Patriote thinking and the French language

The rebellions in 1837 and 1838 represent a major symbolic occasion in the collective memory of Quebec affirming Québécois national sentiments. In their fight for proper French Canadian political representation, deputies from the Parti Patriote, driven by the liberal ideal of equality, sought to protect and preserve their cultural heritage, especially the French language, as part of their programme to ensure equality of opportunity for French Canadians in the economic and political life of Lower Canada.[1]

The emergence of French Canadian national identity especially between 1820 and 1830 resulted in the transformation of the Patriote movement to form a national group whose socio-economic interests differed from those of British or Anglo-Canadian elites who controlled political decision-making. French Canadians sought an identity in being a French-speaking and Catholic people but also recognised the importance of British and American influences on their political heritage.[2] This challenged the notion of monarchies ruling by divine right and called for a widening of individual freedom. Political legitimacy in liberal thinking lay not with the sovereign but with the nation, and was expressed through a combination of parliamentary institutions and constitutional guarantees. These ideas reached Lower Canada after 1776 in the republicanism of the United States and from Britain in constitutional guarantees enshrined in the 1774 and 1791 constitutions. [3] The Patriotes took advantage of their rights under the British Crown to obtain constitutional institutions likely to represent better their nation. Thus, in the fifty-second of the 1834 Ninety-Two Resolutions

Résolu, Que c’est l’opinion de ce comité, que puisqu’un fait, qui n’a pas dépendu du choix de la majorité du peuple de cette province, son origine française et son usage de la langue française, est devenu pour les autorités coloniales un prétexte d’injure, d’exclusion, d’infériorité politique et de séparations de droits et d’intérêts, cette chambre en appelle à la justice du gouvernement de Sa Majesté et de son parlement, et à l’honneur du peuple anglais; 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, qui sous le rapport des progrès qu’elle a fait faire à la civilisation, aux sciences, aux lettres et aux arts, n’a jamais été en arrière de la nation britannique, et qui, aujourd’hui, dans la cause de la liberté et la science du gouvernement, est sa digne émule; de qui ce pays tient la plus grande 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.[4]

The Patriotes sought to restate their membership of a nation of French origin and as a result the right of this nation to benefits equal to British Canadians. This was an assertion of the principle of national equality within a multi-national state and a call for an end to discrimination on racial grounds. In this context, the importance that Patriote speeches placed on the political features of the Lower Canadian crisis (control of subsidies, appointment of the officers, election to the Legislative Council, short-circuiting of the colonial government by boycotting English products), their willingness to take part in governing the colony and the objective of promoting a social agenda that they believed would ensure a national revival were compromised by existing constitutional institutions and seriously threatened by the Russell’s Ten Resolutions.

Que cette violation [les Résolutions Russel] de notre constitution est attentoire à la liberté du peuple, et tend à détruire son existence politique, par le renversement prochain des lois, culte, langage, mœurs et autres institutions des habitans de cette province.’[5]

This national revival meant maintaining social and cultural institutions specific to Lower Canada in which the French language was an essential component.

Or, le plus important, et le plus sacré de ces usages est indubitablement celui par lequel un peuple donne les mêmes noms aux choses et les mêmes signes aux idées.[6]

In this respect, Patriots asserted the necessity for an adequate French-speaking school system and continuance of the French dimension in government, particularly in the legal field. The question of education preoccupied the Assembly during 1824 over the loi des écoles de fabriques and again in 1829.[7]

Si l’on vouloit anéantir, pour les Canadiens, tous les moyens d’acquérir des talents et les connoissances utiles que procurent l’éducation parmi eux, on ne pourroit prendre un moyen plus sur et plus efficace que d’abolir l’usage de la langue Françoise dans nos colléges et ailleurs.[8]

For Patriotes, effective French schools and education was inseparable from the economic and social development of Lower Canada but they feared that this was under threat from the colonial authorities something that was evident from the early nineteenth century:

...13° Les injustes obstacles opposés par un exécutif, ami des abus et de l’ignorance, à la fondation de colléges dotés par des hommes vertueux et désintéressés, pour répondre aux besoins et aux désirs croissants de la population, de recevoir une éducation soignée.[9]

The problem of delivering public services in French when most officials were English-speakers was of particular concern to Patriotes. This was especially the case in the judicial system.

