Although the commission of the Governor of the Province of Quebec had been executed in London on November 21, 1763, for some reason, which remains unexplained,1 it was not received by Murray in Quebec until August of 1764— an extraordinary delay which was productive of much evil. A year previously Lord Egremont had informed Murray of the terms of the commission, and certainly the matter was publicly known, yet during all the ensuing months the Governor and Government were in a state of suspended animation, and his authority over the districts of Montreal and Trois Rivieres was disputed and disputable. Still, more unfortunately, as we have seen, the position of the Governor in military matters was equally uncertain. During this period Murray took his stand on his military commission as Governor of the town of Quebec and its dependencies.

It will be convenient here to indicate some aspects of the confusion which had its origin in this state of affairs, and the consequent disorganisation of administration. In August (1764) Murray addressed General Gage as follows :

"... Mr. Haldimand (who had succeeded Burton at Trois Rivieres) and some others Hunk that Colonel Burtou, being on half-pay, and now divested of his command as Governor of Montreal, can nowhere give orders to the troops. The same gentleman declares that no civil governor can have any authority in the army. . . . Neither will they allow of my military commission of Governor of Quebec and its dependencies, copy of which I have the honour to send inclosed for your information. At the same time you will be pleased to observe that I do not mean to interfere with the troops at Montreal or Trois Rivieres unless idle disputes and their consequences, confusion, shall make it necessary. In that case I certainly shall assume the authority 1 am vested with, not only by my rank in the array, but by my military commission as Governor of the dependencies of Quebec, that good order may be preserved until directions shall arrive from you."

To which Gage replied:

"Whether His Majesty intends superseding that commission by the latter (that is, the military commission by that as Governor of the Province) or continuing you Governor of the City and Civil Governor of the Province, His Majesty alone can decide."

In theory, at least, the Government at home had decided to divorce the military from the civil functions, and the ground of the decision was that if one governor retained military command then all would have a similar claim, and yet with that readiness to distinguish between the treatment of "settled" as opposed to "acquired" colonies, which the ministers displayed when their occasion required it, they had at hand an excellent reason for exceptional treatment in the case of Canada; a reason, moreover, which every consideration of sound statesmanship should have led them to put into practice.

Disputes between the civil and military elements had already arisen in West Florida. It is not necessary to inquire into these nor to apportion the blame, but surely the ministers were seeking trouble when Colonel Burton, who had been Murray's subordinate, and later on his equal as governor of a district, was in the first place reverted to the subordinate position as a lieut.-governor under

Murray, and then almost immediately placed ;n a position independent of him as brigadier commanding the troops in the northern area. Had Burton been of a loyal and open character, perhaps things would have gone better. Unfortunately, he was pompous, exacting, and jealous, and from the first set himself to impose indignities on his former commander. I have no desire to shield Murray from any share in the blame which may justly be his, but from a perusal of many of the private and semi-official letters, I cannot discern that the unhappy friction which arose originated in any action of his. On the contrary, the terms in which he wrote to Burton throughout the year 1704 seem to indicate a really friendly spirit. Such or similar homely intimacy as the following occurs frequent!}':

"I am happy I can supply Mrs. Burton with oil of mint, which the Doctor says is as good as that of peppermint. I beg my compliments may be made acceptable to her and my young friend Dick. I hope the young Montrealist will continue to thrive, and prove as good a woman as her mother, if so, tho' a girl, she may bid fair to put Mr. Richards' nose out of joint, hence I take the liberty to tell him he must be much upon his good behaviour."

And again:

"Now, my dear Burton, as you are on the spot, you are the best judge how far it is expedient to instruct the French people. ... As to the discontented English traders, their conduct to you during the course of the winter proves what they are. ... I really pity the poor French people, and think they should not from ignorance be drawn into scrapes by such restless spirits. I am persuaded you will pardon the liberty I take in so freely offering my opinion on this occasion, which can proceed from nothing but the zeal I have for the public good and the regard I shall always have for you."

And again, to General Gage, he wrote, in August, 1704, after the receipt of bis commission as Governor :

"Burton is master of all your views, and has everything in the best order for the execution of them. To break in upon thorn at this time must certainly be productive, of bad consequences, and shall not be attempted as far as I can prevent it."

Impartially viewed, I cannot but conclude that the strife which commenced during this period was not caused by Murray, who on every occasion surrendered his powers to preserve harmony; and even after he became aware that Burton had endeavoured to supplant him in the office of Governor, he was careful to avoid any reproach. Yet, as time passed, the action of the brigadier gradually exceeded all bounds of endurance, and finally culminated in a series of acts which were evidently calculated to produce an explosion. A. certain Lieut.-Colonel Christie, who had been an officer in Amherst's Army, and was now deputy quarter-master-general under Burton, appears to have been the firebrand. Murray shrewdly suspected this officer of manipulating public affairs to his own benefit, and when a general warrant was applied for by Burton to enable him to impress boatmen and transport, for military purposes, the Governor refused to grant it. Writing to General Gage (July 1, 17(55) he says that Colonel Christie had already made improper use of such warrants, " And that, gentleman is carrying on works to a very great extent for his own private emolument. Prudence will prevent me from giving him a general press warrant, and decency should hinder him from asking it." By October, 1705, the correspondence with Burton, now promoted to be major-general, had lost its old style of friendly intimacy. The subject was still the supply of transport:

"Sir, your letter of the 20th ulto. I had not the honor to receive till last Friday. Monday's post will have brought to you my injunctions to the inhabitants of the parishes, the nearest to La Chine, to furnish the men necessary for the sixteen battoes in question.

"It now remains to acquaint you that if any prejudice shall happen to the service . . . neither the government, nor the magistracy, are to be blamed. The latter have no legal power to impress men, but for services specified m the Mutiny Act: the battoe service in question doth not come within that Act, and therefore it was fortunate the magistrates disregarded Colonel Christie's menaces. They are worthy men, who very disinterestedly give much of their time and attention to the public ; the gratitude I owe these gentlemen on that account will make me studiously avoid every unnecessary trouble to them. Policy and justice will prevent me from imposing any task by which they may be exposed to the resentment or even the censure of their fellow citizens."

