• Aboriginals in North America
  • Beast Literature
  • Canadiana.1
  • Dances & Music
  • Europe: Ukraine & Russia
  • Fables and Fairy Tales
  • Fables by Jean de La Fontaine
  • Feasts & Liturgy
  • Great Books Online
  • La Princesse de Clèves
  • Middle East
  • Molière
  • Nominations
  • Posts on Love Celebrated
  • Posts on the United States
  • The Art and Music of Russia
  • The French Revolution & Napoleon Bonaparte
  • Voyageurs Posts
  • Canadiana.2

Micheline's Blog

~ Art, music, books, history & current events

Micheline's Blog

Tag Archives: Company of One Hundred Associates

New France: Once Upon a Time…

04 Friday May 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Canada, History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Compagnie des Cent-Associés, Company of One Hundred Associates, fur-trade, Hudson's Bay Company, Louis Hébert, New France, Pierre-Esprit Radisson, Régiment de Carignan-Salières, Voyageurs posts

LOUIS HÉBERT (c. 1575 – January 1627): the First Farmer
 

Before I write further on the subject of Nouvelle-France’s viability, we need to return to the blog I posted earlier this week: The Treaty of Paris (1763) and the Fate of the Canadiens. A few sentences disappeared as drafts were saved.

For instance, the section devoted to the Company of One Hundred Associates lost its last sentences.

Louis Hébert, Nouvelle-France first farmer

However, it would not be unreasonable to think that the Associates played one role only, which was to send settlers to New France or bring settlers to New France and that, as a consequence, farming may have been limited. The individuals who were granted a SEIGNEURIE were not necessarily persons who could run a farming community.

The official reason given by the Company of One Hundred Associates for abandoning its mission in New France was hostility on the part of Amerindians. Settlers were being killed. The Associates played one role only: sending or bringing in settlers. The colony was attacked several times by hostile Amerindians, which means that the company did not ensure the safety of the settlers.

Medical Care

Moreover, in this part of the North-American continent, life was harsh. There were epidemics of scurvy. It was therefore necessary to bring in not only a regiment, but also medical practitioners. Had arrangements been made to that effect?

Louis Hébert as Apothecary

Canada’s first settlers who actually farmed the land were Louis Hébert (c. 1575 – January 1627) and his wife Marie Rollet.  Louis Hébert was an apothecary in Paris. His arrival dates back to the earliest days of New France and it was a blessing. He first went to Port-Royal, the main settlement in Acadie. He accompanied a relative, a cousin-in-law, the Baron de Poutrincourt, in what was an attempt to settle in the colony. However, Hébert did not settle definitively until Champlain built the HABITATION in what is now Quebec City. The first farmer had arrived but he, Louis Hébert, and his wife were unprotected.

The Régiment de Carignan-Salières

In 1665, Louis XIV[i] of France did send the Régiment de Carignan-Salières, named after Thomas-François de Savoie, prince de Carignan. The regiment’s commander was the Marquis Henri de Chastelard de Salières, hence the name Carignan-Salières. At that rather late point, the colony was defended by 1 300 soldiers, 1,000 according to the Canadian Encyclopedia (French entry). The French settlers were attacked by Odinossonis called Iroquois or Agniers and also had to fight the citizens of Nieue Amsterdam, New Amsterdam (New York) where citizens were also attacked by Iroquois Amerindians. The Iroquois were defeated in 1666.

Entente with Iroquois Amerindians

The entente signed in 1667, may have brought a temporary thruce in the struggle to survive despite attacks. However, at the end of the seventeenth century Madeleine de Verchères (3 mars 1678 – 8 août 1747), the 14 year-old daughter of a SEIGNEUR, drove away the Iroquois Amerindians, but historian Marcel Trudel[ii] has suggested that this story was embellished by Madeleine de Verchères herself. It nevertheless belongs to a chronicle of hostility on the part of the Iroquois against New France. But the Dutch and other colonists were also targeted by Iroquois. The Amerindians were losing their land.

The Fur Trade

Moreover, when I studied the fur trade (blogs are listed below, please click), I read that when he arrived in New France, Pierre-Esprit Radisson (1636–1710) was kidnapped by Amerindians and tortured.[iii]  And matters would not improve. When Pierre-Esprit and his brother-in-law, the older Médard Chouart des Groseillers (1618–1696), discovered the Hudson’s Bay, by land, colonial authorities did not, it seems, act in the best interest of the colony nor, for that matter, in the best interest of the motherland.