Résolu, -Que c’est l’opinion de ce comité, que par suite de leurs liaisons avec les membres des administrations provinciales et leurs antipathies contre le pays, quelques-uns des dits juges ont, en violation des lois, tenté d’abolir, dans les cours de justice, l’usage de la langue parlée par la majorité des habitants du pays, nécessaire à la libre action des lois et formant partie des usages à eux assurés, de la manière la plus solemnelle, par des actes du droit public et statuts du parlement britannique.[10]

For A. N. Morin, French needed to be maintained as a ‘language of right’ to guarantee equal accessibility to justice already restricted by the remoteness of rural areas and the lack of education of the plaintiffs that made access to the law increasingly inaccessible to the mass of rural French-speakers. In addition, lawyers were obliged to speak English reducing access to the legal profession among French Canadians. In 1791, there were 55 notaries and 17 lawyers; by 1836, this had only risen to 373 and 208 respectively or per capita ratios of 1:1164 in 1791 and 1:950 in 1836.[11] Plaintiffs often did not understand actions initiated by their representatives because they did not understand the language of the procedures.[12]

...quelle doit être la langue juridique d’un pays? La réponse se présente tout bonnement; c’est la langue du peuple que l’on juge. Ici toutefois d’injustes distinctions politiques tendent sans cesse à faire reconnoître en principe que les Canadiens dont neuf sur dix au moins n’entendent que le françois, sont obligés de se servir de la langue angloise dans tous leurs actes civils, lors même qu’il n’est aucune des parties intéressées qui ne l’ignore. Entre les raisons qu’on apporte au soutien de cette doctrine oppressive les principales sont les avantages de l’uniformité, la dépendance où nous sommes de l’Angleterre, la supériorité que doit avoir sur toute autre la langue de l’Empire, celle du Souverain...les journaux anglois...s’efforcent d’insinuer qu’il devroit y avoir dans le pays une classe privilégiée de sujets qui fît la loi aux autres sous le rapport du langage comme de tout le reste.[13]

Patriote claims for the French language were placed in the context of the natural right of the people to protect their cultural heritage, the recognition of their freedom as British subjects to preserve certain French usages and to benefit from services delivered in French language. These rights, they maintained, were guaranteed by the 1791 Constitution.

Les Canadiens anglois de naissance ne sont pas plus étrangers ici que les Canadiens françois; ils ont les mêmes droits que nous, ils sont protégés par les mêmes lois, et soumis aux mêmes usages; ils ont dû considérer avant de se fixer ici, l’ordre des choses qui y étoit établi. Nous ne leur contestons pas la légalité de leur langage; nous voulons seulement défendre celle du nôtre.[14]

Also the Patriote struggle for control of political institutions was grounded in an inclusive social agenda through which the nation could ensure its economic prosperity.

Que nous appelons de tous nos vœux l’union entre les habitans de cette Province de toute croyance et de toute langue, et origine, que pour la défense commune, pour l’honneur et le salut du Pays chacun doit faire le sacrifice de ses préjugés; nous donner la main pour obtenir un gouvernement sage et protecteur qui en faisant renaître l’harmonie fasse en même temps fleurir l’agriculture, le commerce et l’industrie nationale.[15]

The Patriote declarations made clear the urgency of preserving the French language under threat but these documents also testified to the unequivocal desire to see French as well as English recognised in the public life. The claims of liberalism were made clear in Patriote rhetoric especially popular legitimacy, equality before the law and the principle of individual freedom. Language may not have appeared as the primary feature of the Patriote programme that sought to ensure French Canadians control of their governmental apparatus but it was recognised as essential for their economic and cultural revival. It is significant that the links between language and political control remained important for the survival of French Canadian heritage and culture after the failure of the rebellions in the policies adopted by Lafontaine and Morin after 1841 and in the later evolution of the Québécois nationalist movement.

---

[1] Reid, Philippe, ‘L’émergence du nationalisme canadien-français; l’idéologie du Canadien (1806-1842)’, Recherches sociographiques, Vol. xxi, (1980), pages 11-53 provides a good summary of the major issues.

[2] Ibid, Harvey, Louis-Georges, Le Printemps de l’Amérique français: Américanité, anticolonialisme et républicanisme dans le discours politique québecois, 1805-1837.

