by Gerald Therrien.
Part 5 – Papineau and L’Institut Canadien
Louis-Joseph Papineau had been one of the last of the ‘rebels’ of 1837 to be allowed to return to Canada from exile, arriving in Montreal in September 1845 and then retiring to his seigneury where he would remain out of politics. Until two years later, when new elections were called, to take place in January 1848, and ‘the two most populated counties of the districts of Montreal and Trois-Rivieres’ wished to have him represent them.
In response, Papineau issued ‘An Address to the Electors of Saint-Maurice and Huntington’ in which he laid out his current political views of the state of Canadian affairs and his desire not to re-enter the political arena –
“all that I demanded in the House in 1836 … I demand again in 1847 … the repeal of the Act of Union must be demanded because it is the wish of the people.”
This demand should not rely on the British aristocracy, but instead Canadiens should look to America, and to:
[her] “instincts and necessities of democratic institutions … of which the free and happy citizens never received a Governor from England, but always elected him, as well as the members of the two houses, the sheriffs, and the magistrates of every rank …
Everything that will give us these, under whatever political arrangement may exist, is good. Since the majority of the representatives wish to try again a combination, which has been for four years inefficacious, let us unite ourselves to that majority – let no dissension trouble the unity of their efforts … May they succeed: none will rejoice more sincerely than myself … If they succeed in doing the good which you, they, and I wish for, their course will be the best. If they do not so succeed, we shall be altogether, people and representatives, constituents and nominees; there will be nothing to do but to organize the most vigorous opposition possible, within the limits of the law … Not only do I not desire to enter public life, but I desire to remain out of it. I fear that I shall do no good there, when I differ on so important a point from those with whom I have long acted in concert, and whose devotion to their country I respect … To throw me upon public life, notwithstanding the representations that I make to you, will, perhaps, be a mistake, which will cause the appearance of difference in the ranks of the Reformers.”
However, Papineau also laid out his economic views (his fatal flaw) –
“As to free trade, and the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, I wish for them, and will sustain them, with all my power. A disciple of the school of Adam Smith from my earliest youth – and at times the enemy of every political or commercial monopoly or privilege, I do not desire that any industry, or any class of citizens should be surcharged, for the profit of other classes and other industries. The imposts ought to be the minimum of that which it is necessary to receive from each citizen in proportion to his fortune and his expenditure, in order to provide for the just expenses of an economical and well managed government.”
Despite his reluctance to stand for election, Papineau was returned unopposed in the county of Saint-Maurice, and he agreed to be their representative for the Legislative Assembly.
Then, on March 14th 1848, he took the occasion of the government motion for a supply bill, to make his first speech, in opposing the supply bill, and to break with the Lafontaine reformers and begin his campaign to seek a repeal of the 1840 Act of Union.
On April 5th, Papineau gave a 3-hour speech in Montreal, where over 7000 people were gathered for the founding of the ‘Association des Establissements Canadien des Townships’ (Papineau was a vice-president of the Association) – a land settlement society aiming at attracting Canadien settlers to the Eastern Townships – whose constitution was drafted by the ‘l’Institut Canadien’, and whose effort was supported by the Catholic Bishop.
Note: L’Institut Canadien was founded in 1844 by a group of young intellectuals that sponsored lectures and debates, started a library, and began their own newspaper, L’Avenir, in July 1847. Its members included Papineau’s son, Gustave Papineau, and his nephews, Denis-Emery Papineau and Louis-Antoine Dessaulles. (Papineau’s youth movement, one could say!)
Papineau then travelled to Quebec where he had been invited to speak at a rally on May 11th, again giving a 3-hour speech to over 4000 inhabitants – on the repeal of the union. On his return to Montreal, he stopped at Trois-Rivieres to speak again. Other meetings were held by others in other towns to pass resolutions in favor of repeal.
When a meeting was held in Quebec by Irish citizens to call for the repeal of the Act of Union of Ireland, Papineau wrote an address to the Irish citizens of Canada that was printed in L’Avenir on May 15th, to support their demand for ‘repeal of the oppressive Act of Union of Ireland’. This article greatly upset Governor Elgin, who had earlier written to Earl Grey about Papineau’s campaign to repeal the union, that:
‘it is the Irish, not the French, from whom we have most to dread at present.’ (Elgin to Grey, May 4th 1849)
Note: The Act of Union – both for Ireland and for Canada, was the British Empire’s means of maintaining control of the colonies. While pretending to be of liberal intentions in granting so-called ‘responsible government’, in reality this policy gave nothing – a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly in Canada, then had to be passed by the ‘Governor-appointed’ Legislative Council, approved by the ‘British-approved’ Governor, and then approved by the Queen’s Privy Council, before it could become law. The British government controlled foreign policy, military policy, and economic policy.
And, the current Governor of Canada, Lord Elgin, was the son-in-law of Lord Durham, the author of the Act of Union – with his report on Canada after the 1837 rebellions.
[I suppose, that at least the legislators could decide the means for revenue-generation, and then sit down to divvy up the loot – kinda like today!]
L’Avenir, at first, had supported the reform policies of LaFontaine, but in April began writing editorials – ‘L’Union et la Nationalite’ – in support of Papineau’s demand for repeal of the Act of Union.
