captains of the militia, of whom many were of
the noblesse, providing progressive trade regulations, required
for the development of the port and of the up-country commerce,
of which the headquarters were at Montreal, were wise rulers.

The care with which the inhabitants were instructed in the
knowledge of political events happening outside of their own
sphere, the participation in their own judicial code by their
own officers, thus beginning, as it were, to be permitted for
the first time to participate in their duty of taking part in
the government, the justice with which they were treated by the
conquerors, the faithful fulfilment of dues for service received,
brought about a unity with the English soldiery and the new
governors, that disposed the conquered people to feel little
regret at the departure of the French Régime from Canada.

Many there were, who were still borne up by the hope that the
expected peace would restore Canada to France, but the majority
were indifferent and if anything glad to have things remain as
they were. The position at Montreal may be summed up in the words
of General Gage’s report to Amherst, dated March 20, 1762, sent
on to London the same year.[5]

“I feel the highest satisfaction that I am able to inform you
that during my command of this government I have made it my
constant care and attention that the Canadians should be treated
agreeable to His Majesty’s kind and humane intentions. No
invasion on their property or assault on their person has gone
unpunished. All reproaches on their subjection by the fate of
arms, revilings on their customs or country and all reflections
on their religion, have been discountenanced and forbid. No
distinction has been made between the Briton and Canadian, but
equally regarded as subjects of the same prince. The soldiers
live peaceably with the inhabitants and they reciprocally acquire
an affection for each other.”

Those who know the British soldier will not be surprised to hear
that in the distress that fell upon the French Canadians in 1761,
mostly through the non-payment of the obligations incurred by the
French government, for the redemption of the paper money not yet
liquidated since the capitulation, the soldiers gave each one
a day’s provisions monthly to relieve the immediate distress.
Quebec suffered most. Montreal merchants came to the rescue and
swelled the general subscription lists.

As Governor Gage was on the spot, his official report may be
further largely quoted as that of an historian of Montreal. After
the above opening remarks on the amicable relations existing
between the French-Canadians and British, he continues: “The
Indians have been treated on the same principles of humanity.
They have had immediate justice for all their wrongs and no
tricks or artifices have hitherto been attempted to defraud them
in their trade.”

He sends a return of the present state of the troops and
artillery and a report of the fortifications. Speaking of those
of Montreal he notes: “Upon a height within the city is a small
square work of wood, completed since the capitulation, provided
with a few pieces of artillery and capable of containing seventy
or eighty men.”

“The soil produces all sorts of summer grains. In some parts
of the government the wheat is sown in autumn. Every kind of
pulse and other vegetables to which I may add some fruits, viz.,
apples, pears, plums, melons, etc. Cider is made here, but as yet
in small quantities. In general every fruit tree hardy enough to
withstand the severity of the winter will produce in the summer,
which affords sufficient heat to bring most kinds of fruit to
maturity.”

Reporting as befits one stationed at the center and headquarters
of the fur trade on the profits to the French king from the posts
he says, “I must conclude His Majesty gained very little from
this commerce.”

He then records what must have been of great importance to
the interests of the British merchants of Montreal desirous
of up-country trade. “Immediately after we became masters of
this country all monopolies were abolished and all incumbrances
upon trade were removed. The traders chose their posts without
the obligation of purchasing them and I can by no means think
the French management in giving exclusive grants of trade at
particular posts for the sake of the sale thereof or the sale
of permits to trade at the free posts worthy our imitation. The
Indians, of course, paid dearer for their goods and the trade in
general must have been injured by the monopolies.”

Summing up the gain to France of Canada he says: “The only
immediate importance and advantage the French king derived from
Canada was the preventing the extension of the British colonies,
the consumption of the commodities and manufactures of France
and the trade of pelletry. She had no doubt views to further
advantages that the country might in time supply her with hemp,
cordage, iron, masts and generally all kinds of naval stores.
The people in general seemed well enough disposed to their new
masters.

“The only causes of dislike which I can discover proceed from
the fear of money, and the difference of religion. I understand
Canada to be on the same footing in respect of this money as all
the French colonies and if France pays any of them I don’t see
how she can avoid paying the bills of exchange drawn from Canada
in the same proportion as she pays the rest. It is the Canadians
only who would be sufferers by an exception, as Canadian bills to
a very large amount are in the possession of French merchants and
the rest may be sent to France and nobody be able to distinguish
which is French and which Canadian property.”

Speaking of the second cause of dislike, the difference
of religion, he says: “The people having enjoyed a free
and undisturbed exercise of their religion ever since the
capitulation of their country, their fears in that particular
are much abated, but there still remains a jealousy. It is to
be hoped that in time this jealousy will wear off and certainly
in this, much will depend upon the clergy. Perhaps methods may
be found hereafter to supply the _curés_ of this country with
priests well affected. But whilst Canada is stocked as she is
now with corps of priests detached from seminaries in France, on
whom they depend and to whom they pay obedience, it is natural to
conceive that neither the priests nor those they can influence
will ever bear that love and affection to a British government
which His Majesty’s auspicious reign would otherwise engage from
the Canadians as well as from his other subjects.”

In passing it may be noted that Gage’s fears were never realized,
for to the Canadian clergy is due the credit of having saved
Canada to English rule, as will be seen afterwards. A last
quotation is interesting as bearing on the question of the
exodus in 1760 after the capitulation. “No persons have left
this government to go to France except those who held military
and civil employment under the French king. Nor do I apprehend
any emigration at the peace, being persuaded that the present
inhabitants will remain under the British dominion. I perceive
none preparing to leave the government or that seem inclined to
do it unless it is a few ladies whose husbands are already in
France, and they propose to leave the country when peace is made,
if their husbands should not rather choose to return to Canada.”

Meanwhile the peace was eagerly looked forward to. The
proclamations of the 26th of November, given from the Palace
of St. James in London, having reference to the preliminaries
for peace and the cessation of hostilities, prepared the minds
of all for further intelligence. This was eventually given by
Thomas Gage from his Château of Montreal on the 17th of May,
1763, in which the definitive treaty of peace made between their
Brittannic and very Christian and Catholic majesties, signed
on the 6th of February, and ratified on the 10th of March, was
made known. On this occasion Gage indicated to the people the
chief portions bearing upon their rights, especially that of
the exercise of their religion according to the rights of the
Roman church “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and
secondly that whereby the inhabitants of His Christian Majesty
had permission to leave Canada in safety and liberty, the limit
fixed for this emigration being the space of eighteen months, to
count from the day of the exchange of the treaty. He communicated
to the captains of his government a letter from Monseigneur de
Choiseul, which had reference to the payment of debts due and
relating to the redemption of the paper money, which was still in
circulation, although the English governors sought to prohibit
it. It was set forth that the Most Christian King would pay the
sum due to the new subjects of Great Britain, but that the amount
must not be confounded with the money held by the French subjects.

On May 27, the governor of Montreal issued through the captains
of Militia of Montreal regulations concerning the liquidation of
this paper money, directing the captains to make a declaration
of the amount in their possession. They were to place the amount
held by them in the hand of Pierre Panet, _Notaire et Greffier_
of Montreal, appointed for this purpose, between the first and
thirtieth of June, designating the character of the notes, with
the name of the holder and other safeguards to be observed,
upon which certificates of receipt would be given. Care was to
be taken that the money, which they brought, should belong to
them and that they did not lend their names to anyone. Fault
in this regard would lead to prosecution for falsifying. For
this transaction a fee of five _sous_ was to be paid for every
thousand _livres_ so deposited. Money was received from 7 o’clock
in the morning to midday and from 2 o’clock to 5, except on
Sundays and holidays. This must have caused great excitement in
the city. Great care was taken to instruct the habitants of the
value of their money and warn them against becoming the victims
of speculators.[6]

Meanwhile preparations were being made for the removal of General
Gage from the post, which he had filled with excellent judgment
and with habitual prudence.

On August 5th, Gage issued some further ordinances regulating the
transport of merchandise and ammunition to the savages, seeing
that these latter had again been making incursions into the
country.

On August 18 he upheld a complaint of the established merchants
against the peddlers who were underselling the merchants in the
streets, forbidding anyone to sell in the public places of the
city, the streets and even the squares, river banks and suburbs.

On the 16th of September he issued an ordinance concerning
certain uncultivated lands in the districts of the Government,
which had been granted with titles of concessions “en fief” under
the former régime, and on which there had been no ground broken
as yet, on account of wars or other events. Those having these
should present their credentials or applications at once, so
as to have them recognized, to avoid any conflict with future
concessions.

General Gage left Montreal with the esteem of all. He was
presented with an affectionate address by the captains of the
_Chambre de Milice_, over which he had presided as the Chief
Judge, and he replied to them by a letter on October 15, 1763,
begging them to accept his testimony in recognition of the
services which they had rendered to the king of the country,
trusting that they would continue the same for the public good
and that their service, for which they had already required
so great a reputation among their own compatriots, would not
fail to draw upon them the good-will and protection of the
king. Certainly Gage might safely boast, as he had done in his
letter to Amherst, of the peaceful state of Montreal under his
government. He had helped to forge the links of intimacy that
bound the _noblesse_ and the British officials, the militia and
the military officers, which made for the harmonious transition
between the old and the new régimes. Whether or not the alliance
was an unmixed blessing is shown by subsequent events.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Before leaving, General Amherst appointed military governors
for three districts. Their tenures of office were as follows:
District of Montreal, General Thomas Gage, September, 1760, to
October, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, October, 1763, to August,
1764. District of Quebec, General James Murray, September, 1760,
to August, 1764. District of Three Rivers, Colonel Ralph Burton,
September, 1760, to May, 1762; Colonel F. Haldimand, May, 1762,
to March, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, March, 1763, to October,
1763; Colonel F. Haldimand, October, 1763, to August, 1764.