It is impossible to get away from the fact, constantly reiterated by Murray in his letters to the ministry, that his divorce from control of the troops in his province was seriously detrimental to his efforts to produce harmony and good government. The British traders obviously took advantage of it, and the French inhabitants, accustomed to arbitrary military authority, could not fail to regard a civil governor, who had no power over the troops in his garrison, with less obedience than was good for public discipline. They had already expressed their satisfaction with the military government which Murray had exercised up to August, 1761, and, as we shall see, were among the first to congratulate his successor, who arrived with full civil and military control. I think it is fully borne out by incontrovertible facts that the major part of the animosity which arose between the civil and military elements in the district of Montreal originated before Murray had anything to do with that part of the province, and w as the basis of the constant opposition by the British section of the community. It was due to the two unfortunate facts, that a long delay should have occurred between the signing of the peace of Paris and the introduction of provincial government, and the division of civil from military control in a province situated as was that of Quebec.

To the Lords of Trade Murray wrote, April 24. 1764:

"I cannot help entreating your lordships to consider for a moment the difficulties I have laboured under here.

The people I have governed near five years without any civil jurisdiction or even instructions from home are composed of a conquering army, who claim a sort of right to lord it over the vanquished ; of a distressed people stripped of almost all their substance real and imaginary (sic), dreading the fate of their religion and accustomed to an arbitrary government; and of a set of free British merchants, as they are pleased to style themselves, who with prospect of great gain have come to a country where there is no money, and who think themselves superior in rank and fortune to the soldier and the Canadian, deeming the first voluntary and the second born, slaves."

The Royal Proclamation creating the province of Quebec was published on August 10, 1764.* On the 13th Murray took the oath and administered the same to the council he had chosen, and at the same time submitted the names to the King for approval:

"Your lordships will be pleased to observe that in this (council) and in the appointment of all civil officers I must lie under great inconveniences. The British subjects in the province consist of two very different sets of people, the military and the mercantile, whom duty and interest have led here and who can only be counted as passengers."

The terms of the Proclamation were such as to create doubt and confusion; but looking at the matter in the light of subsequent events, it would appear that much of the misinterpretation was wilful on the part of a section of the people, and had the Governor been in a position to carry out his own reading without factious hindrance the points of doubt would have been accepted in the confident spirit that iu due time they would be settled or altered to their satisfaction. The special clauses which led to trouble were as follows:

"We have . . . given express power and direction to our governors . . . that so soon as the state and circumstances of the said colonies will admit thereof, they shall, with the advice and consent of the members of our council, summon and call general assemblies ... in such manner and form as is used and directed in those colonies and provinces in America which are under our in mediate government . . . and in the meantime ... all persons . . . may confide in our royal protection for the enjoyment of the benefit of the laws of our realm of England ; for which purpose we have given power ... to the governors ... to erect and constitute . . . courts of judicature . . . for hearing and deternii"ing all causes . . . as near as may be agreeable to the laws of England."

It can be said at once and definitely, and as a matter which should have been apparent at the time, that it would have been wiser and more statesmanlike to have omitted all reference to a general assembly in a province hitherto unaccustomed to such a luxury, until such time as circumstances permitted its constitution. At the same time, if, as was afterwards stated, administration of justice " as near as may be agreeable to the laws of England " was intended to have a wide interpretation, then the persons appointed by the Crown to carry out the law should certainly have been apprised of such intention; failing any such instruction it is only possible to suppose that the subsequent explanation of the terms of the Proclamation (see p. 325) was a somewhat palpable attempt to shift blame on to wrong shoulders. It must also be reiterated that, in the clearest and most definite terms, Lord Egremont had written to the Governor :

"Tho' His Majesty is far from entertairing the most distant thought of restraining his new Roman Catholic subjects from professing the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, yet the condition expressed in the same article must always be remembered, viz. as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. . . . These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may arise on this subject."

In all this it was at once clear that the intention must have been to exclude Catholic subjects from all positions of a public nature which required the taking of oaths repugnant to the Catholic religion.

That the Proclamation was badly drawn up by the responsible ministers there can be no doubt, but that it should have been attempted later to throw the responsibility for its ambiguities on the shoulders of the Governor says little for the honour and credit of the persons who, as we shall see, made the attempt. It was truly said at a later date that this Proclamation seems to have had principally in view the profit and advantage that might secure to your Majesty's British subjects," and when it became apparent that the complete institution of British laws, which most obviously and even admittedly was the intention, was unjust to the Canadians, then the old subjects had an equal grievance by alleging, whether truly or not, that they had settled in the new province under a proclamation which assured them the "benefit of the laws of our realm of England."

On September 17, 1764, an ordinance was issued by the Governor in council, creating a system of judicature. This ordinance has been severely attacked, both for what it contained and for what it omitted. It naturally fell to the attorney-general to prepare the document, and it is certainly the case that, with the limitations imposed by the Proclamation and the Governor's instructions, it would have been difficult to have acted on different lines. The ordinance erected and constituted courts of judicature for the administration of the laws. The laws created by the King's authority were those of England, yet it was suggested afterwards that the introduction of these was not the intention, a suggestion amply repudiated by independent authority; but in issuing this ordinance the council of Quebec did in fact err in the very direction in which it was afterwards argued they should have acted, and it is strange that hi the many discussions which subsequently took place on this ordinance, it was not pointed out that the Governor and his council exceeded their strict limits of authority in preserving to the Canadians certain rights which it was stated were intended, but which it is very certain were introduced by the Governor and his advisers of their own motion.

On October 16 a grand jury was "charged" for the first quarter sessions. The "charge" to the grand jury was an exhortation to be moderate and impartial, pointing out the responsibilities of the leaders of a young colony. It is tolerably clear that the spirit of the persons who alone were available needed guidance, and that but little trust could be placed in them. The result justified these suspicions, for the grand jury, taking its cue from the independent attitude of the assemblies of the neighbouring states of America, at once adopted the same line of conduct, and without any shadow of justification arrogated to themselves the right to deal, not with the causes to be brought before the courts, but with questions of general policy quite unconnected with their duty as jurors. It will be remembered that a clause of the scheme for government required the nomination of an assembly of freeholders. It had so far been impossible to set this in operation, and the grand jury claimed as the " only representative body representing the colony ... a right to be consulted before any ordinance that may affect them be passed into law, and also to be consulted regarding taxes and necessary expenses."

All this would probably have been regarded by the Governor and his council as a contemptible exhibition of the feelings of people unused and unfit for the position m which they found themselves, but the condition of affairs in the American colonies lent more importance to this nascent spirit of revolution than it inherently deserved. We must remember that six months previously Grenville, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had brought forward the Stamp Act, which was to be put before the House during the ensuing session. In the American colonies a number of able and sincere men at once took up the challenge, and guided the popular clamour against the liability to be taxed when not represented in the councils of state; but the claims which the old colonies could legitimately make of having already borne a large proportion of the expenses of the late wars, and having rights of representation, had certainly no bearing on the situation of the new colonies, which had come into being by right of conquest; and whatever may be said regarding the disputes between the Mother Country and the settled colonies, there was no excuse for the pretentious attempt of the grand jurors of the province of Quebec to take the same position.

