Depth - Canada and the Durham Report 1837-1840 Flashcards
Political Nature and governmental system of Upper Canada
The Constitutional Act (Canada Act), 1791 - better represent the population in Canada after American Revolution, the British Parliament passed it to create the colonies of Upper Canada (now Ontario) and, predominantly French speaking, Lower Canada (now Quebec), each with their own colonial administration.
Political Nature and governmental system of Lower Canada
The Constitutional Act (Canada Act), 1791 - better represent the population in Canada after American Revolution, the British Parliament passed it to create the colonies of Upper Canada (now Ontario) and, predominantly French speaking, Lower Canada (now Quebec), each with their own colonial administration.
Causes of Revolts in Upper Canada - radicals and emigration
Radical reformers
1828 – developing definition of responsible government and trying to present with no success.
1837 – Baldwin protested about removal from executive council by the Lt. Gov. and events were led by the far less moderate voice of the Reformers, William Lyon Mackenzie.
Mackenzie ran a newspaper – been attacked by the some of the sons of the Family Compact in 1826 – genuine victim of persecution and aiding his reputation a reformer enormously - he began arguing reforms to the current system would be sufficient but, as the 1830s progressed, he looked to America for inspiration and argued that Upper Canada should follow the example of the American colonies seek independence
Emigration
Irish emigration into Upper Canada in the 1830s meant that the whole of Upper Canada east of Toronto and north of the older loyalist settlements became noticeably Irish in character – prejudices against poor Irish emigrants common in Britain: that the Irish were feckless, criminally inclined and carried disease.
American aliens emigrating into the province from the 1790s to the 1820s had traditionally been regarded with suspicion and in the 1830s
Poor immigrants helped by the Ops Township scheme with temporary shelters and cheap supplies funded by the government – Reformers objected to the costs of the programme
Family Compact objected to increase of poor immigrants (unlikely to support their control of influence within the colony and growing numbers threatened the status quo.)
Cholera epidemic in 1832 and 1834 and fiscal crisis in America in 1837 affected the eco-stability of Upper Canada
Causes of Revolts in Upper Canada - Governor Actions and 1836 Elections
Actions of Governors
Sir Colborne (1828-35) and Sir Bond Head (1835-38), Lt. govs of Upper Canada – similar interpretation of the constitution – they govern, and executive council gets consulted.
Bypassed legislative assembly by using tax to pay officials’ salaries and set up an English preparatory school, rather than a university that some wanted, using public funds.
Most controversial action led to his removal from his political position and appointment to commander-in-chief for Canada – allocation of the income from clergy reserves for the ongoing support for 44 Anglican parishes across the province to establish yet more firmly the Anglican Church as settlement across the province increased – highly provocative and one of the principal grievances leading to the rebellion
Head – chosen based on local administration in Kent of the newly amended Poor Law – arrived in Canada with unjustified reputation as a reformer.
Invited some moderates onto the executive committee seemed positive, but he then forced them from office when they complained that they had not been consulted on issues they deemed to be within their remit.
1836 Election
Head campaigned against the Reformers, against tradition, where the Lt. govs did not campaign in elections – successful in removing the Reformers from the legislative assembly by extending the session of the legislative and preventing members of the legislature from serving as executive councillors
Made the situation even more volatile as the Reformers were now convinced, they had no legal means to influence the government of the province and that rebellion was now the only option and imitated America + used propaganda
The Revolt in Upper Canada
1837
After the revolt in Lower Canada, Mackenzie launched a revolt in Upper Canada – about 1,000 men, mostly farmers from America, gathered for 4 days - Unclear objectives, but plan was to attack property and businesses of those within the Family Compact
5 Dec – many poorly armed and organised rebels marched south on Yonge Street and exchanged gunfire with smaller group of loyalists.
3 days later- remaining rebels were dispersed after loyalist reinforcements arrived in Toronto by steamboat – small, 2nd confrontation after in Brantford, but rebels were dispersed
Despite the revolt being over, rebel leaders fled to Navy Island declaring it a provisional state - numbers rose to 600, some responding to Mackenzie’s promises of 300 acres of land for supporters.
