Chapter 3: , page 89 (49)

"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal
supplies of men and money, and the American colonies,
encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised
large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as
commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three
expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux,
assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his
force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to
be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders.
Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to
descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army
before Quebec. … Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received
warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a
small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not
expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to
sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more
important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the
alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from
Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of
two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two
battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined
by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their
march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a
difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under
Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post,
and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and
on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles
east of the mouth of the Niagara. … Prideaux began his
trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from
the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle,
and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily
advancing the work … when, on the 19th, he was killed by the
bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the
trenches, where he had gone to issue orders.
{377}
Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but
before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General
Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of
Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and
Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the
beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the
French officers and men being slain or captured. This took
from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following
day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut
off from communication with the east, and had given up a large
part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve
Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu'
Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel
Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The
detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked
by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation
(Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the
forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat
more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at
Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining
the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his
army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved
down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats,
bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men
had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats
nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard,
pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a
detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and
scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed
on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was
learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400
men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their
outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for
several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion,
during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the
burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the
French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and
Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops,
and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder.
… After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost
about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and
complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were
raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to
attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to
reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the
French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that
Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the
northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance
to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small
detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his
time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts,"
until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the
help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate
and useless preparations."

_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 18._

ALSO IN:
_E. Warburton,
Conquest of Canada,
volume 2, chapter 9._

_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 2, chapter 4._

CANADA: A. D. 1760.
The completion of the English conquest.
The end of "New France."

"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet
completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken
Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure
to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and
the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm,
gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made
preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. … After
several fruitless attacks had been made on the British
outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels
yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores
still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of
April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the
river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole
amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in
charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery,
and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men
had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered
in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten
miles away. Their position, however, had been very much
strengthened. … De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the
27th advanced to within three miles of the city."

_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 21._

"On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,
left the advantageous ground which he first occupied, and
hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under
Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being
surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine
train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear
to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it
more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]
opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the
works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,
labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to
light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened
to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and
prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the
city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my
love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the
Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the
15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or
seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every
happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;
abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and
hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had
no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada
but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from
a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six
battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited
from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army
of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting
there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon
Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking
possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the
helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives
except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,
he met before Montreal the army of Murray.
{378}
The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;
and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George
was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. … The
capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,
against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was
said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes
Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the
Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the
terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was
thought of. … On the fifth day after the capitulation,
Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to
the upper posts. … The Indians on the lakes were at peace,
united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in
a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The
Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of
Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the
country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac
and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you
dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied
the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to
remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the
calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter
then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following
spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
volume 2, pages 522-524._

ALSO IN:
_W. Smith,
History of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 7
(giving the Articles of Capitulation in full)._

_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapters 29-30 (volume 2)._

CANADA: A. D. 1763.
Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
The Province of Quebec created.
Eleven years of military rule.
The Quebec Act of 1774.
Extension of Quebec Province to the
Ohio and the Mississippi.

"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada
was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec,
Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three
departments into which General Amherst divided the country.
Military councils were established to administer law, though,
as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but
settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the
king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new
governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St.
John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen
Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,
and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it
was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the
smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government
of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in
the letters-patent by which these governments were
constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and
consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as
was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the
King's immediate government.' … No assembly, however, ever
met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take
the test oath, and the government of the province was carried
on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an
executive council, composed in the first instance of the two
lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief
justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others
chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to
1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly
on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws
actually in force. … The province of Quebec remained for
eleven years under the system of government established by the
proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the
first time in Canadian affairs and made important
constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been
created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great
Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed
prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old
possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States
of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a
system of government was granted to Canada by the express
authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the
Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the
province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On
one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New
England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the
left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's
Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to
Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of
the province of Quebec. … The Act of 1774 was exceedingly
unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies,
then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament,
however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust
the government of the province so as to conciliate the
majority of the people. … The new constitution came into
force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons
for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation
of 1763 were 'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of
the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the
conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of
the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of
constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and
property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long
series of years, from the first establishment of the
province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics
should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only
the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was
entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed
by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an
assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than
twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the
power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief
for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare,
and good government of the province. They had no authority,
however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the
inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to
assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary
local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a
majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted
within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for
approval or disallowance.
{379}
It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy,
relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had
to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of
England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal
code which might have prevailed before 1764. … Roman
Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with
perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their
'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as
professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic
population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many
years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and
Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was
inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord
Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of
twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."

_J. G. Bourinot,
Manual of Constitutional History of Canada,
chapters 2-3._

ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
pages 90-96._

See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Invasion by the revolting American colonists.
Loss and recovery of Montreal.
Successful defence of Quebec.

