Chapter 1 : ROOTS OF BITTERNESS
« previous – TABLE OF CONTENT – next »
WHAT sort of lodgment was the spark of revolution to find in Canada ? A wall of ice would extinguish it ; a thatched roof would take fire ; a magazine of gun-powder would explode.
October the third, 1535, a water-fowl never seen before in that region slowly ascended the upper St. Lawrence River, exciting the infinite wonder of every Indian along the shores. Far larger than any war canoe, with a great spread of grey cloth and black ropes in lieu of plumage, it sailed on without the aid of hands. (Cartier, Bref Récit, p, 25.)
The strange bird was, of course, a European ship ; and at the prow a Bréton captain, one Jacques Cartier, who always looked intensely active, whether he moved or stood still, gave what orders were necessary to catch the wind or to avoid the shoals and currents. Meanwhile, not only with his piercing eyes but with every one of his keen features, even to the sharp beard on his long chin, he seemed to sweep the immense black forests that rose to a climax in a small mountain on his right, and to examine the water and the shore with a peculiar attention. About here ought to be Hochelaga, he thought — theIndian town of which he had been told below.
Finally he decided to land; and then, with his little band of soldiers, he marched on about a couple of leagues through the silken rustle aud the golden gleams of ripe cornfields, found the one narrow opening in a triple wall of palisades, and advanced between longish wooden cabins roofed with bark to an open space in their midst. With curious but wary glances he looked about him. What was the hidden but watchful village thinking, he wondered. Were these fair-skinned intruders in glittering armor looked upon as enemies and wizards, to be seized, if possible, and tortured ? Or, coming from the East in flashing vesture, were they to be reverenced as children of the sun ? Suddenly, wrote Cartier in his Brief Account, suddenly the women and children came pouring into the open space, many bringing babes in their arms. With trembling fingers they stroked the faces, hands, and shoulders of the Frenchmen, “weeping with joy” to see them, and making signs that they should toucli the little ones. So auspiciously ended the first voyage into Canada. (Cartier, Bref Récit, p. 25. See Bosworth, Hochelaga Depicta, p. 21, The allusions to the personal appearance of early Canadians are based on portraits or statues of recognized worth.)
After two generations had passed, other French vessels turned their prows against the current of the St. Lawrence (1603), and the history of the region began. Near Tadousac, where the noble Saguenay came in, Champlain, the hero of the expedition, held a council with the savages on a shore sprinkled with the blossoms of a northern May ; and, while the Sagamore gravely declared that he was glad the French were coming to till their lands and fight their enemies, his braves, crying “Ho, ho, ho !”’ in a wild chorus of approval, danced joyously before the strangers, brandishing the heads of defeated Iroquois, their mortal foes. Champlain was a man of small stature but lofty spirit, and behind his calm face a lion’s courage slept; yet even he would have drawn back from this alliance, had he known what it meant.
But he did not know. He pressed on; retraced the voyage of Cartier ; led a fleet of Algonquin and Huron war canoes across the lake that now bears his name ; routed the Iroquois with fire and thunder still farther south ; toiled almost a generation for Canada ; and finally — bequeathing to the land he loved a deadly feud as well as an immortal fame — laid his worn-out body on its earth. (Champlain, Oeuvres, II., p. 6. The alliance against the Iroquois became effective in 1609, but Champlain’s policy was indicated here in 1603.)
After him the pioneers came faster. Those were the days of the Jesuit missionaries : among them towering Breboeuf, whose enthusiasm would not have shrunk from the necklace of red-hot tomahawks that was in store for him, had he foreseen it, and his comrade Lalemant, almost too feeble to live but strong enough to die in tortures without a murmur. Little by little, settlers reinforced the explorers ; the black forests were pierced with spots of light ; the wigwam found itself overshadowed by the house ; fields grew, and churches multiplied ; and the struggle for wealth supplemented, though it could not supersede, the struggle for existence.(As the brief sketch of early Canadian history aims merely to tell what is already known, references are given only in special cases. Parkman’s works are the principal authority.)
Early in the 17th century, Richelieu turned his eyes this way, and entrusted the region to a Company of One Hundred Associates. But no trading concern has been able to manage an empire ; and Louis XIV., on the advice of his great minister Colbert, made Canada a royal province (1663). The white flag of the Bourbons floated now from the Castle of St. Louis at Quebec. A governor, covered with gold lace, held court and issued orders there. An intendant in black looked sharply after the King’s interests, and made them— far too literally sometimes— hii own. Laval, with the eyes of a soldier, the nose of a statesman, and the lips of a priest, ushered in a long line of bishops. Orders and ranks were established ; soldiers in straight lines marched to the frontier ; and, in short, Canada took on more and more the style of New France.
During the last quarter of the century, Frontenac — a terrible figure of bronze, with lips parted for high words and an arm outstretched to command or to strike — made the province not only respected but feared. Enemies were faithfully scourged, friends reinforced, and obstacles battered. And finally, in the century that followed, the witty and courtly Montcalm, though he struggled in vain, almost defeated fate with his gallantry and almost hid disaster with his glory. With him concluded the story of New France, and the line of its brilliant leaders ended.
Now the first look below the surface discovered, all through this period, unrest, agitation, discord, and war.
