CHAPTER XVII

1“Canadian Archives,” Q. 197, p. 78; see report by Dr. Brymner for 1899.

2The Quebec Gazette justified Mr. Papineau’s being present as he was acting in his profession as an advocate.

3These were French Canadians.

4Bibaud, “History of Canada,” Vol. III, p. 109.

5Dr. O’Callaghan was subsequently returned to the house of assembly in the new parliament of 1835 as the representative of Yamaska. There he was unknown but Mr. Papineau’s influence carried the seat. In the subsequent parliament he became a staunch lieutenant of his leader.

6Mr. Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal and also a conscientious historian and archaeologist, made a concise statement of the political strength of the opposing parties in the counties, towns and boroughs as recorded in the votes at the last election for and against the spirit of the Ninety-Two Resolutions on which the election turned.ForAgainstNot Voting361,801½115,83835,619½Quebec7,120½(i.e. ¼)20,148½(i.e. ¾)Montreal13,714(i.e. ½)6,254(i.e. ¼)One-fourth did not vote, owing to the vacancy in the seat of one of the representatives. See “Christie,” Vol. V, 238-242.

One-fourth did not vote, owing to the vacancy in the seat of one of the representatives. See “Christie,” Vol. V, 238-242.

7The commissioners finished their six reports before the end of 1836. They were eventually doubtless useful to Lord Dunham in the preparation of his report. The commissioners considered an elective legislative council undesirable but they formulated a system of representative government on lines which we now understand. While granting the government of internal affairs it strove to preserve the unity of empire.

8In the Imperial parliament in 1837 Mr. Robinson quoted La Minerve of Montreal, which stated that immediate separation from England was the only means of preserving French Canadian nationality.

MONTREAL IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR

1837-1838

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

In the March and April of 1837, the parliament in London seriously considered the Canadian emergency. On March 6th, Lord John Russell introduced ten resolutions, which passed. The fourth stated that it was inadvisable to make the legislative council of Canada an elective body, but that measures should be taken to secure for it a greater degree of public confidence, and the fifth, that while expedient to improve the composition of the executive council, it was inadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly.

The news was received with welcome by the British constitutional party who had clung tenaciously to the crown-appointed executive as their only hope of adequate representation in the government of the province. To the national party it came as a signal for revolt. On May 7th, the first insurrectionary meeting was held at St. Ours, Dr. Wolfred Nelson having a large share in its convention. Mr. L.J. Papineau was acclaimed as an O’Connell, a man called by God as the regenerator of his nation. Other meetings now began in the parishes of the Montreal district and Mr. Papineau left his home in Montreal for his mission of agitation.

On July 6th the constitutional party held a meeting in the Place d’Armes. On the motion of the Hon. Peter McGill, the Hon. George Moffatt took the chair. Messrs. Quesnel and de Bleury were elected vice presidents. Among the resolutions proposed were those of the necessity of the connections with the mother country for the prosperity and advancement of the colony and the necessity of resisting any attempts at dismemberment. A similar meeting was held at Quebec on July 31st, on which day the news of the death of William IV reached Canada. On August 1st Victoria was proclaimed Queen of British North America.

The country districts outside of Montreal were fomenting revolt. At St. Eustache and St. Benoit “anti-coercion” meetings were held, as well as at Napierville, seven miles west of the Richelieu. On August 18th the last parliament of Lower Canada was called but was prorogued on the members refusing to legislate because of want of confidence in the Imperial government in London through its failure to grant their demands. Forty years later the House of Assembly was reestablished as that of the Province of Quebec. The proceedings of the last assembly were regarded by the constitutional association as a virtual annihilation of the constitution and an address was issued on September 4th to this effect and signed by the Hon. Peter McGill and Mr. Badgley as secretary. This address given in full in the Montreal Gazette on the 9th of September advocates the union of the legislatures of the two provinces as affording a solution by giving a fair share of proportional representation to the British population.

On the 5th of September the new society “Les Fils de Liberté” held a meeting in Montreal. The members were to meet as a military corps with arms for the purpose of being drilled as if under sanction of the government. Its motto was to be “En Avant!” On October 1st it published a manifesto of which certain paragraphs clearly disclose its seditionary purpose. “The authority of a parent state over a colony can only exist during the pleasure of the colonists; for the country, being established and settled by them, belongs to them by right and may be separated from all foreign connection, whenever the inconveniences, resulting from an executive power residing abroad and ceasing to harmonize with the local legislature, makes such a step necessary to the inhabitants for the pursuit of happiness.” Again: “The separation as commenced between parties which will never be cemented but which will go on increasing until one of those sudden, those unforeseen events that attend the march of time, affords us a fit opportunity for assuming our rank among the independent sovereignties of America. Two splendid opportunities have been lost. Let us not be unprepared for the third.”