At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which
subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain,
the United States of America, it was believed among them that
Canada would join their movement if the British troops which
occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief,
the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775,
adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair
without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and
taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green
Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would
not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take
possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other
measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the
peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found
it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected
expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was
prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was General
Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British
service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be
supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by
Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go
down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold,
with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River,
cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the
very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been
with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of
Canada—if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia
might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his
small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to
Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by
defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the
Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River
Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St.
Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent
intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now
defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of
November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy.
It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has
been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth
is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the
outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada
had been laid. … General Carleton escaped from Montreal,
and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars
under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in
time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St.
Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The
energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec
is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over
dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached
consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The
Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current
being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks.
Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of
food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied
them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St.
Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at
Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of
Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec
men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men,
supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the
defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few
seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity
of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the
citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in
companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count
upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were,
however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of
December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by
escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought
to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and
Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St.
Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the
Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have
forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both
cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie
the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He
escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second
entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in
confusion. The American generals have been criticized by
experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing
on the Plains of Abraham. … General Arnold remained before
Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men.
General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the
defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest
success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the
French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success.
Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early
in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and
Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men
of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides
artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to
Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade
encamped at Three Rivers.
{380}
The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers,
but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back
from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain,
and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying
Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been
before the first attack in the year before."

_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 6, section 3._

ALSO IN:
_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapters 19-29,
and volume 2, chapters 1-4._

_J. Sparks,
Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,
chapters 3-5,
(Library of American Biographies, volume 3)._

_J. Armstrong,
Life of Richard Montgomery
(Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

_C. H. Jones,
History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776._

_J. J. Henry,
Arnold's Campaign against Quebec._

CANADA: A. D. 1776.
General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CANADA: A. D. 1777.
Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D 1783.
Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great
Britain and the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.
Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United
States.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

CANADA: A. D. 1791
The Constitutional Act.
Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.

"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province
into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so
drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in
Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in
Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who
urged that the separation of the English and French
inhabitants was most undesirable. … The act was passed, and
is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. … In each
province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a
Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor
had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to
reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon,
prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to
convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative
Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in
Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King
for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General.
The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s,
freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly
value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The
number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the
Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16
members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new
Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences
arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative
Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies,
differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still
went on between the French and English races. … The
discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."

_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 112-133._

_D. Brymner,
Report on Canadian Archives, 1890,
appendix B._

CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815.
The War of Great Britain with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).

CANADA: A. D. 1818.
Convention between Great Britain and the United States
relating to Fisheries, etc.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.

"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of
the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the
loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada,
heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have
admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E.
loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its
political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its
prominent members belonged to the class which in the American
colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson,
and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to
destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the
American revolution. … By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or
cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly
combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its
best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather
set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of
religion."

_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 10, section 2._

"Upper Canada … has long been entirely governed by a party
commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family
Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party
designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very
little of family connection among the persons thus united. For
a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to
its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices,
by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive
Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it
maintained influence in the legislature by means of its
predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a
large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the
Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as
they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted
quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing
struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the
real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high
offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal
profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by
grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the
waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the
chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves
almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk
of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born
inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it
before the last war with the United States; the principal
members of it belong to the church of England, and the
maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one
of its distinguishing characteristics."

_Earl of Durham,
Report on the Affairs of British North America,
page 105._

"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not
confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar
results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or
another been a familiar one in all the British North American
colonies. … The designation Family Compact, however, did not
owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists,
but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."

_J. C. Dent,
The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion,
chapter 3._

{381}

CANADA: A. D. 1837.
The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.

"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose.
A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the
legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the
majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by
the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The
home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious
and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management
of a colony—a 'British party' devoted to the so-called
interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of
command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority
in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions
of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as
to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their
service officials whom the representative' assembly had
condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their
salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The
representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the
Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by
appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to
be within their reach at the time. The colony—for indeed on
these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong,
was so near to being of one mind that we may take the
declarations of public meetings as representing the
colony—demanded that the legislative council should be made
elective, and that the colonial government should not be
allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their
pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied
by refusing to listen to the proposal. … It is not necessary to
suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were
in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt
that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the
mere differences of race. … At last the representative
assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on
any further business. They formulated their grievances against
the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary
conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition
of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be
elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and
violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the
leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion
in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had
risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his
undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal
in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he
afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader
of the movement to protest against the policy of the
governors, and that of the Government by whom they were
sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which
undoubtedly rather strong language was used. … Lord Gosford,
the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who
had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau
himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued
warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular
Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once
left the country; others against whom warrants were issued
were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their
friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who
have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements,
the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed
itself into open rebellion."

