by Gerald Therrien
The Unveiling of Canadian History, Volume 3.
The Storming of Hell – the War for the Territory Northwest of the Ohio, 1786 – 1796.
During the American Revolution, when General Washington had asked General Wayne to undertake an extremely perilous enterprise – the storming of Stony Point, Wayne replied : “General, I will storm Hell, if you will only plan it.”
Part 2 – The Canadian Frontier
Chapter 9 – The Petition FOR a House of Assembly, November 24th 1784
After signing the Definitive Peace Treaty with the United States, that ended the military part of the American Revolution, the British ministers were also worried about how to control their Canadian subjects – both English and French.
The British had immediately granted an elected assembly to the newly-arrived Tories in the new province of New Brunswick. And now, calls for an assembly in Canada were heard from many different and opposing sides – from the ‘reformers’ and from the ‘friends of the government’ in the governor’s council, from the French Canadiens who wanted an assembly, from the French Canadiens who wanted feudalism, not an assembly, from the English Canadians who wanted an assembly, and from the Tories who had just settled in the western townships who wanted their own assembly.
Fleury Mesplet, by Francois Beaucourt
After the evacuation of the ‘Tories’ from New York in 1783, about 35,000 ‘Loyalists’ arrived in the British province of Nova Scotia, more than tripling its previous population of 14,000. About 21,000 of them relocated to settlements on the peninsula, while nearly 14,000 of them relocated to settlements in the area near the St. John river. In response to a report from the British Board of Trade, by an order-in-council of June 18th 1784 (not by an act of the British parliament) the Privy Council split the Province of Nova Scotia into two parts – the one part consisting of peninsular Nova Scotia along with the islands of Cape Breton and Saint John (i.e. Prince Edward Island); and the other western mainland part consisting of the new province of New Brunswick.
On August 18th 1784 Colonel Thomas Carleton (younger brother of Sir Guy Carleton) was appointed Governor of New Brunswick, with instructions to appoint an Executive Council, and ‘as the situation and circumstances of our province under your government will admit thereof and when as often as need shall require to summon and call general assemblies of the freeholders and settlers in the province’ – subject to Privy Council approval and veto, of course. The first elections were held in November 1785.
Nova Scotia had an elected assembly since 1758 and Saint John Island (P.E.I.) since 1773 – but the British hadn’t ever allowed an assembly in (French-speaking) Canada!
Although the British had no intentions of granting an assembly to the 100,000 Canadiens, they were however concerned with the petition for an assembly by the 6,000 (English-speaking) loyalists, now settled in the 13 townships west of the Ottawa river – something that they had granted to the ‘loyalists’ in New Brunswick.
In Canada, on April 22nd 1784, William Grant, of the (so-called) ‘reform’ group in the Governor-appointed legislative council, made a motion that :
“ a Committee of this Legislative Council be immediately named to take into consideration and draw up a humble petition to His Majesty and Parliament praying that an assembly … shall be vested the usual Legislative Powers of an English Colonial Government …1st As the Quebec Act prohibits the Council from levying taxes … 5th That the power of raising revenue for the general welfare of the people is as essential to free government and the rights of British subjects as personal liberty and security”.
The so-called ‘reformers’ were a mixed bag. Mostly it represented the ‘old’ subjects – the British merchants that had moved to Canada after the conquest in 1763, and although less than 2% of the population of Quebec, they controlled almost all of the appointed positions of government and almost all of the merchant trade. Some wished to Anglicize the province and to bring British law into the province; some wished to have the assembly that they were promised; some had supported the Americans during the revolutionary war; some were ‘tories’ and ‘loyalists’.
Some of the ‘new’ subjects, the French Canadiens, wished for an assembly as a voice for the ‘Habitants’.
In response, St. Luc La Corne, a (so-called) ‘friend of government’ in the legislative council, moved for an address to the Governor expressing :
that “the great advantage which has accrued to the people of this Province, and to the tranquility and safety of it” [the Quebec Act]
and that “the continuation of which law, the result of that generous and tolerating Spirit which distinguishes the British Nation, will be the means of rendering the people of this Province indissolubly attached to the Mother Country”,
and it was passed by a vote of 12 to 5. The ‘friends of government’ represented the old seigniorial noble and church interests that wished to remain under French feudal law in order to maintain their power over the inhabitants.