The Golden Goose: Radisson Goes to England

On the contrary, when Radisson and Groseillers brought back one hundred canoes of pelts to the shores of the St Lawrence, these were confiscated. Radisson therefore travelled to England, made a favorable impression, and in 1670, the Hudson’s Bay Company was created:

The company was incorporated by English royal charter in 1670 as The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay

As a result, we now know why, “[i]n 1701, no furs were collected but France was forced to still pay the colony to keep it running.” (from a website entitled The Economy of New France, in PDF). It would appear that colonial authorities did not think in the long term. I suspect that they pounced on the pelts, made money quickly, thereby killing the Golden Goose. Authorities acted as if there were no tomorrow.

Farming…

Morever, even though there were HABITANTS on SEIGNEURIES, little importance was given to agricultural skills. New France would grow into an agrarian society, but Louis Hébert introduced farming with very little help. He then fell on the treacherous ice, which killed him prematurely.

Related to this question is the matter of monopolies. I will tell a little more about the monopoly Henri IV of France gave Pierre du Gua de Mons.  This will take us back to an earlier post: Richelieu & Nouvelle-France.

However, I will pause  to avoid fatigue.  My next post is a continuation of this one. As mentioned above, I have made a list of  posts on the voyageurs, This list does not include posts on their songs.

Voyageurs Posts: start with the bottom Post

 
 

Louis Hébert

In these fairy-like boats
The Voyageur Mythified
The Singing Voyageurs
The Voyageurs: from Sea to Sea
John Jacob Astor & the Voyageur as Settler and Explorer
The Voyageur and his Canoe
The Voyageurs and their Employers
The Voyageurs: hommes engagés ←
 
 
 
© Micheline Walker
4 May  2012
WordPress 
 
 
________________________
[i] This date is consistent with the dissolution, in 1663, of the Company of One Hundred.
[ii] Marcel Trudel, Mythes et réalités dans l’histoire du Québec (Montréal: Bibliothèque Québécoise, Québec, 2006), 346 pages.
[iii] Grace Lee Nute, Caesars of the Wilderness: Médard Chouart, Sieur Des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson, 1618-1710. (not available) 
0.000000 0.000000

Micheline's Blog

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Treaty of Paris (1763) & the Fate of the Canadiens

02 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Canada, History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Company of One Hundred Associates, France, Louis-Joseph Papineau, New France, Quebec Act, Seigneurial system of New France, Seigneurie, Théophile Hamel

 
Louis-Joseph Papineau, portrait by Théophile Hamel (1817-1870)

Louis-Joseph Papineau, portrait by Théophile Hamel (1817-1870)

 Papineau’s Manoir

Louis-Joseph Papineau lived in this manoir. It is not a castle, but it is a home befitting a SEIGNEUR. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763) and the Quebec Act (1774), the Papineau family’s SEIGNEURIE, located on the Ottawa River, was left undisturbed.

However, I must now investigate the economy of New France because it has come to my attention that, under the SEIGNEURIAL system, New France could not be a self-sustaining colony. On the contrary!

In fact, New France was a burden on France during bad years, such as the year 1701.  In 1701, France bailed out its colony.

In 1701, no furs were collected but France was forced to still pay the colony to keep it running.” (from a website entitled The Economy of New France, in PDF)

The allocation of land under the Seigneurial System

So, let’s take a peak, first, at the SEIGNEURIES:

“In France, seigneurs were vassals to the king, who granted them the deeds to their seigneuries. The seigneurial system differed somewhat from its counterpart in France; the seigneurs of New France were not always nobles. Seigneuries in North America were granted to military officers, some were owned by the Catholic clergy and even by unions of local inhabitants. In 1663, half of the seigneuries of New France were managed by women. This situation came to be because a woman could inherit her husband’s property after his death.”[i]

The above quotation, taken from Wikipedia, would suggest that the allocation of land, under the SEIGNEURIAL system was such that farming may have been hampered. In New France, SEIGNEURIES could be allotted to religious communities, military officers and to other notables. Moreover, if a SEIGNEUR died, his widow inherited the SEIGNEURIE, and we cannot assume that she could manage on her own. I suspect, therefore, that the best arable land in the colony was not always used as farming land.