The inevitable Indian troubles were peculiarly dreadful, because the fierce Iroquois took sides against the French. War-parties hurried north by the Richelieu River so persistently that people named the stream Riviere des Iroquois (Dawson, North America, p. 302.) ; while other fleets of canoes, packed with naked savages, bounded down the rapids of the St. Lawrence above Montreal. Every trick of Indian cunning and every horror of Indian ferocity joined hands against the friends of the detested Huron. Many and many a night, when the moon was clear, a nun, looking sharply into the bushes of the convent garden at Montreal, could see a painted Mohawk squatting patiently there, to tomahawk the first comer at sunrise; and once a war-party dashed past the guns of Quebec, slaughtered some friendly Indians on the Island of Orleans, and paddled back, without receiving a shot from the terrified garrison. A throng of candidates for martyrdom came over from Europe. Now and then one failed to die, but sufferings worse than death usually consoled his disappointment; and abroad scheme of empire, the masterpiece of Jesuit enterprise, courage, and policy, fell shattered under the tomahawk of the Iroquois.(Parkman, Jesuits, Chap. XXXIV.)
Along the southern border lay the British colonies, and the traditional hatreds of the Hundred Years War seemed reinforced here by the clash of irreconcilable ambitions. These half-wild provinces, outposts always in touch with each other, were the representatives of jealous powers. They could easily be driven into conflict by the mighty forces behind; and, year after year, the pile of animosities grew constantly higher both north and south of the line.
Four serious and regular wars lighted their flames along the border. Scarcely a village on the frontier of New Hampshire and Massachusetts was left unscathed by the French and Indians; the outskirts of New York suffered the same horrors ; and spots of blood and ashes reached far toward the centres of population. Sleeping Saratoga and Schenectady were burned. Just before sunrise one morning, the red devils and their white allies dropped over the stockade of peaceful Deerfield. Men were knocked on the head close to Northampton. A scalping-party appeared at Dover. Bravely but in vain tall Sergeant Hawks tried to defend Number Four. At Keene a savage opened hostilities by thrusting his long knife into an old lady’s back. A captive was roasted alive at Exeter. Casco Bay resounded with savage yells and with cries of agony. The smoke of Brunswick rolled far across the sky. (See particularly Parkman, Half Century, passim. Number Four was Charlestown, N.H.)
During three months of the dark year 1746, thirty-five Canadian bands ravaged the border. In 1757 Dieskau, skimming Lake Champlain and Lake George with a swift fleet of birch canoes, set a bloody ambush for the Provincials ou the soil of New York. Montcalm did still more. Day after day he chanted the war-song at Montreal with the braves of thirty- three tribes. They came to love him more than life itself ; and, when he saw the fire blaze high in their eyes, he stopped the song and led them toward the south. On the sixth day, they found the ramparts of Ticonderoga linking the blue of the heavens to the deeper blue of the lake ; and then, twisting through the woods, they stole in silence across the smooth waters of Lake George. Fort William Henry fell ; and that massacre followed, which set an edge of steel on the hearts of the Colonists.
But the contest had two sides. In 1712, Dummers wrote, “I am sure it has been the cry of the whole country ever since Canada was delivered up to the French, Canada est delenda.” “Canada must be demolished — Delenda est Carthago— or we are undone!” cried Governor Livingston of New Jersey in 1756. “Long had it been the common opinion, Delenda est Carthago, Canada must be conquered,” attested a pastor of the Old South Church in Boston. And attempts, not few, were made to fulfill the threat. Over and over again expeditions moved north against Quebec, and twice that proud rock felt the tread of conquerors. British and Provincial troops, hacking their way through the forests of Acadia, seized Port Royal. Grand Pre changed masters three times, but remained in Saxon hands. With banners carried high, Pepperell and his bold farmer lads marched through the Dauphin Gate of Louisburg, the French-Canadian Gibraltar. The Jesuit mission on the Kennebec ended in fire and blood. Dieskau fell bleeding from four wounds, and many an Indian cabin at the north was darkened by his failure. Montcalm perished, and Vaudreuil surrendered. The drum and war-cry, the song of triumph and wail of disaster seemed as natural in Canada as the roar of its northeast gales. (Livingston and Foxcroft : Parkman, Montcalm, I., p. 419; II., p. 377. Paltsits, Scheme. See Shirley’s speech : Paltsits, Scheme, p. 16. )
Troubles at home co-operated with hostilities abroad in creating a tradition of unrest. Quebec demanded that Montreal should deal with Europe only through her warehouses, but Montreal tempted the red-man with trinkets and brandy to carry no furs beyond Mont Royal. Quebec, the Jesuit citadel, intrigued, threatened, and triumphed against the Sulpician fathers of the upper capital. Young men by the hundreds, defying the orders of the Crown, left their ploughs and mattocks rusting in the ground, threw themselves headlong into the adventures and license of trade in the wilderness, and returned now and then, with their savage comrades, to demoralize the towns with the swagger, devil-may-care, and orgies of the wild coureur de bois.(Parkman, Old Regime, pp. 339, 98, 104. 400, 360, 361, etc. Dussieux, Canada, p. 22. )
Church and State sometimes found themselves rivals, — even enemies. The castle scowled fiercely at the bishop’s palace; ecclesiastics defied the orders of the King’s representative ; and once, it was said, a priest ventured to preach openly against the Governor and the Intendant as “a pair of toadstools sprung up in the night.” (Parkman, Old Regime, p. 383.) Neither could these two officials get on well together. The Governor, standing for the person of the sovereign and the majesty of the Crown, found himself checked and spied upon by the bustling man in black, the business agent of the colony, so to speak, who administered justice, drew the purse-strings, and made reports.