[2] The French runs: “_Et nous a laissé un gage precieux_, etc.”
The word “pledge” instead of “gage” in the English translation
destroys the delicate _double entendre_ and compliment, evidently
meant in the French version.

[3] The first mayor of Montreal.

[4] For the above abstracts of the ordinance of October 13th and
October 17th see “The Canadian Militia,” by Captain Ernest J.
Chambers, 1907.

[5] This was prepared for Pitt according to the order of Lord
Egremont in his dispatch to Sir Jeffrey Amherst of December
12, 1761, in which the king approves of the system of military
government established in the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers
and Montreal. He instructs Amherst to send for His Majesty’s
information a full account of the newly acquired country. In
response to this command communicated to Murray, Burton and Gage,
reports from the latter were prepared and forwarded to Amherst.
These reports were among the documents submitted to the Board of
Trade for their information in preparing a plan of government for
the territories ceded to Britain by the treaty of Paris of 1763.

[6] The same arrangements were carried out at Quebec and Three
Rivers and Murray reported that the total amount of the paper
money in circulation was nearly 17,000,000 of _livres_, that, in
the government of Montreal alone, being 7,980,298-8-4. Kingsford,
History of Canada, Vol. V, page 181, remarks: “An attempt to
depreciate the value of this paper was made by the court of
France in which it was pointed out that from the discredit to
which it had fallen it had been purchased at 80 to 90 per cent
discount; that it did not represent the value of what had been
received, owing to the high price paid for the articles obtained;
that the bills of exchange of 1759 were paid in part and that
bills that remained were only such as had been issued after this
payment. The British reply was that the court of France, having
been the cause of the discredit alleged had no right to profit by
it, that the prices paid for supplies had been established by the
intendant, that the date of the ordinances could not constitute a
reason why they should not be paid, that such paper money was the
currency of the colony issued by France, consequently the country
was responsible for it.”

CHAPTER III

THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS

1763

THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT

Before proceeding further it will be well to set before the
reader some special portions of “_The definitive treaty of peace
and friendship between His Britannic Majesty, the Most Christian
King, and the king of Spain, concluded at Paris the 10th day of
February, 1763, to which the king of Portugal acceded on the same
day_.”

Section IV relating to Canada was as follows:

“His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he
has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or
Acadia in all its parts, and guarantees the whole of it and with
all its dependencies to the King of Great Britain. Moreover
his most Christian Majesty accedes and guarantees to his said
Britannic Majesty in full right, Canada with all its dependencies
as well as the island of Cape Breton and all the other islands
and coasts in the Gulph and river of St. Lawrence and in general
everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands
and coasts with the sovereignty, property, possessions and all
rights acquired by treaty or otherwise, which the Most Christian
King and the crown of France have had till now over the said
countries, lands, islands, places, coasts and their inhabitants,
so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to
the said King and to the Crown of Great Britain and that in the
most ample manner and form, without restriction and without any
liberty to depart from the said cession and guarantee under any
pretense, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above
mentioned.

“His Britannic Majesty on his side agrees to grant the liberty of
the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will in
consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders that
his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their
religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as
the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty further
agrees that the French inhabitants or others who have been
subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada may retire with all
safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper and may sell
their estates provided it be to the subjects of His Britannic
Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons
without being restrained in their emigration under any pretense
whatever except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions; the
term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of
eighteen months to be computed from the day of the exchange of
the ratification of the present treaty.”

The definitive treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763, proclaimed
by Governor Gage in Montreal on May 17th, was received with
delight by the English merchants, for they looked forward eagerly
for the civil government to be set up in which they, but a
handful, hoped by the right of conquest to assume the high hand.
They had long chafed under what they, more than the “Canadians,”
chose to call military despotism. They had looked upon the
amicable temporary participation of the Canadians in their own
government, with eyes of envy. They were of the same metal as
the British merchants of Quebec who, relying on their undoubted
energy in developing the commercial interests of the country, and
in their self-satisfaction, so aggrandized their own importance
that they wished to rule solely, so that they early petitioned
his Majesty for a representative assembly in this province as in
all the other provinces of His Majesty. “There are,” they said,
“a sufficient number of loyal and interested Protestants outside
the military officers to form a legislative assembly, and the new
subjects of His Majesty, if he should believe it proper, could
be authorized to elect Protestants without having to take oath
against their conscience.” (See constitutional documents, Doughty
& Shortt.)

There were only about two hundred Protestants, and these not all
educated or upright men, in the whole country at this time--in
Quebec 144, in Montreal 56. Yet they desired to represent the
whole people and to exclude the “new subjects” from every
position of trust under the new civil government. At the time of
Murray’s recall in 1766 they had reached the number of 450.

The Canadians were not prepared for the new turn of the tide. In
consequence we shall see that between 1763 and 1774 the country
was in an unsettled state, owing to the conflict inevitable
between the two forces of the old and new régimes striving for
recognition.

Under the military law the “new subjects” had been entrusted with
a share in the government. The English rulers were officers and
gentlemen who respected the claims of the Seigneurs as well as
of the simple habitants, and moreover their religion was held in
honour. They had been led to believe that this happy state would
continue. Gage and Murray in their report to Egremont seem to
hint how they were hoodwinked. “Canadians are very ignorant and
extremely tenacious of their religion. Nothing can contribute to
make them staunch subjects to His Majesty as the new government
giving them every reason to imagine no alteration is to be
attempted in that point.”

Thus when the “new subjects” came to understand that they were
only to “profess the worship of their religion according to the
rights of the Romish church _as far as the laws of Great Britain
permit_,” and that that permission was to be interpreted along
the lines of the Catholic civil disabilities in England, they
felt that they were proscribed men who had been ensnared by
roseate promises of a wise interpretation of British liberty to
be extended to them as new subjects.

The situation was impossible and at once there began the
inevitable struggle and the long series of accommodations that
were eventually to culminate in the Quebec act of 1774, the Magna
Charta of French Canadians. The significance of this act cannot
be understood unless the religious proscription in the policy of
the new government be understood. Hence the opposition among the
Seigneurs in Montreal, their headquarters, was secretly fostered,
which later alarmed Carleton so much, as we shall see. The French
Canadian clergy and Seigneurs of Montreal looked upon the new
change of government as an attempt to Anglicize their religion
as well as their laws. And they were not far wrong. In a letter
to Governor Murray, the secretary of state, Lord Egremont, wrote
from Whitehall on August 13, 1763, acquainting him that the King
had been graciously pleased to confer on him the civil government
of Canada and making special reference to the qualification,
“as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” which laws, he
explains, prohibit absolutely all Popish hierarchy in any of
the dominions belonging to the Crown of Great Britain and can
only admit of a toleration of the exercise of that religion; this
matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the exercise
of that religion; the French ministers proposed to insert the
words _comme ci-devant_ in order that the Romish religion should
continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their
government; and they did not give up their point until they were
plainly told that it would be deceiving them to admit those
words, for the king had not the power to tolerate that religion
in any other manner than as far as the laws of Great Britain
permit. “These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may
arise on this subject.”

The intention was precisely to tolerate for a time the Romish
religion and gradually to supplant it. The royal instructions to
Governor Murray, given from the court of St. James by King George
on the 7th day of December, 1763, leave no doubt on this head.
The intention to suppress the natural growth of the Catholic
church in Canada by crippling it forever at its fountain head by
giving no guarantee of the recognition of the Episcopal power and
jurisdiction, had already been foreshadowed in the two clauses
submitted by Vaudreuil in the terms of the capitulation of
Montreal.

Article XXX: “If by the treaty of peace Canada shall remain in
the power of His Britannic Majesty, His Most Christian Majesty
shall continue to name the bishop of the colony, who shall always
be of the Roman communion and under whose authority the people
shall exercise the Roman religion: ‘Refused.’”

Article XXXI: “The bishop shall, in case of need, establish new
parishes and provide for the building of his cathedral and his
Episcopal palace; and in the meantime he shall have the liberty
to dwell in towns or parishes as he shall judge proper. He shall
be at liberty to visit his diocese with the ordinary ceremonies
and exercise also the jurisdiction which his predecessor
exercised under the French dominion, save that an oath of
fidelity or a promise to do nothing contrary to His Britannic
Majesty’s service, may be required of him: ‘This article is
comprised under the foregoing.’”

The reason for this was signalized in the instructions later to
Murray, Carleton and Haldimand in the clause beginning:

“And to the end that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the
lord bishop of London may take place in our province under your
government as conveniently as possible,” etc.

Section XXXII reads: “You are not to admit of any ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the See of Rome or of any other foreign
jurisdiction whatsoever in the province under your government.”