Mercantilism

Second, I also suspect that the SEIGNEURIAL system could not stand alone. Its main components were the SEIGNEUR and his CENSITAIRES. New France also had fur traders and a few merchants and, perhaps, small businesses. New France was also comprised of explorers, missionaries, priests, doctors, lawyers and religious orders. Hospitals and Schools were the responsibility of religious orders. However,  products were made elsewhere.

Products

The colony could supply what raw material it could harvest, but that raw material was sent to France and returned to the colony as goods or products. As for these products, a large portion was needed in the FUR TRADE.

The company of the Hundred Associates

Third, in 1663, the Company of One Hundred Associates, the COMPAGNIE DES CENT-ASSOCIÉS, either surrendered its charter or was eliminated. Reports differ. You will remember that the company was founded in 1628 by Richelieu who ruled New France.

The Company was “closely controlled by Richelieu, and was given sweeping authority over trade and colonization in all of New France, a territory that encompassed all of Acadia, Canada, Newfoundland, and French Louisiana.”[ii]

Each member of the Company of One Hundred Associates, the Cent-Associés had invested $9,000.00 (90,000 French livres) in New France. Champlain “was listed as investor number 52 in a list published on January 14, 1628.”[iii]  

However, it would not be unreasonable to think that the Associates played one role only, which was to send settlers to New France or bring settlers to New France and that, as a consequence, farming may have been limited. The individuals who were granted a SEIGNEURIE were not necessarily persons who could run a farming community.

The appointment of a Sovereign Council

At any rate, the dissolution of The Company of Hundred Associates did not put an end to the SEIGNEURIAL system, established in 1627 and abolished in 1854, but Colonial authorities in France came to the conclusion that New France would benefit from better management.

As a result, the motherland created a Sovereign Council or revived a Council that had managed New France until 1647. The Sovereign Council consisted mainly of a Governor General, an Intendant, and the Bishop of Quebec, except that the Intendant was the ruler, but “lacked any power over the military.”[iv]

The intendant was bound to no authorities, statutes or regulations. He was appointed by, removable by, and responsible to the king alone.

I have read that the SOVEREIGN COUNCIL was formed in 1675, but I have also read, elsewhere, that the SOVEREIGN COUNCIL was formed in 1663. This discrepancy may stem from the fact that New France’s second Intendant, Jean Talon, Comte d’Orsainville (1626 – 1694), was sent to New France in 1663, which does not mean that a Sovereign Council had already been appointed. The Sovereign Council was also comprised of other members listed on Wikipedia. Please click on Sovereign Council for a more detailed list.[v] The Sovereign Council endured until April 28, 1760, the very day the Battle of Sainte-Foy was fought.  However, according to Wikipedia,

[a]s early as June 16, 1703, the King of France refers to the council as the Conseil Supérieur instead of the former Conseil Souverain.

François-Xavier Garneau’s Histoire du Canada  

Let us look again at MERCANTILISM, or the lack thereof, in New France.

The Huguenots

In the first version of his three-volume Histoire [history] du Canada (1845-1848), François-Xavier Garneau wrote that New France had been weakened by the removal of the Huguenots, French Calvinist Protestants. They had to leave New France when the Edict of Nantes was revoked. The Edict of Nantes was an Edict of tolerance towards Huguenots that had been issued on 13 April 1598 by Henri IV of France and was revoked by Louis XIV, the grandson of Henri IV of France, in October 1685.[vi] 

F.-X. Garneau had to remove this section of his History of Canada, so the Bishop of Quebec could provide a “nihil obstat.” 

However, it remains that François-Xavier Garneau may have put his finger on one of the chief reasons, if not the chief reason, why the colony could not make ends meet and was, therefore, a burden on France.

—ooo—

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, “[a]s time went on, the seigneurial system increasingly appeared to favour the privileged and to hinder economic development. After much political agitation, it was abolished in 1854 by a law that permitted tenants to claim rights to their land.”[vii]

But how did the abolition of the SEIGNEURIAL system affect the SEIGNEURS?

I must pause here, but I would not be surprised if I learned that New France and its SEIGNEURS had something to gain from the Treaty of Paris (1763), not to mention the Quebec Act (1774), and the Constitutional Act (1791).