Resides the resolution just quoted, the grand jury presented fourteen others, the greater part of which were distinctly outside their province. The whole attitude of mind which influenced them, which clearly showed the self-seeking nature of their intentions, is made apparent by the general statement appended to their "presentments."

"Among the many grievances which require redress this seems not the least, that persons professing the religion of the Church of Rome, who acknowledge the supremacy and jurisdiction of the Pope, and admit Rulls, briefs, absolution, etc., from that See as acts binding on their consciences, have been impanelled on grand and petty juries, even where two Protestants were parties . . . we therefore believe that nothing can be more dangerous (to the King's dignity) than admitting such persons to be sworn on juries who by law are disabled from holding any office, trust, or power."

Then followed a recital of the Act of James I. against Papists and Popish recusants, all of which was artfully intended to catch the verdict of the public in England, already too much inclined to religious persecution, while at the same time concealing the real desire of the Protestant minority in Canada to rule the roost and plunder the former owners of the soil.

This document bore the signature of twelve British merchants and eight of the new subjects. The latter, however, subsequently declared that they had signed the document in ignorance of the nature of its contents, and submitted a written declaration of their views, which concludes with the following:

"That His Majesty being informed that all the subjects forming this province were Catholics, still believed them capable as such of taking the oath of loyalty, and therefore fit to be admitted to the service of their country in such a way as they shall be thought qualified for. It would be shameful to believe that the Canadians, new subjects, cannot serve their King cither as serjeant or officers; it would be a most humiliating thought and very discouraging to free subjects who have been admitted to the privileges of the nation and their rights as explained by His Majesty. . . . The leniency of the existing Government has made us forget our losses and attached us to His Majesty and to the Government...."

As may be supposed, those among the new subjects, both jurors and justices, in whose cause Murray was working whole-heartedly, entered a spirited protest against the presentments referred to, and there was also a numerously-signed petition on the same subject from the French inhabitants. In this they asserted that:

"Mr. Murray, who was appointed Governor of the province of Quebec, to the satisfaction of all its inhabitants, has up to the present time, at the head of a military council, administered to us all the justice we could have expected from the most enlightened jurists. . . . For four years we enjoyed the greatest tranquility. By what sudden stroke has it been taken away through the action of four or five jurists, whose character we respect, but who do not understand our language, and who expect us, as soon as they have spoken, to comprehend legal constructions which they have not yet explained? . ."

The petition then goes on to state the cruelty of proscribing ten thousand heads of families from authority in the State on account of religious difference.

The reply of the King to the claims of the grand jurors was to the point:

"Having taken into consideration several presentments from a grand jury at Quebec, assuming to themselves authority similar to that of a House of Representatives, against the orders and regulations of His Majesty's Government established there. Supporting the said presentment by the names of several of the principal French inhabitants, who declare they were fraudulently drawn into signing the same, and by a representative since sent over, deny their previous knowledge or their intended approbation of the contents, which, being written in English, they did not then understand. I am now, Sir, to signify to you His Majesty's highest disapprobation of such their proceedings and abuse of the good faith of the said French inhabitants, and by His Majesty's command I am to direct you to signify that Hi-s Majesty will give the utmost attention and consideration to all proper representations from his Canadian subjects. . . ."

Unfortunately this pronouncement was not received for a year subsequent to the presentments, and during all the intervening period the Governor was confronted with the ill-concealed rebellion of the jurors.

Montreal was the storm centre whence emanated these attempts to undermine the authority of the Governor. " Every intrigue to our disadvantage will be laid and hatched there." In truth, the course of government at Montreal had been unfortunate from the start. From the date of the surrender (September, 1760) until the end of 1763, General Gage had been responsible, and his rule was mild and little fitted to control the disturbing elements which gathered force with singular rapidity at a critical time when all comers were seeking to profit by the opportunities of the first settlements of the new colony. It was no time for milk-and-water politics. After Gage came Burton, who appears to have had no capacity for civil administration, and to whom the army was the sole object of solicitude. After Burton, who resigned in July (1764), came nobody, for Lord Halifax wrote that it was judged unnecessary to fill up the appointments of lieut.-governors at Three Rivers and Montreal. To this proposal Murray strongly objected, pointing out that at a distance from the capital of one hundred and eighty miles, surrounded by "nations" of Indians and the headquarters of the French noblesse, it was eminently desirable to retain, as was the case during the French regime, a lieut.-governor to control the measures ordered for the public peace.

In the Quebec district Murray had ruled sternly but justly. The British traders were kept within bounds by an iron discipline which pleased them very little, while the habitant could count on support so long as he acted honestly.

Of the French Canadians of the settler class Murray held a high opinion. Possibly his language may appear a little exaggerated, but we must remember how constantly he found it necessary to protect them against oppression, and no doubt his experience of the Ministry at home led him to believe that strong terms were needed to impel them to action.

"Little, very little, will content the new subjects, but nothing will satisfy the licentious fanatics trading here but the expulsion of the Canadians, who are perhaps the bravest and the best race upon the globe. A race who, could they be indulged with a few privileges, which the laws of England deny to Roman Catholics at home, would soon get the better of every natural antipathy to their conquerors, and become the most faithful and most useful men in the American Empire."

This term of Murray's shows that his thoughts ran in Imperial lines, and while Ministers and Members of Parliament were engaged in considering how much the supposed disunion of the colonies would set as a safeguard in preventing combined action, he and others with a wider vision would have created that Imperial senate, which in the twentieth century is approaching its birth, and by doing so might have continued the union of the American Empire with England with what results on the peace of the world one can only conjecture. To preserve these hardy Canadians, accustomed to the climate and needing only peace and equitable treatment to become good subjects, was Murray's constant care, and in August, 1764, he reported, with evident satisfaction, "that there are no more than two hundred and seventy souls, men, women, and children, who will emigrate from this province in consequence of the Treaty of Paris."

*Halifax to Murray, July 11, 1764. Color el Burton was, however, appointed Brigadier of the Northern Command, and did not actually1 leave Montreal, though lie ceased to be civil Governor.

