Tag Archives: Louis-Joseph Papineau

October 1837

17 Wednesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Acadia, Foklore, Québec, Québec Songs, Traditional Music

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Discours de Louis-Joseph Papineau à Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu, en 1837 (fr.Wikipedia)

OCTOBER 1837

The post I published on 16 February 2021 was shortened. Therefore, the title of the song Les Voix du Nord performed was not explained. Moreover, we were not in a studio listening to the recording of a song. We could not hear the words clearly, which was unfortunate.

The song is entitled October 1837. It does not tell a story, but it refers to historical events. The Rebellions of 1837-1838 are its main event. In 1837-1838, the citizens of Upper Canada and Lower Canada rebelled against the Crown. Their leaders were William Lyon Mackenzie, in Upper Canada, and Louis-Joseph Papineau, a Seigneur, in Lower Canada. I suspect that French-speaking Canadians being a conquered people, the dynamics of the Rebellions were not the same in both Canadas. The Rebellion was more serious in the largely Francophone Lower Canada than in Anglophone Upper Canada. More patriotes than patriots were hanged or deported to penal colonies. Both leaders fled their respective Canada. The song that expresses the profound grief of exiled patriotes is Antoine Gérin-Lajoie‘s Un Canadien errant.

With the help of American volunteers, a second rebellion was launched in November 1838, but it too was poorly organized and quickly put down, followed by further looting and devastation in the countryside. The two uprisings [in Lower Canada] left 325 people dead, all of them rebels except for 27 British soldiers. Nearly 100 rebels were also captured. After the second uprising failed, Papineau departed the US for exile in Paris.

Britannica [1]

However, both Canadas wanted a more responsible government, or more self-rule, which was achieved in 1848. No sooner were the two Canadas united by virtue of the Act of Union, proclaimed on 10 February 1841, than its Prime Ministers, Robert Baldwyn and Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, designed a government that could accommodate English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians. In 1848, a United Canada was granted a responsible government and, contrary to Lord Durham‘s recommendations, French continued to be spoken in the Assembly and in Canada. Lord Durham investigated the Rebellions.

Upper Canada and Lower Canada (fr.Wikipedia)

Le Grand Dérangement

But one can also hear the words, le grand dérangement, the great upheaval. The great upheaval is usually associated with the deportation of Acadians beginning in 1755. Families were not exiled together, except accidentally. Members of the same family were separated and put aboard ships that sailed in various directions, including England. In 1847, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published Évangéline, a Tale of Acadie, commemorating the deportation of Acadians. There may not have been an Évangéline, except Longfellow’s character, but there were Évangélines, betrothed women who were separated from their future husband, or vice versa. For Acadians, Évangéline is real, un réel absolu.

Some ships transporting Acadians away from their home sailed down the coast of Britain’s Thirteen Colonies, but Acadians were not allowed to disembark until they reached Georgia. They were Catholics. One could theorize, as I have, that they socialized with the Blacks before walking to Louisiana. Joel Chandler Harris’ The Tales of Uncle Remus may have introduced Reynard the Fox to North America, but the inhabitants of New Orléans may have known Le Roman de Renart or the Sick-Lion Tale, a fable told by Jean de La Fontaine and his predecessors. Several Acadians are today’s Cajuns, a contraction of Acadians, and live in Louisiana.

The October Crisis, 1970

October 1838 also refers to the October Crisis of 1970 when members of the Front de libération du Québec, the FLQ,  kidnapped British diplomat James Cross, on 5 October 1970, and Pierre Laporte on 10 October 1970. Pierre Laporte was Deputy Premier of Quebec. Then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared the War Measures Act, on 15 October. The deployment of the Armed Forces was criticized by civil libertarians. Civil liberties had been suspended. On 17 October, Pierre Laporte was executed,but James Cross was not harmed. He was detained for 59 days by the Front de libération du Québec (the FLQ). The FLQ ceased to be active after the October Crisis.

Sadly, James Cross died of Covid-19 on 6 January 2021. He was 99. My condolences to his family and friends.

RELATED ARTICLES

Conclusion

On 16 February, we heard an accomplished fiddler, but the song told a very long story.

_________________________
[1] Foot, Richard and Buckner, P.A.. “Rebellions of 1837”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Sep. 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/Rebellions-of-1837. Accessed 17 February 2021.

