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 10 – The Petition AGAINST a House of Assembly, October 13th 1788
statue of Lord Dorchester in front of the National Assembly in Quebec
After having been absent from Canada for 8 years, Sir Guy Carleton, who had been appointed Governor-in-chief of the empire’s provinces in British North America, and who had been made the Baron of Dorchester, arrived back in Quebec.
Lord Dorchester wished to be informed of the present state of affairs, and he assigned to his ‘appointed’ Legislative Council, during its session from October 1786 to June 1787, to form four separate committees, that were to prepare their reports – on Commerce and the Police; on the Courts and Justice; on Population, Agriculture and the Settlement of the Crown Lands; and on the Militia, Highroads and Communities.
On June 3rd 1787, Dorchester sent these final reports on to Baron Sydney, the Home Secretary, and to the British government in London.
Included with these reports were:
(1) a copy of the petition of November 1784 from the ‘reformers’, that was again presented to Dorchester, that contained their request for a House of Assembly and for the introduction of English commercial law;
(2) a copy of the petition of December 1784 from the ‘friends of government’, that asked the British government ‘to disregard those demands of a House of Assembly’ or of any changes to the existing law;
(3) a copy of the 1785 petition from the newly-settled ‘loyalists’ in the western townships, along with a new petition that requested that ‘their lands (be) granted according to English Tenure’, [i.e. no feudal seigneurial system].
When the ‘reformers’ (the merchants of Montreal) presented their report to the committee of the legislative council, it contained a section: ‘A Prohibition to the bringing of Slaves into the Country’ that read :
“Slavery being alike contrary to the principles of humanity & to the spirit of the British constitution. This committee recommends that means be adopted to prevent the bringing of slaves into the province in future, but as to the few Negro or Indian slaves who are already in servitude, they conceive that they ought not in justice or policy to be emancipated; to many families there are of them valuable as property, and servants, and we have frequently seen instances of slaves being manumitted, soon becoming idle and disorderly, and finally a burthen to the public. We would further recommend that after years, all infants who shall be born of parents who are slaves be declared free.”
This shows the actual sentiment against slavery among the population of Lower Canada (Quebec). While they did oppose any new slaves from entering Canada, they were not abolitionists, or, at least did not want to interfere with the newly arrived ‘tories’ and their slaves. And so they did not propose emancipation of all slaves, but simply proposed the end to any future importation of slaves into Canada, and for the eventual freedom for any children who were to be born to slaves. This was called ‘gradual emancipation’.
This ‘reformers’ proposal, to prevent the importation of slaves into Canada, can be shown to be similar to the 1793 bills for banning the importation of slaves – that was passed in Upper Canada, but not passed in Lower Canada. [to be seen later]
Dorchester was undecided on any proposals for an assembly in Canada, and he wrote a separate letter to Sidney that :
“the English party has gained considerable strength of late years by the Loyalists, who have taken refuge in the province; and many more discover a strong inclination to follow, so that it is more than probable the desire for an Assembly will annually increase. But common prudence seems to require before an alteration of that magnitude should be attempted in a country composed of different languages, manners and religions, where nine tenths of the people are ignorant of the nature and importance of an Assembly, that the whole plan should be minutely unfolded and its effect upon the Legislature and the provincial economy clearly discerned … For my own part, I confess myself as yet at a loss for any plan likely to give satisfaction, to a people so circumstanced as we are at present.”
But, Dorchester did however recommend immediate alteration in the tenure of the western lands for the ‘loyalist’ (i.e. tory) settlers, to change from ‘the manner every way similar to the tenure under the French government’, so as to allow him to grant lands ‘in free and common soccage, unimcumbered without any crown rent whatever’.
Sydney also was undecided on any plans for an assembly in Canada, and he replied to Dorchester on September 20th 1787, that
“the King’s servants have no immediate thoughts of proposing any alteration in the Quebec Act. No plan of Assembly has been suggested by anyone, and indeed it would, under the present circumstances, be very difficult to form such a one as would not be liable to very great objections.”
Then, in November, the ‘reformers’ sent Adam Lymburner, a Quebec merchant, to London as their agent to present their petition and to urge the government to amend the Quebec Act and to change their form of government to allow for an assembly.