[3] Bellavance, Marcel, ‘La rébellion de 1837 et les modèles théoriques de l’émergence de la nation et du nationalisme’, Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, Vol. 53, (3), (2000), p. 370.

[4] Bédard, Théophile-Pierre, Histoire de cinquante ans (1791-1841): annales parlementaires et politiques du Bas-Canada depuis la Constitution jusqu’à l’Union, (Léger Brousseau), 1869, pp. 348-349.

[5] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, Assemblée de Saint-François-du-Lac, pp. 180-182.

[6] Morin, A. N., Lettre à l’honorable Edward Bowen, Ecuyer, Un des Juges de la Cour du Banc du Roi de Sa Majesté pour le District de Québec, (James Lane), 1825, republished, Quebec, 1968, p. 11.

[7] Dessureault, Christian and Hudon, Christine, ‘Conflits sociaux et élites locales au Bas-Canada: Le clergé, les notables, la paysannerie et le contrôle de la fabrique’, Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 80, (1999), pages 413-439 shows clearly the contested nature of education.

[8] Viger, D. B., Considérations sur les effets qu’ont produit en Canada, la conservation des établissemens du pays, les mœurs, l’éducation, etc. de ses habitans et les conséquences qu’entraîneroient leur décadence par rapport aux intérêts de la Grande Bretagne, (James Brown, Libraire),1809, p. 11.

[9] Ibid, Bédard, Théophile-Pierre, Histoire de cinquante ans (1791-1841): annales parlementaires et politiques du Bas-Canada depuis la Constitution jusqu’à l’Union, p. 359.

[10] Ibid, Bédard, Théophile-Pierre, Histoire de cinquante ans (1791-1841): annales parlementaires et politiques du Bas-Canada depuis la Constitution jusqu’à l’Union, pp. 355-356.

[11] Mackay Julien S., Notaires et patriotes 1837-1838, Septentrion, 2006.

[12] Morin, A. N., Lettre à l’honorable Edward Bowen, Ecuyer, Un des Juges de la Cour du Banc du Roi de Sa Majesté pour le District de Québec, (James Lane), 1825, republished, Quebec, 1968, p. 8.

[13] Ibid, Morin, A. N., Lettre à l’honorable Edward Bowen, Ecuyer, Un des Juges de la Cour du Banc du Roi de Sa Majesté pour le District de Québec, pp. 4-5.

[14] Ibid, Morin, A. N., Lettre à l’honorable Edward Bowen, Ecuyer, Un des Juges de la Cour du Banc du Roi de Sa Majesté pour le District de Québec, p. 14.

[15] Ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Assemblées publiques, résolutions et déclarations de 1837-1838, pp. 47-56, Assemblée de Saint-Scolastique.

Public health reform 1854-1914: revised version

The cause of public health was at a low point after the enforced retirement of Edwin Chadwick in 1854, but even so some progress was being made. The Vaccination Act 1853 required parents and guardians to arrange for the vaccination of infants within four months of birth. Even though there were no provisions for enforcement, by the 1860s about two-thirds of children born were vaccinated and the death rate from smallpox fell as a result. The Nuisances Removal Act 1855 was a consequence of the cholera epidemic of 1853-1854 and required local authorities to appoint sanitary inspectors.  It also gave magistrates the power to order the ending of nuisances and powers to the local authorities to enter a nuisance at the expense of the occupier.[1]

There was, however, a great difference between Parliament passing acts and enforcing an effective policy against the opposition of local authorities and property owners who saw sanitary reform as a source of unjustified expense. For all the efforts that had been made progress was slow. The death rate between 1841-1845 and 1861-1865 actually rose slightly and as a result it is fair to conclude that the general health and environmental position remained largely unaltered. Public health was a far more complex problem than the pioneers of the 1840s had envisaged. For Chadwick, public health was simply a matter of better sanitation and water supply. In reality, the problem had far wider environmental causes, pressure of population, bad housing and poor nutrition and Chadwick had persistently underestimated the importance of medical questions.

In the twenty years after 1854, the progress that was made in public health was largely through scientific and medical developments. This can be seen in the statistical analysis of mortality by William Farr in the Registrar-General’s department after 1839 and improvements in understanding how diseases were transmitted. Important independent investigations were made during the cholera epidemic of 1848-1849 by John Snow in London and William Budd in Bristol with both diagnosing the cause of cholera as a living organism spread in drinking water and breeding in the human intestine. [2] Indeed it can be argued that by 1870 analysis of the causes of health problems had run considerably ahead of effective administrative machinery for remedying them.

