The Fils de la Liberté

The Fils de la Liberté was formed in August 1837 and held its first assembly on 5 September when between 500 and 700 people attended. It based itself on the Sons of Liberty that had existed during the American Revolution but the more immediate inspiration was another organisation that already existed in Vankleek Hill, the centre of radical activity in the valley of the Outaouais. The core of the association was made up of young Patriotes but the links between it and other members of the Parti Patriote was maintained by two lawyers François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier and Georges Étienne Cartier. The assembly at Saint-Charles on 23 October approved the organisation of the Fils de la Liberté.[1]

The members of the association normally gathered at the Hotel Nelson in the rue Saint-Jacques. Other groups were formed outside Montreal but they only accounted for about 200 members. To disseminate information, the organisation made use of the ‘small ads’ sections of pro-Patriote newspapers.[2] These can be found in both La Minerve and the Vindicator generally under the name of the association or its slogan ‘Forward’. The group also had its own hymn, ‘Avant tout je suis Canadien’, written by George-Étienne Cartier. The organisation of the Fils de la Liberté disappeared a little after the street fighting of 6 November and the issue of arrest warrants for Papineau, O’Callaghan, Brown and Ouimet on 16 November. Gosford estimated that the Fils had 2,000 members at this time but this may be a deliberate over-estimate and it is difficult to be certain about its total membership because the numbers attending Fils activities varies considerably from source to source.

According to the deposition of G-H-É Therrien[3], the members of the association wanted to ‘redress their grievances....through moral force’.[4] In other words, they wanted to use legitimate means to put forward their point of view. The publication of the Adresse des Fils de la Liberté de Montréal aux jeunes gens des colonies de l’Amérique du Nord on 4 October 1837 marked the beginnings of conflict between the Fils and loyalists.[5] The Fils was organised into two sections: a civil wing was under the direction of Papineau and O’Callaghan with the lawyer André Ouimet[6] as president that met on Mondays; and, a military wing directed by Thomas Storrow Brown that met on Sundays to practice military operations. The organisation of this brotherhood was very effective with each of the six civil sections led by a group leader who, in the event of conflict, became colonels on the model of the militia. This calls into question the conclusions of some historians who saw the Fils as a small and ineffective organisation.

The different types of meeting were designed either to inform members or provide them with some military preparation. Resolutions were adopted in the same way as at other Patriote assemblies though it is unclear whether this applies to both types of meetings.[7] Neither is it clear whether participation by members at both types of meeting was voluntary or obligatory. What is evident is that the organisation did not regard itself as involved in a nationalist or religious battle but in a fight against the oppression of government, the battle between democracy and aristocracy. Evidence for this comes from the minutes of the meeting on 5 September reported in La Minerve.[8] It reported that the fourth rule was

La société se composera de la jeunesse en général et les seuls titres exigibles pour ceux qui désireront en faire partie, seront l’honnêteté et l’expression sincère de défendre leur pays contre l’arbitraire administration qui le régit, sans distinction de rang, d’origine ou de culte.

In the same article, La Minerve also mentioned that ‘the association was concerned exclusively with politics and all that was attached to it’. This somewhat contradicted the division between civil and military unless it was envisaged from the formation of the Fils that armed conflict was inevitable.

Since its formation in August, the Association des Fils de la Liberté had called an assembly on the first Monday of each month.[9] This occurred at the Place d’Armes where the Fils planted a tree of liberty.[10] It was, however, the meeting on 6 November 1837 that has been given the greatest attention. Since the meeting had been announced the previous Friday, rumours had circulated in Montreal that people should expect a second 21 May 1832.[11] Shortly after, the loyalists and their paramilitary section, the Doric Club said that it too would be holding a meeting and demonstration on 6 November. Jesse Lloyd, an emissary from Mackenzie in Upper Canada was in Montreal and Papineau did not want any conflict at this time and thought the projected march by the Fils de la Liberté ill-advised.[12]

Under these circumstances, magistrates decided to ban both processions to avoid any confrontation between the two groups. Two magistrates, Théophile Dufort and John Donegani managed to get an agreement between the Fils and the Doric Club. The constitutionalists promised to do nothing if the Fils did the same. The magistrates also pressured Papineau to intervene and prevent the procession and assembly leading his son Amédée to retort, ‘Non papa! En avant! En avant.’ However, the truce between the two groups had broken down by dawn on 6 November when Montreal was plastered with Patriote posters saying

Que les Loyaux habitants de Montréal se rendent à midi et demi sur la Place d’Armes, aujourd’hui 6 novembre 1837, pour étouffer la rébellion au berceau.[13]

The Doric Club retorted by also putting up posters throughout the town stating

...les Loyaux habitants de Montréal à se rendre à midi sur la Place d’armes pour tuer la rébellion dans l’œuf.[14]

Despite the clear threat from the Doric Club, the Fils went ahead with their meeting prompted in part by an article in La Minerve denouncing the measures taken by the magistrates in order to prevent the meetings as well as the ‘challenge’ launched by the members of Doric Club.[15] The Fils de la Liberté were ordered to go to their assembly two by two without drawing attention to themselves, without music and with as little fuss as possible and without any flags and, importantly, they were to obey the law. However, according to Amédée Papineau, they were all armed with guns or daggers under their coats. The meeting took place in the court of an inn belonging to Joseph Bonacina on the corner of the rue Notre-Dame and the rue Saint-Jacques.[16] Amédée Papineau said that there were about 1,500 people present though M. O’Sullivan put the figure at only 350.[17] The main speakers were André Ouimet, president of the Fils de la Liberté, Amury Girod, Thomas Storrow Brown and Edmund O’Callaghan, deputy of the Parti Patriote and editor of the Vindicator and E-E Rodier, also a deputy and one of the most radical members of the Parti Patriote who spoke in particularly inflammatory manner. Louis-Joseph Papineau was not present.

Around 3 pm, a group of between twenty and thirty young men threw stones and insults in the direction of the assembly. During this time, the Fils de la Liberté adopted twelve resolutions of which one called off the monthly assemblies for the winter until May the following year.[18] The meeting ended around 4 pm and most of the Fils de la Liberté began to go home down the rue Notre-Dame. The others moved towards those who were attacking them shouting its slogan ‘En avant, en avant’. In reality, they may not have been members of the Doric Club but simply the curious and fled once the Fils took a more offensive stance. A small group moved to the house of Dr William Robertson, one of the murderers of 1832 but fled when the Fils de la Liberté stopped to ransack his house. Others attacked a shop in the rue Notre-Dame where several people were hiding. A magistrate quickly went to inform the soldiers to leave their barracks in the Porte de Québec. The Fils succeeded in emptying the streets and quietly started to go home but several Patriotes had been assaulted. Thomas Storrow Brown was viciously attacked on the corner of the rue Saint-Jacques and Saint-François-Xavier but was helped home by one of his friends. Brown lost the sight in one eye and Ouimet was wounded in the knee. Early in the afternoon the Riot Act was read and the Royal Regiment, supported by the Artillery, ordered out to patrol the streets. Some Patriotes were informed that regular soldiers were about to arrive and judging that they were not enough to defend themselves, the remnants of the Fils de la Liberté began to return to their homes.

The Doric Club arrived but the initial disturbances had already ended. During a small skirmish with several of the Fils de la Liberté, De Lorimier was glanced by a pistol ball. The Dorics moved down the rue Dorchester and cornered some Fils at the house of Doctor Gauvin. They threw stones at the house of Joshua Bell, Brown’s deputy who responded by twice firing his rifle from a window but missed on both occasions. They then moved to Louis-Joseph Papineau’s house and began to shout insults and throw stones. Papineau stayed inside the house with his wife and children including Amédée, who had just returned from the riot. However, regular troops protected the house. Others attacked the offices of the Vindicator in the rue Sainte-Thérèse throwing the presses, print and paper into the street but did not touch the offices of the equally partisan La Minerve. There were soldiers in the vicinity but they did not intervene later defending their inaction by stating that they wanted to use the troops at Papineau’s house. Finally, the residence of Robert Nelson was attacked but after this the members of the Doric Club went home. Why the Doric Club largely attacked anglophones such as Brown, Bell, Nelson and O’Callaghan is unclear other than them being seen as traitors to the British cause.

Why have the events of 6 November been viewed by historians of such importance given that the street fighting appears not to have been as severe as events in 1832? The disturbances on 6 November fell into several phases. First, the Fils congregated for their meeting at Bonacina’s inn around 2 pm. Secondly, around 3pm, the meeting was attacked by a crowd of ordinary Montrealers. This appears to have been an uncoordinated action that may or may not have involved members of the Doric Club. Thirdly, once the Fils ended their meeting at around 4 pm, most went home but a small group took the offensive and cleared the streets of their attackers. Fourthly, regular troops arrived to restore order and it appears that the Fils melted away. Finally, the Doric Club arrived but, apart from a short skirmish with the remaining Fils, concentrated on attacking the houses of leading Patriotes especially Papineau’s.

