Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Adam Shortt - Страница 15

Table of Contents

The various issues regarding the law, the church, the House of Assembly were set at rest by the Quebec Act. It first provided for an extension of the boundaries of the province. From Chaleur Bay the new boundary followed the old until it reached the St Lawrence, when it diverged, following the eastern bank of the river to Lake Ontario, thence to the Niagara River and the eastern shore of Lake Erie, until it met the boundary of the Province of Pennsylvania, which it followed to the Ohio River. On the south the province was bounded by the Ohio, and on the west by the Mississippi and the limits of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company. On the north Quebec was made to include Labrador and the territory on the continent formerly annexed to Newfoundland.

The coast of Labrador was added to Quebec on account of the disputes which arose in connection with the fisheries. The fisheries regulations of Newfoundland were designed more particularly for the cod fishing, and were inapplicable to the sedentary seal fishing of Labrador, which was confined exclusively to French Canadians.^[1]

The reason for the extension of the province southward is not so obvious. When the proclamation of 1763, defining the boundaries of the Province of Quebec, was being prepared this same question of the southern limits was thoroughly canvassed. The western hinterlands had not then been included, as it would have given support to the conclusion that Britain's title to them depended on the Conquest, and because their annexation to Canada would have given that province a preponderating influence with the Indians and would have involved the establishment of a system of military garrisons.^[2] It would seem that the intention of the British government was to erect this territory into a separate administration, but the difficulties in the way of such a course prevented its execution.

In the disposal of the Ohio valley three courses were open to the British government. It could be constituted a separate province; it could be divided and annexed to the adjoining American colonies; or it could be attached to Quebec. The population of the hinterland was small, and as yet scarcely justified the creation of a distinct government. It would have been entirely inland, and its trade would have afforded fruitful opportunities for complications with the neighbouring provinces, and, considering the attitude of the American colonies in 1774, it is doubtful if there was any inclination to further complicate domestic troubles by adding to the unruly family. There was, therefore, no single adequate reason for creating a separate province. Nor would the situation be improved by annexing the territory to Pennsylvania or Virginia. On general principles these states were not at this time accepting favours from the court of George III. And, above all, the policy of controlling Indian affairs demanded concentration of authority. The value of the western trade depended on the attitude of the natives, and it was the firm conviction of Sir William Johnson and his associates that for the different colonies to meddle in Indian affairs would only prove disastrous. On the other hand, there were valid reasons for attaching this territory to Canada. Such settlement as there was was largely French; its natural line of communication was with the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence. If control over the Indian trade was to be concentrated, Canada was the natural seat for such authority. In addition, the extension of French law and customs to the hinterland would operate as a most effective check on the westward expansion of the revolting colonies, and would serve as a means of enforcing proper subordination.

In the settlement of the laws of the colony Carleton's plan was adopted. In civil cases the laws of Canada were established as the rule of decision except in matters relating to lands granted in common socage or wills made according to the laws of England. Resort to the criminal law of England was made general. To the new subjects the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome was granted subject to the king's supremacy, and the clergy were confirmed in their right to receive their accustomed dues from such as professed the Roman Catholic religion.

No serious change was made in the government of the colony. The act declared it inexpedient to call an assembly, and increased the membership of the existing council to a number not exceeding twenty-three or less than seventeen. Certain restrictions formerly existing were removed from the legislative power of the council, but its authority did not yet extend to levying taxes, except for local purposes.

