FOOTNOTES:
[1] The historical development of the churches of Montreal is specially treated in the second part of this volume.
CHAPTER XV
BUREAURACY vs. DEMOCRACY
THE PROPOSED UNION OF THE CANADAS
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT—MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS—FRENCH-CANADIANS AIM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR POLITICAL POWER—THE “COLONIAL” OFFICE AND THE BUREAUCRATIC CLASS VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY—L. J. PAPINEAU AND JOHN RICHARDSON—PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST UNION—THE MONTREAL BRITISH PETITION OF 1822—THE ANSWER OF L.J. PAPINEAU—THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—THE BILL FOR UNION WITHDRAWN. NOTES: NAMES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE FROM 1796 TO 1833—MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT, 1791-1829—PETITION OF MONTREAL BRITISH—1822.
The new Constitution of 1791 was honestly framed with the desire of giving a measure of representative government, but it was used, before long, by an oligarchy of the bureaucratic classes to whom the governors were victims. In Lower Canada the bureaucratic party opposed the French-Canadians and many of those of British origin. Furthermore there was added the development of a race enmity which ended so disastrously in the uprising of the “patriots” in 1837. The political situation was tense for half a century. The fight for mastery was between the legislative and executive council appointed by the Governor, and the legislative assemblies elected by the people.
Montreal felt the strain keenly. Viewed municipally its affairs were regulated from Quebec. The Parliament there exercising similar powers to those of our municipal council of today, but greater. The justices of the peace nominated by the executive council of the Province were but the executive arm carrying out the will of Quebec.