Meanwhile the seigneurs were not idle. In 1767 there was an assembly at Montreal of the noblesse presided over by the Chevalier D’Ailleboust and the petition was signed of remonstrance to the king, dated February 3d, already quoted, against discrimination against them.
This leads us to ask the question: Did the seigneurial body meet in open or secret conclave when their interests were to be safeguarded? Both kinds of conclaves would seem likely. It is certain, however, that such meetings were as far as possible prevented. Garneau “Histoire du Canada,” 4th edit., (Vol. II, page 400) relates that in 1766 Hertel de Rouville in the name of the seigneurs of Montreal applied for permission for the seigneurs to meet, which was granted on condition that two of the Supreme Council should be present with power to dissolve the gathering. When the seigneurs assembled General Burton, who had not been warned, wrote to the magistrates who replied that all was in order. “In any case,” replied the suspicious general, “if you have any need of assistance I will send it you.” The meeting was called by Hertel de Rouville “by a particular order of the Governor and Council” who doubtless thought by conciliating the seigneurs, so far the responsible representatives of the people, that peaceful relations could be maintained with the new subjects.
A document recently unearthed by Mr. Massicotte, at the Court House archives, reveals that on the 3d of March, 1766, the Montreal merchants met in the house of James Crofton, inn-keeper “to protect against the meeting of the seigneurs held in the public court house on Friday, February 21st, 1766.” Their declaration before Edward William Gray, “Notary and Tabellion Publick,”[1] protested that the seigneurs had been unconstitutionally chosen at the different parish meetings to represent the inhabitants of the seignories as agents “without the knowledge or consent of the magistrates of the districts, the commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces or the inhabitants of the city;” that these separate meetings not only for the entire exclusion of His Majesty’s ancient British subjects in general but of the mercantile part of His Majesty’s new subjects, did not make for unity or content. They further protested that “several of His Majesty’s British subjects who are possessed of seignories never received an order or summons to this said meeting.” The declaration further states that upon the principal English and French citizens assembling at the courthouse in order to be present at and know the cause of the public meeting they were informed by Adam Mabane, Esq., one of His Majesty’s council for the province that their presence was not necessary, as the meeting did not regard them and ordered them out. There were two of His Majesty’s justices of the peace present, Isaac Todd and Thomas Brashay, who “the public, thinking they had been given sanction to it, expressed them in such a manner that they sent down their resignation to the governor.” The malcontents withdrew under the impression that representatives for the people were being chosen without their consent. They flattered themselves, however, that when the house of assembly promised in His Majesty’s proclamation should come “His Majesty’s ancient subjects will be permitted at least to have a share in the choice of their representatives.”
The document written in English and French is signed in the former by John Wells, R. Stenhouse, Mathew Lessey, Samuel Holmes, John Stenhouse, G. Young, Joseph Howard, Lawrence Ermatinger, Mathew Wade, James Price, Thomas Barron, Jonas Desaulles, Richard Dobie, William Haywood, John Blake, and in the French by Jean Orilliat, Le Cavelier Pappalon, Le Prohon Dissan, Guy, Am. Hubert, St. Germain, Gagnée, Hervieux, Jacques Hervieux, Lg Bourassa, C. Depré, P. Le Duc, Pillet, Augé, Chenville. The witnesses to both documents are B. Frobisher, John Thomson.[2] The names of the seigneurs given as present at the meeting are, (1) Claude Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, (2) Roch St. Ours Deschaillons, (3) Jacques Michel Hertel de Rouville, (4) Joseph, Michel Legardeur Sr. de Croiselle-Montesson, (5) Joseph Boucher de Niverville, (6) Joseph Godfrey de Normanville, (7) Louis François Pierre Paul Margane de Lavaltrie, (8) Hyacinthe Godfrey de Lintot, (9) Pierre Louis Boucher de Niverville, (10) Louis Gordian or Louis Charles, D’Ailleboust, (11) René Ovide Hertel de Rouville, (12.) Louis Joseph Godefroy de Tonnancourt, (13) Jean François Nepveu, Seigneur d’Autray, (14) Jacques Hyacinthe Simon dit Delorme, Seigneur Delorme (or St. Hyacinthe), (15) Jean Baptiste Normand, Seigneur de Repentigny, (16) Charles Etienne Crevier, Seigneur de St. François, (17) Joseph de Fleury, Sr. d’Archambault, (18) René Boudier de la Breyère, (19) Abbé Etienne Montgolfier (Superior of the Seminary and Seigneur of the Isle of Montreal).
