# The Project Gutenberg eBook, Montreal 1535-1914, Volume II (of 2), by William Henry Atherton

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: Montreal 1535-1914, Volume II (of 2)

Under British Rule 1760-1914

Author: William Henry Atherton

Release Date: February 12, 2015 [eBook #48244]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONTREAL 1535-1914, VOLUME II (OF 2)***

#### E-text prepared by Charlene Taylor, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/toronto)

Note: | Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See https://archive.org/details/montrealunderthe02atheuoft Project Gutenberg has the other volume of this work. Volume I: see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47809/47809-h/47809-h.htm

# MONTREAL 1535-1914 UNDER BRITISH RULE 1760-1914

By WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON, Ph. D.

Qui manet in patria et patriam cognoscere temnit Is mihi non civis, sed peregrinus erit

VOLUME II

ILLUSTRATED

THE S. J. CLARKE PUBLISHING COMPANY MONTREAL VANCOUVER CHICAGO 1914

[iii]

## PREFACE

The history of “Montreal Under British Rule” is the “Tale of Two Cities”, of a dual civilization with two main racial origins, two mentalities, two main languages, and two main religions. It is the story of two dominant races growing up side by side under the same flag, jealously preserving their identities, at some times mistrusting one another, but on the whole living in marvelous harmony though not always in unison, except on certain well defined common grounds of devotion to Canada and the Empire, and of the desire of maintaining the noble traditions and the steady progress of their city.

Montreal of today is a cosmopolitan city, but it is preponderatingly French-Canadian in its population. This fact makes it necessary to give especial attention to the history of two-thirds of the people. There has, therefore, been an effort in these pages, while recognizing this, to respect the rights of the minority, and open-handed justice has been observed.

The position of a dispassionate onlooker has been taken as far as possible in the narration of the domestic struggles in the upbuilding of the city through the crucial turnstiles of Canadian history under British rule—the Interregnum, the establishment of civil government, the Quebec act, the Constitutional act, the Union, and the Confederation. This attitude of equipoise, while disappointing to partisans, has been justified if it helps to present an unbiased account of different periods of history and serves to maintain the city’s motto of “Concordia Salus”—a doctrine which has been upheld throughout this work. Tout savoir c’est tout pardonner.

Charles Dickens in his visit to Montreal in 1842 observed that it was a “heart-burning town.” There is no need to renew the occasion for such a title in the city of today.

It only remains to express thankful indebtedness to those, too numerous to mention, who have assisted in the compilation of certain information otherwise difficult of access, and also to thank a number of friends, prominent citizens of Montreal, who in connection with the movement for city improvement and the inculcation of civic pride have encouraged the author to embark on the laborious but pleasant task of preparing this second volume of the history of “Montreal Under British Rule,” as a sequel to the first volume of “Montreal Under the French Régime.”

WILLIAM HENRY ATHERTON.

December, 1914.

[iv]
[v]

## NOTE TO THE READER

In presenting the second volume to the reader the writer would observe that its first part deals mainly with the story of city progress under the various changes of the political and civic constitution, with certain chapters of supplementary annals and sidelights of general progress. The second part treats in detail, for the sake of students and as a reference book, the special advancement of the city through its various eras in religion, education, culture, population, public service, hospital, charitable, commercial, financial, transportation and city improvement growth, and in so doing the author has desired to present the histories of the chief associations that have in the past or in the present been mainly responsible for the upbuilding of a no mean city.

W.H.A.

[vi]

[vii]

[1]

[2]
[3]

HISTORY OF MONTREAL

### CHAPTER I

THE EXODUS FROM MONTREAL

1760

“THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH, GIVING PLACE TO NEW”

AMHERST’S LETTER REVIEWING EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CAPITULATION—THE SURRENDER OF ARMS—THE REVIEW OF BRITISH TROOPS—THE DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH TROOPS—END OF THE PECULATORS—VAUDREUIL’S CAPITULATION CENSURED—DEPARTURE OF THE PROVINCIAL TROOPS—ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONY—DEPARTURE OF AMHERST—THE TWO RACES LEFT BEHIND. NOTES: (1) THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT.—(2) THE POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL.

On the capitulation of Montreal in the grey of the early morn of September 8, 1760, British Rule began and the Régime of France was ended. On the 9th the victorious Amherst wrote his official account to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. The details therein will serve to recapitulate the history of the final downpour on Montreal during the days preceding its fall, with the new era commencing, and accordingly we present it to our readers.

“Camp of Montreal,

9th September, 1760.

Sir:

In Mine of the 26th ultimo I acquainted You with the progress of the Army after the departure from Oswego and with the Success of His Majesty’s Arms against Fort Levis, now Fort William Augustus, where I remained no longer than was requisite to make Such preparations as I Judged Essentially necessary for the passage of the army down the River, which took me up to the 30th.

In the morning of the following day I set out and proceeded from Station to Station to our present Ground, where we arrived on the 6th in the evening, after having in the passage sustained a loss of Eighty-Eight men drowned,——Batteaus of Regts. seventeen of Artillery, with Some Artillery Stores, Seventeen[4] Whaleboats, one Row Galley staved, Occasioned by the Violence of the Current and the Rapids being full of broken Waves.

The Inhabitants of the Settlements I passed thro’ in my way hither having abandoned their Houses and run into the Woods I sent after them; Some were taken and others came of their own Accord. I had them disarmed and Caused the oath of Allegiance to be tendered to them, which they readily took; and I accordingly put them in quiet possession of their Habitations, with Which treatment they seemed no less Surprised than happy. The troops being formed and the Light Artillery brought up, the Army lay on their Arms till the Night of the 6th.

On the 7th, in the morning, two Officers came to an advanced post with a Letter from the Marquis de Vaudreuil referring me to what one of them, Colonel Bouguinville, had to say. The Conversation ended with a Cessation of Arms till 12 o’Clock, when the Proposals were brought in; Soon after I returned them with the terms I was willing to grant, Which both the Marquis de Vaudreuil and Mons. de Lévis, the French General, were very strenuous to have softened; this Occasioned Sundry Letters to Pass between us During the day as well as the Night (when the Army again lay on their Arms), but as I would not on any Account deviate in the Least from my Original Conditions and I insisted on an Immediate and Categorical answer Mr. de Vaudreuil, soon after daybreak, Notified to me that he had determined to Accept of them and two Sets of them were accordingly Signed by him and me and Exchanged Yesterday when Colonel Haldimand, with the Grenadiers and the Light Infantry of the Army took Possession of One of the Gates of the town and is this day to proceed in fulfilling the Articles of the Capitulation; By which the French Troops are all to lay down their arms; are not to serve during the Continuance of the Present War and are to be sent back to Old France as are also the Governors and Principal Officers of the Legislature of the Whole Country, Which I have now the Satisfaction to inform You is entirely Yielded to the Dominion of His Majesty. On which Interesting and happy Event I most Sincerely Congratulate you.

Governor Murray, with the Troops from Quebec, landed below the Town on Sunday last & Colonel Haviland with his Corps (that took possession of the Isle aux Noix, Abandoned by the enemy on the 28th) Arrived Yesterday at the South Shore Opposite to My Camp. I am, with great regard,

Sir,

Your most Obedient,

Humble Servant

Jeff Amherst.

The Honourable Lt. Governor Hamilton.

(Endorsed by Hamilton, Camp Montreal, 7 ber, 1776. General Amherst, received by Post Tuesday, 23d September.)”1

Haldimand, as directed by Amherst on the 9th, received the submission of the troops of France.

In the French camp, de Lévis reviewed his forces—2,132 of all ranks. In his Journal they are thus summarized:

[5]

Officers present | 179 |
Soldiers | 1953 |
| —— |
|  | 2132
Officers returned to France | 46 |
Soldiers invalided | 241 |
| —— |
|  | 287
|  | ——
Total |  | 2419
Soldiers described as absent from their regiments |  | 927
|  | ——
|  | 3346

FORTIFICATIONS OF MONTREAL, 1760

There on the Place d’Armes yielded up their arms, all that was left of the brave French warriors who had no dishonour in their submission, surrendering only to the overwhelming superior numbers of the English conquerors. With de Lévis was the able de Bourlamaque and the scholarly soldier de Bougainville, with Dumas, Rocquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne and so many of the heroes of Ticonderoga and Carillon. There too was de Vaudreuil, the Governor General, Commander-in-Chief, and last governor of New France, with his brother, the last Governor of Montreal under the Old Régime. Haviland’s entourage and the British troops present could not but admire their late opponents.

The only jarring note of the ceremony was the absence of the French flags from the usual paraphernalia to be delivered up. The omission is thus signaled by Amherst, in his official report of the submission, who after mentioning the surrender of the two captured British American stands of colours goes on to say that there were no French colours forthcoming: “The Marquis de Vaudreuil, generals and commanding officers of the regiment, giving their word of honour that the battalions had not any colours; they had brought them with them six years ago; they were torn to pieces and finding them troublesome in this country they had destroyed them.”