Love to everyone 💕

Le Vieux de ’37, gouache sur papier, peinte par Henri Julien en 1904

© Micheline Walker
17 February 2021
revised 17 February 2021
WordPress

A Short History of the Indépendantistes

16 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by in Canada

≈ Comments Off on A Short History of the Indépendantistes

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://michelinewalker.com/2012/04/12/upper-and-lower-canada/
Upper and Lower Canada
 

Upper and Lower Canada

We are now returning to an earlier post:  Upper and Lower Canada.  Let me copy its final paragraph.

“At this point, we pause so we can remember the essential facts. 1) In 1774, Canadiens inhabited a very large Province of Quebec, but 2), as of 1791, due to the arrival in the Province of Quebec of the United Empire Loyalists, the Province of Quebec was divided into Lower Canada and Upper Canada. 3) As a result, Canadiens lived in a smaller territory, but a territory which they felt was theirs.”

Number 3 is our key sentence: 3) As a result, Canadiens lived in a smaller territory, but a territory which they felt was theirs.

The Constitutional Act of 1791: a Mirage

 

The Rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada occurred because Britain was dipping into taxes levied by the governments of both Canadas.  There were two rebellions and two leaders: William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau.  Preserving the French Language was not on the agenda.  However, after Lord Durham proposed that the two Canadas be united, many of the Rebels started to look upon the Rebellion and its aftermath, the Act of Union (1840-1841), as the loss of their predominantly French-language country: Lower Canada.

********************************* 

John George Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham GCB, PC
(12 April 1792 – 28 July 1840)
 

The Constitutional Act of 1791 had therefore been a mirage for French-speaking Canadians.  It had created a Lower Canada where French was spoken by a majority of the population, but this did not mean that the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763, had been revoked. 

The Union Act: The Birth of the Patriote  

When the two Canadas were joined, Lower Canada Rebels were quickly transformed into French-speaking patriotes.  French-speaking Canadians were to be

  • assimilated (Lord Durham) and
  • a minority.

At this point, the Rebellions of both Canadas took on a new dimension.   French-speaking Canadians started to look upon its dead soldiers, the persons who were executed and those who had been sent to Australia as martyrs.  French-speaking Canadians saw the Act of Union as an attempt to take away from them

  • their language and
  • their territory. 

Henceforth, there would be a language problem in an expanding Canada.  So two stories were about to begin: that of Canada and the long tale of grievances on the part of French-speaking Canadians.   

Canada: from the Act of Union to Confederation

Under the able leadership of Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, the clauses of the Act of Union were not read literally.  The constitution was quickly restored and Parliament convened under Baldwin (in the west) and Lafontaine (in the east).  As we have seen, it was a fruitful alliance because it offered a solution to flaws in the Act of Union.  It would be for Parliament to determine the fate of the nation.

By 1848, responsible government was achieved.  Lord Elgin, the Governor General, asked Lafontaine to be prime minister.  From that moment on, Canada was engaged into stretching itself from sea to sea and, in 1867, Confederation was achieved under the condition that a railroad link the provinces from coast to coast, a feat that would not have been possible before the invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel of Sweden. 

The Seeds of Dissent had been sown

So Canada was on its way to becoming the country I know and love.  But the Rebels of 1837, who had become patriotes wanted to live in a country of their own, a version of their lost Lower Canada.  Over the years, these patriotes, today’s indépendantistes would be nationalistes, séparatistes, souverainistes and now indépendantistes.  The various names are synonyms. 

This takes us to the last Federal Election, held on May 2, 2011 

The Last Federal Election : the Spring of 2011

Quebec has a Liberal government headed by Jean Charest.  As for Canada, during the last Federal election, Ottawa seats occupied by Québécois were lost to other parties, the New Democratic Party being the Québécois’s favourite.  Monsieur Charest’s government did not suffer from these events, but Madame Pauline Marois‘s Parti Québécois found itself losing popularity.  Madame Marois’s personal ratings plunged to approximately 18%, except that the students went on strike three months ago. 

