|
It seems convenient, as a
connecting link between the ‘régime and subsequent settlements
in the west, after the American Revolution, to glance briefly at early
British rule in Canada and the Eastern Provinces. Nova Scotia or Acadia,
including New Brunswick, was conquered by the force under General
Nicholson and Colonel Vetch in 1710; and the whole of it, exclusive of
Cape Breton, formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht
(1713). Samuel Vetch, an Edinburgh Scot, had long entertained the
project of conquering all the French possessions [The conquest of New
France was a hobby of Vetch’s, for very early in his career, when at
Quebec to effect an exchange of prisoners, he took soundings all the way
up the St. Lawrence.] to the northward, and he was the active spirit in
the movements of the early part of last century. He had been Councillor
of the Scottish settlement at Darien, and was a Colonel, when he made
the attack under Nicholson at Port Royal. A short time previously, an
abortive attack had been made, by way of Albany, on New France. In 1716,
however, the British forces, setting out for Massachusetts, attacked M.
Subercase, the French Governor at Port Royal. The fort was invested by
land and sea, and nothing remained for the starving and half-naked
garrison, but surrender. Port Royal was called Annapolis Royal, in
honour of the Queen and Nova Scotia, the old name devised by Sir William
Alexander, was substituted for Acadia. Vetch’s plan for taking Canada
came to a most unhappy termination by the annihilation of Sir Hoveden
Walker’s fleet, which was shattered to pieces on Egg Island, off the
coast of Northumberland, in 1711. Eight hundred bodies were washed
ashore on the island, and the unhappy Admiral, to whom this was only one
of several fatal disasters, returned home to be disgraced undeservedly,
and to die brokenhearted. On board the fleet were a large number of
Scottish settlers for Boston, many of whom perished. Tom Moore, when
passing Deadman’s Island in 1804—having learned the story of the
phantom ship—wrote a poem, from which Mr. Le Moine aptly quotes the
lines:
"There lieth a wreck,
on the dismal shore
Of cold and pitiless Labrador,
Where under the moon, upon mounts of frost,
Full many a mariner’s bones are tossed. "
[Poems Relating to
America. Deadman’s Island is one of the Magdalene group. It
appears that Vetch had given a caution to Walker regarding his French
pilot as one who could not be depended upon; "not only an ignorant,
pretending, little fellow, but I fear he is come on no good
design." See an admirable account of this terrible disaster in Le
Moine’s Chronicles of the St. Lawrence, chap. ix.]
Shortly after the capture
of Nova Scotia, Colonel Vetch was appointed first Governor of the
Province, to be succeeded in 1714 by his comrade in arms, General
Nicholson. During these early years, the colony was kept in a constant
state of disquietude by the hostility of the French population, and the
constant assaults, excited by the Acadians, of the Micmac Indians. Then
follows a chapter in the record, around which poetry and partizan
history have thrown a deceptive glamour. Longfellow, in Evangeline, has
simply adopted the story of the French chroniclers without inquiry; and
the result is a beautiful, and touching poem, appealing to human
sympathy, however, upon a false basis of historic narrative. That the
Acadians should cling to French rule and French institutions was
natural; but, by the capitulation of Port Royal, it was distinctly
agreed that they should remain in possession of their property and the
free exercise of their religion for two years without molestation. At
the expiration of that period they were to be required "to take the
oath of allegiance to Her Sacred Majesty of Great Britain," or
leave the country. As the time approached for making a choice, the
Governor of Cape Breton was appealed to for lands on which to settle the
recalcitrant Acadians; but the reply of M. Costabelle was that he had
none at his disposal. Still, "whilst declining to leave Nova
Scotia, the Acadians expressed a firm determination to continue loyal to
the King of France, affirming that they would never take the oath of
allegiance to the Crown of England, to the prejudice of what they owed
to their king, their country and their religion." [Campbell’s Nova
Scotia, p. 74.] Such was the Alsace England had upon her hands early
in the eighteenth century. Colonel Vetch, who was as tolerant and mild
in policy, as he was bold and enterprising in conquest, urged the
British Government to delay the administration of the oath. He
represented the value of the Acadians (2500 in number) and the cattle,
&c., which were scarce in the colony; and expressed a hope that
their antipathy to the new régime might disappear with time. On
the accession of George I. and the appointment of General Nicholson, the
policy of the Government underwent a marked change. The conciliatory
plan of Vetch was abandoned, and the oath tendered to all the French
population. Cape Breton, now called "Royal Island," was in the
hands of France; and Louisbourg soon became a formidable menace to the
British power in the North Atlantic. The Acadians were disaffected and
they were allied to Indians, who were at any time ready, when the signal
was given, to rob, scalp, and tomahawk the British settlers. Nor were
the French content with passive resistance merely, or even with covert
intrigues with the Indians. In 1720, under Governor Phillips, they
openly aided the savages in the work of robbery and slaughter. They had
sent assurances of their fidelity to the French Governor of Cape Breton,
paid dues for their lands to lords of the manor in Cape Breton, and were
ready, with their Indian allies, to assist an expedition from Louisbourg
at any moment. The pastoral picture of peace and content in the
"forest primeval" is historically false. The Acadians had been
indulgently treated for years and had returned evil for good; and if
their turbulence brought suffering and hardship upon them, the British
Government was not to blame under the perplexing circumstances of the
case. The troubles of the colony so far weighed upon Armstrong, who was
Lieutenant-Governor from 1728 to 1739, that he committed suicide.
In 1744 war broke out
between France and England, and the first step taken was an expedition
against Louisbourg. This enterprise had been suggested by Governor
Clarke, of New York, and pressed upon the Home Government by the Judge
of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Boston, Mr. Robert Auchmuty, who is said
to have been a man of extraordinary abilities. [See Drake’s Dictionary
of American Biography. Sabine, in his Loyalists, states that
he was the father of the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty, Rector of Trinity Church,
New York, and grandfather of General Sir Samuel Auchmuty. Robert was the
son of a Scot, and the progenitor of a number of United Empire
Loyalists.] The command of the expedition was given to William
Pepperell, and Whitefield, who was preaching in New England, proposed as
its motto, "Nil desperandum Christo duce." Mr. Campbell
notices "as a striking instance of the religious fervour of the
country and period, that one of the chaplains carried a hatchet to hew
down the images found in the churches." [Nova Scotia, p.
89.] Louisbourg fell for the first time in 1745, partly from the great
superiority of the invading force, and partly because of disaffection in
the garrison, caused by the infamous peculations of Intendant Bigot.
Then followed the abortive French expedition against Boston, and the
taking of Annapolis by the Scoto-French De Ramsay, already referred to.
In 1748 the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle terminated the war, and Cape
Breton was again restored to France.
