CHAPTER VI

THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC, 1764-74

As the new scheme of government took form, it is clear that at the beginning repression of the French-Canadians was part of the British policy. French law was apparently abolished by the royal proclamation. However strongly this may have been denied five years later by Hillsborough, president of the board of trade in 1763, there is no suggestion at the time that his interpretation was valid.1 Quite apart from this denial, indications of a repressive policy are forthcoming. In relation to religion the evidence is clear. We have seen the guarded guarantee, repeated to Murray, of the peace of Paris. His commission and instructions throw light on the policy. The former 2 ordered him to accept as members of the future assembly only those who had subscribed to the statutory declaration against popery. In the latter 3 he was commanded to give all possible encouragement to the erection of protestant schools, to the maintenance of protestant ministers, and to the provision of protestant schoolmasters, to the end that the church of England may be established both in principles and practice, and that the said inhabitants may by degrees be induced to embrace the protestant religion and their children be brought up in the principles of it'. He was to see that the inhabitants conform with great exactness to the stipulations of the treaty' in 'professing the worship of their religion'. The saving clause in the treaty rendered it ambiguous, and the governor's orders not to admit of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the see of Rome', if carried out, must have meant the disappearance of the religious organiza

1 Hillsborough to Carleton, March 6, 1768, Kennedy, op. cit., p. 57. 2 Shortt and Doughty, op. cit., p. 175.

3 Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 32 ff.

tion inherently necessary to the worship of the Roman catholic church. There was also a remarkable omission. When the French commander had asked, at the capitulation of Montreal, that the Canadians be obliged by the English government to pay their priests the tithes... they were used to pay under the government of his most Christian majesty', he was told that the obligation would depend on the king of England's pleasure.1 The tithe had been a source of clerical income since 1663 and had been regularly paid since 1667, under an order from the sovereign council. During the 'régime militaire' neglect had set in. Murray's instructions did nothing to conciliate the clergy in this connexion. The already existing suspicion with regard to religion was thus increased, and the good faith of the treaty was further questioned.

Did this evidence stand by itself it would be strong enough. It is supported by an official contemporary interpretation of the religious concession. Murray was informed, in the announcement of his appointment as governor, that the king suspected that the Canadians would use the liberty granted of professing their religion to hold on to the French connexion and to combine for the recovery of their country. The priests must be narrowly watched, and the slightest suspicion of interference by them in civil affairs must be punished by removal. The gift of the treaty was a mere toleration. When, during the peace negotiations, the French ministers proposed that after the grant of liberty of the Catholic religion' the words comme ci-devant should be inserted, they did not abandon the demand until they were told that such words would be a deception and that the laws of Great Britain must prevail. The idea may still survive

1 Kennedy, op. cit., p. 10.

2 'Un Épisode de l'histoire de la Dîme au Canada,' par M. l'abbé A. Gosselin (Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 2nd series, vol. ix, sect. i, pp. 45 ff.).

3 Egremont to Murray, August 13, 1763, Shortt and Doughty, op. cit. pp. 168 ff.

6

6

that the phrase as far as the laws of Great Britain permit' was merely a legal tag, like the laws of King Edward' in the early Norman charters; but such valid contemporary comment proves the unreality of the idea.

Opposition to the policy was at once apparent. Lord Mansfield wrote to Bute's successor, George Grenville, against the whole tenor of the administrative proposals in the royal proclamation. In Quebec the French-Canadians early petitioned against the probable withdrawal of concessions,2 and Murray himself began a liberal rule with deviations from the letter of his orders and with protests against repression. In asking for religious privileges in Quebec, denied to Roman catholics at home, he was specially emphatic, promising that perhaps the bravest and the best race upon the globe' would thus become the most faithful and most useful set of men in this American empire'. He prayed that his retirement might be granted if 'the popish laws must be exerted with rigour' against the people whom he loved and admired. In the darkest days of his recall, he was content to defend his conduct by saying that 'he could not be prevailed upon to persecute his majesty's Roman catholic subjects in Canada', though he thus displeased the little protestant traders, who all-Quakers, Puritans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Atheists, Infidels, and even Jews-joined in protesting against any consideration being paid to the poor Canadians 2.5 Murray's attitude in this period is not isolated. His successor, Carleton, saw in the suppression of French law an unparalleled severity, especially as he considered that Quebec, barring catastrophe shocking to think of', would always remain pre

1 Mansfield to Grenville, December 24, 1764, Grenville Papers, vol. ii, p. 476. 2 Shortt and Doughty, op. cit., p. 229.

3 Murray to the Lords of Trade, October 29, 1764, ibid., p. 231

• Murray to Lord Eglinton, October 27, 1764, Letter Book of General Murray (Canadian Archives).