In Quebec, Le Journal de Quebec (Cauchon) answered L’Avenir that division among Canadiens was political suicide and that they must support LaFontaine to remain in control of further reforms or else the Tories would return to power.
Le Canadien (Aubin) responded and argued that usually unions harmed nationalities, as in Ireland or in Belgium, but in the American Union, the French of Louisiana elected their own government and administered their own civil code and education system. The Canadian Union could survive as in the American exception.
Note: After Papineau’s speech at the rally at Quebec, Aubin changed over to support Papineau and to argue against LaFontaine and Le Journal.
In ‘Le Fantasque’, Aubin hilariously suggested abolishing the death penalty, and instead, to condemn murderers to eating any 3 issues of Le Journal! [lmao]
In Montreal, La Minerve (Duvernay) the newspaper of the Reformers, simply ignored the discussion of repeal altogether. Instead of debating the idea, they instead launched a personal attack against Papineau.
The first step was to neutralize his influence with Bishop Bourget in the settlement project. As Elgin would write in a despatch to Grey (June 29th) that:
“I had one of two courses to choose from … either on the one hand, to give the promoters of the scheme a cold shoulder – point out its objectionable features – & dwell upon the difficulties of execution, – in which case, (use what tact I might) – I should have dismissed the Bishop and his friends discontented, and given Mr. P. an opportunity of asserting that I had lent a quasi sanction to his calumnies. – or, on the other, to identify myself with the movement, put myself in so far as might be, at its head, impart to it as salutary a direction as possible, and thus wrest from Mr. Papineau’s hands a potent instrument of agitation …”
And so, in June, the LaFontaine ministry announced that Crown lands in the Saguenay and Ottawa regions would be made available for settlement and that ₤20,000 received from London would go to opening up roads and providing the necessary facilities to guarantee the Association’s scheme.
The second step involved Wolfred Nelson, who now charged Papineau with cowardice – that at the battle of Saint-Denis in 1837, Papineau had fled at the first sound of cannon. Nelson’s charge would then be published in La Minerve and in Le Journal de Quebec, as part of their attacks on Papineau’s character. Papineau would answer that if he had left the battle, that he had done so on the orders of Nelson who was in command, and he would be defended by L’Avenir and Le Canadien.
The fight in the press would continue, with George-Etienne Cartier writing a series of articles defending Nelson’s version of events, against Louis-Antoine Dessaulles supporting Papineau’s claims.
In August, L’Avenir published ‘La Tuque Bleue’ a comedy about the engagement at Saint-Charles in 1837, in which, during the battle, a character (assumed to be Cartier) began to quake with fear and run for his life. Cartier then challenged Joseph Doutre (at L’Avenir) to a duel.
In January 1849, when the Legislative Assembly met for the start of the new session, Papineau rose to object to part of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to call for repeal of the Canadian Union –
“the defective constitution imposed on them against their known and declared wishes, through their remonstrances and reiterated petitions against the re-union of the two Canadas, wisely separated to their mutual advantage in 1791.”
This amendment was defeated, 63 votes to 4.
Papineau then proposed a second amendment against ‘that odious plan … of giving an equal number of members to the two provinces’ and that instead ‘it apportions, from time to time, the representatives as near as may be according to population’.
This amendment was also defeated, 63 votes to 4.
Note: L’Avenir would edit and publish Papineau’s 4 days of speeches on his amendments against the Union (of over 12 hours in total) on January 31st.
During the first weeks of February, the ministry introduced their bill for reciprocity with the United States and their bill for rebellion losses in Lower Canada. It was during this fight between the Reformers and the Tories over the rebellion losses bill, that all hell broke loose among the Montreal Tories – with riots that lasted into August, and that lead to the demand of the Montreal Tories for annexation.
While the young writers at L’Avenir would sign the Tory annexation address in October, it was not a case of them jumping on the Tory (annexation) bandwagon. Mais, au contraire!
The Tories could now side with the L’Institut Canadien in favour of annexation, that could contribute to further a rupture among the French Reformers – pitting LaFontaine against Papineau, and (thusly) aid the Tory party.
After Papineau’s break with LaFontaine and the Reformers, L’Avenir immediately began its next campaign, when Louis-Antoine Dessaulles wrote his first serious article in favour of annexation on February 24th!
Note: Although the attempt to annex Canada into the United States died in the U.S. Senate in 1845, discussions of annexation still continued. When Les Melanges Religieux (Langevin) wrote a proposal for a confederation of Britain’s North American colonies, L’Avenir answered (in December 1847) that it preferred annexation to confederation.
Also, on May 29th 1849, L’Avenir published a pamphlet ‘Manifeste du Club National Democratique’.
In June through October, Charles Laberge wrote a series of articles, signed ‘34 Etoiles’, setting out the necessity of annexation. And, from August to October, it ran another series ‘Le Bon sens du people, ou Dialogue entre Jean-Baptiste pere et Jean-Baptiste fils’ – with the father giving all the worst reasons for annexation, and the son giving all the best reasons for it. (The son always won the augument.)
[next week – part 6 – the British Response]