Section XXXIII: “And to the end that the Church of England may
be established both in principle and practice and that the said
inhabitants may by degrees be induced to embrace the Protestant
religion and their children be brought up in the principles of
it, we do hereby declare it to be our intention when the said
province shall have been accurately surveyed and divided into
townships, districts, precincts or parishes in such manner as
shall be hereinafter directed, all possible encouragement shall
be given to the erecting of Protestant schools in the same
districts, townships and precincts by settling, appointing and
allotting proper quantities of land for that purpose and also for
a glebe and maintenance for a Protestant minister and Protestant
schoolmaster, and you are to consider and report to us by our
Commissions for Trade and Plantation by what other means the
Protestant religion may be promoted, established and encouraged
in our province under your government.”

This instruction to Murray is repeated in those to Governor
Carleton, 1768, and to Governor Haldimand, 1778.

Let us see how the civil government worked out. It was proclaimed
on April 10, 1764, the delay being caused to allow the French
Canadians the eighteen months, stipulated by the treaty of Paris,
in which they might leave the country. Murray had been appointed
governor-general of the province of Quebec by the commission of
November 21, 1763, and the instructions were dated on December
7th. But Murray had not promulgated the new dignity accorded him
till on September 17th, 1764, the first great act of the new
régime being opened by his ordinance establishing civil courts.
It may be briefly stated as follows: there was to be a Superior
Court of judicature or King’s Bench, which should be held at
Quebec twice a year at the Hilary term commencing on January 1st
and at Trinity term on June 21st. Its president should be the
chief justice of Canada. This was William Gregory. This man,
with the attorney-general, Suckling, were soon removed for
incompetency. Later in 1766 a Michaelmas term was added. Montreal
and Three Rivers were to have the chief justices’ court of
assizes and jail delivery after Hilary once a year.

Strangely enough, though not unnaturally, Murray had inserted
a clause in the act which was afterwards violently objected to
by the English merchants as going beyond his commission, viz.,
that _all the subjects of the colony_ could be called upon
without distinction to take their place on the jury. Murray had
to explain this to the English government and accordingly with
the copy of the above act sent, he remarked to the following
effect: “As there are only two hundred Protestant subjects in
the province, the greater part of which is composed of disbanded
soldiers of small fortunes and of little capacity, it is
considered unjust to prevent the Roman Catholic new subjects from
taking part on juries, for such an exclusion would constitute
the said two hundred Protestants perpetual judges of the lives
and fortunes not only of the eighty thousand new subjects but of
all the military in this province. Moreover, if the Canadians
are not admitted to juries many will emigrate.” Murray felt that
his position might not carry, for he adds: “This arrangement is
nothing else than a temporary expedient to leave affairs in their
present state until the pleasure of His Majesty on this critical
and difficult point be made known.”

Besides the superior court there should be an inferior court of
“Common Pleas” to settle civil cases involving sums of beyond
ten _louis_. Beyond twenty _louis_ there was appeal allowed to
the superior court. If desired there could be juries called in
this court. French advocates and proctors could practice in this
court, though not in the superior court. Murray explains the
liberty taken by him in allowing this: “Because we have not as
yet a single English advocate or proctor understanding the French
language.” He also observed that the court of common pleas was
established solely for the protection of the French Canadian.

In addition to the other two courts, Justices of the Peace were
established at Quebec and Montreal who should hold quarter
sessions. These officers of the magistracy, according to Murray’s
instructions, had to be Protestants. One justice was to have
jurisdiction in disputes to the value of five pounds; two were
required for cases to the value of ten pounds. Three justices
should form a quorum to hold quarter sessions, to adjudicate in
cases from ten pounds to thirty pounds. Two justices were to sit
weekly in rotation in Quebec and Montreal.

Finally there should be elected in every parish in the country
bailiffs and sub-bailiffs. The elections were to take place
every 21st day of June and they were to enter upon their duties
on September 29th. “We call them bailiffs,” commenced Murray,
“because the new subjects understand the word better than that of
constables.” The word constable, will, however, better explain
the nature of their multifarious duties.

We now have a view of the change in the law courts in Montreal:
a yearly session of the king’s court and of the court of common
pleas, quarter sessions held by the justices of the peace, and in
the parishes, the bailiffs or constables.

Hardly had the courts erected by the act of September 7th
been held, than the grand jury of Quebec protested vehemently
at the new courts and especially at the privileges given the
new subjects. Their opposition was expected by Murray for his
comment, sent with the act, ran: that some of the English
merchants residing here of whom only ten or a dozen at most
possess any settled property in this province, are very
dissatisfied at the privileges granted to the Canadians to act on
juries; the reason of this is very evident as their influence is
restrained by the measure.

Britishers on the jury who thought the favours to Catholics
unconstitutional were only victims of their narrow prejudices
formed by the prevailing intolerance then existing in England and
its colonies. The toleration to Catholics according to the phrase
“as far as the laws of Great Britain allow” was not the wide
freedom we see nowadays.

A protest against allowing the latter class to practice in the
courts or to serve on juries was made early by the Protestant
members of the grand jury of Quebec on October 16, 1764, as
follows: “That by the definitive treaty the Roman religion was
only tolerated in the province of Quebec as far as the laws of
Great Britain had met. It was and is enacted by the third act,
January 1st, chapter V, section 8, ‘No Papist or Popish recusant
convict shall practice the common law as a counsellor, clerk,
attorney or solicitor, nor shall practice the civic law as
advocate or proctor, nor practice physick, nor be an apothecary,
nor shall be a judge, minister, clerk or steward of or in any
court, nor shall bear any office or charge as captain, master,
or governor, or bear any office of charge of, or, in any ship,
castle or fortress, but be utterly disabled for the same, and
every person herein shall forfeit one hundred pounds, half to
the king and half to them that shall sue.’ We therefore believe
that the admitting of persons of Romish religion, who own the
authority, supremacy and jurisdiction of the church of Rome,
as jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and
liberties, tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant
religion and His Majesty’s power, authority, right and possession
of the province to which we belong.” Later these jurors pretended
that they had never meant to exclude Catholic jurors, but only
as jurors when Protestants were contestants. The above argument
shows their original _intrinsigeance_.

Later, in February, 1766, modifications were introduced; when
the contestants were British the jury should be British; when
Canadians, Canadians; when the contestants were mixed the
jury should also be mixed. These conflicts were inevitable
in unsettled times when two peoples were of different mental
outlooks, politically, racially and religiously. The melting pot
of time will solve such difficulties, when the viewpoints of both
parties would be more sympathetically understood. In the meantime
the historical situation at the time was painful.

Governor Murray’s letter to the Lords of Trade, written a
few days after the presentment of the jury is a fair and
statesman-like view of the difficult period.

“Quebec, 29th of October, 1764.

“* * * Little, very little, will content the new subjects, but
nothing will satisfy the licentious fanaticks trading here, but
the expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and
best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be indulged
with a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Roman
Catholics at home, would soon get the better of every national
antipathy to their conquerors and become the most faithful and
most useful set of men in this American empire.

“I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in
the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the
popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart
of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident,
too, my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of
his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of
justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers
from emigrating directly and certain I am, unless the Canadians
are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who
understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest
part of this valuable people.”

His letter immediately continues with the following allusion
which helps us to place the position of Montreal in the above
general constitutional crisis then affecting the colony. “I beg
leave further,” says Murray, “to represent to your Lordship that
a lieutenant governor at Montreal is absolutely necessary. That
town is in the heart of the most populous part of the provinces.
It is surrounded by the Indian nations and is 180 miles from
the capital. It is there that the most opulent priests live and
there are settled the greatest part of the French noblesse.
Consequently every intrigue to our disadvantage will be hatched
there.”

A postscript to this letter to the Lords of Trade and
Plantations, gives Murray’s appreciation of some of the great
commercial class: “P.S.--I have been informed that Messrs.
William McKenzie, Alexander McKenzie and William Grant have been
soliciting their friends in London to prevail upon Your Lordship
to get them admitted into his Majesty’s council of this province.
I think it my duty to acquaint Your Lordships that the first of
these men is a notorious smuggler and a turbulent man, the second
a weak man of little character and the third a conceited boy. In
short it will be impossible to do business with any of them.”

This postscript indicates the strain and bitter personal
relations between Murray and some of the British commercial
element in the colony, who finally succeeded in obtaining his
recall.

Unfortunately, Murray was not always as discreet or as just in
the consideration of his opponents, as his position justified.
He was a soldier rather than a peace maker. In addition, others
besides the British merchant did not see eye to eye with him
in the interpretation of the new Treaty of Paris or in the
application of English laws in Canada.

They retorted as did the Quebec traders, that the governor “doth
frequently treat them with a rage and rudeness of language and
demeanour as dishonourable to the trust he holds of Your Majesty
as painful to those who suffer from it.”

In commenting on this period, Prof. F.P. Walton, dean of the
faculty of Law at McGill University, has the following criticism
(Cf. University Magazine, April, 1908):

He is speaking of the charge against Murray’s interpretation of
the new situation of the application of the new civil government.