They had however been but recently destroyed, for the “Journal” of de Lévis, written by him Cæsar-like in the third person, tells how, after being unable to shake the determination of de Vaudreuil to capitulate without the honours of war, de Lévis, in order to spare his troops a portion of the humiliation they were to undergo, had ordered them to burn their colours to avoid the hard condition of handing them over to the enemy. “M. le Chevalier de Lévis voyant avec douleur que rien ne pouvoit faire changer la determination de M. le Marquis de Vaudreuil voulant épargner aux troupes une partie de l’humiliation quelles alloient subir, leur ordonna de brûler leurs drapeaux pour se soustraire à la dure condition de les remettre aux ennemis.”2 (Cf. Journal des Campagnes du Chevalier de Lévis en Canada, 1756-1760. Edited by l’Abbé H.R. Casgrain, Montreal, C.O. Beauchemin et fils, 1889.)

[6]

On the 11th Amherst turned out his whole force and received Vaudreuil on parade. Between these two, friendly relations had been established. Place d’Armes was again a scene of colour with the presence of the British regiments led by Murray, Haviland, Burton, Gage, Fraser the gallant Highlander, Guy Carleton, who was to become the famous viceroy of Canada and to die Lord Dorchester, Lord Howe, and the scholarly Swiss soldier Haldimand. There were present, too, Sir William Johnston, the baronet of the Mohawk Valley and leader of the six nations, Major Robert Rogers of the famous rangers,3 with his two brothers, and others of note. No doubt de Vaudreuil’s suite was not far off with de Lévis, de Bourlamaque, de Bougainville, Dumas, Roquemaure, Pouchot, Luc de la Corne, with the nefarious Intendant Bigot and all the principal officers of the colony who had been in Montreal, the headquarters of government since the fall of Quebec.

During the three following days the town was definitely occupied by the British, and the arrangements completed for the departure of the French Regulars. The regiments of Languedoc and Berry, with the marine corps, were embarked on the 13th; the regiments of Royal Rousillon and Guyenne on the 14th; on the 16th the regiments of La Reine and Béarn. On the 17th de Lévis, with de Bourlamaque, started for Quebec; de Vaudreuil and Bigot left on the 20th and 21st. By the 22nd every French soldier had left Montreal, except those who had married in the country and who had resolved to remain in it and transfer their allegiance to the new government.4

Fate had dealt a severe blow to the brave defenders of Canada whom we now find sailing from Montreal to France, which would appear to have abandoned them. The regulars and the colonial troops, in spite of their jealousies and emulations, were brave men, and duly honoured as such by the British soldiery who saw the vessels bearing on the broad St. Lawrence so many of those who had recently disputed the long drawn out strife for the conquest of Canada. Speaking of this, “the most picturesque and dramatic of American wars,” Parkman continues: “There is nothing more noteworthy than the skill with which the French and Canadian leaders use their advantages; the indomitable spirit with which, slighted and abandoned as they were, they grappled with prodigious difficulties and the courage with which they were seconded by regulars and militia alike. In spite of occasional lapses, the defence of Canada deserves a tribute of admiration.”—(“Montcalm and Wolfe,” Vol. II, p. 382.)

The departures from Montreal and Quebec must have been indeed heart-rending. That from Montreal, since the fall of Quebec, the home of all the high officials of the civil, religious and military governments, was the most striking, as the natural leaders of the colony were mostly there. “There repassed into Europe,” says the French Canadian historian, F.X. Garneau, “about 185 officers, 2,400 soldiers valid and invalid, and fully 500 sailors, domestics, women[7] and children. The smallness of this proved at once the cruel ravages of the war, the paucity of embarkations of succour sent from France, and the great numerical superiority of the victor. The most notable colonists at the same time left the country. Their emigration was encouraged, that of the Canadian officers especially, whom the conquerors desired to be rid of and whom they eagerly stimulated to pass to France. Canada lost by this self-expatriation the most precious portion of its people, invaluable as its members were from their experience, their intelligence and their knowledge of public and commercial affairs.”5 (Bell’s translation, Vol. II, p. 294.)

SIR GUY CARLETON

GENERAL JAMES MURRAY

LORD JEFFREY AMHERST

The clergy, however, solidly remained at their posts to build up the self-esteem of the people and to rear up a loyal race. Hence the respect and gratitude due to them by the French Canadians of today.

Yet there were many of whom the country was well rid, such as Bigot, Cadet, Péan, Bréard, Varin, Le Mercier, Pénisseault, Maurin, Corpron and others, accused of the frauds and peculations that helped to ruin Canada. A great sigh of relief might well have escaped from the French who had been ruined by them.

Most of the ships provided by the English government weathered the November gales. The vessel L’Auguste containing Saint-Luc de la Corne, his brother, and others, after being storm-tossed and saved from conflagration, finally drove towards the shore, struck and rolled on its side, and became wrecked on the Cap du Nord, Ile Royale. La Corne, with six others, gained the shore, and he reached Quebec before the end of the winter, as his journal tells us. His name was to become familiar at Montreal under the British régime.

The sloop Marie, which had been fitted up to receive the Marquis de Vaudreuil, his family and staff, had an early mishap between Montreal and Three Rivers, having run aground.

M. de Vaudreuil and the staff of officers of the colony arrived at Brest on the English vessel L’Aventure under a flag of truce, with 142 passengers from Canada. Thence, de Vaudreuil wrote to the minister of mariné. On December 5th the latter wrote back acknowledging this letter and that of September from Montreal containing the articles of capitulation, with papers relating thereto. A précis of this letter to Vaudreuil reveals that, although the king was aware of the condition of the colony, in default of the reinforcements it was unable to receive, yet, after the hopes the governor had given, by his letters in the month of June, of holding out some time longer, and his assurances that the last efforts would be put forth to sustain the honour of the king before yielding, His Majesty did not expect to learn so soon of the surrender of Montreal and of the whole colony. Granting the force of all the reasons which led to the capitulation, the king was nevertheless considerably surprised, and less satisfied, at having to submit to conditions so little to his honour, especially in the face of the representations which had been made to him by M. de Lévis on behalf of the military corps of the colony. The king, in reading the memorandum of these representations, which the minister was unable to avoid placing before him, saw in it that, notwithstanding the slight hope of success, Vaudreuil was still in a condition,[8] with the diminished resources remaining to him, to attempt an attack or a defence that might have brought the English to grant a capitulation that would have been more honourable for the troops. The king left him at liberty to remain at Brest for the time, for his health. With regard to the officers who were with him, they could retire to their families or elsewhere. It was sufficient for him to be informed of their place of residence.—(“Canadian Archives,” Vol. III, p. 313.)

Not only was Vaudreuil censured for the capitulation of Montreal, but finally he had the honour of being placed in the Bastille with the peculators whom we have above mentioned.6 His release, however, was speedy. Whatever his gains might have been from trading in the early part of his career, e. g., as Governor of Louisiana, he reached France from his government of Canada a poor man. The trial of those accused of peculation lasted from December 1, 1761, till the end of March, and on December 10, 1763, the president of the commission rendered his final decision. Vaudreuil with five more were relieved from the accusation, but he died in 1764 less from age than from sorrow.

“In the course of his trial he stood by the Canadian officers, now being slandered by Bigot. ‘Brought up in Canada myself,’ said the late Governor General, ‘I knew them, every one, and I maintain that almost all of them are as upright as they are valorous; in general the Canadians seem to be soldiers born; a masculine and military training early inures them to fatigues and dangers. The annals of their expeditions, their explorations, and their dealings with the aborigines abound in marvelous examples of courage, activity, patience under privation, coolness in peril, and obedience to leaders during services which have cost many of them their lives, but without slackening the ardour of the survivors. Such officers as these, with a handful of armed inhabitants and a few savage warriors, have often disconcerted the projects, paralyzed the preparations, ravaged the provinces, and beaten the troops of Great Britain when eight or ten times more numerous than themselves. In a country with frontiers so vast, such qualities were priceless.’ And he finished by declaring that he would fail in his duty to those generous warriors, and even to the state itself, if he did not proclaim their services, their merits and their innocence.”—(Bell’s translation of Garneau, Vol. II, p. 298.)

Governor Carleton, writing in 1767 to Lord Shelburne, confirms this tribute.[9] “The new subjects could send into the field about eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms, of which number, above one-half have already served with as much valour, with more zeal, and more military knowledge for America, than the regular troops of France that were joined with them.”

Vaudreuil might also have paid a compliment to the brave women of New France, who, like Madeleine de Verchères and others, were ready to fight with the men, and who were true women and wives. “Brave and beautiful,” George III summed them up in a compliment paid at his court in London after the conquest to Madame de Léry, the wife of Chevalier de Léry, the engineer who repaired the fortifications of Montreal: “If all the Canadian ladies resemble you, I have truly made a fine conquest.”

It must not be thought that the departure of the French colonial officers was an entire abandonment of the project of regaining the country. They were to be retained for the French service and possibly for future use in Canada.7 They were called to Tourraine and there held at the king’s pleasure under pay, to all intents and purposes officers in the French service, and liable to be sent on any service.