The last French war had
tended to destroy any hope that might have been entertained of
conciliating the Acadians. Petitions and remonstrances were followed by
overt acts of rapine and insurrection. The time had come when forcible
measures must be taken against them, if Britain were to retain the
colony. They had enjoyed now for forty-two years, perfect civil and
religious liberty; they were free from direct taxation on their
property; they were not asked to fight. "And what return,"
says Mr. Campbell, "did the Acadians make for the kindness and
consideration shown them? In violation of law, they traded
systematically with the enemies of Britain, withheld supplies from the
garrison of Annapolis; when distressed for want of provisions, allowed a
British ship to be plundered at their very door by a party of eleven
savages, without rendering any aid to the owner, not to speak of the
charges of furnishing information to the enemy, and of paying rent for
their lands to Lords of Manors in Cape Breton; and when the fort of
Beau-sejour was taken, three hundred of their number were found with
arms in their hands, in open rebellion against the British Crown."
[Campbell: Nova Scotia, p.116 (quoting N. A. Archives, p.277).
In chap. iv. of Campbell’s work will be found a complete refutation of
the Acadian fancy-picture of Longfellow. The poet, in fact, slavishly
followed the Abbé Raynal. Witness the following from Raynal, and
compare with the poet. "Who will not be affected with the innocent
manners and the tranquillity of this fortunate colony;"—the
key-note to Evangeline; the sixty-thousand cattle and the immense
meadows are Raynal’s; and when he wrote that their habitations were
extremely convenient and furnished neatly as a substantial farmer’s
house in Europe, he hardly could have anticipated that it would appear
in Longfellow thus:—
"Strongly built were
the houses, with frames of oak and of chestnut,
Such as the peasants of Normandy built in the days of the Henries.
Thatched were the roofs, with dormer windows; and gables projecting
Over the basement below, protected and shaded the doorway."
In 1745, Messrs.
Beauharnois and Hoequart, who were neither poets nor historical
romancers, wrote that the houses of the Acadians are "wretched
wooden boxes, without convenience and without ornament, and scarcely
containing the necessary furniture."]
And not merely were they
spitefully hostile to an indulgent Government, but, in the words of poor
Governor Armstrong, "not only was there little prospect of their
being brought to obedience to the government, but even to any manner of
good order and decency among themselves; for they, are a litigious
people, and so ill-natured to one another, as daily to encroach on their
neighbour’s properties," &c. Whatever blame, therefore, may
be attached to the Governor for the manner of their removal, the
Acadians themselves are not entitled to the exuberant tears and sympathy
which have been so mistakenly lavished upon their story, no less than
upon many another fiction. It is much to be wished, at the same time,
that the cool Scottish head and thoroughly humane heart of Samuel Vetch
had not been wanting, when the crisis arrived.
The final capture of
Louisbourg, under Amherst, Wolfe and Boscawen has already been alluded
to, as well as the distinguished part taken in the exploit by the
Highland regiments. Reverting to the civil government, which was
invariably in military hands, with a small council, largely military
also, a remarkable feature to be noticed is the frequent change of
Governors. Between 1700 and 1808 there were no less than twenty of them,
and of these two— Michael Franklin and Lord William Campbell—served
two terms. In 1770, Prince Edward Island was separated from Nova Scotia,
and, in 1784, New Brunswick became a separate Province. Meanwhile, Nova
Scotia, since 1758, had been in the enjoyment of representative
government, Governor Lawrence being the first ruler under the new
system. In 1788, Major Barclay took part in an attack upon the
irresponsible system of the time, in a debate on the impeachment of two
Supreme Court judges for maladministration of the law—men whom the
Governor, in answer to an address, had personally acquitted without
trial. The struggle for responsible government, however, belongs to a
later time, and will be more fully detailed in a future chapter. [In
1794, His Royal Highness Edward, Duke of Kent, Her Majesty’s father,
visited the country, and was peculiarly beloved by the people both in
Nova Scotia and in Canada where, by the Queen’s munificence, a
permanent memorial to an exceptionally kind, liberal and intelligent
Prince is to be erected – the Kent Gate in the fortifications of
Quebec. His Royal Highness particularly endeared himself to the Nova
Scotians by his benevolent care of the survivors from the wreck of La
Tribune, at which Dunlop and Munroe distinguished themselves, and
the Quarter-Master McGregor perished, in a courageous effort to rescue a
not less heroic wife. – Campbell, pp. 181-2.] A constitution was
granted to Prince Edward Island in 1773, and New Brunswick was favoured
with one in 1784, at its separation from Nova Scotia, in which it had
previously formed the county of Sunbury. Newfoundland was governed by a
succession of naval officers, some of whom were Scots, down into the
present century; but the civil history of the island requires no further
notice here.
After the taking of
Quebec and Montreal, Canada remained under the rule of the Generals in
command until the peace of 1763, when General James Murray was appointed
Governor, as well as Commander-in-Chief. Garneau, who seems to have
taken a particular dislike to Murray, insists upon it that Sir Jeffery
(afterwards Lord) Amherst was the first Governor-General. The facts are
against him; since Amherst left in the very year of the Treaty of Paris,
and General Murray was appointed under the constitution established by
proclamation, the former having been only commander of the forces. James
Murray was a distinguished officer, and saw a good deal of active
service, both in Europe and America. He was a son of the fourth Lord
Elibank and a native of Scotland. The history of his services in Canada,
up to his appointment as Governor-General, has been already given.
Before referring to the record of his civil government, it may be
briefly noted that he afterwards served in the unsuccessful defence of
Minorca, where "De Crillon, despairing of success, endeavoured to
corrupt the gallant Scot, and offered him the sum of one million
sterling for the surrender of the fortress." [Morgan’s Celebrated
Canadians, p. 67.] Murray’s indignant reply, in which he refused
any further communication with the French general, but in arms, and to
"admit of no contact for the future but such as is hostile to the
most inveterate degree," is as spirited as the Duke’s was astute
and politic. The latter ran in these words, "Your letter restores
each of us to our places; it confirms in me the high opinion which I
have always had of you." Morgan says, "In June, 1794, he ended
a long, honourable career in the service of his country, in which he had
risen to much distinction; but, perhaps, not more than his services,
high talents and abilities deserved. As a soldier he stood foremost in
the army, and had won his way by his own merit and by his own good
sword, owing nothing to influence. As a genuine Christian officer, he
was esteemed by all good men, and ever distinguished for his humanity
and readiness to relieve the oppressed." [Ibid.] At his
death, according to Haydn, numbers of bullets were extracted from his
body prior to embalmment – bullets received in Germany and America.