“It is probable,” he says, “that at no period in the history of
Canada were legal questions so much discussed among the mass of
the population as in the first ten years of the English _régime_.
This is not surprising when we consider that the question whether
the English or the French law was in force in the Province
was one of no little difficulty. It was contended with much
plausibility that Murray’s Ordinances were of no legal validity
because, under the King’s proclamation, legislative authority
in the Province was to be exercised only by the governor with
the consent of a council and assembly, and that no assembly had
ever been summoned. This is not the place for a discussion of
this subject. I prefer the view of those who maintain that the
English law was introduced by the proclamation of 1763. The case
of Campbell and Hall is sufficient authority for the proposition,
that the King had the power without parliament to alter the law
of Quebec. It seems to me that the natural construction of the
proclamation itself is, that the King intended to introduce
the English law there and then. Murray, as Masères says in his
very convincing argument, ‘meant only to erect and constitute
courts of judicature to administer a system of laws already in
being, to wit, the laws of England.’ The whole affair was to a
great extent a misunderstanding. The English government had no
intention to force the English laws on an unwilling people. They
understood that they were giving ‘Home Rule’ to the Province of
Quebec, and expected that the Canadians would abrogate such parts
of the English law as they did not consider suitable, and would
re-enact the portions of the old French law which they desired to
retain. They did not foresee that, owing to the impracticability
of calling an assembly, the Province would be left without any
authority competent to legislate.”

It was, indeed, a time of great misunderstanding.

NOTE

GOVERNORS UNDER BRITISH RULE

As it may be convenient henceforth to omit mention of the advent
of successive governors, this list is appended for the purpose of
reference.

* (Gen. Jeffrey Amherst) 1760
* Gen. James Murray 1763
P. Aemilius Irving (President) 1766
* Gen. Sir Guy Carleton (Lieutenant Governor and Acting
Governor General) 1766
H.G. Cramahé 1770
* Gen. Sir Guy Carleton 1774
* Gen. Frederick Haldimand 1778
Henry Hamilton (Lieutenant Governor) 1784
Henry Hope (Lieutenant Governor) 1785
* Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) 1786

ON THE DIVISION OF THE TWO CANADAS

Alured Clarke 1791
* Lord Dorchester 1793
* Maj.-Gen. Robert Prescott 1796
Sir. R.S. Milnes 1799
Hon. Thomas Dunn 1805
* Sir James H. Craig 1807
Hon. Thomas Dunn 1811
* Sir George Prevost 1811
Sir Gordon Drummond 1815
Gen. John Wilson 1816
* Sir John Sherbrooke 1816
* Duke of Richmond 1818
Sir James Monk 1819
Sir Peregrine Maitland 1820
* Earl of Dalhousie 1820
Sir. F.N. Burton 1824
* Earl of Dalhousie 1825
Sir James Kempt 1828
* Lord Alymer 1830
* Earl of Gosford 1835
* Sir John Colborne 1838
* Earl of Durham 1838
* C. Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham) 1839

UNDER THE UNION

* Baron Sydenham (Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson) 1841
R.D. Jackson (Administrator) 1841
* Sir Charles Bagot 1842
* Sir Charles Metcalfe 1843
* Earl Cathcart 1845
* Earl of Elgin 1847
W. Rowan (Administrator) 1853
* Sir Edmund Head 1854
* Lord Viscount Monck 1861

UNDER THE CONFEDERATION

* The Rt. Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G. 1867
* The Rt. Hon. Lord Lisgar, G.C.M.G. (Sir John Young) 1868
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dufferin, K.P., K.C.B., G.C.M.G. 1872
* The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lome, K.T., G.C.M.G., P.C. 1878
* The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G. 1883
* The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley of Preston, G.C.B. 1888
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Minto, G.C.M.G. 1898
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G. 1893
* The Rt. Hon. The Earl Grey, G.C.M.G. 1904
* Field Marshal, H.R.H., The Duke of Connaught, K.C., G.C.M.G. 1911

----

Those not marked * acted only as administrators. When a governor
had acted as administrator immediately before becoming governor,
the earlier date is given. The names of all the ad interim
administrators are not given.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS OF QUEBEC

(After Confederation)

The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau
The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau (re-appointed)
Hon. Rene Edouard Caron
Hon. Luc Letellier de St. Just
Hon. Theodore Robitaille
Hon. Louis François Rodique Masson
Hon. Auguste Real Angers
Hon. Sir J.A. Chapleau
Hon. L.A. Jetté
Hon. L.A. Jetté (re-appointed)
Hon. Sir Charles A.P. Pelletier
Hon. Sir François Langelier

CHAPTER IV

CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

1764

The governor of Three Rivers, Ralph Burton, proclaimed to the
Montrealers on October 29, 1763, his nomination by General
Amherst as governor of Montreal in succession to General Gage.
He announced that the civil justice would be administered by the
same courts as hitherto. His ordinances have nothing striking
beyond one ordering all who had gunpowder in their homes, and
there were many, to take it to the powder magazine, and another
announcing that on April 24, 1764, all who in accordance with
the definitive treaty of peace wished to leave for France must
within three weeks send in their declarations with their exact
descriptions and the number of their household they propose to
take with them. In August, Murray reported that only 270 men,
women and children, mostly officers and their families, left the
colony.

On August 10th military rule ended in Montreal but Burton
continued on as military commandant.

Burton resigned his governorship in July, 1764. As the position
of governor was not to be continued at Montreal or Quebec, no
one succeeded him. He was confirmed, however, as Brigadier. Yet,
although in command of a few troops, he refused to recognize
Murray as his military superior, hence complications and
conflicts arose. Murray wrote in indignation that if Burton were
removed it would be better for himself and everybody. Murray is
accused by his enemies of quarreling with everybody, but it is
evidently hard on a governor general to have his wings clipped
by having under him in a civil capacity a commander who took his
orders from General Gage of New York. Where the military rights
and civil duties of Burton at Montreal or of Haldimand at Three
Rivers and Murray at Quebec, began and ended, was a harassing
doubt to all three.

On January 11, 1764, letters patent were sent to the first
justices of the peace at Montreal, including Moses Hazen, J.
Grant, John Rowe, Francis McKay, Thomas Lambe, F. Knife, John
Burke, Thomas Walker and others. Among these were two Swiss
Protestants, Catholics being excluded from the office as yet,
owing to the difficulty of their subscribing to the religious
test not being yet solved.

The first general quarter sessions of the peace was held on
December 27, 1764, and there were present Moses Hazen, J. Dumas,
F. McKay, Thomas Lambe and Francis Knife. The court adjourned.
The first case was one of battery and assault.

On August 10, 1764, military rule ceased. The new civil
government brought to a head much of the ill feeling existing
in the city. The tables were now turned, the merchant class,
already become the magistrates, were now in the ascendant and
rancours prevailed. The old-time antipathies between the soldiers
and citizens at New York and Boston were being reproduced in
Montreal. There were no barracks, although the troops had been
there four years. Consequently the system of billeting became
necessary and caused continual annoyance.

The famous Walker outrage grew out of one of these troubles.
Captain Fraser had billeted a Captain Payne on a French-Canadian.
In the house lodged one of the new justices of the peace who
claimed exemption for the house. In reply he was told that
the justices’ rooms were exempt but not the other rooms, and
on Payne’s persistence in claiming the billet, the magistrate
refused to yield his possession. The case was brought before
Justice Walker, who, as a magistrate, ordered Payne to vacate the
rooms and on his refusing to comply committed him to jail for
contempt. He was released on bail. Two days afterwards, on the
6th of December, 1764, occurred the “Walker outrage,” which has
been described more or less fully in various histories of Canada,
sometimes incorrectly.

Walker was an Englishman who had lived for many years in Boston,
coming to Montreal some time after the close of the war in 1760,
where he engaged in trade with the upper country. He was a bold,
aggressive man, full of democratic notions, who set himself up as
the agent of the people, opposed the actions of Governor Murray
in every way, and afterwards had endeavoured to use his influence
to have Murray recalled. In many ways he showed that he was no
great friend of the Military then established in Montreal.

The outrage on him, dated on the night of the 6th, he attributed
to the Military, and was the occasion of the seizure of “John
Fraser, Esq.,” Deputy Grand Paymaster; “John Campbell, Esq.,” now
Captain of His Majesty’s Twenty-seventh Regiment; “Daniel Disney,
Esq.,” now Captain of the Twenty-fourth Regiment; “St. Luke La
Corne, Esq.,” (Knight St. Louis), “Samuel Evans,” Lieutenants
in His Majesty’s Twenty-eighth Regiment, and “Joseph Howard,”
Merchant, all of the City of Montreal, being to their great
surprise seized and taken out of their beds in the middle of
the night of the 18th inst., November, 1766, by “Edward William
Gray, Esq.,” Deputy Provost Martial in and for the district of
Montreal, assisted by a party of soldiers with fixed bayonets,
and by them hurried down to Quebec, where they were in close
custody on the charge of having on or about “the sixth day of
December, 1764, feloniously and with malice forethought, and by
lying in wait assaulted, wounded and cut off part of the ear
of ‘Thomas Walker, Esq.,’ of Montreal in this Province, with
intention in so doing to disfigure the said ‘Thomas Walker.’”
The informant was “George Magovock” late soldier in the
Twenty-eighth Regiment of foot, making oath before “William Hey,”
Chief Justice in and for the Province of Quebec.

The Chief Justice was petitioned by the prisoners to be released
on bail, but apparently the influence of Walker was so great,
that this was not easy. The whole of Montreal was in a great
state of irritable excitement, a deputation of the members of the
Council, the principal merchants of Montreal and the officers of
the Fifteenth, Twenty-seventh, Fifty-second and Royal American
Regiments entreated the Chief Justice to grant the petition of
the prisoners for bail, asking him to interpose his authority and
to mitigate the rigour of the law for gentlemen, “whose honors we
are so well convinced, that we offer to become their bail until
the trial.”