Writing on October 6th Sir John Colborne, an old Peninsular veteran who had fought at Waterloo and was now the commander in chief of the forces, says: “The game which Mr. Papineau is playing cannot be mistaken and we must be prepared to expect that if four hundred or five hundred persons be allowed to parade the streets of Montreal at night, singing revolutionary songs, the excited parties will come in collision.” On the 7th of October the offer of a British rifle corps in Montreal was again politely declined. Yet those of British, Irish and United States origin were facing the inevitable conflict foreseen by them.

It soon came. On October 23d a meeting took place at St. Charles on the Richelieu. Dr. Wolfred Nelson took the chair. Mr. Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, L.M. Viger, Lacoste, Coté, Girod, and others, being present among thespeakers. It was a fine day and the militia were there. Flags in abundance streamed out with inscriptions such as “Long live Papineau and the elective system!” “Down with Debartzch!”1“Independence, Lord of the Eagle Heart and Lion Eye!” “The Canadians know how to die but not to surrender!” “Papineau and the Majority of the House of Assembly!” “An elective council, asine qua nonof liberty: I will conquer or die for her!” A death’s head and cross-bones with the words “Legislative Council.” (See Montreal Gazette, Tuesday, 31st October, 1837.)

It is said that on this occasion Papineau, fearing the excitement prevalent, counseled moderation, but Wolfred Nelson rejoined: “Well, I differ from Mr. Papineau. I think the time has come to melt our spoons and make balls of them.” A wooden pillar with a cap of liberty was erected with an inscription in French that was dedicated to Papineau by his grateful brother patriots of 1837. Lengthy resolutions were passed of no uncertain seditionary tendency. The British soldiers were encouraged to desert and assistance was promised. On the same day a great meeting of constitutionalists was held in Montreal with Peter McGill in the chair; 7,000 persons were said to be present. The note struck was the need of organization in anticipation of crimes now threatening civil life. On this occasion the Irish, abhorring attempts to connect them with the rebellious party, declared their readiness to repel by force, if necessary, the enemies of the constitution.

Next day, October 24th, Monseigneur Lartigue, who had become the first Catholic bishop of Montreal on September 8, 1835, issued a mandement taking the view that revolt to constituted authorities was against the doctrine of the Catholic church. It condemned the proceedings of the revolutionary leaders at public meetings. He bade the faithful not to be seduced, and called upon the country to reflect on the horrors of civil war. On November 6th what Sir John Colborne had feared, took place. The Doric Club, a kind of secret society recently founded and joined by a number of the British and Irish young men, met the “Fils de Liberté.” It had been reported that the “Fils de Liberté” were to proceed in procession and to hold a demonstration in the Place d’Armes and there plant a tree of liberty. A proclamation was issued calling upon all to refrain from the procession. About 2 o’clock the “Fils de Liberté” began to muster at Bonacina’s Tavern at the corner of St. James and McGill streets, opposite the American church which then stood there. A party of “loyalists” watching the proceedings provoked the “Fils de Liberté” to chase them up St. James street, breaking the windows of the loyalists’ houses, among them being that of Doctor Robertson. The members of the Doric Club now came to the rescue, changing the face of affairs and driving the opponents “pell mell” down St. Lawrence Main Street in confusion until they were dispersed. In the early course of the fracas “Gen.” Thomas Storrow Brown, a leader, or at least a sympathizer of the “Fils de Liberté,” received an injury which resulted in the loss of an eye.

The riot act was read in the afternoon and the First Royals and the artillery, with some field guns, marched through the streets headed by two French-Canadianmagistrates, Mr. Desrivières and Mr. John Donegani. The loyalists marched to Bonsecours Street and were, with difficulty, restrained from attacking Mr. Papineau’s house. The office of the Vindicator on St. Lambert’s Hill, near Fortification Lane, was gutted, type, presses, paper, etc., being thrown into the street.

This paper in the reform and malcontent interest had made itself particularly obnoxious to the constitutionalists. Such incitements as the following had been appearing in its columns: “Henceforth there must be no peace in the province, no quarter for the plunderers. Agitate! Agitate!! Agitate!!! Destroy the revenues; denounce the oppressors. Everything is lawful when the fundamental liberties are endangered. The guards die, they never surrender.” During that night the main guard was strengthened; pickets were placed on St. Lawrence Main, Place d’Armes and in the Quebec suburbs. The Montreal Royal Artillery patroled the streets and Griffintown was paraded by a body of independent mechanics. On November 9th Sir John made Montreal his headquarters and his firm conduct gave confidence in contrast with the dilatory methods of Lord Gosford. Soon Montreal began to receive fugitives from the parishes, many of these being magistrates and militia officers and others under government who had been forced by threats to resign.