First, it is clear that if this was a rebellion, an unlikely scenario but a position held by the Doric Club, then the Fils lost and lost badly. They had been pushed on to the defensive almost from the outset and although the Doric Club did not get involved until the disturbances were almost over, their actions were far more offensive and destructive in character. In fact, the meeting of the Fils appears to have attempted to defuse future confrontations by postponing further assemblies until the middle of the following year and the number of the Fils involved in direct action was only a small proportion of those who attended the meeting. The Patriotes now knew that loyalists would fight if necessary without regular military support and that they were not prepared to concede Montreal to the Patriotes. Secondly, the military found itself caught between the two groups and although it protected Papineau’s house effectively, its response in other areas was half-hearted and, in the case of the attack on the offices of the Vindicator non-interventionist. Finally, Gosford and the authorities recognised that the tensions between Fils de la Liberté and the Doric Club were serious but that the volunteers were able to contain the rebellion without the assistance of regular troops. The rumour, then the certainty, that the principal leaders would soon be arrested quickened the tempo of events. Colborne’s reaction was immediate. The 24^th Regiment was ordered from Kingston to Montreal, two companies of the 83^rd Foot moved to the city from Trois-Rivières and two companies of the 66^th Regiment arrived at Chambly from Quebec. By 8 November Colborne was recruiting and arming volunteers and the following day set up his headquarters in Montreal. Patriote leaders retreated to their strongholds: St-Benoît and St-Eustache in the Deux-Montagnes or St-Denis and St-Charles in the Richelieu Valley. Events were quickly slipping from Papineau’s grasp and when urged to control Patriote activities in the countryside on 12 November he made it clear that he could not restrain it. Within a week, arrest warrants for the Patriote leaders were issued, an event that precipitated a more widespread rebellion in the Richelieu and the Deux-Montagnes.

Appendix: Address of the Fils de la Liberté of Montreal to the young people of the colonies of North America

Brothers:

When urgent events in the affairs of a country make it necessary for citizens to form associations, the respect that is due to the opinions of society requires that these citizens explicitly declare the motives which led them to coalise, and the principles that they intend to establish by the means of their organisation.

We consider that, based upon the privilege of each individual to act on his own behalf, by the very basis of society, the privilege to join all of one’s energy to that of one’s co-citizens, in all projects aiming for defence or mutual interest, and consequently the right of association, is a right as sacred and as unalienable as that of individual liberty itself. We sustain that governments are created for the common good and can only rightfully exist with the consent of the governed, and that whatever artificial change may occur in the affairs of society, a chosen government is nevertheless an inherent right of the people. Since it cannot be alienated, one should not need to ask before putting it in practise.

All governments being instituted for the good of the whole people, by no means for the honour or the profit of only one individual, any claim to rule according to a divine or absolute authority, claimed by or for any man or class of men, is blasphemous and absurd, just like it is monstrous to inculcate it and degrading to admit it. The authority of a motherland over a colony can only exist for as a long as the colonists who live in it find this relation to their advantage; because it has been established and populated by these colonists, this country belongs to them by right, and consequently can be separated from any foreign connection whenever the disadvantages, resulting from an executive power located abroad and which ceases to be in harmony with a local legislature, make such a step necessary to its inhabitants, in order to protect their lives and their freedom or to acquire prosperity. By taking the name of Fils de la liberté (Sons of Liberty), the association of the young people of Montreal by no means intends to make it a private cabal, a secret junta, but rather a democratic body full of strength, which will be composed of all the youths that the love of the fatherland renders sensitive to the interests of their country, whatever their belief, their origin or that of their ancestors.

The reasons, which in the current situation imperatively call upon all classes, but especially that of the young people, to active life and heroic devotion to the cause of their country, are many and imposing.

At the time of the cession of this province in 1763, in order to consolidate British power on the banks of the St. Lawrence, certain rights of land property, of religion and government had been guaranteed to the Canadiens, and had been confirmed later, in 1774, when the noble revolution of the American States rendered concessions to the new subjects of the Empire an urgent policy. The brilliant successes of the United States and the movement of the French revolution, having given England a reason to fear for its remaining possessions in America, it passed in 1791 the Constitutional Act, which divided the province into Upper and Lower Canada, and established a representative assembly for each one. In 1812, conciliation again became a necessary measure because of the United States’ declaration of war. These times of danger were for Canada periods of an apparent justice, while those intermediate as well as those which followed provide but a long story of injustices, atrocities and repeated usurpations. We thus saw British administrators displaying a cowardice and a perfidy completely unworthy of a powerful nation, never ceasing to delude the Canadien people with promises full of disappointment, and who, in times of urgent need and once the crisis had passed, would not redden when resorting to all kinds of expedients to differ or avoid to honour their most solemn engagements.

After seventy years of English domination, we are forced to see our country in a state of misery when compared to the flourishing republics that had the wisdom to shake the yoke of the monarchy. We see the emigrants of the same classes coming from the other side of the sea, poor wretches on our soil, turn happy the moment they join the great democratic family, and everyday we sadly experience the fact that it is only to the noxious actions of the colonial government that we must allot all our evils. An alleged protection paralysed all our energies. It preserved all that was good, and blocked all measures of reform and improvement.

While each of the townships distributed over the immense territory of our neighbours has the advantage of being wisely governed by a free democracy, which is formed by itself, and to act energetically, we, on the other hand, are abandoned to the mercy and control of a government in which the people have no voice, whose influence tends to corrupt public virtues at its source, discourages entrepreneurship, and destroys the generous impulse of all that can effectively lead to the advancement and prosperity of our country.

A legion of officers appointed without the approval of the people, to which they in the majority are opposed and to which they are never responsible, who hold their public charge at the will of an irresponsible Executive, is now in authority above us with wages that are enormously disproportionate as much with regards to our means as to their services, so that these employments seem created for family interests or personal elevation, rather than for the advantage of the people or to satisfy their needs.

The trial by jury that we had been taught to see as the palladium of our freedoms, has now become a vain illusion, an instrument of despotism, since the sheriffs, creatures of the Executive, on which each day they depend for their continuation in a charge to which enormous emoluments are attached, have the freedom to choose and summon such jury that they like, and consequently can become the arbiters of the people in the political lawsuits launched by its oppressors.

Funds of an immense value, given by a wise and far-sighted government or by individuals distinguished by their generosity, to the late order of the Jesuits and granted by them solely for the benefit of education, were diverted of such a creditable purpose, to be used as instruments of corruption by useless and almost always reprehensible officers, while the children of the province who were deprived of the funds intended for their instruction, grew up without being able to take advantage of this benefit, and saw themselves being reproached for their lack of education later on in life.

Our public lands, defended in two consecutive wars by the bravery of the inhabitants of the country, later turned valuable by the opening of communications accomplished at the cost of great and tiring labour, and by settlements stretching as far as the desert, were sold or given, ignoring our representation, to a company of speculators, living on the other side of the Atlantic, or were divided amongst parasite officials who, for reason of interest, leagued themselves up in a faction to support a corrupted government, enemy of the rights and opposed to the desires of the people, while our fathers, our parents, our colonist brothers are served only refusals, or are unable to afford these uncultivated lands to establish themselves.

Laws on land tenancy, absolutely inapplicable to the condition of the country, unjust in their operation, have been imposed on us by a foreign Parliament, which in order to favour private and sinister interests, confiscated the power over interior legislation, which solely belongs to the legislature of the province.

Trade regulations for this colony, adopted by a foreign Parliament are currently enforced against our consent. By that we find ourselves limited to a small subset of opportunities and deprived of the means to extend our trade to all the ports of the world when the markets of Great Britain are not as advantageous to the disposal of our products; from there the impotence and inertia of our commercial undertakings.

The representation of the country has become a notorious object of mockery. A corrupted executive has constantly worked to make our House of Assembly an instrument suited to inflict slavery upon its constituents; and seeing that it did not succeed in this vile project, it rendered its action impotent by frequent prorogations or dissolutions, or by refusing assent to bills essential to the people and that had been passed unanimously by the representatives.

A Legislative Council whose members are responsible for the appointment of an authority that is ignorant of the affairs of the colony, and located at a distance of 3,000 miles away, mainly made up of people who have no sympathy for the country, still currently exists as a sort of an impotent screen between the government and the governed, always ready to nullify all attempts at useful legislation. An Executive Council appointed in the same way, whose influence poisons the heart of each successive governor, still remains intact, protecting the accumulation of office positions and all the abuses which are attached to each public department. A governor as ignorant as his predecessors, and following the example of each one of his predecessors, turned into an official partisan, leads the governmental machine for the advantage of the small number, and is little concerned with the interests of the majority, or is even determined to be an obstacle to it.