The petition is signed by the following: Colonel Irving,
A. Mabane,[1] Thomas Dunn,[1] J. Goldfrap, F. Mounier, T.
Mills, Members of the Council; Thomas Ainslie, Collector of
the Customs and Justice of the Peace; J. Marteilhe, J.P.; J.
Collins, J.P.; C. Drummond, Comp. of the Customs; J. Porteus,
Charles Grant, S. Frazer, J. Woolsey, W. Grant, G. Measam, T.
Scott, J. Werden, E. Gray, J. Aitken, Wm. Garett, G. Allsopp,
J. Antill, Gridley, H. Boone, J. Watmough, Samuel Jacobs, H.
Taylor, F. Grant, S. Lymbery, Amiet, Perras, Dusault, Deplaine,
Fleurimont, Fremont, Perrault, Bousseau, Guillemain, Panet,
Beaubien, Principal Merchants; La Naudiere, Crois de St.
Louis; Captain Grove, Royal Artillery; Colonel Irving, Captain
Prescott, Captain-Lieutenant D’Aripe, Lieutenants Mitchel,
Lockart, Dunn, Magra, Doctor Roberts, Fifteenth Regiment; Captain
Morris, Ensign Winter, Twenty-seventh Regiment; Colonel Jones,
Captains Phillips, Williams, Addison, Davidson, Alcock, Geofrey,
Lieutenants Neilson, Dinsdale, Smyth, Aderly, Hamilton, Watters,
Holland, Hawksley, Adjutant Splain, Ensigns Stubbs, Molesworth,
Fifty-second Regiment; Captains Carden, Etherington, Schloser,
Tucker, Burin, Rechat, Ensign McKulloch, Royal Americans.

Whatever the whole hubbub was about it was evidently of such
importance that the Chief Justice did not see his way to grant
the bail, and it was not until two years later that the case came
before the Grand Jury in Montreal. Meanwhile the city had been
divided in two factions.

On the 28th of February, the cases against all but Captain
Disney were thrown out by the Grand Jury,[2] but a true bill was
brought against him. This was on a Monday. Francis Masères, who
succeeded Suckling as attorney general, prosecuted for the Crown,
and Morison, Gregory and Antill defended Town Major Disney.

We may now tell the story in the words of the report of Chief
Justice Hey, transmitted to London on his return to Quebec on
April 14, 1767.

“_The bill against Major Disney being returned on a Monday,
I appointed Wednesday for his trial, his Jury, after some
few challenges on both sides, was composed of very reputable
English merchants residing at Montreal, of very fair characters
& as unprejudiced as men could be who had heard so much of so
interesting a story._

“_The only evidence that affected Major Disney was that of Mr. &
Mrs. Walker & Magovock, the substance of which I will take the
liberty to state to yr. Lordship as shortly & as truly as my
notes & my memory will enable me to do, all the other witnesses
speaking to the fact as committed by somebody without any
particular knowledge of Major Disney._

“_The narrative will perhaps be less perplexed--The house opens
with two doors, one a strong one next the street, (within that a
sashed one), into the hall where the Family were at supper when
the affair began; short on the right hand at the entrance from
the street are folding doors which lead into a Parlour, at the
further end of which Fronting the Folding doors is ye door of
the bed chamber where Mr. Walker keeps his fire arms of which he
has great numbers ready loaded. In the hall almost fronting the
street doors, are 2 which lead into a kitchen & a back yeard,
through which Mrs. Walker & the rest of the family separately
made their escape very soon after the entrance of the Ruffians._

“_The account which Mr. Walker gave to the Jury upon the trial
was that on the 6th of Decr. 1764 at ½ past 8 in the evening
Mrs. Walker looked at her watch and said it was time to go to
supper--that the cloth was laid in the hall but that he not
having been very well that day she was persuading him to stay &
eat his supper in the Parlour--that they staid about 10 or 15
minutes in this and other conversation & then went into the hall
to supper--that he sat with his back to, & very near the street
door--that he had been but a very little time at supper when he
heard a rattling of the latch of the door as of Persons wanting
to come in in a hurry--that Mrs. Walker said Entre, upon which
the outward door was thrown open & thro’ the sash of the inward
one he saw a great number of People disguised in various ways,
some with little round hats others with their faces blacked,
and others with crapes over their faces--that he had time to
take so much notice of them as to distinguish 2 Persons whose
faces tho’ blacked he was sure he should know again if he saw
them--that they burst the inward door & several of them got round
to the doors leading to the Parlour as designing to cut off his
retreat into that room--that upon turning his head towards that
room he received from behind a blow which he believes was given
with a broad sword,--that he passed thro’ them into the Parlour
receiving many wounds in the passage got to the further end of
the room near the chamber door before which stood 2 men who had
got before him & prevented his entrance into it--that these 2
with others who had followed him striking and wounding all the
way, sett upon him & forced him from the door into window, the
curtains of which entangled itself round him and he believes
prevented their dashing his brains out against the wall, that he
received in the whole no less than 52 contusions besides many
cuts with sharp instruments--that he believes during the struggle
in the window he was for some little time deprived of his senses,
sunk in stupefaction or stunned by some blow, till he heard a
voice from the opposite corner of the room say ‘Let me come at
him I will dispatch the Villian with my sword’ that this roused
him and determined him to sell his life as dear as he could--that
’till this time tho’ he had apprehended & experienced a great
deal of violence, he did not think they intended to take away his
life because he had seen Major Disney in the outer room & knowing
he had done nothing to disoblige him, he did not believe that
he would have been amongst them if they had intended to murther
him--that he broke from the persons who held him in the window &
advanced towards the Part of the room from whence the voice came
where 2 persons were standing with their swords in a position
ready for making a thrust at him, but does not know whether they
actually made a Pass at him or not, that he put by one of their
swords with his left hand upon which they both retreated into
the corner--that his Eyes at this time being full of blood, he
was not capable of distinguishing the features of a face with
great accuracy, but from the size & figure & gesture of the
person whose sword he parried & from whom he believes the words
came, he thought it to be Major Disney--that several of them then
seized him at once (one of them in particular taking him up under
the right thigh) and carried him towards the fire place with
the intention as he believed to throw him upon the fire--that
the marks of his bloody fingers were upon the jamb of the
chimney--that he turned himself from the fire with great violence
& in turning received a blow on his head which the surgeons say
must have been given with a Tomahawk--which felled him to the
ground & after that a blow upon his Loins which he feels to this
day--that then one of them sat or kneeled by him (he lying at
his length upon the floor) andeavouring as he imagined to cut
his throat--that he resisted it by inclining his head upon his
shoulders & putting his hand to the place, a finger of which was
cut to the bone--that it was a fortnight before he knew that he
had lost his ear, his opinion all along having been that in that
operation they intended to cut his throat & believed they had
done it--that one of them said the Villian is dead, another Damn
him we have done for him, and a third uttered some words but his
senses then failed him & he does not recollect what they were._

“_This was the whole of the Evidence given by him in Court in
the cross-examination great stress was laid upon his positive
manner of swearing to Major Disney in disguise upon the transient
view which by his own account he had of him, and under the
circumstances of terrour and confusion which such an appearance
must have occasioned; to which he answered that he had time
in the hall before any blow was given to take a distinct view
of him, and that he actually did do it, and tho’ it was true
he had a crape over his face, yet it was tied so close that
he discerned the features and Lineaments of it very perfectly
and that he was positive it was Mr. Disney, of his dress other
than the crape upon his face he could give no account, and then
he was questioned if he had not often declared that he knew
nobody but upon slight surprise he said that he remembered Mr.
Disney perfectly the next morning, but that he mentioned him to
nobody but Mrs. Walker, charging her at the same time to conceal
it, because he thought he had suffered by her in discretion in
mentioning the name of another Person whose influence with People
in Power had prejudiced the inquiry which was then making into
the affair._

“_Mrs. Walker confirmed all the circumstances of their manner
of coming in & swore as directly to Major Disney, that Lieut.
Hamilton (as she did for some time believe but has since had
occasion to think she was mistaken) was the first that entered
that she saw Major Disney among a Groupe of figures very
distinctly with a crape over his face and dressed in a Canadian
Cotton Night Gown._

“_Magovock went thro’ his story as contained in his affidavit
a copy of which has been transmitted to your Lordship, not
without a manifest confusion of his countenance & a trembling
in his voice common to those who have a consciousness that they
are telling untruly, & a fear of being detected--his cross
examination took a great deal of time in the course of which he
contradicted all the other witnesses & himself in circumstances
so material that I am persuaded he was not himself present at the
transaction._

“_Major Disney proved by several witnesses, Dr. Robertson,
Madam Landrief, Madam Campbell & Mrs. Howard that he spent that
afternoon from 5 till ½ past 9 when he was sent for by Genl.
Burton (he being town Major, upon the uproar that this affair had
occasioned) at the house of Dr. Robertson--it was a particular
festival with the French of whom the company was mostly composed,
that he danced ’till supper time with Madam Landrief in the midst
of which Genl. Burton’s servant came & called him out--they spoke
all very positively to his being present the whole time & the
impossibility that he could be absent for 5 minutes without their
knowing it._

“_Upon this evidence the Jury went out of Court and in about an
hour returned with their Verdict Not Guilty--In justice to them
and to Major Disney I must declare that I am perfectly satisfied
with the Verdict._

“_Mr. Walker’s violence of temper and an inclination to find
People of rank in the Army concerned in this affair, has made
him a Dupe to the artifices of a Villian whose story could not
have gained credit but in a mind that came too much prejudiced
to receive it, the unhappy consequence of it I fear will be that
by mistaking the real objects of his Resentments the public will
be disappointed in the satisfaction of seeing them brought to
justice._

“_I should inform Your Lordship that the G. Jury inflamed with
Mr. Walker’s charge against them are preparing to bring in
several actions for words and have presented both him and Mrs.
Walker for Perjury--I have endeavoured to put a stop to both and
I hope I shall succeed._

“_I have the honour to be_
“_My Lord_
“_Yr. Lordship’s most obedt & humble servant_,
“_W. Hey_.”