“The British provincial troops were sent from Montreal at an early date. The New Hampshire and Rhode Island regiments crossed the river and proceeded to Chambly, thence went to Crown Point. The Connecticut troops were ordered to Oswego and Fort Stanwix; the New York and New Jersey regiments to the lately named Fort William Augustus, at the head of the rapids, and to Oswegatchie (Ogdensburg). Rogers, with four hundred men, bearing letters from Vaudreuil instructing the forts to be given over, was sent to Detroit, Miami, St. Joseph and Michillimackinac.8 Moncton at the same time received orders to forward regular troops to take permanent possession of these forts.”—(Kingsford, “History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 409.)

The troops that were to remain in Montreal for the winter were now established in their quarters. The French Indians in the neighbourhood were summoned to the city and requested to bring their prisoners; they appeared with several men, women and children, and Johnston established rules and regulations for their future government.

Amherst remained in Montreal till September 26th, when he went down the river to Quebec. He left on October 5th and on the 18th was on Lake Champlain, thence to Albany, which he left on the 21st to arrive in New York on the 28th of October. He never visited Canada again, but he left it, however, well organized.

Immediately after the capitulation of Montreal he had occupied himself with the establishment of a provisional military government with tribunals to administer justice summarily until a definite form of government should be determined. The French division of the province into the three administrative districts of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal was maintained. In a despatch to Pitt dated October 4, 1760, from Quebec (Amériques et Indes Occidentales, No. 699), Amherst renders an account of all the dispositions which he had made since the date of the capitulation of Montreal. Although the greater part of these were[10] military matters, the following items concerning the civil administration may be found:

September 15; I have sent officers with detachments to the different villages to collect the arms and to make them take the oath of allegiance.

September 16; I have named Colonel Burton governor of Three Rivers.

September 17; I have given order to the militia of the town (Montreal) and of the suburbs to give up their arms and to take the oath of allegiance next day, immediately after the embarkation of M. de Vaudreuil.

September 22; I have named Brigadier General Gage governor of Montreal.

On the same day he published a proclamation for the government of Three Rivers similar to the one for Montreal, dated merely September, 1760 (“Amériques et Indes Occidentales”), in which arrangements are made for the transaction of business and amicable arrangements with the new government and the troops.

The new government was only, however, of an ad interim nature, for it was not certain that England would keep Canada. It was this thought that reconciled the Canadians to the new situation.

Meanwhile the British Flag floated over Citadel Hill.

The country was now British. France had been tried in the balance and found wanting. It had lost, through its wavering policy, a fair domain and a noble people. This poignant loss was voiced by de Vaudreuil, the deposed governor general, who, in spite of his faults, was a true Canadian and had visions of its future as one of the proudest jewels in the crown of France, for was it not La Nouvelle France? On quitting his beloved country he paid it this homage in a letter to his minister:

“With these beautiful and vast countries, France loses 70,000 inhabitants 9 of a rare quality; a race of people unequaled for their docility, bravery and loyalty. The vexations they have suffered for many years, more especially during the five years preceding the reduction of Quebec—all without a murmur, or importuning the king for relief—sufficiently manifest their perfect submissiveness.”

The qualities, they had then, remain still the mark of those of the same race living in Montreal of today.

“In all things we are sprung, from
Earth’s best blood, have titles manifold.”

As their predecessors took the oath of allegiance to King George II, and became good Britishers, so have their descendants remained today, in the days of George V. “What perished in the capitulation of Montreal,” says Parkman, “was the Bourbon monarchy and the narrow absolutism which fettered the life of New France throughout the Old Régime. What survives today is the vigour of two races striving to make Canada strong and free and reverent of law.”

NOTE I

THE EXODUS AND THE REMNANT

Judge Baby of Montreal, in an article in the Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal, 3d Edit., Vol. II, p. 304, has combatted very successfully[11] the traditional view started by Bibaud and followed by Garneau that after the capitulation of Montreal, and the Treaty of Paris, 1763, the seigneurs, the men of learning, and the chief traders and others of the directing classes, left the country. This emigration was from the town but the country places were untouched. He proves that a great many remained outside the civil and military party who had governed the country, and the soldiery who were taken officially to France; that many of the young colonial officers who had thought to have a chance to follow a career in the army or navy of France shortly returned at the call of their fathers whose interest in their lands and whose poverty, heightened by the depreciation of the paper money, would not have induced them to begin life again in France; that even of those who did go to France there were very many who returned, as they had intended; hence the recurrence of names, in the history after the cession, made familiar before it. The long list given by Judge Baby of Seigneurs and gentlemen proved by him to have remained, strengthens his case. An interesting list of French-Canadians remaining in Montreal engaged in business at this time is also given by him as follows:

Guy, Blondeau, Le Pellé De LaHaye, Lequindre Douville, Perthuis, Nivard St. Dizier, Les freres Hervieux, Gaucher-Gamelin, Glasson, Moquin, St. Sauveur, Pothier, Lemoine de Monnière, De Martigny, De Couagne, Desauniers, Mailhot, St. Ange-Charly, Dumas, Magnan, Mitiver, L’Amy, Bruyère, Pierre Chaboillez, Fortier, Lefèbre du Chouquet, Courtheau, Vallée, Cazeau, Charly, Carignan, Auger, Porlier frère, Pommereau, Larocque, Dumeriou, Roy-Portelance, De Vienne, De Montforton, Sanguinet, Campeau, Laframboise, Vauquier, Guillemain, Curot, Dufau, Campion, Lafontaine, Truillier-Lacombe, Périneault, Arillac, Léveillé, Bourassa, Pillet, Hurtubise, Leduc, Monbrun, Landrieu, Mezière, Hilbert, Tabeau, Sombrun, Marchesseau, Avrard, Lasselle, Dumas St. Martin, Beaubien-Desrivières, Réaume, Nolin, Cotté, St. Germain, Ducalvet, L’Eschelle, Beaumont.

The Judge gives the names of many jurisconsults who remained in the country, three of whom eventually became members of the Superior Council; also of doctors; the great majority of the notaries remained in the country. In summing up, he finds “130 seigneurs, 100 gentry, 125 traders of mark, twenty-five jurisconsults, and men of law, twenty-five to thirty doctors and surgeons, notaries of almost the same number”—“were these not,” he asks, “sufficient to face the political, intellectual and other needs of the population then in Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers?”

NOTE II

POPULATION OF CANADA AT THE FALL

M. de Vaudreuil’s estimate of 70,000 population has been challenged by Dr. Kingsford (“History of Canada,” Vol. IV, p. 413).

Amherst before leaving Canada obtained a census of the population which he reported as 76,172 by parishes and districts.

[12]

| Parishes | Companies of Militia | Number of Militia | Total of all souls
Montreal | 46 | 87 | 7,331 | 37,200
Three Rivers | 19 | 19 | 1,105 | 6,388
Quebec | 43 | 64 | 7,976 | 32,584
| —— | —— | ——— | ———
| 108 | 170 | 16,412 | 76,172

The census must have been obtained through the French and there is no ground for supposing that they would designedly furnish an incorrect statement. It does not, however, accord with the previous or subsequent tables of population.

The population in 1736 was 39,063; 1737, 39,970; 1739, 42,701; 1754, 55,009. In the fifteen years between the last two dates the population increased 12,003, something less than one-third. If we apply this increase to the next six years we may be justified in estimating the increase at one-eighth, which would place the population at 62,000. It is not provable that in these six years of war the population could have increased upwards of 20,000,—five-elevenths—nearly half of the former total. In 1761 the three governors were called upon to furnish a census of their several districts. The reports were:

(Gage) Montreal | 24,957
(Burton) Three Rivers | 6,612
(Murray) Quebec | 30,211
| ———
Total of | 61,780

“I am inclined, therefore,” says Kingsford, “to estimate the French population of Canada in 1760 at 60,000 souls, the number of which hitherto has been generally accepted as correctly representing it.”

At the same time Doctor Kingsford placed too much reliance on the census of 1761. It is well known that fear of conscription and other bogies caused the census returns of French-Canadian inhabitants to be minimized for many a long day under British rule. If Amherst’s census of 76,172 is correct, as well as the 61,780, that of the year 1761, then a loss of 14,392 is to be accounted for.

FOOTNOTES:

1 From R. McCord’s collection.

2 A detailed and romantic account of their burning on St. Helen’s Island is to be found in “L’Ile de Ste. Helène, Passè, Présent et Avenir, par A. Achintre et J.A. Crevier, M.D., Montreal, 1876.” I have found no historical proof of them being burnt there.—Ed.

3 Major Rogers’ picture in ranger uniform long decorated the shops of London. His bold, bucanneering deeds caught the popular fancy. The late Lord Amherst recalled long afterward how certain verses traditional in his family had been taught the children of successive Amhersts so long that the meaning of the allusion was forgotten until quite recently, when it was found that they referred to Rogers.