Our grievances were accurately recorded and on several occasions submitted to the King and to the Parliament of Great Britain, in resolutions passed by our county meetings and our representatives assembled in Parliament, and in the humble petitions of all the nation. We made our remonstrances heard with all the power of arguments, and through the moral strength of the truth. No remedy was put forward, and in the end, when the tyranny of those who are invested with power in the province increased at an unbearable level because of the impunity which is assured to them, an ungrateful motherland took advantage of a time of general peace, to force us to close our eyes and approve our own degradation, by threatening us to seize our public revenue by force, challenging natural rights, and all the principles of law, of politics and justice.

The current state of deterioration of our country being the result of three-quarters of a century of a cordial devotion to our connection with England, and of our trust misled in British honour, it would be to show ourselves criminal and born for slavery to limit our resistance to simple representation. The perfidious projects of the British authorities broke all bonds of sympathy with a motherland that shows herself to be insensitive. A separation has started between our two parts and it will never be possible to cement this union again, and in fact, the separation will continue with an increasing strength, until one of these unexpected and unforeseen events, such as those we sometime see in our current times, provide us with a favourable occasion to take our place among the independent sovereignties of America. We have let two superb occasions slip by: let us be prepared for a third one. A destiny full of glory is reserved for the youth of these colonies. Our fathers spent a long career of anguish fighting against all the phases of despotism day after day. By leaving this world, they bequeathed us with a heritage, which they worked hard to increase at the cost of every sacrifice dictated by patriotism. In us is entrusted the duty to continue their sublime projects, and to free, in our days, our beloved fatherland from any human authority other than one with an intrepid democracy sitting in its midst.

With such an encouraging prospect before our eyes, with a responsibility as high as the one which rests upon us, it is our duty to put aside all the flightful fancy of the youth, and to dedicate ourselves entirely to the considerations of politics, and the needs and resources of our country; to augment its wealth by encouraging its manufacturers and its products; to preserve all its strength by stopping the consumption of all the articles imported from overseas; but above all, to accustom ourselves to sacrifice, by cutting off our personal expenses, by avoiding excess and superfluity, will it be possible to give c the means of supporting one another in the fight for life and freedom to which sooner or later we will be committed to, until the avent of the glorious day that will see us leave a long and obscure slavery to enjoy the brightness of light and freedom.

Consequently, we, the officers and members of the Fils de la liberté association in Montreal, in our own name, as in the name of those we represent, we solemnly commit ourselves before our maltreated homeland, and each one of us, to devote all our energy, and to hold us ready to act, according to whether the circumstances require it, in order to obtain for this province:

· A reformed system of government, based upon the principle of election;

· A responsible executive government;

· Control by the representative branch of the legislature of all public incomes of all sources;

· The recall of all the laws and charters passed by a foreign authority that could encroach on the rights of the people and its representatives and especially those which pertain to property and the tenure of lands belonging either to the public or to the individuals;

· An improved system for the sale of public land, so that those who desire to settle can do it for as little cost as possible;

· The abolition of holding multiple offices and the irresponsibility of public officers, and

· A strict equality before the law for all classes without distinction of origin, language or religion.

Trustful in the providence and strong of our rights we invite by the present all the young people of these provinces to create associations in their respective localities, for the purpose of obtaining a just government, cheap and responsible, and ensuring the safety, the defence and the extension of our common liberties.

André Ouimet, chairman

J.L. Baudry, Joseph Martel, vice chairmen

J.G. Beaudriau, treasurer

J.H.E Therrien, minute secretary

G. Boucherville, correspondent secretary

Frs. Tulloch, deputy correspondent secretary

J.S. Neysmith, Toussaint Demers, N. Lafrenière, Pierre Grenier, Louis Dumais, Joseph Letorre, L.P. Boisvin, R. Courselle, Casimir Arcourt, Amable Simard, J.B. Label, Jos. Gaudry, James Finey, Louis Lebeau, Thomas Barre, F. Tavernier, Joseph Dufaut, Joseph Leduc, Paul Martin, A.B. Papineau, J.B. Brien, P.G. Damour, André Lacroix, Henry Lacaille, Pierre Larceneur, N. Berthiaume, Narcisse Valois, H. Carron, H.A. Gauvin, L. C. Perreault, C. de Lorimier, Norbert Larochelle, André Giguère, Louis Barre, Simon Crevier, André Lapierre, R. Desrivières.

Montréal
October 4 1837

---

[1] La Minerve, 26 October 1837.

[2] La Minerve, 14 September 1837

[3] Messier, p. 456.

[4] Tousignant, Pierre, La déposition de George-Henri-Edouard Thérien et les Fils de la liberté, Colloque de la Societé d’histoire de l’Amerique française, UQAM, March 1987.

[5] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 214-222 prints the address in French. For an English translation, see the appendix below, pp.

[6] Messier, p. 364.

[7] La Minerve, 9 November 1837.

[8] La Minerve, 7 September 1837.

[9] La Minerve, 7 September 1837. The previous assemblies had be on 5 September and 4 October.

[10] Fauteux, Aegidius, Les patriotes de 1837-1838, (Édition des Dix), 1950, p. 34.

[11] Riots occurred during the Montreal by-election in May 1832 when three Patriotes were killed after regular troops opened fire on a crowd. Ibid, Senior, Elinor Kyte, British Regulars in Montreal: An Imperial Garrison, 1832-1854, pp. 11-23, provides the best account of the riots and their aftermath.

[12] Groulx, Lionel, Histoire du Canada français, Vol. 2, (Fides), 1960, p. 163.

[13] Papineau, Amédée, Journal d’un Fils de la Liberté 1838-1855, (Septentrion), 1998, p. 73.

[14] A rough translation is: ...the loyal inhabitants of Montreal will meet at midday at the Place d’Armes to strangle the rebellion at birth.

[15] La Minerve, 6 November 1837.

[16] For Patriotes the rue Saint-Jacques was the ‘rue du sang’, the location of what they saw as the Montreal massacre of 1832.

[17] Ibid, Papineau, Amédée, Journal d’un Fils de la Liberté 1838-1855, p. 73.

[18] L’Ami du Peuple, November 1837.

Patriote notions of independence

The genesis of modern Quebec nationalism is intimately linked to the Patriote movement that from the outset was liberal, progressive and republican. Patriotes championed the principle of ministerial responsibility, attacked political corruption, defended freedom of the press and the principle of social justice, but the movement is not thought to have advocated national independence. This is reflected in the cursory treatment of the Patriote contribution by Maurice Séguin in his Histoire de l’idée d’indépendance.[1] However, no event within Quebecois nationalism is more akin to its modern formulation than the Patriote movement led by Louis Joseph Papineau. Like contemporary neo-nationalists, he defined civic identity through political and democratic liberty where a secular state preserved the culture and language especially through education and integration of immigrants.

Since the 1960s there has been a widespread belief that the francophone community in Quebec is an endangered society and that, for it to survive, it needs to assume independent sovereignty as the only francophone state in North America. However, such reasoning did not exist in 1837 largely because the principle of nationality was still in an embryonic form. Bolivar, O’Connell, Papineau and De Lorimier were products of the Enlightenment and their focus lay primarily with the defence of politically oppressed people rather than with rescuing a national community that was worth protecting. Patriote thinking, whether in newspapers, political essays or speeches was first and foremost a matter of defending the rights of the ‘majority’ against abuse by the ‘minority’ in the name of justice and equity, despite considerations of language, culture or identity. Allusions to the French heritage were on balance few and were expressed in terms not of nationality but of rights to be protected as ‘sacred property of the people and must therefore be defended enthusiastically by its representatives.’ Whether the idea of independence was for Patriotes a logical and inevitable consequence of the achievement of democratic rights is debatable since, apart from the declaration of independence in February 1838 proclaimed in particular to consolidate support for the coalition led by Robert Nelson and Cyrille-Hector-Octave Côté, the idea of Lower Canadian independence was not the subject of intense discussion largely because it seemed inevitable. For Papineau and his followers, there was a sense of urgency to determine the political and social conditions that could bring about the birth of the new State because ‘It is certain that before little time has passed, all of America must be republican.’

However, as political and constitutional developments after the rebellions demonstrate, the Patriote argument that achieving fundamental rights such as free press, honest government, impartial judges and ministers accountable to elected representatives or the democratisation of Lower Canada did not inevitably lead to independence. Responsible government created a colonial state with devolved powers that was accounatble to the people and that could protect francophone minority rights within a state constitutionally linked to the British imperial state. Although calls for an independent sovereign French state were legitimate Patriote aspirations, the Patriote plan to achieve independence had more than one possible outcome.

Patriote discourse evolved towards a more radical position from the first editorials of Le Canadian in 1806 to the Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada in 1838. Central to the development of the idea of independence and to the ideological cohesion of the movement was Louis-Joseph Papineau, from his election to the West Ward of Montreal in 1808 through to his final attempt to rally the support of France and the United States in 1838-1839. In his leadership of the successful opposition to the ‘Tory plot’ to unite Upper and Lower Canada in 1822-1823 and his confrontation with Dalhousie over subsidies in 1827-1828, Papineau was the major influence on the course of events. During the 1820s, Patriotes sought to remove corruption from high public office and to increase the powers of elected representatives. However, in the early 1830, Papineau took his party in a more radical direction calling for the election of the Legislative Council and the responsibility of the executive to the Assembly. These two principles, direct election of the Legislative Council and political accountability of the executive, were at the heart of the 92 Resolutions and of all almost of the public meetings held in 1837.