The report of the trial was printed by Brown and Gilmour at
Quebec, it being the second book that appeared in Canada. The
first book published is generally believed to be “Catechisme du
Diocese de Sens Imprimé a Quebec chez, (Brown and Gilmour).” Brown
and Gilmour were the printers of the first journal “The Quebec
Gazette” published on June 21, 1764. It was printed with columns
of English and French and was issued weekly.

Walker was afterward removed on the consideration of the Council
from the commission of the peace at Montreal because of his
seditionary tendencies and of the frequent accusations of his
insolent and overbearing temper which made it impossible for
his brother magistrates to associate with him. General Murray
reluctantly consented if for no other reasons than his enemies
would otherwise see vindictiveness in his actions.

On the 27th of March, 1766, Walker, who had powerful friends
in England, was ordered by His Majesty to be restored to the
magistracy. On the same day an order from the privy council
was issued by the governor of Michillimackinac and Detroit to
give him effectual assistance in his business pursuits. At
the same time stringent orders were given for the discovery
of the perpetrators of the outrage on him. The government
offered a reward of two hundred pounds, and of a free pardon
and a discharge from the army to any person informing. Montreal
inhabitants offered another three hundred pounds. But there was
nothing done.

Between the actual outrage and the final acquittal of Captain
Disney, Walker had been a thorn in the flesh to Murray. His
dismissal from the bench made him no friend of the Governor and
he boasted afterwards that he had influenced Murray’s recall.

The first news of this likely recall came in 1765; on February
3d Murray wrote lamenting that Mr. Walker should have known it
before himself.

Murray’s position was an unenviable one; his sympathy with the
French Canadians was the basis of the anger of the little knot
of powerful merchants against him; he was made the scape-goat
for the difficulties arising from the bad working of the
unfavorable new civil government. In addition he had troubles
with the commandants of Montreal and Three Rivers who as military
commanders had much independent authority, over which Murray had
no control, much to his chagrin. The constitutional documents
of this period contain the petitions signed by twenty-one of
the merchants for his recall, and that of the seigneurs for his
maintenance. Their description of those allied against Murray
runs thus: “A cabal of people who have come in the train of the
army as well as clerks and agents for the London merchants.”
Their testimony to Murray is his justification. “We were suited
in the government of Mr. Murray. We knew his character, we were
fully satisfied with his probity and his feelings of humanity; he
was fitted to bring your new subjects to a regard for the yoke of
your kindly domination by his care to make it light.”

On April 1, 1766, Conway, secretary of the colonies, wrote
to Murray requesting his immediate return. He left Quebec on
June 28th, leaving the government in the hands of the senior
councillor, Lieut.-Col. Aemilius Irving; on the same day there
arrived the new bishop, M. Briand to fill the vacancy left by
Pontbriand, who died in Montreal before the capitulation.

The result of the Walker outbreak was that Murray’s frequent
representations that barracks should be built were listened to
and in 1765 they were erected, but hardly so, when in February,
1766, they were burned down with all the stores placed there. A
public meeting was called to appeal for shelter for the soldiers,
who were again billeted upon the inhabitants, but with the
promise that by May 1, houses should be hired for them. On his
return to London Murray in his report to Shelburne on August 20,
1766, had his revenge on the New England settlers whom he calls
broadly the most immoral collection of men he had ever known, and
says:

“Magistrates were made and juries composed from four hundred and
fifty contemptible sutters and traders. The judge pitched upon
to conciliate the minds of seventy-five thousand foreigners to
the laws and government of Great Britain was taken from a jail,
entirely ignorant of law and of the language of the people.

“* * * On the other hand the Canadians, accustomed to an
arbitrary and a sort of military government, are a frugal,
industrious and moral race of men who from the just and mild
treatment they met with from His Majesty’s military officers that
ruled the country for four years past until the establishment of
the civil government had greatly got the better of the natural
antipathy they had of their conquerers. They consist of the
noblesse who are numerous and who pride themselves much upon
the antiquity of their families, their own military glory and
that of their ancestors. These noblesse are Seigneurs of the
whole country and though not rich are in a situation, in that
plentiful part of the world where money is scarce and luxury
still unknown, to support their dignity. The inhabitants, their
tenanciers, who pay only annual quit rent of about a dollar for
one hundred acres, are at their ease and comfortable. They have
been accustomed to respect and obey the noblesse; their tenure
being military they have shared with them the dangers of the
field and natural affection has been increased in proportion to
the calamities which have been common to both in the country.
So they have been taught to respect their Seigneurs and not
get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty; they are shocked at
the insults which their noblesse and the king’s officers have
received from the English traders and lawyers since the civil
government took place.”

He adds: “The Canadian noblesse were hated because their birth
and behaviour entitled them to respect and the peasants were
abhorred because they were saved from the oppression they were
threatend with.”

The letter concludes: “I glory in having been accused of war
with unfairness in protecting the king’s Canadian subjects and
of doing the utmost in my power to gain to my royal master the
affections of that great, hardy people whose emigration, if ever
it should happen, will be an irreparable loss to this country.”

Though Murray was recalled it must not be assumed that his policy
of colonial government was disapproved of by the ministers for
it was not until April, 1768, that he relinquished the office
of governor in chief. After a time the opposition between the
military and the magistrates died down, but the latter now became
a fertile source of oppression to the civil population.

Let us then turn our attention to the Montreal justices of the
peace. In 1769, reports had reached the Council at Quebec as
to the oppresive practices of some of the magistrates of the
Montreal district, and in consequence the council addressed
to many of them on July 10, 1769, a letter of remonstrance
applicable to “those magistrates only who had given occasion for
the complaint.”

The circular prepared by a committee of the Council was addressed
“To the Justices of the Peace active in and for the district
of Montreal.” It opened with a charge that “it appears from
facts too notorious to be dispelled that His Majesty’s subjects
in general, but more particularly his Canadian subjects, are
daily injured and abused to a degree they are no longer able to
support nor public justice endure.” The chief charges were of
extorting excessive fees from litigants applying freely to the
court and that in addition a low class of bailiffs, many of them
French Canadians, who provoked and instituted lawsuits among the
inhabitants were going about with blank forms signed with the
justices’ names ready to be filled up at any moment. Thus abuses
were numerous.

In August a committee of the Council sat to consider further
the state of the administration of Justice under the justices
of peace. A report was prepared and was read on August 29th and
September 11th. It was agreed to in the Castle of St. Louis
by the council on September 14th, and Acting Attorney General
Kneller was instructed to prepare an ordinance on the point.

The report after stating that although the original powers
in matters of property given to justices of the peace by the
ordinance of September 14, 1764, were exceedingly grievous and
oppressive to the subjects, yet even so “the authority given
to the Justices hath been both too largely and too confidently
entrusted and requires to be retrenched if not wholly taken
away.” It then notices “The Justices of Montreal have in one
instance, and probably in many others which have passed without
notice, assumed to themselves powers of a nature not fit to
be exercised by any Summary Jurisdiction, whatsoever, in
consequence of which Titles to Land have been determined and
possessions disturbed in a way unknown to the laws of England and
inconsistent with the solemnity and deliberation which is due to
matters of so high and important a nature. And we are not without
information, that even where personal property only has been in
dispute, one magistrate in particular under pretense that it was
at the desire and request of both the contending parties has by
himself exercised a jurisdiction considerably beyond what the
ordinance has allowed even to three Justices in full court at
their Quarter Sessions.

“From an omission of a similar nature and for want of
ascertaining the manner in which their judgments were to be
inforced, we find the Magistrates to have assumed another very
high and dangerous Authority in the exercise of which Gaols are
constantly filled with numbers of unhappy objects and whole
families reduced to beggery and ruin.”

Later the report refers to evils “which will probably always be
the case when the office of a Justice of Peace is considered as a
lucrative one and must infallibly be so when it is his principal,
if not, only dependence.”

One consequence of the report was the appointment in the
ordinance of a Court of Common Pleas to be held before judges
constantly residing in the town of Montreal. This court was
now to be independent of, and with the same powers as, that
at Quebec. Hitherto the latter had held adjourned meetings on
different days at Montreal. The object was to give inexpensive,
speedy and expert hearing to Montrealers.

The ordinance passed in the council on February 3, 1770, was
translated and soon appears in English and French in the
“Gazette.” When it appeared in Montreal it roused strong
indignation among the magistrates whose powers were now
curtailed. A memorial signed by fifty signatures only was
presented on the part of “merchants and others of the city of
Montreal” with twenty objections to the Ordinance. Pierre du
Calvet, a French Huguenot magistrate, was one of the indignant
protestors and his usual high-flown style characterizes his
memorial. According to Sir Guy Carleton’s statement to the
deputation they had issued handbills calling a meeting of the
people to discuss grievances, they had importuned and even
insulted several French Canadians because they would not join
them. Carleton who had now succeeded Murray in the Government
of Canada warned them that they were acting against their own
interests, that the firm refusal of the Canadians as well as
of most of their countrymen plainly showed the opinion the
generality of the public entertained. In his letter to Lord
Hillsborough of the 25th of April, 1770, Carleton, however, after
pointing out the evils caused by the law as administered by the
justices says: “Though I have great reason to be dissatisfied
with the conduct of some of the justices there are worthy men in
the commission of the peace in both districts and particularly in
this of Quebec.” (See Brymner’s Canadian Archives Report, 1890,
whose abstract is here used.)