On October 24th Hugh Finlay, the postmaster general of Canada and a member of the Legislative Council (and an ally of William Grant) wrote to Evan Nepean, the Permanent Undersecretary of the State for the Home Department, that :
“the advocates for a House of Assembly in this Province take it for granted that the people in general wish to be represented; but that is only a guess, for I will venture to affirm that not a Canadian landholder in fifty ever once thought on the subject and were it to be proposed to him, he would readily declare his incapacity to judge of the matter. Although the Canadian Peasants are far from being a stupid race, they are at present an ignorant people, from want of instruction – not a man in five hundred among them can read … Before we think of a house of assembly for this country, let us lay a foundation for useful knowledge to fit the people to judge of their situation, and deliberate for the well-being of the province. The first step towards this situation, and deliberate end, is to have a free school in every parish…”
On November 16th, Governor Haldimand sailed from Canada to return to London. The Lieutenant-Governor Henry Hamilton, the former military commander at Detroit, was left in charge of Canada.
No sooner was Haldimand gone than on November 24th, a public meeting of the ‘reformers’ was held at the Recollet convent in Montreal and a petition, in English and in French, was presented and copies were made and carried about the country by messengers to gather signatures.
The Petition for a House of Assembly read :
“1st That the House of Representatives or Assembly, be chosen by the Parishes, Towns and Districts of the Province, to be Composed of Your Majesty’s Old and New Subjects, in such manner as to Your Majesty’s Wisdom may seem most proper …
2nd That the Council consist of not less than thirty members … that the appointment of the members, may be during their residence in the Province and for Life … and that they serve as Councillors without Fee or Reward …
and, 14th that from the proximity to the United States, who from Situation and Climate, have many advantages over them, the Internal Regulations for promoting the Trade, Agriculture and Commerce of this Province are now become more intricate and difficult … the Assembly may have the Power, of laying Taxes and Duties”.
On January 7th 1785, two addresses were presented to Lt. Governor Hamilton (1 in English – signed by 16 ‘ancient’ subjects, and 1 in French signed by 23 ‘new’ subjects) accompanying the petition signed with 496 names.
[One of the signers, from Montreal, of the petition and the address, was Joseph Papineau.]
In opposition to this petition, the ‘friends of government’ sent a petition to the King, that :
“in the addresses which we have taken the liberty of transmitting to your Majesty, two points have the unanimous consent of our fellow citizens. The religion of our forefathers was for your new subjects, as to every people of the world, the essential point of our petitions … we are, most gracious sovereign, in urgent need of priests to carry on the work of the seminaries and missions of our province … Submissive and loyal, this people hope to receive from Your Royal Clemency, permission to bring from Europe, persons of this class.
The second object … was that under whatever form of government might seem best to your majesty to establish in the province, your Catholic Canadian subjects, without distinction, might enjoy all the privileges, immunities and prerogatives, enjoyed by British subjects in all those parts of the globe, which are under your sway. From this second object follows our most earnest desire to see in the legislative council of our province a larger number of your new Catholic subjects in proportion to their numbers”.
A copy was sent to Haldimand in London by Francois Baby, writing that :
“you know that unless we had taken up the cause of priests and religion, people of good will could not have induced the public to oppose these talkers who have employed all kinds of fantastic means to secure the adoption of their ideas for a new form of government”.