The royal authority seemed as absolute as lyouis XIV. could contrive. In 1671, Paul Dupuy expressed the opinion that the English did a good thing when they cut off the head of Charles I. ; and for this and some other such remarks, after lodging awhile in prison, he was dragged to the Governor’s door in his shirt, with a rope around his neck and a torch in his hand, to ask pardon; was then sent over to the pillory to be branded on the cheek with the royal fleur-de-lis; sat for half an hour in the stocks at the mercy of the unmerciful; and finally, loaded with irons, found himself back in the prison. Yet even such authority as this did not feel secure; and, near the close of the French regime, an intendant complained that more regulars were needed to keep the people down. (Parkman, Old Regime, p. 331. Justice: Cavendish, Debates, p. 108. Mém. of Hocquart : Queb. Lit. and Hist. Soc., Hist. Docs., 1st Ser., 1840, p. 4.)
In the middle of the 18th century arrived the grand crisis of Canadian history. On the Plains of Abraham (1759), a tall man whose wasted frame, comical face, and short red hair — laughable even in his mother’s eyes — clothed a spirit superior to pain and weakness, dealt a mortal blow at the empire of France, — and perhaps at that of England, also, — in North America; and soon, by the capitulation of Montreal (1760), (Houston, Const. Docs., p. 32.) Canada fell entirely into English hands. Old things did not pass away then, but they were changed. All things did not become new, but foreign elements began to mingle with what already existed there; and the problem of governing the conquered brought a measure of vengeance upon the conquerors.
So long as the strife between Great Britain and France continued, Murray, one of the British generals, ruled Canada by military law. Yet his hand was by no means heavy. From the moment of victory, good sense or magnanimity or both inspired the English. Though a man of war, the Governor had a tender feeling for his subjects. Justice tempered with humanity was no doubt his wish and purpose. A soldier was hanged for robbing a citizen of Quebec; and British veterans could be seen in the harvest- field volunteering to help the farmer gather his crop, sharing their rations with him, and filling his empty pipe with tobacco. (See Murray’s reports in the Can. Arch, in proof of this. Parkman, Montcalm, II., p. 331.)
The Treaty of Paris ended the war in 1763. In October of that year, a royal proclamation staked out the limits and the political future of the province; and, ten months later, a civil administration went into effect under it. The system was that of a crown colony minus the Assembly. A “Captain General and Governor in Chief” headed the administration; and a Council, by whose “advice and consent” he was supposed to act, supplemented his wisdom, though in fact it was often hard to get a quorum of the Council, and the Governor usually did about as he pleased. Their ordinances, at first published at the beat of drum by criers, and later read from the Quebec Gazette by the priests at the close of the Sunday service, announced the will of the government; and, sitting also as a supreme provincial court, they were empowered to interpret the laws.(Houston, const. Docs., pp. 61, 67. Carleton, Maseres and Hey before the House of Commons: Cavencfish, Debates. Coffin, Quebec Act, pp. 326, 338- 343. Can. Arch., 1888, p. XII.; 1890, p. XII.) Murray was the first civil governor; and he gave place in 1766 to a man of equally good intentions and more ability. General Guy Carleton.
Yet, though Canada was fortunate in her British rulers, the tune there did not become pure harmony, and even a hasty glance at the strings could show why.
A mass of tenant-farmers, the French habitants, formed the basis of the population. These were the descendants of colonists — largely Norman — sent over by Louis XIV. and of women persuaded later to come and marry them. It was a tough, healthy stock, well purged of weaklings by the hard conditions of existence, full of Gallic vivacity and by no means destitute of Gallic charm, yet not without some little faults. Bougainville, not long before the Conquest, painted the habitant as “loud, boastful, mendacious, obliging, civil, and honest ; indefatigable in hunting, travelling, and bush-ranging, but lazy in tilling the soil.” Murray, though a foreigner — or possibly be- cause a foreigner — said more in their favor. While their military Governor, he described them as “a strong healthy race, plain in their dress, virtuous in their morals and temperate in their living” ; and two years later he alluded to them as “perhaps the bravest and the best race upon the Globe.” (Bougainville : Parkman, Old Régime, p. 439. Murray, Report, June 5 1762 : Can. Arch., B, 7, p. 55. Id. to Board of Trade, Oct. 29, 1764: Pub. Rec. Off., Colon. Corres., Quebec, 2, p. 335. Marr : Can. Arch., M, 384, p. 85.)
They piqued themselves mainly upon their politeness; and, while their French ancestry was not to be forgotten, there was probably something in Marr’s opinion that long subordination had left this mark upon them. Book-learning they wofully lacked. In fact, according to Lotbinière, hardly more than four or five persons in a parish could read; and of course their credulity — aside from a dash of the mocking cynicism native to every Frenchman — matched their ignorance. But, from the very cradle, children were taught how to act and how to speak, so that even the humblest countryman could manage his feet, hands, and tongue properly in any society. (Marriott, Plan, p. 32 (Lotbinière). Hey to Chancellor, Aug. 28, 1775: Pub. Rec. Off., Colon. Corres., Quebec, 12, p. 365. Murray to Shelburne, Aug; 20, 1766: Can. Arch., B, 8, p. i. Marr: Note 15.)