4 The French troops were only able to leave Quebec on the 22nd and 25th of October.—“Can. Arch. A. and W.I.,” 95, p. 1.

5 See Appendix for Judge Baby’s criticism and qualification of the extent of this exodus.

6 The accused numbered fifty-five. Among those condemned either to banishment from France or restitution and fines were: Bigot, the Intendant, Varin, his sub-delegate, and Duchesnaux, his secretary; Cadet, commissary general of Canada, and his agent, Corpron; Péan, captain and aide-major of the marine troops in Canada; Estèbe, the keeper of the King’s stores in Quebec; (all these had operated in Montreal directly or through their agents); Martel de St. Antoine, keeper of the King’s store at Montreal; Maurin, Pénisseault, merchants and operators in Cadet’s offices in this city; and Le Moyne-Despins, a merchant employed in furnishing provisions to the army. See “Montreal Under the French Régime,” Vol. I.

7 In 1767 Guy Carleton feared an uprising in Canada on the probable return of this body of officers. See letter to Lord Shelburne. (Constitutional Documents—Shortt & Doughty.)

8 Rogers reached New York, on his return from Detroit, the following February. Owing to the setting in of winter he had been unable to proceed to other forts. He reported that he had found one thousand Canadians in the neighbourhood of Detroit.—“Can. Arch. A. and W.I., 961,” p. 219.

9 See note at the end of this chapter.

[13]

### CHAPTER II

THE INTERREGNUM

1760-1763

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

BRIGADIER GAGE, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL—THE ADDRESS OF THE MILITIA AND MERCHANTS—GOVERNMENT BY THE MILITARY BUT NOT “MARTIAL LAW”—THE CUSTOM OF PARIS STILL PREVAILS—COURTS ESTABLISHED—THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRENCH-CANADIAN MILITIA CAPTAINS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—SENTENCES FROM THE REGISTERS OF THE MONTREAL COURTS—GOVERNOR GAGE’S ORDINANCES—TRADE—THE PORT—GAGE’S REPORT TO PITT ON THE STATE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MONTREAL—THE PROMULGATION OF THE DECLARATION OF THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS—REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF THE PAPER MONEY—LEAVE TO THE FRENCH TO DEPART—LAST ORDINANCES OF GAGE—HIS DEPARTURE.

Brigadier Gage was appointed governor of Montreal on September 21, 1760.1 He early won the esteem of the townspeople. All his ordinances manifest the desire to act in accordance with justice and in harmony with the people. Montrealers recognized this and shortly after the death of George II, which took place on October 25th, expressed their confidence in their rulers in an address written in English and French. The English version as inserted in the New York Gazette is as follows:

“To his Excellency, General Gage, governor of Montreal and its dependencies.

“The address of the officers of militia and merchants of the city of Montreal.

[14]

“Cruel Destiny has thus cutt short the Glorious Days of so Great and so Magnanimous a Monarch! We are come to pour out our Grief unto the paternal Bosom of Your Excellency, the Sole Tribute of Gratitude of a People who will never cease to Exalt the mildness and Moderation of their New Masters. The General who has conquered us has rather treated Us as a Father than a Vanquisher and has left us a precious Pledge 2 by name and deed of his Goodness to Us. What acknowledgements are we not beholden to make for so many Favours? Ha! They shall be forever Engraven in our Hearts in Indelible Characters. We Entreat Your Excellency to continue us the Honour of Your Protection. We will endeavour to Deserve it by Our Zeal and by the Earnest Prayers We shall ever offer up to the Immortal Being for Your Health and Preservation.” (Canadian Archives, A. & W., I, 96, I, page 327.)

The mildness and moderation of the “New Masters” was particularly shown by the retention of existing laws and customs. It will be recalled that Vaudreuil, in the Articles of Capitulation had asked that “French and Canadians should be continued to be governed according to the customs of Paris and the laws and usages established for this country and should not be subject to any other laws than those established under the French dominion.” Whereupon Amherst had replied that this had been answered by the preceding article and especially by the reply to the last (Article 41), asking that the British government should only require a strict neutrality of the Canadians, which said curtly: “They become subjects of the king”—a non-committal reply, which at first looked severe but was, as the conscientious historian, Jacques Viger,3 has said, just and reasonable under the circumstances. In the event, Amherst granted more than his answer would suggest, for during the Interregnum, the French and British incomers continued to be governed according to the custom of Paris. Hence the gratitude expressed through General Gage was well deserved.

The period of the Interregnum, now beginning (September 8, 1760, to August 10, 1764), which was to last until the promulgation of the treaty of Paris, and the official publication by Governor General Murray of his civil appointment, has been called erroneously by several French historians, “La Regne Militaire,” a term suggestive of military despotism and summary justice. Commander Jacques Viger, M. Labrie, Judge Mondelet and others rejected this erroneous misnomer in the columns of the Journal “La Bibliotheque Canadienne,” being edited in 1827 by Bibaud, the well known historian. For, after examining the documents of the period they came to the conclusion that the name of La Regne Militaire could only be merited because, as most of the official men of the law having been in Government employ had left the country and new justices had to be created who should judge according to “les lois, formes et usages” of the country, the government devolved perforce on the military men and of the “milices,” the only educated men left besides the clergy.

This is made clear by a memoir of October 15, 1777, to the British government on the subject of the administration of justice, drawn up by Judges Panet, Mabane and Dunn, of whom Pierre Panet had been one of the greffiers at Montreal, and the others had had close relations with the military judges. Their testimony is therefore convincing. They state:[15] “Though Canada was conquered by His Majesty’s arms in the fall of 1760, the administration in England did not interfere with the interior government of it till the year 1763. It remained, during that period, as formerly, with three districts, under the separate command of military officers who established in their respective districts, military courts under different forms, indeed, but in which, according to the policy observed in wise nations towards a conquered people the laws and usages of Canada were observed in the rules of decision.”

The basis of the new military government was the placard issued by General Amherst from Montreal on the 22d of September, 1760, in which he announced the new order of the government for the old and new subjects, and outlined the new form of military government throughout the three districts, by the appointment in each parish of the officers of the militia, the commandant of the regular troops and a third court of further appeal to the governor, as the future demonstrators of justice, and then left it to the local governors of the other two divisions of the country to establish their own courts. These officers of militia were the most competent at the time to carry on the traditional “custom of Paris” as they were mostly appointed from the Seigneurs of the district and the educated class.

Accordingly on October 28, 1760, General Gage issued his orders establishing tribunals of militia officers to regulate civil disputes among individuals and a second tribunal of appeal before the regular military court, with a final court of appeal to himself.

The rest of the document deals with police prohibitions to the inhabitants, not to harbour deserters or to traffic with the soldiers for their arms, clothing, etc., or any other of their accoutrements; it orders chimneys to be swept once a month, and other precautions against fire; carpenters were to be prepared with an adz, the inhabitants with an axe and bucket; also arrangements for safety against snow from falling from houses, the cleansing of the portions before the house and the disposal of garbage, the keeping of the roads and bridges in good order, and regulations concerning the sale of provisions brought in by the country people, the sale to be made in the common market place with the prohibition to town merchants to forestall the citizens by buying up the supplies brought in. The militia captains being no lawyers, were only required by Amherst to dispense law and justice as best they could, being limited to civil cases.

The ordinance of Thomas Gage, governing the administration of justice in his jurisdiction of Montreal by dividing it into five districts with definite powers and the regulations for the upkeep of the courts therein, was dated at Montreal, October 13, 1761. In each of the five districts there was to assemble on the first and fifteenth of each month a court of officers of the “Milice.” These militia courts were to be composed of not more than seven and not less than five members, of which one should hold the rank of captain, the senior to act as president. The officers of militia of each district were summoned to meet in their parishes on the 24th of October to make arrangements for the whole of these courts and to prepare rosters of officers for duty therein.

The Town of Montreal was set apart as a judicial district of its own, with a local board of officers to administer the laws. Appeal was allowed from these courts to three boards of officers of His Majesty’s Troops, one to meet at Montreal, the other at Varennes and the third at St. Sulpice, these courts of appeal to sit on the 20th of each month. A further appeal from these courts to the governor in person was provided for.

[16]

In the event of capital crimes, officers of militia were authorized to arrest the criminals and their accomplices and to conduct them under guard to Montreal, the militia officers to furnish with each prisoner an account of the crime and a list of witnesses. In civil cases involving small amounts, not exceeding twenty livres all the officers of the militia were individually granted authority to adjudicate with an appeal to and no further than the militia courts of the districts.

Provision was made for the payment of the militia officers for all of these duties by a scale of fees, a treasurer to be appointed for each court. The officers of militia were especially enjoined to maintain peace and order within their respective districts.