The students’ strike gave her an opportunity to breathe new life into the Parti Québécois.  She, mainly, and members of her party started to support the students, most of whom could not tell what was happening and were rebels without a cause, which constitutes shameless behaviour on the part of Madame Marois’s party.  The students think she is on their side.  But that could be another mirage

* * *

Here is a short history of the Indépendantistes

Refus Global & the Duplessis Era

Iin 1948, a Manifesto entitled Refus Global, [i] was written by sixteen young Québécois artists and intellectuals that included Paul-Émile Borduas and Jean-Paul Riopelle.  It could be said that to a large extent this Manifesto led to the rebirth of patriote sentiment.  The Manifesto painted a sorry picture of Quebec, which was often referred to as a priest-ridden province and was indeed both priest ridden and saddled with the corrupt government Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis. Duplessis literally bought votes.  Moreover, this manifesto coincided with the Asbestos Strike.  Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis remained Premier until his death on September 7, 1959.  Maurice Duplessis was Premier of the current province of Quebec from August 17, 1936 until October 25, 1939 and from August 8, 1944 until September 7, 1959.

The Quiet Revolution / la Révolution tranquille

Health and Education

Everything started to change when Jean Lesage‘s Liberal Party won the June 22, 1960 Quebec general election.  Monsieur Lesage was Premier of Quebec for six years during which the Province underwent profound changes.  He ushered in the Révolution tranquille / Quiet Revolution [ii].  During those six years, Quebec ceased to be a priest-ridden province. 

Let me quote Wikipedia:

The provincial government took over the fields of health care and education, which had been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. It created ministries of Education and Health, expanded the public service, and made massive investments in the public education system and provincial infrastructure. The government allowed unionization of the civil service. It took measures to increase Québécois control over the province’s economy and nationalized electricity production and distribution. (Wikipedia: Quiet Revolution)

 

Zeitgeist

The Separatist Movement is, officially, a product of the 1960s and a Quebec movement.  However, it can be linked to worldwide changes and events: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the War in Vietnam, protest against the War in Vietnam, the Woman’s Liberation Movement, etc.  Pictures of Che Guevara and Mao Tse Tung were on every wall. 

La Révolution tranquille / The Quiet Revolution

The Language Debate

There was nothing particularly tranquille about the Quiet Revolution. Its programme soon grew to include the preservation of the French language.  Quebecers remembered their Lower Canada and many became nationalists.  In fact, many became séparatistes who wanted to turn the Province of Quebec into a separate country where French would be spoken by a majority of the population.

The Trudeau Era

In 1968, Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau CC, CH, PC, QC, FRSC (Liberal Party) rose to power and, a year later, on September 9, 1969, the Official Languages Act became law. The Act gave and still gives “English and French equal status in the government of Canada.” (Wikipedia)

The Parti québécois is elected into power: 1976

The Official Languages Act, signed into law on September 9, 1969, did not go far enough for the séparatistes.  In 1976, the Parti Québécois was elected into power in Quebec, under the leadership of René Lévesque.  René Lévesque was in office from 1976 until 1985.  Hundreds of thousands of people, mostly English-speaking, left Quebec, which caused a degree of impoverishment in the now séparatiste province.  Many companies and banks moved their head office to Toronto. Moreover, drastic laws were enacted to protect the French language in Quebec

Charter of the French Language: Bill 101

In 1974, Bill 22 made French into the official language of Quebec under Premier Robert Bourassa.  There had been and would be other bills, but Bill 101, [iii], enacted in 1977, was a radical version of Bill 22 and was in contravention of the

The Quebec Liberation Front (FLQ)

As the Province of Quebec was doing away with Church-run institutions (health and education), a terrorist group was organized and it supported the Quebec sovereignty movement until the October Crisis of 1970.  Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the then Prime Minister of Canada, invoked the War Measures Act to suppress the FLQ:  Front de Libération du Québec whose members had kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross.  The following is a quotation from Wikipedia.

“It [the FLQ] was responsible for over 160 violent incidents which killed eight people and injured many more, including the bombing of the Montreal Stock Exchange in 1969. These attacks culminated in 1970 with what is known as the October Crisis, in which British Trade Commissioner James Cross was kidnapped and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte was murdered by strangulation.” (Wikipedia)

Conclusion 

The Front de Libération du Québec has not been active since 1970, but the public remembers and it fears it may resurface.  I doubt it.  As for the Parti Québécois, it still has seats in the Quebec government.  It is the official opposition. 