Though far from rich, these people seemed gay and contented. “In New England & in the other Provinces of the Continent of North America belonging to the British Empire”, wrote Charlevoix, “there prevails an opulence which the people know not how to profit by, & in New France a poverty concealed under an air of ease that appears unstudied. . . . The English Colonist accumulates Property, & spends nothing needlessly: The Frenchman enjoys what he has, & often makes a show of what he has not. The former toils for his Heirs ; the other leaves his [Children] in the penury where he found himself, to get on as they can.” (Charlevoix: Voyage, p. 80.)
At the Conquest the habitants were poorer than ever, — far poorer. War had kept them from their fields; no little wealth had vanished in smoke ; and the French paper money that stuffed their pockets had turned by a hateful alchemy to mere dirty rags. The harvest of 1759 was but meagre, — save that garnered on the Plains of Abraham. A barrel of flour sold for two hundred francs. Most of the cattle and many a horse were sacrificed to keep the wolf from the door. People lived chiefly on a pittance of salt cod, or else on the King’s rations. But they took up the spade and the sickle again with good courage. Some trapped the beaver, and some drew the seine. New blood flowed now in Canada; new capital worked its resources; the commercial instincts of the British gave a fresh impulse; and the country prospered more than ever. Holes in the thatch closed ; chinks between the logs were stopped; the pot simmered briskly, and the fiddle soon recalled its merry dances. By 1771, 460,000 bushels of wheat could be exported annually. (Parkman, Old Regime, p. 350; Montcalm, II., p. 172. Wheat: Chase and Carroll to Hancock, May 17, 1776: 4 Force, VI., 587.)
Toward the government, the mass of the habitants felt only submission. “The people in general seem well enough disposed toward their new Masters,” reported General Gage from Montreal. Haldimand, writing from Three Rivers, expressed the same judgment with more emphasis. At the close of 1773, eleven years later, Lieutenant-Governor Cramahé only re-echoed these opinions, pronouncing the people “tractable and submissive.” Exhaustion might partially explain their state of mind at first; and besides, they realized how completely they had been defeated. But the purpose of the British to treat them fairly and kindly was no doubt appreciated, especially as miscolored stories from Acadia may have led them to expect something very different. Moreover, they felt that all authority came from God; and they realized, as truly as did the Papineau of a later day, that under British rule they were indeed well off, — no longer summoned to battle, no longer in danger, no longer burdened with taxes ; but free, secure, prosperous, and lighthearted. Such was the mass of the Canadian farmers ; and the French common people of the towns had similar reasons for entertaining similar feelings. Yet every man of them understood that an alien race had conquered and now reigned over them. (Gage to Amherst, Mar. 20, 1762 : Can. Arch., M, 375, p. 222. Haldimand, 1762 ; ib. B.001, p. 216. Cramahé : ib., Q, 10, p. 22.)
Another section of the conquered population, however, stood sharply apart from the habitants. This was the noblesse or gentry. The rulers of France had believed in aristocracy; therefore, said they, New France must have an upper class. The feudal system was established there by Richelieu; and some officers of a French regiment disbanded in Canada, reinforced by patented aristocrats and more officers, formed the noblesse. (Noblesse : Parkman, Old Regime, pp. 232, 294, 305; [Maseres], Occas. Essays, pp. 164-166; Murray, Can. Arch., B, 7, p. 55; Carleton to Shelburne, Nov. 25, 1767 (Can. Arch., Report for 1888, pp. 41-48). Maseres, Account, p. 165.)
But the feudal system of the province reflected its French original in a ghostly fashion. On the one hand its political powers were nil, and on the other it had to depend upon usefulness more than brilliancy for the little consideration it enjoyed. As a scheme for dividing and clearing the wilds, it played a valuable part, since a noble forfeited the grant made him by the King unless the land were improved; and, as he could seldom afford to clear it himself, he found it necessary to look for settlers. Rents were so low that he could not live decently upon them. Sometimes, in fact, aristocrats fell into the direst poverty. “It is pitiful,” wrote the Intendant Champigny, “to see their children, of which they have great numbers, passing all summer with nothing on them but a shirt, and their wives and daughters working in the fields”; and three of the four original nobles reached the very edge of starvation. “Pride and sloth,” wrote the same Intendant, were the causes of their ruin ; and he added, “I pray you grant no more letters of nobility, unless you want to multiply beggars.” “To increase their number, is to increase the number of do-nothings,” declared Governor Denonville.”In general poor, . . . extremely vain,” wrote Murray in 1762. (See Note 19. Rents: 128 seigneuries are said to have yielded on the average only £60 a year ; see Coffin, Quebec Act, p. 298. Champigny and Denonville : Parkman, Old Reg., pp. 307, 308. Murray : Can. Arch., B, 7, p. 55.)
