Defending the Crown

In the years before the Rebellions of 1837-1838, the British sought to prevent political power in Lower Canada being taken into the hands of French Canadian. The focus of research on the Rebellions has been on the Patriotes, their organisation and actions while the attitudes and behaviour of the British in respect of the aspirations of French Canada have until recently tended to be given a lower priority. However, Loyalists played a major part in the Rebellions of 1837-1838, in the rise in political tension and in the repression of the rebellion. This paper seeks to redress that balance.

In the Canadas before the rebellions, there were approximately 20,000 English colonists, split equally between the two provinces. The 10,000 in Lower Canada were dwarfed by 140,000 French Canadians. They were largely concentrated in the areas of Montreal and Quebec, in the Cantons de l’Est (Eastern Townships) and south of the Richelieu. They were supporters of the British Crown and its Protestant traditions and felt threatened by the growing political power of the Catholic French Canadians. In addition, Loyalists feared republican ideas that came from the United States. They wanted to assimilate the French Canadians or at the very least to put them into a minority through further immigration largely because they believed this was essential if they were to build a country based on British traditions and with a powerful commercial economy. In addition to English colonists in Lower Canada, there were Scots and Irish. The Scots tended to side with the English and were broadly loyalist in their attitudes. The Irish, generally Catholics, were divided. Some supported the Patriotes because of similarities in the fight for self-determination by the two people and their shared religion. Others were loyalist in their attitudes identifying with the British Empire and sharing a common language.[1]

The historian Maurice Séguin showed that the British played a major part in the Rebellions

La révolte de 1837 est, en réalité, un double soulèvement: le soulèvement des Britanniques du Bas-Canada contre la menace d’une République canadienne-française, soulèvement de la section la plus avancée des nationalistes canadiens-français contre la domination anglaise. [2]

In his interpretation, the Rebellions were a civil war between two national groups with opposing view of what form the state should take. Séguin also emphasised the importance of the loyalist organisations and the role of loyalist volunteers in the army.[3] Profiting from the popular support, the Canadian French elite was elected to the Assembly and engaged in political and constitutional conflict with the British oligarchy that dominated both Executive and Legislative Councils and was supported by the British government in London. At issue was the future direction of the colonial State that was, for both Loyalists and Patriotes, still of a transient nature.

Anglophones in Lower Canada had felt considerable frustration since the Constitutional Act of 1791 that had created a French-dominated Lower Canada with an Assembly of elected deputies who were largely from the Catholic majority. Maurice Séguin argued that the division of 1791 led to the movement for Canadian French emancipation.

Par la division de 1791 et l’octroi aux Canadiens d’une chambre d’assemblée, elle (la politique anglaise) organise et relance puissamment un mouvement de libération. Et ce, malgré les protestations des Britanniques, maîtres de la vie économique, définitivement ancrés au coeur même du Bas-Canada, dans les villes de Québec et de Montréal, et premières victimes de la politique impériale. [4]

Moreover, Canadian French nationalism made it more difficult for the British who wanted to establish a state of British North America that would include all the British colonies of America in order to preserve the British traditions and avoid the perceived republican threat from the United States. Lower Canada was at the heart of the economy of the British colonies. British North America without Lower Canada, especially if it was ruled independently by French Canadians, would be significantly weakened and more likely to be absorbed by America then at its most expansive.

British fear of being controlled by French Canadians was amplified by the Ninety-Two Resolutions that called for election to the Legislative Council by the people. If implemented, the British would have lost the considerable political power that came through their control of the executive. According to Loyalists, elective councils would remove the barriers that defended them against French tyranny and reinforced their desire to assume political dominance over the government of the province. The British were as a result at odds with the democratic principles at the heart of Patriote demands as they called in question British control of Lower Canada.

The British loyalists were also critical of the political conciliation adopted by the colonial authorities since it gave many French Canadians the impression that London was prepared to accede to their demands. In a letter to Gosford in 1835, Adam Thom[5], editor of the Montreal Herald, argued that since the Conquest the authorities had spoken too much about French Canadians and had neglected their English subjects. He added that Gosford’s policy of conciliation would allow French Canadians to dictate colonial policy. According to Thom, the revolt to be feared was not that of the Patriotes but of Loyalist because the reprisals that would follow if only one drop of British blood was spilled and did not hesitate in his newspaper to encourage the Loyalists to arm themselves. In 1835, it was clear that the British minority categorically refused to be ruled by French Canadians and that they were prepared to resist this eventuality. The Gosford Commission, which sought to conciliate the two parties and resolve their problems, arrived at the following conclusion

Si l’Angleterre retirait sa protection, il s’ensuivrait une lutte immédiate entre les deux races, et même je doute si, sans la présence d’une force imposante, les mêmes conséquences ne se produiraient pas, lors même que l’on souscrirait aux présentes demandes de l’Assemblée et comme dans le cas, le parti anglais serait probablement l’agresseur, les forces du gouvernement aurait d’abord à être dirigées contre des hommes qui, non seulement sont nos co-sujets, mais qui pour la plupart sont natifs des îles.

To ensure British control over the territory, the Loyalists rejected Gosford’s policy of conciliation. However, the Patriotes did not seem inclined to use force largely because they had few weapons or little military organisation. Gerard Filteau suggested that there was a plot between Colborne, Adam Thom and Ogden[6], the Attorney-General to provoke the Patriotes and that the running battle between the Fils de la Liberté and loyalists and the Doric Club in Montreal on 6 November 1837 was used to justify the issue of arrest warrants for the Patriote leaders. He asked who benefited from the disorders and concluded that only the British party had any interest in the breakdown of order.

---

[1] On the complexities of the Irish position and its changing nature, see later blog.

[2] Séguin, Maurice, L’idée d’indépendance au Québec, Génèse et historique, (Boréal Express), 1968, p. 33.

[3] Séguin, Maurice, ‘Problème politique et national trente ans après la conquête’, in Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-38: Les patriotes du Bas Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, (Boréal Express), Montréal, 1983, pp. 173-189 and Synthèse de l’évolution politique et économique des deux Canadas, notes polycopiées pour cours d'histoire du Canada, 1965-1961 and L’idée d’indépendance au Québec, Génèse et historique, (Boréal Express), 1968.

[4] Cit, ibid, Bernard, Jean-Paul, Les Rébellions de 1837-38: Les patriotes du Bas Canada dans la mémoire collective et chez les historiens, p. 175.

[5] ‘Adam Thom’, DCB, Vol. 9, pp. 874-877.

[6] ‘Charles Richard Ogden’, DCB, Vol. 8, pp. 610-611.

Introducing Loyalists and Patriotes

When I say Canadiens, to whom do I refer? The hyphenated Canadien-francais only appeared after the rebellion period. Helen Taft Manning argued that

The French-speaking inhabitants of the Lower St Lawrence Valley were the only part of the population who laid claim to the title of Canadian, and it was accorded to them freely by the English-speaking residents in the province.[1]

Traditionally the Patriotes and the rebellions have tended to be associated with a school of separatist historiography in which their rebellion is seen as the first symbolic step in a struggle to overthrow British imperialism and fulfil Quebec’s right to national self-determination. The rebellion’s failure is seen as the launch pad for British domination that is viewed by some as continuing to this day. More recent readings such as those by Alan Greer in his The patriots and the people, throw further nuances on such an interpretation of the rebellions. Greer sees the rebellions as falling into the framework of a general questioning of governance that occurred in the Western world in the nineteenth century, often known as ‘The Age of Revolutions’, therefore downplaying the localised inter-ethnic conflict aspect of events. Bernier and Salée[2] have also challenged the ethnic division thesis, taking the statement from Ernest Gellner as their premise that ‘Nationalism is not what it seems, and above all not what it seems to itself.’[3]

These studies do not deny the Patriote role in the development of a distinctive ideology that questioned structures of colonial rule, but in the case of Bernier and Salée, they stress the movement as one of emancipation, as opposed to separation. They do not dismiss the presence of the national question in Patriote debates surrounding the rebellion, but for them it does not constitute the instigating factor. They argue that the national question was not uniquely what stirred the Patriotes into taking up arms, but merely formed part of a number of contributing issues related to the wider social and political context. Nationalist discourse therefore is seen as an ‘epiphenomenon’, as opposed to the motivation behind the rebellions.

This is an important rereading of the Patriote movement. Instead of being viewed in terms of a narrow exclusive nationalism with an emphasis on their role in the development of an independent Quebec based on the exclusion of difference, the inclusive nature of their thought is stressed. In contrast to models of national identity from later in the nineteenth and early twentieth century that were founded on exclusion of other, the Patriote vision was not limited uniquely to the descendants of 1760. It is in direct opposition therefore to the claims of many commentators and historians who have pigeonholed Patriotes within a narrow nationalist framework. The Patriote message was addressed to all citizens of Lower Canada, whatever their ethnic or linguistic background, ready to participate in the construction of a new society. We cannot ignore the Patriote critique of the ‘Ancien regime’ and it is easy to read a liberation project into Patriote writings, but care must be taken to differentiate between the questioning of colonial injustices and the desire to break with the mother country.