The Quebec Act manifests a complete change in the attitude of the British government towards Canada. The proclamation of 1763 was the expression of a policy which contemplated the anglicizing of New France. It proposed the introduction of British laws and institutions so far as consistent with the obligations imposed by the Treaty of Paris. The conduct of the American colonies completely reversed the situation. The wisdom of the conquest of Canada was seriously doubted. North, Hillsborough, Germain and the second-rate statesmen who directed British policy thought they saw in the conquest of Canada one of the most potent causes of American disaffection. They looked back to the days when the power of France was supreme on the St Lawrence, and they saw the southern colonies prosperous and faithful in their British allegiance. Their small minds, unable or unwilling to see nearer home the true cause of disaffection, seized on what was little more than a mere coincidence as the root of their colonial troubles. Canada could not now be restored to France, but it could still be made French. Canada would remain British by becoming French, and could then be used as the instrument for subduing the revolting colonies. In a resort to arms the Province of Quebec occupied a position of the greatest strategic importance in any action against the southern colonies. With the loyalty of Quebec assured, French-Canadian troops could be poured into the New England colonies and insurrection soon suppressed.

The object of the Quebec Act was twofold. It was designed, in the first place, to retain the loyalty of French Canada. But it expressed a deeper and more subtle purpose. By intrenching the French-Canadian race on the St Lawrence and by extending French-Canadian dominance to the vast hinterland, it was hoped to break and dispel the force of the rising wave of independence in the southern colonies. The Quebec Act was formed with an eye fixed, not on Quebec, but on Boston.

With this general policy Carleton was in firm accord, but his support was based on other and more practical grounds. The salvation of the American colonies he left to the statesmen of George III.; his concern was the salvation of Canada. The policy of anglicizing Quebec had never won his support. He respected the nationality of French Canada and was determined to protect it against invasion. But the more practical consideration of climate operated against the policy of converting Canada into an English colony.

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 were left at the Reduction; or else they are Adventurers in Trade, or such as could not remain at Home, who set out to meet 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 greatly fear many more, for the same Reasons, 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 the Canadian Race, who already have taken such firm Root, and got 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.^[3]

How was the Conquest to be undone? Every step which had been made in the direction of encouraging English settlement was to be retraced. All the rights and privileges which seemed most cherished by the French Canadians were guaranteed. The church was established in a position of honour and security; the French feudal system, from which the habitant was gladly breaking away, was perpetuated; the French civil law and custom was officially recognized; French Canadians were admitted to the council; trial by jury was denied; English criminal law was maintained only because its severity would the better contribute to the support of French customs. The work of Chatham and Wolfe was to be undone. The New France of Colbert and Talon was to be restored.

A criticism of the Quebec Act must distinguish between its immediate and its more remote results; and both must be viewed in the light of the purpose which inspired the passing of the measure. Its object, as has been seen, was twofold. It did preserve the loyalty of the classes which benefited by it—the clergy and the noblesse—and, in so far as the clergy and the noblesse possessed an influence over them, it retained the loyalty of the habitants. But during the ten years of British civil government—through no fault of theirs—both clergy and noblesse had lost their grip on the mass of the people. The authority of government, under British administration, was weakened. The habitant was given a taste of freedom, and the authority both of priest and of seigneur began to appear in the light of an unnecessary restraint. The French Canadians of this class—and they were numerous—remained loyal, not because of the Quebec Act, but in spite of it. In its more immediate purpose the Quebec Act was therefore only moderately successful. On the other hand, in its ulterior purpose the Quebec Act was a dismal failure; for the New England colonies were not intimidated by the presence of a French nation on the banks of the St Lawrence. The French Canadians they saw to be only passively loyal, refusing to take up arms to invade New England, or, indeed, to be drawn into the dispute between England and her rebellious children. Scarcely had the Quebec Act become law than the British colonies rose in arms, alleging as one of their main grievances the very act that was expected to be a bulwark of English rule in North America. The United States of America is the witness to the failure of this, the real purpose of the Quebec Act.

In considering their more remote results the provisions of the Quebec Act must be examined separately. Between the years 1763 and 1774 a new Canadian law was being formed by the ordinances of the governor and council. This body of law was being framed as occasion arose to meet particular conditions, and consequently differed both from the French-Canadian and the English civil law. French Canada seemed satisfied with this growing body of law, and it is doubtful if the restoration of French-Canadian civil law, as it was prior to 1759, was necessary. As it was, however, a complicated and uncertain code of civil law was perpetuated to cause endless dispute during succeeding years.