The task laid upon
General Murray when he became commandant at Quebec, and subsequently
Governor-General, was an exceedingly delicate and arduous one. Placed in
the midst of a high-spirited and patriotic people, recently conquered
and brought to subjection by force of arms, he had at command but a
handful of British subjects, soldiers and traders, who assumed all the
airs, and expected an ample share of the rewards, of conquerors. The
French rulers had left the country in a fearful state of confusion and
poverty, and it fell to Murray’s lot to evolve something like order
out of the chaos in which it had been plunged. When the nature of the
French regime which prevailed during the preceding century and a
half is considered, it is marvellous that historians can be found to
complain of the provisional system of military rule which followed the
conquest. Under the Bourbon kings Canada was a military colony, governed
on the most approved Parisian system of despotic centralization. In
Louis the Fourteenth’s reign, and especially whilst the genius of
Colbert directed the destinies of France, Quebec suffered under the most
unyielding tyranny, the absurdest of trade restrictions, and generally—though
that was not the fault of the Minister at home—under the most corrupt,
wasteful and rapacious set of adventurers that ever cursed a new country
with their malign presence. In the reign of Louis XV. the abuses of that
system culminated in the disgraceful career of Intendant Bigot [See,
respecting Bigot, Le Moine: Maple Leaves 1st Ser., The
Chateau-Bigot, p. 8, The Golden Dog, (Le Chien D’Or), p.
29. For a general account of feudalism in New France and French colonial
government of Canada, see Parkman’s "Old Regime" and "Frontenac,"
as well as Miles’s Canada Under French Regime. Garneau, who
writes indignantly at what he called the "military despotism"
under Murray, speaks thus of the system which preceded it when at its
purest and best. "In the exercise and apportionment of the power of
the colonial government, the people counted for nothing. It was
considered a high favour done the inhabitants of Quebec, when they were
permitted to elect a deacon to represent and support their interests in
the sovereign council, but the office, as a popular institution was
null; and as the election of that functionary was but a mere act of
routine, the custom of attending on such occasions was gradually wearing
out. . .It will be understood that all real power resided collectively
in the Governor, the Intendant, and the members of the sovereign council
being directly or indirectly of royal nomination. The colonial
government was simplicity itself, as all absolutisms are wont to be; no
jarring of its uncomplex parts ever deranged its movements, whether
pursuing the way of public well-being, or moved in a direction to
subserve selfish interests, or for the gratification of personal
ambition." Bell’s Garneau, vol. i., p. 195.] and the
satellites moving around him and basking in his sinister light. That
there were patriotic and energetic Governors, as well as honest
Intendants, such as Talon, need not be denied or concealed; but the
system which obtained was essentially rotten and mischievous, and those
who set to work, with pure and elevated purpose, to reform abuses, were
constantly hampered by the trade speculators, the farmers of taxes and
all the other harpies who preyed upon the vitals of New France. The
country was looked upon as a field for hurried fortune making, by trade,
by extortion, peculation or downright robbery. It was to the penniless
adventurer, noble or plebeian, of France what India, in the old time,
used to be for the "nabob" who had gained favour in Leadenhall
Street—an Eldorado where an unscrupulous and rapacious man might
rapidly grow rich. As for the government, established thousands of miles
from France, too far distant for close or minute inspection, it became
what might have been expected. The French Ministers were very copious
and particular in their instructions, and everything was ostensibly
directed from Paris; yet, notwithstanding all that, the Governor and the
Intendant were occasionally made spies upon each other’s conduct; they
were virtually under no control whenever they chose to unite for self or
mutual aggrandizement. So long as they succeeded in blinding the eyes of
rulers at home, they were at full liberty to do as they pleased. The
French Government had two main objects in view, the extension of Gallic
power and territory in the New World, and also a steady revenue from the
furs and fisheries of their American possessions. Their ablest Canadian
rulers were constantly crippled by the niggardliness, begotten of home
extravagance and national bankruptcy. Men and supplies were constantly
asked for imploringly by the Governors—but asked in vain; and if even
the brave Frontenac engaged in trading speculations, it ought to be a
sufficient apology that he had no adequate means of livelihood
otherwise. But not all the efforts of the clergy, nor the interposition
of an angel from heaven, could have effected any reformation in a
colonial system which was born of military absolutism, fattened on fraud
and extortion, to perish at last as much by its own inherent rottenness
as by the sword of Wolfe or the claymore of the Scottish Highlander.
It was Murray’s duty to
organize an effective government, suited to a people hitherto treated as
serfs—strong enough to curb the rapacious element hitherto
predominant, yet sufficiently mild and tolerant to win, in time, the
loyal affections of a happy and contented population, and to fix them
securely on the side of British law and order. The Governor has left
behind him a despatch in which he exposes the weak points of the small
English-speaking population. "All have their fortunes to
make," he wrote, "and I fear few are solicitous about the
means, when the end can be obtained. I report them to be in general the
most immoral collection of men I ever knew; of course little calculated
to make the new subjects enamoured with our laws, religion, and customs;
and far less adapted to enforce those laws which are to govern."
How unlikely it would be that a man of Murray’s opinions should prove
a harsh ruler of the Franco-Canadians, may be judged by a sentence or
two more from the same despatch: "On the other hand the Canadians,
accustomed to arbitrary, and a sort of military government, are a
frugal, industrious, and moral race of men, who from the just and mild
treatment they met with from his Majesty’s military officers that
ruled the country for four years, had greatly got the better of the
natural antipathy they had to their conquerors." [Written in 1766,
by Gen. Murray, and largely quoted by LeMoine: Quebec, Past and
Present, p. 188.] It will be found that all the reasonable
complaints made against the administration of General Murray may be
traced to the incompetent, and sometimes worthless, instruments at his
disposal. He complains bitterly of "the improper choice and numbers
of the civil officers sent out from England," as increasing
"the inquietude of the colony." Instead, of men of genius and
untainted morals, the very reverse were appointed to the most important
offices."
