I have peculiar satisfaction therefore, under all these circumstances, in calling your attention to the presentment of the grand jury of Montreal, which I have sent you officially, in which that body adverts to the singularly tranquil and contented state of the province.[8]
[Sidenote: The French question.]
With regard to the French he constantly expressed the conviction that nothing was wanted to secure the loyalty of the vast majority, but a policy of conciliation and confidence. In this spirit he urged the importance of removing the restrictions on the use of the French language:—
[Sidenote: Use of the French language.]
I am very anxious to hear that you have taken steps for the repeal of so much of the Act of Union as imposes restrictions on the use of the French language. The delay which has taken place in giving effect to the promise made, I think by Gladstone, on this subject, is one of the points of which M. Papineau is availing himself for purposes of agitation. I must, moreover, confess, that I for one am deeply convinced of the impolicy of all such attempts to denationalise the French. Generally speaking they produce the opposite effect from that intended, causing the flame of national prejudice and animosity to burn more fiercely. But suppose them to be successful, what would be the result? You may perhaps Americanize, but, depend upon it, by methods of this description you will never Anglicize the French inhabitants of the province. Let them feel, on the other hand, that their religion, their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices if you will, are more considered and respected here than in other portions of this vast continent, who will venture to say that the last hand which waves the British flag on American ground may not be that of a French Canadian?
In the same spirit, when an association was formed for facilitating the acquisition of crown lands by French habitans, he put himself at the head, of the movement; by which means he was able to thwart the disloyal designs of the demagogue who had planned it.
[Sidenote: French unionisation.]
You will perhaps recollect that some weeks ago I mentioned that the Roman Catholic bishop and priests of this diocese had organised an association for colonisation purposes, their object being to prevent the sheep of their pasture (who now, strange as it may appear, emigrate annually in thousands to the States, where they become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Yankees, and bad Catholics into the bargain) from quitting their fold. Papineau pounced upon this association as a means of making himself of importance in the eyes of his countrymen, and of gratifying his ruling passion by abusing England. Accordingly, at a great meeting convened at Montreal, be held forth for three hours to the multitude (the bishop in the chair), ascribing this and all other French-Canadian ills, real or supposed, to the selfish policy of Great Britain, and her persevering efforts to deprive them of their nationality and every other blessing.
In process of time, after this rather questionable start, the association waited on me with a memorial requesting the co-operation of Government, M. Papineau being one of the deputation.
In dealing with them I had two courses to choose from. I had nothing for it, situated as I was, but either, on the one hand, to give the promoters of the scheme a cold shoulder, point out its objectionable features, and dwell upon difficulties of execution—in which case (use what tact I might) I should have dismissed the bishop and his friends discontented, and given M. Papineau an opportunity of asserting that I had lent a quasi sanction to his calumnies; or, on the other, to identify myself with the movement, put myself in so far as might be at its head, impart to it as salutary a direction as possible, and thus wrest from M. Papineau's hands a potent instrument of agitation.