To the credit of the better class of Montreal merchants of this
period we must clearly dissociate the names of men who like
James McGill and others have deserved the city’s most grateful
remembrance, from the inferior “grafters,” to use a modern term,
then exploiting the people. These were disapproved of by many of
their own race. Carleton’s report of them to Lord Hillsborough
dated Quebec, 28th of March, 1770, clearly designates the
“rascals” of the day. “Your Lordship has already been informed
that the Protestants who have settled, or rather sojourned here
since the conquest, are composed only of Traders, disbanded
soldiers and officers, the latter, one or two excepted, below
the Rank of Captains, of those in the Commission of the Peace
such as prospered in business could not give up their time to
sit as Judges, and when several from accidents and ill-judged
undertakings became Bankrupts they naturally sought to repair
their broken fortunes at the expense of the people; hence a
variety of schemes to increase their business and their own
emoluments. Bailiffs of their own creation, mostly French
soldiers either disbanded or Deserters, dispersed through the
parishes with blank citations, catching at every little feud or
dissension among the people, exciting them on to their Ruin and
in a manner forcing them to litigate what, if left to themselves,
might have been easily accommodated, putting them to extravagant
Costs for the Recovery of very small sums; their Lands, at a
time there is the greatest scarcity of money and consequently
but few Purchasers, exposed to hasty sales for the Payment of
the most trifling debts, and the money arising from these sales
consumed in exorbitant Fees, while the Creditors reaped little
benefit from the Destruction of their unfortunate Debtors. This,
My Lords, is but a very faint sketch of the Distresses of the
Canadians and the cause of much Reproach to our National Justice
and the King’s Government.” (Report Canadian Archives for 1890.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For their action in this case Carleton removed their names
from the council.

[2] List of the grand jury of the district of Montreal before
which bills were laid against the prisoners charged with the
assault on Thomas Walker:

1. Samuel McKay, Esq. (Foreman).
2. M. St. Ours (K. of St. Louis).
3. Isaac Todd.
4. Francis de Bellestre (K. of St. Louis).
5. Louis Mattorell.
6. Mons. Contrecoeur (K. of St. L.).
7. Mons. Niverville (K. of St. L.).
8. Thomas Lynch.
9. Mons. La Bruiere.
10. John Livingston.
11. Jacob Jordan.
12. Mons. Niverville de Trois Rivières.
13. Mons. Normanville.
14. Moses Hazen.
15. Dailbout de Cuisy.
16. Jas. Porteous.
17. Jno. Dumas.
18. Wm. Grant.
19. Samuel Mather.
20. Augustus Bailie.
21. John Jennison.

In a P.S. from Sir Guy Carleton to Lord Shelburne it is stated:
“The attorney general at the desire of Mr. Walker objected to the
Knights of St. Lewis being of the grand jury as not having taken
the oath of allegiance, which objection they immediately removed
by cheerfully taking them.”

CHAPTER V

THE PRELIMINARY STRUGGLE FOR AN ASSEMBLY

THE BRITISH MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL

Trade passed over almost bodily to the English. The records of
the _Chambre de Milice de Montreal_ at present at Quebec reveal
even in the civil disputes during the Interregnum of 1760-63
a boom in trade in Montreal such as those of the past never
portrayed.

The early traders have been whipped unmercifully by Murray and
Carleton but there were certainly some who were recognized as
“very respectable merchants.” The British merchants were first
at Quebec at its fall, and soon they also followed to Montreal
at the Capitulation. Many were weeded out by failure and the
climate, but the residue that remained of the class of the canny
mercantile adventurers who always adorn the hour of advancing
civilization, with the addition of more solid representatives of
the large English houses, was the foundation of the enterprising
merchant class of Quebec and Montreal, but especially of the
latter centre, which quickly seized the control of the wholesale
business, particularly the fur trade, the traffic with the
Indians and the foreign commerce. Despite the narrowness of their
vision and the jealous grasping after power due to them, they
considered, as the conquering body, this small group of men by
their superior activity, wealth and political skill came to wield
great influence in the city and on the country on the whole well
and wisely.

Hitherto, we have had to point out some of the weaknesses of
those of the less honourable and unsuccessful merchant class,
even of those who became magistrates. It remains now to chronicle
the action of a well meaning body of the substantial business
men at Montreal toward consolidating the constitutional system
of the country and developing it along British colonial lines.
Their political foresight was ahead of their time. Yet from
the earliest days of British rule the English merchants of
Montreal, together with those of Quebec, certainly kept before
themselves and the Home Government the need of a representative
assembly as promised to them, such as they had been familiar
with in other British colonies in America. Unfortunately the
desire to have this manned by Protestants only was made too
evident from the outset and alienated the sympathy of those of
the French Canadians otherwise becoming well disposed. Their
narrow inherited spirit of intolerance, their conception of
British rights, for they came “bearing all the laws of England
on their backs,” their belief in their own capabilities, their
evident business success and the large capital they invested in
Canada,[1] the strong conviction of the ultimate needs of such
an institution, if ever the country was to be reduced to the
same uniformity as the other colonies where British institutions
flourished, blinded them to the inopportuneness of the hour for
the establishment of such an assembly. They forgot, imbued as so
many of them were with democratic and republican tendencies, that
the New British Province was not an infant colony, but one which
had been long in existence and impregnated with French feudalism.

Again the upper classes were against the assembly, and the lower
not prepared by education[2] or desire, to take their share in
popular government; much less were they inclined to be permitted
to vote for a class who desired openly and not very discreetly to
ignore the political existence of their race.

Still the merchants persisted. An opportunity was given by the
departure of Carleton, who had asked leave of absence for a few
months to place his views directly before the government, but
it was not till 1774 that he returned. During that time his
delayed presence in London was valuable for consultation in the
preparation of the “Quebec Act.” Carleton left behind his first
counsellor, a Swiss Protestant, Hector Theophile Cramahé, to act
for him. Carleton departed early in August and on the 9th Cramahé
issued a proclamation declaring that the command had temporarily
devolved upon him. In 1771, on July 21st, Cramahé was appointed
Lieutenant Governor. Shortly after Carleton’s departure Cramahé
sent two petitions to him to be presented to the King’s Most
Excellent Majesty.

The first was that of the Quebec and Montreal British
free-holders, merchants and traders on behalf of themselves and
others. His Majesty is reminded of his direction to governors
in his Royal proclamation of the 7th of October in the third
year of his reign, that general assemblies should be called
as soon as the state and circumstances thereof would admit,
in such manner as is used in the provinces of America under
His Majesty’s immediate government. The arguments adduced are,
that such an assembly would strengthen the hands of government,
give encouragement and protection to agriculture and commerce,
increase the public revenue and in time would be a happy means of
uniting the new subjects in a due conformity to the British laws
and customs.

The memorialists represented: “That Your Majesty’s British
subjects residing in this province have set examples and given
every encouragement in their power to promote industry, are
the principal importers of British manufactures, carry on
three-fourths of the trade of this country, annually return a
considerable revenue into Your Majesty’s exchequer in Great
Britain; and though the great advantages this country is
naturally capable of, are many and obvious, for promoting the
trade and manufactures of the mother country, yet for some time
past both the landed and commercial interests have been declining
and if a General Assembly is not soon ordered by Your Majesty
to make and enforce due obedience to laws for encouraging
agriculture, regulating the trade, discouraging such importations
from the other colonies as impoverish the Province, your
petitioners have the greatest reason to apprehend their own ruin
as well as that of the province in general.

“That there is now a sufficient number of Your Majesty’s subjects
residing in and possessed of real property in this province and
who are otherwise qualified to be members of a General Assembly.”

This petition is signed by thirty-one of the principal merchants.
It will be noticed that there are only two of these names that
appeared on the petition of 1765 for the assembly and the recall
of Murray. The whole document is more dignified. The memorialists
are men of great weight. Their claim as the developers of
commerce is undoubted. The only weakness lay in the concluding
clause which is merely the outcome of the traditional intolerance
then in vogue but which was to be the chief cause of the delay of
their efforts till the act of 1791 at last crowned their efforts.
Among the Montreal signatures in the above memorial are those of
Alexander Henry, John Porteous, James McGill, Alexander Paterson,
Richard Dobie, J. Fraser and Isaac Todd.

The above memorial was set off by that of fifty-nine “Canadian”
leaders who appealed for the restoration of their customs and
usages according to the laws, customs and regulations under which
they were born and which served as the basis and foundations of
their possessions. They also ask not to be excluded from offices
in the service of the king. The petition is to be presented by
Sir Guy Carleton. “It is to this worthy representative of Your
Majesty who perfectly comprehends the ambitions of this colony
and the customs of this people that we confide our most humble
supplications to be conveyed to the foot of your throne.”