On October 17th the Conseil des Capitaines de Milice de Montreal presented a memorial to the governor expressing their willingness to administer justice gratuitously, as they had done in the past, but requesting as a favour from His Excellency that they be exempted from the obligation to billet troops in their domiciles. They requested that six cords of wood be purchased to heat the chamber in which their sittings were held and that Mr. Panet, their clerk, be compensated for his services at the rate of thirty sols for each sentence. Two militia sergeants had been appointed to act as bailiffs and criers of the court, and a tariff of fees was asked for to provide for their pay. These sergeants, it was also explained, were not only made use of in the administration of justice but also for the district, for the supervision of the statutory labour or corvèe. This memorial, which was signed “R. Decouange,” was approved by the governor.4

The inclusion of the French officers in the administration of the affairs of the country was a wise and honest attempt on the part of the British to carry out the promise of the capitulation to retain for the present the laws and customs of the past. In choosing the officers of the militia they were well advised, since the commissions there were held by the Seigneurs and the other notabilities of their respective districts, men who were the best educated and the most esteemed in the country. The choice was politic also, for it secured the continuance of the services of men who, under the old régime, had already been in charge of the conduct of justice, as well as public and communal affairs. Indeed it was to them that there had been intrusted the carrying out of the public works, such as road making and repairs, bridge building, the regulation of statutory labor through corvèes, etc. In the new régime, therefore, the militia officers were practically reinstated in their former functions.

An examination has been made by Judge Mondelet of Three Rivers, of the registers kept of the decisions of the military court of Montreal. These latter have been generally found equitable and founded on positive law; they are legally attested to in most cases, the secretary of the council being a Frenchman skilled in the law, such as was Pierre Panet, the notary, and the minutes are all in French. The first four registers contain the transactions of the “Chambre de Milices” presided over by the captains of the militia, and dealt only with civil cases. The fifth and sixth of these registers contain the criminal decisions of[17] the court martials of the Chambre Militaire of Montreal and that of St. Sulpice, as well as appeals from the “Chambre de Milices.” This court was composed only of officers of the regular army to the number of five. In addition there was the further right of appeal to the governor. The seventh register “appeals to the governor,” records the decisions of General Gage (page 299), and of General Burton (page 95).

By consulting the records we find that order during this period was observed independently of the racial distinctions in the city. We hear of, for instance, early in 1761 of the execution of a grenadier of the Forty-fourth Regiment for robbery, which is balanced by that of a French soldier, formerly of the La Salle Regiment, for the murder of a habitant at Ile Jésus, the execution being carried out in the market place.

It will be interesting here to notice some of the court martials held at Montreal in the years 1761 and 1762. It will be seen that French and English, the “new” and the “old” subjects, came equally under them, being treated with equal justice. The following cases from the “Livre d’orde” reveal this.

Montreal, June 3, 1761, at the court martial general, Lieutenant-Colonel Grant presiding, Jean Marchand of Boucherville, was prosecuted for the murder of Joseph Carpentier, a Canadian,—acquitted.

Tuesday, June 30, William Bewen accused of having intoxicated soldiers and of selling rum without license, is found guilty, having been accessory to his associate, Isaac Lawrence, who has the habit of selling rum to the soldiers,—condemned to receive 200 stripes of the cat-o’-nine tails, and to be driven from the town at the beat of the drum. (First of July, Isaac Lawrence similarly condemned.)

August 6, Joseph Lavalleé and François Herpin, inhabitants of Montreal, prosecuted for theft,—acquitted.

Joseph Burgen, one of those who came following the army, is accused and convicted for theft, and condemned to be hanged by the neck until death shall ensue. The General approved the sentence, but pardoned him on the condition that he left this government without delay.

August 13, George Skipper and Bellair, bakers, accused and arraigned by Captain Disnay for having sold bread, which had not the requisite weight,—acquitted.

September 19, John Charlette and one named Lameure, Canadians, are indicted for having solicited Joseph Myard, a drummer, to desert. Charlette is acquitted and Lameure is found guilty and condemned to receive 300 blows from the whip. He is pardoned by the General.

December 13, William Morris, accused of having kept a dissolute house, is condemned to a fine of £5.

December 24, two Canadians prosecuted for having the property of the King in their possession. One is acquitted and the other found guilty and condemned to receive 400 stripes of the lash. The General approves the sentence, but reduces the lashes to fifty.

For 1762, we may choose an incident which shows the growth of the tendency towards the unpleasant relations between the Montreal English merchants and the military, which afterwards had such serious results, and helped to occasion the recall of General Murray.

[18]

February 26, Mr. Grant and Edward Chinn, merchants, accused of having insulted Ensign Nott of the Fourth Battalion of the Sixth Regiment of Royal Americans, are found guilty and condemned, Mr. Grant to a fine of £30 and Mr. Chinn to a fine of £20, “which sums will be employed according to the direction of the General to the relief of the unhappy poor in Montreal.” Pardon is to be asked of Ensign Nott in the presence of the garrison of Montreal in the following terms, namely—“Ensign Nott I am very sorry for having been guilty of assault in your regard and very humbly ask your pardon.” The General approved the sentence, but reduced the fine of Mr. Grant to £20. Mr. Forrest Oakes was also prosecuted for a like offence and condemned also to ask pardon of Ensign Nott, and to undergo fourteen days’ imprisonment. The General reduced the imprisonment to twenty-four hours and exempted Mr. Oakes from asking pardon, because it appeared to him that the injuries received had been reciprocal.

From these judgments, we may see that, while the Chambre de Justice of Chambre de Milices judged purely civil affairs, all criminal affairs, great and small, were relegated to the “Council of War,” otherwise called the “Court Martial,” which performed the functions nowadays of the courts of Quarter Sessions and criminal courts of King’s Bench. The “General” was the final court of appeal.

A glance at some of the ordinances of this period will further illustrate the life of the town. On November 27 Governor Gage found it necessary to issue ordinances against merchants, who without permission of the governor, went to sell their merchandise and intoxicating liquors in the country places. On the 13th of January, 1762, there occurred a further ordinance, explaining the former and forbidding in addition the sale of liquors to soldiers and savages, and fixing the quantity lawful to be sold to the inhabitants at one time. These merchants were probably newcomers from the English colonies now drifting into the city and anxious to make good quickly rather than scrupulously.

On the 12th of May regulations were issued concerning the amount of cords of wood that should be furnished to the troops.

On July 26th, Gage endeavors to arrange for the money exchange values. He orders that six livres tournois shall be equal to eight shillings, or ten sols of Montreal money.

On July 31st, Gage has his mind on the repair of the fortifications, “seeing that they are falling into ruin and wishing to carry on the old regulations for the common good, following in this time of uncertainty, the ancient usages, which are not opposed to the service of the king,” and therefore he ordered that there shall be imposed every year commencing with 1762, a sum, of which a third shall be paid by the Seminary of St. Sulpice and the other two-thirds by the regular and secular communities and the inhabitants of the said Town of Montreal, for repairs to commence in the following spring, but that the gate, on which they are working, shall be made perfect this year, and “that the said imposition, for which the money shall be remitted to a person named by the Chambre of Militia of the said Montreal, shall not surpass the sum of 6,000 livres each year” and shall continue until the entire repair of the said enclosure is made, at the end of which repairs, the present ordinance shall remain null and void.

On August 3d, Gage seeing that different standards of weights and measures were being used, and to prevent frauds slipping into the commercial life of the[19] city, established that, in Montreal, the English standard yard measure should be used according to the standard to be kept by the “major of the place.” This regulation it was hoped would suit both the English and French.

IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD REGIME

St. Amable Street, a narrow thoroughfare west of the lower part of Jaques Cartier Square and near the spot where the Chateau de Vaudreuil once stood, was a fashionable quarter in the gay days before the “Capitulation.” The house marked by a projecting sign “The Woodbine” is said to have been the site of a saloon for two hundred years.

On October 18th he has to settle the prices, which the bakers of the town should charge for various kinds of bread.

On November 15th, foreseeing the future possibilities of Montreal trade, Governor Gage issued an ordinance for the establishment of a Customs House and he orders Thomas Lambs to be recognized as its director, and Richard Oakes as the visitor of the said Custom House in Montreal.

The following will interest Montreal merchants of today, being significant of the first loosening of restrictions upon Montreal on the part of Quebec. “All ship owners and others interested in trade are warned that all of the vessels coming from Europe or the colonies charged on account of merchants and others, who wish to come there to do business, can follow their destinations up to the city of Montreal without being discharged and re-charged with merchandise at Quebec under any pretext whatever, unless they are suspected of carrying goods of contraband, in the design of making illicit trade.”

On the 7th of January, 1763, regulations forbidding excess speed of the carriages and horses in the streets of Montreal and suburbs had to be laid down.

On the 4th of April Gage issued an ordinance establishing the Custom House at Montreal, with regulations to the captains of ships and officers, sailors and others to carry out the regulations issued, which show that all the paraphernalia and customary duty of ships reporting to the customs, avoiding smuggling, etc., were now full of vigour. Montreal was beginning to be a port of some pretensions.

All these regulations show that the British authorities, while affirming the customs of the country and maintaining the law, as known by the people and administered by their own men of ability and learning, the captains of the militia, of whom many were of the noblesse, providing progressive trade regulations, required for the development of the port and of the up-country commerce, of which the headquarters were at Montreal, were wise rulers.

