The constitutional struggles of this period so affected the life of Montreal, that to preserve a true picture we must still study their history. Passion always showed itself there more than elsewhere.
The war with the United States being over, the prevailing sentiment of all parties was one of loyalty to Great Britain. To none was this more attributable than to the French-Canadians, for they saw that an alliance with the States would swamp them politically and subvert their religion. They turned their attention to securing a strong hold on the management of government with the intention of strengthening the position granted them by the Quebec and Constitutional acts in the retainment of their laws, institutions and customs. They were learning self-government. They were beginning to demand a form of responsible government. Not, indeed, as it was afterwards understood, for it took the form only of desiring an elective council, one that, being outside crown nomination, would give them real power to control revenues. This the Governors, acting under instructions from the Colonial Office, were not prepared to grant. Canada was to be ruled as a colony from Downing Street. It was in statu pupillari.
The history of the next twenty-five years and more reveals the efforts of the two classes; on the one hand, of the Governors, the legislative council, the office holders under government, British and French-Canadians and the wealthier British merchants, whose interests lay in being in combination with the governing classes; and on the other, the majority of the people feeling their power, using their new freedom and striving democratically to make their numerical superiority give them the dominance they thought their right. Add to this the natural tendency of any democratic assembly to assert itself and to claim the fullest of powers for itself. Hence the House of Assembly, reflecting the people, is seen to be in constant opposition to the executive council, sometimes extravagantly asserting itself and running to extremes. Thus attacked, the bureaucratic party grew nearer together. Hence two spirits of suspicion and race enmity were being formed. All this was reflected in the life of the people and nowhere more strongly than in Montreal.
It would be tedious to follow the various sessions of Parliament, even to watch the Montreal county and town representatives such as the members for Montreal West, L.J. Papineau, the son of Joseph Papineau, now being in the ascendant and the incarnation of the most advanced Canadian pretensions, and Mr. Richardson, a Montreal merchant, a member of the council of legislature who represented the British minority, strongly siding with the government. The tension existing between the two parties was voiced by Mr. Richardson in 1821, when he exclaimed: “How can we (the legislative council) rescind our resolutions when there is a secret committee sitting in the House of Assembly which is, perhaps, deliberating on the appointment of the governor of their choice and on the removal of the person now in the castle, and putting their own in his place. The committee even sits without the knowledge of several members of the house of which there is no example in England except in the times of Charles I. The committee is, perhaps, a committee of public safety.” (“Christie,” Vol. II, page 72.)
The words produced a hurricane. The assembly passed resolutions calling for Mr. Richardson’s removal from all posts of honour. The adverse state of feeling may be best described by the passion aroused over a supposed act for the union of the two provinces in 1822, when the legislatures were to be united under the name of “the legislative council and assembly of the Canadas.” The bill was introduced in the English parliament by Sir Wilmot Horton, Under Secretary of State of the Colonies. It was opposed by Sir James McIntosh and others on the ground that Canada had not been made aware of the contemplated changes, which was very true. Consequently the bill was delayed.
In November Lower and Upper Canada were preparing their petitions for and against the proposed union, both French and English names being attached to the petition. Quebec was against it; Montreal district was divided. The French constitutional committee also refuted it. The names of those present embrace the Honourables: L.J. Papineau (chairman); Chs. de St. Ours, M.L. C.; L.R.C. de Léry, M.L.C.; P.D. Debartzch, M.L.C.; Chs. de Salaberry, C.K. and M.L.C.; and Messrs. Louis Guy, Frs. Derivières, D.B. Viger, M.P. P., J. Bouthillier, J. Bedard, J.R. Roland, H. Cuvillier, M.P.P., H. Henry, M.P.P., F.A. Quesnel, M.P.P., Louis Bourdage, M.P.P., F.A. Larocque, J. Quesnel, and R.J. Kimber. Eventually L.J. Papineau and Mr. John Neilson were chosen to proceed to England to represent the non-union case. Lower Canada as such prepared a petition against the union. It is claimed to have been signed by 60,000 by signature or by a mark. The Montreal bulky petition of twenty-nine pages in favour of the union from His Majesty’s “dutiful and loyal subjects of British birth and descent, inhabitants of the city and county of Montreal” bore 1,452 signatures and the date, December, 1822. The committee in charge of forwarding the petition was: John Richardson (chairman); C. W. Grant; J. Stuart; S. Gerrard; George Garden; Fred’k W. Ermatinger; Samuel Gale; G. Moffatt; John Molson; John Fleming. Mr. Stuart was chosen to present the case for union in England.