Towards the end of the year (1764) the constant petitions of the British traders against the Governor's action— forced, no doubt, on the Ministers by their correspondents in London—obliged Murray to take the step of sending his secretary, Cramahe, to England to endeavour by word to bring the real situation before the King and his councillors:

"I flatter myself," he wrote, "there will be some remedy found out even in the laws for the relief of this people; if so, I am positive the popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart of the King from following its own dictates. I am confident, too, my Royal Master will not blame the unanimous opinion of his council here for the ordinance establishing courts of justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers from emigrating directly; and certain I am, unless the Canadians are admitted on juries, and are allowed judges and lawyers who understand their language, that His Majesty will lose the greatest part of this valuable people."

Regarding this action of the Governor in council in permitting the inclusion of Catholics on juries, it is interesting to note that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, to whom the matter was referred, supported the view taken in Canada. This "opinion," dated Lincoln's Inn. June 10, 1765, ran as follows

"Question: If His Majesty's subjects residing in countries ceded by the treaty are or are not subject in those colonies to the incapacities, disabilities, and penalties which Roman Catholic subjects arc subject to by the laws (of England). Answer: We are of opinion that, they arc not subject."

Thus, though the action taken in Canada received this confirmation, it does not detract from the courage with which the Governor and his council faced the situation, and brought on themselves a veritable avalanche of misrepresentation from that turbulent and self-seeking section who unfortunately had the means of making themselves heard at home.

In Montreal the state of tension between the military and civil elements, abetted it is to be feared by the open action of Burton and Gage, culminated at the end of 1764 in serious trouble. The origin was in itself trivial enough to make it more worth oblivion than record, but at a period when weak government and divided councils permitted John Wilkes to absorb the interests of Parliament over several sessions and even to affect the stability of a Ministry, one might expect exaggerated importance to be given to the Canadian affair of Mr. Thomas Walker, a merchant of Montreal. Incidentally this affair brought out prominently the danger of divided authority, as between the civil governor at Quebec and the military chief at New York. Walker, it appears, was one the turbulent class who made it their business to pursue a course of disrespect to the established Government, and to set at nought, as far as it dared, the military element. During the period of Colonel Burton's government, and before the long delayed establishment of civil government, this man had, in the course of a dispute with one of his clerks, presented a petition to Burton, who had ordered the affair to be tried before a military court, there being no other available. The appellant refused to be governed by the decision, and treated the court in a disrespectful and contemptuous manner, and his behaviour met the approval and imitation of many of his fellows, producing a state of tension between the military and civil elements, which there is reason to believe was not eased by any tactful action on Burton's part. In the autumn this state of tension came to a head, when certain orders as to billeting of troops were given, to which the civilian clement were strongly opposed and declared to be illegal. A captain of the 28th Regiment was under these orders billeted on the house of one of the Canadian justices of the peace, who promptly issued a warrant for the imprisonment of the captain. It is not very clear on what grounds this order was made or carried out, but it was quite sufficient to give the soldiers a strong incentive to show their power, and there was certainly much bitterness. Murray, on receiving reports of this occurrence, was evidently in a difficult position. It was impossible to repudiate the authority of the newly-made magistrates without inquiry, and they were summoned to Quebec to answer for their action, among them being Walker. Two nights before Walker's departure to obey the Governor's summons his house was entered by a body of soldiers and he himself violently assaulted. There is no doubt that this assault was the action of the men and perhaps some officers of the 28th Regiment, who greatly resented the magisterial action against one of their members; and it is pretty clear that Burton was less anxious to clear up the matter than to shield the military and incidentally to cause difficulties to the civil governor.

The Governor acted promptly and impartially. It is evident from his report that he had no leanings to either side:

"On so critical an occasion I determined to go to Montreal immediately with His Majesty's council for the province. Here I found everything in confusion, and the greatest enmity raging between the troops and the inhabitants. The latter spoke and acted as if their lives were in danger.

. . From the day I arrived—how they (the military) conducted themselves before I shall not say—the troops certainly behaved with great submission to the civil magistrates. Every man was given up to be examined the moment he was demanded. ... In the course of the examination before the council it was evident the army had not been very zealous in aiding the civil magistrates, and the insolent, indecent, and groundless suspicions which Mr. Walker expressed against officers of undoubted honour and reputation might have occasioned that indifference and influenced the whole army against him."

After remaining a month at Montreal and arranging, after some demur on Burton's part, for an exchange of the 28th Regiment, Murray set out to return to Quebec, but his influence had hardly been removed when the soldiers of the 28th broke out afresh and forcibly released the men of their regiment who had been imprisoned. The men were recaptured, and a second time were rescued by the soldiers. Murray's remark on this is significant: "Brigadier Burton, under whose command this result happened, had no doubt very good reasons for not inquiring into it, and for not endeavouring to find out the authors of it."

Before setting out for Montreal, Murray wrote to Burton a letter which, I think, is worth quoting, as showing his open impartiality:

"The confusion at Montreal must give every good man concern. It is my duty to do what in me lies to put a stop to it and to restore order and harmony; to this end I shall set out as soon as possible for that part of my Government. In the meantime, as the post will reach you before I can, I write the opinions of the Attorney-General relative to the warrants and conduct of the magistrates complained of in Captain Mitchelson's letters to you.*

"I send this in tenderness to my brother officers, who, I hope, will have patience till I arrive, and then they may be assured that everything will be done with that candour and politeness which they may expect from a gentleman firmly attached to His Majesty's service. . . ."

The affair dragged on for many months with fresh difficulties cropping up. The trial originally ordered to be held at Montreal was found to be impossible, for the limited choice of jurymen prevented twelve unbiassed people being found. On the recommendation of the law officers the council decided on transferring the trial to Quebec, and an ordinance was issued making the whole province open for selection of a jury. Walker refused to attend this trial, alleging fear of personal molestation at the hands of the men of the 28th Regiment then at Quebec. The venue was then changed to Trois Rivieres. Walker still refused to appear, and the trial held in his absence resulted in acquittal of the accused. It was clear that Walker was less concerned in procuring a conviction than in creating difficulties'. In June, 1765, Murray wrote to the Board:

The examination in council . . . shows Mr. Walker in his proper colours. He had no excuse for not attending, as during the trial the 28th Regiment was to have been ordered into cantonments. His protest against Government, his seditious insinuations which prevailed with jurors summoned from Montreal to refuse their duty, the repeated complaints of his insolent overbearing temper and the impossibility of prevailing upon any other justice to act with him, are reasons sufficient for the unanimous desire of the council to have him dismissed from the magistracy. A desire 1, with reluctance, yielded to in consideration of the personal ill-treatment the man had suffered and the opportunity of triumph it gave his enemies."