The care with which the inhabitants were instructed in the knowledge of political events happening outside of their own sphere, the participation in their own judicial code by their own officers, thus beginning, as it were, to be permitted for the first time to participate in their duty of taking part in the government, the justice with which they were treated by the conquerors, the faithful fulfilment of dues for service received, brought about a unity with the English soldiery and the new governors, that disposed the conquered people to feel little regret at the departure of the French Régime from Canada.

Many there were, who were still borne up by the hope that the expected peace would restore Canada to France, but the majority were indifferent and if anything glad to have things remain as they were. The position at Montreal may be summed up in the words of General Gage’s report to Amherst, dated March 20, 1762, sent on to London the same year.5

[20]

“I feel the highest satisfaction that I am able to inform you that during my command of this government I have made it my constant care and attention that the Canadians should be treated agreeable to His Majesty’s kind and humane intentions. No invasion on their property or assault on their person has gone unpunished. All reproaches on their subjection by the fate of arms, revilings on their customs or country and all reflections on their religion, have been discountenanced and forbid. No distinction has been made between the Briton and Canadian, but equally regarded as subjects of the same prince. The soldiers live peaceably with the inhabitants and they reciprocally acquire an affection for each other.”

Those who know the British soldier will not be surprised to hear that in the distress that fell upon the French Canadians in 1761, mostly through the non-payment of the obligations incurred by the French government, for the redemption of the paper money not yet liquidated since the capitulation, the soldiers gave each one a day’s provisions monthly to relieve the immediate distress. Quebec suffered most. Montreal merchants came to the rescue and swelled the general subscription lists.

As Governor Gage was on the spot, his official report may be further largely quoted as that of an historian of Montreal. After the above opening remarks on the amicable relations existing between the French-Canadians and British, he continues: “The Indians have been treated on the same principles of humanity. They have had immediate justice for all their wrongs and no tricks or artifices have hitherto been attempted to defraud them in their trade.”

He sends a return of the present state of the troops and artillery and a report of the fortifications. Speaking of those of Montreal he notes: “Upon a height within the city is a small square work of wood, completed since the capitulation, provided with a few pieces of artillery and capable of containing seventy or eighty men.”

“The soil produces all sorts of summer grains. In some parts of the government the wheat is sown in autumn. Every kind of pulse and other vegetables to which I may add some fruits, viz., apples, pears, plums, melons, etc. Cider is made here, but as yet in small quantities. In general every fruit tree hardy enough to withstand the severity of the winter will produce in the summer, which affords sufficient heat to bring most kinds of fruit to maturity.”

Reporting as befits one stationed at the center and headquarters of the fur trade on the profits to the French king from the posts he says, “I must conclude His Majesty gained very little from this commerce.”

He then records what must have been of great importance to the interests of the British merchants of Montreal desirous of up-country trade.[21] “Immediately after we became masters of this country all monopolies were abolished and all incumbrances upon trade were removed. The traders chose their posts without the obligation of purchasing them and I can by no means think the French management in giving exclusive grants of trade at particular posts for the sake of the sale thereof or the sale of permits to trade at the free posts worthy our imitation. The Indians, of course, paid dearer for their goods and the trade in general must have been injured by the monopolies.”

Summing up the gain to France of Canada he says: “The only immediate importance and advantage the French king derived from Canada was the preventing the extension of the British colonies, the consumption of the commodities and manufactures of France and the trade of pelletry. She had no doubt views to further advantages that the country might in time supply her with hemp, cordage, iron, masts and generally all kinds of naval stores. The people in general seemed well enough disposed to their new masters.

“The only causes of dislike which I can discover proceed from the fear of money, and the difference of religion. I understand Canada to be on the same footing in respect of this money as all the French colonies and if France pays any of them I don’t see how she can avoid paying the bills of exchange drawn from Canada in the same proportion as she pays the rest. It is the Canadians only who would be sufferers by an exception, as Canadian bills to a very large amount are in the possession of French merchants and the rest may be sent to France and nobody be able to distinguish which is French and which Canadian property.”

Speaking of the second cause of dislike, the difference of religion, he says: “The people having enjoyed a free and undisturbed exercise of their religion ever since the capitulation of their country, their fears in that particular are much abated, but there still remains a jealousy. It is to be hoped that in time this jealousy will wear off and certainly in this, much will depend upon the clergy. Perhaps methods may be found hereafter to supply the curés of this country with priests well affected. But whilst Canada is stocked as she is now with corps of priests detached from seminaries in France, on whom they depend and to whom they pay obedience, it is natural to conceive that neither the priests nor those they can influence will ever bear that love and affection to a British government which His Majesty’s auspicious reign would otherwise engage from the Canadians as well as from his other subjects.”

In passing it may be noted that Gage’s fears were never realized, for to the Canadian clergy is due the credit of having saved Canada to English rule, as will be seen afterwards. A last quotation is interesting as bearing on the question of the exodus in 1760 after the capitulation. “No persons have left this government to go to France except those who held military and civil employment under the French king. Nor do I apprehend any emigration at the peace, being persuaded that the present inhabitants will remain under the British dominion. I perceive none preparing to leave the government or that seem inclined to do it unless it is a few ladies whose husbands are already in France, and they propose to leave the country when peace is made, if their husbands should not rather choose to return to Canada.”

Meanwhile the peace was eagerly looked forward to. The proclamations of the 26th of November, given from the Palace of St. James in London, having reference to the preliminaries for peace and the cessation of hostilities, prepared the minds of all for further intelligence. This was eventually given by Thomas Gage from his Château of Montreal on the 17th of May, 1763, in which the definitive treaty of peace made between their Brittannic and very Christian and[22] Catholic majesties, signed on the 6th of February, and ratified on the 10th of March, was made known. On this occasion Gage indicated to the people the chief portions bearing upon their rights, especially that of the exercise of their religion according to the rights of the Roman church “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and secondly that whereby the inhabitants of His Christian Majesty had permission to leave Canada in safety and liberty, the limit fixed for this emigration being the space of eighteen months, to count from the day of the exchange of the treaty. He communicated to the captains of his government a letter from Monseigneur de Choiseul, which had reference to the payment of debts due and relating to the redemption of the paper money, which was still in circulation, although the English governors sought to prohibit it. It was set forth that the Most Christian King would pay the sum due to the new subjects of Great Britain, but that the amount must not be confounded with the money held by the French subjects.

On May 27, the governor of Montreal issued through the captains of Militia of Montreal regulations concerning the liquidation of this paper money, directing the captains to make a declaration of the amount in their possession. They were to place the amount held by them in the hand of Pierre Panet, Notaire et Greffier of Montreal, appointed for this purpose, between the first and thirtieth of June, designating the character of the notes, with the name of the holder and other safeguards to be observed, upon which certificates of receipt would be given. Care was to be taken that the money, which they brought, should belong to them and that they did not lend their names to anyone. Fault in this regard would lead to prosecution for falsifying. For this transaction a fee of five sous was to be paid for every thousand livres so deposited. Money was received from 7 o’clock in the morning to midday and from 2 o’clock to 5, except on Sundays and holidays. This must have caused great excitement in the city. Great care was taken to instruct the habitants of the value of their money and warn them against becoming the victims of speculators.6

Meanwhile preparations were being made for the removal of General Gage from the post, which he had filled with excellent judgment and with habitual prudence.

On August 5th, Gage issued some further ordinances regulating the transport of merchandise and ammunition to the savages, seeing that these latter had again been making incursions into the country.

[23]

On August 18 he upheld a complaint of the established merchants against the peddlers who were underselling the merchants in the streets, forbidding anyone to sell in the public places of the city, the streets and even the squares, river banks and suburbs.

On the 16th of September he issued an ordinance concerning certain uncultivated lands in the districts of the Government, which had been granted with titles of concessions “en fief” under the former régime, and on which there had been no ground broken as yet, on account of wars or other events. Those having these should present their credentials or applications at once, so as to have them recognized, to avoid any conflict with future concessions.

General Gage left Montreal with the esteem of all. He was presented with an affectionate address by the captains of the Chambre de Milice, over which he had presided as the Chief Judge, and he replied to them by a letter on October 15, 1763, begging them to accept his testimony in recognition of the services which they had rendered to the king of the country, trusting that they would continue the same for the public good and that their service, for which they had already required so great a reputation among their own compatriots, would not fail to draw upon them the good-will and protection of the king. Certainly Gage might safely boast, as he had done in his letter to Amherst, of the peaceful state of Montreal under his government. He had helped to forge the links of intimacy that bound the noblesse and the British officials, the militia and the military officers, which made for the harmonious transition between the old and the new régimes. Whether or not the alliance was an unmixed blessing is shown by subsequent events.