If indeed New France had been and remained a burden to France, it would follow, as I have suggested in an earlier post, that when New France was ceded to Britain, the French-speaking citizens of a British-ruled colony may have avoided much more than the French Revolution. Under British Rule, the Canadiens kept not only their priests but also their SEIGNEURS. Furthermore, the Canadiens avoided the Napoleonic Wars.

As I have said, I must investigate this matter at greater length, but my tentative conclusion to this blog is that the Treaty of Paris may have saved the French-speaking citizens of the former New France, including its SEIGNEURS, persons like Louis-Joseph Papineau who retained his family manoir pictured above. Louis-Joseph Papineau was the leader of the Rebels of 1837 and had to flee to the United States and then to France to avoid what could have been a death sentence, but he returned to his manoir, lived the life of a gentleman and was re-elected to Parliament.

To put it in a nutshell, when New France was ceded to Britain, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, it was not solvent, and a revolution was in the works in the motherland.

_________________________
[i] “The Seigneurial System,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigneurial_system_of_New_France
[ii] “The Company of One Hundred Associates,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_One_Hundred_Associates
[iii] “The Company of Hundred Associates,” Wikipedia,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_One_Hundred_Associates                                  
[iv] “The Intendant of New France,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intendant_of_New_France
[v] “Sovereign Council of New France,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Council_of_New_France.
[vi] “Edict of Nantes,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Nantes.
[vii] Jacques Mathieu, “The Seigneurial System,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/seigneurial-system 
 
« Le dernier endroit dans l’univers » : à propos … – Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française – Érudit (erudit.org)
 
 
© Micheline Walker
2 May 2012
WordPress
 
0.000000 0.000000

Micheline's Blog

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Nouvelle-France’s Seigneurial System

28 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Canadian History, History

≈ 76 Comments

Tags

a Reponsible Government, Canadien, Company of One Hundred Associates, Louis-Joseph Papineau, New France, The Seigneurial System

de_gaspe_manoir_1900

Aubert de Gaspé’s Manoir, Saint-Jean-Port-Joli (south shore of the St Lawrence River)

In an earlier post, I suggested that a responsible government could rectify the problems that had led to the Rebellions of 1837-38. In other words, the Parliamentary system could bring about responsible government.

The British Constitution had been a blessing to Canadiens. Let me quote, once again, my anonymous Canadien praising Britain in Le Canadien, a newspaper created on 22 November 1806. On 4 November 1809 or anonymous Canadien, i.e. French-speaking Canadian, wrote:

“Depuis cette époque le règne des lois a graduellement établi son Empire, et nous jouissons maintenant d’une Constitution où tout le monde est à sa place, et dans laquelle un homme est quelque chose.”[i]

(Since that time when the rule of laws has gradually established its empire, and we now enjoy the benefits of a constitution where everyone has a place and where a man is something.)

Consider, for instance, what might have happened to Nouvelle-France, New France, if New France had still been under French rule during the French Revolution. Many French priests had sought refuge in England to escape the guillotine, but there was not much for them to do in England where Catholicism was not the only religion. That problem was resolved when England offered to send them to ‘its’ French colony in North America where they could be Good Shepherds, as priests, educators and organizers, not to mention that they felt validated by their work. (See Related Articles, at the foot of this post.)

Le Bon Pasteur by François Baillairgé, circa 1775, guilded and painted wood sculpture. (photo by Patrick Altman/courtesy Musée du Québec and The Canadian Encyclopedia).     

Remember Thomas Chandler Haliburton and l’abbé Sigogne (father Jean-Mandé Sigogne) organizing Nova Scotia. L’abbé Sigogne had learned English during the years he had spent in England and he and Haliburton were both refined and well-educated gentlemen. (See Related Articles, at the foot of this post.)

But what of the seigneurs?  Louis-Joseph Papineau was a seigneur. Would he have been guillotined? However, let us examine the Seigneurial System.

The Seigneurial System

We are acquainted with one seigneur: Louis-Joseph Papineau, but we know that Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé, the author of Les Anciens Canadiens, 1862, had been a seigneur.  However, the Seigneurial System had been abolished, when Aubert de Gaspé published his novel, perhaps the most popular work written by a Canadien whose purpose was to prove that Lord Durham wrong in his assessment of French-speaking Canadians. They had a literature and a history, which they did not have in Lord Durham’s opinion.