On February 4th 1788, Lymburner, along with the British merchants of London who were trading to Quebec, who had presented their 1784 petitions to Sydney in May 1785, now wrote to Sydney that :
“[they] in compliance with the wishes of his Majesty’s Ministers, recommended to their constituents, to defer bringing them forward in Parliament, until the necessary information could be received on the allegations contained therein … they now beg leave to submit as their opinion that the only effectual means of removing the evils complained of, restoring unanimity and promoting the prosperity of that province will be to grant them an Elective House of Assembly, the English Commercial Laws and to reform the Courts of Justice, as prayed for in their petitions.”
But these merchants were unable to obtain a meeting with Sydney, who replied on February 17th, that :
“he was not prepared to acquaint them with any determination upon the subjects contained in their application, which they expected he would do in that interview. That the papers transmitted from Quebec were extremely voluminous, and that they are at this moment in the hands of the law officers for their consideration … and that no decision whatever could be had, until their opinion had been given of the measures which appear to them to be proper and advisable to be taken. That with regard to the House of Assembly (he) expected farther information from Lord Dorchester upon the subject, and until that could be obtained, no opinion can be formed respecting a measure tending to so material a change of the present constitution, that as to the petition to Parliament, (he) cannot pretend to prescribe to the committee what conduct they should pursue, but that it was necessary they should understand that the Government, in case it should be presented, was not pledged to support it.”
Nevertheless, on May 16th 1788, Mr. Powys moved in the House of Commons that Lymburner be admitted, and he was able to read a paper ‘pointing out the defects of the system of laws then administered in the province and the need for a remedy’ and after he had withdrawn, a debate followed, where Mr. Powys stated that :
“[the Canadians] wished to have a House of Assembly instituted in the province, and the English laws in general extended to them … The petitioners wished to be put on the same footing with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.”
He concluded with moving “that it is the opinion of this committee, that the petitions from Quebec merit the serious and immediate attention of the House.”
The Prime Minister would respond that :
“[he] agreed with the Hon. Mover, that the petitions deserved the serious attention of the House; but nothing could be done immediately in the business. Parliament, he said, was not ripe for the discussion of an affair of such magnitude as the framing of a constitution for a large, flourishing and growing province. A sufficient body of information had not been transmitted from that colony, to enable the House to determine upon the merits, of the subject contained in the petitions. As to the appointment of a House of Assembly, though he was inclined to recommend that mode of legislation, he had strong doubt whether it would be proper at this time when the province was in a state of heat & fermentation. A popular Assembly would not tend to allay that heat … He was not pleased with the motion in its present form.”
[note: I’m not sure what it meant, to be ‘in a state of heat and fermentation’, but whatever it was, the Quebeckers had it !!! It sounds like they were being made into beer, or maybe yogurt ?!?]
When a vote took place, 104 voted for the Minister’s motion, & 39 against it. Mr. Powys then moved that ‘the House will, early in the subsequent session, take into consideration the petitions from Quebec’. So it was put off for another year.
[Hopefully by then, the heat and fermentation process may have subsided.]
On September 3rd 1788, Sydney would write to Dorchester to inform him of this, and that the next time it came up in the House of Commons, the ministry wanted to be fully prepared for it!
“Your Lordship will have seen, by the proceedings which took place in Parliament in the course of the last session, the arguments which were made use of on the introduction of the petition brought by Mr. Lymburner from Quebec, for a change of the present constitution of the province, and the reasons which occurred to His Majesty’s Ministers for avoiding any decisions upon that very important subject. It will, however, be absolutely necessary that it should be resumed very shortly after the next meeting, and it will, of course, be a matter of great importance to His Majesty’s Servants, that they should be previously prepared to enter into a full discussion of the business, and to propose such arrangements as may be found to be expedient for removing every just and reasonable cause of complaint that may exist among His Majesty’s Subjects, of any description whatsoever, who are Inhabitants of that Province.”
Sydney, in effect wanted an intelligence report, and he continued to Dorchester, that :
“His Majesty’s Servants however, are desirous to give the matter a full consideration and that they may be better enabled to form a competent judgement of the steps advisable to be taken, they are solicitous of obtaining from your Lordship a full and impartial account of the different classes of persons who desire a change of government, as well as of those who are adverse to the measure, specifying, as nearly as it can be ascertained, the proportion of numbers and property on each side in the several districts; and that your Lordship at the same time should state in what manner, either the interests, or influence of the latter, might be affected by any alteration.”