5 Draft answers to the Articles of Complaint, n. d., Murray Papers, bundle vii (Canadian Archives).

dominantly French.1 His official dispatches are full of almost passionate pleading against a policy which abstract justice and local circumstances alike condemned.

The general fear and dissatisfaction resulted in a gradual mitigation of the letter of the law. Late in 1764, Murray was instructed that the royal proclamation should not be rigidly adhered to in taking away from the native inhabitants the benefit of their own laws and customs in cases where titles to land and modes of descent, alienation, and settlement are in question, nor to preclude them from that share in the administration of judicature which both in reason and justice they are entitled to, in common with the rest of our subjects'. Where life and liberties were concerned British laws and constitution' must prevail. Within a few years French-Canadian jurors and French-Canadian lawyers were given a legal status, and the old land-laws were confirmed. In ecclesiastical affairs concessions were finally winked at. At first, when the chapter of Quebec elected M. de Montgolfier bishop the British government did not recognize the election, and it was annulled at Rome, and for a long time no formal permission could be obtained for an appointment. Through influence in London, Murray gradually forced the issue. Mgr. Briand was appointed bishopdesignate, and after personal negotiations he was informed that the government would have no objection to his consecration and to his residence in Quebec, but would not recognize his title as bishop. Briand was quietly consecrated at Paris. He arrived at Quebec the day Murray sailed for England, and quickly assumed the full episcopal authority and style.a

In time the inherent difficulties of government might have

1 Shortt and Doughty, op. cit., pp. 284, 289.

2 Dartmouth MSS., M. 383, 50 (Canadian Archives).

3 Cf. Cramahé to Murray, London, February 9, 1765, Murray Papers (Canadian Archives). Murray had opposed Montgolfier as a man too haughty and imperious': Doutre and Lareau, op. cit., p. 541.

4 See l'abbé A. Gosselin, L'Église du Canada après la Conquête, vol. i, 1760-75 (Quebec, 1916).

been surmounted, had it not been for the presence in the province of a few hundred British traders, on whom Murray lavished the wealth of a caustic pen. Grouping them with the adventurers who are the usual by-product of war and conquest, he characterized them as licentious fanatics', 'the most immoral collection of men I ever knew,' cruel, ignorant, rapacious fanatics', wild and mad '1 In more guarded language Carleton described them as, on the whole, fortunehunters. When all due allowances are made for the irritation which they caused to these two high-minded governors in a hard and trying situation, it is well to remember that there were among them men of honour and honesty who did not a little to lay the economic foundations of the province. In addition many of them had become settlers relying on the promise of British institutions and laws. When they saw the policy of conciliation taking form in actual administration, it was almost natural that they should proclaim that they had been grossly deceived. Among the best of them there was a strain of New England puritanism which carried with it no very happy memories either in tradition or experience of priest or prelate. Even had their political theory been somewhat modern, their religious affiliations would have prevented them from displaying any tolerant spirit. Almost at once they began to call for a house of assembly, and they soon became more persistent in their demands, as they watched with dismay sacrosanct British institutions and laws recede farther and farther from them down the full tide of concession and liberalism. For ten years they carried on an agitation that varied from sobriety and reason to tactlessness and folly, and included every line of attack. To follow its course in detail is here unnecessary,

1

Murray to the Lords of Trade, October 29, 1764, Shortt and Doughty, op. cit., p. 231; Murray to Burton, January 8, 1764; same to Eglinton, October 27, 1764; The Letter Book of General Murray; same to Shelburne, August 20, 1766, Haldimand Papers, B. 8, p. 1.

2 Shortt and Doughty, op. cit., p. 284.