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 3._

Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both
Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic
grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set
apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant
Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to
Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to
2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the
Province. Three objections were made against continuing these
Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart.
The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive
Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these
lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for
'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the
Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively
the Church of England, which was established by law in the
mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all
Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second
objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for
the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in
which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did
not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made,
every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not
cleared for years the people complained that they were not
utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform
civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and
people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An
additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the
government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into
the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a
Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the
Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and
it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the
issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley
Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to
be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a
class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a
race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was
tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. …
The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of
Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with
or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William
Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr.
Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada,
chapter 16._

ALSO IN:
_J. McMullen,
History of Canada,
chapters 19-20._

_Earl of Durham,
Report and Dispatches._

_Sir F. B. Head,
Narrative._

_Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the
grievances complained of in Lower Canada,
(House of Commons, February 20, 1837)._

{382}

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.
The Burning of the Caroline.

"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the
constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put
down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak
in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of
the population was disaffected to the government, there were
some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was
completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of
December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the
policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall,
and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the
Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm
came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the
command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque
figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar
to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours
had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among
the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The
alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were
formed in the market square during the night and well armed.
In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were
not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and
discharged men from both the naval and military services. …
Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had
occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were
driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day
and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of
the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the
House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and
adherents in the course of the night and following day, and,
seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to
Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day,
at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the
Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept
during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and
till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his
scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above
Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of
American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of
a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence,
the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford
(where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the
command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel
Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at
Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in
length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the
Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides
with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over
the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous
leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the
Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an
American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A
small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the
insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy
Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other
military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide
whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to
destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United
States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American
port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel
Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at
night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf,
fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over
the Falls.

_Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 12._

"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled
with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some
of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's
Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth.
But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and
after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even
Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were
allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected
to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada.
chapter 16, section 15._

On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was
very commonly called "the Patriot War."

ALSO IN:
_C. Lindsey,
Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie,
volume 2._

_J. C. Dent,
Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the
Caroline.
The McLeod Case.

The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D.
1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great
Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an
American named Durfree was killed. The British government
avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary
measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van
Buren [President of the United States] went out of office
whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. …
In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to
New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,
and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and
thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and
the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause
immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of
course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod
was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York
courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.
… Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President
Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand
from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal
was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.
Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of
McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,
diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and
then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with
the British government. … His first step was to instruct the
Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was
imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,
furnishing them with authentic information that the
destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that
therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. …
{383}
This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent
peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,
who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general
government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York
in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to
release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's
instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for
trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our
government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when
McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was
a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was
killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the
way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened
at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions
between England and the United States.

_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 8._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Seward,
Works,
chapter 2, pages 547-588._

_D. Webster,
Works,
volume 6, pages 247-269._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
Reunion of the provinces.
The opposition of races.
Clear Grits and Conservatives.

"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before:
it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province;
and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought
into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly
opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as
much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the
author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the
measure was directed against their nationality. But since the
Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been
superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the
protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to
the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed
under a Governor-General with a single legislature,
consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before,
of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House
elected by the people. Each province was to have the same
number of representatives, although the population of the
French Province was at that time much larger than that of the
British Province. The French language was proscribed in
official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent,
constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes,
necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only
weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and
even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most
likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of
organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their
manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united
among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a
happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.'
Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to
their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to
their leaders, became politically dominant. The British
factions began to bid against each other for their support,
and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing
the use of the French language in official proceedings was
repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual.
The Premiership was divided between the English and the French
leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double
name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The
French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of
patronage; of public funds they got more than their full
share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods
they contributed far less than their quota to the public
revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper
Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in
contravention of the principle of religious equality and
severance of the Church from the State. In time it was
recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have
a majority from each section of the Province. This practically
almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French
nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually
the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since
been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party,
playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege,
by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing
the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common
treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going
Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of
the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a
Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the
secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that
question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to
French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus
come over the character and relations of parties. French
Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis
of the Conservative party. British Canada became the
stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky
combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now
commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was
its fruit."

_Goldwin Smith,
Canada and the Canadian Question,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_W. Houston,
Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 149-185._

_J. G. Bourinot,
Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada,
chapter 5._

CANADA: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the
Ashburton Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its
abrogation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.

CANADA: A. D. 1864.
The St. Albans Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
Fenian invasions.

The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its
most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from
the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian
volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,
expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an
insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900
men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on
the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at
destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the
Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th
battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.
Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the
Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian
forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with
a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.
{384}
Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching
to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee
to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,
was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the
skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,
and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian
expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital
at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border
from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.
The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against
the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel
O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was
easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to
arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again
made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against
Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American
commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed
the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,
though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,
the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.
These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in
effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the
maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different
points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of
citizen soldiery however resulted."

_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
pages 468-470._

ALSO IN:
_G. T. Denison, Jr.,
The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.
Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.
Official Report of General John O'Neill._

CANADA: A. D. 1867.
Federation of the provinces of British North America in the
Dominion of Canada.
The constitution of the Dominion.