Events in Quebec

12 Saturday May 2012

Tags

Canada, France, French Canadian, Montreal, New France, Quebec, Quebec Act, Thirteen Colonies

Habitants, by Cornelius Krieghoof

The Quebec government wishes to increase tuition fees for university students. At first, students protested in a manner that did not cause a public disturbance. But matters have changed. On Thursday, May 10, 2012, students released fumes into the Montreal subway system, thereby all but paralyzing the city.

I must tell you how disappointed I am.

The “suspects” have been identified. They are students. But I believe they are being used by a group of Quebec citizens, once called séparatistes but renamed indépendantistes, who seem to have made it their duty to blame anglophones for whatever they perceive as a societal ill. They peddle ill-conceived hatred.

The Tuition Fees

For reasons I cannot understand, university tuition fees in Quebec have long been the lowest in Canada. No government can support its universities unless there is proper funding, part of which comes from tuition fees.

If indeed Monsieur Charest, the premier, and his government impose an increase in tuition fees, Quebec students will be paying what students pay in other provinces, except that Quebec has yet to sign the constitution and, unlike other provinces, is tied to Britain.

History

For the last few weeks, we have been exploring the history of New France and have examined the fate of French-speaking colonists after Nouvelle-France was ceded to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. In 1763, France chose to keep Guadeloupe rather than New France.

The Quebec Act (1744)

It could be that it was in the best interest of England to ensure the loyalty of its French-speaking Quebec subjects. The Thirteen Colonies were threatening to declare their independence from Britain. But, whatever the motivation, the fact remains that, in 1774, French-speaking Canadians were made into full-fledged British subjects and were given a voice in Parliament.

The Quebec Act of 1774

It would be my view that, once again, congenital malcontents who love finding fault with anglophones so they can play martyrs are in the background fuelling the fire. If this is not the case, I apologize. Canadians respect Québec and French-Canadians and the decision to increase tuition fees does not justify malfeasance. This cannot be about raising tuition fees.

Micheline’s Life

As a French-Canadian, born in Quebec, but who lived in English-speaking milieux for most of her life, I never experienced enmity on the basis of my ethnic origins. I was loved and, until recently, given every opportunity to succeed.

scapegoats

So, will all due respect, it would be my view that the anglophones are being made into scapegoats. Besides, the current problem is the students dissatisfaction over an increase in tuition fees. It is not a linguistic issue. This is a blatant case of misdirected anger: anger at anglophones.

French-speaking Québécois are not facing threats. There is no enemy. Quebec has duly elected representatives in Parliament which gives Québécois a voice in the public place. Releasing fumes into the Montreal subway was an immature, irresponsible, and criminal act. Just in case the students do not know, the world is watching and it does not like what it is seeing.

The thought that students may find themselves in jail and may never be able to enter into a profession or find employment saddens me. But I believe they were guided into breaking the law.

Good citizens abide by the law of the land, especially when there is nothing wrong with the law of the land.

Micheline Walker©

May 12, 2012

The Treaty of Paris (1763) & and 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)

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 a bad year, such as the year 1701, made it necessary for France to bail 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, to military officers and to other notables. Moreover, if a SEIGNEUR died, his widow inherited the SEIGNEURIE and we cannot take it for granted that she could manage on her own. I therefore suspect 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. But it didn’t make its products. 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 were needed in the FUR TRADE. There were no industries.

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 better management of New France was needed.

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 in 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 had written that New France had been weakened by the removal of the Huguenots, French Calvinist Protestants. They had to leave when the Edict of Nantes was revoked. The Edict of Nantes was an Edict of tolerance towards Huguenots that had been issued on April 13, 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 find out.

I must thereforel pause here, but I would not be surprised if I learned that New France and its SEIGNEURS had a great deal 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 now 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 also 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 he 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. So, my dear readers, my mind is racing as it has seldom raced.

May 2, 2012

WordPress

[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

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 M^grJean-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 M^grJean-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

_________________________

[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.

Upper and Lower Canada

12 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Canada, History

≈ 480 Comments

Tags

Canada, Cornelius Krieghoff, Eastern Townships, Estrie, Lower Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Quebec Act, United Empire Loyalist, Upper Canada

Owl’s Head and Skinner’s Cove on Lake Memphremagog, by Cornelius Krieghoff (courtesy The Canadian Encyclopedia and National Gallery of Art)

This is Owl’s Head as depicted by Cornelius Krieghoff, in 1856.

By and large, during the many years Dutch-Canadian artist Cornelius Krieghoff spent in Canada, he did not often visit the Eastern Townships, now called l’Estrie, the region southeast of Montreal where seigneurs did not own land. But he made a painting of Owl’s Head and Skinner’s Cove, on Lake Memphremagog. Owl’s Head is a small mountain.

United Empire Loyalists & The Eastern Townships

In the early days of Nouvelle-France, the seigneuries were narrow and deep properties situated on the shores of the St Lawrence River. I should think that forestiers (lumberjacks) and coureurs de bois, harvested wood and fur in the Eastern Townships and that there may have been a few Canadiens parishes. However, the Townships were not settled until 10,000 United Empire Loyalists fled the independent Thirteen Colonies out of loyalty to Britain.