For such men a post in the King’s service was almost the only resource; and as a rule, while the French occupied Canada, they held commissions in the army. In that rôle their qualities had more lustre. Some of them, like Iberville, St. Castin, and La Salle, found poverty a noble spur to enterprise, turned their backs upon haughty but squalid idleness, and proved their titles to nobility by shining deeds instead of rusty parchments. Courage and military forwardness they did not lack. The border wars kept their swords bright; and, whether leading a foray or following a general, they served New France and scourged New England with zeal and effect. In short, the French-Canadian aristocracy was essentially military; and, though anybody who could buy an estate became a ‘ seigneur,’ he did not for that reason become a noble. (Posts : Carleton, Nov. 20, 1768 (Can. Arch., Report for 1888, p. 48). Iberville, etc. : Parkman Old Régime, pp. 310, 311. As soldiers: ib., pp. 312, 313. Seigneur vs. noble : ib., p. 304.)
Upon this noblesse the Conquest dealt its heaviest blows. On the one side it put an end to royal employment, and on the other it annulled all authority over the habitants, subject previously to various feudal obligations. Many of the most important withdrew with the fleur-de-lis to France; and others, instead of living in the towns, as they preferred to do, had to exist as best they might in the dull poverty of their farms. Fear, hope, and hopelessness combined to keep them quiet, and Carleton acknowledged “their decent and respectful obedience to the Kings government” ; yet, as he informed Hillsborough in the same breath, he had not ‘ the least doubt of their secret attachments to France.” (To France; Maseres, Account, p. 170. Carleton to Hillsborough, Nov. 20, 1768: Pub. Rec. off., Colon. Corres., Quebec, 5, last letter; see Can. Arch., Report for 1888, p. 48 ; and ib., Q, 5, 2, p. 890.)
The Roman Church in Canada had been singularly exalted and then signally humbled.
In the early days, both Quebec and Montreal had been theocracies. Faith, devotion, and pious courage had never shown a brighter light, nor mysticism an illumination more brilliant or more absurd. Both God and the devil seemed to have the saintly pioneers especially in view at all times. Occurrences that came elsewhere in the natural order of things took place there by direct supernatural agency; and prodigies, miracles, visions, and ecstasies almost superseded the customary methods of observing and reasoning. (For this paragraph and the next : Parkman, Old Regime, passim ; particularly pp. 400, 217, 138, 185, 384, 404. )
Among themselves the ecclesiastics might conspire and quarrel, but their common Church moved on majestically with a lofty front and a high hand. Governors might come and also they might go, — especially if they differed with the Jesuits ; but the Church remained. The most vicious of the rulers had to pay homage to her, and the most virtuous were forced to wink more or less patiently at her abuses. More surprising still, the priests dared threaten Canadian belles with excommunication, merely for decorating their shapely heads with a knot of ribbon. Laval, in whose veins ran the proud, hot blood of a Constable of France, and in whose brain burned the fire of a Peter the Hermit, Laval once declared. “A bishop can do what he likes” ; and he not only succeeded in turning the whole government of Canada bottom-side up, but even achieved the final and fatal triumph of rousing the jealous self-will of Louis XIV. himself. Under such a rule, orthodoxy could not fail to remain spotless ; and when the King, after letting loose on the Huguenots his odious dragonnades, ordered this righteous example followed in Canada, the proud reply went back, “Praised be God, there is not a heretic here !”
But now there was a heretic, and this proud Church lay at his feet. Instead of setting up and throwing down at its will governors, intendants, and councils, it had to walk softly before a Protestant King, himself the head of the Church in Canada, as in all British dominions. Instead of fulminating from the rock of Quebec, like a new Pope from a new Rome, the bishop felt happy to plead that, under the Capitulation of Montreal and the treaty of peace, he could lay claim to that humble boon, toleration. And when Briand, the present occupant of the episcopal throne, received permission to be consecrated in France (1766), he thankfully let it be understood that he would be a mere over-shepherd of the sheep, a St. Peter of the first century, not of the thirteenth. No doubt the government dealt fairly and kindly with the Church, and both the higher clergy and the country priests repaid it with gratitude as well as obedience. But — Rome does not change, and Protestant rule could not be enjoyed. (Briand: Maseres, Add. Papers, p. 138. Priests: Murray, Can. Arch., B, 8, p. 1 ; B-007, p. 55. See Chap. XII., Note 22, and the corresponding text.)
All these elements made up what bore the name of “new subjects.” Of the “old subjects,” as the British side of the house was termed, Governor Carleton stood first and most important.
Not precisely a drawing-room ornament was he, for an enormous nose mounted like a geological formation in the middle of his rather shapely face; nor a boudoir delight, for his well-turned lips moulded commands better than compliments, and that half-world of cleverness, manners and meanness called ‘ society ‘ could have pleased him but little. Neither could he expect to be a popular idol; for he was by no means one to mouth his words fondly, until the tasteless concluded they must be honey; to beguile the unwary with facial movements that were outwardly smiles and inwardly chuckles; to inquire with tender unction after a mother or son, the fact of whose existence had been deftly snapped up five minutes before; and to prove his title to great distinction and great power by all manner of smallnesses: little graces, little favors, little flatteries, little ingenuities, little tricks, and services even smaller. Perhaps he might have looked well on a bishop’s throne, for General Riedesel thought he resembled the Abbe Jerusalem exactly (Riedesel, Letters, p. 30. Nose: Gaspé, Mem., p. 127. Portrait: Polit. Mag., 1782, p. 350.) ; but arms were his profession, and personal appearance was the last of his cares.