The loyalist movement that was established after 1833 was distinguished from its predecessors in being organised to a greater extent. In 1810, 1822 and in 1827, the different loyalist groups each had a political programme, solid membership and a means of disseminating its ideological message but they tended to be short-lived. After 1833, the loyalist movement had a permanent structure and hierarchical organisation ensuring that a degree of institutional and ideological continuity lasted until shortly after the 1837-1838 rebellions. Between 1833 and 1838, the loyalist movement experienced less fluctuation in support largely because of the threat from its rival, the Parti Patriote. The movement reacted to the effect of the political and economic situation and in particular to the actions of the Patriote movement. Between 1834 and 1838, the Constitutional Associations of Quebec and Montreal formed the core of the movement from which radiated the majority of loyalist activities (electoral committees, national associations and paramilitary groups). The initiatives taken in Quebec and Montreal were found generally across Lower Canada though on lesser scale.

The demise of Patriote radicalism in the aftermath of the rebellions in 1837 and 1838 was followed by the break up of the alliance of loyalist constitutional associations in 1839 and 1840. In part, this was the result of the end of ideological conflict between radical and more moderate reformers but also reflected the changing political environment especially different attitudes to the union project contained in Durham’s Report. The loyalist alliance contained individuals from different and conflicting political positions but those differences were contained by the need to counter the radical Patriote threat. Once that threat had evaporated, the old divisions re-appeared. For British loyalists, union in 1841 represented the containment of French Canadian domination while for those moderate Patriotes, who had been unwilling to accept the republican radicalism of Papineau and his supporters and who had supported a constitutionalist solution, union signified assimilation, a threat to their existence as a distinct ethnic group. The critical question for them was how to manage union: to call for French Canadian separatism or work within the union structure and mould it to French Canadian advantage. The 1840s saw the working out of these solutions as the new province moved towards responsible government. Yet a strong sense of Tory Loyalism of the 1830s remained and was evident in the debates in 1849 on the Rebellion Losses Bill. Colonel Bartholomew Gugy, a veteran of the Rebellions, summed up loyalist opinion

There were many other projects which it would be most desirable to continue, but what assistance could be given if the funds were pledged to reward those who had resorted to resistance; now the word loyalist is a term of reproach, for the law was to reward those who had rebelled; they flourished while loyalists were beggared, and many of them disgraced in Canada East...It would be against the conscience of protestants that that money should not be applied to a more holy purpose than paying those who made war against the Queen...They should reflect that Eastern Canada was not exclusively inhabited by French Canadians. Those English inhabitants were patient, and would be slow to rebel; but say when you tax them exclusively for this purpose will you not goad them? - Would they tax that class to pay those who rebelled, or would they tax both, to pay those who did their duty?...He hoped that he had not been misunderstood in the expression of his sentiments, he would never change them - never! never! never.[4]

Again, later in the debate

What! when the late government urged, impelled the Loyalists into activity by appeals of the most stirring kind, appeals which had been made to himself (Col. G.), was that activity to be imputed to them as a crime, and by a British governor general? Were they to be branded, as they had been in this House, as Goths and Vandals, as robbers, as incendiaries, as assassins? And were they to be taxed by this majority to reward and propitiate the men who had been guilty of every excess, and had avowed, as they still avowed, their design to sever the connexion with England? To act in that spirit would be making a most ungrateful return to the Loyalists. It would be, too, a manifest violation of the plighted faith and honour of the Crown. Now, of that faith and honour: who was the guardian in this colony? Not the majority in this House surely. No; but the governor general alone. [5]

The 1837-1838 rebellions represented a rejection of the colonial past but it also eliminated particular lines of development, reformist as well as conservative.

---

[1] Ibid, Taft-Manning, Helen, The Revolt of French-Canada, 1800-1835: A Chapter in the History of the British Commonwealth, p. 10.

[2] Ibid, Bernier, Gérald and Salée, Daniel, ‘Les patriotes, la question nationale et les rebellions de 1837-1838 au Bas-Canada’, in Sarra-Bournet, Michel & Saint-Pierre, Jocelyn, (eds.), Les Nationalismes au Quebec du xix au xxi siècle, pp. 26-36.

[3] Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism, (Blackwell, 1983), p. 56

[4] Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada 1849, 13 February 1849, Vol. 8, t. 1, pp. 662, 664-665.

[5] Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada 1849, 2 March 1849, Vol. 8, t. 2, p. 1101.

Operating the Poor Law, 1847-1914

When the Act that had extended the life of the Poor Law Commission ran out in 1847 it was not renewed and the Poor Law Board Act was passed in its place. It set up a new body, the Poor Law Board, consisting in theory of four senior ministers (the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal). In practice, like the Board of Trade, it was a mere fiction and never intended to meet. The real power lay with its President, who was eligible to sit in Parliament, and his two Secretaries, one of whom could become an MP. It was expected that the President would sit in the House of Lords and the Permanent Secretary in the Commons but in practice both ministers were usually MPs. The 1847 Act had two great merits. It remedied the weakness caused by the old board’s independent status: the government was now genuinely responsible and there was a proper channel between the board and parliament. It stilled the long agitation against the new poor law and meant that the new board could undertake a common-sense policy of gradual improvement in peace. It was aided in this by the improved economic situation and by the fact that the laws of settlement were also swept away in 1847.

Workhouse women, Leeds c1900

The achievements of the board between 1847 and 1870 were limited but a beginning was made in several fields. In 1848, the first schools for pauper children were set up and these were extended by legislation in 1862; in the 1850s outdoor relief was frankly admitted and regulated; by 1860, segregation of different classes of pauper into different quarters of the workhouse was virtually accomplished and the harshness of the old uniform regulations was softened. Even by the 1870s, the workhouse was still barbarous in many places and as a system but important changes had taken place. More and more money was being spent on the poor and unfortunate without protest. Pauperdom, especially for the able-bodied poor, was being increasingly regarded as misfortune rather than a crime or cause for segregation. The stigma of disfranchisement was not removed until 1885.

By the 1860s, the Poor law service had moved away from controversy and into a phase of consolidation. The administration became less centralised, less doctrinaire and to some extent less harsh. Inspectors turned to advising on workhouse management rather than applying blind deterrent policies. The cost per capita for 1864-1868, for example, was the same as it had been twenty years earlier and was one third cheaper than forty years earlier. Boards of Guardians had more freedom to respond to local conditions and outdoor relief was given more frequently. The Lancashire cotton famine of the early 1860s brought matters to a head.[1] The action that sparked depression overseas was the blockade of the southern American ports by Federal Navy.  This cut off the supply of raw cotton to Europe, including Lancashire and Scotland.  At the start of this depression, Lancashire mills had four month supply of cotton stockpiled.  The impact did not hit immediately and they had enough time to stockpile another month.[2]  Without raw further materials, production had stopped by October 1861 and mill closures, mass unemployment and poverty struck northern Britain leading to soup kitchens being opened in early 1862. Relief was provided by the British government in the form of tokens that were handed to traders so that goods could be exchanged to that amount. [3] Emigration to America was offered as an alternative; agents came to recruit for the American cotton industry and also for the Federal army.  Workers also made the shorter move to Yorkshire for work in the woollen mills there. Blackburn alone lost approximately 4,000 workers and their families. On 31 December 1862, cotton workers met in Manchester and decided to support those against slavery, despite their own impoverishment. 

The workers felt bitter at the nominal relief provided by the government and also resented that other relief came from affluent donors from outside Lancashire, not from their own wealthy cotton masters.  It was also felt that no distinction was made between those who were previously hard working and forced into unemployment and those who were ‘stondin paupers’ or drunkards.

This built up bitterness and resentment that led to rioting especially in Stalybridge, Dukinfield and Ashton in 1863.  Poor law and charity solutions proved inadequate and government, both central and local, thought that it was justifiable to intervene to create employment. As a result, government relief was changed and instead provided in the form of constructive employment in urban regeneration schemes, implemented by local government.

The Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Act 1863 gave powers to local authorities to obtain cheap loans to finance local improvements. This Act, as much as anything, symbolised the failure of the nineteenth century poor law to cope with the problem of large-scale industrial unemployment. Poor law financing was changed in the Union Chargeability Act 1865 ending the system where each union was separately responsible for the cost of maintaining its own poor. Each parish now contributed to the union fund with charges based upon the rateable value of properties. This led to inequalities since the rateable value of houses was set locally across the country and, in many areas, boards of guardians, themselves often middle-class ratepayers kept rates as low as possible. The Metropolitan Poor Act 1867 spread the cost of poor relief across all London parishes and provided for administration of infirmaries separate from workhouses. [4] Lunatics, fever and smallpox cases were removed from management of the Guardians and a new authority, the Metropolitan Asylums Board provided hospitals for them.[5]

In 1871, the Local Government Act set up a new form of central administration, the Local Government Board combining the work of the Poor Law Board, the Medical Department of the Privy Council and a small Local Government section of the Home Office. There were attempts by the Local Government Board and its inspectorate during the next decade to reduce the amount of outdoor relief by urging boards of guardians to enforce the regulations restricting outdoor relief more stringently and supported those boards that took a strict line. This meant that using the poor law system as a device to cope with unemployment more difficult and led to the unemployed seeking relief from other sources. This trend was given official recognition in 1886 when Joseph Chamberlain, the President of the Local Government Board, issued a Circular that urged local authorities to undertake public works as a means of relieving unemployment.[6]

These measures did not reduce the proportion of paupers receiving relief outside the workhouse but they did reduce the number of paupers: in 1870, paupers made up 4.6% of the population of England and Wales but by 1900, this had fallen to 2.5%. The poor law system of the late nineteenth century was gradually moving towards greater specialisation in the treatment of those committed to its care. This can be seen in the increase in expenditure on indoor relief by 113% between 1871-1872 and 1905-1906, though the number of indoor paupers only increased by 76%. In the conditions of the late-nineteenth century the focus shifted from pauperism to an increasing awareness of poverty and to the growing demand for an attack on it. While the Boards of Guardians retained control over paupers, other agencies became more important in dealing with various kinds of poverty.