Some went to St John’s, New Brunswick, some to Kingston, in the current Province of Ontario, but a large number settled in the area of the Province of Quebec that would be called the Eastern Townships (les Cantons de l’Est). The Townships were a favourite destination for United Empire Loyalists.

Quebec’s Eastern Townships

The Eastern Townships are a mountainous area. Its mountains are part of the Appalachian Mountains and therefore not very high or steep. The Appalachians were probably cropped and rounded by icebergs and other northern giants moving south in a pre-historic past. But although the Appalachian Mountains do not possess the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains, in Western Canada, they are nevertheless perfect for skiers in winter. Moreover, the region has several lakes and rivers. Closest to Sherbrooke, the main city in the Eastern Townships /l’Estrie, is Lake Memphremagog, where the Benedictine Abbey (Saint-Benoît-du-Lac) I wrote about in my Easter post is located. But Lake Memphremagog is also depicted in Krieghoff’s painting featured above (oil on canvas).

The Quebec Act, 1774

But let us travel back in time. You may recall that the Quebec Act [i] of 1774, discussed in The Aftermath & Krieghoff’s Quintessential Quebec, made French-speaking Canadians full-fledged British citizens. Many Canadiens were happy to have escaped the French Revolution, the priests in particular. The same could be said of the seigneurs. Their life remained as it had been before 1763, the year New France was officially ceded to Britain, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris.

Matters changed however with the arrival of United Empire Loyalists in the Province of Quebec and other British locations north of the Thirteen Colonies. Authorities made room for the United Empire Loyalists, although there had been a land rush. Therefore, a large number of English-speaking settlers were given land in the Eastern Townships, now better known as l’Estrie. So the Quebec Act was reconsidered.

The Constitutional Act, 1791

Lower Canada and Upper Canada, 1791 (please click on the map to enlarge it)

The year 1791 saw the enactment of the Constitutional Act, an act which Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, KB (1724 – 1808) opposed. The former Province of Quebec was divided into two Canadas: Lower Canada, down the St Lawrence River, and Upper Canada, up the St Lawrence River and bordering on the Great Lakes.

This division of the former Province of Quebec gave French-speaking Canadians a land, Lower Canada, in which they were the majority despite the arrival of United Empire Loyalists. Therefore, their life did not change considerably. In fact, the creation of Lower Canada gave French-speaking Canadians the sense that they inhabited a Canada of their own. However, the Constitutional Act protected all Canadiens. On this subject, I will quote the Canadian Encyclopedia in order to provide you with accurate information:

The Act guaranteed continuity of ownership of lands held under the SEIGNEURIAL SYSTEM in Lower Canada and created the CLERGY RESERVES in Upper Canada. [ii]

Lower Canada was nevertheless different than the Province of Quebec. For one thing, it was smaller. Moreover, the inhabitants of Upper Canada were predominantly English-speaking Canadians and those of Lower Canada, predominantly French-speaking Canadians. In other words, joined, the two Canadas would be a mostly English-speaking country.

In the Canadian Encyclopedia, the Constitutional Act of 1791 is described as follows:

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. [iii]

In short, in 1791, the Quebec act was replaced by the Constitutional Act which led to the division of the Province of Quebec into two Canadas. Everything seemed acceptable but, in 1837-1838, both Canadas rebelled. Lord Durham, John George Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham GCB, PC (12 April 1792 – 28 July 1840), was asked to conduct an enquiry and provide a report as well as recommendations. The Report led to the Act of Union “enacted in July 1840 and proclaimed in 1841.” (Wikipedia, “The Act of Union”).

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. It was not if the Constitutional Act were “to maintain and strengthen the bonds of political dependency by remedying acknowledged constitutional weaknesses of previous colonial governments.” [iv]

_________________________
[i] A short term for a long title: An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America (please see below).
[ii] Pierre Toussignant, “The Constitutional Act 1791”
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/constitutional-act-1791
[iii] Pierre Toussignant “The Constitutional Act 1791”http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/constitutional-act-1791
[iv] Pierre Toussignant op. cit.

The Fine Print:

The Quebec Act, 1774

According to Wikipedia, “the principal components of the [Quebec] 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 Constitutional Act of 1791, formally The Clergy Endowments (Canada) Act, 1791 (31 Geo. 3. c.31), is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain.
(Long title: An Act to repeal certain Parts of an Act, passed in the fourteenth year of his Majesty’s Reign, intituled [sic], An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America; and to make further Provision for the Government of the said Province.)

The Aftermath & Krieghoff’s Quintessential Quebec

29 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Aboriginals, Art, Canada

≈ 267 Comments

Tags

Canada, Canadian Encyclopedia, Canadien, Constitutional Act 1791, Cornelius Krieghoff, New France, Quebec, Quebec Act, ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763

—Bargaining for a Load of Wood by Cornelius Krieghoff (1815 – 1872), 1860

Galerie Walter Klinkhoff

http://www.klinkhoff.com/gwk/home/gwkexhbrowse.asp?WID=769&artist=75

“After Canada was ceded to Britain in 1763, new British laws respected the private agreements and the property rights of francophone society, and the seigneurial system was maintained.” The Canadian Encyclopedia

—ooo—

In 1755, the British deported thousands of Acadians but, in 1874, nineteen years later, the Quebec Act made French-speaking Canadians full-fledged British subjects.