The Seigneurial System (Wikipedia) or Seigneurial System was abolished in 1854 by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada and was assented to by Governor Lord Elgin, on 22 June 1854, in An Act for the Abolition of Feudal Rights and Duties in Lower Canada which was brought into effect on 18 December of that year.

Back to the Early Days of Nouvelle-France

You might remember from earlier posts (See Related Articles) that, in 1628, Cardinal Richelieu of France had founded the Compagnie de Cent-Associés (The Company of One Hundred Associates [Wikipedia]), and had the land divided into narrow but deep lots on the shores of the St Lawrence River which was Nouvelle-France’s highway. The following is copied from the Company of One Hundred Associates entry in Wikipedia:

“From 1629 to 1635 Champlain was the company’s commander in New France. Under the Ancien Regime in France, every community was governed by a lord and a priest plus a magistrate appointed only with the lord and priest’s concurrence. As such, a component of the charter given the company provided for Roman Catholic priests to be part of all settlements and explorations and priests were given governing authority in conjunction with any appointed intendants. The charter also required the company to bring an average of 160 settlers to New France over the next twenty five years and to support their settlement for the first three years.”

Seigneurial System: land division (please click to enlarge the picture)

The Seigneurial System

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia’s entry on the Seigneurial System,[ii] the system was established in 1627, and abolished in 1854. The seigneur, usually leased his land from a member of the Company of One Hundred Associates founded by Richelieu) and, in turn, the tenants called censitaires, but also referred to as habitants, leased his thirty acres from the seigneur on the basis of duly notarized contracts. The land therefore belonged to the King of France.

A seigneurie measured 5 x 15 km in size. Land was allocated as the member of the Compagnie des Cent Associés pleased and was usually leased, not sold, to influential colonists:

  • the nobility,
  • religious institutions (in return for educational and hospital services),
  • military officers, etc.

Seigneurs and Censitaires

Normally, the Seigneurie was farmland divided into

  • river lots (rangs, or rows), linked by
  • montées, roads going from one rang to another. 

Censitaires or habitants paid rent (cens) and banalités. According to Wikipedia, banalités were “taxes levied on grain, which the tenant had to grind at his seigneur’s mill. He [the seigneur] also usually granted hunting, fishing and woodcutting licences.” The seigneur used that money to run the mill, the Church, keep roads open, etc.

In the eighteenth century, it was also customary for habitants to contribute a certain numbers of hours of work to his seigneur. This was called la corvée, the chore. Each habitant cultivated about thirty acres of land, which he leased. As for the seigneur,

  • he could establish a court of law,
  • he usually managed the commune,
  • he provided a church to his censitaires, and
  • he was under the obligation of providing a common mill.

Some Canadiens settled in cities and many engaged in the fur trade. These Canadiens usually belonged to a parish, but 75-80% of Canadiens were habitants. So Canadiens belonged to 1) seigneuries or 2) parishes, and communities were usually closely knit.

Seigneuries and Parishes

There were roughly 200 seigneuries and they covered virtually all the inhabited areas on both banks of the St Lawrence River between Montréal and Québec and beyond on the north side. On the south side, they extended to the Gaspé area. By and large, that land was arable and having sons helping on the farm was beneficial. However, to what extent can one divide up thirty acres of land?  But that is another story.

In short, for the time being, we have, as noted above, two leaders. They are, on the one hand, the seigneur and his censitaires, farming communities and, on the other hand, the curé, the parish priest, and his parishioners. When the seigneurial system was abolished, the habitant  remained on his thirty acres, but Canadiens also lived in townships or cantons grouped into parishes. In other words, with the abolition of seigneuries, the Canadiens were grouped into parishes. The parish became the main organizational element.

Let us read the Canadian Encyclopedia [iii] on the subject of the seigneurial system:

“The system of land tenure, which placed rural inhabitants close to one another, and in the early 19th century the village, were the foundation upon which the family, neighbour relations and community spirit developed. The closeness of this agricultural society to the soil led naturally to a feeling that land was included in one’s patrimony, to be passed from generation to generation.”

The Conquest and the Abolition of the Seigneurial System

After the conquest of Quebec, or the Treaty of Paris (1763), the system became an obstacle to colonization by British settlers as the Quebec Act of 1774 left the Canadiens undisturbed. Under the terms of the Quebec Act, French civil law was retained and so was the seigneurial system. The seigneuries were arable land and, therefore, prime land. Some seigneuries were bought by English-speaking Canadians.