School boards from 1870 and local education authorities after 1902 played a vital role in exposing and dealing with child poverty. School feeding and medical inspections developed out of the work of these bodies not out of the poor law system. At the other end of the age spectrum, opinion was moving in favour of old-age pensions in some form to take the poor out of the sphere of the poor law. A Royal Commission on the Aged Poor that reported in 1895 favoured the improvement of poor law provisions for old people but rejected the pension idea. Four years later, however, a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Aged Deserving Poor reported in favour of pensions. The policy of the Chamberlain Circular of providing work for the unemployed was continued both by local authority and by some philanthropic bodies such as the Salvation Army. In 1904, with unemployment worsening, the Local Government Board encouraged the creation of joint distress committees in London to plan and co-ordinate schemes of work relief for the unemployed. The Unemployed Workmen Act 1905 made the establishment of similar distress committees in every large urban area in the country mandatory. The committees were also empowered to establish labour exchanges, keep unemployment registers and assist the migration or emigration of unemployed workmen. This Act, it has been maintained, marked the culmination of attempts to deal with unemployment through work relief schemes. [7]

Poor relief costs rose to £8.6 million by 1906 and poor economic conditions in 1902 and 1903 had seen the numbers seeking relief rise to two million people. The result was the establishment in August 1905 of a Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Relief of Distress by the outgoing Conservative government chaired by Lord George Hamilton. The commission included Poor Law guardians, members of the Charity Organisation Society[8], members of local government boards as well as the social researchers Charles Booth and Beatrice Webb. The Commission spent four years investigating and in February 1909 produced two conflicting reports known as the Majority Report and the Minority Report. The Majority Report reiterated that poverty was largely caused by moral issues and that the existing provision should remain. However, it believed that the Boards of Guardians provided too much outdoor relief and that the able-bodied poor were not deterred from seeking relief because of mixed workhouses. The Minority Report took a different stance arguing that what was needed was a system radically different from current provision by breaking up the Poor Law into specialist bodies dealing with sickness, old-age etc administered by committees of the elected local authorities. It also recommended that unemployment was such a major problem that it was beyond the scope of local authorities and should be the responsibility of central government. However, because of the differences between the two reports, the Liberal government was able to ignore both when implementing its own reform package.

---

[1] Arnold, R. A., Sir, The history of the cotton famine: from the fall of Sumter to the passing of the Public Works Act, (Saunders, Otley and Co.), 1864, Henderson, W.O., The Lancashire cotton famine, 1861-1865, (Manchester University Press), 1934 and Farnie, Douglas A., ‘The cotton famine in Great Britain’, in Ratcliffe, B.M., (ed.), Great Britain and her world 1750-1914: essays in honour of W.O. Henderson, (Manchester University Press), 1975, pp. 153-178.

[2] For the impact of the famine see, Holcroft, Fred, The Lancashire cotton famine around Leigh, (Leigh Local History Society), 2003, Peters, Lorraine, ‘Paisley and the cotton famine of 1862-1863’, Scottish Economic & Social History, Vol. 21, (2001), pp. 121-139, Henderson, W.O., ‘The cotton famine in Scotland and the relief of distress, 1862-64’, Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 30, (1951), pp. 154-164 and Hall, Rosalind, ‘A poor cotton weyver: poverty and the cotton famine in Clitheroe’, Social History, Vol. 28, (2003), pp. 227-250

[3] Shapely, Peter, ‘Urban charity, class relations and social cohesion: charitable responses to the Cotton Famine’, Urban History, Vol. 28, (2001), pp. 46-64, Boyer, George R., ‘Poor relief, informal assistance, and short time during the Lancashire cotton famine’, Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 34, (1997), pp. 56-76 and Penny, Keith, ‘Australian relief for the Lancashire victims of the cotton famine, 1862-3’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, Vol. 108, (1957 for 1956), pp. 129-139.

[4] Ashbridge, Pauline, ‘Paying for the poor: a middle-class metropolitan movement for rate equalisation, 1857-67’, London Journal, Vol. 22, (1997), 107-122.

[5] Powell, Allan, Sir, The Metropolitan Asylums Board and its work, 1867-1930, (The Board), 1930 and Ayers, G.M., England’s first state hospitals and the Metropolitan Asylums Board, 1867-1930, (Wellcome Institute), 1971.

[6] Hennock, E.P., ‘Poverty and social theory: the experience of the 1880s’, Social History, Vol. 1, (1976), pp. 67-91.

[7] Harris, J., Unemployment and Politics, 1886-1914, (Oxford University Press), 1972 and Melling, J., ‘Welfare capitalism and the origin of welfare states: British industry, workplace welfare, and social reform, 1870-1914’, Social History, Vol. 17 (1992), pp. 453-478.

[8] Vincent, A.W., ‘The poor law reports of 1909 and the social theory of the Charity Organisation Society’, in Gladstone, David, (ed.), Before Beveridge: welfare before the welfare state, (Institute of Economic Affairs Health and Welfare Unit), 1999, pp. 64-85.

Operating the New Poor Law 1834-1847

Despite opposition, the Poor Law Amendment Act was implemented with speed and determination.[1] Nine assistant commissioners were appointed and this rose to sixteen within a year. Poor Law Unions were created with some rapidity. By the end of 1835, 2,066 parishes had been incorporated into 112 Unions. In 1836, this reached 365 Unions of 7,915 parishes and by December 1839, 13,691 out of some 15,000 parishes had been incorporated into 583 Unions, leaving 799 mostly Local Act or Gilbert Act Unions outside. The new Poor Law territorial system was nearly as complete as it would be until 1871, although some restructuring of Unions occurred later.

The resulting reduction in costs was considerable. By 1838, the Commissioners reported that the country had been relieved of some £2.3 million of ‘direct annual taxation’. Although costs soon began to rise again, it was not until after 1900 that they reached pre-1834 levels. This was a success for those who aimed chiefly at reducing the poor rate. For those who propagated the 1834 Act as a measure of social rehabilitation, there were also claims of success. By 1835, the Commissioners were claiming that it had already brought more prompt and adequate relief to the aged, infirm and sick and was improving the education of pauper children. They were encouraging industry and moral habits in the able-bodied helping farmers to provide more employment and higher wages and improving the relationship between rural employers and their workers. There was a decline in chargeable bastardy and better sexual morals in the countryside. The Commission produced annual reports and the propaganda features of the 1834 Report reappeared regularly. It remains, with the help of regional studies, to see how far their claims were justified. The southern counties felt the impact of the new poor law even before the new Unions were created. Some places took the opportunity to reduce poor relief wholesale: the Uckfield Union in Sussex reduced its costs in one year from £16,643 to £8,733 of which only £5,675 was spent on the poor, the remainder being used to build a workhouse. Immediate reductions occurred in other areas, even if not on the Uckfield scale. In East Yorkshire, expenditure fell by 13% in 1835 and by 27% between 1834 and 1837. These examples hide the extent of opposition, the poor geographical construction of some Unions and the role of the landed classes.[2]

The Commissioners wanted the Unions to consist of a circle of parishes round a market town and some Unions did conform to this pattern. But many did not. Most of Anglesey formed a large Union of 53 parishes while five parishes in the east of the island were attached to Caernarfon to which they were linked by ferry and 16 more were attached to Bangor across the Menai straits.[3] In some rural areas, the Assistant Commissioners were compelled to obtain the support of the landed nobility by drawing the boundaries of Unions round their estates. In Northamptonshire, for example, the Union of Potterspuy encompassed the Duke of Grafton’s interest, Aynho, the Cartwright’s interest and Daventry, Charles Kingsley’s interest. Anthony Brundage sees this as a process by which the great landowners created Unions to suit their own interests and so maintain their control over Poor Law administration. Peter Dunkley challenges this view observing that in urban areas and in some rural districts lacking great landowners, yeomen farmers or town shopkeepers and artisans secured control of the Boards of Guardians. [4] There was therefore considerable disparity in the size, shape, population and wealth of the Unions. Far from uniformity, the 1834 Act established considerable variety in local administrative areas.

The success of central policies was dependent on the character and efficiency of the Poor Law Union officials. The new government service included Clerks to the Boards, Relieving Officers, Workhouse Masters and Medical Officers. Some of these posts were part-time and the salaries varied according to the size and population of the Union. The officials in the front line were the Relieving Officer and Workhouse Master, sometimes one person holding two posts. The Relieving Officer decided the fate of applicants for relief; whether they should be relieved at home, enjoy free medical treatment, be sent to task work or ‘offered’ the workhouse. He was also supposed to supervise outdoor relief. The Workhouse Master ran the House but served two masters, the Commission and the Board of Guardians, who not infrequently issued conflicting orders. He was required to fulfil the demands of Medical Officers for the supply and treatment of pauper patients. He needed to be of firm character and the Commissioners hoped that the Guardians would use their powers of patronage to appoint both Relieving Officers and Workhouse Masters from the police or military NCOs.[5] Even so between 1835 and 1841, 90 Relieving Officers were dismissed for theft, neglect of duty, misconduct or drunkenness. The inevitable result of local patronage was the dismissal and then re-appointment of officials from the old poor law system.