And finally, in December, Fleury Mesplet printed his Objections to the (reform) Petition, writing that he objected “that ‘a House of Assembly should be granted us, to impose taxes” :
“We, whose wants increase day by day; we, who every year despoil ourselves of our last farthing to pay for the supplies, which this Mother Country is compelled to furnish us, and which are already exhausted; we, who in spite of the enormous sums, which in consequence of the war have been left in this country, are still in arrears with the parent state, for the balance of a considerable sum …
He objected “1st, that the Chamber be indifferently composed of the ancient and new subjects” :
“This article requires more explanation; for, from this word indifferently, there might be as many and even more ancient than new Subjects in the House, which would be contrary to natural right, as there are twenty Canadians to one ancient Subject. What would become of our rights if they were entrusted to Strangers to our Laws …”
He objected “2nd, that the Council be composed of thirty members without salaries” :
“This might be satisfactory if there were enough disinterested rich men to take the part of the people, the honest poor man being unable to give his time for nothing …”
And then he objected “14th, for what community is there, between our requirements & the proximity, the climate, and the situation of the United States which give them the advantage in trade over us?” :
“Would the imposition of taxes add three months to our summer, and make our river navigable for the whole year? No; then the advantage would still be on our neighbour’s side. Would taxes make our agriculture flourish? No; for the Seigniors to encourage agriculture, give the lands for three years, exempt from all dues, and the lands often lie uncultivated for lack of means to work them.
What is it then that compensates for the advantages they possess over us? It is the peace that our rural districts have hitherto enjoyed; free from taxation, and in spite of the severity of the climate, they have seen the fruit of their labours, and have enjoyed it. To this may be urged that the rural districts are harassed by the billeting of troops and by Corvees. This is true, but would the imposition of Taxes exempt them from this burden? Let us see. When the King considers it necessary to send troops into this Colony for the safety of our possessions would any one oppose it? No; this is a right which the King possesses in all his Dominions, without even being obliged to give account of his action. Have we barracks in a condition for housing these troops? No. Can they live the whole year under canvas? No. Then we must either construct barracks or lodge them. Troops bring with them a considerable amount of ammunition, provisions, etc. Who is to transport these goods to their destination? Willing men, it will be said, who will be paid well. You can get willing men, it is true but at a rate so exorbitant that the Province would not have enough to pay for this one branch of defence. If you impose taxes upon them, you will no longer find them. So then, not to put a stop to works so indispensable, it will be necessary to commandeer; and in consequence we must have recourse to Corvees. But someone will perhaps say as has already been said, that what are called Volunteers will be raised in the country. Here then would be a band of Freemen condemned to Slavery. Is it not enough for fortune to have treated them so unkindly, without increasing their misery by slavery.
This being inadmissible, taking everything into consideration it appears conclusive after mature deliberation that taxation cannot exempt us from the billeting of troops, or from corvees; and that consequently an assembly for imposing of taxes would be contrary to the interests of this impoverished colony.”
On August 25th 1785, Fleury Mesplet would start a new bilingual weekly – the Montreal Gazette, with Valentin Jautard as editor.
In response to Mesplet’s objections, the ‘reformers’ printed a pamphlet, in French, in February 1785, that contained an address ‘Aux Citoyens et Habitants des Villes et des Campagnes de la Province de Quebec’ along with their November 1784 petition, and that was accompanied by an answer to the objections.
[One of the signers of the answer to the objections was Joseph Papineau.]
Travelling to London that winter, were Sir John Johnson along with Colonel John Butler and other Provincial troop officers, who petitioned the King in favour of dividing Canada into two districts, as had been done in Nova Scotia in 1784, – by separating the English (tory) settlements from the French seigniories.
The petition, dated April 11th 1785, asked that :
the new district would be “exempted from the Burdens of French Tenures”
and to be “distinct from the Province of Quebec under the Government of a Lieutenant Governor and Council, to be appointed by Your Majesty, with the necessary Powers of Internal Regulation, but subordinate to the Governor and Council of Quebec … This Territory will include all the Settlements made or intended to be made by the Disbanded Corps, and the Other Loyalists, while it leaves all French Canada and the French Seigniories as they were before …
In consideration of the vast extent of this territory along an important and valuable communication, which is not only the channel of the fur trade, but the residence of those nations of Indians who took part in support of the Royal Cause, the security, growth and extension of these settlements, must evidently be an object of the utmost consequences, not only as it will essentially secure and promote that trade, but as it will preserve those Indians in their adherence to Your Majesty.”