At the moment, the students are asking for a free education, but Pauline Marois was not as supportive of them today as she had been previously.  First, yesterday, May 14, Line Beauchamp, Monsieur Jean Charest‘s Minister of Education, resigned.  She has been replaced by Michelle Courchesne.  Second, the students who have been ordered back into their classroom were maligned by the more rebellious students.  They were called strike breakers or scabs.  In short, the drama continues and Quebec may have new martyrs.

This is an imperfect blog, but it gives an overview of nationalism in Quebec and point to a few key moments.  I will therefore post it because it sheds a little light on Canada’s long language debate.  Nothing and no one prevents French-speaking Canadians from surviving and thriving.  

Maîtres chez nous

CTV News 
CBC News
National Post
 
Micheline Walker©
May 15, 2012
WordPress
 
  
_________________________

[i] See also: François-Marc Gagnon, “Refus Global,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/refus-global

[ii] See also: René Durocher, “Quiet Revolution,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/quiet-revolution

[iii] R. Hudon, “Bill 101,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/bill-101

 

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

02 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by in Canada, History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

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
 

Nouvelle-France’s Seigneurial System

28 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by in Canadian History, History

≈ 76 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

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

The Act of Union: the Aftermath

24 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Canada, History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

      The Falls at Sainte-Anne, by Cornelius Krieghoff

The last time we discussed Canada, the Rebellions of 1837 had been crushed and, in Lower Canada, 58 men had been deported to Australia, 12 were executed and the leaders had fled. In Upper Canada, where the Rebellion had been less severe, Lount, Matthews and Doan were executed and the leaders fled fearing reprisals and, possibly, death.

Carrying a Canoe to the St Maurice River, by Cornelius Krieghoff

Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine was appointed Prime Minister in 1842, a year after the Act of Union, with Robert Baldwin leading the western part of the new Canada. Lafontaine resigned in 1843 because Lord Metcalfe was opposed to responsible government, but opposition would not last. On the contrary, colonial officials were prompt to grant more autonomy to a people whose struggle for greater autonomy they had repressed in a very punitive manner.

For instance, in 1843, the year he opposed responsible government, Lord Metcalfe pardoned the rebels who had been exiled, which was unexpected. Louis-Joseph Papineau remained in France for two more years, until 1845, but in 1843 the fifty-eight rebels who had been sent to Australia returned to Canada, now the United Province of Canada.

As for William Lyon Mackenzie, he remained in the United States until the Amnesty Act was passed in 1849. He was the one rebel who had not been pardoned by Lord Metcalfe. But, most importantly, in 1848, Lord Elgin, the Governor General of the Province of Canada, asked Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine to resume his duties as Prime Minister of the Province of Canada, leading a responsible government.

A Responsible Government

An Habitant’s Farm, by Cornelius Krieghoff

It is difficult to understand why, having crushed the 1837 Rebellions, colonial officials would agree to responsible government. Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine were moderate reformers, and it could be that colonial officials knew their resolve and took them seriously. Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, a member of Papineau’s assembly, had travelled to Britain in an effort to avert a call to arms.

Lord Durham: questions left unanswered

As for Lord Durham, there can be little doubt that he had harmed French-speaking Canadians. The Rebellions happened in both Canadas, which meant they could not be dismissed as yet another episode in the very long history of enmity, in Europe,  between the English and the French. Such thinking was an oversimplification on the part of Lord Durham and too many questions remained unanswered. In all likelihood, there was patriotism on both the part of the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada. However, among the rebels, several were English-speaking Canadians and Britain had helped itself to money levied in the two Canadas. As well, William Lyon Mackenzie was the last rebel to be pardoned.

In other words, it would be my view that Lord Durham oversimplified the causes of the rebellions. Besides, his trivializing French-speaking Canadians was injudicious. However, he cannot be brought back from the dead to put his finger on the more complex and true causes of the rebellions, i. e. a struggle for responsible government. Nor can he take back his statement to the effect that French-speaking Canadians were an inferior people who did not have a history, and lacked a literature. So may he rest in peace.

Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, joint premier of the Province of Canada, 1848-51
(Oil on canvas, by June Forbes McCormack (courtesy the Government of Ontario Art Collection and the Canadian Encyclopedia)
 

Let us now return to Robert Baldwin and his political partner, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine who “led the first responsible ministry in Canada, regarded by some as the first truly Canadian government.” [i] Baldwin and Lafontaine were not elected, but appointed to their office on the recommendation, in the early 1840s, of Charles Poulett Thomson, 1st Baron Lord Sydenham PC (Privy Council), the first governor of the Province of Canada. Although Lord Sydenham was anti-French, it would appear he was a good judge of character.

Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine: Accomplishments

Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, 1st Baronet, KCMG [Order of St Michael and St George] (October 4, 1807 – February 26, 1864), was the second Primer Minister of the United Province of Canada, but the first Canadian to become Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada.

The Amnesty Act

Lafontaine’s achievements are too numerous for me to list in a post. But I will note that he worked at granting amnesty to the persons who had been exiled as a result of the Rebellions of 1837. Louis-Joseph Papineau waited two more years before returning to Canada, but most rebels had come home in 1843, when Governor General Metcalfe issued a special pardon to the Rebels of 1837. In fact, when the Amnesty Act was proclaimed, on February 1, 1849, the only rebel still at large was William Lyon Mackenzie. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia “[o]nly William Lyon MACKENZIE, the one rebel who had not been given a special pardon in 1843, returned to Canada under the Act.” [ii] 

Rebellion Losses Bill

I will also note that Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine introduced the Rebellion Losses Bill in November 1849. It was passed, but Loyalists protested and burned down Parliament in Montreal. They were now nationalists, which may suggest that they had embraced Lord Durham’s assessment of the Rebellions: an ethnic conflict, and saw the Canadiens as the hereditary enemy of the British. But it may also be in everyone’s best interest to remember that, in 1848, there were nationalistic uprisings in a large number of European nations.

The French Language

Finally, I will also note that “[t]he Lafontaine-Baldwin government, formed on March 11, battled for the restoration of the official status of the French language, which was abolished with the Union Act, and the principles of responsible government and the double-majority in the voting of bills.” [iii] In other words, Lord Durham’s recommendation that French-speaking Canadians be assimilated was not implemented.

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine “insisted on speaking French in the Assembly, and because of his action the imperial government later repealed the ACT OF UNION clause prohibiting official use of French.” [iv]

As for the idea of a possible annexation with the United States, it died down. In fact, what colonial authorities now feared, as did Loyalists, was an invasion from the south.  United Empire Loyalists had fled north in 1776, when the Thirteen Colonies declared independence from Britain: 4 July 1776.

So what followed the Act of Union was a return to order and a growing motivation to expand and secure Canada. The goal was to extend its provinces from sea to sea:  A Mari Usque Ad Mare. It would therefore be necessary to build a railroad, but that story will be told later. [V]

Portrait of Jerry, by Cornelius Krieghoff

24 Mendelssohn Lieder ohne Worte, Op.53 – No. 6. Molto allegro vivace in A ‘La fuite’, Daniel Barenboim (piano)
(please click on the title to hear the music)
 
Photo credit:  Wikipedia and la Galerie Klinckhoff
Cornelius Krieghoff (link)

____________________

[i] “Robert Baldwin,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baldwin

[ii] Curtis Fahey, “Amnesty Act,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/amnesty-act

[iii] Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Hippolyte_Lafontaine

[iv] Jacques Monet, S. J., “Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/sir-louishippolyte-Lafontaine

[v] Ibid.

Upper Canada Rebellion: Wikipedia’s Gallery

16 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by in Canada, History

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

William Lyon MacKenzie

Above is a photograph of William Lyon Mackenzie who, along with Louis-Joseph Papineau, worked to bring about responsible government. Neither William Lyon Mackenzie nor Louis-Joseph Papineau wanted Britain to take money the Canadas had levied from its citizens to attend to the needs of the Canadas.

The Rebellions of 1837 started in Lower Canada in mid-November 1837, but no sooner did he hear about these that he too started to act.

William Lyon Mackenzie (12 March  1795 – 28 August 1861) was a Scottish born American and Canadian journalist, politician, and rebellion leader.  He served as the first mayor of Toronto, Upper Canada and was an important leader during the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion.  William Lyon Mackenzie is Mackenzie King‘s grandfather.  (Wikipedia)

Samual Lount

“[Samuel Lount] was born in Catawissa, Pennsylvania, United States, in 1791 and he came to Whitchurch Township in Upper Canada in 1811 with his family.  He returned to Pennsylvania during the War of 1812, returning to Whitchurch in 1815.  He briefly kept a tavern in Newmarket while doing work as a surveyor, but spent most of his adult life as a blacksmith in Holland Landing.  As blacksmith, he helped to build the first steamboat on Lake Simcoe.

