(Revised and Reprinted from CANADIANA, Vol. II., No. 10.) THE QUEBEC ACT. CANADA'S TRANSITION STATE. A paper by MR. GERALD E. HART read before the Society for Historical Studies, Montreal, November, 1890. "Voici le Pape du Canada et le Sot des Anglicans,"* were the significant words appended to the small but handsome marble bust of George the Third, the gift of the King to the city, now decorated with full papal insignia, mitre, cross and rosary, the face further bedaubed with lamp black, which met the eyes of the astounded citizens of Montreal as they wended their way to their places of business on the morning of the 1st May, 1775. The motive was suspected and generally understood, so that there was an evident lack of zeal attending the efforts to discover the actual perpetrators; the authorities, no doubt, realising that they were treading on dangerous ground. Rewards were offered and much apparent indigna. tion expressed, but the culprits remained undiscovered, and so faithfully was the secret kept, an evidence of the deep felt and universal approval, that to this day, like the letters of Junius, the authors of this anti-Papal and anti-regal act are unknown. It was necessary that a martyr should be made, and like the policeman who arrests the hind urchin of the crowd, a young merchant, named Franks, who did not denounce the act as loudly as all others, and had the *Behold the Pope of Canada and the Fool of Englishmen. Thanks to the authorities of the Natural History Society, a photographic fac-simile of this bust is given as the frontispiece hereto. It stood upon a pedestal under a niche or cover erected in the Place d'Armes Square. It was removed after 66 the insult and finally found a resting place in the Natural History Society's Museum of this City. The Grand Jury in 1790 in their presentment stated: That the building situated upon the Place d'Armes under which His Majesty's bust was formally placed is a public nuisance, and ought to be pulled down." The Court granted the request and "orders that the same be pulled down accordingly." hardihood to tell a new king's councillor, Mr. Picotté de Belestre, of the now rising French-Canadian nation, that it was not customary to hang for so trivial an offence in England, fell the victim and was committed to prison. This was no doubt more for the insult to the councillor's personal dignity, than any well-grounded suspicion that Franks was the perpetrator of the offence to the King, as at that time a councillor could imprison without assigning cause, especially under the French law permitting lettres de cachet, so that Mr. Franks was not aware of the crime laid at his feet. The whole body of English merchants offered to become his bail; but the Governor, as soon as it reached his ears at Quebec, saw fit, without enquiry of any kind, to release him within a week and to severely reprimand Mr. Belestre for his officiousness. History oft repeats itself and we have here a verification of the adage, for the self-same cause occasioned this insult to the King as in after years, 1849, the loss of the seat of Government to Montreal; acts of sedition, unpardonable in themselves, albeit justifiable as the expression or voice of an indignant people in condemnation of the Government for granting, or yielding to, French supremacy in an English colony to the detriment of English rule. No day in the annals of Canada since the conquest has been invested with the constitutional importance of this memorable May day of 1775. We may well call it "the birthday of Canada's autonomy," for on this day the "Quebec Act" was to come into force, the first Act of the British Legislature having reference to Canada, the foundation of our present political status and the laws under which we are governed. It was this Act which had aroused the indignation of the British population as well as that of a large number of the French citizens of Montreal; from these latter, no doubt, the insult had emanated, as the language used and subsequent acts would imply, and well would it have been had this childish treatment of the king's effigy been the sole out come of their wrath; but unfortunately it was not destined to end here, and much more serious consequences soon followed. To understand the political condition of the country, it will be necessary to revert to 1760, when England assumed the administration of affairs. For the four years immediately following the conquest, Canada remained under military jurisdiction, with Major Gen. James Murray acting as governor in chief in immediate succession to General Amherst, to whom the surrender of the country was made. The French peasants accustomed to military dominancy did not find his rule irksome, and as he was largely guided in his legal decisions upon civil matters by the advice of the French advocates, notable among whom was François Joseph Cugnet, a very able and talented Canadian, who exercised for years afterwards immense influence with the British governors, his administration was very popular with the French people. Cugnet's influence