The case for independence can be found in other documents as well as the 92 Resolutions.

 

Title	Authors	Date	Size	Link with the idea of independence
92 Resolutions	L.-J. Papineau, A.-N. Morin, E. Bedard	February 1834	15, 210 words	Independence was inherent in the achievement of democratic rights and increases in the power of elected representatives
Resolutions of Saint-Ours	Unknown	7 May 1837	1,520 words	The people only source of legitimacy. The Imperial Parliament has no right to conduct business
Speech at St-Laurent	L.-J. Papineau	15 May 1837	12, 130 words	The people have the duty to replace the imperial authority that has shown itself to be unfit to govern Canada
Adresse des Fils de la liberté de Montréal aux jeunes gens des colonies de l’Amérique du Nord	Andre Ouimet	4 October 1837	2,800 words	It is the destiny of all North America to follow the path charted by the United States
Speech to the Confédération des Six Comtés au peuple du Canada	L.-J. Papineau, Amury Girod and Pierre Boucher-Belleville	24 October 1837	2,800 words	The foundations for a constituent assembly to give a new constitution in Canada
Declaration of independence of Lower Canada	Cyrille-Hector-Octave Côté and Robert Nelson	28 February 1838	926 words	Complete independence of Canada with a republican government
Testament politique	Chevalier De Lorimier	15 February 1839	703 words	The idea of independence is inseparable from the struggle for democratic rights and freedom

The assembly of Saint-Ours on 7 May 1837 was the Patriote response the Russell Resolutions details of which had reached Lower Canada the previous month. The Declaration of Saint-Ours consisted of a preamble and eleven resolutions restating the historical claims of the Patriotes and denouncing the colonial administration for usurping constitutional rights vested in the Assembly. The eighth resolution is probably the best known and called for a boycott of British goods in order to deprive the British administration of revenue collected in the colony. But Saint-Ours marked a turning point by openly addressing the breaking of colonial ties, ‘Ne nous regardant plus liés que par la force au gouvernement anglais.’ The resolutions of Saint-Ours were printed in the Patriote press on 8 and May 9 and served as a model for resolutions passed elsewhere along the St. Lawrence during the summer of 1837.

A week later, a large gathering was held at St. Laurent culminating in a speech by Louis-Joseph Papineau that was of a size and quality that stands out from other of his orations. Papineau tokk up the calls for a boycott and sovereignty of the people made at Saint-Ours: ‘C'est la marche qu'ont pris les Américains, dix ans avant de combattre. Ils ont bien commencé, et ils ont bien fini dans des circonstances semblables à celles où nous sommes placés.’ Carefully prepared in advance, the speech was publicised by the Patriote press the following day. Papineau reiterated his views at meetings at St. Scholastique on 1 June, Berthier on 18 June, in Quebec City on 28 June, where he was the guest of honor, at Acadia on 16 July, the day after in Napierville, then Kamouraska, Saint-Thomas de Montmagny, L’Assumption and Varennes, as late as 10 September. This series of speeches represented the culmination of Papineau’s radicalism but was followed by an ideological retreat to avoid slipping into revolution.

On 4 October 4, young Montrealers of the radical Fils de la Liberté published their Adresse des Fils de la liberté de Montréal aux jeunes gens des colonies de l’Amérique du Nord. It contained explicit allusions to the American Revolution and the idea of independence: ‘

L’autorité d’une mère-patrie sur une colonie ne peut exister qu’aussi longtemps que cela peut plaire aux colons qui l’habitent; car ayant été établi et peuplé par ces colons, ce pays leur appartient de droit, et par conséquent peut être séparé de toute connexion étrangère toutes les fois que les inconvénients rendent une telle démarche nécessaire à ses habitants.

The address of the Fils de la Liberté caused some concern in the entourage of Papineau because of its vocal radicalism.

Three weeks later, the speech to the Confédération des Six Comtés au peuple du Canada even more openly expressed the idea of independence and reflected less the thinking of Papineau as that of Amury Girod and Pierre Boucher-Belleville. The meeting was held at St. Charles on 22 and 23 October to lay the foundation for a confederation of comtés to the south of Montreal prior to the convening of a constituent assembly of delegates from Lower Canada in December 1837 to draft a new constitution for Lower Canada. Meanwhile, the address of the Six Comtés stated that

...les autorités publiques et les hommes au pouvoir ne sont que les exécuteurs des vœux légitimement exprimés de la communauté qui doivent être déplacés du pouvoir dès qu'ils cessent de donner satisfaction au peuple, seule source légitime de tout pouvoir.

After the defeat of the first rebellion in November and December 1837, hundreds of rebels fled to the United States and from the states of New York and Vermont took part in ‘raids’ intended to harass British troops and cause a border dispute with the United States. The incursion of 28 February 1838 and the declaration of independence in Caldwell Manor was one such operation. Terse, direct and fundamentally radical, the Statement proclaimed at the outset

Qu'à compter de ce jour, le Peuple du Bas-Canada est absous de toute allégeance à la Grande-Bretagne, et que toute connexion politique entre cette puissance et le Bas-Canada cesse dès ce jour.

The influence of Papineau, who preferred an approach through diplomatic channels with the United States and France, was now missing from its eighteen articles and they were the work of Nelson and Côté. Although it represented a declaration of independence, it included some of the older demands concerning seigneurial tenure, imprisonment for debt and the monopoly of the British American Land Company in an attempt to garner cooperation from those who still supported Papineau. The Statement was reissued after 4 November in Napierville during the second rebellion. It had no historical influence but provides evidence of nascent modernity of Patriote thought.

The brutal repression of the rebellion in November 1838 saw 816 prisoners crowded in Montreal gaol. Their letters provide a valuable insight into Patriote thinking in defeat, among them the political testament written by the notary François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier De Lorimier on the eve of his execution on 15 February 1838. It is distinguished by its formal quality and skillfully distilled emotion appeal but was unusual since it did not adopt the rhetoric of English lawyers, but the ideas of the Enlightenment and the founding fathers of American independence by ending with ‘Long live freedom, long live independence.’

Despite the importance of the statements made in 1837 and 1838, none had greater influence than the 92 Resolutions or were so widely disseminated across all Patriote publications until 1837. Although it is important to stress that this was not inevitable, politically, the 92 Resolutions in 1834 began the process that culminated in the rebellions in 1837 and 1838 because they caused the recall of Lord Aylmer and the creation of Gosford commission whose conclusions led to Russell’s Ten Resolutions in March 1837. The 92 Resolutions represent an ideological standard against which we must judge Patriotic rhetoric on issues such as the idea of independence. The critical question is whether or not the Resolutions were a statement for more than calls for parliamentary sovereignty. Other texts were often more patriotic and contained more hard-hitting messages but they did not have either the broad appeal of the 92 Resolutions or Papineau’s authority behind them.

The 92 Resolutions were in the tradition of the humble petitions submitted to the British Parliament, a political process that Canadian reformers had mastered since 1791. Their origins can be traced back to the political crisis of 1828 that resulted in the recall of the unpopular Dalhousie and parliamentary commission that reported on the complaints of Lower Canadian representatives. One of the reasons for the Resolutions in 1834, as expressed in Resolution 8, was Patriote impatience that

...les recommandations du comité de la Chambre des Communes n’ont été suivies d’aucun résultat efficace et de nature à produire l’effet désiré.

More generally, the humanitarian crisis of cholera in 1832, a by-election in Montreal West where three Patriotes are killed by British troops and the appointment of opponents to the Executive Council led Papineau to express Patriote grievances at the solemn opening of the session.

Written quickly at the beginning of 1834, over five consecutive nights by a small group including Louis-Joseph Papineau and Augustin-Norbert Morin at the house of Elzéar Bedard in the rue d’Auteuil, Quebec City, the Resolutions were ready for the start of the session. On 14 February, the Assembly established a Committee of the Whole House to ‘take into consideration the state of the province^’. Both as a statement of grievances and as a political manifesto, the 92 Resolutions represented the sum of the complaints and claims accumulated by the Parti Patriote since the early parliamentary struggles. On occasions difficult to understand and over moralistic in tone, they were intended less to incite Lower Canadian voters than to warn the British government of the parlous situation in the colony, something effectively summarised in the Resolution 88

...de travailler à l’amélioration des lois et de la constitution de cette province, en la manière demandée par le peuple ; à la réparation pleine et entière des abus et griefs, dont il a à se plaindre, et à ce que les lois et constitutions soient administrées à l’avenir d’une manière qui se concilie avec la justice, l’honneur de la couronne et du peuple anglais, et les libertés, privilèges et droits des habitants de cette province et de cette chambre qui les représente.