According to Wikipedia, “[t]he system was finally abolished when the last residual rents were repurchased through a system of Quebec provincial bonds.” By the way, some seigneuries belonged to women.

It could well be that the seigneurial system was abolished as it dissolved. As noted above, to what extent can land be divided? The fact is that the Canadiens ran out of land. That story is told in Ringuet’s (Philippe Panneton) Trente Arpents (1938). Some tried to make arable land of land that was not arable. Louis Hémon’s Maria Chapdelaine (1914), a French author who spent a winter in the Lac Saint-Jean area and provided a lasting account of what was called colonisation.

But, this is where we must pause as a whole chapter of Canada’s history is over. Other stories begin.

Much of the above information is based on the contents of my lectures on French-Canadian literature. But I wish to acknowledge that I have also used the Canadian Encyclopedia and, to a certain extent, Wikipedia.

The_young_student_by_Ozias_Leduc,_1894

Le Jeune Étudiant, Ozias Leduc, 1894 (Photo credit: FR Wikipedia)

https://youtu.be/i2r2naec3rw
   
Related Articles
Évangéline & the Literary Homeland (cont’d)
Évangéline & the Literary Homeland
Richelieu & Nouvelle-France
Une Éminence grise: Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fonsac
 
Wikipedia Entries
Samuel de Champlain (13 August 1574 – 25 December 1635)
Pierre Du Gua de Monts (Du Gua de Monts; c. 1558 – 1628)
Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully (1560–1641)
_________________________
 
[i] René Dionne, Les Origines canadiennes (1763-1836), in Gilles Marcotte, dir. vol. 2, Anthologie de la littérature québécoise (Montréal: L’Hexagone, 1994), p. 324.
[ii] Jacques Mathieu, “The Seigneurial System,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/seigneurial-system
[iii] Ibid.
 
© Micheline Walker
28 April 2012
WordPress

0.000000 0.000000

Micheline's Blog

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Parliament to the Rescue: the Hidden Resource

28 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Canada, History, Quebec

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Canada, Canadien, Company of One Hundred Associates, Constitutional Act 1791, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, New France, Quebec, Quebec Act

L’Enfant au pain (Boy with Bread) by Ozias Leduc 1892-99, National Gallery of Canada

Until the Act of Union, 1840-1841, the former citizens of New France were surprisingly happy with their new masters.  They enjoyed the fact that they no longer had to bend their head before an intendant or a gouverneur and, although the Seigneurial system was maintained, British Rule brought a Parliament. Moreover, Canadiens could also express themselves in newspapers and their priests occupied a privileged position.

Here are testimonials:

Le Canadien: a newspaper

« Vous avez peut-être vécu dans ces tems malheureux qui on précédé la conquête de ce pays, où un Gouverneur étoit une Idole devant laquelle il n’étoit pas permis de lever la tête. »[i]
Translation
“You may have lived during these unfortunate days that preceded the conquest of this country, when a governor was an idol in whose presence one was not allowed to raise one’s head.”

The above quotation is taken from the 4 November 1809 issue of Le Canadien, a newspaper founded on 22 November 1806.  Earlier in the same article, the anonymous Canadien had also praised freedom of the press, which had not been allowed the citizens of New France.  Later, in the same article, our anonymous writer would praise the British Constitution.

The Oraison Funèbre (the funeral oration) of Mgr Jean-Olivier Brian

More eloquent, however, is Father Joseph-Octave Plessis‘s (1763-1825) Oraison Funèbre. In his funeral oration, Oraison Funèbre, on the death of Mgr Jean-Olivier Brian, Bishop of Quebec from 1764 to 1784, Plessis apologized on behalf of his people, the Canadiens, for having feared British rule.  He said that the people of New France had been rather apprehensive because they could not be persuaded that foreign men, unaccustomed to New France’s land, laws, customs and religion, would be able “to give back to Canada what it had just lost by changing masters:”

« On ne pouvait se persuader que des hommes étrangers à notre sol, à notre langage, à nos lois (laws), à nos usages (customs) et à notre  culte (religion), fussent jamais  capables de rendre au Canada ce qu’il venait de perdre en changeant de maîtres. »[ii]
Translation
“We could not persuade ourselves that men who knew little about our land, our language, or laws, our customs and our religion could ever return to Canada what it had just lost by changing masters.”