13 Jan 1838- their supply ship, the American steamer Caroline, was burned - Mackenzie fled the island under bombardment from the militia- captured by the US military - sentenced to 18 months for violating neutrality law
Consequences of revolt in Upper Canada
Hundreds, thousands, of rebels and rebel sympathisers left the province for America - those who stayed were often arrested and 2 were hanged.
Those who remained, the political makeup of the province had changed considerably
After 1837 those who advocated an American-style revolution fled to America or kept their opinions to themselves.
The talk was solely of loyalty to Britain and how to keep the province British.
British were convinced the events were down to the actions of the Family Compact over the years- something must be done to sort out the governance
Moderate reforming voices, like Baldwin, were bound to come to the fore and command the attention of Lord Durham, who was dispatched to the province tasked with finding a solution
Causes of Revolts in Lower Canada
Louis Joesph Papineau
Descendent of old seigneurial family, prominent in Lower Canadian politics for many years.
1830 onwards – position became increasingly anti-British and under his leadership the assembly refused to accept any of the compromises offered by the British regarding control of finances in the province – refused to vote in favour of the Civil List to pay the salaries of officials
Papineau was not influenced by ideas of equality or revolution. His opposition to the British stemmed from French-Canadian nationalism and was opposed to any change in the seigneurial land system, unlike the more liberal members of the Patriot Party
The reasons for his change of heart post-1830 are obscure as previously he had viewed the British constitution as perfect and that Canadian local institutions should be based on the British parliamentary system.
He was influenced by the more radical mood of the times (French Revolution 1830) and by the general discontent regarding the economic situation in Lower Canada.
Adopting a more hardline stance ensured the continuation of his position as the acknowledged leader of the opposition to the British. In February 1834, 92 Resolutions were published by the patriots demanding constitutional change, including elective councils, and seeking to protect the French-Canadian identity
Economy
Did not do well during the 1830s and the hardship suffered by the habitants, combined with general social unease resulting from increased immigration, meant that the population became increasingly radical.
The immigrants brought with them cholera and there was an outbreak in 1832, which increased tensions to the point that the military fired on a crowd during the 1832 election and two men were shot.
The patriots benefited from the hard times as so much of their rhetoric was that of the American Revolution that their supporters could be forgiven for confusing them with genuine radicals. Certainly, by 1834, the more radical wing of the Patriot Party was emerging as a stronger voice in the assembly and in the province
For the British, the most pressing economic problem of the period was how to pay the salaries of officials, as the assembly, led by Papineau, was uncompromising in its opposition to British proposals for shared economic control of the province
The Revolt in Lower Canada
1837-1838
Sep-Oct - 500+ form themselves into the parliamentary Societe des Fils de la Liberte (SFL) holding public meeting
Late Oct- Confederation of the 6 Counties met. Papineau speaks against rebellion but Wolfred Nelson becomes the new voice of the patriotes, declaring rebellion
Early Nov- street fighting breaks out between the Doric Club (British and Anglican) and SFL and the offices of the pro-British newspaper, “The Vindicator”, are destroyed
Mid Nov- British cavalry and patriote militia exchange shots in Montreal
A rebel force ambushes a small military regiment sent to arrest patriote leaders and several wounded. Gosford issue warrants for the arrests of patriote leaders for treason
Late Nov- a surprise victory for patriote forces at the village of St Denis under the leadership of Nelson
British Generals Wetherall defeats the patriote forces at St Charles
Wetherall enters Montreal with 30 prisoners captured at St Charles
Early Dec- Martial law is declared and 100 patriots fled from a burning church in St Eustache are shot
Dec 1837- Jan 1838- Gosford has the situation in Canada under control and patriots are either prisoners or have fled to America- British burnt houses of known patriotes and those believed to have sheltered them
Nov- Lord Durham’s departure is followed by raids along the border by exiled patriots, aided by American citizens acting independently of their gov (the ‘Second Rebellion’). The raids are unsuccessful and quashed by action by Canada and US
Consequences of revolt in Lower Canada
Extent of rebellion was greater than in Upper Canada – over 500 patriots were jailed in Montreal and estimates of 13,000 rebels were involved.
British passed an Act in 1838 suspending the 1791 Constitution of Lower Canada and Governor Gosford was allowed to run the province with an appointed special council – revoked martial law in Montreal in April 1838, judging that the situation had calmed.