This required the repeal of the 1791 Constitutional Act because it had palpably failed to deliver effective and responsive governance.

Having recalled the loyalty and commitment of the Canadian people to the British Crown, especially during the wars against America in 1775 and 1812 (res. 1-8), the document then turned to the question of the Legislative Council, the source of all evils of the colony (res. 9-40). It criticised its method of appointment, its collusion with the executive and its obstruction to Assembly legislation (302 projects was blocked between 1822 and 1834). Since the turn of the 1830s, the Parti Patriote had shifted its position abandoning the issue of subsidies to focus on the Legislative Council calling for its members to be elected by the people and, in Resolution 21‘que les sujets de Sa Majesté en Canada n’eussent rien à envier aux Américains.’ Resolutions 41 to 47 called for political institutions that conform to the social status of French Canadians and in the succeeding resolution for the triumph of the elective principle to make institutions more ‘popular’. It then discussed the example of the American Revolution (res. 48 to 50), denounced denial of the rights of French Canadians (res. 51 to 55) and an end to existing laws of tenure (res. 56-62). Resolutions 64-74 reiterated demands for control over the budget by the Assembly and Resolution 75 to 78 denounced the administration of justice. Resolutions 79 to 83 demanded that the Assembly should have the same powers, privileges and immunities as those enjoyed by the Imperial Parliament. Resolution 84 listed specific complaints about the composition of the Executive Council, the exorbitant fees charged by the administrative and judicial branches of government, the bias of judges and the total of places and jobs. In Resolution 85, the Aylmer was attacked and indicted for corruption. Resolution 86 demanded the ‘independence’ for the two councils while the two succeeding resolutions expressed gratitude to Daniel O’Connell and Joseph Hume for their support. Resolution 89 established committees of correspondence in Quebec and Montreal to keep abreast of developments in the British House of Commons and Resolutions 90 and 91 asked Denis-Benjamin Viger to continue to act as the Assembly’s agent in London. Resolution 92 agreed to delete the Governor’s inaugural message from the Journal of Assembly. Later Resolutions 93 and 84 were added denouncing the monopoly of the British American Land Company.

The most pressing issue was not a call for national independence but an appeal for the sovereignty of Assembly. This is clearly stated in Resolutions 49 and 79

…Les privilèges de cette Chambre ne doivent ni être mis en question, ni définis par le secrétaire colonial.

…que cette chambre, comme représentant le peuple de cette province, possède le droit, et a exercé de fait dans cette province, quand l’occasion l’a requis, les pouvoirs, privilèges et immunités réclamés et possédés par la Chambre des Communes du parlement, dans le Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et l’Irlande.

Parliamentary sovereignty was seen as a solution to the mismanagement of Lower Canada, something emphasised in Resolution 58

La législature provinciale aurait été tout-à-fait compétente à passer des lois, pour permettre le rachat de ces charges, d’une manière qui s’harmoniât avec les intérêts de toutes les parties […] et, le parlement du Royaume-Uni, bien moins à portée de statuer d’une manière équitable sur un sujet aussi compliquée, n’a pu avoir lieu que dans des vues de spéculation illégales, et de bouleversement dans les lois du pays. 

The critical issue raised in the 92 Resolution was political independence and laid down a framework for the transition in relations between Britain and its colony. Resolution 21 stated

Que le parlement du Royaume-Uni conserve des relations amicales avec cette province comme colonie, tant que durera notre liaison, et comme alliée, si la suite des temps amenait des relations nouvelles.

While Resolution 43 maintained that

La constitution et le forme de gouvernement qui conviendrait le mieux à cette colonie, ne doivent se chercher uniquement dans les analogies que présentent les institutions de la Grande-Bretagne, dans un état de société tout-à-fait différent du nôtre ; qu’on devrait plutôt mettre à profit l’observation des effets qu’ont produits les différentes constitutions infiniment variées, que les rois et le parlement anglais ont données à différentes plantations et colonies en Amérique.

The argument is that there is conflict between Anglophones and Francophones is challenged on several occasions and in reality has been instigated by the colonial authorities. In Resolution 55

Que les vœux de la grande majorité de la classe des sujets de Sa Majesté d’origine britannique sont unis et communs avec ceux d’origine française et parlant de la langue française.

However, the Assembly did not deny its commitment to the defence of the French language and culture. In Resolution 52,

Que la majorité des habitants du pays n’est nullement disposée à répudier aucun des avantages qu’elle tire de son origine et de sa descendance de la nation française, […] de qui ce pays tient la plus partie de ses lois civiles et ecclésiastiques, la plupart de ses établissements d’enseignement et de charité, et la religion, la langue, les habitudes, les mœurs et les usages de la grande majorité de ses habitants.

Once tabled, the Resolutions triggered five days of heated debate between a majority of MPs loyal to Papineau resolutions, and a minority led by John Neilson, who then broken with Papineau. Papineau gave a long fiery speech in which he summarised the political events of the previous fifty in support of the Resolutions and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine[2], Sabrevois de Bleury, George Vanfelson and Louis Bourdages followed but with less enthusiasm.

While Papineau insisted on an elected Legislative Council because ‘C'est sur cette question que nous devons être prêts à décider, à tout blâmer ou à tout approuver, à dire que tout est bien ou que tout est mal sans nous occuper ni voir ce que pensent’,  his opponents, including Bartholomew Gugy, Andrew Stuart and John Neilson argued that the impact of the Resolutions would be ‘a real declaration of independence which any subject of Her Majesty do not support.’ In Quebec Gazette it was ‘une révolution dans toute la force du terme que les auteurs des 92 Résolutions demandent et fomentent’. For Gugy, the resolutions, ‘qu'ils nous présentent comme le fruit de tant de recherches, sont un chef d'œuvre de démencw...Une foule d'accusations vagues et hazardées, une multitude d'expressions peu mesurées et injurieuses, l'exagération dans les sentimens, les erreurs dans les faits.’ Opponents contrasted many of the radical resolutions with the stability that existed in the province. Governor Aylmer commented that ‘They represent a move away from the moderation and urbanity well known as a characteristic of the Canadian...When your 92 Resolutions were adopted all the people outside this Assembly were enjoying a moment of the deepest tranquility.’ Gugy though that

...Mais c’est une idée de distinction qui n’entre pas même dans la tête des habitans de nos…paisibles campagnes. C’est une idée de trouble et de dissension qui n'est née que dans cette Chambre [...] Ces flatteurs du peuple veulent lui faire croire qu'il est malheureux quand il est heureux.

The 92 Resolutions were adopted at third reading on 22 February by 56 votes against 23. As a speaker, Papineau then prepares an address approved by the House on 1 March and attached to the text of resolutions, schedules, and an impressive petition of 78,000 names. These were given to Augustin-Norbert Morin, who was responsible for delivering the document to the British House of Commons. The Resolutions then served as platform for public meetings starting as early as March and concluding with the emphatic Patriote victory in the November elections where they won 78 ofthe 88 Assembly seats.

Historians have generally been critical of the 92 Resolutions in which they find little of merit. To Narcisse-Eutrope Dionne, the original text of the 92 Resolutions is long and tedious. Thomas Chapais stated ironically that ‘They are seen as a kind of national gospel and in the eyes of many they became the touchstone of true patriotism’ and that ‘among the fair and legitimate complaints, there were some false principles, very adventurous ideas and excessive claims’. Fernand Ouellet argues that ‘...there is no doubt that this nationalist manifesto could be seen by radicals, Catholics and English liberals as a revolutionary manifesto, [but that] threats of secession were less significant than the extraordinary concentration of political criticism in the Legislative Council.’ On the issue of independence historians are either silent or unimpressed. For Daniel Latouche, ‘the 92 Resolutions are not the Magna Carta of Quebec independence, as they are often described in popular mythology.’ Michel Brunet stated that even if it was present, the idea of independence was vague and inconsistent. However, it is generally agreed that the 92 Resolutions clearly signalled an end to Patriote support for the British tradition and the rise of American republican rhetoric. For Louis-Georges Harvey, ‘With the 92 Resolutions, the dominance of the American model in the political discourse of the Patriote movement is no longer in doubt.’

The 92 Resolutions have been accorded a significant status in the development of the Patriote movement and as a statement of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the need for devolved government. However, the Resolutions have largely failed to become one of the great documents of modern nationalist thought and the idea of independence. This is hardly surprising since they were not written as a statement of nationalist independence nor, despite whispers in the test, were they intended to be viewed in this light. In this sense, more modest documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Political Testament better represent current sensibilities and are more easily accommodated within the genesis of the idea of an independent Quebec.

---

[1] Séguin, Maurice, L’idée d’indépendance au Québec: genèse et historique, (Éditions Boréal Express), 1977.