Whilst it was the desire,
as well as the duty, of the Governor to be conciliatory to the subject
inhabitants of Canada, he had obviously a duty to perform to his king
and country. In the years immediately succeeding the cession, anything
in the form of representative government was out of the question; since
it must either have been illusory or else have thrown the effective
power of the State into the hands of an ignorant people, whose wounded
feelings were not yet won over to the Crown and whose acquiescence in
the new regime was sullen and dubious. One would suppose, to read
Garneau, that one of the privileges of a British subject consists in
being governed by civil, and not by British, law. It certainly was
annoying to the Canadians to have their entire system of jurisprudence
altered at once on a change of masters. But, that was not Murray’s
fault; and when the Canadians had settled down into the steadfast
loyalty since characteristic of them, the Imperial Parliament, by the
Quebec Act of 1774, re-established the civil law "in all matters of
controversy, relative to property and civil rights." [See Cavendish’s
Report of the Debates on this Act. Singularly enough Chatham in
the Lords, and Fox and Burke in the Commons opposed the Bill, as well on
other grounds as on account of the concessions made in matters of law
and religion.] Another alleged grievance was the destruction of the old
French Church establishment. Etienne Charrest, at the Paris
negotiations, had vehemently demanded the maintenance of the old
hierarchy, and the clergy went so far as to insist upon the nomination
of bishops in Canada and a general supervision over the interests of the
Church by the French king. The Act of 1774 conceded the right to collect
tithes and the free exercise of the religion; but no more. Up to that
time, the only guarantee the Catholics of Canada possessed was that
securing liberty of worship, "so far as the laws of England
permit"—and those laws did not err on the side of freedom and
toleration at that time, not to speak of the statute of Elizabeth
recited even in the Quebec Act. Neither the Articles of Capitulation of
1760, nor the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, contains one word which can be
construed as assuring any thing further than bare toleration and freedom
of worship. [See Miles: Canada Under French Regime. Appendix.
Also Knox: Historical Journal. For the Quebec Articles signed by
De Ramsay (vol. ii. p. 87), and for the Montreal capitulation, as
proposed by Vaudreuil and altered by Murray, vol. ii. p. 423.] Murray’s
course throughout was liberal and humane in the extreme. He even tried
to constitute a representative assembly; but that must necessarily have
failed, as Garneau says (vol. ii. 92), because the French Catholics were
not willing to take the test imposed, not by Murray, but by Imperial
statute. If he did not succeed in conciliating the Canadians, it was not
for want either of cordial desire or earnest effort; indeed he went so
far in that direction that the British residents petitioned for his
recall on the ground that he was pandering to the prejudices of the
French population and sacrificing English interests. He was honourably
acquitted of the imputation in England; and, having done his utmost to
establish a settled government, acceptable to subjects of both
nationalities, retired from the Province. He had accomplished the
hardest part of the work, established order and even-handed justice
where all was confusion, fraud and tyranny before, and surrendered the
reins of power to Sir Guy Carleton, to whom fell the easier task of
completing the work already begun. Murray left behind him an honourable
record, and his reputation, both as a soldier and ruler, is one which
his fellow Scotsmen have every reason to cherish with pride and
satisfaction.
The only other Lower
Canada ruler it concerns us to notice, in the period preceding the war
of 1812, is Sir James Craig, Lieutenant-Governor from 1807 to 1814. His
life was a most eventful one, both as a soldier and an administrator,
and as he was a Scot in all but his place of birth, a brief sketch of it
may be given. His father was civil and military judge at Gibraltar, when
Craig was born, in 1750. Early in life he entered the army; was
aide-de-camp to Sir Robert Boyd, Governor of Gibraltar; went to America
with the 47th Regiment, and was wounded at Bunker Hill. In 1776, he was
in Canada, fighting at Three Rivers; in 1777, at Ticonderoga and at
Hubertown, where he was badly wounded. At Freeman’s Farm he received a
third wound, and served through the Saratoga campaign. In 1778, he was
in Nova Scotia; in 1779, at Penobscot; in 1781, in North Carolina—in
active service during the whole time. In 1795, he was sent to the Cape,
being now a Major-General, where, aided by Admiral Elphinstone and
Major-General Clarke, he conquered the colony. In 1797 he went to India,
and took command of the Manila expedition; and after five years’
service in the East, had a brief respite of three years. In 1805, he was
on duty at Lisbon, Gibraltar, Malta and Naples, and in 1807, when the
relations between England and the United States were beginning to
threaten a rupture, Sir James was despatched as Lieutenant-Governor of
Lower Canada, and commander-in-chief of the forces at Quebec. He died
not long after his return to England early in 1812.
In attempting to form a
judgment of Sir James Craig’s career as a representative of the Crown,
it is necessary to take into account both the man and the people with
whom he had to deal. He was a bluff soldier, brusque in manner,
courageous in spirit, and determined in will and action Garneau, [Garneau:
History (Bell’s Trans.), vol ii., 245.] who, of course, has no
love for the brave soldier, says that "he was somewhat whimsical,
fond of military pomp, and accustomed to address deputations,
parliamentary or other, as if they had been so many recruits, liable to
the quickening impulsion of the cat-o’-nine-tails." That he was
blunt in speech, may be readily admitted; and that he lost patience when
crossed—as he often was—is very certain. But what sort of men were
they with whom he had to do? Representative institutions had been
conceded to the Canadians; and, so far from any assimilation resulting,
it was evident, not only that the people did not understand their
purpose, but that those whom they elected knew not how to use their
liberties. The Constitutional Act had provided for the appointment of an
Executive Council; but, unfortunately, it failed to make Ministers
responsible to Parliament, or even to the Crown. It was boldly asserted
by some of the Ministers that although the Governor could be recalled,
they themselves could neither be forced to resign nor dismissed from
their offices. In the very first Assembly, the temper of the majority
had been shown by the election of M. Panet, a gentleman who could not
speak a word of English, and it was soon evident enough that the
vanquished would be satisfied with nothing less than the complete
subjection of the conquerors. As might have been expected, the
experiment of Pitt, notwithstanding his sanguine anticipations, turned
out to be premature. At times it was impossible to get a sufficient
number of members together to conduct the public business; and, when
they crowded the chamber, it was to fight over religion and nationality.
Sir James Craig, in an angry speech, characterized their proceedings
thus: "You have wasted in fruitless debates, excited by private
personal animosity, or by frivolous contests upon trivial matters of
form, that time and those talents to which, within your walls, the
public have an exclusive title. This abuse of your functions you have
preferred to the high and important duties which you owe to your
sovereign and your constituents. . . . So much of intemperate heat has
been manifested in all your proceedings, and you have shown such a
prolonged and disrespectful attention to matters submitted to your
consideration, by the other branches of the Legislature, that whatever
might be the moderation and forbearance exercised on their parts, a
general good understanding is scarcely to be looked for without a new
assembly." [Of the substantial justice of this picture there can be
no doubt. The speech is quoted in Garneau (vol. ii. p. 253), but that
historian has no word of censure for the legislature, whom he throughout
represents as reasonable, enlightened and patriotic champions of popular
rights.] That House was dissolved, and a second one, much the same in
complexion, elected. The offer to undertake the burden of the civil list
was, of course in fact, an effort to gain control of the expenditure,
and, through it, over the whole machinery of Government. Those who
pronounce judgment upon the affairs of that unquiet time, by the canons
of modern responsible government, will no doubt applaud the Assembly;
but a calm consideration of the state of the Province must lead most
men, however liberal, to a different conclusion.
