joyment of its voluntary features, and that they were already distinctly opposed to its legal establishment with compulsory powers. As to the relations between the habitants and their old secular leaders, the noblesse, we have few indications previous to the Quebec Act. Murray, in a general report1 immediately after his recall, (while still governor, but under the shadow of disapproval and investigation), represents the state of things as perfectly satisfactory, in the sense of the habitants being still of a submissive and reverent spirit; saying that they are shocked at the insults offered the noblesse by other classes in the community. This must be taken very cautiously, for Murray's object was to represent the noblesse, with whom he had been very closely associated against those other classes, as thoroughly in sympathy with the great mass of the people. Nor of much greater weight, probably, is Carleton's representation, March 15th, 1769, as to the advisability of admitting some of the noblesse to the Council on account of their influence over the lower classes (and over the Indians). For he too seems to have remained in error on this point until roughly awakened by the utter failure of the seigneurs in 1775 in their attempt to assert, for the first time since the conquest, the old influence. This will appear more fully later; at present we need only notice the statement by Chief Justice Hey, that Carleton "has taken an ill measure of the influence of, the Seigneurs or clergy over the lower orders of the people, whose principle of conduct, founded in fear and the sharpness of authority over them now no longer exercised, is unrestrained, and breaks out in every shape of contempt and detestation of those whom they used to behold with terror, and who gave 2 1 Can. Arch., B. 8, p. 1. (Aug. 20, 1766.) See also to Shelbourne, Jan. 20, 1768 (Q. 5-1, 370), and Nov. 5, 1767 (Q. 5-1, 260). The latter is printed in full in Rep. Can. Arch., 1888, p. 41. them, I believe, too many occasions to express it." Our later investigation will show that there can be little doubt that the influence of the noblesse had steadily declined from the first hour of English domination, and that the habitant had come with remarkable rapidity to look upon the seigneur merely in the light of an obnoxious landlord.' The causes of this change are not obscure and include a clearer perception of the changed character of government than the Canadians are generally credited with. For the main reason, no doubt, was the greatly altered position of the noblesse under the new regime, and their utter deprivation of that real military and nominal judicial authority which they had formerly enjoyed. The contemporary social relations in old France will at once suggest themselves to the reader; and I need here only remark that this is not the only indication we have that social conditions in the New France were not so different as has usually been supposed. 3 Coming more particularly to the matter of general political attitude we are at once struck by the fact that the trouble shortly before experienced with the Acadians seems to have no parallel in Canada down to the American invasion. At the capitulation the Canadians acquiesced by the most complete submission in the new rule, and during the period that elapsed before the fate of the country was finally decided we have in the reports of the commanding officers only the strongest expressions of content with the manner in which they are conducting themselves. Murray's testimony (already quoted), is amply supported by that of others representing all sections of the country. Burton (commanding at Three Rivers), says that they "seem very happy in the change of their masters," and "begin to feel 1 To the Lord Chancellor, Aug. 28, 1775. Can. Arch., Q. 12, p. 203. 2 See Masères' Account of the Proceedings, etc.; also Cramahé to Hillsborough, July 25, 1772. (Can. Arch., Q. 8, p. 160.) 'The influence of military position upon the habitant was early perceived by Murray, who in 1764 strongly urges on the home government the necessity on this account of the military and civil authority in the Province being united. (Can. Arch., Q. 2, p. 206.) that they are no longer slaves." Gage (at Montreal), writes that "the people in general seem well enough disposed towards their new masters." 2 The strongest assertions come from Haldimand, a French-speaking Swiss soldier, (Carleton's successor in 1778 as governor of the province), who may be supposed not only to have been best able to make himself acquainted with the real attitude of the people, but also to have been the least easily swayed in his conclusions. August 25th, 1762, he writes in the most emphatic manner in regard to the groundlessness of the fears that had been expressed lest the Canadians should be dangerously affected by a recent success of the French in Newfoundland, and later asserts that, with the exception of the noblesse and clergy they are not uneasy as to their fate, and will easily console themselves for the change of rulers.* Allowance must probably be made in these representations for the natural desire of the military authorities to put their management of the country in the best light possible; but making all such we can still have no doubt that matters were in a perfectly pacific (perhaps, rather, lethargic), state, and that from the conquerors' standpoint the conduct of the habitant left little to be desired. The people were indeed thoroughly exhausted from the recent struggle and all thought of further resistance had departed with their leaders, the most irreconcilable of whom had gone to France at the capitulation. They had been stimulated in their efforts against the English by representations of the tyranny the latter if successful would immediately institute, - representations which had been the more easily credited from their knowledge of the fate which had overtaken the Acadians. But that this fear was 5 1 Official report, May, 1763. Can. Arch., B. 7, pp. 61-83. 2 Official report, March 20, 1762. Ibid., B. 7, p. 84. Ibid., B. 1, p. 216. To Amherst, December 20, 1762, and February, 1763. Ibid., B. 1, pp. 262, 266. rapidly dispelled is strongly indicated by the statistical statement with regard to the emigration to France, which had been provided for in the treaty, and which was open without restriction to all for eighteen months from its conclusion. As we have already seen the leading French of the official, military and commercial classes had left before the cession; it is safe to conclude that these for the most part had never been very strongly rooted in the country, and were first of all, Frenchmen. The later records show that those who had any landed interests in Canada joined but little in this movement, and that still fewer of the mass of the people went.' The term of facilitated emigration extended through the summer of 1764, and in August Murray, after collecting statistical statements from the different commanders, writes that only 270 are going from the whole province, most of whom "are officers, their wives, children and servants." The tone with which the people finally accepted the irrevocable handing over of the country to England is very plainly to be seen in the religious addresses which have already been referred to as the first movement in any sense common that we meet with on the part of the Canadians. The tone is a manly one, and without any hypocritical professions of pleasure at the state of affairs, indicates a readiness (recognizing que toute autorité vient de Dieu") to make the best of a bad business. In general, therefore, with regard to the lower classes, we do not find throughout the period preceding the Quebec Act any indication that might have made the rulers uneasy. And certainly if anybody had profited by the change of gov ernment it was the habitant. He had been relieved from very grievous burdens, and at least during the earlier years, does not seem to have felt much new pressure in their stead. His peace and security had formerly cost him con 1 Emigration on their part was of course a much more serious matter. And the Canadians were early remarkable for love of their native country. (See Cramahé to Hillsborough, July 25, 1772. Can. Arch., Q. 8, p. 160.) stant and often most critical military service; now it cost him nothing. And that he was not slow in appreciating some aspects of the change in government is shown by a difficulty those in charge of the batteaux service met with in the autumn of 1765. This service (of transporting by water troops and supplies to the garrisons in the upper country), was a constantly necessary one, and had been performed during the military period (i. e., 1760-4) without any difficulty by means of impress warrants, - the people apparently regarding as a matter of course what they had been accustomed under the old régime to do as a part of their regular militia duty. On the separation of the civil from the military authority such demands upon the people in time of peace became illegal,' and the service had not been otherwise provided for. During the first year of civil government it seems to have been continued, however, in a moderate way without opposition that we hear of; but October, 1765 the officer in charge reports great difficulties. Governor Murray had refused to grant impress warrants, sending instead to the local authorities recommendations of a peremptory nature; but we find it stated that half of the parishes applied to had refused to send a man, and that in one place the people had threatened to beat the bailiff. The military officer reports that "the bailiffs disregarded the orders given and the people were adverse and corrupted," and again that "the Canadians are now poisoned in their minds and instructed that they cannot be forced on such services." And it was not until an impress warrant of full power had been issued by the governor (on the plea of unavoidable necessity), that the service could be performed.' But it would seem that it was only on its military side of relief from oppressive duty and the immediate control of the seigneur or captain of militia, that the change of government seems thus to have 1 See opinion of Prov. Att.-Gen., October 5th, 1765. Can. Arch., Q. 3, p. 81. "Lords of Trade to Colonial Secretary, May 16th, 1766, with enclosures. Can. Arch., Q. 3, pp. 53-120. |