Similar problems occurred in establishing professional Poor Law medical services.[6] Initially the Commissioners encouraged Unions to offer part-time medical posts at the lowest tender but this led to many complaints of neglect and ill treatment before the Select Committee of 1837. After this Unions appointed qualified doctors at reasonable wages. From 1842, when the first General Medical Order was issued, attempts were made by the Commissioners to regulate improvements to the service. Unions were divided into medical districts each with its own Medical Officer. Workhouse infirmaries did provide indoor medical treatment and increased in number but they were often overcrowded and without adequate equipment or staff.

Brownlow Hill: Liverpool workhouse

The Medical Act 1858 stated that Poor Law Doctors could not be employed by the Guardians unless qualified in both Medicine and Surgery and were registered. Despite this, conditions failed to improve in London until 1867, when the Metropolitan Poor Law Act began the process of taking the infirmaries out of Union control. [7] In 1885, the Medical Relief Disqualification Act removed some of the stigma of pauperism from those who received only medical assistance from the poor law and the poor law authorities administered three-quarters of all hospital beds.[8] In 1897, the Local Government Board passed an order forbidding the employment of Pauper Nurses, though they were still allowed to work in infirmaries under the supervision of a trained Nurse and the Local Government Board Order 1913 required that an institution with more than 100 beds for the sick must have an appropriately qualified Superintendant Nurse.

The well-regulated workhouse was the centrepiece of the new system. [9] Chadwick never intended that the deterrent workhouse test should apply to all. He intended to build new workhouses for orphans, the old and infirm while driving the able-bodied to provide for themselves and their families. Existing parish workhouses were to be included in the Unions for the separate treatment of classified paupers, the old, the young and the able-bodied. He hoped to extend this principle to the separate housing of lunatics, the blind and other special categories.[10] This proved impractical and a single large Union workhouse was more efficient with the result that the ‘deserving poor’ were treated little different from the ‘undeserving’ able-bodied. The Commissioners never intended that workhouses should be places of repression for the able-bodied. Paupers might be better fed and housed than in a labourer’s cottage. But they would be put to heavy work and subjected to discipline including the denial of tobacco and alcohol and the separation of men from women. However, in practice, workhouses were increasingly seen as ‘prisons without crime’. Dietaries published by the Commissioners were not wholly insufficient but took little notice of local eating habits and food was stodgy and monotonous.[11] Inmates had to wear workhouse uniform but the Commissioners resisted the attempts of some Guardians to clothe unmarried mothers in yellow as a badge of shame.

The picture of a stern and uniform regime in the workhouse, a picture reinforced by radical writers called them ‘Bastilles’ belied the facts. Just how cruel the new poor law workhouses were is a question often obscured by propaganda and myth. They were often overcrowded but their character varied between areas. The character of the Master and Matron, the Union boards and the regional Assistant Poor Law Commissioner regulated the actual conduct of the workhouses. The new workhouses were often less crowded and insanitary than those built before 1834. The most resented deterrent effect of the new poor law, and the most obvious contrast with the old system, was the strict workhouse routine and the increasing stigma attached to pauper status.

The feature of the 1834 legislation that caught the attention of contemporary opinion was not the system of central administration but the threat of seeking relief, with special emphasis being paid to the workhouse test. Official records are stronger on administration that relief, but they do give more attention to the inmates of the workhouse than to those on outdoor relief. In many respects this is unfortunate since the majority of paupers were normally those in receipt of outdoor relief. The statistics of the period suggest that over 80% of paupers were on outdoor relief. In 1837, 11% of all paupers had been workhouse inmates; by 1844, the figure was no more than 15%. In 1844, the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order re-confirmed that the able-bodied should not be given outdoor relief but infrequent visits by commissioners meant that this was never rigorously applied.

East Preston workhouse

The workhouse test was designed to deter the able-bodied poor, but the majority of workhouse inmates were normally the physically and mentally disabled, the aged and a wide variety of sick.[12] In dealing with the able-bodied the workhouse test was invariably offered to those regarded as of bad character: aged or diseased prostitutes, ex-criminals, mothers with more than one illegitimate child, known alcoholics and vagrants.[13] Regarded as a refuge for undesirables, the workhouse gave its inmates a greater stigma than applied to those in receipt of outdoor relief. The Victorian workhouse was faced with the impossible task of providing a refuge for the impotent while deterring the scrounger. In that the mass of the poor regarded the workhouse with considerable dread the deterrent feature had been successfully conveyed, despite the fact that the majority of the inmates were usually unsuitable for such treatment. Indeed for the Webbs, the workhouse became ‘shocking to every principle of reason and every feeling of humanity’.[14]

This dismal view corresponds to that of contemporary critics of the 1830s and 1840s such as The Times and the novelist Charles Dickens. The picture of the workhouse presented by its early opponents suggested a life of horror.[15] For even the mildly awkward there were savage beatings and solitary confinement in the most unsuitable of cells. For the majority, existence was endured on a starvation diet, families were ruthlessly separated in the interests of classification, accommodation was overcrowded and unhealthy and daily life was a monotonous routine supervised by unsympathetic officials. Finally, for those unfortunate enough to die in the workhouse, the end was a pauper burial without dignity or respect. There were, however, others in the 1830s and 1840s who took a more positive view of the new system and sought to answer the rabid criticisms of those opposed it.[16]

The picture was not simply a study in black. There was much variation between workhouses and those that paid most attention to the directives of the central authority probably provided better food and accommodation than was available to many of the poor who struggled to survive outside. In the case of children and the sick, foundations were being made for future progress, though developments were slow and partial until the mid-1860s. Most historians accept that the sensational stories of cruelties were either false or the result of survivals from the former regime. In a number of cases, such as the flogging of young girls at the Hoo Workhouse or the scandal at Andover, the local authority could be shown to have ignored the directives of the central authority. However, this did not excuse the inadequacy of the supervision that allowed such things to take place.

Workhouse inmates picking oakum c1880

The effectiveness of the workhouse test in the north was never fully tested. From 1837 to 1842, much of industrial England was in the grip of severe depression. Whole communities went suddenly out of work and in these circumstances it was impossible for the new poor law to operate. The Outdoor Labour Test Order was introduced as a result by which the poor were supposed to do the ‘labour test’, hard and monotonous work in return for outdoor relief. Zealous opposition to the poor law became a central theme of Chartism and, because it posed a threat to public order, produced a ceaseless campaign against the Commissioners. The Central Board had only been given a five-year lease of life and it was so unpopular when it came up for renewal it was only extended for one year. The result was a tempering of the workhouse test and less eligibility principle in the north with a return to outdoor relief. By late 1842, the worst of the economic distress was over and the Commission was given five more years of life but its position was already compromised. A humanitarian attack began on the conditions in the new workhouses, criticism that gained strength from a series of mistakes, epidemics and scandals that provoked public inquiries and ultimately public demands for reform of the worst abuses. In 1842, the first scandal led to the withdrawal of the rule imposing silence at all meals; the bringing together of families separated into male, female and infant; and the first attempts to separate prostitutes, lunatics and infected persons from the general body of paupers. This process continued gradually until 1847 but events in the Andover Union were the last straw.

---

[1] Fraser, D., (ed.), The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, (Macmillan), 1976 is a collection of excellent essays on the operation of the system.

[2] Useful local studies include Rawding, Charles, ‘The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834-65: a case study of Caistor Poor Law Union’, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, Vol. 22, (1987), pp. 15-23, Fletcher, Barry, ‘Chichester and the Westhampnett Poor Law Union’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol. 34, (1996), pp. 185-196, Carter, Paul, (ed.), Bradford Poor Law Union: papers and correspondence with the Poor Law Commission, October 1834-January 1839, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record series, Vol. 157, (Boydell), 2004 and Song, Byung Khun, ‘Continuity and change in English rural society: the formation of poor law unions in Oxfordshire’, English Historical Review, Vol. 114, (1999), pp. 314-338.

[3] Jones, David Llewelyn, ‘The fate of the paupers: life in the Bangor and Beaumaris Union Workhouse 1845-71’, Transactions of the Caernarvonshire Historical Society, Vol. 66, (2005), pp. 94-125.

[4] For the debate, see, Brundage, Anthony, ‘The landed interest and the New Poor Law: a reappraisal of the revolution in government’, English Historical Review, Vol. 87, (1972), pp. 27-48, Dunkley, Peter, ‘The landed interest and the new Poor Law: a critical note’, English Historical Review, Vol. 88, (1973), pp. 836-841 and Brundage, Anthony, ‘The landed interest and the new poor law: a reply’, English Historical Review, Vol. 90, (1975), pp. 347-351. See also, Brundage, Anthony, ‘The English Poor Law of 1834 and the cohesion of agricultural society’, Agricultural History, Vol. 48, (1974), pp. 405-417.

[5] See, Gutchen, R.M., ‘Masters of workhouses under the New Poor Law’, Local Historian, Vol. 16, (1984), pp. 93-99.

[6] See, for example, Green, David R., ‘Medical relief and the new Poor Law in London’, in Grell, Ole Peter, Cunningham, Andrew and Jütte, Robert, (eds.), Health care and poor relief in eighteenth and nineteenth century northern Europe, (Ashgate), 2002, pp. 220-245, Hodgkinson, R.G., ‘Poor law medical officers of England, 1834-71’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Vol. 11, (1956), pp. 299-338 and Miller, Edgar, ‘Variations in the official prevalence and disposal of the insane in England under the poor law, 1850-1900’, History of Psychiatry, Vol. 18, (1), (2007), pp. 25-38.