“In 1834, he was elected to the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada representing Simcoe County, where he became a supporter of William Lyon Mackenzie.  After he was defeated in the election of 1836, he joined the movement pressing the British government for reforms.” (Wikipedia)

“In the winter of 1837, Lount helped organize people from the Simcoe area to join a planned march on Toronto and joined the rebel group gathered at Montgomery’s Tavern.” (Wikipedia)

montgomerys_tavern

The Battle of Montgomery’s Tavern (Sketch of the battle based on a contemporary British engraving).

Launt & Matthews

“Be of good courage boys, I am not ashamed of anything I’ve done, I trust in God, and I’m going to die like a man.” (Lount)

Peter Matthews

“Peter Matthews (1789 – 12 April 1838) was a farmer and soldier who participated in the  of 1837. Matthews’ group of 60 men arrived at Montgomery’s Tavern on December 6 and, on the following day, were assigned to create a diversion on the bridge over the Don River.”

They killed one man and set fire to the bridge and some nearby houses before they were driven off by the government forces. On the advice of his lawyer, he pleaded guilty.” (Wikipedia)

Both were hanged on April 12, 1838.

Joshua Doan: The Western Rising

“Joshua Gwillen Doan (1811 – 6 February 1839) was a farmer and tanner who participated in the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837.

He was born in the Sugar Loaf area of the Niagara District in 1811 to a family of Quakers who had left Pennsylvania before the start of the War of 1812. He began farming and then became a tanner when his brother opened a tannery in 1832. During 1837, he became a supporter of William Lyon Mackenzie. On 9 December 1837, with Charles Duncombe, he organized a group of men to join Mackenzie’s revolt in Toronto, not realizing that the revolt had already been put down. On 13 December, they were dispersed by loyalist troops led by Colonel Allan MacNab near Brantford.

Joshua escaped to the United States. In December 1838, he was part of a raid launched on Windsor by a group of refugees from the Rebellion known as Patriots. Several inhabitants and invaders were killed and a number of the Patriots, including Doan, were taken prisoner.

In January 1839, he was tried at London, Ontario, found guilty of treason and sentenced to death.” (Wikipedia)

He was hanged on 6 February in London, current Ontario.

Canada’s Coat of Arms

Canada’s Act of Union, 1840-41

15 Sunday Apr 2012

Posted by in Canada, History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland

George III (1738 – 1820), whose reign began in 1760, was King when New France was ceded to Britain, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), and he was also King on July 4, 1776, when the Thirteen Colonies declared independence from Britain. 
 

Louis-Joseph Papineau

Upon George III’s death, Louis-Joseph Papineau (1786 -1871), a Canadien, seigneur, lawyer, politician, orator and future patriote, praised his King.  He said that “it was impossible not to express our [Canadiens‘s] feelings of gratitude for [George III’s] good deeds towards French Canadians[.]” (“il est impossible de ne pas exprimer nos sentiments de gratitude pour les bienfaits que nous avons reçus de lui…”) [i]  Matters  would change rapidly. 

The Rebellions

The Constitutional Act: taxation

Under the terms of the Constitutional Act of 1791, the “colonial assemblies” of the two Canadas were granted “the right to levy taxes with which to pay for local civil and legal administration.” [ii] However, when Britain started helping itself to money levied through taxation in the Canadas, there was considerable indignation in both Canadas. Britain was in breach of the terms of the Constitutional Act. December 5, 1837 In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie (12 March 1795 – 28 August 1861), a journalist, a politician and the first mayor of Toronto, thought, at first, that such high-handedness could be stopped without an uprising and, possibly, bloodshed.  However, on 5 December 1837, after proclaiming a Declaration of Independence, he lead rebels into battle.  At one point, the rebels regrouped a Montgomery’s Tavern and a battle ensued.  The rebels lost and kept losing.

William Lyon Mackenzie was able to flee, but Samuel Launt and Peter Matthews were not so fortunate.  Both were hanged in Toronto on 12 April 1838.