Lessons British drew from events in Lower Canada differed from Upper Canada. The rebels in Lower Canada were ethnically French- Canadian and this racial division coloured the views of the British.
It was imperative that Lower Canada was reorganised in such a way that the French-Canadians could no longer command a majority in any assembly, at the same time as reining in the Chateau Clique of British loyalists who had undeniably contributed to the situation.
London accepted that new constitutional settlement must be found but were sensitive to the needs of the British settlers – solution for Lower Canada must be one that protected the rights of British settlers while tackling the system of land tenure which the British viewed as a principal cause of habitant poverty and discontent
Similarities between the Revolts
They were not listened to by the British
Britain attempted to reassert their power to the colonies
Their governance is the reason for the revolt – Family Compact (upper) and Chateau Cliques (lower)
Differences between the Revolts
Constriction suspended in Upper Canada but not lower Canada
Extent of the rebellion in Lower Canada was far greater than that in Upper Canada
Lower Canada was slightly different from those that they drew from events in Upper Canada. The rebels in Lower Canada were ethnically French- Canadian and this racial division influenced the views of the British.
Importance of Durham’s appointment
Actions stabilised the political situation temporarily and he was popular within the provinces
Partly because of his actions and partly because of the fierce military response to the revolts, all but the most extreme Reformers were once more engaged in trying to find a political solution with London – trouble that reignited in Lower Canada following Durham’s departure was dealt with quickly
By consulting widely and speedily with the populations of the province and by publicly discounting the views of those who had previously held executive power in a tight grip, Durham proved to be an effective high commissioner – Gosford was unable to be as good – not endowed with the same sweeping powers
Popularity may have partly derived from London’s intervention and his removal before he had time to disappoint his supporters, but it was nevertheless important in turning the tide away from the revolutionary American model and back once again to engagement with Westminster
Role of Charles Buller
Career in politics and journalism in the 1830s as a radical and sat on many reforming committees within parliament
Durham’s official chief secretary and appointed nominal head of the Commission into Crown Lands (most of the work was done by Wakefield)
Sympathetic to French-Canadian rebels and felt British policy drove them to revolt – idea to banish a small number of rebels to Bermuda, which proved to be the cause of Durham’s resignation from the mission
Remained behind in Canada to finish the work of the committees set up to help with the drafting of the report until December 1838 and then returned to London to work on the final draft with Durham.
Resumed his political career upon his return and was responsible for the publication of Responsible Government for Colonies in 1840, which continued to advocate the principle of responsible self-government in Canada
Role of Edward Wakefield
In Newgate Prison – allowed him to study – developed a theory of systematic colonisation
After release – too shady to enter politics officially – attempt influence the land schemes and settlements of several colonies – involved in the South Australian Association responsible for colonisation in Adelaide – gotten close to Lord Durham in connection with the New Zealand Land Scheme – hoped Durham might become prominently involved
Regarded the system of free land grants to the root of the problems – advocated the theory of imperial settlement that land must be sold at a sufficient price to encourage worthy settlers rather than being given away
Acted as an unpaid adviser and secretary to Durham and Buller. The only part of the report attributable to Wakefield is the appendix on Crown lands and emigration, which suggested that there be a tax on wild lands that had been granted but not settled and that the proceeds of this tax should go to public works to encourage further settlement.
Recommendations acted on – advocate of the union of the two provinces as the best way forward for their economic future and Durham was influenced by his views as the report recommended the union of the provinces as the best way to deal with the problem of the French-Canadian majority in Lower Canada
Recommendations of the Durham Report
Unification of Upper and Lower Canada as one province - toyed with the idea of federating all the provinces in Canada. However, in his judgement, the problems in Lower Canada were a result of the French-Canadians and he judged that the best immediate solution would be to ensure that they were placed in a minority position within a united province
Freedoms granted to the French-Canadians under the Quebec Act, particularly relating to civil law and land tenure, should be rescinded to improve the economic position of the habitants and promote economic growth within the colony
Responsible self-government for the new province, as defined by moderate Reformer Robert Baldwin - the legislative assembly would be elected, but the party with the majority would hold power and exercise it through cabinet government, following the Westminster model (governor of the province would be a titular figure only)