On the 12th of November a proclamation was issued against meetings for military drills. All public assemblies and processions were forbidden. Volunteer corps of riflemen, artillery and cavalry were now raised under the authority of the Government. A new commission of the peace was issued for the Montreal district. Sixty-one of the former had been struck off.

On November 16th2warrants were issued for the arrest of twenty-six insurgents, among them being Mr. Papineau, Doctor O’Callaghan, Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown and the accredited leaders of the “Fils de Liberté.” The principal leaders escaped, Mr. Papineau flying to Doctor Nelson at St. Denis.

On the same day Lieutenant Ermatinger with a party of eighteen of the Montreal cavalry was sent to St. John’s to arrest three who had been instrumental in forcing the resignation of government officials. They were returning with the prisoners when they were surprised at Longueuil by a rescue party of two or three hundred and after some heavy firing the assailants departed with the rescued prisoners. This victory organized by Mr. Bonaventure Viger and others, gave courage to the insurrectionists and was the commencement of hostilities. To counteract the dangers arising from the éclat of the release, an address to the parishes was issued and signed by thirteen French-Canadian magistrates of Montreal, D.B. Viger, Pierre de Rocheblave, Louis Guy, Edouard M. Leprohon, Etienne Guy, P.R. Leclerc, W.B. Donegani, Charles J. Rodier, Alexis Laframbroise, Jules Quesnel, Felix Souligny, P.J. LaCroix, and N.G. Barron, counseling submission to law and order. “Those who urge you to these excesses,” it said,“are not your true friends. They have already abandoned you and will abandon you in a moment of danger, whilst we, who recall you to the paths of peace, believe ourselves to be the most devoted servants of the country.”

The insurrection feared was likely to be confined to the counties bordering on the Richelieu and to the county of Two Mountains north of Montreal. Consequently detachments of military were sent from Montreal to the disaffected districts, such as St. Denis and St. Charles. At St. Denis on November 23d Colonel Gore’s detachment besieged Madame St. Germain’s storehouse, whither Dr. Wolfred Nelson had retreated with a number of men and from which Papineau had already fled early in the day. Gore left behind him thirteen of the defenders killed, and of his own, six dead, five wounded, and a spiked howitzer. On the morning of November 23d the tragedy of the death of Lieutenant Weir of the Thirty-second regiment took place. He had been sent with dispatches and was captured by Doctor Nelson’s patrol. He was given to a Captain Jalibert to be taken in a wagon to St. Charles. On the way thither Weir attempted to escape. It was alleged that he was brutally cut down. The autopsy disclosed many sword wounds and pistol shots. His body was found in the Richelieu weighted down with stones, lying on its face in two feet of water. On December 8th it was buried with much solemnity. In 1839 Jalibert was tried for murder but was acquitted.

At St. Charles the insurgents were under the leadership of Thomas Storrow Brown who, from being in the iron retail trade in Montreal, now became “General” in the absence of the accredited leaders. He had lost an eye in the riot of November 6th and was looked upon as a patriot. At St. Charles the curé, M. Blanchet, lent his support to the insurgents, one of the few examples of the clergy meddling in this trying time. The other was M. Chartier of St. Eustache, who was afterward interdicted by Mgr. Bourget for his conduct. The engagement at St. Charles took place on November 24th. Of Colonel Wetherall’s detachment, the official report gives one sergeant, two rank and file killed, eighteen wounded, ten seriously. It is difficult to chronicle the returns of the insurgents. One statement is that 152 of the insurgents were killed and 300 wounded. The tradition in the village today is that forty-two were left on the field and a great many wounded. It is certain that thirty prisoners were received in Montreal.

In the north of Montreal the insurrection broke down after the news of St. Charles, so that even at St. Eustache the opposition offered by Amery Girod and Doctor Chenier collapsed on December 14th, though it is said not without the loss of seventy killed. The loss of military is reported as one private killed, one corporal and seven privates wounded. Sir John Colborne had been in charge of the column. This returned to Montreal on the 16th with 106 prisoners from the insurrectionary district, including St. Eustache. The Abbé Chartier escaped to the States; Amery Girod fled but on the fourth day of his flight he blew his brains out to avoid falling into the hands of the police. Doctor Chenier fell pierced with a ball as he was escaping from the window of the parish church.

