Overwhelming evidence shows that the French Canadians were not faithful to British rule at this crisis, and that they were least faithful at the time when the Quebec Act might be supposed to have had most influence. Further evidence, equally strong, if not so great in quantity, shows that the effect of the Act on the mass of the people was one of alienation rather than conciliation.' It will be well to enquire first if there is any ground to expect these results, rather than those which have been so long assumed with such apparent reason. What do we know or what can we reasonably conclude as to the opinions of the mass of the people on the points which formed the main subject-matter of the Quebec Act? Of the four main provisions which I have discussed above, two,- the extension of the boundaries of the province and the decision against 1 As to the first of these statements- the hostility to British connection as shown by support of the invading revolutionists, I do not assume any attitude of discovery. The evidence when really looked at is too overwhelming to have altogether escaped the observer. The latest and strongest expression of the truth I find in Kingsford's History of Canada, (V. 439,- published since my investigation was made), who says in regard to Montgomery's appearance:-"It was a rare case when the Canadians showed disfavor to the invaders; many joined their ranks." As will be seen later Mr. Kingsford however is mistaken in representing this attitude of the Canadians as only temporary. And that some more detailed and circumstantial statement is necessary to affect the general error, is shown by the wide extent of its assertion and its constant repetition. Lecky says in regard to the American invasion: "The Canadians remained loyal to England... The contagion of New England republicanism had not penetrated to Canada;" the people "were especially indignant at the invasion." (IV, 215). In a text book of the University of Toronto it is asserted that, "While the American War of Independence was in progress the French Canadian people remained faithful to their allegiance and resisted all the efforts of the Americans to induce them to revolt against the English." (Bourinot, The Constitutional Hist. of Canada. The statement is repeated with emphasis in the same writer's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, Revised ed. 1892, p. 13.) It is needless to say that French Canadian writers have loudly and unanimously maintained the same position. A good example of the assertions of even the more enlightened and impartial of these is the following from Lareau (Hist. Droit Can. II, 148): "Cette concession [i. e. the Quebec Act] de la part de l'Angleterre eut sa récompense; pendant que les colonies anglaises brisaient le lien colonial, le Canada, comptant sur la justice du vainqueur resta fidèle au drapeau britannique." It seems therefore the function of such a special study as this to do what the general historian of course cannot, viz., so circumstantially to present the truth as to place it forever beyond cavil. The second of the above statements, -as to the alienating effect of the Act,-has not I think been heretofore made, much less enforced. an Assembly,—we may conclude to have been practically 1 Can. Arch., B. 7, p. 1. See above, chapter 2. 'Ancien Régime, B. II, c. 12, with note. ample from the year 1767 "de la manière dont les droits pécuniaires de clergé lui aliénaient les coeurs de ceux que leur isolement aurait du rapprocher de lui." As I have elsewhere pointed out, there is no good reason for regarding the Canadian habitant as so far removed from the state of mind of the peasant in Old France as has been generally assumed. With regard to the civil code provisions of the Act (in connection with which must be considered the previous reversion to the old forms of land tenure), it must be concluded that at the most the re-establishment of the old French civil law, in view of the fact that the peasant had never discontinued its use,' could have had very little effect on the average French Canadian. And when he considered that the tithe had been made compulsory, and that the seigneurial method of land grant was again in full operation, it would be strange if he should not feel some apprehension with regard to the reappearance of other old oppressive relations connected with the land. I have shown above that there is every reason to believe that the relations between the seigneur and the habitant, even early in the English period, were practically identical with those in old France, and that no part of the changed conditions had been so early and fully appreciated by the latter as their release from their former military and judicial subjection. In their ignorance of the real scope of the new measure they would naturally be apprehensive of the reviving of this old burden; and it is evident that before as after its enactment its English opponents took full advantage of their fears and ignorance. Very little direct evidence has been found on this point, and still less that is free from suspicion. The British party, of course, before and after the Act, represented it as undesired and resented by the mass of the people. This contention is not to be regarded as weakened by the fact that a memorial and petition in favor of its main provis1 See above, pp. 352-7. 1 ions were presented in their name to Parliament while deliberating on the measure. For Masères' statement that these are not really representative may be easily conceded in view of the fact that of the fifteen signatures, most are those of members of the noblesse.' A movement of more importance and interest has been already referred to in the account of the English proceedings prior to the Act; it culminated in an offer from some French leaders in Quebec to join in the English petition for an Assembly provided that this should contain a request for the admission of Catholics to the House. On the rejection by the English of this condition the matter dropped. As indicating the attitude of a section probably larger in number and certainly more nearly in accord with popular feeling than the noblesse, this incident is of great interest; but it is still of little value in the determination of the question as to the views of the mass of the people on the points at issue. The very contradictory evidence given before the Commons in 1774 by the Provincial officials is no more helpful; it being evident that Masères and Lotbinière represent a small advanced portion of the traders and professional men, (perhaps also of the noblesse), and that Hey and Carleton speak for the clergy and the bulk of the noblesse. With regard to the first reception of the Act by the people we have equally 4 1 For these see Masères, Account of the Proceedings, pp. 111-31. 2 See on this point, Carleton's evidence before Commons. 1774. Also English petitions for an Assembly, Dec., 1773 (Can. Arch., Q. 10, p. 26). A curious letter in 1776 from one M. Pelissier to the President of Congress describes the signers of the French petition as quelques adulateurs [i. e. of Carleton] et quelqes ignorans fanatiques des anciennes coutumes." (4 Amer. Arch. IV., 596.) 3 See Masères, Account of the Proceedings, pp. 3-40. It is noteworthy also as indicative of the rise of a new set of native leaders (distinct from noblesse and clergy). The lawyers and others of the lay educated class who had rapidly acquired some insight into English political ideas are evidently taking the place that had been opened up to them by the substitution for the feudal régime of the freer spirit of the English institutions. The new attitude is probably represented by the evidence of M. Lotbinière before the Commons in 1774; and the desire for forms of English self-government was undoubtedly inspired by the hope of thus giving effect to the great numerical preponderance of the French. conflicting statements. It was not to go into force till May, 1775, and it is doubtful whether it was published in the province during 1774; so that statements as to public opinion during the latter year probably can have reference only to the few who beforehand would become intelligently acquainted with its provisions. September 20, 1774, Carleton writes to Gage of the "joy and gratitude and fidelity" of the Canadians in consequence of the late Act,' and three days later he reports to Dartmouth the great satisfaction of all classes of the French Canadians. Nov. 11th he again speaks of their gratitude and represents their uneasiness at the measures which the old subjects are taking against the Act. But it is noticeable that he here refers to the noblesse and clergy as being apprehensive that some of the Canadians through ignorance and from their trade relations with the English, may be enticed to join the latter in their movements; especialy as they are being told that the late Acts will reduce them to a state of slavery and oppression. At the same time he sends addresses, (three, from Montreal, Quebec, and Three Rivers),' expressing the gratitude of French Canadians; addresses which beyond much doubt are from precisely the same quarter as the petitions immediately preceding the Act. The one from Quebec speaks apologetically of fellow-countrymen who "par des circonstances malheureuses" may have been drawn into common action with the English discontents. February 4, 1775,' Carleton writes further to Gage that "all that have spoke or wrote to me upon the subject express the most grateful sense of what has been done for them; but at the same time uses language in regard to the habitants which seems to show that he is beginning to perceive that the satisfaction and gratitude does not extend to them. And the indi 1 Can. Arch., Q. 10, p. 123. 2 Ibid., Q. 10, p. 120. 3 Ibid., Q. 11, p. 11. 4 Ibid., pp. 17-23. Ibid., p. 290. |