How utterly ignorant of
the constitution, and unfit to be clothed with political supremacy, the
Assembly was, may be gathered from what they did during this session.
Under the Constitutional Act, judges were eligible to seats at the
council-board, and also in either branch of the Legislature. The
Assembly, in 1810, passed a Bill disqualifying the judges—a step they
had no doubt a right to take. But the Legislative Council chose to make
amendments with which the Assembly refused to concur. Then followed a
series of squabbles between the Houses; and the Assembly, chagrined at
its defeat, actually expelled Judge De Bonne, the mouth-piece of the
Executive, contrary to law and constitution. Moreover, by simple
resolution, they declared Jews ineligible to seats in the House, and
turned out in consequence Mr. Ezekiel Hart, who was doubly obnoxious as
a Jew and an Englishman. This House was also dissolved, after listening
to a reproachful speech from the Governor. [Speaking of the acts above
alluded to, Sir James said: "It is impossible for me to consider
what has been done in any other light than as a direct violation of an
Act of the Imperial Parliament – of that Parliament which conferred on
you the Constitution to which you profess to owe your present
prosperity; nor can I do otherwise than consider the House of Assembly
as having unconstitutionally disfranchised a large portion of His
Majesty’s subjects, and rendered ineligible, by an authority which
they do not possess, another not inconsiderable class of the community.
Such an assumption I should, at any rate, feel myself bound, by every
tie of duty, to oppose." &c.] During the elections Sir James
Craig or his Council took it upon them to suppress Le Canadien newspaper,
and to arrest six prominent members of the late Assembly. These
arbitrary acts only served to fan the flame of popular discontent; and,
although the desperate state of affairs may, to some extent, serve to
palliate them, it certainly falls far short of being a complete
justification. Garneau exonerates Sir James Craig from any great measure
of culpability in the matter; but censures severely Chief Justice
Sewell, who was at the head of the Council. Sir James Craig retired from
the government in 1811, worn out with disease, care and disappointment.
Entering upon his allotted task with an earnest desire and resolution to
promote the best interests of the Province, he had been thwarted by
those he desired to conciliate, and hampered by the clique of English
counsellors, who ruled, rather than advised. If he had a fault which
seriously impaired his usefulness, it was the fruit of long and
effective service in the army of his country. He had been accustomed to
order and discipline, and had to deal with a people politically insane,
and essentially insubordinate. They had escaped from Bourbon tyranny,
and yet were not fit for British freedom; and if the Governor erred in
his dealings with them, if he was irascible, and even peevish, it must
be remembered that he received great provocation, and that he filled the
high station to which he was called at a time, when no man who was
unwilling to surrender the rights of his Crown and country could have
done better than he did. The character [As Morgan remarks, the honesty
and purity of his intentions are evinced in nearly every proclamation or
speech he ever made. One extract from the honest and earnest appeal he
made against seditious writings like those of Le Canadien does
him infinite credit. After assuring them that it was not in order to
serve the king that he could meditate tyrannical measures; he continued
in these almost eloquent words: "Is it for myself, then that I
should oppress you? For what should I oppress you? Is it from ambition;
what can you give me: Is it for power: Alas! my good friends, with a
life ebbing out slowly to its period under the pressure of disease
acquired in the service of my country, I look only to pass what it may
please God to suffer to remain of it, in the comfort of retirement among
my friends. I remain among you only in obedience to the commands of my
king. What power can I wish for? Is it then for wealth that I could
oppress you? Enquire of those who know me whether I regard wealth; I
never did when I could enjoy it; it is now to no use to me; to the value
of your country laid at my feet, I would prefer the consciousness of
having in a single instance, contributed to your happiness and
prosperity." Quoted in Morgan: Celebrated Canadians, p.
160.] of Sir James Craig is well drawn in Christie’s History: ‘"Positive
in opinion; prompt in action; manly and dignified, yet sociable and
affable; hasty in temper yet easily reconciled to those with whom he
differed; hospitable and charitable, and lastly, though not the least of
his virtues, a friend to the poor and destitute, none of whom applying
at his threshold ever went away unrelieved." When Sir George
Prevost assumed the duties of the vice-royalty, the people of Canada had
something better to think of than the miserable bickerings which had
worried Sir James Craig into the grave; the enemy was at the gate, and,
as will be seen hereafter, what sternness or conciliation had hitherto
failed to effect, was accomplished by necessary union in the presence of
danger from without. Before leaving the Province of Quebec, a singular
character, who should have been noticed in the proper place, ought not
to be passed over. Major Robert Stobo was not a very fastidious man, or
over scrupulous on points of honour. His connection with Canada
commences at a period anterior to the Conquest. His history is chiefly
interesting for its adventurous character, and might well form the
subject of an entertaining romance. Born at Glasgow in 1727, the son of
a prominent merchant, he was early trained to arms. He served in the war
between the English and French colonies, and, after a visit to England
went back to take part in the sieges of Louisbourg and Quebec. In 1754
he, and Captain Jacob Van Braun, a Dutchman, were surrendered as
hostages for the fulfilment of the articles of surrender at Fort
Necessity. Being allowed to wander about the country on parole, he
amused himself by taking plans of the French fortresses. One of Fort Du
Quesne he sent to Colonel George Washington. Being a handsome man he
became a great favourite with the Quebec ladies, who undertook to
instruct him in French. Unfortunately some of his plans and papers were
discovered, and the dashing officer soon found himself in a dungeon.
Orders came from France to Vaudreuil to try Stobo for his life; but he
escaped in 1756, and a reward of six thousand livres was offered for his
recapture. Having been caught, he was tried by court-martial and
sentenced to death. The sentence, however, must be sent to France for
confirmation, and Stobo again escaped but was rearrested at Montmorenci
(1757). His lady friends interceded for him with the Governor; but, to
make matters sure, he planned an escape with Lieutenant Stevenson, of
the Rangers, and Clark, a ship-carpenter. For the third time, and now
finally, he regained his liberty and at length reached Louisbourg in
time to offer his services to Wolfe. But his misfortunes were not yet
over. Being sent with despatches to General Amherst, he was made
prisoner by a French frigate, and threw his papers overboard. The vessel
being short of provisions, put into Halifax and Stobo was once more at
liberty. He then served in the Champlain expedition and afterwards at
Williamsburgh, at that time the capital of Virginia. In 1760 he went to
England, but ill-luck still attended him, for the vessel was overhauled
by a French privateer. However, having burned all his letters, save one
to Pitt which he concealed under his arm-pit, he paid a ransom and
reached home. Pitt remunerated him for his losses and sent him back with
a letter to Amherst, in his favour, and there we lose sight of him. It
is said that Smollett, who, we learn from a letter of Hume’s, knew
Stobo, celebrated him in Humphrey Clinker as Captain Lismahago, the
favoured suitor of Miss Tabitha Bramble. [LeMoine: Maple Leaves.