On the 29th of November a proclamation had been issued offering £500 for the apprehension, among others, of Dr. Wolfred Nelson, Thomas Storrow Brown, Doctor O’Callaghan, Doctor Coté and Drolet of St. Marie. On December 1st a proclamation offered £1,000 for the arrest of Mr. Papineau. Mr. Papineau and his faithful companion, Doctor O’Callaghan, had fled together from St. Denis to St. Hyacinthe and after the news of the disaster at St. Charles they madefor Swanston in Vermont. Afterwards he spent some years in Paris. Doctor O’Callaghan never returned to Montreal, although permitted with Wolfred Nelson and Thomas Storrow Brown by thenolle sequiof 1843, secured through Mr. Hippolyte Lafontaine, attorney general under the Union. He became distinguished at New York as a peaceful translator and editor of the documentary history of New York. Dr. Wolfred Nelson escaped in the direction of the United States, but was captured on December 12th, worn out with hunger and cold, and was taken back prisoner to Montreal. His courage and uprightness, however, entitled him to the respectful treatment he was there accorded. On December 5th martial law was proclaimed and the banks conveyed their “specie” to the citadel. On January 8, 1838, Mgr. Lartigue issued a second mandement in which he blamed those who turned a deaf ear to the clergy, who had warned them against the danger of listening to the “coryphèes d’une faction” with whom they had become infatuated.

On February 20th a day of thansgiving was held for the termination of rebellion and the renewal of peace. This day also marked the handing over of the administration of Lord Gosford to Sir John Colborne, who entered on his authority on the 27th. In the meantime, in London, it had been determined to send Lord Durham as special commissioner. The act suspending the constitution of Canada reached Canada in February and was proclaimed on the 20th of March. A special council3of the legislature was appointed and gazetted on April 5th with a summons to meet on the 18th. This provisional council was afterwards dissolved by Lord Durham on his arrival.

About the beginning of March an abortive attempt to arouse insurgents was made under Robert Nelson, brother of Wolfred, and Doctor Coté, on the frontier, who were both arrested and handed to the civil power. Six hundred “patriots” surrendered on this occasion to General Wool of the United States army. At this time a fatuous declaration of the independence of Canada appeared in the Montreal papers signed by Robert Nelson,president, by order of the Provincial Government: the proclamation accompanying it was also signed by Nelson as Commander-in-Chief.

About the end of April the Glengarry and Lancaster Regiments marched through Montreal on their way home, their presence being no longer required, owing to the proclamation of the termination of martial law on April 27th.

On May 29th Lord Durham arrived with his large staff. One of his early acts was to issue on the 28th of June an amnesty to all who had engaged in the late insurrection on giving security for their good behaviour applicable to those in custody or who had fled. There was an exception made for eight who were tobe sent without trial to the convict station of Bermuda. These were Dr. Wolfred Nelson, R.S.M. Bouchette, Bonaventure Viger, Simeon Marchesseault, Godda, Dr. L.H. Masson, Gauvin, and Desirivières. Death penalties were to be awarded to L.J. Papineau, Doctor O’Sullivan, Thomas S. Brown, John Brown (father and son), George Etienne Cartier and others if they should return of their own accord. This was afterward annulled. On the 7th of July, Durham left Quebec for Montreal and the west. In Montreal he was well received. His stay in the country as a commissioner was, however, very short. For on September 25th, as the Imperial government disallowed these ordinances, Durham notified his resignation to the British government, remaining at his post till November 1st, when he sailed for Quebec.4Sir John Colborne assumed the administration on this day. On the 16th of January, 1839, he became governor general.

LORD DURHAMLORD DURHAM

LORD DURHAM

The second insurrection opened on November 4th, when Robert Nelson entered Napierville to declare himself President of the Republic of Canada. During the summer Nelson, Coté, Mailhot and others of the refugees on the Vermont and New York frontiers had been organizing the insurrection among thehabitantsof the counties of the Richelieu extending west to Beauharnois. The district of the Two Mountains did not rise this time.

Sir John Colborne was at Sorel when he heard of the Richelieu gatherings. Posting to Montreal he proclaimed martial law and by the 7th and 8th of November the military was dispatched from the city under Sir James Macdonell. The campaign was over by November 10th, when the resistance at Beauharnois was suppressed. Yet but for the decisive action of Colborne it might have been serious. Sir John wrote that no fewer than thirteen thousand habitants had assembled between the 3d and 8th of November expecting to be furnished arms by their Vermont and New York sympathizers.