extended even beyond the limits of this province, his opinion being sought by the English ministry in all questions affecting the old inhabitants. In 1763, after the treaty of peace had been signed by which the conquest of Canada for the British Crown was ratified, King George the Third issued his royal proclamation putting an end to the military regime and substituting for it English laws and customs. The words used are:"That in the meantime, and until such assemblies "(referring to a preceding section in which the governor was authorized to summon and call general assemblies of the people)" could be called, all persons inhabiting in, or resorting to His Majesty's said colonies" (referring to the distributing of his American conquests into four colonies, Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Granada)" might confide in His Majesty's royal protection for the enjoyment of the benefit of the laws of his realm of England......for the hearing and determining of all causes, as well criminal_as civil, according to law and equity, and, as near as may be, agreeably to the laws of England." Governor Murray and his council of twelve, partly appointed by England and partly by himself, immediately promulgated this proclamation and in his first or great ordinance dated 17th September, 1764, constituting the courts of justice, these English laws, in abolition of the French law in its entirety, were put into force with the solitary reservation "that the French laws and customs should be allowed and admitted in all causes in the said court (Common Pleas) between the natives of the said province, in which the cause of action arose before the first day of October, 1764." A Court of Chancery was further established with the Governor as Chancellor, and two Masters, two examiners and one registrar. Full effect was thus given to the king's proclamation, but Murray, under the all-powerful influence of Cugnet and the French gentry soon upset the whole force of the king's edict by the resolution of council adopted the following month: "That in actions relative to the tenure of lands and rights of inheritance, the laws and usages of Canada should be observed as the rule of decision according to equity, conformable to the former ordinance." This was never confirmed by the King, and as the Governor and Council had no authority to pass such a resolution, it was not only illegal but wholly ultra vires, nevertheless it was acted upon and rendered "confusion worse confounded" in the decisions of the courts under the two systems of law thus brought into force; a constant cause of complaint to the Crown in after years, and which ultimately largely brought about the Canada Act of 1791. General Murray, after the conquest resided in Quebec, where he soon became on most intimate terms with the French gentry, all of whom had renounced their allegiance to the Throne of France, had forfeited any titles of honor they had received from the French King and had become. British subjects by taking the oath of fidelity. Son of Lord Elibank and of an autocratic turn of mind he would not condescend to associate with the commoners from England who came to settle in this country, many of whom felt the unjust imperiousness of his nature and the pointed slights he gave them. Nor need we express surprise, it was the natural outgrowth of sycophancy and the aristocratic constitution of society of that day; Murray therefore formed his associates and friends largely from among the self-styled French noblesse, poor and ignoble as the majority were, not one of whom were peers in fact but gentry only, of whom there were one hundred and fifty chiefly resident in Quebec; rather than from the English population, chiefly merchants who followed in the wake of the conquest, respectable and wealthy as many of them were, intelligent and patriotic as they proved themselves to be, the progenitors of our race, but unequal in social status to the aristocracy of England with which Murray was allied. To properly appreciate this feeling we have only to remember the power of the nobility and the great divisions of society which existed in all European countries antecedent to the birth of democracy by the French Revolution. Dissatisfied with his many acts of partiality towards the French-Canadians and the introduction of the French law in several of the ordinances which he and his council made, the British population held indignation meetings and petitioned the king for his dismissal; the London merchants trading with Canada supported this in a remonstrance and petition they laid before the Board of Trade and Plantations, and the result was Murray's recall within two years of his appointment as governor! He was succeeded by Lieutenant-Colonel Irving as administrator, he being the oldest councillor, but he in turn was almost immediately superseded by Brigadier General Sir Guy Carleton who was appointed Lieutenant-Governor in 1766, and Governor-inChief in 1768. He was no improvement on Murray, but far more diplomatic and less imperious. He was politic enough |