In London a great outcry was made by the traders, who were only too anxious to find an opening through which to attack the governor. The city, "ever the friend of those oppressed by the intruments of power," and at this period ready to hang the banner of "liberty" on any peg that would cause embarrassment to their rulers, presented memorials accusing the authorities in general, and Murray in particular, of interference with liberty. The transfer of the trial to Quebec and the enlargement of the choice of jurymen fell particularly under comment. Unfortunately the Government at home, but recently emerged from the first phases of the Wilkes' problem and its connected question of "general -warrants," and already in conflict with the American colonies, had no heart to face, with justice and inquiry, the situation arisen n Canada. The results we shall hear of again; meanwhile, it is sufficient to observe t hat the delay in creating a civil government, the weakness due to divided authority, and the short-sighted policy which decided to impose on a race of men alien in religious thought some part of the narrow restrictions which had already produced chaos in Ireland, were wholly responsible for the lamentable state of friction which confronted the Governor.

Murray, at all events, had nothing to reproach himself with. He had laid all the circumstances clearly before the ministers in language that could admit of no misunderstanding:

"One must be on the spot to form a judgment of the difficulties which occur in establishing the English laws in this country. The body of the people, from education and religion, are averse to them, and the few sensible men among them are still more so, being excluded from every employment they formerly enjoyed. . . . Colonel Burton, who had arrived at the government of the province and refused the lieutenant-government, is appointed a brigadier on the American staff, and remains to command the troops at Montreal. It is not natural to imagine a man will be contented with the command of a few troops in a country he had so long governed without control. . . . It may be supposed the civil establishment was by no means relished by the troops, as the new magistracy must be composed, agreeably to my instructions, of the very merchants they held so much n contempt. . . , I was aware of the disagreeable circumstances at Montreal, and remedied them as much as possible by joining with them (the civil magistrates) half-pay officers in the commission of the peace, and even by borrowing some from regiments on duty. . . The places of the greatest business in the province have been granted by patent to men of interest in England, who have hired them to the best bidder, without considering the talents or circumstances of their representatives. One man, for instance, who cannot read a word of French, is Deputy-Sheriff, Registrar, Clerk of the Council, Secretary and Commissary of Stores and Provisions. ... I am sensible I may displease by complaining of this, but by doing so I do my duty. While I have the honour to serve my Royal Master that shall by my only study, and the only fear I can entertain is that of being defective in it." *

From the private correspondence that took place during this period, Murray's views and difficulties appear. To Lord Elibank he wrote on September 16 (1764):

" . . . It is by the military force we are to govern this lately conquered province. ... It is evident the brigadier must in fact be the governor, (or) that the people must be oppressed by the soldiery, that the civil governor and his magistrates must be contemptible, and in place of being the means of preserving order and promoting the happiness of the subject they must, from the natural jealousies which such an establishment will produce, become the bane of peace. . . . The reasons are so clear and simple, they should not have escaped the Ministry. If, however, they have, from the hurry of more pressing concerns, or from the art ful insinuations of designing men, it is necessary they should be put right. I cannot decently write to any of them on this subject, because what I may say might be construed more the effects of ambition than zeal for the service of my master and the good of the public, and therefore I am to entreat your lordship to represent it properly, that the evil may be removed, if it really doth exist. ... I cannot with credit to myself or satisfaction to my Sovereign govern in this province unless I have authority with the troops ; I mean not to have the ehief command of them. How far that is expedient the wisdom of Government must determine, but I do insist that under the commander-in-chief I should have command of the troops, towns, and forts all over the province. It will he too hard a task for me to govern in the civil way a great populous country of a different religion, different language, different manners and customs, without the aid of troops or the assistance of the laws, for two such ignorant needy lawyers as are sent here from England to distribute justice to the people were never before sent from any country. . . ."

*Murray to Lords of Trade, March 3, 1705.

To Lord Eglinton he wrote (October 27, 1764):

" .... If the popular clamours in England will not allow the humane heart of the King to follow its own dictates, and the Popish laws must be exerted with rigour in Canada, for God's sake procure my retreat, and reconcile it to Lord Bute, as I cannot be witness to the misery of a people I love and admire."

To his friend James Oswald, who at the time was Vice-Treasurer for Ireland in Grenville's administration, he wrote (October 16, 1764):

"The necessity of the Governor of this province having the command of the troops is so evident, I conclude that will instantly be ordered, if not it will be impossible for me, or any other man, to give satisfaction. ... If, therefore, my dear Sir, you find that His Majesty has come to a resolution to allow no civil governor to have any military command, for God's sake get me as handsomely out of this civil embarrassment as possible. The Government of this province will be a good thing for some dependant of the ministers and I am ready to resign . . . provided always that 1 may be continued nominal military governor of the town of Quebec, a title I own I am proud of. I therefore say nominal, for I desire no salary. . . . Everyman has his hobby-horse. Mine is to die with the title of Governor of Quebec. . . ."

To his secretary Cramahe, who had been sent to England to make clear all the affairs of the province, he wrote (November 17, 1764):

"Since you left us they have run wild at Montreal. Inclosed you have all that pretty business, the effects of Burton's intrigues, Fraser's haughtiness and weakness, and the justices' ignorance and pride, I am resolved to be cool and let the law take its course. I shall prejudge no man, so the justices will remain until I and all the world are convinced they should be removed. ... I have appointed Monier, Mayben, and Marteil to be Judges of the Court of Common Pleas till you can provide better in their places. The people call so loudly for this reasonable court I cannot refuse, and sure I am it must be approved of when you represent the necessity of it, and then you will labour to find a proper person to preside there. . . . Our Chief Justice gives every day fresh proofs of his want of head and heart, and Cunningham of his being the most thorough-paced villain who ever existed. The Attorney -General seems to understand the business he was sent here to do. Kneller is a worthy young man; his knowledge and honesty keep the other gentlemen of the law in awe, so I hope we shall rub on till things are put on a better footing. If they are not I must give it up, for I am determined to risk neither character nor constitution in attempting impossibilities and absurdities; the loss of the first must be certain, and I find the anxiety and vexation has such an effect on my health that the second will be inevitable. You know, Cramahe, I love the Canadians, but you cannot conceive the uneasiness I feel on their account. To see them made the prey of the most abandoned of men while I am at their head is too much for me to endure much longer. Take courage, therefore, my man, speak boldly the truth and let you and I at least have the consolation of having done our duty to God and our country and our own consciences. Farewell, my dear friend, I heartily pray God Almighty may prosper your labours and send you safe to me again."