The year 1773 saw great activity in the duel; the case of the
old and new subjects was being argued in London. The most
eminent statesmen and lawyers, state officials, were studying
the numerous documents in view of the proposed Quebec act of
settlement. The merchants of Montreal and Quebec determined to
make a great effort. In the winter of 1772 Thomas Walker, of
Montreal, and Zachary Macaulay, of Quebec, had already conferred
in London with Masères about the prospect of an Assembly.
Mazères, though now a cursitor baron of the exchequer, still
kept his interest in Canadian affairs as when attorney general
at Quebec. There is no name more prominent among those who
contributed to the elucidation of the difficulties of this time
than this able man. His Huguenot upbringing, however, somewhat
warped his otherwise calm judgment in surveying the French
Canadian position, yet his was a warning of the opportunist. “I
told them,” wrote Masères to Dartmouth on January 4, 1774, “that
I thought a legislative council, consisting of only Protestants
and much more numerous than the present, and made perfectly
independent of the Governor so as to be neither removable nor
suspendible by him on any pretense but only removable by the
King in council, would be a better instrument for that province
than an assembly for seven or eight years to come, and until the
Protestant religion and English manners, laws and affections
shall have made a little more progress there and especially an
assembly unto which any Catholics shall be admitted.”

The two representatives, however, seemed to have been resolved
to push for an Assembly for they were both found to be on the
committee organized for that purpose on October 30, 1773,
in Quebec at Miles Prenties’ Inn. The meeting was called by
John McCord. The circumstances are related by Cramahé’s letter
to Dartmouth of December 13th when he inclosed the final
petitions sent to him by the merchants. “About six weeks or
two months ago a Mr. McCord from the north of Ireland, who
settled here soon after the conquest, where he picked up a
very comfortable livelihood by the retailing business in which
he is a considerable dealer, the article of spiritous liquors
especially, summoned the principal inhabitants of this town that
are Protestants to meet at a tavern where he proposed to them,
applying for a house of assembly.”

The transactions, of the meeting called by McCord and of the
subsequent ones, were recorded and sent to Masères by Quebec
and Montreal citizens. He was thought to be the right person to
approach as their agent, to have their case ventilated in London.
They wrote to him on November 8, 1773, “The British inhabitants
of whom we are appointed a committee are of very moderate
principles. They wish for an assembly as they know that to be
the only sure means of conciliating the new subjects, etc.” How
the assembly is to be composed is a matter of the most serious
consideration; “They would submit that to the wisdom of His
Majesty’s council.”

They had evidently become less exacting in their demands that it
should be reserved for Protestants. What they really wanted was
the Assembly.

The meeting at Miles Prenties’ in the Upper Town held on October
30th resulted in a committee of eleven being formed to draw up a
petition for an assembly. The following were the eleven: William
Grant, John Wells, Charles Grant, Anthony Vialars, Peter Fargues,
Jenkin Williams, John Lees, Zachary Macaulay, Thomas Walker (of
Montreal), Malcolm Fraser (secretary), John McCord (chairman). It
was resolved that a copy of the minutes be sent to the gentlemen
of Montreal. At the second meeting at Prenties’, November 2d
(Tuesday), it was resolved to translate the petition into French
and that the principal French inhabitants be invited to meet them
at Prenties’ on Thursday, November 4th. It was further resolved
to send a copy of the minutes and a draft of the petition by
next post to Montreal addressed to Mr. Gray, to be communicated
to the inhabitants of Montreal. On Thursday, November 4th, of
the fifteen invitations sent out only eight French gentlemen
appeared. The translation of the petition was read, and the
clause on the composition of the assembly according to His
Majesty’s wisdom, doubtless noted. After discussion M. Decheneaux
and M. Perras undertook to convene a meeting of their fellow
French citizens at 2 o’clock on Saturday next, to interest them
in furthering the petition.

On Monday, November 8th, the English committee met at Prenties’.
Being anxious to know what measures had been taken by the French
on Saturday, Malcolm Fraser sent a note by a bearer to M. Perras,
M. Decheneaux being out of town. A brief reply was sent back
dated Quebec, 8-10th November, saying that the hasty departure of
the vessels for Europe had not permitted him to reply according
to his desire; “However I have seen some of my fellow citizens
who do not appear to me to be disposed to assemble as some of
us could wish. ‘Le grand nombre l’emporte et le petit reduit a
prendre patience.’”

The next meeting of the committee was to be called at the
discretion of the secretary as “the business will depend on the
letters to be received from Montreal.”

Cramahé, explaining to Dartmouth, who had succeeded Hillsborough
as Colonial Secretary, the want of cooperation by the French,
says: “The Canadians, suspecting their only view was to push them
forward to ask, without really intending their participation
of the privilege, declined joining them here or at Montreal.”
Had the petition asked for the abolition of the religious test
and the inclusion of Catholics in the assembly the Canadians
would have doubtless cooperated. The petition was presented
on December 4, 1773; the Quebec (fifty-two) and Montreal
(thirty-nine) signatures are both dated November 29th. It was
presented to Cramahé as the Lieutenant Governor and he was prayed
in accordance with the powers given the Governor by the Royal
proclamation of 1763: “To summon and call a general assembly of
the freeholders and planters within your government in such a
manner as you in your jurisdiction shall judge most proper.” As
the words stand it may be argued that the merchants were ready
to forego their Protestantism in favour of a mixed assembly, but
evidently the acting Governor had his doubts. Cramahé therefore
answered cautiously, as was expected, “That the petition was
altogether of too much importance for His Majesty’s Council here
to advise at a time when the affairs of the province were likely
to become an object of public regulation. The petition and his
answer would be transmitted to His Majesty’s Secretary of State.”

The second petition already arranged for, and containing the
answer of Cramahé, was prepared and sent to the King’s Most
Excellent Majesty, praying him “to direct Your Majesty’s Governor
or Commander in Chief to call a general assembly in such manner
and of such constitution and form as to Your Majesty, in your
Royal wisdom, shall seem best adapted to secure its peace,
welfare and good government.” Besides the copy sent through
Cramahé to Dartmouth, the committee sent another to Masères to
enable him to present their case and to communicate its purport
to their mercantile associates in London. The signatures of the
Quebec subscribers, dated December 31, 1773, numbered sixty-one,
those of Montreal dated January 10, 1774, reached eighty-one.

Cramahé’s comment on these signatures in his letter to Dartmouth
reads: “It may not be amiss to observe that there are not above
five among the signers to the two petitions who can be properly
styled freeholders and the value of four of these freeholds
is very inconsiderable. The number of those possessing houses
in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, or farms in the country
held of the king for some private seigneur upon paying a yearly
acknowledgment, is under thirty.”

As an offset, the memorial to the petition sent by the seigneurs
and principal Catholics about February, 1774, and made in
opposition to an assembly, urges the granting of their request
“because we possess more than ten out of twelve of all the
seigneuries of the province and almost all the lands of the other
tenures or which are holden by rent service.”

In addition to the petition to the king signed by the “ancient
and loyal subjects” of Quebec and Montreal, two memorials to Lord
Dartmouth were separately sent by the promoting committees at
either place. These seemed to have been presented through Masères
since they are not indorsed, as were the petitions to the king,
as received through Cramahé.

The Montreal memorial urging the furtherance of their petition
is dated Montreal, January 15, 1774, and signed by a committee
appointed at a general meeting of the inhabitants of Edw. W.
Gray, R. Huntley, Lawrence Ermatinger, Will Haywood, James
McGill, James Finlay, Edward Chinn.

The memorial included a new element, viz., “Your Lordship’s
memorialists further see with regret the great danger that
children born of Protestant parents are in of being utterly
neglected for want of a sufficient number of Protestant pastors
and thereby exposed to the usual and known assiduity of the Roman
Catholic clergy of different orders who are very numerous and who
for their own friends have lately established a Seminary for the
education of youths in this province, which is the more alarming
as it excludes all Protestant teachers of any science whatever.”
The name of James McGill, the founder afterwards of McGill
University, is significant, therefore, on this petition.

The counter petition and the memorial accompanying it, signed by
sixty-five of the noblesse, followed in February, 1774. Thus the
duel went on. We delay recounting its outcome till the case for
the Seigneurs is more fully disclosed in the next chapter.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Witness the appeal for Murray’s recall. Thomas Walker is said
to have brought ten thousand pounds into the province.

[2] M. Lothbiniere, the representative of the noblesse in London
said that he doubted whether more than four or five persons in a
parish could read.

CHAPTER VI

THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774

THE NOBLESSE OF THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

The _Noblesse_ of the district of Montreal are now to play a
great part in the making of the constitutional history of Canada.
They had appreciated the government of Murray and had petitioned
for his continuance but in vain. At the same time while thanking
the king for the appointment of the Bishop Briand which was
a great concession, they asked for two favours: first, the
suppression of the Land Register, the expense of which exhausted
the colony without its drawing any profit therefrom; second,
that all the subjects of this province without any distinction
of religion should be admitted to all offices without any other
qualifications but those of talent and personal merit; for to
be excluded by the state from having any participation in it is
not to be a member of the state. This petition was signed by
Chevalier D’Ailleboust and thirty-nine other seigneurs and was
endorsed as received on February 3, 1767.

The grievance of the seigneurs in the latter request was briefly
this: that though the French Canadians were not obliged by the
Royal Instructions of 1763 to take the oath of the test of
allegiance, supremacy and religious abjuration, yet these oaths
were obligatory on all who would hold an appointment under
government su

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48244