[7] See, Anon, The Lancet sanitary commission for investigating the state of the infirmaries of workhouses: reports of the commissioners on metropolitan infirmaries, 1866. On the operation of the poor laws in London after 1834 see, Green, David R., Pauper Capital: London and the Poor Law 1790-1870, (Ashgate), 2010, pp. 81-246.

[8] Brand, J.L., ‘The parish doctor: England’s poor law medical officers and medical reform, 1870-1900’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 35, (1961), pp. 97-122.

[9] The workhouse is discussed in Longmate, N., The Workhouse, (Temple Smith), 1974, Digby, A., Pauper Palaces, (Routledge), 1978, Crowther, M., The Workhouse System 1834-1929: The History of an English Social Institution, (Methuen), 1984 and Driver, Felix, Power and pauperism: the workhouse system 1834-1884, (Cambridge University Press), 1993.

[10] Bartlett, Peter, The poor law of lunacy: the administration of pauper lunatics in mid-nineteenth-century England, (Leicester University Press), 1999, Ellis, Robert, ‘The Asylum, the Poor Law and the Growth of County Asylums in Nineteenth-Century Yorkshire’, Northern History, Vol. 45, (2008), pp. 279-293, Murphy, Elaine., ‘The New Poor Law Guardians and the administration of insanity in east London, 1834-1844’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 77, (2003), pp. 45-74 and Bartlett, Peter, ‘The asylum and the Poor Law: the productive alliance’, in Melling, Joseph and Forsythe, Bill (eds.), Insanity, institutions, and society, 1800-1914: a social history of madness in comparative perspective, (Routledge), 1999, pp. 48-67. See also, Phillips, Gordon Ashton, The blind in British society: charity, state, and community, c.1780-1930, (Ashgate), 2004, pp. 160-199.

[11] See, Johnston, V.J., Diet in workhouses and prisons 1835-1895, (Garland), 1985, pp. 13-36.

[12] Besley, Timothy, Coate, Stephen and Guinnane, Timothy W., ‘Incentives, information, and welfare: England’s New Poor Law and the workhouse test’, in Guinnane, Timothy W., Sundstrom, William A. and Whatley, Warren, (eds.), History matters: essays on economic growth, technology, and demographic change, (Stanford University Press), 2004, 245-270.

[13] Fillmore, Jacquelené, ‘The female vagrant pauper’, Local Historian, Vol. 35, (2005), pp. 148-158 and Henriques, U.R Q., ‘Bastardy and the new Poor Law’, Past & Present, Vol. 37, (1967), pp. 103-129.

[14] Webb, Sidney and Webb, Beatrice, English Poor Law Policy, (Longman, Green), 1910, p. 133.

[15] See, for example, Oastler, Richard, Damnation! Eternal damnation to the fiend-begotten ‘coarser-food’, new Poor law, a speech, (Henry Hetherington), 1837, Roberts, Samuel, Mary Wilden, a Victim to the New Poor Law, Or, The Malthusian and Marcusian System Exposed: In a Letter to His Grace the Duke of Portland, (Whittaker and Co.), 1839, A few practical observations on the new poor law: showing the demoralizing & enslaving effects of this anti-Christian enactment: containing various facts illustrating the working of the new law, (A.Redford), 1838, and especially, Baxter, G.R.W., The book of the Bastiles: or, The history of the working of the new poor law, (J. Stephens), 1841.

[16] For example, Nevile, Christopher, The new poor law justified: with suggestions for the establishment of insurance offices for the poor, (Ridgway), 1838, Spencer, Thomas, The new poor law: its evils and their remedies, 1841 and Objections to the new Poor Law answered, (John Green, 121 Newgate St.), 1841 and Gurney, John Hampden, The new poor law explained and vindicated: A plain address to the labouring classes among his parishioners..., (W. Walker), 1841.

De Tocqueville in Canada: the end of his travels

Village of Beaufort, near Quebec, 29 August 1831

Today we went on horseback to visit the countryside without a guide. In the commune of Beaufort, two leagues from Quebec, we saw the people coming out of church. Their dress indicated the greatest well-being. Those who came from a distant hamlet were returning there by carriage. We broke away into the paths and gossiped with all the inhabitants whom we met, trying to turn the talk to serious matters. This is what seemed to come out of these talks:

1st. Up to now great prosperity exists among them. The land in the neighbourhood of Quebec is sold for high prices, as expensive as in France, but it also brings great returns.

2nd. The ideas of this population still seem little developed. But they already feel very clearly that the English race is spreading round them in alarming fashion; that they are making a mistake in shutting themselves up in an area instead of spreading over the still free land. Their suspicion is excited by the daily arrival of newcomers from Europe. They feel they will end up being absorbed. We can see that all that is being said on this subject animate their passions, but they do not clearly see the remedy. The Canadians fear leaving the sight of their church, they are not astute. ‘Oh! You are very right, but what can you do?’ These are their answers. They clearly feel their position as a conquered people, relying on the benevolence not of the government, but of the English. All their hopes are fixed on their representatives. They seem to have that exaggerated attachment to them, and especially to Mr. Neilson –’But he is English’, they said to us, as if in astonishment or regret that oppressed people often have for their protector. Several of them seemed perfectly to understand the need for education, and to take lively pleasure in what had just been done to help it on. All in all we felt that this population could be led, although still incapable of leading itself.

We are coming to the moment of crisis. If the Canadians do not waken from their apathy, in twenty years from now it will be too late to do so. Everything indicates that the awakening of this people is at hand. But if in this effort the middling and upper classes of the Canadian population abandon the lower classes and become allied with the English, the French race is lost in America. And that would truly be a pity, for there are here all the elements of a great people. The French of America are to the French of France as the Americans are to the English. They have preserved the greater part of the original traits of the national character but have added more morality and more simplicity. They, like them, have broken free from the prejudices that cause and will cause all the miseries of Europe. But will they ever succeed in completely regaining their nationality? This is probable without unfortunately being certain. A man of genius who would understand, feel and be capable to develop the national passions of the people would have an admirable role to play here. He would soon be the most powerful man in the colony. But I do not yet see him anywhere.

There already exist at Quebec a class of men who form the boundary between the French and the English: they are the English allied to the Canadians, the English unhappy with the administration, and Frenchmen holding offices. This class is represented in the periodical press by the Gazette de Québec and in the political assemblies by Mr. Neilson and probably several others that we do not know. It is this class I fear the most for the future of the Canadian population. It does not excite its jealousy, nor its passion. On the contrary it is more Canadian than English by interest because it is opposed to the government. Deep down, however, it is English by custom, ideas and language. If it were ever to take the place of the upper classes and the enlightened classes among the Canadians, their nationality would be lost forever. They would stagnate like the Bretons in France. Hopefully religion puts an obstacle to marriages between the two races, and creates inside the clergy an enlightened class whose interest is to speak French and feed on French literature and ideas.

We noticed in our talks with the people of this country an element of hatred and jealousy of the seigneurs. But the seigneurs have, so to say, no rights; they are, as much as one can be, of the people, and are almost all reduced to cultivating the soil. But the spirit of equality and democracy is alive there as in the United States, although it is not so rational. I found again in the hearts of those peasants the political passions which brought about the Revolution and which are still causes all our ills. Here they are inoffensive, or almost so, since nothing stands against them. We also noticed that the peasant did not see the clergy’s right to levy the tithe without anger and that he was not without envy contemplating the wealth that this tax put into the hands of some ecclesiastics. If religion ever loses its sway in Canada, it will have been by that breach that the enemy has come in.

As in France, the Canadian peasant has a gay and lively spirit, there is almost always something sharp in his repartee. One day I asked a farmer why the Canadians were letting themselves be restrained in narrow fields, while they could find twenty leagues away from their homes fertile and uncultivated lands. - ‘Why’, he said to me, ‘do you love your wife better, even though the neighbour’s has prettier eyes?’ I found there was a real and profound feeling in this reply.

The French gazettes of Canada contain everyday prose or verse literature, something one never finds in the vast columns of the English papers.

Leave Quebec aboard the steamboat Richelieu for Montreal, 31 August 1831

We went today with Mr. Neilson and with a Canadian called M. Viger along the left bank of the Saint Lawrence as far as the village of Saint Thomas 10 leagues from Quebec. That is where the Saint Lawrence widens out to 7 leagues, a width it keeps for 50 leagues. All the countryside we went through was wonderfully fertile; with the Saint Lawrence and the mountains to the North it formed the most complete and magnificent picture.

The houses are universally well built. They are redolent of comfort and cleanliness. The churches are rich, but rich in very good taste. Their interior decoration would not seem out of place in our towns. Note that it is the commune itself that imposes its own taxes to keep up the church. In this part of Canada one hears no English. All the population is French, and yet when one comes to an inn or a shop, the sign is in English.

Mr. Neilson said to us today while speaking about the Indians: These peoples will disappear completely, but they will fall victims to the pride of their spirit. The least among them thinks himself at least equal to the Governor of Quebec. They never will adapt themselves to civilisation, not because they are incapable of behaving like us, but because they scorn our way of living and consider themselves our superiors.