On a previous page I have referred to the opinion expressed by the crown law officers on the legality of admitting. Catholics to the jury. A more complete justification of Murray's policy occurred at a council held at Whitehall on November 15, 1765, when the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs were:

"pleased to order that the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations do prepare and lay before this committee a draught of an additional instruction, requiring him (the Governor of Quebec) to publish an ordinance declaring all His Majesty's subjects in the said province without distinction are intitled to be impannelled and sit and act upon juries."

For greater security it was ordained that in causes between British-born subjects only British-born jurors could sit, and in cases between Canadians only Canadians could sit—in mixed cases the jury should be equally divided. It was further ordered "that His Majesty's Canadian subjects shall be permitted to practice as banisters, advocates, attorneys, or proctors in all courts," though this latter concession was not to be considered as final, but until His Majesty's further pleasure should be expressed.

This decision was a triumph for the Governor. The opposition to his constant endeavour to procure equality of treatment for the Canadian subjects had been, and, indeed, still continued to be, bitter and incessant, but in thus securing them fair representation in the courts of law a great step in their favour had been gained, nor is it possible to argue that it was always intended that the terms of these new instructions should have been read into the original. Had such been the case it would not have been necessary to set in motion all the machinery of a reference to the law officers, a resolution of the council at Whitehall, and a formal authority to take the proposed action. Yet the attempt was made at a later date to show that omission to do the things now sanctioned to be done was due to want of proper reading of the original commission and its accompaniments, on the part of the Governor, his council and the law officers appointed in Canada.

Enough has been said to show that Murray had represented the circumstances fully and fearlessly during the years 1764 and 1765. Possibly his letters were not politic, and it may be that his blunt statements, in which he definitely stated that "the places of the greatest business in the province have been granted by patent to men of interest in England, who have hired them to the best bidders, without considering the talents or circumstances of their representatives," gave offence which might have been avoided, but apart from this the whole state of colonial administration in London was in confusion. There had been friction for a long time between the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State. Lord Halifax had endeavoured to free the Board of all trammels, his successors had been content with subordinate positions. In 1703 Lord Shelburne claimed full powers, but ultimately agreed to take Cabinet rank, while nominally subordinate to the Secretary of State, an arrangement whieh lasted only a few months. Frequent changes and a conflict of policy marked the years 1764 and 1765, and it is little to be wondered at that the result should have reacted on the colonies, whose Governors were in the unhappy position of having no clearly defined channel of communication. They were partly subordinate to the Board with an ill-defined subordination to the Secretary of State. In 1766 Lord Chatham definitely reduced the Board of Trade to a Board of Report to the Secretary of State ; a year later the Duke of Grafton altered the policy and created a third Secretary of State to deal especially with the American colonies, the foundation of our existing colonial office.

The effect of this confused state of affairs at home is reflected in a letter from General Murray to the Lords of Trade, dated February 1760:

"I blush when I find myself under the necessity of putting your lordships to the trouble of reading so many letters when ten lines might suffice, but . . . the total silence to every remonstance, reasoning, and report which hitherto I have had the honour to make to your Board (from which I have not had a letter that was not circular since the establishment of civil government here) makes it unnecessary for me to apologise for this method of conveying my intelligence."

It is evident that the silence of the Ministry and the want of support under which Governor Murray writhed had causes more deeply seated and less honourable to the Government at home than mere confusion in the department that regulated the affairs of the colonies. The Rockingham Ministry had come into power in July, 1705, and their mot (TorArc was to abase or neglect all those who were, or might be supposed to be, the nominees of Lord Rute, and in this category Murray, as a Scot, who undoubtedly had enjoyed Rute's approval, to say nothing of Mansfield's, who was equally taboo, unfortunately found himself. Resides this, popularity with the people was a desirable object, and one of the first acts of the new Ministry was to raise to the peerage the popular Lord Chief Justice Pratt, who had received the plaudits of the mob by releasing Wilkes, who posed as the champion of liberty. It must not be forgotten that at this period Mr. Thomas Walker had come to London from Canada to ape the manner of Wilkes and style himself the " agent of the people," pouring into the too sympathic ear of Lord Dartmouth, the newly appointed President of the Board of Trade, false tales of Murray's " blasphemy " and oppression. It is significant, too, that Viscount Gage, the brother of the American commander, held a position in the Ministry. On October 18, 1765, the Lords of the Privy Council considered the case of Mr. Thomas Walker and the civil and military discord that reigned in Canada, and in consequence of their representations to the King the following letter, dated October 24, 1765, was addressed to Governor Murray:

" Sir,—Divers representations having been made to His Majesty in council of the disorders that have lately happened and the unfortunate divisions reigning in the pro vi ace of Quebec, where you command, I am in consequence of the same to signify to you His Majesty's pleasure that you do immediately prepare for your return to England, in order to give a full and distinct account of the present state of the said province, of the nature and causes of the disorders and divisions above mentioned, and of your own conduct and proceedings in the administration of your Government.

"It is, however, His Majesty's pleasure you should not leave the province till you receive His Majesty's further orders, and till a proper person shall be fixed on by His Majesty Tor the government of the province during your absence. . . ."

Quite apart from the strong suspicion that the Rockingham Ministry were guilty of weak concession to the pressure of public clamour of an obviously biassed nature, it was surely impolitic thus to weaken the authority of the Governor of Quebec at a time when it was all important that strong government should be supported by every possible means. The immediate effect of this mandate was to enable Walker and the recalcitrant traders to declare that the recall of the Governor was due to their representations, and to argue therefrom that the Government at home viewed with favour the principles of their agitation. Such an outcome was not only a serious incentive to the spirit of rebellion, which was already in evidence in the neighbouring states, but it also tended to undermine the whole structure of loyalty among the French Canadians, which Murray had so assiduously developed. They could not but argue that the recall of a man in whom they trusted, apparently at the behest of a small number of British subjects, from which they had every reason to expect injustice and oppression, indicated that the policy of the conqueror was undergoing a change. It would even appear that Walker, who went to England to lay his grievances in person before Lord Dartmouth, was informed of the recall of the Governor before Murray himself:

'II am far from doubting the recall," writes Murray to the Lords of Trade, " but I must lament that Mr. Walker should have known it before I did, and that some clerks of the offices should have communicated to him what he had no right to know. I should be defective in my duties was I not to acquaint Lord Dartmouth that Mr. Walker takes uncommon liberties with his name. Nothing can be more ridiculous to men of sense, but in a colony constituted as this is the mischief may be irreparable, unless a stop be put to the mercenary agent's career. He does not hesitate to say that he is protected by the King's servants in stirring up the people to spurn at every ordinance and regulation made by the Governor of the province. ... I shall not, however, be deterred from doing my duty . . . the murmurs of a few British traders residing here I must expect until I can convince the colony that my letters are read at the Board of Trade with as much attention as Mr. Walker's remonstrances."