Had the Athens of Diogenes been his home, we should hear more of the tub perhaps, but certainly not so much of the lantern. Cleaner hands than anybody else “ever entrusted with public money,” he was reputed to have; yet that was not enough to satisfy him, and, on assuming the governorship, he shocked Murray’s friends and angered Murray himself by refusing the fees belonging to his office, — fees based on the capacity of richer provinces, and in his opinion too heavy for Canada. (Clean hands: Polit. Mag., 1782, p. 351. Fees: Can. Arch,, Report for 1890, p. XIII.; Q, 3, p. 411 ; Coffin, Quebec Act, p. 359.)
Essentially, and not merely by profession, he was a soldier, — fearless and inflexible, and General Gage described him as “the best Military Instructor I know” ; yet he regarded a victory over fellow citizens as no cause for rejoicing. ‘ Coach-dog ‘ statesmanship he despised, and he had other uses for his ear than keeping it to the ground. Probably, also, he was — like Washington — too superior, too high-minded, too large, to penetrate all the meanness of small minds, or foresee all the counsels of timidity and selfishness; and no doubt his military instincts and training influenced both his political judgment and his personal likings. Many found him cold, and some looked upon his kind acts as mere policy; but in reality he was no man of bronze. Reserve and even sternness became a great governor and soldier in perilous times; and only a person of heart would have perceived the shrewdness of magnanimity. (Gage to Barrington, Aug. 27, 1774: Can. Arch., QA, 12, p. 203. Victory: letter, Oct. 14, 1776 (Can. Arch., B, 39, p. 219)).
Being human, he was not infallible; but large, long views, broad kindliness, and sane policy beyond the reach of personal ambition or personal resentment he surely possessed. Circumstances as well as merits favored him, too. An inspiring captain without the passions of the fighter, an impartial judge without the bandage which justice has been said to wear, a satrap who refused to be either a courtier or a bandit, a hero without vanity and a man without a price, he had the good fortune to be set in contrast with lyord Germain in the cabinet and with General Burgoyne in the field.
Around the Governor, shading off in the fixed gradations of rank, stood the military men, with all the traditional merits and all the traditional faults of their caste, — honest, spirited, straightforward, haughty, domineering, and prejudiced-(Murray to Lords of Trade, Mar. 3, 1765: Can. Arch., Q, 2, p. 377. ); and beyond them, in a circle that faded away toward the obscurity of stellar space, revolved the British civilian public.
The essential fact about these last was that a wish to make money, not a sentiment, nor a fancy, nor a sense of duty, had led them to settle in a cold,, strange land among an alien people; and no doubt the consciousness of belong- ing to the dominant race had weighed somewhat in their calculations. Most of them had in fact arrived since the Conquest, and perhaps it would not be unfair to suggest that, if they marched for this frigid Canaan under the lead of a Moses, it was a Moses of the modern type.
To tell the truth, what evidence concerning them made its way into the records looked remarkably unpleasant. Murray, soon after the treaty of peace, wrote the London government about “Licentious Fanaticks Trading here,” whom nothing could satisfy except “the expulsion of the Canadians.” Half a year later, he described them as “chiefly adventurers of mean Education, either young beginners, or, if Old Traders, such as had failed in other Countrys” ; adding, “all have their Fortunes to make and [are] little Sollicitous ab- the means.” Even the officials chosen in England for the civil service did not win his heart. “Instead of Men of Genius and untainted Morals, the Reverse were appointed to the most important offices,” he complained. Carleton’s report, dated soon after his arrival, resembled Murray’s ; and, within three years, he deposed the justices of the peace from their jurisdiction in civil cases on the ground that many of them acted oppressively. Men who failed in business took the office, he said, as a means of extortion. And similar uncomplimentary judgments, after the British-Canadians fell out with the government, were often expressed and emphasized beyond the water, in speeches and in pamphlets. (Murray to Board of Trade, Oct. 29, 1764: Can. Arch , Q, 2, p. 233; Mar. 3, 1765: ib p. 377 (Pub. Rec. Off., Colon. Corres., Quebec, 2, pp. 335, 455;; see aiso Can Arch B-008, p. 1. Carleton, Nov. 25, 1767: Can. Arch., Report for 1888, p. 41 ; Mar. 28, 1770 : ib., Report for 1890, p. i. English opinion: e.g., Appeal to the Public, p 19 ; Lyttleton to Pitt, p. 8.)
All this needed to be liberally discounted, however, on account of aristocratic, military, and political prejudices. It was true, no doubt, that a considerable number of these people, particularly those who settled in Canada at the time of the Conquest, were ex-sutlers and discharged soldiers, who made their living as liquor-dealers at retail; and possibly some of them deserved Murray’s description, the most immoral collection of men I ever knew.’ But from this low level, found in all society, the British-Canadian public of 1774 rose into what any commercial standard would accept as high respectability. (Carleton to Hillsborough, Mar 28. 1770: Can A.rch., Q, 7, p. 7. r,iquor- dealers: Carleton before the Commons, Cavendish, Debates, p. 106. Murray: Can. Arch., B, 8, p. i. (By this time Murray had probably been embittered by their opposition; he was soon recalled.)