1 September 1831

General remarks

We have remarked through the conversations we have had with several Canadians that their hatred was directed more at the government than towards the English race in general. The instincts of the people are against the English, but many Canadians belonging to the enlightened classes did not appear to be to be committed, to the degree we had believed, to wanting to preserve intact their original heritage and to become a completely separate people. Several appeared not far from being assimilated with the English...It is thus to be feared that over time and especially with the Irish Catholic emigration, that the fusion be realised. This can only have a detrimental effect on the French race, language and customs. But it is certain that:

1. Lower Canada (luckily for the French race) forms a State apart. Now the French population in Lower Canada is in the proportion of ten to one to the English. It is compact. It has its government and its own Parliament. It really forms the body of a distinct nation. In a Parliament of eighty-four members, there are sixty-four French and twenty English.

2. Up to now the English have always kept to themselves. They support the government against the mass of the people. All the French newspapers voice opposition, all the English ones support the ministry, with only one exception, The Vindicator, at Montréal, and that too was founded by Canadians. [1]

3. In the towns the English and the Canadians form two societies. The English place considerable emphasis on great luxury; none of the Canadians have more than very limited wealth; thence jealousy and small-town squabbling.

4. The English have all the export trade and the main controls of internal trade in their hands. Yet another cause of jealousy.

5. The English are daily getting possession of lands that the Canadians regard as reserved for their race.

6. Finally the English in Canada show all the traits of their character and the Canadians have kept all the qualities of French character.

So the odds are strongly in favour of Lower Canada finishing up with an entirely French population. But they will never be a numerous people. Everything around them will become English...I am very much afraid that, as Mr Neilson said in his frank, brusque way, fate has pronounced and North America will be English.

Leave Montreal by steamboat Voyageur for La Prairie, 2 September 1831

We have seen a great number of churchmen since our arrival in Canada. It appeared to us that they constituted the first class among the Canadians. All those we have seen were educated, polite, well raised and speak French with purity. In general they are more distinguished than most of the curates of France. One can see in their conversation that they are all Canadians. They are united by their commitment to the interests of the population and talk about their needs very well. They, however, appeared to have a feeling of loyalty towards the King of England, and in general sustained the principle of legitimacy. Yet one of them told me: ‘We now have every reason to hope, the ministry is democratic.’ Today there is opposition; tomorrow they might very well do rebellion if the government were to become tyrannical. All in all, this people strongly resemble the French people. Or rather they are still French, trait for trait, and consequently perfectly different from the English populations surrounding them. Gay, lively, mocking, loving glory and noise, intelligent, eminently sociable, their customs are sweet and their character is obliging. The people in general are more moral, more hospitable and more religious than in France. Only in Canada can you find what we can a bon enfant (good child) in France. The English and the American is either coarse or cold...

Five or six years ago the English government wanted to unite the whole of Canada in one assembly. [2] That was the measure best designed to dissolve the Canadian nation completely, so the whole people objected and from that time they knew their strength. Several parish priests told me that in their parish there was not a single individual talking English. They themselves did not understand English at all, and used us as interpreters.

The appointment of militia officers is a function of government, but the Assembly decided that to be a militia officer it is necessary to reside in the place in question resulting in command of the armed force being almost exclusively in the hands of Canadians.

A Canadian told me today that the debates in the House of Commons were lively and hot-headed and that often hasty resolutions were passed that were regretted once tempers had cooled. Might he not have been speaking about a French Assemblée?

---

[1] The Vindicator, originally the Irish Vindicator and Canada General Advertiser was founded in 1828 by Daniel Tracey from Ireland. It was the voice of the Society of the Friends of Ireland in the province. However, when Tocqueville visited, the newspaper was (since 1829) co-owned by Ludger Duvernay, Denis-Benjamin Viger, Édouard-Raymond Fabre, Jacob de Witt and a few members of the Perrault family. The newspaper supported the reformist movements and patriotic causes of Ireland, Lower Canada and Upper Canada.

[2] This occurred in 1822 when the project of re-uniting the Canadas was introduced in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom without informing any of the representatives of the people in the provinces who were directly affected by the proposed constitutional change.

De Tocqueville in Canada: Montreal and Quebec

Conversation with Mr. Quiblier, Father Superior of the Seminary at Montreal, 24 August 1831

Mr. Quiblier struck us as a good-hearted and enlightened cleric. He is a Frenchman who came from France a few years ago.

He. - I do not think there are a happier people in the world than the Canadians. They have very gentle manners, neither civil nor religious dissensions, and they pay no taxes.

Q. But isn’t there here something that remains of the feudal system?

A. Yes, but it is rather a name than anything else. The greater part of Canada is still divided into seigneuries. Those who inhabit or buy a land on these seigneuries must pay a rent to the seigneur as well as droit de mutation.[1] But the rent is really nothing. The seigneur has no honorific privilege, no superiority whatsoever on his censitaire. I think he has a less elevated position than the European owner over his tenants.

Q. How are religious needs covered for?

A. By the tithe. The clergy in general has no landed property. What we call the tithe is 1/26 part of the harvest. It is paid without anger or suffering.

Q. Do you have convents for men?

A. No. In Canada we only have convents for girls. And again the religious women live quite the active life, raising children or caring for the sick.

Q. Do you have freedom of the press?

A. A complete and limitless freedom.[2]

Q. Did the press use its power to turn the people against religion?

A. Never. Religion is too respected for a journalist to attack it in any way.

Q. Are the upper classes of society religious?

A. Yes, very.

Q. Is there animosity between the two races?

A. Yes, but not much. It does not extend to normal social contacts. The Canadians claim that the English government only offers places to the English while the English complain that it favours the Canadians. I think there is exaggeration on both sides of the argument. In general there is little religious animosity between the two peoples, legal tolerance being complete.

Q. Do you think this colony will soon become free from England?

A. I do not think so. The Canadians are happy under the current regime. They have a political liberty almost as great as that enjoyed in the United States. If they were to become independent, there is a multitude of public expenses that would fall onto them; if they were to unite with the United States, they would fear that their population would soon be absorbed in a deluge of emigration and that their ports, closed during four months of the year, would be reduced to nothing if they were deprived of access to the English market.

Q. Is it true that schooling is spreading?

A. In the past few years a complete change has occurred in this regard. It is regarded as a priority and the Canadian race that is now being brought up will not resemble that which exists now.

Q. Do you not fear that these innovations will undermine the religious principle?

A. One cannot yet know the effect it will produce. I nevertheless believe that religion has nothing to worry about.

Q. Is the Canadian race expanding?

A. Yes. But slowly and little by little. It does not have this adventurous spirit or this scorn for birth and family ties that characterise the Americans. The Canadian goes as far as the extremity of his church’s bell and will settle as close as possible to his parents. However the movement is great, as I was saying, and it will expand further I think with the increase of knowledge.

Conversation with Messrs Mondelet

Messrs Mondelet[3] are lawyers at Montreal. They are intelligent and sensible young men.

Q. What proportion of the population in Canada is French and English?

A. Nine to ten. But almost all wealth and trade are in the hands of the English. They have their families and connections in England and so have opportunities not open to us.

Q. Have you many newspapers in French?

A. Two[4]

Q. How many subscribers do they have compared to the subscribers to English papers?

A. 800 to 1,300.

Q. Are those papers influential?

A. Yes. They have very decided influence, but less than one hears is enjoyed by the papers in France.

Q. What is the position of the clergy? Have you noticed among them the political tendencies which they are alleged to have in Europe?

A. Perhaps one might detect in them a secret tendency to rule or direct, but it amounts to very little. Generally speaking our clergy are conspicuously nationalist. That is partly a result of the situation in which they find themselves. From the time immediately after the Conquest up to our own days, the English government has worked in covert ways to change the religious convictions of the Canadians to make them a body more homogeneous with the English. So the interests of religion came to be opposed to the government and in harmony with those of the people. Hence whenever we have had to struggle with the English, the clergy have been at our head or in our ranks. They have continued to be loved and respected by all.

So far from being opposed to ideas of liberty, they have preached them. All the measures we have taken to promote public education, which have been pretty well forced through against the will of the English government, have been supported by the clergy. In Canada, it is the Protestants who support aristocratic notions. The Catholics have been accused of being demagogues. The political position of our priests is peculiar to Canada to such an extent that the priests who occasionally arrive here from France show a compliance and docility towards authority that we cannot understand.

Q. Are morals chaste in Canada?

A. Very.

Travel to Quebec onboard the steamboat John Molson, 25 August 1831

External appearance: of those parts of America which we have visited so far, Canada has the greatest similarity to Europe and, especially, to France. The banks of the Saint Lawrence are perfectly cultivated and covered with houses and villages in every respect like our own. All traces of the wilderness have disappeared; cultivated fields, church towers, and a population as numerous as in our provinces has replaced it.

The towns, Montreal in particular (we have not yet visited Quebec) bear a striking resemblance to our provincial towns. The basis of the population and the immense majority is everywhere France. But it is easy to see that the French are a conquered people. The rich classes mostly belong to the English race. Although French is the language most often spoken, newspapers, notices and even the shop-signs of French tradesmen are in English. Commercial undertakings are almost all in their hands. They are really the ruling class in Canada.

I doubt if this will long be so. The clergy and a great part of the not rich but enlightened classes is French, and they begin to feel their secondary position acutely. The French newspapers that I have read contain a constant and lively opposition against the English. Up to now having few needs and intellectual interests, and with a very comfortable life, the people have imperfectly glimpsed its position as a conquered nation and have given only feeble support to the enlightened classes. But a few years ago the House of Commons, which is almost all Canadian, has taken measures for a wide extension of education.