[24]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Before leaving, General Amherst appointed military governors for three districts. Their tenures of office were as follows: District of Montreal, General Thomas Gage, September, 1760, to October, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, October, 1763, to August, 1764. District of Quebec, General James Murray, September, 1760, to August, 1764. District of Three Rivers, Colonel Ralph Burton, September, 1760, to May, 1762; Colonel F. Haldimand, May, 1762, to March, 1763; Colonel Ralph Burton, March, 1763, to October, 1763; Colonel F. Haldimand, October, 1763, to August, 1764.

2 The French runs: “Et nous a laissé un gage precieux, etc.” The word “pledge” instead of “gage” in the English translation destroys the delicate double entendre and compliment, evidently meant in the French version.

3 The first mayor of Montreal.

4 For the above abstracts of the ordinance of October 13th and October 17th see “The Canadian Militia,” by Captain Ernest J. Chambers, 1907.

5 This was prepared for Pitt according to the order of Lord Egremont in his dispatch to Sir Jeffrey Amherst of December 12, 1761, in which the king approves of the system of military government established in the districts of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. He instructs Amherst to send for His Majesty’s information a full account of the newly acquired country. In response to this command communicated to Murray, Burton and Gage, reports from the latter were prepared and forwarded to Amherst. These reports were among the documents submitted to the Board of Trade for their information in preparing a plan of government for the territories ceded to Britain by the treaty of Paris of 1763.

6 The same arrangements were carried out at Quebec and Three Rivers and Murray reported that the total amount of the paper money in circulation was nearly 17,000,000 of livres, that, in the government of Montreal alone, being 7,980,298-8-4. Kingsford, History of Canada, Vol. V, page 181, remarks: “An attempt to depreciate the value of this paper was made by the court of France in which it was pointed out that from the discredit to which it had fallen it had been purchased at 80 to 90 per cent discount; that it did not represent the value of what had been received, owing to the high price paid for the articles obtained; that the bills of exchange of 1759 were paid in part and that bills that remained were only such as had been issued after this payment. The British reply was that the court of France, having been the cause of the discredit alleged had no right to profit by it, that the prices paid for supplies had been established by the intendant, that the date of the ordinances could not constitute a reason why they should not be paid, that such paper money was the currency of the colony issued by France, consequently the country was responsible for it.”

[25]

### CHAPTER III

THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PARIS

1763

THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT

THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE—SECTION RELATING TO CANADA—CATHOLIC DISABILITIES AND THE PHRASE “AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT”—THE TREATY RECEIVED WITH DELIGHT BY THE “OLD” SUBJECTS BUT WITH DISAPPOINTMENT BY THE “NEW”—THE INEVITABLE STRUGGLES BEGIN, TO CULMINATE IN THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774—OPPOSITION AT MONTREAL, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SEIGNEURS—THE NEW CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ACTION—CIVIL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ESTABLISHED—MURRAY’S ACTION IN ALLOWING “ALL SUBJECTS OF THE COLONY” TO BE CALLED UPON TO ACT AS JURORS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE BRITISH PARTY AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—THE PROTEST OF THE QUEBEC GRAND JURY—SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN 1766 TO SUIT ALL PARTIES—GOVERNOR MURRAY’S COMMENT ON MONTREAL, “EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE HATCHED THERE”—MURRAY AND THE MONTREAL MERCHANTS—A TIME OF MISUNDERSTANDING. NOTE: LIST OF SUBSEQUENT GOVERNORS.

Before proceeding further it will be well to set before the reader some special portions of “The definitive treaty of peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the king of Spain, concluded at Paris the 10th day of February, 1763, to which the king of Portugal acceded on the same day.”

Section IV relating to Canada was as follows:

“His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guarantees the whole of it and with all its dependencies to the King of Great Britain. Moreover his most Christian Majesty accedes and guarantees to his said Britannic Majesty in full right, 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 and in general everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands and coasts with the sovereignty, property, possessions and all rights acquired by treaty or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the crown of France have had till now over the said countries, lands, islands, places, coasts and their inhabitants, so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King and to the Crown of Great Britain[26] and that in the most ample manner and form, without restriction and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guarantee under any pretense, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned.

“His Britannic Majesty on his side agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will in consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty further agrees that the French inhabitants or others who have been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada may retire with all safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper and may sell their estates provided it be to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons without being restrained in their emigration under any pretense whatever except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions; the term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen months to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.”

The definitive treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763, proclaimed by Governor Gage in Montreal on May 17th, was received with delight by the English merchants, for they looked forward eagerly for the civil government to be set up in which they, but a handful, hoped by the right of conquest to assume the high hand. They had long chafed under what they, more than the “Canadians,” chose to call military despotism. They had looked upon the amicable temporary participation of the Canadians in their own government, with eyes of envy. They were of the same metal as the British merchants of Quebec who, relying on their undoubted energy in developing the commercial interests of the country, and in their self-satisfaction, so aggrandized their own importance that they wished to rule solely, so that they early petitioned his Majesty for a representative assembly in this province as in all the other provinces of His Majesty. “There are,” they said, “a sufficient number of loyal and interested Protestants outside the military officers to form a legislative assembly, and the new subjects of His Majesty, if he should believe it proper, could be authorized to elect Protestants without having to take oath against their conscience.” (See constitutional documents, Doughty & Shortt.)

There were only about two hundred Protestants, and these not all educated or upright men, in the whole country at this time—in Quebec 144, in Montreal 56. Yet they desired to represent the whole people and to exclude the “new subjects” from every position of trust under the new civil government. At the time of Murray’s recall in 1766 they had reached the number of 450.

The Canadians were not prepared for the new turn of the tide. In consequence we shall see that between 1763 and 1774 the country was in an unsettled state, owing to the conflict inevitable between the two forces of the old and new régimes striving for recognition.

Under the military law the “new subjects” had been entrusted with a share in the government. The English rulers were officers and gentlemen who respected the claims of the Seigneurs as well as of the simple habitants, and moreover their religion was held in honour. They had been led to believe that this happy state would continue. Gage and Murray in their report to Egremont seem to hint how they were hoodwinked.[27] “Canadians are very ignorant and extremely tenacious of their religion. Nothing can contribute to make them staunch subjects to His Majesty as the new government giving them every reason to imagine no alteration is to be attempted in that point.”

Thus when the “new subjects” came to understand that they were only to “profess the worship of their religion according to the rights of the Romish church as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” and that that permission was to be interpreted along the lines of the Catholic civil disabilities in England, they felt that they were proscribed men who had been ensnared by roseate promises of a wise interpretation of British liberty to be extended to them as new subjects.

The situation was impossible and at once there began the inevitable struggle and the long series of accommodations that were eventually to culminate in the Quebec act of 1774, the Magna Charta of French Canadians. The significance of this act cannot be understood unless the religious proscription in the policy of the new government be understood. Hence the opposition among the Seigneurs in Montreal, their headquarters, was secretly fostered, which later alarmed Carleton so much, as we shall see. The French Canadian clergy and Seigneurs of Montreal looked upon the new change of government as an attempt to Anglicize their religion as well as their laws. And they were not far wrong. In a letter to Governor Murray, the secretary of state, Lord Egremont, wrote from Whitehall on August 13, 1763, acquainting him that the King had been graciously pleased to confer on him the civil government of Canada and making special reference to the qualification, “as far as the laws of Great Britain permit,” which laws, he explains, prohibit absolutely all Popish hierarchy in any of the dominions belonging to the Crown of Great Britain and can only admit of a toleration of the exercise of that religion; this matter was clearly understood in the negotiation of the exercise of that religion; the French ministers proposed to insert the words comme ci-devant in order that the Romish religion should continue to be exercised in the same manner as under their government; and they did not give up their point until they were plainly told that it would be deceiving them to admit those words, for the king had not the power to tolerate that religion in any other manner than as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. “These laws must be your guide in any disputes that may arise on this subject.”

The intention was precisely to tolerate for a time the Romish religion and gradually to supplant it. The royal instructions to Governor Murray, given from the court of St. James by King George on the 7th day of December, 1763, leave no doubt on this head. The intention to suppress the natural growth of the Catholic church in Canada by crippling it forever at its fountain head by giving no guarantee of the recognition of the Episcopal power and jurisdiction, had already been foreshadowed in the two clauses submitted by Vaudreuil in the terms of the capitulation of Montreal.

Article XXX: “If by the treaty of peace Canada shall remain in the power of His Britannic Majesty, His Most Christian Majesty shall continue to name the bishop of the colony, who shall always be of the Roman communion and under whose authority the people shall exercise the Roman religion: ‘Refused.’”

Article XXXI:[28] “The bishop shall, in case of need, establish new parishes and provide for the building of his cathedral and his Episcopal palace; and in the meantime he shall have the liberty to dwell in towns or parishes as he shall judge proper. He shall be at liberty to visit his diocese with the ordinary ceremonies and exercise also the jurisdiction which his predecessor exercised under the French dominion, save that an oath of fidelity or a promise to do nothing contrary to His Britannic Majesty’s service, may be required of him: ‘This article is comprised under the foregoing.’”