At first, there were difficult years on both sides. But, as stated in the Canadian Encyclopedia, after Canada was ceded to Britain in 1763, “new British laws respected the private agreements and the property rights of francophone society, and the seigneurial system was maintained.”[i] For details regarding this question, one can read Michel Brunet’s French Canada and the early decades of the British Rule (go to pages 3 and 4).

The Royal Proclamation and the Quebec Act

The ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763 renamed Nouvelle-France the Province of Quebec, but made it rather small, which would no longer be the case in 1774. According to the Quebec Act, “which received royal assent 22 June 1774 and became effective 1 May 1775,”[ii] the Province of Quebec would “include Labrador, Ile d’Anticosti and Iles-de-la-Madeleine on the east, and the Indian territory south of the Great Lakes between the Mississippi and Ohio rivers on the west.” This enlarged Quebec would have an elected assembly and Catholics could be elected into office.

Sir Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester

The Quebec Act came into effect under General and Right Honourable Sir Guy Carleton 1st Baron Dorchester, KB [Order of Bath] (Strabane, Co. Tyrone, Ireland, 3 September 1724 – 10 November 1808 Stubbings, Maidenhead, Berkshire), Governor of Quebec (1768–1778) and Governor General of the Canadas (1786–1796). But Guy Carleton opposed the Constitutional Act of 1991 that created two Canadas: Lower Canada and Upper Canada.

Lord Guy Carleton[iii] was largely responsible for the Quebec Act, which helped to preserve French laws and customs (courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-2833). (The Canadian Encyclopedia)

I will discuss the Constitutional Act (1791), which Lord Dorchester opposed, in a later post. For the time being, it suffices to tell about the life of the Canadien after the Treaty of Paris. France could have kept New France but it preferred to keep sugar-rich Guadeloupe. However, the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which protected Quebec, were respected.

It has been said that it was in Britain’s best interest to give full citizenship to the Canadiens in a formal Act, the Quebec Act. Its thirteen colonies to the South were threatening to part company with England. Therefore, why alienate the French Canadians? Yet, it has also been said that Britain acted in the best interest of its new British subjects.

Cornelius Krieghoff

So, let us remember Cornelius Krieghoof’s quintessential Quebec: a snow land, un pays de neige: snow as a country.

krieghoff-cornelius-winter-landscape-c-1849

— Winter Landscape, c. 1889 (Photo credit: Art.com)

Cornelius David Krieghoff (19 June 1815 – 8 March 1872) was born in Amsterdam and entered the Academy of Fine Arts in Germany, in c. 1830. He moved to New York in 1836 and enlisted in the US army the following year, 1837. In 1840, he deserted the US army and married Émilie Gauthier. “They moved to Montreal, where he participated in the Salon de la Société des Artistes de Montréal. While in Montreal, he befriended the Mohawks living on the Kahnawake Indian Reservation and made many sketches of them from which he later produced oil paintings.”[iv]

In 1844, the Krieghoffs travelled to Paris and Krieghoof made copies of works located in the Louvre under the direction of Michel Martin Drolling (1789–1851). Krieghoof was invited to participate in the first exhibition of the Toronto Society of Arts, held in 1847. So the Krieghoffs returned to Montreal in 1846 and moved to Quebec City in 1853. Krieghoff returned to Europe twice. He did so briefly, in 1854, and at greater length, from 1863 to 1868.

He then moved to Chicago to retire, and Chicago was his last destination. He died on 8 March 1872 at the age of 56 and is buried in Graceland Cemetery in Chicago. The Great Quebec Fire of 8 June 1881 destroyed many of his sketches, “then owned by John S. Budden, who had lived with the artist for thirteen years.” (Wikipedia). Cornelius Krieghoof is considered the finest Canadian artist of the nineteenth century. However, although called a Canadian, he could be labelled a Dutch master.

The Habitant and his Seigneur

Just below is a painting of habitants, the name given censitaires or tenants under the Seigneurial System, abolished in 1854. They had been called habitants since the seventeenth century. The word has now become pejorative.

Habitants, 1852 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Two Major Themes

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

“Krieghoff early on established in his repertoire two major themes that he would revisit throughout his career and for which he is perhaps best known: rural francophones and aboriginals. His HABITANT scenes cover a range of situations: in some, for example, folk greet one another en route, play cards, race their sleds, fraternize at the local in, or attempt to settle a tract of un-arable land – granted to them by the government – in the hinterlands of Québec.”[v]

The hinterlands would be Maria Chapdelaine’s Peribonka: les pays d’en-haut (the countries above), a story told by Frenchman, Louis Hémon. As for the aboriginals, when he served in the US army, Krieghoff was assigned for service in the Seminole Wars in Florida. Krieghoff had made sketches of the Second Seminole War. The Seminoles were Amerindians.