There is every sign that the new generation will be different from the present generation and in a few years from now, if the English race is not prodigiously increased by emigration and does not succeed in shutting the French in the area they now occupy, the two peoples will clash against one another. I do not think that they will ever merge or that an indissoluble union can exist between them. I still hope that the French, in spite of their conquest, will one day form a fine empire on their own in the New World, more enlightened perhaps, more moral and happier than their fathers. At the present moment the division of the races singularly favours domination by England.

Conversation with Mr. ... at Quebec (merchant)

Q. Do you have something to fear from the Canadians?

A. No. The lawyers and rich people who belong to the French race hate the English. They offer strident opposition to us in our newspapers and in their Assembly. But it is just words and that’s it. The greater part of the Canadian population does not have political passions and in fact almost all the wealth is in our hands.

Q. But do you not fear that this numerous and compact population today without passion might have some tomorrow?

A. Our number rises everyday, we will soon have nothing to fear on this aspect. The Canadians have even more hatred against the Americans than against us.

Note: In speaking of the Canadians a very visible feeling of hatred and scorn was being painted on the phlegmatic physiognomy of Mr. ...

Quebec, 27 August 1831

The country between Montreal and Quebec seems to be as populous as our fine European provinces. Moreover the river is magnificent. Quebec is on a very picturesque site, surrounded by a rich and fertile countryside. Never in Europe have I seen a livelier picture than that presented by the surroundings of Quebec.

All working population of Quebec is French. One hears only French spoken in the streets. But all the shop signs are in English; there are only two theatres which are English. The inner part of the town is ugly, but has no analogy with American towns. It strikingly resembles the inner part of our provincial towns.

The villages we saw in the surroundings are extraordinarily like our beautiful villages. Only French is spoken there. The population seems happy and well-off. The race is notably more beautiful than in the United States. The race there is strong, and the women do not have that delicate, febrile look that characterises most of the women of America.

The Catholic religion there has none of those accessories which are attached to it in those countries of the South of Europe where its sway is strongest. There are no monasteries for men, the convents for women are directed towards useful purposes and give examples of charity warmly admired by the English themselves. One sees no Madonnas on the roads; no strange and ridiculous ornaments, no ex-votos in the churches. Religion is enlightened, and Catholicism here does not arouse the hatred or the sarcasms of the Protestants. I own for my part that it satisfies my spirit more than the Protestantism of the United States. The parish priest here is indeed the shepherd of his flock: he is not at all an entrepreneur of a religious industry like the greater part of American ministers. One must either deny the usefulness of clergy, or have such as are in Canada.

I went today in a lecture cabinet. Almost all the printed newspapers of Canada are in English. They have about the same nature as of those of London. I did not yet read them. In Quebec City a newspaper called the Gazette, half-English, half-French; and a French newspaper called the Canadien. These newspapers have more or less the character of our French newspapers. I have carefully read some issues: they are vehemently opposed to the government and even to all that is English. The epigraph of the Canadien is: Our Religion, Our Language, Our Laws. It is difficult to be more frank. All that can inflame popular passions against the English are carefully reported by this newspaper. I have seen an article in which it was said that Canada would never be happy until it had an administration that was Canadian by birth, by principle, ideas, prejudice even, and that if Canada became independent of England, it would not remain English. In this same newspaper one could find pieces of French verses that were quite nice. Was reported upon a distribution of prizes where the students had played Athalie, Zaïre, la Mort de César. In general the style of this newspaper is common, mixed with anglicisms and strange expressions. It resembles a lot the newspapers in the Vaud canton in Switzerland. I have not yet seen in Canada a single man of talent, nor read a production proving it. The one who must awaken the French population and lead it against the English is not yet born.[5]

The English and the French merge so little that the latter exclusively keep the name of Canadiens, the others continuing to call themselves English.

Visit of a civil court in Quebec

We came into a large hall divided into tiers crowded with people who seemed altogether French. The British arms were painted in full size on the end of the hall. Beneath them was the judge in robes and bands. The lawyers were ranked in front of him.

When we came into the hall a slander action was in progress. It was a question of fining a man who had called another pendard (gallows-bird) and crasseux (stinker). The lawyer argued in English. Pendard, he said, pronouncing the word with a thoroughly English accent, ‘meant a man who had been hanged.’ ‘No’, the judge solemnly intervened, ‘but who ought to be’. At that, counsel for the defence got up indignantly and argued his case in French: his adversary answered in English. The argument waxed hot on both sides in English, no doubt without their understanding each other perfectly. From time to time the Englishman forced himself to put his argument in French so as to follow his adversary more closely; the other did the same sometimes. The judge, sometimes speaking French, sometimes English, endeavoured to keep order. The crier of the court called for ‘silence’ giving the word alternatively its English and its French pronunciation.

Calm re-established, witnesses were heard. Some kissed the silver Christ on the Bible and swore in French to tell the truth, the others swore the same oath in English and, as Protestants, kissed the other side of the Bible which was undecorated. The customs of Normandy were cited, reliance placed on Denisart[6] and mention was made of the decrees of the Parlement of Paris and statutes of the reign of George III. After that the judge: ‘Granted that the word crasseux implies that a man is without morality, ill-behaved and dishonourable, I order the defendant to pay a fine of ten louis or ten pounds sterling.’

The lawyers I saw there, who are said to be the best in Quebec, gave no evidence of talent either in the substance of their arguments or in their ways of expressing them. They were conspicuously lacking in distinction, speaking French with a middle-class Norman accent. Their style is vulgar and mixed with odd idioms and English phrases. They say that a man is ‘charge’ of ten louis meaning that he is asked to pay ten louis. ‘Entrez dans la boite’, they shouted to a witness, meaning that he should take his place in the witness-box.

There is something odd, incoherent, even burlesque in the whole picture. But at the bottom the impression made was one of sadness. Never have I felt more convinced than when coming out from there, that the greatest and most irremediable ill for a people is to be conquered.

Conversation with John Neilson

John Neilson, member of Parliament in Lower Canada.[7]

Mr. Neilson is a Scot. Born in Canada[8] and related by marriage to Canadians, he speaks French as easily as his own language. Mr. Neilson, although a foreigner, may be regarded as one of the leaders of the Canadians in all their struggles with the English government. Although he is a Protestant, for fifteen years continuously the Canadians have elected him as a member of the House of Assembly. He has been an ardent supporter of all measures favouring the Canadians. He with two others was sent in 1825 to England to plead for redress of grievances. [9] Mr. Neilson has a lively and original turn of mind. The antithesis between his birth and his social position leads sometimes to strange contrasts in his ideas and in his conversation.

Q. What does Canada cost the English government in the current year?

A. Between 200,000 and 250,000 sterling pounds.

Q. Does Canada contribute to it?

A. Nothing. The customs dues are used for the colony. We would fight rather than give up a penny of our money to the English.

Q. But what interest has England got in keeping Canada?

A. The interest that great lords have in keeping great possessions that figure in their title deeds, but cause them great expenses and often involve them in unpleasant lawsuits. But one could not deny that England has an indirect interest in keeping us. In case of war with the United States, the St. Lawrence provides a passage for goods and armies right into the heart of America.

In case of war with the peoples of Northern Europe, Canada would supply the timber for building which she needs. Besides the cost is not as heavy as one supposes. England is bound to rule the sea, not for the glory of it, but for existence. The expenses that she is obliged to incur to maintain that supremacy make the occupation of her colonies much less costly for her than they would be for a country only interested in trade with its colonies.

Q. Do you think the Canadians will soon throw off the English yoke?

A. No, at least unless England forces us to it. Otherwise it is completely against our interest to make ourselves independent. We are still only 600 [000] souls in Lower Canada; if we became independent, we should quickly be absorbed by the United States. Our people would, so to say, be crushed under an irresistible mass of immigrants. We must wait till we are numerous enough to defend our nationality. Then we will become the Canadian people. Left to themselves the people here are increasing as fast as in the United States. At the time of the conquest in 1765 we were only 60,000. [10]

Q. Do you think the French race will ever manage to get free from the English race? (This question was put cautiously in view of the birth of the man to whom I spoke.)

A. No. I think the two races will live and mix in the same and, and that English will remain the language of official business. North America will be English; fortune has decided that. But the French race in Canada will not disappear. The amalgam is not as difficult to make as you think. Here it is above all the clergy who sustain your language. The clergy is the only enlightened and intellectual class that needs to speak French and which speaks it unadulterated.

Q. What is the character of the Canadian peasant?

A. In my view it is an admirable race. The peasant is simple in his tastes, very tender in his family affections, very chaste in morals, very sociable, and polite in his manners; with all that he is very well suited to resist oppression, independent and warlike, and brought up in the spirit of equality. Public opinion has incredible power here. There is no authority in the villages, but public order is better maintained there than in any other place on Earth. If a man commits an offence, people shun him, and he must leave the village. If a theft is committed, the guilty man is not denounced, but he is dishonoured and obliged to flee. There has not been an execution in Canada for ten years. Natural children are something almost unknown in our country districts.

I remember a talk with XX (I have forgotten his name); for two hundred years there had not been a single one; ten years ago an Englishman who came to live there seduced a girl; the scandal was terrible. The Canadian is tenderly attached to the land which saw his birth, to his church tower and to his family. It is that which makes it so difficult to induce him to go and seek his fortune elsewhere. Besides, as I was saying, he is eminently sociable; friendly meetings, divine service together, gatherings at the church door, these are his only pleasures. The Canadian is deeply religious; he pays his tithe without reluctance. Anyone could avoid that by declaring himself a Protestant, but no such case has yet occurred. The clergy here is just one compact body with the people. It shares their views, takes part in their political interests, and fights with them against the powers-that-be. Sprung from the people, it only exists for the people. Here it is accused of being demagogic. I have never heard that that is a complaint made against Catholic priests in Europe. The fact is that they are liberal, enlightened and nonetheless deeply religious and their morals are exemplary. I myself am a proof of their tolerance; a Protestant, I have been elected ten times by Catholics to our House of Commons, and I have never heard it suggested that anyone had ever tried to create the slightest prejudice against me on account of my religion. The French priests who come here from Europe, have the same moral standards as ours, but their political approach is absolutely different.