Carleton writing to Earl of Shelburne, one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries (given in Q 5, page 260, “Canadian Archives”), may again be quoted as indicating the grounds on which his toleration of such meetings as the one above recorded.[3]
“Quebec, 25th November, 1767.
“The king’s forces in this province, supposing them compliant to their allowance and all in perfect health, rank and file, would amount to 1,627 men. The king’s old subjects in this province, supposing them all willing, might furnish about five hundred men able to bear arms, exclusive of his troops; that is, supposing all the king’s troops and old subjects collected in Quebec; with two months’ hard labor they might put the works in a tolerable state of repair and would amount to about one-third the forces necessary for its defense. The new subjects could send into the field about eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms; of which number above one-half had already served with as much valour, with more zeal and more military knowledge for America than the regular troops of France that were joined with them. As the common people are greatly to be influenced by their Seigneurs, I annex a Return[4] of the noblesse of Canada, showing with tolerable exactness their age; rank and present place of abode, together with such natives of France as served in the colony troops so early in life as to give them a knowledge of the country, an acquaintance and influence over the people equal to natives of the same rank; from whence it appears that there are in France and in the French service about one hundred officers, all ready to be sent back in case of a war to a country they are intimately acquainted with and with the assistance of some troops to stir up a people accustomed to pay them implicit obedience. It further shows there remain in Canada not more than seventy of those who ever had been in the French service; not one of them in the king’s service nor any one who from any motive whatever is induced to support his government and dominion; gentlemen who have lost their employment at least by becoming his subjects and as they are not bound by any offices of trust or profit we should only deceive ourselves by supposing they would be active in the defense of a people that has deprived them of their honours, privileges, profits and laws and in their stead have introduced much expence, chicannery and confusion with a deluge of new laws unknown and unpublished. Therefore, all circumstances considered, while matters continue in their present state, the most we can hope for from the gentlemen who remain in this province is a passive neutrality on all occasions, a respectful submission to government and deference for the king’s commission in whatever hand it may be lodged; this they almost to a man have persevered in since my arrival, notwithstanding much pains have been taken to engage them in parties by a few whose duty and whose office should have taught them better. * * *
“Having arrayed the strength of His Majesty’s old and new subjects and shewn the great superiority of the latter, it may not be amiss to observe there is not the least probability this present superiority should ever be diminished. On the contrary ’tis more than probable it will increase and strengthen daily. The Europeans who migrate never will prefer the long inhospitable winters of Canada to the more cheerful climates and more fruitful soil of His Majesty’s southern provinces; the few old subjects at present in this province have been mostly left here by accident and are either disbanded officers, soldiers or followers of the army, who not knowing how to dispose of themselves elsewhere, settled where they could at the Reduction; or else they are adventurers in trade or such as could not remain at home, who set out to mend their fortunes at the opening of this new channel for commerce, but experience has taught almost all of them that this trade requires a strict frugality they are strangers to, or to which they will not submit; so that some from more advantageous views elsewhere, others from necessity, have already left this province and I fear many more for the same reason will follow their example in a few years; but while this severe climate and the poverty of the country discourages all but the natives, its healthfulness is such that these multiply daily so that, barring a catastrophe shocking to think of, this country must to the end of time be peopled by a Canadian race who already have taken such a firm root and got to so great a height that any new stock transplanted will be totally hid and imperceptible amongst them except in the towns of Quebec and Montreal.”
This last consideration no doubt largely influenced Carleton in his readiness to uphold the ancient laws and customs. He had not the vision of an English-speaking Dominion such as that of today, of which the British merchants of Montreal and Quebec of the early days with all their faults were laying the sure foundation by their commercial enterprise and dogged pertinacity.
Writing again to Shelburne on December 24, 1767, Carleton reminds his Lordship that the colony had submitted to His Majesty’s arms on certain conditions. He doubtless had in view, good tory as he was, the objection of the noblesse to the institution of a democratic representative assembly already urged by the merchants of Quebec and Montreal with their experience of such in the English colonies, as inimical to the established order of things, for the system of laws so long in vogue before the act of 1763 maintained the subordination between the different social divisions from the highest to the most humble ranks and upheld the harmony now being threatened, thus keeping this far-off province in its loyalty to the crown.