The eclipse of the career of Edwin Chadwick coincided with the rise of John Simon (1816-1904).[3] Trained as a doctor, he was appointed as the first medical officer of health for the City of London in October 1848 at a salary of £500 a year (eventually £800.). Simon set to work at once with characteristic thoroughness, and presented a series of annual and other reports to the City commissioners of sewers. They were unofficially reprinted in 1854, with a preface in which Simon spoke strongly of ‘the national prevalence of sanitary neglect,’ and demonstrated the urgent need of control of the public health by a responsible minister of state.[4]

Portrait of Sir John Simon, Wellcome Library, London

The general board of health was reconstituted in 1854, and by a further act of 1855 it was empowered to appoint a medical officer. Simon accepted the post in October 1855. The board was subject to successive annual renewals of its powers and the new office was one of undefined purpose and doubtful stability. Simon produced several valuable and comprehensive reports for the general board of health: on the relation of cholera to London water supply in 1856, on vaccination in 1857 and reports on the sanitary state of the people of England and on the constitution of the medical profession in 1858.[5] In 1858, the board was abolished, its duties being taken over by the Privy Council under the 1858 Public Health Act and Simon remained medical officer. The 1858 act was only made permanent in 1859 in face of strong opposition.[6] As medical officer of the Privy Council he instituted in 1858 annual reports on the working of his department, treating each year special subjects with broad outlook and in terse and graphic phrase. Between 1858 and 1871, Simon was implicitly trusted by his official superiors, was allowed a free hand, and rallied to his assistance a band of devoted fellow-workers, who helped to make the medical department into an effective instrument for change.

Much of Simon’s work was deeply affected by the cholera outbreaks of 1848-1849 and 1853-1854 and like other reformers he saw the problems of the city as moral as well as material. From his appointment to the Board of Health in 1855 till he resigned in 1876, the emphasis of his work shifted to statistical investigation and exact scientific enquiry. His reports were of significant in developing state intervention in public health issues.[7] In 1857, Simon had published his Papers relating to the History and Practice of Vaccination. Ten years later the law was strengthened by a new act that both tightened procedures and providing ways of improving the vaccine.[8] In the Vaccination Act 1871, following a very serious smallpox epidemic, Boards of Guardians were required by law to appoint a paid vaccination officer. Other infectious diseases that the reports gave attention were smallpox, which re-appeared in 1865-1866, typhoid, scarlatina and diphtheria. There were studies of ‘industrial’ diseases like the lung conditions produced among miners, potters and steel-grinders. An ineffective Adulteration of Foods Act was passed in 1860, the precursor of more far-reaching legislation in 1872 and 1875, by which local authorities had to employ public analysts to test food. The Alkali Act 1863 was the first of a series of enactments to deal with acid gas pollution.[9]

Smallpox poster: Shropshire Archives: DA3/889/7

Simon’s eleventh report of 1866 considered the need to consolidate the different legislation and administrative agencies relating to public health. The solid foundation of scientific and medical knowledge that had not existed under Chadwick, meant that effective legislation was now possible. The threat of cholera helped produce the Sanitary Act 1866 that gave to local authorities increased powers to provide house drainage and water supplies. It provided stricter provisions for the removal of nuisances and additional powers were given to regulate communicable diseases. It made the specific duty of authorities to inspect their districts and to suppress nuisance and in case of failure to do this and upon complains being made, the Home Secretary had the power to send an inspector and, if neglect was established, to order the authority to act. Badly drafted as this legislation was, it included the vital principle of uniform and universal provision of sanitary protection combined with compulsory powers of enforcement on local authorities that formed the basis for the administrative reforms of the 1870s.