A proclamation posted on December 7, 1837 offering a reward of one thousand pounds for the capture of William Lyon Mackenzie

8 December 1837: the Western Rising

On 8 December 1837, a second group of rebels, led by Dr Charles Duncombe (Wikipedia) and “patriots” Robert Alway, Finlay Malcolm, Eliakim Malcolm, and Joshua Doan, rose outside Toronto. Duncombe gathered about 200 men and marched towards Toronto. A few hundred more rebels joined them on their march, but they dispersed near Hamilton on 13 December when they learned of Mackenzie’s defeat, and that a militia under Colonel Allan MacNab was on its way to stop them.

Duncombe and Eliakim Malcolm fled to the United States where Dr Duncombe remained for the rest of his life, despite being pardoned in 1843. Joshua Doan was executed in 1839.

There were other contentious issues, such as the Family Compact and the Clergy Reserve (Protestant Clergy) in Upper Canada. [iii]  But these will not be discussed in any depth in this post.  However, you may wish to read my post entitled Upper and Lower Canada, this current blog being its continuation.

Lower Canada: Louis-Joseph Papineau

Louis-Joseph Papineau, who had praised George III, could no more accept the Crown’s high-handedness than William Lyon Mackenzie.  In fact, no sooner did Papineau praise George III than he grew disillusioned with respect to British rule in general and the lack of power granted to the elected Legislative Assembly.  According to the Canadian Encyclopedia,

“[Papineau] came to see himself as the defender of the national heritage of French Canada and led the fight for control of the political institutions of Lower Canada. Early in his career he was a moderate who admired British parliamentary ins/titutions, but during the 1820s his views became more radical and his parliamentary strategy was obstructionist, using the Assembly’s control of revenues and the civil list to combat the policies of the English commercial class, which he considered anathema to the interests of French Canada.” [iv]

Too weak an elected Legislative Assembly

“The Constitutional Act of 1791 had established three branches of government: the Legislative Assembly, an elected lower house; the Legislative Council, an appointed upper house; and the Executive Council, which acted as a kind of cabinet for the lieutenant governor. The governor was always an appointed British nobleman, and he appointed members of the [Château Clique] as his advisers.” [V]

 An elected Legislative Assembly was therefore outnumbered by appointed officials:
  • an appointed Legislative Council,
  • an appointed Executive Council,
  • an appointed Lieutenant Governor,
  • &  the Château Clique, advisors to the Lieutenant Governor and appointed by him. The Château Clique was Lower’s Canada equivalent of Upper Canada’s Family Compact.
The power of the nonelective bodies of government was so overwhelming that in 1823, Papineau travelled to England to defeat, successfully, the Union Bill of 1822.  As for the the Assembly in Upper Canada, William Lyon MacKenzie was battling the Family Compact, Upper Canada’s version of Lower Canada’s Château Clique.  The Clique consisted of mostly rich and influential individuals appointed by the Lieutenant Governor as advisors.
 

November 1937: three main battles It follows that when the Crown began dipping into Lower Canada’s Assembly’s funds, protest soon escalated into rebellion. Having won a first battle at Saint-Denis, Papineau and the patriotes were defeated at Saint-Charles and Saint-Eustache.  Papineau fled to the United States. However, there was a second insurrection, led by Dr Robert Nelson, Wolfred Nelson‘s brother. The “patriotes” were defeated once again, and Papineau sailed to France.  The damage and repercussions are as follows:

Of the 99 condemned to death, only 12 went to the gallows, while 58 were transported to Australia. In total the 6 battles of both campaigns left 325 dead, 27 of them soldiers and the rest rebels, while 13 men were executed (one by the rebels), one was murdered, one committed suicide and 2 prisoners were shot. [vi]

Lord Durham’s investigation and Report

Lord Durham, “Radical Jack,” was appointed to investigate the 1837-1838 rebellions in the Canadas, and to present a Report.  He reported that “French” Canadians “had no history and no culture” (Wikipedia) and recommended that they be assimilated and that the two Canadas be joined.  The Union Act is an “…Act of the British Parliament, passed July 1840 and proclaimed 10 February 1841, uniting UPPER CANADA and LOWER CANADA under one government.”  To his credit, Lord Durham dismissed the Family Compact as “a petty corrupt insolent Tory clique”. (“Family Compact,” Wikipedia)