New Series, p. 55.]
There is not much to
record regarding the Upper Province between 1791 and 1812, in special
connection with the object of this volume. Colonel Simcoe, the son of a
Northamptonshire naval captain, an officer of the Queen’s Rangers, was
its first Governor. The first Legislature met at Newark, now Niagara, on
the 17th September, 1792. The Legislative Council consisted of seven
members, and the Assembly of sixteen, so that there was no danger of a
tumultuous or turbulent meeting in either House, there were so few of
them. In 1796 the seat of government was removed to York, now Toronto,
and the scantily-peopled Province went on in a humdrum way for some
years. General Simcoe left the Province almost immediately after, and
the Government was left in the hands of the Hon. Peter, commonly called
President, Russell, who administered, until the arrival, in 1799, of the
[See the Rev. Dr. Scadding’s Toronto of Old, where a number of
curious facts touching Russell are detailed.] General, Peter Hunter.
Russell’s nationality was English, but Hunter was a Scot, being the
brother of the celebrated physicians, John and William Hunter. He was
born in 1746, and died at a comparative early age, in 1805, at
Quebec. He had been a man of eminence in the military profession, and,
in his new sphere of action—which in the Upper Canada of those days
was a limited one—he managed all the affairs of the nascent colony,
municipal as well as provincial, in a paternal sort of way. In 1799,
according to the Niagara Constellation, he arrived at York, and
was received, in orthodox Vice-regal style, by a party of the Queen’s
Rangers. On the 5th of September, he was starring it at Niagara, amid
the smoke of a salute of twenty-one guns. On these occasions His
Excellency crossed the lake in the Speedy,[This vessel was lost
in 1801, on the passage between York and Kingston, with Judge Grey and
all on board; she was an armed vessel of ten guns.] one of the
clippers, doubtless, of those days. In 1800, a paper with the
grandiloquent titles of the Upper Canada Gazette or American
Oracle, was issued at York, and from it something is learned of the
fittings to and fro between Quebec or Niagara and York, of Peter Hunter,
languishing, perhaps, of ennui. In 1803, in a lengthy
proclamation, Governor Hunter set apart the market square of York, from
Market Place to Church Street. In less than two years afterwards he died
at Quebec, and a month later no less, the Oracle opened its mouth
with the following tribute to his memory: - "As an officer his
character was high and unsullied; and at the present moment his death
may be considered a great public loss. As Lieutenant Governor of Upper
Canada his loss will be severely felt; for by his unremitting attention
and exertions he has, in the course of a few years, brought that infant
colony to an unparalleled state of prosperity." [These particulars
are extracted from Toronto of Old, whence much additional
information of a curious character may be gleaned. The following is
extracted from a writ of election directed to the Hon. William Allan: -
The Returning Officer was "to cause one Knight, girt with sword,
the most fit and discreet, to be freely and indifferently chosen to
represent the aforesaid County (Durham) Riding (East York) and County (Simcoe),
in Assembly, by those who shall be present on the day of election."
(Scadding, p. 249).] He appears to have been a man of ability, probity
and amiable temper, a worthy member of a distinguished Scots family, and
one well suited to guide and organize the young settlement in the early
stages of its existence. The remains of the Governor were interred in
the Cathedral, at Quebec, and his virtues and abilities are recorded on
a monument "erected by John Hunter, M.D., of London." In 1806,
Francis Gore arrived from England, and retained the Governorship until
1811, when General Brock administered the government, and took the
command at the outbreak of war with the United States.
Of the Scots connected
with Canada during the period from the conquest to the war of 1812,
there are some who seem to require special notice. One of these was Sir
William Grant, the third Attorney-General of Quebec, born in 1754, at
Elchies on the Spray, in the north of Scotland. His distinguished
judicial career has no connection with Canada, and he was only
temporarily a resident in this country, during a brief period from 1776.
When he returned home Lord Thurlow once said of him, "Be not
surprised if that young man should one day occupy this seat,"—and
it is stated that he might have occupied the woolsack but refused it. He
filled high judicial offices in England, being successively Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas and Master of the Rolls. Francis Butler
wrote in his "Reminiscences"— "The most perfect model
of judicial eloquence which has come under the observation of the
reminiscent is that of Sir William Grant," and, it may be added,
that he was an effective parliamentary debater. The Hon. James McGill is
a name to be had in perpetua1 remembrance as that of the founder of the
University at Montreal, which bears his name. Born at Glasgow in 1744,
he came to Canada at an early age and became a successful merchant. He
was a member of Parliament and subsequently of the Legislative Council
and, at one period, an Executive Councillor. During the war of 1812, he
became a Brigadier-General. He was a thoroughly good man, charitable
without ostentation, kindly to men of every creed and both nationalities
and, in the interests of superior education, he laid the foundation of
one of the noblest academic institutions in America. Connected with his
fellow-subjects of French origin by marriage, he was popular amongst all
classes of the people, and died in 1813, on the verge of three score and
ten, sincerely respected and regretted by the entire community. The name
of Irving is, as Dr. Scadding observes, "historical in Canada, the
earliest being Colonel Paulus Aemilius Irving, who was born so far back
as 1714, at Bonshaw, Dumfries, of which his father, William, was laird.
At the siege of Quebec, he served under Wolfe as a Major of the 15th
Foot, and received a wound in the battle of the Plains. At the departure
of General Murray, he was commander of the forces, and Administrator of
the Government for a time. He died in 1796, leaving a son of the same
name, who became a general in the British army, The Hon. Jacob Aemilius
Irving, M. L. C., was a grand nephew of Paulus Aemilius, born at
Charleston, S. C., in 1797. He served in the 13th Light Dragoons and was
wounded at Waterloo. So notable were his services during that campaign
that, on his return, he was presented with the freedom of Liverpool,
where his father was a merchant. He did not take up his residence in
Canada till 1836, and in 1837 aided in the suppression of the Rebellion.
He was first warden of the district of Simcoe, and in 1843 became a
Legislative Councillor, and remained one until his death in 1856. His
house on Yonge street was called Bonshaw after the ancestral domain in
Scotland. It may be added that, in politics he was a Liberal, and a
strong opponent of Lord Metcalfe. His son, Aemilius Irving, Q. C., was
M. P. for Hamilton during the last Parliament. [See Morgan: Celebrated
Canadians, &c. pp. 80 & 275; and Scadding: Toronto
of Old, p. 490.] Both these last fall within a period posterior to
1812, and are noted here merely in family connection, and for
convenience sake.