The petition represented that the division of the Province of Quebec into two provinces has been prolific of evil; that it has resulted in that the English population of Lower Canada has been rendered inefficient from the comparative smallness of their numbers since the whole power of the representative branch of the government had been given to the French-Canadians, so that of fifty members who represent Lower Canada only ten are English; that the assembly may indeed be said to be exclusively in possession of the uneducated peasantry of the country, under the management and control of a few of their countrymen whose personal importance, in opposition to the interests of the country at large, depend on the continuance of the present vicious system; that the speaker elected by the assembly was never of English origin “although if regard had been had to ability, knowledge and other qualifications, a preference must have been given to persons of that description;” that the French-Canadian population hitherto unused to political power had not used it with moderation, so that British emigration had been prevented; that the advancement of the colony was paralyzed; agriculture and “all commercial enterprise and improvement have been crippled and obstructed and the country remains with all the foreign characteristics which it possessed at the time of the conquest; that is, in all particulars French. The division into two provinces would result in Upper Canada availing itself of the advantages offered to trade with American seaports through the new canal system being elaborated by the state of New York. Secondly it has resulted in the continual disputes between Upper and Lower Canada respecting revenues from import duties, which can only be settled by the union of the provinces under one legislature. The petition refers to the desire of the French to establish a separate nation under the nature of the “Nation Canadienne.” The petitioners in conclusion beg leave to “specify succinctly the benefits to be expected from a Union of the Provinces. By this measure the political evils complained of in both Provinces would be removed. The French population in Lower Canada, now divided from their fellow subjects by their national peculiarities and prejudices and with an evident disposition under the present system to become a separate people, would be gradually assimilated to the British population of both Provinces; and with it moulded into one people of British character and with British feelings. All opposition of interest and cause of difference between the Provinces would be forever extinguished: an efficient Legislature, capable of conciliating the interests of the Colony with those of the Mother Colony, and providing for the security and advancing the agricultural and commercial prosperity of the country, would be established, by means of which the international improvement of both Provinces would not only be rapidly promoted with the consequent benefits thereto arising from Great Britain, but the strength and capacity to resist foreign oppression be greatly increased: the tie of connection between the Colony and the Parent State would be strengthened and confirmed and a lasting dependence of the Canadas on the latter be ensured, to the mutual advantage of both.”
Having given the British view of the situation it would only be just to give that of the other side. Analysis of their various petitions shows that they relied mainly on the wisdom of the Government in its past enactments which had been successful so that the country was progressing in agriculture and commerce in spite of great obstacles. The differences that had arisen between Upper and Lower Canada relative to revenues were not in consequence of the division of the two provinces but of temporary causes which could easily be removed by the acts of the executive legislature. The Union of the Provinces would only resuscitate dissension resulting from differences of language, religion, laws and other local interests. The new bill was directed against the dearest interests of nine-tenths of the population of this province. Allusion was made to the injustice of the new bill which would make English the language of debate, would exclude many from being elected to the Assembly and would give humiliating preference to the members of the Assembly from Upper Canada by affording the minority an equal representation with those of the Lower Province, whose population was five times as numerous.
It may be well here to allow the criticisms of Mr. L.J. Papineau to supply an element underlying the opposition of the opponents of the bill. In a letter to Mr. R.J. Wilmot, M.P., 23 Montague Square, London, Mr. Papineau alluding, doubtless, to the Montreal pro-union petition of which he had known, and speaking for his committee, wishes to dispel the odious aspersions on the great body of the people in this province, contained in several communications intended for England: “such as assertions that the opposition, manifested in this province on the part of the population so stigmatized, is the effect of prejudices alone; alluding to their supposed attachment for France and French principles; calling them foreigners (foreigners in their own land!). The bill in question, say these friends of the union, being so well calculated to Anglify the country which is to be ultimately peopled by the British race. * * * The preposterous calumny against the Canadians of French origin as to their supposed attachment for France requires no further answer than that which is derived from their uniform conduct during the wars and the loyalty evinced by them on every occasion. They are not foreigners in this, the land of their birth; they claim rights as British subjects in common with every other subject of His Majesty in these colonies. By what they call Anglifying the country is meant the depriving the great majority of the people of this province of all that is dear to men, their laws, usages, institutions and religion. An insignificant minority wish for a change and are desirous of ruling against every principle of justice by destroying what they call Canadian influence, that is to say, the influence of the majority of men entitled to the same rights as themselves, of the great mass of the natives. * * * Great Britain wants no other Anglifying in this country than that which is to be found in the loyalty and affection of the inhabitants, no other British race than that of natural born subjects, loyal and affectionate.”
The opinion of the legislative council of Lower Canada is finally to be recorded. In its petition it gives its fixed and determined opinion that the union of the two legislatures in one would only tend directly to enfeeble and embarrass His Majesty’s government and finally to create discontent in the minds of His Majesty’s faithful subjects in this colony. Upper Canada was quite satisfied with the existing conditions. The chief agitators, therefore, for the bill were to be found in Montreal and with them sided the Eastern Townships.