Sydney did admit that the government was contemplating a division of the province – separating the ‘new subjects’ (the French Canadiens), from the ‘old subjects’ (the disbanded English troops and loyalists in the western townships), ‘as these people are said to be of the number desirous of the establishment of British Law’, and that it was the government’s intention that :
“the new settlers in that part of the province who now hold their lands upon certificates of occupation, shall, at all events, be placed upon the same footing in all respects, as their brethren in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by having their lands granted in free and common soccage with a remission of quit rents for the first ten years … At the same time your Lordship will attend to the situation to which the old Canadian settlers at Detroit would be reduced, provided it may be found expedient … and … in what part of the province within the reserved limits, the settlers at Detroit, if they should be removed, might be accommodated with lands the best suited to their advantage.”
It’s interesting to note that while Sydney had claimed he couldn’t meet with the Quebec delegates about their petition because he’d received too much information, Pitt had claimed he couldn’t agree with the petitioners because he hadn’t received enough information!!!
It would seem that the British ministers did not wish to solve the problem of dictatorial rule over the ‘inhabitants’ of Quebec, they simply wished to be ‘prepared to enter into a full discussion of the business’ – even though they had had over 25 years, since the occupation of Canada in 1763, to do something about it.
There would no discussion whatsoever about what should be justly done, but the ministry simply wanted an intelligence profile of the different sides in the province, not to come to any solution, but to be able to play the different cards at different times in the game.
The granting of free lands was only to be for the western ‘loyalist/tory’ settlements, as the Canadians in Quebec would remain under the old feudal seigneurial tenure. And there would be no French Canadians in the western townships (at Detroit) that might ‘resist the application for any change of the constitution of the remaining part of the province’ – they should be moved elsewhere.
Sydney would send an ‘extraordinary packet boat’, upon whose return would be Dorchester’s answer.
Dorchester received this letter on October 29th, but ‘the season as well as the wish of his Majesty’s Ministers to receive my answer before the Christmas recess … does nor permit my detaining the packet longer than to the 8th instant, a short time indeed to do justice to the subject of his Lordship’s dispatch’.
In regards to the population, he replied to Sydney in a letter on November 8th, that :
“the Canadians, or new subjects, occupy the districts of Quebec and Montreal, and some are also to be found in the districts of Gaspe and Hesse (Detroit). The three (western) districts … are inhabited only by the loyalists, or old subjects of the crown. The commerce of the country being chiefly carried on by the English, occasions a considerable mixture of inhabitants in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, nearly in the proportion of one British to two Canadians … the proportions of British and Canadians in the two districts of Quebec and Montreal, exclusive of the towns, may be about one to forty, in the same districts, inclusive of the towns, one to fifteen, in the district of Hesse one to three, in the district of Gaspe two to three, and in the whole province, taken together, about one to five.”
In regards to reform, Dorchester wrote that :
“A change of the laws and form of government, by the introduction of an assembly, is chiefly promoted by the commercial part of the community, in the towns of Quebec and Montreal. The Canadian Habitants, or farmers, who may be (styled) the main body of the freeholders of the country, having little or no education, are unacquainted with the nature of the question, and would, I think, be for or against it, according to their confidence in the representations of others. The clergy do not appear to have interfered. But the Canadian gentlemen in general are opposed to the measure … A division of the province, I am of opinion, is by no means advisable at present, either in the interests of the new, or the ancient districts … Indeed it appears to me, that the western settlements are as yet unprepared for any organization, superior to that of a county … Should a division of the province notwithstanding be determined by the wisdom of His Majesty’s Councils, I see no reason why the inhabitants of those western districts should not have an Assembly.”
Earlier on October 24th, Dorchester had written to Sydney to inform him that Adam Lymburner was again being sent to London by the ‘reformers’, and he also enclosed a letter from the ‘friends of government’ with an new address to Lord Dorchester and a new petition to the King – dated October 13th 1788, that opposed the establishment of a Chamber of Assembly and any introduction of British laws.
On November 6th, the ‘reformers’ committee wrote to Dorchester, complaining of this new petition, that :
“Amable de Bonne, an advocate of Montreal, had with the assistance of some of his friends drawn up a petition to His Majesty or to your Lordship, in name of the Canadians and in a secret and unjustifiable manner procured thereto the signatures or marks of many of the inhabitants in various parts of the province, that among other objects urged to induce the ignorant part of the inhabitants to put their marks to the said petition, it has been held out to them that their religion was in danger of being abolished, that a House of Assembly was requested only for purpose of imposing numerous and oppressive taxes and of destroying the ancient laws of the country relative to real and personal property.”