During the summer of 1785, the British merchants of Montreal and Quebec, began a correspondence with the British merchants of London that were trading to Quebec, and at their recommendation, wrote to the loyalists in the western settlements to ask them to join with their petition. But the loyalists, ‘without finding any fault with the language or spirit of ours’, were of the opinion that
“it will be more proper for them, to wait the result of that application, than to join in another, lest their interference should in some degree mitigate against the measures which their agents may be pursuing.”
On February 8th 1786, a Committee of the ‘Merchants of London Trading to the Province of Quebec’ sent a memorial to Baron Sydney, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, asking for the end of the mixture of French and English laws by which ‘the payment of debts are evaded and right and property is rendered uncertain and insecure’ and that :
“for the relief and redress of these evils and the many other defects of the present constitution of that government, a provincial Legislature or House of Assembly established on the principle as in every other British colony in America will be effectual … and to be governed by British laws to be made and administered according to the British constitution.”
At the same time in London, a ‘Draught of a Proposed Act of Parliament – For the Better Securing the Liberties of His Majesty’s Subjects in the Province of Quebec in North America’ was drawn up, to bring into force ‘all the laws of England relating to the protection of personal liberty by … the writ of Habeas Corpus’ and, for the ‘introduction of the trial by jury’.
According to the London Chronicle,
“Mr. Powis … had presented a petition from the principal inhabitants of Quebec, complaining of certain grievances in their legislative authority; it was then thought advisable to postpone the consideration of the subject as government would undoubtedly remedy the complaint. He was sorry however, to observe, that during that interval, there had been no appearance of Administration redressing the grievance of the petitioners; he therefore thought it a duty incumbent upon him to give notice, that he would … submit to Parliament a proposition for redress.”
On April 28th 1786, ‘after an interesting debate’, the motion was defeated by 61 to 28.
Lt. Governor Hamilton wrote to Under-secretary of State Sydney on April 20th 1785, that :
“it might seem a hazarded opinion to advance that there are a few persons in this province who appear desirous that the Canadians should feel such restraints and bear such burthens under English government as shall keep their minds open to favourable impressions of their former situation under French laws and an arbitrary government. What other principle could operate to prevent the substitution of legal means to the odious partial services by corvees? Why have not the services been regulated and equalized? A principal object for the consideration of the legislature is the arrival in this province of numbers of Englishmen or descendants of Englishmen who must abhor their being subjected to an authority they have been unacquainted with, and to men whose language & customs they are as yet strangers to. Provision by law should be made to conciliate these people, and if possible prevent complaint by anticipating their grievances. Until this day the Militia Ordinance remains unamended, tho’ its defects are palpable & even acknowledged by those who might reform it.”
During the legislative council session of 1785, Lt. Governor Hamilton and the ‘reform’ group succeeded in amendments that allowed habeas corpus and the use of juries, but failed in amendments for the use of British commercial law or to reform the court of appeals.
When amendments to the militia law and to the corvee were defeated by the ‘friends of government’ (led by Colonel Henry Hope), Baron Sydney then decided to replace Lt. Governor Hamilton with Colonel Hope, until on October 23rd 1786, Guy Carleton, now Lord Dorchester, returned to Quebec as the new British Governor-in-Chief of Canada.
… and the window for reform was closed again.
[next week – chapter 10 – The Petition against a House of Assembly, October 13th 1788]
*************
For those who may wish to support my continuing work on ‘The Unveiling of Canadian History’, you may purchase my books, that are available as PDFs and Paperback (on Amazon) at the Canadian Patriot Review :
Volume 1 – The Approaching Conflict, 1753 – 1774.
Volume 2 – Forlorn Hope – Quebec and Nova Scotia, and the War for Independence, 1775 – 1785.
And hopefully,
Volume 3 – The Storming of Hell – the War for the Territory Northwest of Ohio, 1786 – 1796, and
Volume 4 – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana – the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804,
may also appear in print, in the near future, while I continue to work on :
Volume 5 – On the Trail of the Treasonous, 1804 – 1814.