I told you that our Canadian peasants have a strong social sense. That sense leads them to help one another in all moments of crisis. If one man’s field suffers a disaster, it is usual for the whole community to set to work to put it right. Recently XX’s barn was struck by lightning; five days later it had been rebuilt by the voluntary work of neighbours.

Q. There are still some traces of feudalism here?

A. Yes, but so slight that they are almost unnoticed: (1) The lord receives an almost nominal rent for the land which he originally granted. It may for instance be 6 to 8 francs for 90 acres.[11] (2) Corn must be ground at his mill, but he may not charge more than the maximum fixed by law, which is less than one pays in the United States where there is freedom and competition. (3) There are dues for lods et ventes, that is to say that when feudally held land is sold, the seller must give one twelfth of the purchase price to the lord. That would be rather a heavy burden, were it not that the strongest determination of the people is to remain attached to their land. Those are all the traces of feudalism that remain in Canada. Beyond that the lord has no titular rights and no privileges. There is not and cannot be any nobility. Here, as in the United States, one must work to live. There are no tenants. So the lord is normally a farmer himself. However, no matter how equal the footing on which the lords now stand, there is still some fear and some jealousy in the people’s attitude towards them. It is only by going over to the popular party that a few of them have succeeded in getting elected to the House of Commons. The peasants remember the state of subjection in which they were held under French rule. One word lingers in their memory as a political scarecrow is the taille. They no longer know exactly what the word means, but for them it stands for something not to be tolerated. I am sure they would take up arms if there were an attempt to impose any tax whatever to which that name was given.

Q. What conditions of eligibility are there for entry into your House of Commons?

A. There are none.

Q. Who are qualified as voters in the country districts?

A. Anyone with 41 francs income from land is a voter.

Q. Have you no fear of such a great mass of voters?

A. No. All the people have some property and are religious and order-loving; they make good choices and although they take a great interest in the elections, there are hardly ever disturbances at them. The English tried to introduce their system of corruption, but it ran completely aground against the moral standards and honour of our peasants.

Q. What is the position with regard to primary education?[12]

A. It is a long story. In the time of the French there was no education. The Canadian always had a weapon in his hand. He could not spend his time at school. After the conquest the English were only concerned for their own people. Twenty years ago the government wanted to start education, but it took the matter up clumsily. It shocked religious prejudices. It gave the impression that it wanted to gain control of education and to direct it in favour of Protestantism. That at least is what we said, and the scheme foundered. The English said that the Catholic clergy wanted to keep the people in ignorance. Neither side was telling the truth, but that is the way parties speak. Four years ago our House of Commons saw clearly that if the Canadian population did not become educated, it would end up by being entirely absorbed by a foreign population that was growing up by its side and in its midst. Speeches were made, encouragement was given; funds were raised and finally school inspectors were appointed. I am one and I have just completed a tour of duty. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the report which I have to make. The impulse has been given. The people are most active in taking advantage of the chance to get educated. The clergy are all out to help us. We have already got half the children in our schools, about 50,000. In two or three years I am confident we will have them all. Then I hope the Canadian people will begin to leave the river banks and advance towards the interior. At present we stretch about 120 leagues along both sides of the St. Lawrence, but our line is seldom as much as two leagues in depth. However, beyond that there is excellent land that is almost always given away for nothing (that is literally so) and which could easily be cultivated. Labour cost 3 francs in the villages and less in the country. Food is very cheap. The Canadian peasant makes all necessities for himself; he makes his own shoes, his own clothes and all the woollen stuffs in which he is dressed. (I have seen it.)

Q. Do you think French people could come and settle here?

A. Yes. A year ago our House of Commons passed a law to repeal the alien legislation. After seven years’ residence the foreigner becomes a Canadian and enjoys citizen’s rights.

We went with Mr. Neilson to see the village of Lorette three leagues from Quebec, founded by Jesuits. Mr. Neilson showed us the old church built by the Jesuits and told us: ‘The memory of the Jesuits is adored here.’ The houses of the Indians were quite clean. They themselves spoke French and have an almost European appearance despite their costume being different. All were half-breeds. I was surprised not to see them farm the land. Bah! told me Mr. Neilson, these Hurons are gentlemen, they would think it a dishonour to work. Scratching the earth like bulls, they say, that is meant for French or English. They live from hunting and small crafts done by their women.

Q. Is it true the Indians have a fondness for the French?

A. Yes, it is undeniable. The French are perhaps the people who best preserve their original lifestyle and who accept the customs, ideas, and prejudices of those among whom they live. That is by becoming Indians that you obtained from the Indians an affection that still endures.

Q. What has happened to the Hurons who have shown such constant warmth for the French and played such a great role in the history of the colony?

A. They assimilated little by little. They were, however, the greatest Indian nation on this continent. They could arm up to 60,000 men. You see what remains. We think that almost all the Indians of North America have the same origin. There are only the Esquimaux from the Hudson Bay who evidently belong to another race. There, all is different: language, canoes... I was telling you a little earlier of your aptitude to become Indians....

---

[1] A transfer tax paid on the sale of immoveable property

[2] In late August 1831, at the time of Tocqueville’s visit, it was believed that the days of press censorship and the imprisoning of newspaper owners were over. They, however, returned during the rebellions of 1837-1838.

[3] Dominique Mondelet and Charles-Elzéar Mondelet.

[4] They possibly meant two French-language newspapers in the town of Montreal, or else maybe two daily French-language newspapers in the whole province (La Minerve in Montreal, Le Canadien in Quebec City).

[5] Actually he was. Unfortunately, Louis-Joseph Papineau was staying at his country residence the whole time of Tocqueville’s visit

[6] Denisart Jean-Baptiste, Collection de Decisions nouvelles et de notions relatives a La Jurisprudence Actuelle, six Vols. Paris, 1754-1756 reprinted in seven editions to 1771. This book contained inaccuracies that continuators sought to remove in Collection de décisions nouvelles et de notions relatives à la jurisprudence, donnée par Me Denisart, mise dans un nouvel ordre, corrigée et augmentée published in fourteen volumes from 1783 to 1808.

[7] Pierson, George Wilson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, (Oxford University Press), 1938, pp. 328-329 ‘Clearly, Tocqueville and Beaumont did not fully comprehend their guide’s position. Mr. Neilson had been a champion of the French-Canadians since first entering politics. As this very conversation was to show, he entertained a deep affection for the habitants, their simple ways and quaint, antique customs. Furthermore, he wished to see these descendants of the early French colonists develop into a happy, educated, and largely self-governing people; he had always, for example, opposed the Union of Lower Canada with Upper Canada under one Assembly, fearing that this would lead to the destruction of the French-Canadian individuality and to the absorption of the habitants in the English population. On the other hand, Neilson was loyal to England and believed strongly in the Empire tie: according to him the French-Canadians were not yet fit for complete self-government. It followed, therefore, that responsible government was out of the question, and that the Upper House or Legislative Council should remain appointive, rather than be elected by the habitants. One other factor influenced his opinion. Neilson had always believed in reform by constitutional means; and now that he was approaching sixty he was growing distinctly more conservative in his ideas. As a consequence, he was beginning to feel that the nationalist leaders were becoming unreasonable in their demands. Three years later, in 1834, this was to lead to a definite split with Papineau and his followers and to his own defeat for re-election to the Assembly. After investigating American prisons with Dominique Mondelet, therefore, he was to join the Constitutional Association, go to London in 1835 as its representative, and in 1836 make a last effort to prevent the rebellion. On the outbreak of hostilities and the suspension of the government, he was to be appointed a member of the Special Council for the two Provinces. And in 1841, after the Union which he had opposed was finally consummated, he was to be elected as a conservative to the United Legislature.’

[8] John Neilson was born in Scotland in 1776, and emigrated to Canada at the age of 14. He was then joining his older brother Samuel to work at their uncle William Brown’s printing shop in Quebec City. In 1793, he inherited his uncle’s bilingual newspaper La Gazette de Québec/The Quebec Gazette, founded in 1764, the first newspaper in the history of Quebec. See, Chassé, Sonia, Girard-Wallot, Rita and Wallot, Jean-Pierre, ‘John Neilson’, DCB, Vol. 7, 1836-1850, pp. 644-649

[9] John Neilson and Louis-Joseph Papineau were both sent to London to deliver petitions against the Union bill of 1822. In 1828, John Neilson, Denis-Benjamin Viger and Augustin Cuvillier were delegated to London to present petitions against the administration of Governor Dalhousie. Tocqueville is referring to the second event.

[10] The Conquest occurred in 1760 and, after a three-year long military rule of the country, was confirmed in international law with the 1763 Treaty of Paris in which the King of France ceded ‘[...] Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence [...]’ to the King of Great Britain.

[11] About 135 English acres.

[12] John Neilson here refers to mass education, specifically, mass literacy which was non-existent under the French regime and most other regimes of the same period. There of course was an education system in the time of New France and it compared favourably to that of many other colonies.