In the Maritime
Provinces, the number of loyalists who founded families, at once or
afterwards, prominent in civil affairs was considerable. A large
proportion of these were Scots, if one may judge by their names—Burns,
Campbell, Gordon, Galbraith, Graham, Henderson, Hume, Johnstone,
Macaulay, Macdonald, Macdougall, McGregor, McIntosh, Mackenzie, Maclean,
Macleod, Macpherson, Munro, Stuart, &c. The Scottish origin of the
patronymic, however, is not always evidence of Scottish birth or
parentage, although it is of descent and national origin. Many of those
bearing purely Scottish names were born in Ulster, and are, therefore,
nominally Irish—Scoto-Irish as they are occasionally called. So far as
this is the case, mistakes may, and no doubt will occur, in claiming
individuals, although there is no mistake at all in tracing well-settled
national characteristics to the Scottish colony across the Irish Sea—
a community which has always been, and still remains substantially the
same as its progenitors had been in the auld land. The loyalists were
either born in the mother country or the sons of immigrants—the
Americans born of the third generation, and so on back, having lost
their hereditary attachment to British soil, and their loyalty to
British connection. Somewhere about twenty thousand of the loyalist
refugees, many of whom had lost ample fortunes in the cause, settled in
British North America. Receiving grants of land from the Crown, and
being almost all of them men of probity and intelligence, they naturally
became leaders of the people in the new colonies they had made their
home. As advisers of the Crown, as Judges or as Legislators, their names
are frequently recorded in Sabine and elsewhere; and not a few of the
prominent men of a later time have been proud to trace their descent
from those steadfast, long-suffering and enterprising loyalists of the
Revolution.
Amongst the more notable
men of mark may be mentioned the Cunninghams, of whom one, Archibald, of
Boston, was banished in 1778, and afterwards held a responsible office
at Shelburne, N. S. The Grants were chiefly represented by Daniel, a
native of Gillespie in Sutherlandshire, who settled in what was a purely
Scottish colony at St. Andrews; N.B., where he died, in 1834, at the age
of eighty-two. Joseph Gray, a United Empire Loyalist, settled at
Halifax, established the mercantile firm of Proctor & Gray, and died
in 1803, aged seventy-four. He seems to have established a colony on his
own account, for he had thirteen children. His brother John went to
India; and there were other Grays in the loyal ranks, one of whom,
William, from the Province of New York, became a magistrate in King’s
County, N. B., and lived to be ninety-six, dying in 1824. The Macdonalds
and the Macdonells appear in great force in the annals of the United
Empire Loyalists, over twenty-four being mentioned in Sabine, a number
of whom settled in the Lower Provinces, and one, named Donald, who had
served under Sir William Johnson, died at Wolfe Island, Ontario, in
1839; at the age of ninety-six. Two of the McKays are specially noted—Hugh,
who belonged to the Queen’s Rangers during the entire Revolution, and
settled in New Brunswick at the peace. Sabine says that he was the
"only full Colonel" in the Province, member of the Assembly
for thirty years, and long the father of that body; and also Senior
Justice of Common Pleas for the County of Charlotte. He died at St.
George, in 1848, aged ninety seven, "distinguished for his urbanity
and gentlemanly bearing." John McKay had been a Captain in the
Queen’s Rangers under Simcoe, and settled, in 1783, in York County, N.
B. He held public stations of honour and trust, and died in 1822. His
wife was a sister of Chief Justice Saunders, of New Brunswick. Mr.
Duncan McKenna was another United Empire Loyalist, who, having
originally emigrated from Scotland to New York, settled at Shelburne, N.
S., and became the father of the Hon. Gilbert McKenna, member of the
House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, so far back as 1840, and called to the
Legislative Council in 1868. Another old legislator was Mr. Morrison,
grandfather of the Hon. Thomas Morrison, M.L.C. of Nova Scotia. He was
not a United Empire Loyalist, but the son of a Scot who, had settled in
New Hampshire. He left that Province for Nova Scotia in 1760, and was
for many years a Member of Parliament. John McKinnon (of the Isles)
emigrated from Inverness-shire early in the century and settled in the
County of Sydney. Of his two sons, one was made a Legislative Councillor
in 1867, and served as Agricultural Commissioner, and the other, the
Rev. Dr. C. F. McKinnon, became Bishop of Arichat. Colin Campbell, of
Argyleshire, emigrated to America in 1770, and occupied many positions
under the Nova Scotian Government. In 1798, he was elected Member of the
Provincial Parliament for Shelburne, and sat for it over twenty years,
dying in 1822. His grandson was, or is, Member of the Provincial
Parliament for Digby. Amongst the Pictou Scottish settlers was Mr.
Mackay, who came from Sutherlandshire—father of Mr. Alexander Mackay,
M.P.P. for Pictou. William Robertson was a United Empire Loyalist,
living in New York, who settled at Shelburne, N. S., as a merchant, and,
afterwards, at Barrington. According to Sabine, he was remarkable for
possessing "a wonderful memory, and was consulted by all the
country round." His son, the Hon. Robert Robertson, has been a
member of the Assembly for many years, and also Commissioner of Public
Works.
Of the New Brunswick
pioneers, Archibald McLean was Captain in the New York Volunteers and
fought bravely at Eutaw Springs. In 1783 he went to St. Johns, N. B.,
and was one of the original grantees there. In 1812 he was again in
active service. He resided in York County and was a member of the
Assembly and magistrate for that county for many years. He died at
Nashwaak, N. B. in 1830, at the age of seventy-six. John Fraser, of
Inverness-shire, Scotland, settled in Nova Scotia first in 1803, and in
1812 at Miramichi, N. B. His son is the Hon. John James Fraser, Q. C.,
M. P. P., as well as Provincial Secretary and Receiver-General of the
Province. Mr. LeMoine mentions a number of Gallicized Scots in the
Province of Quebec; the family of Urbain Johnston, M. P. P. for Kent, is
an illustrative case in New Brunswick. About a century ago, the family
came from Scotland and settled with the Acadians on the Chaleurs Bay and
were, so to speak, naturalized, and became French amongst them.
Alexander Wedderburn, who may not improbably have been related to Lord
Loughborough, was an Aberdonian, and for many years emigration officer
for New Brunswick, and the author also of several works on the Province.
His son is the Hon. William Wedderburn, Q.C.,M.P.P., who has been
Speaker of the Assembly. In Prince Edward Island, there is a large
sprinkling of Scots, "Macs" and others, many of these however,
such as the Lairds, McGills, McIsaacs, Munroes, Walkers, Wightmans,
Campbells, Macdonalds, &c., may be more properly referred to at a
later period. Hon. Arthur McEwen, formerly M.L.C., had as his
great-grandfather one of the earliest settlers on the Island, for he
came from Perthshire to settle at St. Peters somewhere about 1760.
