1
Historical Narrative
The Constitutional Act 1791
1
6
history chronicles matters of timeless importance.
6
6
After the peace bugle had blown, bells were pealed, bonfires burned, and revelling erupted throughout Britain in celebration of Wolfe’s victory over the Marquis de Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham in 1759. The nation had known many victories that year, but this one was unique, for it finished France as an imperial power in North America.
“The British acquisition of New France was something of an accident in the fortunes of war and the diplomacy of peace.” When public celebrations subsided, doubts and mixed emotions replaced exultation at the acquisition of this huge new colony. Prime Minister William Pitt had micro-managed the strategy for the war, but neither he nor his successors had developed any policy for the peace which followed.
A final decision regarding Canada was complicated by the fact that during negotiations, neither side really wanted the colony for its own sake. Pitt was undecided whether
In His Own Words
“to retain all Canada and Cape Breton Island and give up Guadeloupe and Goree {French sugar islands in the eastern Caribbean}, or retain Guadeloupe and Goree, give up some part of Canada and
confine ourselves to the Line of the Lakes.,” By this he meant the land around the Great Lakes.
France had found its Canadian colony so large, it had become a financial and military drain on the country’s resources. After lengthy deliberations, the British government decided to retain Canada, not because of its implicit commercial value, but because its possession would ensure the security and welfare of Britain’s older American colonies.
February 10th, 1763, by which “His Most Christian Majesty Louis XIV cedes and guarantees to his Britannic Majesty George III, in full right, Canada.”
Once the decision had been made to keep Canada, the government pondered what to do with this foreign colony in a far off land? As one official put it, “Are we not the only people on earth, except Spain, that ever thought of establishing a Colony ten times more extensive than our own country and yet imagine that when it comes to maturity it will still depend on us?”
Over the years that followed, little real interest was shown in the new possession, and no attempt was made to settle the land acquired by conquest. No consideration was given to colonizing Canada at all until American rebels defeated the redcoats, and thousands of loyal refugees fled north seeking sustenance and security under the British flag.
Tory Americans had chosen King over Congress, fully expecting ‘their side’ would quickly quash the rebel uprising. The stunning and totally unexpected defeat of British regulars by the rag-tag force of American rebels forced them to flee from the democratic tyranny of the vengeful victors.
Few events have had a greater or more permanent influence on the destiny of the Canadian people than the revolution of the American colonies and the recognition of their independence. It resulted in a second conquest of Canada, this time by Loyalists without the blast of trumpets and the thunder of cannons. Pitiful emigres streamed into the little settlements that hugged the shores of the St. Lawrence River, where they found a society that was French and foreign.
Loyalists had a split personality: one imperial and the other American. While they were conservative supporters of Britain’s king and empire, they were also North American in attitude and outlook and not at all politically submissive.
Having been accustomed in the 13 Colonies to a number of liberties, including the right to elect their own assemblies, they were not prepared to accept the situation they found in Quebec, where elections were unknown, institutions were feudal and official decisions were made in an autocratic and mandatory manner.
Loyalists found the colony with its French civil law and seigneurial land-holding system offensive and intolerable. They protested that they were being deprived of their rights as British subjects, and bombarded the government with letters and petitions appealing for the blessings of British laws, popular assemblies and free titles to their own lands.
Despite the unremitting pressure for change from all sides, the Imperial government - the name of the British parliament whenever it transacted colonial business - hesitated to act, since it was ill-informed on the actual state of affairs in Quebec.
As early as 1788 the government had considered dividing Quebec into two provinces, but legislation was slow in coming. British merchants in Quebec opposed the separation of the colony, because it would leave them a small minority in a province dominated by the French-speaking majority.
The impassioned pleas for constitutional change from Loyalists who had lost all in support of their sovereign were finally heard and heeded by the British government. Some thirty years after the conquest, the Imperial parliament - passed the Constitutional Act of 1791.
Known initially as the Quebec Government Bill, this “31st Act of the King” was written by William Windham Grenville. Prime Minister Pitt had little time for Canada and he left the legislation largely to the industrious but unimaginative Grenville, who was Secretary of State for the Home Office and the favourite cousin of Pitt.
At the time the prime minister was preoccupied with the revolution raging across the English Channel in France, and with the periodic insanity[(] of his sovereign George III.
Pitt was not always on the best of terms with the king, who was jealous of anyone with ability, and quick to perceive and resist any sign of independence in his ministers. He opposed Pitt’s proposal to abolish slavery, and was less than enthusiastic about the Quebec Bill.
The CONSTITUTIONAL ACT 1791 ,
GEORGE III.
XXXI Year of Reign
An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the province of Quebec, in North America; and to make further Provision for the Government of the said Province. . . .