Then, on December 8th, the ‘reformers’ sent Dorchester an address, explaining that :
“His Majesty’s old and new subjects by their petition of 1784, praying for a house of assembly and the introduction of the laws of England regarding commerce, had not the most distant wish or intention to procure the abolition of the ancient laws and customs of Canada, as is asserted by their opponents; on the contrary, a continuation of the said laws and customs is expressly and particularly prayed for.”
Also sent were two memorials from the French Canadian ‘reformers’ – one from Montreal, December 4th [one of the signers was Joseph Papineau] and one from Quebec, December 5th – that objected to this new ‘friends’ petition.
The address and memorials were accompanied by 3 lists:
(1) a List of old subjects (British), Seigniors, Proprietors of Fiefs and Seigniories in the Province of Quebec (36 names) and the Value of these Seigniories in annual Rents and Revenues – £ 10,345;
(2) a List of Seigniories in the hands of new subjects (Canadians), not signers to the petition to His Majesty of October 13th 1788 (75 names) and the Value of their Seigniories in annual Rents and revenues – £ 9,060;
(3) a List of Seigniors subscribing to a petition to His Majesty of October 13th 1788 (51 names) and the Value of their seigniories in annual rent and revenue – £ 5998.
This was meant to show that the ‘reformers’, having obtained support of the English loyalists in the western districts, had also obtained the support of many of the French Canadian seigneurs, who did not sign the October 13th 1788 petition.
While the overwhelming majority of English (old) Canadians were in favor of an assembly, a majority of French (new) Canadian seigneurs were also in favor of an assembly.
In answer to these, the ‘friends of government’ (i.e. the friends of feudalism) sent Dorchester two memorials, one from Montreal, December 24th and one from Quebec, December 31st, that opposed the ‘reformers’ address and memorials, and tried to argue against the lists, by including the salaries of the government servants in their values!
All of this was forwarded on by Dorchester, to Sydney.
But the scanty harvest of that year and the growing threat of famine (like that in France of that year) soon became the most important issue in Canada. However, Dorchester kept Sydney informed of any information he received of any other of Britain’s important plots.
The following spring, on April 11th 1789, Dorchester wrote Sydney that :
“notwithstanding the favourable answer given by Congress to the demand of Kentucky to be admitted a sovereign state in the union, the people of that country have lately discovered a strong inclination to an entire separation … their apprehension that Congress will consent to give up the navigation of the Mississippi for twenty five years is one of the reasons which induces them to listen to the overture of Spain … But the general result of more private councils among them is said to be to declare independence of the federal union, take possession of New Orleans, and look to Great Britain for such assistance as might enable them to accomplish their designs.”
[note: the future schemes and treasonous plots of Aaron Burr in 1804-1807 can already be seen in Dorchester’s intelligence report of British intrigues in Kentucky in 1789.]
Sydney also received an intelligence report, from Silas Deane dated May 20th 1789, that included Deane’s earlier proposal to Dorchester for the construction of a canal on the Richelieu river in Quebec, that :
“the American states are at this time but little removed from anarchy and their credit, political as well as commercial, is reduced almost as low as possible … it will hardly be possible for these states to continue long united in one general confederation and whenever a disunion takes place, it will separate the strong from the weak, or the northern from the southern states … by opening a navigable canal from lake Champlain round the rapids at Falls at St. John’s into the navigable waters below them, and by opening a free trade with Vermont and the frontiers of New England and New York … it will at all times be in the power of Great Britain to send a naval force into that lake and command the navigation of it, and thence whatever may happen, it will not be in the interest of New England and New York to be on unfriendly terms with the British government.”
Dorchester had earlier forwarded to Sydney, a letter that he received from Ethan Allen in July 1788, that read in part, that:
“in the time of General Haldimand’s command, could Great Britain have afforded Vermont protection, they would readily have yielded up their independency, and have become a province of Great Britain. And should the United States attempt a conquest of them, they would, I presume, do the same, should the British policy harmonize with it.”
[note: Allen was hedging his bets, in case Vermont was not admitted to the union as a separate state – he wanted to have the option of threatening to join Canada.]
In the midst of digesting all of Dorchester’s observations, of the intrigues in Kentucky and Vermont, and of the various memorials and petitions, Sydney resigned as Home Secretary, and was replaced by William Grenville (son of former Prime Minister Grenville, nephew of former Prime Minister Pitt, and cousin of the current Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger).
However, a few weeks after Dorchester had written his report to Sydney, on April 30th 1789, George Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States of America – and the world would not be the same for Grenville.
[ next week – chapter 11 – The Grenville Plan, October 20th 1789 ]
*************
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.