If the second insurrection was of less importance its reprisals were more serious. The first rebellion had passed without the judicial shedding of any blood and with a generous amnesty. On the second revolt it was thought necessary by Sir John Colborne to put the fear of the law into all further harbourers of treason. A special court martial was constituted in Montreal, and many suspects were imprisoned. In Montreal 679 had been arrested in December, and in January following 129 more. Sir Hippolyte Lafontaine was one, but he was released on December 13th. Mr. D.B. Viger refused to give a security for his good conduct and he was kept prisoner until he was specially and unconditionally released by Governor General Lord Sydenham. Those arrested elsewhere were few. Of those convicted and sentenced to death, twenty-seven were pardoned on security of good behaviour. Four were bound not to come within a stated distance of the frontier. Of the prisoners tried in Montreal, sixty-eight were embarked at Quebec on the transport “Buffalo” for New South Wales, accompanied by eighty-three from Upper Canada. Later, within five years, they returned, pardoned, to the Province.

In September, 1839, the trial of Jalibert and others for the murder of Lieutenant Weir took place, and the prisoners were released. The grand jury found true bills against Louis Joseph Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, RobertNelson and E.B. O’Callaghan. The political executions which took place in Montreal as the aftermath of the January insurrection were twelve in number. Six were convicted as murderers and five zealous insurgents of 1838. The last was a foreign adventurer. The executions were as follows:

Friday, December 21, 1839: Joseph Narcisse Cardinal, a notary and member of the Assembly for Beauharnois. Joseph Duquette, a young man who had followed his leader, Cardinal, in the attack of Caughnawaga.

Eighteenth of January, 1839: Pierre Theophile Decoigne, notary of Napierville, a leader in the insurrection of January, 1838, at Napierville. Joseph Jacques Robert, a farmer and leader. François Xavier Hamelin, a lieutenant of Robert; Ambroise Sanguinet, a captain; Charles Sanguinet, his brother, a lieutenant; who all four had been engaged in the murder, in 1838, of one, Walker, living at La Tortue, seven miles from La Prairie.

Fifteenth of February, 1839: Pierre René Narbonne, a house painter, present at Napierville. Marie Thomas, Chevalier de Lorimier, a lawyer, who had been prominent in the insurrection and had been engaged in the seizure of the “Lord Brougham”; François Nicholas and Amable Daunais, both acquitted of murder of Chartrand in 1837, but retaken on the occasion of their presence in the engagement of Odelltown, and Charles Hinderlang, taken at Odelltown, a foreign adventurer.

On the eve of their execution5the five last named were allowed to give a supper to their “compatriotes” imprisoned with them. It was a sorry repast. The Chevalier de Lorimier is reported to have said on this occasion: “Can my country ever forget that we die for her upon the scaffold? We have lived as patriots—as patriots let us die. Down with the tyrants! Their reign is over!” Next day, as Hindelang was approaching the gallows, de Lorimier called to him: “Courage, mon ami! the end is near!” “Death is nothing to a Frenchman,” was the reply. On his arrival at the scaffold Hindelang addressed the crowd. “On this scaffold, raised by English hands, I declare that I die with the conviction of having done my duty. The sentence which condemns me is unjust, but I willingly forgive my judges. The cause for which I die is noble and great. I am proud of it and I fear not to die. The blood shed will be redeemed by blood. Let the blameworthy bear the responsibility. Canadians! In bidding you adieu I bequeath to you the device of France! ‘Vive liberté.’” Nicholas also made a short address: “I have only one regret,” he said, “and that is, to die before seeing my country free, but Providence will end by having pity on it, for there is no country in the world more badly governed.” The Chevalier de Lorimier was the last to suffer the extreme penalty. When he was cut down, a brief letter was found on his breast addressed to his wife and children. It ended, “Adieu, my tender wife, once more adieu! Live and be happy. (Signed) Your unhappy husband, Chevalier de Lorimier.”6

Among the prominent Montrealers arrested in 1838 and 1839 the following names are found: Louis H. Lafontaine, Denis B. Viger, Charles Mondelet, François Desrivières, advocates; L.J. Harkins, D. Chopin, Aug. Racicot, George Dillon, Henry Badeau, Louis Coursolles, F. Pigeon, Cyrille David, François Blanchard, Louis Morin, William Brown, T. Willing, J.A. Labadie, J.B. Choquette,Derome P. de Boucherville, J. Donegani, M. de Marchand, Felix Goulet, Avila Weilbrenner, Richard Dillon, H. Hamelin, J.B. Houlée, A. Dupère, M. Bourbonnière, Samuel Newcombe, Pierre Lussier, François Lauzon, Luc Dufresne, E.A. Dubois, Bouthillier, John Fullum, François Contant, François St. Marie, E. Hauschman, J.E. Coderre, P. Coté, Jérémie Hippolyte, Jérémie Barrette, Leandre Ducharme, John McDonald, J. Berthelet, A. Perrault, E.R. Fabre, G.J. Vallée, Jean Dubrec, A.B. Lesperance, Jean Leclaire, Chevalier de Lorimier, François Cinq Mars, J.P.B. Belleville, S. Reeves, J.S. Ney Smith, Celestin Beausoleil, Louis Dubois, Jérémie Longpré, etc.