Moreover, the means to acquaint themselves of all the circumstances of the disorders which had occurred were already in the hands of the Board of Trade. Cramahe, who besides being Murray's secretary, was also a member of the council, had been sent to England for the express purpose of laying before the ministers the state of the case. Mr. Price, also a member of the council, had been sent shortly after the great fire, which had destroyed a considerable part of the town of Montreal,* to seek aid for the sufferers, and he too would be in a position to give information. That Conway, in his capacity of Secretary of State, should have signed the letter of recall to Murray had in itself a special degree of irony, for Conway was honest and the consistent opponent of oppression in the American colonies. He was, moreover, a soldier, and had no sympathy with demagogues, whether Wilkes or Walker. He had warmly denied Pitt's general accusation against the Ministry, and declared that he at least " had not made use of liberty to ride into employment." Indeed this parrot cry of liberty had brought with it ill-fortune for Murray, for we have seen that under one Ministry he had had neglect because the Westminster mob had howled themselves hoarse for " Murray and liberty," and the sins of the brother had been visited on him, and now for the opposite reason " Wilkes and liberty " had a sinister effect on his career from a Ministry anxious to conciliate the people.

It is convenient here to anticipate events by a few months, in order to describe the outcome of the agitation created in Canada by the disappointed British merchants and fostered by their representatives in London. In July, 1766, the Rockingham Ministry fell, the cause being the repeal of the American Stamp Act, which Horace Walpole tells us was forced by the "clamour of trade, of the merchants, and of the manufacturing towns." "Trade" saw in the positive intention of the colonists to cease all trading until their claims had been satisfied, an endless series of losses which to the merchants was of more importance than any question of political loss which might ensue from hasty legislation. This very Government, forced by one section of trade to act unjustly to the hero of this memoir, was forced to repeal the Stamp Act by another section, and thus to set themselves in opposition to the King and the Court party, which promptly commenced to plot their downfall. By July, 1766, the King had sent for Mr. Pitt, and as Earl of Chatham a new Government had been brought together under his leadership.

It is not relevant to this story to dilate upon the extraordinary state of the political world, which was at this time a chaos of individuals, each playing a personal game and no one giving more than a passing thought to the condition of the country, or the great interests at stake. Horace Walpole, for all that he records his part as the Deus ex Machina, who brought the wandering atoms together in ever changing groups, and uses the personal pronoun with irritating frequency, makes it clear that in such a state of ill-defined political thought it would be impossible to find unanimity in any one party. There was in practice no Ministry and no Opposition, for within the Ministry were opposing factions, and without it were those who supported one section or another of the cabinet itself; the result tended to form unstable groups, which, like so many chemical combinations, contained the principles of explosion, and explosion was not infrequently the result.

So far as we are concerned with the matter immediately under consideration, Lord Chatham's Ministry having taken into consideration the charges brought against Murray, the following Order in Council was made on April 13, 1767:

"Upon reading this day at the Board a report of the ] light Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council for hearing appeals, complaints, etc., from the Plantations, dated 2nd of this instant, -n the following words, viz. Your Majesty, having been pleased to refer unto this committee several petitions in the names of the French inhabitants of Montreal in the province of Quebec, und of several British merchants and traders in behalf of themselves and their fellow subjects, inhabitants of the said province, together with other papers containing matters of complaint against the Honourable James Murray, Esquire, Your Majesty's Governor of that province, the Lords of the Committee did sometime since cause notice to be given to all persons concerned in personal complaints against the said Governor Murray to attend their Lordships on this day, and being accordingly attended by Mr. Joshua Sharpe and Mr. Turnbolt, solicitors for the complainants, and also by Mr. Walker, who appeared as a correspondent of some of the complainants in Canada, the said several persons were respectively called upon to declare whether either of them would enter into security to pay costs (which the committee thought in justice ought to be done) in case they should fail to make good their charges against the said Governor Murray, on a time to be fixed for hearing the same, and they having severally refused to enter 'nto such security, and Mr. Walker as the principal correspondent having declared that the papers sent over from Canada were never intended to come before the council in a judicial way, and that he had no witnesses to support any of the charges against Governor Murray, their Lordships do agree humbly to report to Your Majesty as their opinion that the same petitions and complaints against the said Governor Murray should be dismissed as groundless, scandalous, and derogatory to the honor of the said Governor, who stood before the committee unimpeached."

Which finding the King with the advice of the Privy Council was pleased to approve.

This document delivered after proper inquiry throws into strange prominence another addressed on March 27,1766, to Murray, before the Rockingham Ministry ceased to exist.

"Sir,—This will be delivered to you by Mr. Walker, who had the misfortune to have met with such treatment at Montreal as is a disgrace to all government, as no material complaint has been made against him for misconduct as a magistrate, and as his general character is supported by the test of very respectable people both in Canada and in London ... I am therefore to acquaint you, Sir, that he should be immediately restored and put into the commission of the peace. ..."

This extraordinary document was written within a few months of Murray's letter, making a full statement of the character of Walker referring to his "seditious insinuations" and the "repeated complaints of his insolent overbearing temper and the impossibility of prevailing upon any other justices to act with him as reasons sufficient for the unanimous desire of the council to have him dismissed from the magistracy." *

It is not possible to avoid the suspicion that personal or political bias influenced the officials of the Rockingham Ministry in their dealings with the Governor. In complete disregard of his full report on the tumults arising from the Walker case, accompanied by all the papers that had passed, in which his opinion, and the grounds of that opinion, had been clearly put before them, such an order as that just quoted should have been impossible until after a complete judicial investigation; when that took place a few months later the charges brought forward by this man were dismissed as " groundless and scandalous." That the ministers were little anxious to hear the evidence is made apparent from the letters which passed between Cramahe and Murray. The first, dated January 12, 1765, written a month after his arrival in England, details his various visits to the ministers and others:

"... Next day I went to Lord Halifax, who received me most courteously, said he was too much taken up at present to enter into business, but would send for me when at leisure . . . I could get no admittance to the Secretary at War."

The second letter available is dated August 10, though presumably there were some during the interval The Murray to lords of Trade, June 24, 1765.

Grenville Ministry was now out, but the new ministers were not more helpful:

"I waited upon Lord Dartmouth, who received me with great politeness, expressed his concern at the perplexed state of the province, and promised as soon as the Board met to take their affairs into consideration. . . . Various are the opinions about the present Ministry, and so many political lies are propagated by the friends of the several parties, it is difficult to trace the truth. ... If they do not something for us by next mail, I shall give over all hopes of any thing being done until the session, which probably will be a warm one."