[2] Lafontaine’s view can best be seen in his Les deux girouettes, ou, hypocrisie démasquée, (Imprimerie de las Minerve), 1834 in which he answered Dominique and Charles Mondelet, who had denounced the Ninety-Two Resolutions as traitorous and revolutionary, by insisting that those resolutions gave a fair account of colonial grievances and by pointing out that the demand for an elective legislative council had originally been made by Charles Mondelet himself in 1826. A ‘giroutte’ is a weather vane or a person who often changes his mind.

The Declaration of Independence and Lower Canada

The Declaration of Independence by the American colonies in 1776 played an importance role in the political thinking of the rebels during the rebellions in the Canadas. During each political crisis of the 1820s and especially the 1830s, people in the two Canadas looked with some envy at their neighbours in the American republic.[1] The admission of Canada into the Union when it requested it was included by the Founding Fathers of the American Nation in the Articles of Confederation.[2] However, this article was not included in the subsequent Constitution and the question of the possible annexation of Canada remained a recurring and, especially in the southern states, contentious issue in American politics.[3]

The Proclamation of the Independence of the United States followed the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 3 September 1783 that recognised the independence of the thirteen colonies.[4] The treaty was ratified by Great Britain and the United States and by France and Spain that both had interests in the region. Great Britain was the big loser. As well as losing the thirteen colonies, the most prosperous area in its Empire, it also ceded Florida to Spain and several islands in the Caribbean to France.  The idea for a republic came from the Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century. The Americans were the first to put it into practice. The Canadian colonies obtained these revolutionary ideas from American travellers and settlers. They developed slowly in French Canadian society and finally emerged during the rebellions of 1837-1838.[5] It was not the Treaty of Paris per se that played the critical role in spread America ideas to Canadian reformers but the more important Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 and the American Constitution of 25 May 1787.[6]

The Declaration of Independence was an indictment against the British government especially its attacks on the freedoms of its subjects in the American colonies, a breach of the social contract between the colonists and the British Crown. Its drafters denounced colonial taxation, the arbitrary power exercised by the colonial authorities, the suspension of colonial legislatures elected by the people and other injustices and were left with no alternative but to declare their independence from London. The Patriotes used the same rhetoric in sending the Ninety-Two Resolutions to London in 1834 in which they denounced the abuses of colonial government, seigneurial tenure, the nomination by the monarch of members of the Executive and Legislative Councils etc. Although most Patriotes still had faith in British institutions, these Resolutions were a warning that independence remained a credible alternative to colonial rule. The American Constitution was also an important reference point for the Patriotes especially its principle of the separation of powers initially developed by Montesquieu.[7] The opening words of the Constitution, ‘We The People’ was revolutionary since it replaced the power of the Crown with the legitimacy of the people.

These two documents played a central role in the debates between Patriote leaders and the assemblies in the Canadas. After the defeat of the first rebellion in December 1837, Robert Nelson[8] proclaimed the Déclaration d’indépendance de la République du Bas-Canada on 28 February 1838, a document that was a mixture of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.[9] Nelson took the principal articles of the American Constitution that allowed a separation of powers and combined them with the notion of popular legitimacy. The failure of the second rebellion in November 1838 meant that his declaration of independence was not put into practice.

Appendix: Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Lower Canada

Written by Dr. Robert Nelson, who played a major role in the 1838 revolt, the Declaration was read by him as President of the Republic of Lower Canada before a crowd first on 28 February 1838 and later on 4 November 1838. [10]

February 1838

Déclarons solennellement:

1. Que de ce jour et à l’avenir, le peuple du Bas-Canada libre de toute allégeance à la Grande-Bretagne, et que le politique entre ce pouvoir et le Bas-Canada, est maintenant rompu

2. Qu’une forme républicaine de gouvernement est celle convient le mieux au Bas-Canada, qui est ce jour déclaré être une république.

3. Que sous le gouvernement libre du Bas-Canada, tous les individus jouiront des mêmes droits: les sauvages ne seront plus soumis à aucune disqualification civile, mais jouiront des mêmes droits que tous les autres citoyens du Bas-Canada.

4. Que toute union entre l’Église et l’État est par la présente déclarée être dissoute, et toute personne aura le droit d`exercer librement telle religion ou croyance qui lui sera dictée par sa conscience.

5. La tenure féodale ou seigneuriale des terres est par la présente abolie, aussi complètement que si telle tenure n`eàt jamais existé au Canada.

6. Que toute personne qui prendra les armes ou qui donnera autrement de l’aide au Canada, dans sa lutte pour l’émancipation, sera et est déchargée de toutes dettes ou obligations réelles ou supposées résultant d`arrérages des droits seigneuriaux ci-devant en existence.

7. Que le douaire coutumier est. pour l`avenir, aboli et prohibé.

8. Que l’emprisonnement pour dettes n`existera pas davantage excepté dans certains cas de fraude qui seront spécifiés, dans un acte à être plus tard passé à cette fin par la Législature du Bas- Canada.

9. Que la condamnation à mort ne sera plus prononcée ni exécutée, excepté dans les cas de meurtre.

10. Que toutes les hypothèques sur les terres seront spéciales et pour être valides seront enregistrées dans des bureaux à être établis pour cette fin par un acte de la Législature du Bas-Canada.

11. Que la liberté et l’indépendance de la presse existera dans toutes les matières et affaires publiques.

12. Que le procès par jury est assuré au peuple du Bas-Canada dans son sens le plus étendu et le plus libéral, dans tous les procès criminels, et aussi dans les procès civils au-dessus d`une somme à être fixée par la législature de l’État du Bas-Canada.

13. Que comme une éducation générale et publique est nécessaire et est due au peuple par le gouvernement, un acte y pourvoyant sera passé aussit tôt que les circonstances le permettront.

14. Que pour assurer la franchise électorale, toutes les élections se feront au scrutin secret.

15. Que dans le plus court délai possible, le peuple choisisse des délégués, suivant la présente division du pays en comtés, villes et bourgs, lesquels formeront une convention ou corps législatif pour formuler une constitution suivant les besoins du pays, conforme aux dispositions de cette déclaration, sujette à être modifiée suivant la volonté du peuple.

16. Que chaque individu du sexe masculin, de l’âge de vingt et un ans et plus, aura le droit de voter comme il est pourvu par la présente, et pour l`élection des susdits délégués.

17. Que toutes les terres de la Couronne, et aussi celles qui sont appelées Réserves du Clergé, et aussi celles qui sont nominalement la possession d`une certain compagnie de propriétaires en Angleterre appellée ‘La Compagnie des Terres de l’Amérique britannique du Nord’ sont de droit la propriété de l’État du Bas-Canada, et excepté telles parties des dites terres qui peuvent être en possession de personnes qui les détiennent de bonne foi, et auxquelles des titres seront assurés et accordés en vertu d’une loi qui sera passée pour légaliser la dite possession et donner un titre pour tels lots de terre dans les townships qui n`en ont pas, et qui sont en culture ou améliorés.

18. Que les langues française et anglaise seront en usage dans toutes les affaires publiques.

Et pour l’accomplissement de cette déclaration, et pour 1e soutien de la cause patriotique dans laquelle nous sommes maintenant engagés avec une ferme confiance dans la protection du Tout-Puissant et la justice de notre conduite, - nous, par ces présentes, nous engageons solennellement les uns envers les autres, nos vies et nos fortunes et notre honneur le plus sacré.

Par ordre du gouvernement provisoire.

ROBERT NELSON, Président

November 1838

Whereas the solemn compact made with the people of Lower Canada and registered in the book of statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the 31st chapter of the Acts passed in the 31st year of the reign of George III, has been continually violated by the British Government and our rights usurped; and whereas our humble petitions, addresses, protests, and complaints against this prejudicial and unconstitutional conduct have been in vain; and whereas the British government has disposed of our revenue without the constitutional consent of our local legislature, that it has pillaged our treasury, that it has arrested and imprisoned a great number of our fellow citizens, that it has spread throughout the country a mercenary army whose presence is accompanied by consternation and alarm, whose path has been reddened by the blood of our people, that has reduced our villages to ashes, profaned the temples, and spread terror and desolation throughout the land; and whereas we can no longer put up with the repeated violations of our most cherished rights or patiently bear the multiple outrages and cruelties of the government of Lower Canada; We, in the name of the people of Lower Canada, recognising the decrees of Divine Providence that permit us to overthrow a government that has violated the object and the intention of its creation, and to choose the form of government that will re-establish the reign of justice, assure domestic tranquillity, assure the common defense, increase general well-being, and guarantee for ourselves and our posterity the advantages of civil and religious freedom;

Solemnly declare:

1. That from this day forward the people of Lower Canada are absolved of all allegiance to Great Britain, and that all political ties between that power and Lower Canada have ceased as of this day;

2. That Lower Canada shall take the form of a republican government and, as such, declare itself a Republic;

3. That under the free Government of Lower Canada all citizens will have the same rights; the savages will cease being subjected to any form of civil disqualifications and will enjoy the same rights as the other citizens of the State of Lower Canada;

4. That all ties between Church and State are declared abolished, and every person has the right to freely exercise the religion and the beliefs dictated to him by his conscience;

5. That feudal and Seigneurial tenure are abolished in fact, as if they never existed in this country;

6. That any person who bears or will bear arms, or will furnish the means of assistance to the Canadian People in its struggle for emancipation, is relieved of all debts or obligations, real or supposed, towards Seigneurs, and for arriérages[11] in virtue of Seigneurial laws that formerly existed.