It is a significant commentary on the sad troubles of 1837-8 that the names of several prominent British Montrealers are to be found as actively sympathizing with the insurgents. The fact, too, that the “Vindicator,” conducted by Doctor O’Callaghan, could find sufficient English readers to support it, is another indication of a wider sympathy than usually recognized. A man like Dr. Wolfred Nelson who had lived with the French habitants at St. Denis, spoke their language and understood their grievances, a man of uprightness, sincerity and disinterestedness, would never have resisted authority and risked his reputation and fortune unless the irksomeness of the situation had become intolerable.7Writing from jail at Montreal on the 18th of June, 1838, to Lord Durham, he said on behalf of his fellow prisoners: “We rebelled neither against Her Majesty’s person nor her government, but against colonial misgovernment.* * *We remonstrated; we were derided. The press assailed us with calumny and contumely; invective was exhausted; we were goaded on to madness and were compelled to show we had the spirit of resistance to repel injuries or to be deemed a captive, degraded and recreant people. We took up arms not to attack others but to defend ourselves.”

His imprisonment and his loss of fortune effected his health, but without repining he boldly played the game of life. In 1843 a “nolle sequi” allowed him to return to practice medicine in Montreal. He was shortly elected to the Assembly under the Union. He became twice mayor of his native city. He was one of the first harbour commissioners and became the inspector of prisons. In siding with the insurgents he was no hair-brained enthusiast or adventurer and he died without the stain of reproach—an honoured citizen.

It has been felt necessary to delay long on this unpleasant part of civic history because it exemplifies the evil of different races living together with mistrust and misunderstanding of one another. If they would but strive to see each other’s viewpoints and would read each other’s history there would be an end of racial prejudices.

“Tout savoir, c’est tout pardonner.” May the mutual misunderstanding of 1837-8 never occur again. “Concordia Salus,” the motto chosen by Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal, for the city arms, should never be forgotten.

FOOTNOTES:

1Mr. Debartzch, of St. Charles, a legislative councillor, had till this date been a strenuous upholder of Mr. Papineau. The turn of events seemed to him to be unconstitutional and he became opposed to the new insurrectionary methods. He was now accounted a traitor. He escaped to Montreal with his family.

2On November 16th Mr. Turton Penn, one of the justices of the peace, signed the order for the imprisonment of Charles A. Leblanc (afterwards sheriff), Jean Dubrec, Amable Simard, Georges de Boucherville, Andre Ouimet and François Tavernier accused of high treason on November 17th, Jean François Bossé Lionnais, and on the 18th Louis Michel Viger (Beau Viger), the president of the recently founded Banque du Peuple and father of D.B. Viger were imprisoned; on the 21st Michel Vincent, and on the 26th, Narcisse Lamothe suffered the same fate.

3The following constituted the first special council, District of Quebec: The Honorable C.E.C. de Léry (Quebec); the Honorable James Stuart (Quebec); John Wilson, Esq., and William Walker, Esq. (Quebec); Amable Dionne, Esq. (Kamouraska); Charles Casgrain, Esq. (Rivière Oulle); the Honorable R.P. de Sales de la Terrière (Eboulements), District of Montreal: The Honorable T. Pothier; P. McGill; P. de Rocheblave (Montreal); Samuel Gerrard, Esq.; Jules Quesnel, Esq.; W.P. Christie, Esq.; Turton Penn, Esq.; and John Molson, Esq. (Montreal); the Honorable J. Cuthbert (Berthier); the Honorable B. Joliette (St. Paul Lavaltrie); Joseph E. Fairbault, Esq. (L’Assomption); Paul H. Knowlton, Esq. (Brome); Icabod Smith, Esq. (Stanstead). District of Three Rivers: Joseph Dionne, Esq. (St. Pierre les Becquets); Etienne Mayrand, Esq. (Rivière du Loup).

4Lord Durham did not live to see the eventual success of the Union recommended by his famous report. Prematurely worn out, he died at Cowes on the 28th of July, 1840.

5See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

6See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

7Writing a reminiscence of Montreal from 1818 to 1868. Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown has the following allusion to 1837-8: “Mixing much with these French Canadians, I became interested in the cause. I thought the stipulation of the capitulation had not been fulfilled to a ceded people and when grown to manhood a sense of justice, that generous inheritance from a British ancestry, urged me to a knight errancy in their battle that terminated in the overthrow of my own fortunes and that after years of hard struggle to regain a lost position, all for no thanks or even recognition of service.”

PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION

1841

HOME RULE FOR THE COLONY

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

Durham was wisely lenient with the political prisoners waiting for trial at Montreal, but his injudicious step in securing confessions, through an intermediary, from Doctor Nelson and his companions—by inducing them to place themselves at his discretion, and then his condemnation of them without trial to be transported to Bermuda, forbidding them to return under pain of high treason, and his extraordinary ordinance declaring that Papineau and the fifteen others who had escaped and had neither confessed nor been found guilty should suffer death if they returned to Lower Canada—was held in the English parliament, on the initiative of his enemy, Lord Brougham, to be utterly subversive of the principles of English colonial law. Accordingly his ordinance was disallowed; hence his resignation and return to England. He died about eighteen months later, a broken man. But he did much for Canada and his famous report stands out a masterpiece of statesmanship. It is to the credit of Adam Thom, of Montreal, to have been associated in its compilation as Durham’s secretary for the purpose.

This report of Durham has had far reaching effect. It was based on a study of the situation. He found an acute political association as follows:

The Assembly complained that the constitutional government given them in 1791 was a mockery. They could elect members but members who had no control, who might fret and fume and froth but could not appoint a single crown servant. In name it was a representative body, French, Catholic and popularly elected. The legislative council was all powerful, its members nominated by the government, and holding their offices permanently, but British, Protestant and exclusive, and above all the clatter was the Executive Council and the governor, who were dependent hand and foot on Downing Street officialdom and from it received instructions, so that the few ruled the many, independently of the council’s representation of the latter. Thus a race war had developed, the majority, French, savagely demanding their rights of popular representation and the minority, British, desirous of keeping the upper hand. Thus the French Assembly developed into a permanent opposition to everything British till itflamed out into recourse to arms when British and French paired off into distinct camps.

“I expected,” says Durham in his report, “to find a contest between a government and a people. I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state. I found a struggle not of principles but of races.” Hence his grand solution was “home rule” for the colony and the abolition of the Downing Street restrictive régime of red tape. He was accused by the British of deserting his own side; he pleased the French-Canadians by this above recommendation but bitterly disappointed them by making responsible government dependent on the Union of the Canadas, for it was feared by this Union with Protestant Ontario their national existence was jeopardized. But this was precisely what Durham wanted, trusting in the inevitable growth of immigration: “I have little doubt,” he says, “that the French, when once placed in a majority by the legitimate course of events and the working of natural causes in a minority, would abandon their vain hopes of nationality.”

Durham looked forward to the time when British North America should have one parliament only. Thus he foresaw confederation.

Lord Durham’s masterly and statesmanlike report was presented to the Imperial parliament on January 31, 1839. It advocated the repeal of the Constitutional Act of 1791, which divided the two provinces and so created two distinct nationalities, and it recommended the legislative Union of the Canadas. The bill proposed for this effect by Lord John Russell was postponed till next year. Another bill, however, passed to continue the legislative council in their especial powers till 1842. Canada was still, therefore, without a constitution.

The new governor general to succeed Sir John Colborne, who had been invested with the Grand Cross of the Bath for his services, arrived at Quebec on October 17th. He was Mr. Charles Poulett Thomson, who had been president of the Board of Trade in England. He entered on his office on October 19th. He left for Montreal in October to meet the legislative council, now established there.

The news of the proposed union was grateful, especially at Montreal, to the British merchant class, who foresaw commercial expansion and progress. At Quebec there was some dissension, since the meeting place of the projected union parliament was likely to be at Montreal, and thus Quebec would lose its ancient prestige. The measure was not as yet looked on with full favour by the French-Canadians in general, as it seemed to them to be a scheme to weaken the influence of their political life and to be destructive of their national aspirations. On the 11th of November the legislative council of Lower Canada met and on the 16th six resolutions were passed at the Château de Ramezay.

First: The Union was affirmed to be an indispensable and urgent necessity. Second: that the determination to reunite the Provinces received ready acquiescence. Third: that suitable civil lists should be provided securing the independence of the judges and maintaining the executive in its functions. Fourth: that the proportion of debt of Upper Canada contracted for the improvement of internal communication should be charged to the revenue of both provinces; the outlay for defraying expenses of a local character not to be included. Fifth: that the adjustment and settlement of the terms of Union should be submitted to the wisdom and justice of the Imperial parliament. Sixth: that a permanentlegislature composed of the people of both Provinces should be convened as soon as possible.