In August 1871, following the report of the Royal Commission on sanitary conditions, the Poor Law Board, the Local Government Office of the Home Office and the medical department of the Privy Council were amalgamated to form a new department, the Local Government Board. Simon became its chief medical officer in the belief that his independent powers would be extended rather than diminished. But neither Sir James Stansfeld, president of the board, nor Sir John Lambert, organising secretary, were prepared to accept Simon’s administrative independence. He protested in vigorous minutes and appeals that were renewed when George Sclater-Booth became president in 1874. After a fierce battle with the Treasury, his office was ‘abolished,’ Simon retired in May 1876 and the cause of scientific sanitary progress was prejudiced by his retirement.[10]

Practical reforms took a long time to implement and the medical and scientific work, associated with Simon, was reduced in the 1870s. The new Local Government Board was dominated by the old Poor Law officials and they took a different view from Simon keeping the medical scientific view out of policy-making in favour of the administrative principles inherited from the Poor Law. The result during the 1870s and 1880s was legislation that either established administrative structures or consolidated existing legislation. In 1869, the Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone had set up a Royal Commission to look into sanitary laws and administration. It reported in 1871 and its recommendations were embodied in the Public Health Act 1872. The 1872 Act rationalised sanitary authorities throughout the country and made compulsory the appointment of medical officers of health. Finally, in 1875 a consolidating Public Health Act covered the whole field of public health, sanitation and nuisance prevention. It was accompanied by legislation in related fields: an act of 1875 regulating the sale of foods and drink; an act of 1876 on the pollution of rivers; in 1879 consolidating the law on contagious diseases in animals was consolidated; the Diseases Prevention Act 1883 no longer pauperised the recipient of treatment in hospital with infectious diseases; and, the Infectious Diseases Notification Act 1889 persuaded a large number of local sanitary authorities to establish isolation hospitals, a situation extended into rural areas by the Isolation Hospitals Act 1893.

The early phase of public health reform was dominated by Edwin Chadwick, the later phase by Sir John Simon. Both left office disillusioned by their inability to implement reforms in the ways they wished. Paradoxically Chadwick resigned because of criticism of too much central control and Simon because of too little. In some respects, the parameters of the public health debate had shifted by the early 1880s. National administrative structure and enforcement agencies were in place. Public attention, however, shifted to concentrate on the larger cities, particularly on London that, quite apart from its sheer size, suffered problems of its own. The issue became one of housing.

---

[1] Hamlin, Christopher, ‘Public Sphere to Public Health: the Transformation of “Nuisance”‘, in Sturdy, Steve, (ed.), Medicine, health and the public sphere in Britain, 1600-2000, (Routledge), 2002, pp. 189-204, Brenner, J.F., ‘Nuisance Law and the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 3, (1973), pp. 403-433 and McLaren, J.P.S., ‘Nuisance Law and the Industrial Revolution: Some Lessons from Social History’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 3, (1983), pp. 155-222.

[2] Vandenbroucke, Jan P., ‘Changing images of John Snow in the history of epidemiology’, in Morabia, Alfredo, (ed.), A history of epidemiologic methods and concepts, (Birkhaeuser Verlag), 2004, 141-148.

[3]   Lambert, Royston, Sir John Simon 1816-1904, (MacGibbon & Kee), 1963 is the major biographical study.

[4] Simon, John, Reports relating to the sanitary condition of London, (J. W. Parker and son), 1854.

[5] Stokes, T.N., ‘A Coleridgean against the medical corporations: John Simon and the parliamentary campaign for the reform of the medical profession, 1854-1858’, Medical History, Vol. 33, (1989), pp. 343-359.

[6] Hardy, Anne, ‘Public health and the expert: the London Medical Officers of Health, 1856-1900’, in Macleod, R. M., (ed.), Government and expertise: specialists, administrators and professionals, 1860-1919, (Cambridge University Press), 1988, pp. 128-142.

[7] Seaton, Edward, (ed.), Public health reports by Sir John Simon, two Vols. (J. & A. Churchill), 1887.

[8] Brunton, Deborah, The politics of vaccination: practice and policy in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, 1800-1874, (University of Rochester Press), 2008 and Lambert, R.S., ‘A Victorian national health service: state vaccination, 1855-71’, Historical Journal, Vol. 5, (1962), pp. 1-18.

[9] Macleod, R.M., ‘The Alkali Acts administration, 1863-84: the emergence of the civil scientist’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 9, (1965), pp. 85-112 and Garwood, Christine, ‘Green Crusaders or Captives of Industry? The British Alkali Inspectorate and the Ethics of Environmental Decision Making, 1864-95’, Annals of Science, Vol. 61, (2004), pp. 99-117.

[10] See Brand, J.L., ‘John Simon and the Local Government Board bureaucrats, 1871-6’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 37, (1963), pp. 184-194.