Many of the traders were the agents of large English houses, and the leading merchants had a firm control of the wholesale business, — particularly the fur trade, the traffic with the Indians, and the foreign commerce. Indeed, Canada was indebted to them for substantially all of its larger affairs. Many carried on extensive operations; and some, like Adam Lymburner of Quebec and Thomas Walker of Montreal, had importance enough to merit the Governor’s recognition as “very respectable merchants.” Not a few bought estates and became ‘seigneurs,’ though substantially all resided in Quebec or Montreal. In a word, Canada could show, after the feebler immigrants had been driven away by the climate or poor success, just the sort of an active, energetic, sharp, rather hard and not over-nice mercantile class that has always adorned the hem of advancing civilization.” (Agents: Seigneurs, Petition (Can. Arch., Q, 4, p. 23). Business operations : Carleton and Maseres before the Commons, Cavendish, Debates, particularly pp. 127, 141. (Tonnancour of Three Rivers, however, was a French Jew. He controlled a great business.) Developed Canada : Hey, Can. Arcli., Q, 12, p. 203. Carleton, Cavendish, Debates, p. 103. Seigneurs: Can. Arch., M, 384, 2, i, p. 233. Poor success: Carl, to Shelburne (Can. Arch., Report for 1888, p. 43).
Such a number of social elements could not circle in their orbits without acting and reacting on one another. Governor Carleton understood and trusted the military class, somewhat misunderstood and considerably disliked the traders, favored the hadiiants because they were really the people of Canada, and perhaps also because the lack of sympathy between him and the British residents made their support especially desirable, protected the Church, preferred the lower clergy, who were Canadian, to the higher clergy who came chiefly from France, and felt a special interest in the noblesse because they were gentlemen, because they were soldiers, and because he believed that ‘through their Interest’ the lower class could be managed. (Carleton: Cavendish, Debates, p. 103; Coffin, Quebec Act, p. 325. Carleton to Shelburne, Nov. 25, 1767: Can. Arch., Q, 5, i, p. 260. Carleton to Hillsborough, Mar. 15, 1769: Can. Arch., Q, 6, p. 34. (See Murray to the same effect : B, 8, p. I ; B, 7, p. 55)
The noblesse — although their poverty had secured them permission to engage in business without losing rank, and had sometimes driven them rather deeply into trade — felt a lordly contempt for the British merchants and probably showed twice as much as they felt ; while, according to Murray, they received plenty of ‘ insults ‘ in return. Toward the Governor, they looked with gratitude and hope as well as obedience. The Church was their revered mother ; and the habitants were unshackled serfs, whose emancipation they as yet hardly realized, and recognized even less.” (In trade: Murray, Report, June 5, 1762 (Can. Arch., B, 7, p. 55) Contempt- Seigneurs, Petition lib., Q, 4, p. 231; Murray to Lords of Trade, Mar. 3, 1765 (ib., Q, 2, p. 377). Insults: Murray to Shelb., Aug. 20, 1766 (ib., 13, 8, p. 1).
The peasants in turn regarded the nobles quite generally as dethroned despots, now to be despised as much as they had once been feared. Indeed, though Murray and Carleton were not in a position to gauge the current, the noblesse began to lose their influence as soon as the authority of France withdrew; while the Canadians, compelled to deal with the British merchants and seigneurs, learned somewhat rapidly various welcome principles of English freedom. The superior activity, wealth, and political skill of the British gave them, in fact, some ascendancy over the natives. In 1766, the Canadians of Montreal, assisted perhaps by fellow citizens of the other tongue, proved their appreciation of the non-military spirit of English law by protesting against the billeting of troops upon them; and that same year some of them, described by the noblesse as “slaves to their creditors,” joined the British residents who petitioned for Murray’s recall. (Attitude; Hey to Chancellor, Aug. 23, 1775: Can. Arch., Q, 12, 203. Ascendancy: Cugnet in Maseres, Add Papers, p. 21 ; Carleton’s implied opinion, Can. Arch., Q, 4, p. 40. Billeting: Can. Arch., Q, 3. pp. 120-170. Petition: Can. Arch., Q, 2. p. 361 (see ib., B, 8, pp. 6, 14J. ‘Slaves’ : Petition of Seigneurs (ib., Q, 4, p. 23)
Toward the Church, the peasantry behaved like an affectionate but self-willed little rogue who discovers that his mother is fond as well as imperious. Released from every legal obligation to pay church dues, a corollary of the Conquest, they soon began to straighten their tired backs; and, even before the treaty of peace, Murray wrote, “they every day take an opportunity to dispute the tythes with their Cures”’ In short, the mass of the Canadians had left their old moorings, and were drifting now in a current of unknown direction and unknown rapidity. Might not some Charybdis or Scylla first reveal their whereabouts to themselves and the world ? (Murray, 1762: Can. Arch., B, 7, p. 56.)
The most prominent British merchant at Montreal was the Thomas Walker already mentioned and often to be mentioned hereafter.