Lord Durham’s Report and the Act of Union

The Act’s “main provisions were the establishment of a single parliament with equal representation from each constituent section; consolidation of debt; a permanent Civil List; banishment of the French language from official government use; and suspension of specific French Canadian institutions relating to education and civil law. The Act naturally aroused considerable opposition. In Upper Canada, the FAMILY COMPACT opposed union, and in Lower Canada religious and political leaders reacted against its anti-French measures. ” [vii]

Conclusion

Given the nature of his Report, one could surmise that Lord Durham considered the Rebellions of 1837-1838 a mainly ethnic struggle.  It would seem, in other words, that Lord Durham determined rather hastily the causes of the Rebellions. There can be no doubt that Lower Canada’s Canadiens liked their Lower Canada.  However, the Rebelllions of 1837-1838, which took place in both Canadas were, first and foremost, a step towards a greater measure of self-rule or responsible government. It does appear that the elected Assemblies of both Canadas had insufficient power.  Decisions were made by persons who were appointed, rather than elected, to their position, which was problematical.  As a result, when the British trespassed by dipping into the treasuries of both Canadas, there was dismay in both Canadas. Following the Act of Union, the French-speaking Canadians became a minority which was unavoidable.  Combined, the two Canadas were a predominantly English-speaking community, but the French were not assimilated.  However, enmity had been suggested and French-Canadian patriotes were executed by the British.  It had been 74 years since Britain ruled the inhabitants of the former and peaceful New France. The climate had therefore changed.  After the Act of Union (1840-1841), the Canadiens remained politically active, but Canadiens also huddled in various Petits-Canadas, French-speaking areas within English-speaking villages and other communities. The Seigneurial System was abolished in 1854 and, the birth rate being very high, the habitant‘s thirty acres continued to shrink as sons were born who could not remain into the land allotted them in the days of New France.  This caused an exode and the colonisation the Curé Labelle advocated.  See The Canadien’s Terroir and Maria Chapdelaine, earlier posts.  Yet, the daily life of Canadiens families did not change.  It was, in fact, as Krieghoff depicted it.

Habitants by Cornelius Krieghoff

The Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada (You Tube)
(please click on the title to see the Video)
 
William Lyon Mackenzie, the first mayor of Toronto and a rebel, is the grandfather of The Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, PC, OM, CMG (17 December 1874 – 22 July 1950) [who] was the dominant Canadian political leader from the 1920s through the 1940s. He served as the tenth Prime Minister of Canada from 29 December 1921 to 28 June 1926; from September 25, 1926 to August 7, 1930; and from 23 October 1935 to 15 November 1948. (Wikipedia)
_________________________ 
[i] Louis-Joseph Papineau, cité par René Dionne, La Patrie littéraire, volume 2, p. 344, in Gilles Marcotte, directeur, Anthologie de la littérature québécoise (Montréal: l’Hexagone, 1994). 
[ii] The Constitutional Act, 1791
“The bill had 4 main objectives: to guarantee the same rights and privileges as were enjoyed by loyal subjects elsewhere in North America; to ease the burden on the imperial treasury by granting colonial assemblies the right to levy taxes with which to pay for local civil and legal administration; to justify the territorial division of the PROVINCE OF QUEBEC and the creation of separate provincial legislatures; and to maintain and strengthen the bonds of political dependency by remedying acknowledged constitutional weaknesses of previous colonial governments.”
Pierre Tousignant, The Constitutional Act, 1791, The Canadian Encyclopedia
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/constitutional-act-1791. 
[iii] Seigneurial System and Clergy (Protestant) Reserves (Constitutional Act, 1791)
“The Act guaranteed continuity of ownership of lands held under the SEIGNEURIAL SYSTEM in Lower Canada and created the CLERGY RESERVES in Upper Canada.”
Pierre Tousignant, The Constitutional Act, 1791, The Canadian Encyclopedia
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/constitutional-act-1791
[iv] James Marsh, “Louis-Joseph Papineau,” The Canadian Encyclopedia
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/louisjoseph-papineau
[v] Château Clique, Wikipedia
[vi] P. A. Buckner, “Rebellions of 1837,” The Canadian Encyclopedia
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/rebellions-of-1837
[vii] Jacques Monet, S.J., “The Act of Union,” The Canadian Encyclopedia
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/act-of-union