7. That the douaire coutoumier[12] is, in future, entirely abolished and prohibited;

8. That imprisonment for debt will no longer exist, except in cases of obvious fraud, which will be specified in an act of the Legislature of Lower Canada to that effect;

9. That the death penalty will be pronounced in cases of murder alone, and no other;

10. That all mortgages on lands must be special and, in order to be valid, must be registered in Offices created to that effect by an act of the legislature of Lower Canada;

11. That there will be full and entire freedom of the press in all public affairs and matters;

12. That trial by jury is guaranteed to the People of the State in criminal trials to its most liberal extent, and in civil affairs to the sum of an amount to be determined by the legislature of the State of Lower Canada;

13. That as a necessity and obligation of the Government towards the people, public and general education will be put in operation and encouraged in a special manner, as soon as circumstances permit;

14. That in order to ensure the franchise and electoral freedom, all elections will be held in the form of a ballot;

15. That as soon as circumstances permit, the People will choose its Delegates following the current division of the country in cities, towns and counties, which will constitute a Convention or Legislative body, in order to found and establish a constitution, according to the needs of the country and in conformity with the conditions of this Declaration, subject to modification according to the will of the people;

16. That any male person over the age of 21 will have the right to vote as above mentioned, for the election of the above-named delegates;

17. That those lands called Crown lands, as well as those called Reservations of the Clergy and those nominally in the possession of a certain company of speculators in England, called the ‘Company of the Lands of British North America’ shall become by law the property of the State of Lower Canada, except for those portions of land that are in the possession of farmers who hold them in good faith, for which we guarantee the title in virtue of a law which will be passed in order to legalize the possession of such lots of land situated in the Townships which are now under cultivation;

18. That French and English will be used in all public matters.

And for the support of this declaration, and the success of the Patriote cause that we support, we, confident of the protection of the All-Powerful and of the justice of our line of conduct, engage by these present, mutually and solemnly the ones towards the others, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.

By order of the Provisional Government

Robert Nelson

President

---

[1] Caron, Ivanhoe, ‘Influence de la Déclaration de l’Indépendance Americaine et de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme sur la rebellion French Canadianne de 1837 et 1838’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 3^rd series, Vol. 26, (1931), pp. 5-26

[2] The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (commonly referred to as the Articles of Confederation) was the constitution of the revolutionary wartime alliance of the thirteen United States of America. The Articles’ ratification (proposed in 1777) was completed in 1781, and legally federated several sovereign and independent states, allied under the Articles of Association into a new federation styled the ‘United States of America’. The original five-paged Articles contained thirteen articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section. The pre-approval of Canada’s inclusion was in Article 11: ‘Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.’

[3] Corey, Albert B., The Crisis of 1830-1842 in Canadian-American Relations, (Russell and Russell), 1941, pp. 16-17. The attitude of the southern states was to a considerable extent influenced by the slave-free status of the Canadas.

[4] Bemis, Samuel Flagg, A Diplomatic History of the United States, 4^th ed., (Holt, Rinehart & Winston), 1955, p. 62

[5] Ibid, Caron, Ivanhoe, ‘Influence de la Déclaration de l’Indépendance Americaine et de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme sur la rebellion French Canadianne de 1837 et 1838’, p. 5.

[6] Peyret, H, Les États-Unis, (PUF), 1961, p. 15.

[7] Ibid, Peyret, H, Les États-Unis, p. 15.

[8] Soderstrom, Mary, Robert Nelson, Le Medecin Rebelle, (L’Hexagone), 1999 is the most recent study; see also ‘Robert Nelson’, DCB, Vol. 9, pp. 544-547 and Messier, pp. 351-352..

[9] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 301-304.

[10] Nelson, Robert, Déclaration d’indépendance et autres écrits (1832-1848), édition établie et annotée par Georges Aubin, (Comeau et Nadeau), 1998, pp. 26-34.

[11] The amount due on the rent of a farm.

[12] That which the husband assigns to the wife for her use should she survive him.

Analysing the Patriote assemblies

This paper considers the resolutions passed at the large Patriote assemblies held between May and October 1837. Often written in advance, these resolutions can appear repetitive.[1] Nevertheless, they do identify the fundamental political issues in the months leading up to the Rebellions and about the inspirations, rhetoric, political platform, and the measures taken by the Parti Patriote and its supporters. Before plunging into an analysis of the resolutions passed by the assemblies, it is important to place them in their context.

Following the passage of the Ninety-Two Resolutions in February 1834, the metropolitan government appointed Lord Gosford as the new governor of Lower Canada and also established a Royal Commission to consider Patriote grievances. Arriving in Quebec on 23 August 1835, Gosford and Grey and Gipps, his fellow commissioners noted that, in effect, colonial government had broken down. [2] Following a fruitless attempt to conciliation, conflict between the Legislative Council and the Assembly reached new depths when in 1836 the Council blocked a law on education passed by the Assembly. The result was that the Parti Patriote refused to sit in the Assembly and threatened that, unless the Council became an elective body, it would refuse to vote the Civil List.[3] The commissioners finished their enquiry at the end of October 1836 and Grey and Gipps left for England. The various reports of the Royal Commission were finally laid before Parliament on 2 March 1837 and was immediately followed by the rejection of the Ninety-Two Resolutions in Russell’s Ten Resolutions. [4]

News of these resolutions reached Quebec on 10 or 11 April 1837 and created vocal opposition among Patriotes and reformers. Four of Russell’s resolutions were especially difficult for the supporters of the Ninety-Two Resolutions to accept. Resolutions 4, 5, 6 and 7 rejected demands for an elected Legislative Council, refused to grant responsible government, supported the position of the British American Land Company and finally, authorised Gosford to use public monies without the approval of the Assembly. In La Minerve on 13 April and in The Vindicator the following day, there were calls both for agitation following what many saw as the British betrayal and to follow the example of the American colonies. Then, on 20 April, La Minerve announced the calling of a great assembly in the comté de Richelieu.[5]

On 7 May 1837, the first anti-coercive assembly was held at Saint-Ours and it served as the model for the subsequent assemblies.[6] Although there were a large number of assemblies across the province, only the Patriote assemblies benefited from widespread coverage in the radical press especially in La Minerve, The Vindicator, Le Libéral and Le Canadien. I intend to focus exclusively on the Patriote assemblies from Saint-Ours on 7 May through to the apogee of the movement, the Grande assemblée de la Confédération des Six Comtés in late October 1837.[7]

It is important to recognise the immense importance of the resolutions of Saint-Ours.[8] Its condemnation of Russell’s Resolution was typically repeated as the first resolution at the subsequent assemblies. It is generally accompanied by constitutional arguments based on traditional rights and privileges accorded to British subjects of the Crown. Among these, the principle of ‘no taxation without representation’ was mentioned most often. Jealously defending the principle that control of the public monies should lie with the Assembly and arguing that it is the only constitutional means for the people, through their representatives, to exert pressure on an irresponsible government, the Patriotes were particularly angered by Resolution 8. This type of resolution can be regarded as a direct reaction to Russell’s Resolutions and especially to what Patriotes saw as its coercive reaction to the question of appropriations. However, these resolutions did not affect the confidence of Canadian reformers in the British authorities and they decided that further appeals to the British Parliament were both possible and necessary.

The second broad category of resolutions was concrete measures taken to counter the Russell Resolutions and put pressure on the British government to think again. There was widespread support for a boycott on British imports to reduce levels of revenue. However, the assemblies were more divided over the question of smuggling. In this respect, no assembly held on the river north of Montreal apart from those at Malbaie on 25 June supported smuggling as a means of exerting pressure.[9] When the assemblies had voted for the boycott, with the exception of Malbaie and later on 16 July at Deschambault[10], they also elected comités de surveillance for each comté to ensure that the boycott was enforced. It is important to emphasise that there was also widespread support for establishing a convention that brought together members from each comté in the province. Linked to this were calls for support from other colonies and the United States as well as a desire to provide information and education on people’s political rights. The first two types of resolution made up the vast majority of resolutions before 6 August and were reinforced by legal action by the Assembly. This is perhaps better explained by the request from the House of Commons on 3 July 1837 to Queen Victoria to renounce Russell’s Resolution. [11]

The third type of resolution related to long-term grievances and generally restated themes from the Ninety-Two Resolutions. These included the classic themes of the Legislative Council, responsible government, land monopoly by the British American Land Company and the colonial aristocracy. To these were appended new attacks such as on Gosford’s good faith and the bias of the Royal Commission.