Charles McLean left the Highlands at the commencement of the century,
began life in the New World at Charlottetown and finally made his home
at East Point, where his grandson, the Hon. James R. McLean, M.P.P. for
Kings (1st District), was born. The clan Maclean or McLean has made such
a conspicuous figure in the world, that it seems well to mention
something further about them here. David Maclean, of Dochgarroch,
belonged to the 73rd or McLeod Highlanders and settled in Pictou, N. S.
James Maclean, of Ardgour, was a lieutenant in Montgomery’s
Highlanders, who served in Nova Scotia and in the expedition to
Dominique. Archibald Maclean of the same ilk also went to America, and
his third son, Neil, was commissary at Niagara. Lachlan, of another
branch served in the West Indies, rose to the position of Major General,
and died Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia. Another fighting Maclean
was Francis of the Blaich stock, captain of the 42nd; he served at
Bergen-op-Zoom, was prisoner of war in France, and afterwards served
under Wolfe. After fighting in Portugal, we read of General Francis
Maclean at the defence of Penobscot in 1779, with a force of 700 against
2,000 Americans. He died at Halifax in 1781. [See Irving: Life of
Washington, Vol. iii., p. 511.] Hector Maclean, of Torren, again was
a settler also in the colonies, and, we believe, the progenitor of Mr
Allan McLean Howard, who lives in Toronto. General Allan Maclean, of the
Macleans of Torloisk, was a notable figure in Canadian struggles. He had
served in Holland, and began his career in America as a lieutenant in
the 60th or Royal American Regiment, and afterwards in the Royal
Highland Emigrant Regiment. Not only did he serve under Wolfe, but also
took part in resisting the invasion of Montgomery and Arnold in 1775. He
retired, went home, and died in 1791. There are also Counts Maclean in
Sweden; indeed wherever fighting or hard, honest work was to be done,
there was always a Maclean to perform the task. [See Historical and
Genealogical Account of Clan Maclean. By a Seneachie. London, 1838.]
John McNeill came to the Island from Argyleshire in 1773. His son,
William, sat in the Assembly for twenty-five years, much of the time as
Speaker. A grandson, William Simpson McNeill, was M. P. P. for Queen’s
(2nd District). Daniel Montgomery also left Argyleshire about the same
time, and possibly in company with John McNeill. He sat for Prince
County for over thirty-five years, and is now represented by a grandson
in the Senate of the Dominion, the Hon. Donald Montgomery, who has
passed the term of three score and ten.
In only a few cases, does
a single span of human life bridge over the interval between last
century and the present, now waning through its last quarter. The Hon.
John Holmes, until recently a member of the Senate, was born in 1789, in
Ross-shire, Scotland, went to Nova Scotia in 1803; sat in the Assembly
of the Province during the periods from 1836 to 1847, and from 1851 to
1858; was then a Legislative Councillor up to the Confederation year,
and from 1867 a Senator of the Dominion. Dr. Forbes, ex-M. P. for Queen’s,
N. S., represents an old family connected with the barons of that name.
William settled at St. Kitts, in the West Indies, and the Doctor’s
father was born there and served in his early years in the 64th. The
honourable member himself was born at Gibraltar, and finally found a
home at Yarmouth, N. S., where his father was Collector of Customs. If
in Mr. Holmes’ case, we have the extraordinary persistency of the Scot
as a sturdy long-lived toiler for himself and others; in the case of the
Forbeses there is an equally characteristic love of roaming and
adventure. The grandfather of Colonel Kirk, ex-M.P. for Guysborough, was
an old settler—William Kirk, of Dunfermline, who served through the
Revolutionary War in the regular army. An old Highland family is
represented by Mr. William McDonald, M. P. for Cape Breton. He claims
descent from the Clan Ranalds, and his grandfather left the Island of
Uist to settle in Inverness county; N. S. The member for Kings, P. E.
I., also comes of an old settled family, his grandfather having left
Inverness-shire in 1785, and settled in Prince Edward Island; on the
mother’s side he is descended from an officer who fought under Wolfe.
His uncle is the Right Rev. Dr. McIntyre, R. C. Bishop of Charlottetown.
Hon. Henry Starnes, so well known as a financier and an energetic and
enterprising worker in Montreal, is of U. E. Loyalist stock, of Scottish
origin. Lieut.-Colonel Ogilvie, ex-M. P. P., Quebec, came of a sturdy
old Scottish stock in Banffshire. His parents emigrated at the beginning
of the century, and his father served in 1812 and 1837, on behalf of the
Crown. The Hon. Joseph G. Robertson, of Sherbrooke, M. P. P., and a
Minister of the Crown, it may be remarked, in passing, is also a Scot,
the son of the Rev. Joseph Robertson, from Aberdeenshire, where the
honourable gentleman was himself born.
Having thus selected,
though by no means exhaustively, the names of some of the early settlers
in the Eastern Provinces to whose energy and intelligence so much is
due, not only for the settlement, but also for the orderly social life
and good government of the country, it seems unnecessary to pursue the
subject farther in this direction. It will not be denied that in the
whole of the Maritime Provinces and to a large extent, in the Province
of Quebec, whether they appeared as loyal refugees from the revolted
colonies, as retired officers and soldiers, or as immigrants simply, the
Scot supplied a fresh, vigorous, honest, and sterling element to the
population which would have been sorely missed in those early days. The
energy which overcomes all difficulties the frugality which spares and
accumulates, and the power of self-denial, are in themselves half the
battle of life; the rugged earnestness, the unswerving probity, the
thoughtful and educated intelligence have always been the hereditary
possessions of the Scot, when, as mostly happened, he had no other
estate to boast of. He possesses qualities which, as the first part of
this volume was designed to show, came to him through the disciplinary
sufferings, hardships and struggles undergone by his forbears through
long and painful periods of national education. It will be necessary
now, before entering more into detail upon the modern period, to trace
as briefly as may be, the operation of the same indomitable national
character in Ontario and in the vast domain to the North-west of it,
where the courage, the industry, the endurance of the Scot have brought
forth peculiarly rich and abundant fruit. In Eastern Ontario, a
settlement will be found purely of Celtic origin, and to a large extent
still clinging to the old Gaelic tongue and the ancient faith. Small
colonies of these brave old Highlanders will be met with elsewhere in
the Province; but on the whole, the great work effected for Ontario, as
an agricultural, industrial and mercantile community, has been achieved
by the Saxon Lowlander. It will be seen also that the Scot has made the
vast territory to the north-west from the Arctic circle to the
boundary-line, and from Fort William to Victoria peculiarly his own,
whether as an explorer, a hunter or a settler.
|