Back to the Quebec Act and Lord Dorchester

There can be doubt that the Canadiens had much to gain when Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester made them full-fledged British citizens under the Quebec Act.[III] Nothing had been taken away from Britain’s French subject and they had now gained the right to have newspapers and be members of Parliament.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), it had been negotiated that the Canadiens were to be left undisturbed.  But, ironically, the citizens of the Province de Québec (1774) and of the two Canadas, born of the Constitutional Act of 1791, had been provided with the tools that would allow them to regain what they lost when the Act of Union was signed into law: Parliament, as the word suggests.

The Rebellions and the Act of Union

The events of 1837-1838 and the ensuing decision to unite the two Canadas and to prohibit the use of French were regrettable.  However, once order was restored, the new United Province of Canada was again enjoying the benefits of the British Constitution.

When first appointed Joint Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada, in 1842, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, or LaFontaine, was not heading a responsible government, which would cause him to resign, but the United Province of Canada had a Canadien voice and it so happened that this Canadien, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, spoke English.  You may recall that Lafontaine had travelled to Britain in an effort to avert a call to arms in 1837.

A Bilingual Household

Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine was married first to Lynzee Rickard (1813–1859) who became his wife on 9 July 1831.  When Lynzee died (in 1859), Louis-Hippolyte married the widowed Jane Élisabeth Geneviève Morrison (1822-1905) daughter of Charles Morrison.  They were married on 30 January 1861 and lived on rue Saint-Denis in Montreal.  It was a bilingual household.

As joint Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada, Louis-Hippolyte first addressed the assembly in French and then he and his political partner Robert Baldwin set about returning to Canadiens the right to speak their own language.

In fact, assimilation would have been difficult due to the land tenure system, the   seigneurial system.  As for those Canadiens who were not farmers they gathered  around a priest, in a parish.  That was what I like to call the “parochial” system.

Conclusion

So let me close this blog on an optimistic note. In the 1840s, we have fine men in Parliament and their goal, responsible government, had been attained between 1842 and 1848, when Baldwin and Lafontaine became Joint Prime Ministers.

In my next post, we will examine the Seigneurial System which was not abolished until 1854.  In fact, Louis-Joseph Papineau was a seigneur and, from 1774 (the Quebec Act) until 1854, French-speaking Canadians had both seigneuries and a Parliament.

Ravel: 10 Jeux d’eau 

 

Nature morte by Cornelius Krieghoff

© Micheline Walker
28 April 2012
WordPress

 

 

 

_________________________

[I] René Dionne, Les Origines canadiennes (1763-1836), in Gilles Marcotte, dir. vol. 2, Anthologie de la littérature québécoise (Montréal: L’Hexagone, 1994), p. 324. 

[II] Op. Cit., p. 331.

[III] The Quebec Act: 1774 

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the Act were:

  • The province’s territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
  • The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
  • It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
  • It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
  • The province’s territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
  • The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
  • It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
  • It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
  • The province’s territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.
  • The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
  • It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
  • It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
0.000000 0.000000

Micheline's Blog

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Europa

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,506 other subscribers

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Epiphany 2023
  • Pavarotti sings Schubert’s « Ave Maria »
  • Yves Montand chante “À Bicyclette”
  • Almost ready
  • Bicycles for Migrant Farm Workers
  • Tout Molière.net : parti …
  • Remembering Belaud
  • Monet’s Magpie
  • To Lori Weber: Language Laws in Quebec, 2
  • To Lori Weber: Language Laws

Archives

Calendar

January 2023
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Dec    

Social

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • WordPress.org

micheline.walker@videotron.ca

Micheline Walker

Micheline Walker

Social

Social

  • View belaud44’s profile on Facebook
  • View Follow @mouchette_02’s profile on Twitter
  • View Micheline Walker’s profile on LinkedIn
  • View belaud44’s profile on YouTube
  • View Miicheline Walker’s profile on Google+
  • View michelinewalker’s profile on WordPress.org

Micheline Walker

Micheline Walker
Follow Micheline's Blog on WordPress.com

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

  • Follow Following
    • Micheline's Blog
    • Join 2,474 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Micheline's Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: