conditions of the other colonies such as would occur only to those who were recalling institutions (peculiar to the colonies), under which they had lived and to which they had become attached.' Similar evidence appears in their remonstrance against the judiciary ordinance of 1770, and in some commercial representations concerning the English bankruptcy laws in 1767. Further we have particular information in regard to individuals who later became noteworthy for open sympathy with the revolutionary cause, and find that they are nearly all of American birth or of American political education. A list "of the principal persons settled in the province who very zealously served the rebels in the winter 1775-6" names 28 individuals, of whom only 7 are of non-American birth. In this list we find the names of many of the main leaders in the political movements just previous to the Quebec Act. It is evident in short that the most determined and outspoken sec. tion among the new settlers were American by birth or adoption, and it is probable that that portion was, in relation to the whole, a small one. This will be shown more fully later when I speak of political movements. That a distinction could be made, and was made by the provincial officials, is shown by a reference of Carleton to the scale of duties lately adopted as being approved by "both Canadian and English merchants, the colonists excepted." 5

The new English-speaking population seems to have been practically all resident in the towns of Quebec and Montreal. Its main occupation was trade, a trade which had the fur traffic for its backbone. Many of its members are asserted by their detractors to have come to Canada because they had failed everywhere else, but the fact that Canada offered exceptional advantages for the fur trade

1 Can. Arch., Q. 2, pp. 233-63.

Can. Arch., Q. 7, p. 95.

Can. Arch., Q. 5-1, p. 248.

Can. Arch., Q. 13, p. 106.

Dec. 24, 1767. (Can. Arch., Q. 5-1, p. 300.) See also to Dartmouth, November 11, 1774. (Can. Arch., Q. 11, p. 11.)

affords a more creditable explanation. Many were mere agents for English firms; some, especially of the discharged soldiers, became small retailers of liquor. So averse were they to land occupation, at least on the terms first offered, that the lands set apart for the discharged soldiery were in few cases taken up. But they took with considerable avidity to the acquiring of seigniories when that form of grant was re-established,' and Hillsborough, April 18, 1772, writes that he is pleased to find "that so great a spirit of cultivation of the waste lands in the colony has spread itself among His Majesty's natural born subjects." There can be little doubt that by the end of the period they had come into possession of a large proportion of the seigneurial estates of the province; but there is no probability that they at this time settled down on these estates in any permanent manner. They undoubtedly continued to be identified with the towns, and it is sufficiently correct for all purposes to regard their connection with Canada as caused and continued either by commercial interests or by situations held under government.

3

As to the character of this new element we are unfortunately dependent almost entirely upon the testimony of its bitterest enemies. The causes of this enmity will be more fully apparent later; the fact is that throughout the whole period of civil government the provincial administrators and the "old subjects" were in direct and for the most part bitter antagonism. The latter claimed that they had come into the country in reliance on the Proclamation of 1763, which they considered contained a distinct promise of the establishment in Canada of the forms of government and the system of law that prevailed in the other colonies; consequently they maintained a hostile attitude to the system in operation, as purely provisional, and impatiently

1 See elsewhere concerning land grants.

* See Evidence, Quebec Act Debates. Also Masères, especially with regard to English petitions and memorials for an Assembly, 1773.

See Carleton, Rep. Can. Arch., 1890, p. 1.

demanded the fulfillment of the asserted pledges. The governors on the other hand had speedily arrived at the conclusion that such changes would be most disadvantageous to the country, and would imperil its possession; and they consequently regarded with no favourable eye the turbulent little body which seemed to be aiming at the same licentiousness as (in the official opinion), prevailed in the other colonies. It is the same antagonism that we see contemporaneously in these other colonies, increased tenfold by the peculiar circumstances of the province. Race and social prejudices, and collisions between the civil and military elements, complicated the situation and intensified the opposition of the British trading community to the old French military system and its favorers. And in view of these facts we must take with caution the assertions of the governors, who, just as they erroneously looked upon the noblesse as the true representatives of the Canadians, seem to have indiscriminately classed together the whole old subject body as turbulent and republican, and bent on nothing but the oppressing of the French population and the acquiring of gain. That there were individual instances to which they could point in support of this view cannot be denied; nor can we doubt that the British element throughout the most of the period might well present to the harassed official an intolerant and unconciliatory attitude. But a scrutiny of the evidence will show that the constant official censure was to a large degree unjust and undiscerning, and that the British party in the Province of Quebec deserved very much more consideration from the authorities than it received. The matter is of importance from other grounds than those of historical justice. For there can be little doubt that the incorrect ideas that swayed the official mind on this point were one of the main agencies in the genesis of the Quebec Act,

Murray's expressions of dislike for his fellow-countrymen seem to date from the grand jury presentment of 1764,

"2

when he writes home of the "licentious fanatics trading here," whom nothing will satisfy except "the expulsion of the Canadians." The following March 3, he says that the merchants "are chiefly adventurers of mean education, either young beginners, or, if old traders, such as had failed in other countries; all have their fortunes to make and are little solicitous about the means.' August 20, 1766, after he had left the province, he writes of the party which had procured his recall, that "most of them are followers of the army, of mean education, or soldiers disbanded at the reduction of the troops;" and adds, "I report them to be in general the most immoral collection of men I ever knew." This representation is evidently little to be regarded. Carleton, though no particular friend of Murray, seems, however, to have at once assumed the same attitude toward the old subject, and probably with more confidence, as knowing that the home government was not at all likely to gratify their wishes. As with Murray, his military training prejudiced him in favor of the old system and of the military noblesse, to both of which the English element was bitterly opposed. November 25, 1767,' he describes the old subjects as having "been mostly left here by accident, and are either disbanded officers, soldiers, or followers of the army, who, not knowing how to dispose of themselves elsewhere, settled where they were left at the reduction; or else they are adventurers in trade, or such as could not remain at home, who set out to mend their fortunes at the opening of this new channel of commerce," and adds that they have for the most part not succeeded, and are abandoning the province. March 28, 1770, he writes in regard to the necessity he has been under of taking from the justices of

1 Can. Arch., Q. 2, p. 233.

2 Ib., p. 377.

3 Can. Arch., B. 8, p. 1.

4 Rep. Can. Arch., 1888, p. 42.

Rep. Can. Arch., 1890, p. 1.

5

For

the peace their jurisdiction in civil cases, on account of the oppressive methods of many of them, and proceeds to explain what these methods were; saying that those who had failed in business sought the office in order to make it a means of extortion, and had therein very grievously taken advantage of the ignorance of the people. This oppression seems to have been for a short time a real grievance, and has been considered one of the principal proofs of the evil character of the English element; but a closer examination will show that in that view it has been exaggerated. it was such as hardly could have been practiced by any but justices in the remoter parts of the province, or at least by those in the country districts, and I have shown above that very few of the English were settled outside of the towns. So that it must have been confined to about a dozen individuals,' and cannot possibly be taken as any indication of the general character of the English-speaking settlers. The matter is simply an instance of the careless grouping and indiscriminate judgments of the period, or possibly of intentional misrepresentation in order to prejudice the case of the old subject in the eyes of the home government. That this result was attained may be seen in the writings of the pamphleteers who defended the Quebec Act, as well as in the arguments of its supporters in the Commons.

B. Political Attitude.

What the political attitude of the English party was may be easily gathered from the foregoing. Whether or not accustomed to the greater self-government of the American colonies we find the whole body strongly imbued with a certain degree of the American spirit and determined to lose no opportunity of pressing their claims for the establishment of English law and an Assembly. They con

1 The list of justices of the peace for the whole province as first appointed, included only twenty-three names, of whom most were resident in the towns. See p. 312, note 1.