The resolutions were carried with three dissenters, Messrs. Cuthbert (Berthier), Neilson (Quebec) and Quesnel (Montreal), the members of the council supporting the union being Chief Justice Stuart, Pothier, de Léry and Walker (Quebec), McGill, de Rocheblave, Gerrard, Christie, Molson, Moffatt (Montreal), Harwood and Hale (Sherbrooke).

The majority of the legislative assembly being ready for the union of the provinces, which was an equivalent to yielding to responsible government power they had held so long and arbitrarily, must be noted as significant of the trend of opinion. Some ordinances were passed: first, continuing until June, 1840, the power to retain arms and gunpowder; second, continuing the ordinance relating to persons charged with high treason; third, incorporating the Ecclesiastics of Montreal in the fief and seignories of St. Sulpice and of Two Mountains—the conclusion of many years’ negotiations.

On November 18th Mr. Paulett Thomson wrote from Montreal to Lord John Russell to urge the speedy adoption of the Union by parliament. He wrote: “All parties look with extreme satisfaction on the present state of government.* * *The suspension of all constitutional rights affords to reckless and unprincipled agitators a constant topic of excitement.* * *All parties, therefore, without an exception, demand a change. On the nature of that change there undoubtedly exists some difference of opinion. The large majority, however, of those whose opinions I have had the opportunity of learning, both of British and French origin, and of those, too, whose character and station enable them to the greatest authority, advocate warmly the establishment of the union and that upon terms of perfect fairness, not merely to the two provinces but to the two races within the provinces.” Mr. Thomson then left for the Upper Province, arriving at Toronto on November 21st.

The union bill of Lord John Russell received the royal sanction on July 23, 1840, but it did not take effect till February 10, 1841. On this day the union was solemnly established at Montreal. Mr. Paulett Thomson now became Lord Sydenham of York and Toronto in recognition of his part in the union. He took the oath of office as governor-general in 1840.

February 10, 1841, Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation uniting Upper and Lower Canada into the province of Canada.

“The choice of this date,” says Kingsford, “was because it was on this day that the Imperial parliament assented to the act which had suspended the constitution of Lower Canada three years previously, and it was thought an act of wisdom to re-establish on the anniversary of this extreme measure constitutional liberty, which effectively terminated it. It was also the date of the conclusion of the treaty of 1763, which ceded Canada to the British crown, and it was likewise the marriage day of the Queen.

“On that day, in Montreal, in the presence of all the dignitaries of the church and of civil life, of the commander of the forces, of officers commanding regiments, and all who could be collected of the principal citizens, the oath was taken and the two provinces were established as the province of Canada.

“Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation on this occasion, in which he urged the inhabitants to be united in sentiment as in name and reminded them that they were ‘a part of the mighty empire of England, protected by her arms, assisted by her treasury, admitted to all the benefits of trade as her citizens, their freedom guaranteed by her laws, and their rights supported by the sympathy of their fellow-subjects there.’”

Lord Sydenham lived to call the first session of the United Province, which met at Kingston on June 14th, when Mr. Cuvillier was elected speaker, and on July 15th His Excellency gave the speech from the throne, but he was a sick man and he never lived to the close of the session. The prorogation of the legislature had been appointed for September 15th. It was deferred till September 17th to allow him to be present, since on September 4th he had met an accident horse-riding (taken for his health) in the neighbourhood of Kingston. He died on September 19th. “The Success of the Union,” as Kingsford1remarks, in the last chapter of his “History of Canada,” “is Lord Sydenham’s epitaph.”

Responsible government was at last attained. The union so ardently denied by the British party and needlessly feared by the other was to bring progress and prosperity to both. The Union was not a perfect measure, but it redressed many grievances and made for a more united people.

“The act provided for a legislative council of not less than twenty members for a legislative assembly in which each section of the united province would be represented by an equal number of members—that is to say, forty-two for each, or eighty-four in all. The speaker of the council was appointed by the crown and ten members, including the speaker, constituted a quorum. A majority of voices was to decide and in case of an equality of votes the speaker had a casting vote. A legislative counsellor would vacate his seat by continuous absence from two consecutive sessions. The number of representatives allotted to each province could not be changed except with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of each house. The quorum of the assembly was to be twenty, including the speaker. The speaker was elected by the majority and was to have a casting vote in case of the votes being equal on a question. No person could be elected to the assembly unless he possessed a free-hold of land and tenements to the value of £500 sterling over and above all debts and mortgages. The English language alone was to be used in legislative records. A session of the legislature should be held at least every year and each legislative assembly was to have a duration of four years unless sooner divided.” (Bourinot’s “Constitution of Canada,” page 35.)

FOOTNOTES:

Back to Index Next