The virtue of the Quebec Act was its legal recognition of the Roman Catholic religion. Religion is one of the fundamental interests of the human being, and to a special degree is this true of the French Canadian. It has been the chief concern of his daily life. In 1774, it is true, there was no demand on his part for the legalizing of the payment of tithes. In some cases, where local conditions made the payment of tithes irksome, the government which sanctioned the system was made to bear the burden of its unpopularity. But in later years these minor grievances of the French Canadians were submerged in the assurance that their religion and their church were granted recognition by the British parliament and were thus secure against the attack of impious and designing hands. The clergy was made the ally of the government, and, though at times governors were inclined to doubt the loyalty even of the clergy, the weight of the church was to be found exerted on behalf of the crown and British connection.

From one point of view the Quebec Act proved to be a fortunate expedient. The framers of the Quebec Act had not contemplated the defeat of British arms in the American colonies or the migration of British loyalists to the Province of Quebec. From the time of the Revolutionary War French-Canadian nationalism was placed on the defensive. In passing the Quebec Act the British government unwittingly furnished it with a complete armour of defence. Had there been no bulwark of the Quebec Act to resist the attacks of the narrow, puritanical New England loyalists, a Canadian civil war, with religious prejudices as the inspiring motive, would have been not the least probable eventuality. The intervention of the British government—directed by other purposes—removed from the petty sphere of Canadian politics the question of the status of the Roman Catholic Church in the Province of Quebec. By one stroke it provided a safe solution for an issue which otherwise might have been drawn out into prolonged and bitter dispute.

But for this guarantee of the separateness of the French-Canadian nationality a heavy price was paid. A system of civil law was perpetuated which has proved an impediment to commercial progress and harmonious intercourse between the races. This body of civil law was of such a complicated character that even French lawyers disagreed in its interpretation. When it became necessary to introduce a popular assembly, French and English became arrayed on opposing sides on issues arising out of the interpretation of the civil code. This situation welded the French-Canadian race into a party and was responsible for the complications of 1837. Likewise, the granting by a single act of all the guarantees of French-Canadian nationalism placed nationalism—by nature none too tolerant—completely beyond the sphere of compromise. No further concessions could be made, and consequently the spirit of compromise—so necessary to the welfare of the two Canadian races—was robbed of its means of support.

The Quebec Act was its charter of liberties. It would have been impossible to have submerged the French-Canadian nationality in any race that could then have flourished on the banks of the St Lawrence. Were an assimilation at any time possible—and it is doubtful if ever it were—such a course was finally put out of court by the loyalist invasions. French-Canadian Catholicism and New England Puritanism never could have mixed. The destruction of French-Canadian nationalism, had it been possible, would have been a national calamity. Nationalism has created its problems and will do so in the future, but it contributes to the wealth of the Canadian people an element which simply cannot be estimated. French-Canadian nationality is one of Canada's greatest assets, and for its preservation the credit belongs largely to the church of Quebec. But for the development of French-Canadian nationalism as an uncompromising political creed, with its instinctive tendency towards separation and isolation, the responsibility rests with the Quebec Act of 1774.

Note by the Editor.—Opinions will always differ as to the wisdom of the Quebec Act. A somewhat different appreciation of the evidence is given in the essay which forms the introduction to this volume.

I have not presumed to alter the statement here given, but it must be remembered that in 1774 English commercial law was itself in its infancy, and that as a matter of fact the law of Quebec was able to assimilate most of what was best in it. I doubt if in point of 'simplicity' the English law had any great advantage, and am disposed to think that the writer underestimates the attachment of the French Canadians to their own system, and the tenacity with which they clung to it as being among the chief of their national possessions.

F. P. W.

[1]	See Constitutional Documents, 1759-91, Shortt and Doughty, 1907, p. 359.

[2]	Ibid., p. 111.

[3]	Carleton to Shelburne, November 25, 1767; Constitutional Documents, 1759-1791, Shortt and Doughty, 1907, p. 196.