No masterpiece of art, no Raphael or even Hogarth has preserved this gentleman’s features; yet, if Spenser said truly that “Soul is form and doth the bodie make,” it would not be impossible to sketch his portrait. A strongly built man he must have been, — his large bones knit well together, and cushioned with no soft outlines of good-humored flesh. His beardless, raw-red face lay in broadly hewn planes, already a little pendulous at the lower edges in 1775. Short, iron-grey hair bristled up from a bronzed forehead, strikingly seamed ; a long, substantial nose brightened into a deeper red at its keen and downward point ; dark eyes, bloodshot and a trifle watery, glared out from under bushy eyebrows ; and his ears, large and remotely suggestive of a bat’s pinions, hinted also perhaps of a nocturnal and predatory disposition. His ears, did we say ?— but at this period he possessed only one such organ, and this curious fact bore seriously on the fate of nations.
At half-past eight in the evening, December 6, 1764, the Walkers were sitting in the parlor of their handsome house near the Chateau of Montreal. As usual, the cloth had been laid for tea in the hall, a room between the parlor and the street. Mrs. Walker, who was enough like her consort to render the family life piquant as well as affectionate, looked at her watch and remarked. “It is time to go to supper.” Then, on second thought, as Mr. Walker had not been feeling very well that day, she urged him to be served in the parlor. It appears to have required ten or fifteen minutes to adjust this matter, but finally they went into the hall and sat down. (The Walker outrage from the official documents : Can. Arch., Report for 1888, pp. 1-14. See Can. Arch., Q, 4, p. 133. Walker, Memorial: Cont. Cong. Papers, No. 41, X., p. 665. The description of Walker is based upon the scries of documents and events in which he appears. See, e.g., Carleton to Dartmouth, Nov. II, 1774: Pub. Record Off, Colon. Corres., Quebec, 11, p. 17. Mrs. Walker: see, e.g., J. Carroll to Chase and Ch. Canoll, May 28, 1776 (Emmet Coll.).
Close behind Walker a strong door opened into the street, with a sashed door on the inside of it ; and very soon the outside latch began to rattle violently as if some one were in a hurry to enter. “Come in !” Mrs. Walker called out in French; and her husband, turning at the same instant, saw the outer door thrown open and a large number of people in disguise crowding up. Some concealed their faces partially with little round hats ; while others had blackened them, or covered them with crape.
The inner door was instantly burst open, and several of the intruders hurried by the table as if to cut off retreat. Walker bethought himself at once of his bed-room beyond the parlor, where he kept a great number of firearms constantly loaded; but, on turning that way, he received a blow from behind — a broadsword blow, he believed — and, after driving through his assailants, found the door of the bed-room guarded by two men. The rest of the family had escaped meanwhile by another exit from the hall.
Then followed a terrible struggle in the parlor. Walker was set upon, beaten, wounded, and pushed from the bed-room door into a window recess, where, as bethought, only the curtains, tangling themselves about him, prevented hig assailants from dashing his brains out against the stone wall of the house. Here the victim fainted or was stunned; but he quickly came to and heard some one across the room shout,
“Let me come at him; I will dispatch the villain with my sword !”
This roused him; and, breaking away from those in the window, he made a dash in the direction of the voice. Though his eyes were now full of blood, he saw two naked swords aimed at him. One he thrust aside with his left hand, and for some reason the other failed to do execution ; but several men seized him and carried him toward the great fireplace as if to throw him on the burning logs. Wresting himself out of their clutches, after leaving the print of his bloody fingers on the jamb, he was struck on the head with a tomahawk — so the surgeons concluded — and felled to the floor.
There some one dealt him a terrific blow on the loins, and another miscreant sat or kneeled by him for the purpose, apparently, of cutting his throat. Walker bent his head to his shoulder and held his hand to his neck. In the struggle one finger was laid open to the bone, and one ear severed.
“The villain is dead !” exclaimed a voice.
“Damn him, we ‘ve done for him!” answered another ; and they all made off.
But the victim, though he had received not less than fifty-two bruises, besides many cuts, recovered after a painful siege, and set about the detection of his assailants. In November, two years later, three military men and three civilians were charged with the crime and arrested. All were prominent people, and the excitement became intense. Their influence counted powerfully in their favor, of course, while Walker’s high temper had alienated not a few; and, as the evidence appeared far from conclusive, no indictment was brought in. Finally, however, one of the six had to stand trial, but he proved an alibi; and no further prosecution was attempted.
Naturally, this affair produced an immense commotion, bitter and long continued. It even reached the King’s ear. And it was indeed of no little significance, for it illustrated, after all allowances were made for an arbitrary and harsh personalitj’, the high state of tension between the military and the civil elements; for Walker had taken the lead in refusing to billet soldiers upon private houses or permit officers to bleed citizens by having more than one billet at a time. (Can. Arch., Report for 1888, pp. XI., XII. Walker Memorial: Note 37.) Nobody could forget it or undo the effect of the hot feelings it aroused, — least of all. Walker himself. Nine months before the abortive prosecution of his alleged assailants, Murray had removed him from the Commission of the Peace, and his reinstatement by order of the King had no tendency to allay the irritation. Neither did the action of the British settlers in petitioning for Murray’s recall, nor that of the noblesse in sending a counter petition.” (Petitions: Can. Arch., B, 8, pp. 6, 14, 191 ; Q, 4, p. 23.)
« previous – TABLE OF CONTENT – next »