The question of seigneurial rights made up the fourth type of resolution. It was the assembly at Sainte-Rose on 11 June that proposed abolishing the seigneurial system with compensation.[12] Then the assemblies at Napierville in Acadie on 12 July and 10 September also called for its abolition.[13] On 6 August, at Saint-François-du-Lac there was an assembly uniquely called to discuss seigneurial tenure or reform of the seigneurial system.[14] The same occurred at Saint-Ignace on 10 September.[15] By contrast, at Vaudreuil[16] on 6 August and Saint-Polycarpe[17] on 15 October, there were explicit calls for abolition. It appears that in the comté de Vaudreuil seigneurial rights was a significant regional issue and all its assemblies called either for their abolition or at least reform. This comté also saw the only resolutions that called for the clergy to keep strictly to spiritual matters and not interfere in more worldly affairs.

The last type of resolution was concerned with establishing a parallel system of justice and also the formation of a force of volunteers and paramilitary organisations. Following his proclamation on 15 June banning further assemblies, Gosford began to dismiss justices of the peace and captains of militia who refused to cooperate with the colonial authorities. Others, who were supporters of the Parti Patriote, resigned.[18] To begin with assemblies were satisfied by denouncing Gosford’s actions but on 10 September at Napierville, the assembly recognised the contribution of those officials who had either been dismissed or resigned. In addition to congratulating them on their patriotism, reformers were informed that they should avoid any business with the ‘unworthy people’ who had accepted Gosford’s new commissions. From the beginning of October 1837, the movement became more threatening. At an assembly in the Deux-Montagnes, its comité permanent established a system of parallel justice on 1 October.[19] For the first time, a comité de comté maintained that its authority had been ‘conferred by the people’, a direct stand against British authority. The same comité recommended that its people should organise and arm themselves by parish under the command of a chosen captain of militia. On 4 October, the Fils de la Liberté in their Address to the young people of America invited Lower Canada to rise up and achieve the sovereign independence of America. [20]

Finally, the Patriote movement reached its peak with the Grande assemblée de la Confédération des Six-Comtés at Saint-Charles on 23-24 October 1837. [21] The 4,000 to 5,000 people present reiterated the resolutions passed in the Deux-Montagnes, discussed the possibility of recourse to arms and while the official resolutions had a pacific appearance, the pompous form of the assembly and also the Adresse de la Confédération des Six-Comtés aux habitants du Canada that borrowed from the preamble of the Declaration of American Independence represented a dangerous precedent for colonial government. [22] Ironically, the largest loyalist assembly was held in Montreal[23] on 23 October and less than a month later the Richelieu valley was embroiled in military action.

Appendix 1: List of assemblies held, May-November 1837

Date	Event	Organisation	Media
May 7	Saint-Ours	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on May 11 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 23-28
May 15	Saint-Laurent	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on May 18 in in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 29-37
May 15	Saint-Marc	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on May 22 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 38-41
May 15	Québec	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on May 23 in The Vindicator; Bernard, pp. 42-46
June 1	Saint-Scholastique	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 5 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 47-56
June 1	Saint-Hyacinthe	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 8 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 57-61
June 4	Longueuil	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 12 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 62-66
June 4	Québec	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 8 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 67-77
June 11	Sainte-Rose	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 15 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 78-83
June 18	Berthier	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 22 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 84-91
June 18	Saint-François-du-Lac	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 26 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 92-100
June 23	Saint-Hyacinthe	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 29 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 101-104
June 25	La Malbaie	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 31 in Le Libéral; Bernard, pp. 105-110
June 26	Saint-Thomas	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on July 3 in Le Canadien; Bernard, pp. 111-116
June 28	Montréal	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on June 30 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 117-121
June 29	Rawdon	Loyalist	Resolutions published on July 14 in Le Populaire; Bernard, pp. 122-125
July 4	Stanbridge	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on July 13 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 126-132
July 6	Montréal	Loyalist	Resolutions published on July 8 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 133-134
July 12	Napierville	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on July 20th in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 135-143
July 16	Deschambault	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on July 24 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 144-147
July 24	Napierville	Loyalist	Resolutions published on August 1 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 148-152
July 25	Trois-Rivières	Loyalist	Resolutions published on July 28 in Le Populaire; Bernard, pp. 153-155
July 26	Yamachiche	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on July 31 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 156-160
July 29	L’Assomption	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on August 3 in La Minerve
July 31	Québec	Loyalist	Resolutions published on August 2 in L’Ami du peuple; Bernard, pp. 167-170
August 4	Aylmer	Loyalist	Resolutions published on August 19 in L’Ami du peuple; Bernard, pp. 171-173
August 6	Yamaska	Loyalist	resolution unique published on August 19 in L’Ami du peuple; Bernard, p. 174
August 6	Saint-Constant	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on August 14 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 175-179
August 6	Saint-François-du-Lac on seignorial tenure	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on August 18th in Le Canadien; Bernard, pp. 180-182
August 6	Vaudreuil	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on August 14 in Le Canadien; Bernard, pp. 183-188
September 10	Saint-Denis	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on September 24 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 189-193
September 10	Napierville	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on September 21 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 194-196
September 10	Saint-Ignace	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on September 21 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 197-201
September 16	Milton	Loyalist	Resolutions published on November 29 in Le Populaire; Bernard, pp. 202-203
September 16	Saint-Antoine	Parti patriote	an account of the country lunch published on September 21 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 204-206
October 1	Permanent committee of Deux-Montagnes	Parti patriote	Resolutions of the 8th sitting published on October 9 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 207-213
October 13	Clarenceville	Loyalist	Resolutions published on November 11 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 223-225
October 15	Saint-Polycarpe	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on October 19 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 226-230
October 23	Montreal at Place d’Armes	Loyalist	Resolutions and addresses published on October 24 and 28 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 231-258
October 23-24	Confederation of the Six Counties in Saint-Charles	Parti patriote	Resolutions and addresses published on October 30 and November 2 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 259-285
November 5	Saint-Athanase	Parti patriote	Resolutions published on November 9 in La Minerve; Bernard, pp. 286-290
November 13	Abbotsford	Loyalist	Resolutions published on November 21 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 291-293
November 20	Sherbrooke	Loyalist	Resolutions published November 2 in The Montreal Gazette; Bernard, pp. 294-298
November 23	Granby	Loyalist	Resolutions published on December 4 in The Morning Courier; Bernard, pp. 299-300

Appendix 2: Analysis of assemblies

This table is based on material found on the Patriotes website.

1. Saint-Ours: 7 May 2. Stanbridge: 4 July 3. Napierville: 12 July 4. Deschambault: 16 July 5. Yamachiche: 26 July 6. L’Assomption: 29 July 7. St-Constant: 6 August 8. St-François-du-lac: 6 August

9. Vaudreuil: 6 August 10. St-Denis: 10 September 11. Napierville: 10 September 12. St-Ignace: 10 September 13. Deux-Montagnes: 1 October 14. St-Polycarpe: 15 October 15. Six Comtés: 23 October

RESOLUTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Russell Resolutions denounced

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Denounce attacks on Constitution

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

People misled, broken confidence

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

Americans as natural allies

X

X

X

X

4

‘No legislation/taxation without rep’

X

X

X

3

Repeal Act of Tenure

X

1

Reduce revenues; boycott

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

Smuggling

X

X

2

Develop manufactures/commerce

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

Comité de surveillance

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Association patriotique du pays...

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

Thank friends in London and Toronto

X

X

X

X

X

5

Attack Legislative Council

X

X

X

X

4

Denounce Gosford

X

X

X

X

X

5

Petition US Congress to abolish customs

X

1

Not vote subsidies

X

X

X

3

Equal citizens without distinction

X

X

2

Elected Legislative Council

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

---

[1] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, p. 12.

[2] Filteau, Gérard, Histoire des Patriotes, (L’Aurore), 1975, pp. 161-164.

[3] Greer, Allan, Habitants et Patriotes, (Boréal), 1997, pp. 133-134, Ryerson, Stanley-Bréhaut, Capitalisme et Confédération, (Parti pris), 1978, p. 49.

[4] Ibid, Filteau, Gérard, Histoire des Patriotes, pp. 183, 186.

[5] Leclerc, Félix, ‘1837-1838, dates et événements’, in ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-1838. Les patriotes du Bas-Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, pp. 92-93.

[6] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 23-28.

[7] See Appendix 2 below.

[8] See above, pp. 297-301.

[9] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 105-110.

[10] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 144-147.

[11] Leclerc, Félix, ‘1837-1838, dates et événements’, in ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-1838. Les patriotes du Bas-Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, p. 100.

[12] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 78-83

[13] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 135-143, 194-196.

[14] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 180-182.

[15] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 197-202.

[16] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 183-188.

[17] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 226-230.

[18] Ibid, Greer, Allan, Habitants et Patriotes, pp. 200-201.

[19] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 207-213.

[20] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 214-222.

[21] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 259-285.

[22] Ibid, Greer, Allan, Habitants et Patriotes, p. 209; ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 277-285.

[23] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 231-258.