The third letter is dated October 12, 17C5. The writer is evidently giving up hope of getting any attention :

"When you desired and I undertook to come over to lay the state of the province you govern be/ore the men in power here, we acted, I believe, from the same principle, that of procuring happiness for the people, and of rendering the acquisition of that country serviceable to this. That from a concurrence of untowardly circumstances hitherto I have not been able to succeed I most sincerely regret, but am conscious that in the whole transaction I have discharged my duty, if not ably at least most faithfully, and tho' the present Ministry inquire very minutely into those affairs, yet as they do not seem to intend a speedy decision ... I have resolved to sacrifice my own peace and quiet and stay the winter to endeavour at obtaining a final settlement of them. . . . When the present ministers (Rockingham) began to do business, as they could not know much about the province, I thought it right to lay before them the present state of it with regard to the three principal points requiring a speedy consideration, viz. church, law, and revenue. They are very diligent in their inquiries and seem disposed to put things on a good footing; but either from embarrassments at home or broils abroad, as yet they had not come to any conclusion, tho' considering the state of that poor province, as well as that of the other American dominions, it were much to be wished administration was firmly established, that it might be enabled to act with vigour and despatch in the important matters now before them. . . ."

Which remarks of Captain Cramahe indicate an insight into the situation which it is to be regretted was not given to " the men in power."

On June 28, 1766, Murray sailed for England in the ship Little William, turning his back for ever on the province he had been so closely connected with for seven years. Shortly before leaving he received from James Oswald, then Vice-Treasurer for Ireland, and a man whose good opinion he valued, a letter, which no doubt gave him comfort, dated March 16, 1766:

My dear Sir,—As this letter will be delivered by Captain Cuthbert, it is needless for me to enter into any detail in respect to information on the state of your affairs here which you will have more clearly and fully given you by that gentleman himself. All I can say therefore is in general that as I remain most firmly of opinion that nobody who has deserved so much of the public as you have done has ever had such a torrent of malice and faction poured out upon them as had been upon you, so I do in my conscience believe that your own presence on the spot, which I understand is now determined, will afford you the best opportunity of disappointing the effects by setting your conduct in its true and proper light. Some of your best friends have never had any proper opportunity of either hearing or of refuting many of ye numberless calumnys which have been so industriously circulated against your conduct. But every friend of yours, and indeed, I believe, every man of common sense and honor have had ye comfort of being perfectly, satisfied, that as ye greatest part of them were either frivolous or contradictory, so many others which had the least appearance of gravity have never yet been put hitherto into any way of receiving a fair and equal hearing. Whatever therefore may be the real intention of this resolution of your return to England, I cannot but be of opinion that it must be advantageous in respect to this opportunity of giving a fair and full hearing in justification of a conduct which ought not to lie under the least reproach. It would be perfectly needless in me to endeavour pointing out any of those particulars to which you should most chiefly give your attention on this occasion, for upon my soul I have never seen any of them in light of deserving either attention or justification. Your own perfect knowledge of the state of that country which you had the honor to assist in conquering, and which you have had ye honor to govern with such tranquility in ye most delicate circumstances, notwithstanding ye utmost efforts of calumny and faction, will enable you to give such information for ye service of His Majesty and of the public as will deserve most serious attention of his ministers. It will be their duty to lay such information before their master, and I cannot believe that under such circumstances any man can ever be made a victim to mere calumny and malice. Relieve me, as ever, dear Sir, your most faithfully and affectionately, James Oswald."

There were many other signs that his departure from Canada was deemed a misfortune to the country, and of these I will quote from but one. A memorial to the King from the seigneurs of Quebec, and in regard to this it should be remembered that the Governor had by no means favoured this class at the expense of the community, rather, in fact, he treated their claims to lord it over the poorer classes with little sympathy, yet it is apparent that they recognised the justness of his aims.

" Au Roy,

"Les seigneurs dans le district de Quebec tant en leurs 110ms que pour tous les habitants leurs Tenancicrs penetree de douleur du depart de son excellence Vhonourable Jacques Murray, qu'ils ont depuis la conquete de cette province cheri et respecte plus encore a cause de ses qualites personelles que comme leur Gouverneur, se croiroient indignes de wore s'ils ne s'efforcoient de faire connoitre a votre Majeste leur Souverain seigneur et a toute I'Angleterre les obligations qu'ils lui ont, qu'ils n'oublieront jamais, et les regrets sinceres qu'ils ont de son depart.

"Ses ennemis ne peuvent aujourd'hui nous taxer de flatteurs. . . . Le Caball formee par un certain nombre des anciens sujets a triomphe; du moins elle s'en jlutte, et s'en rejouit; ses plaintes supposeront ete ecoutes refusera-t-on de nous ecouter aussi, un tres petit nombre I'emportera-t-il sur le plus grand ?

"Vhonourable J aequo, Murray, en 1759, cntourre des Canadians quil dcvait regardcr comme ses cnnernis, n'a eu pour eux que dp F indulgence . . . sa ge'nerosite et ccllcs de ses qfficiers animes par son exemple, qui par les aumones qu'ils ont repandu ont tire les peuples de la miscre dans laqucllc les malheurs de la Guerre les avoient plongc nous ont force' de Fadmirer et de le respecter. . . ."

The subject of their memorial had left the country; they recognised that there was no prospect of his return or hope of favours to come. One cannot suspect insincerity in their words, and it is clear that the French Canadians recognised that Murray had sacrificed his career in Canada by supporting their cause.

It is unnecessary to add more to show the true origin of the trouble in Canada. In the next chapter I will give some brief proofs of the want of candour shown by the responsible ministers in London and some few details of the events subsequent to Murray's departure, because it is only by a consideration of them that what Murray had done for the country emerges. The conditions during his tenure of government were too confused to permit the effect of his vigorous struggle against the short-sighted measures imposed from London to come to the surface. During the period up to the peace of Paris the people regarded Canada merely as a pawn in the game to be used for barter at the peace. After that date the effects of the measures ordered by the Ministry obscured the efforts of the Governor, and when he returned to England in July, 1766, there were probably few who believed otherwise than that another "hungry Scottish Governor" had been tried and found wanting. In Canada James Murray's name is still remembered with respect and gratitude, but at home there are not many who are aware of the great work done by the first Governor of Quebec, and of those conversant with the history of Canada I doubt not that many give to Carleton. afterwards Lord Dorchester, credit for much that his distinguished predecessor was entitled to.