II. And whereas His Majesty has been pleased to signify, by His Message to both Houses of Parliament, His Royal Intention to divide His Province of Quebec into Two separate Provinces, to be called The Province of Upper Canada, and The Province of Lower Canada; be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That there shall be within each of the said Provinces respectively a Legislative Council, and an Assembly, to be severally composed and constituted in the Manner herein-after described; and that in each of the said Provinces respectively His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, shall have Power, during the Continuance of this Act, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Legislative Council and Assembly of such Provinces respectively, to make Laws for the Peace, Welfare, and good Government thereof, such Laws not being repugnant to his Act;
Grenville, whom John Graves Simcoe referred to as the “Founder of Canada” knew nothing about Canada nor colonies, but based his legislation on lessons burned into the minds of British politicians by the American Revolution. Primary among these was that excessive democracy was a dangerous thing. It was widely believed that too much, not too little, legislative independence in the 13 Colonies had made the Americans ripe for revolt. It was felt that the revolution had been caused by very active colonial assemblies that had become too powerful.
Democracy was described as “a serpent which could twist around us by degrees and that should be crushed in the first instance.” It was vowed that this time, lively democracy and dangerous radicalism would not be allowed to grow too strong. Colonies in future would be more completely controlled by the motherland. It was Britain’s intention to preserve loyal and contented colonies. They were to be kept small, separate and dependent and loyalty not liberty was to be stressed.
As was often the case when they tried to understand the meaning of history, British politicians learned the wrong lesson. They persisted in repeating with the Canadian colonies, the same mistake that had lost them the American colonies. “The rock that had wrecked the first American colony was to become the cornerstone of the second.”[(]
In short, the Constitutional Act simply refined the system of royal colonial government that had failed in the 13 Colonies. Like the Americans the people of Canada were to be subject to the vetoing powers of governors, un-elected councils and the Imperial parliament.[i]
The second lesson British politicians believed they had learned from the Revolution involved “hereditary aristocracy.” They considered the absence of an upper class of lords and ladies in the 13 Colonies to be one of the reasons for the revolution. Lord Grenville was determined, therefore, to instil in the pioneer society respect for rank and privilege. He believed that class and social standing in the colony should descend in succession through the eldest sons of a few highly privileged families.
Only from these noble families, would legislative councillors be chosen and they could always be counted upon to support their sovereign. Because of their privileged position these favoured few would have a personal interest in maintaining the established government and giving it their unwavering support. This imitation aristocracy was expected to serve as a cure for any democratic constitutional contagion that wafted up from the republic to the south.
The British cabinet accepted Grenville’s bill and sent it to the House of Commons in the fall of 1790, where its introduction was delayed because of a threatened war with Spain over territorial interests in North America.[(] It was finally brought before the House of Commons on March 4, 1791 by the prime minister himself.
It was said that Pitt, who was described by a colleague “as chilling and impressive as an iceberg,” looked across the ocean with those “wise eyes of his” and declared that the bill would “remove the differences of opinion which had arisen between the old and the new inhabitants of Quebec.”
Towards the end of April the bill went into Committee, but as usual with matters pertaining to the colonies, attendance in the House of Commons was sparse and sporadic and this resulted in frequent delays. When the debate did take place, it was one of the most interesting and passionate in British parliamentary history.
The record of it filled thirty-eight pages, only three of which dealt directly with the Quebec legislation, for hardly anyone talked about the bill itself.
The debate was memorable because of the encounter between two parliamentary giants: Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox. The cause of their clash was not Canada, for neither man knew much about the colony, which Burke described as being “bleak and barren.” Others called it “the habitation of bears and beavers.”
Their argument was about the anarchy and uproar then shaking the very foundations of European society: the French Revolution. It had suddenly changed from being an exciting foreign spectacle into a major national issue.
Charles James Fox was a great liberal[(] and the ablest debater of his day. While Fox was born an aristocrat, he was solidly behind reforming parliament to make it more democratic. In his early years he was something of a playboy who wore pink heeled shoes and blue hair powder. Later he gave up his dandified clothes for a plain blue coat and buff waistcoat, the same colours then worn by General Washington’s army. Fox was an enthusiastic and impulsive person who strongly supported the American revolution and fully defended the French revolution.
Edmund Burke was described as one of most intelligent individuals ever to sit in the British parliament. Initially Burke defended democracy and was a strong supporter of the American revolution, but as atrocities mounted in France, he recoiled in horror at the French Revolution. The anarchy and outrage taking place there appalled him and he developed a passionate hatred of revolutions and democracy.
In His Own Words
“Our present danger is from anarchy - plundering, ferocious, bloody, tyrannical democracy. It is founded on the scorn of history. I set my feet in the footprints of my forebears, where I may neither wander nor stumble. People will not look forward to posterity who never look back to their ancestors.” Although Burke was of humble birth, he resolutely supported government by the aristocracy.
These old Whig[(] campaigners had been close friends for twenty-five years, and had fought many causes together. They entered the House of Commons on May 6th 1791 as comrades-in-arms, prepared to debate the Quebec bill paragraph by paragraph. During debate on this “peaceful bill” violent passions were to erupt that caused their friendship to founder and fail.
Burke led off the debate, but instead of discussing Canada’s constitution, he launched into a tirade against the French Revolution. Despite being called to order, he persisted in his impassioned attack on the French constitution. Various Members began to shout rowdy reminders to stick to the topic at hand, but without effect. Talk then turned to tumult as Fox and other Members endeavoured to shout Burke down. A censure motion seconded by Fox served only to incense Burke further, who said he was being treated unfairly.