The reason for this was signalized in the instructions later to Murray, Carleton and Haldimand in the clause beginning:

“And to the end that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the lord bishop of London may take place in our province under your government as conveniently as possible,” etc.

Section XXXII reads: “You are not to admit of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the See of Rome or of any other foreign jurisdiction whatsoever in the province under your government.”

Section XXXIII: “And to the end that the Church of England may be established both in principle and practice and that the said inhabitants may by degrees be induced to embrace the Protestant religion and their children be brought up in the principles of it, we do hereby declare it to be our intention when the said province shall have been accurately surveyed and divided into townships, districts, precincts or parishes in such manner as shall be hereinafter directed, all possible encouragement shall be given to the erecting of Protestant schools in the same districts, townships and precincts by settling, appointing and allotting proper quantities of land for that purpose and also for a glebe and maintenance for a Protestant minister and Protestant schoolmaster, and you are to consider and report to us by our Commissions for Trade and Plantation by what other means the Protestant religion may be promoted, established and encouraged in our province under your government.”

This instruction to Murray is repeated in those to Governor Carleton, 1768, and to Governor Haldimand, 1778.

Let us see how the civil government worked out. It was proclaimed on April 10, 1764, the delay being caused to allow the French Canadians the eighteen months, stipulated by the treaty of Paris, in which they might leave the country. Murray had been appointed governor-general of the province of Quebec by the commission of November 21, 1763, and the instructions were dated on December 7th. But Murray had not promulgated the new dignity accorded him till on September 17th, 1764, the first great act of the new régime being opened by his ordinance establishing civil courts. It may be briefly stated as follows: there was to be a Superior Court of judicature or King’s Bench, which should be held at Quebec twice a year at the Hilary term commencing on January 1st and at Trinity term on June 21st. Its president should be the chief justice of Canada. This was William Gregory. This man, with the attorney-general,[29] Suckling, were soon removed for incompetency. Later in 1766 a Michaelmas term was added. Montreal and Three Rivers were to have the chief justices’ court of assizes and jail delivery after Hilary once a year.

Strangely enough, though not unnaturally, Murray had inserted a clause in the act which was afterwards violently objected to by the English merchants as going beyond his commission, viz., that all the subjects of the colony could be called upon without distinction to take their place on the jury. Murray had to explain this to the English government and accordingly with the copy of the above act sent, he remarked to the following effect: “As there are only two hundred Protestant subjects in the province, the greater part of which is composed of disbanded soldiers of small fortunes and of little capacity, it is considered unjust to prevent the Roman Catholic new subjects from taking part on juries, for such an exclusion would constitute the said two hundred Protestants perpetual judges of the lives and fortunes not only of the eighty thousand new subjects but of all the military in this province. Moreover, if the Canadians are not admitted to juries many will emigrate.” Murray felt that his position might not carry, for he adds: “This arrangement is nothing else than a temporary expedient to leave affairs in their present state until the pleasure of His Majesty on this critical and difficult point be made known.”

Besides the superior court there should be an inferior court of “Common Pleas” to settle civil cases involving sums of beyond ten louis. Beyond twenty louis there was appeal allowed to the superior court. If desired there could be juries called in this court. French advocates and proctors could practice in this court, though not in the superior court. Murray explains the liberty taken by him in allowing this: “Because we have not as yet a single English advocate or proctor understanding the French language.” He also observed that the court of common pleas was established solely for the protection of the French Canadian.

In addition to the other two courts, Justices of the Peace were established at Quebec and Montreal who should hold quarter sessions. These officers of the magistracy, according to Murray’s instructions, had to be Protestants. One justice was to have jurisdiction in disputes to the value of five pounds; two were required for cases to the value of ten pounds. Three justices should form a quorum to hold quarter sessions, to adjudicate in cases from ten pounds to thirty pounds. Two justices were to sit weekly in rotation in Quebec and Montreal.

Finally there should be elected in every parish in the country bailiffs and sub-bailiffs. The elections were to take place every 21st day of June and they were to enter upon their duties on September 29th. “We call them bailiffs,” commenced Murray, “because the new subjects understand the word better than that of constables.” The word constable, will, however, better explain the nature of their multifarious duties.

We now have a view of the change in the law courts in Montreal: a yearly session of the king’s court and of the court of common pleas, quarter sessions held by the justices of the peace, and in the parishes, the bailiffs or constables.

Hardly had the courts erected by the act of September 7th been held, than the grand jury of Quebec protested vehemently at the new courts and especially at the privileges given the new subjects. Their opposition was expected by Murray for his comment, sent with the act, ran: that some of the English merchants residing[30] here of whom only ten or a dozen at most possess any settled property in this province, are very dissatisfied at the privileges granted to the Canadians to act on juries; the reason of this is very evident as their influence is restrained by the measure.

Britishers on the jury who thought the favours to Catholics unconstitutional were only victims of their narrow prejudices formed by the prevailing intolerance then existing in England and its colonies. The toleration to Catholics according to the phrase “as far as the laws of Great Britain allow” was not the wide freedom we see nowadays.

A protest against allowing the latter class to practice in the courts or to serve on juries was made early by the Protestant members of the grand jury of Quebec on October 16, 1764, as follows: “That by the definitive treaty the Roman religion was only tolerated in the province of Quebec as far as the laws of Great Britain had met. It was and is enacted by the third act, January 1st, chapter V, section 8, ‘No Papist or Popish recusant convict shall practice the common law as a counsellor, clerk, attorney or solicitor, nor shall practice the civic law as advocate or proctor, nor practice physick, nor be an apothecary, nor shall be a judge, minister, clerk or steward of or in any court, nor shall bear any office or charge as captain, master, or governor, or bear any office of charge of, or, in any ship, castle or fortress, but be utterly disabled for the same, and every person herein shall forfeit one hundred pounds, half to the king and half to them that shall sue.’ We therefore believe that the admitting of persons of Romish religion, who own the authority, supremacy and jurisdiction of the church of Rome, as jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and liberties, tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant religion and His Majesty’s power, authority, right and possession of the province to which we belong.” Later these jurors pretended that they had never meant to exclude Catholic jurors, but only as jurors when Protestants were contestants. The above argument shows their original intrinsigeance.

Later, in February, 1766, modifications were introduced; when the contestants were British the jury should be British; when Canadians, Canadians; when the contestants were mixed the jury should also be mixed. These conflicts were inevitable in unsettled times when two peoples were of different mental outlooks, politically, racially and religiously. The melting pot of time will solve such difficulties, when the viewpoints of both parties would be more sympathetically understood. In the meantime the historical situation at the time was painful.

Governor Murray’s letter to the Lords of Trade, written a few days after the presentment of the jury is a fair and statesman-like view of the difficult period.

“Quebec, 29th of October, 1764.

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

“I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the popular clamours in England[31] will not prevent the humane heart of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident, too, my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers from emigrating directly and certain I am, unless the Canadians are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest part of this valuable people.”

His letter immediately continues with the following allusion which helps us to place the position of Montreal in the above general constitutional crisis then affecting the colony. “I beg leave further,” says Murray, “to represent to your Lordship that a lieutenant governor at Montreal is absolutely necessary. That town is in the heart of the most populous part of the provinces. It is surrounded by the Indian nations and is 180 miles from the capital. It is there that the most opulent priests live and there are settled the greatest part of the French noblesse. Consequently every intrigue to our disadvantage will be hatched there.”

A postscript to this letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, gives Murray’s appreciation of some of the great commercial class: “P.S.—I have been informed that Messrs. William McKenzie, Alexander McKenzie and William Grant have been soliciting their friends in London to prevail upon Your Lordship to get them admitted into his Majesty’s council of this province. I think it my duty to acquaint Your Lordships that the first of these men is a notorious smuggler and a turbulent man, the second a weak man of little character and the third a conceited boy. In short it will be impossible to do business with any of them.”

This postscript indicates the strain and bitter personal relations between Murray and some of the British commercial element in the colony, who finally succeeded in obtaining his recall.

Unfortunately, Murray was not always as discreet or as just in the consideration of his opponents, as his position justified. He was a soldier rather than a peace maker. In addition, others besides the British merchant did not see eye to eye with him in the interpretation of the new Treaty of Paris or in the application of English laws in Canada.

They retorted as did the Quebec traders, that the governor “doth frequently treat them with a rage and rudeness of language and demeanour as dishonourable to the trust he holds of Your Majesty as painful to those who suffer from it.”

In commenting on this period, Prof. F.P. Walton, dean of the faculty of Law at McGill University, has the following criticism (Cf. University Magazine, April, 1908):

He is speaking of the charge against Murray’s interpretation of the new situation of the application of the new civil government.

“It is probable,” he says,[32] “that at no period in the history of Canada were legal questions so much discussed among the mass of the population as in the first ten years of the English régime. This is not surprising when we consider that the question whether the English or the French law was in force in the Province was one of no little difficulty. It was contended with much plausibility that Murray’s Ordinances were of no legal validity because, under the King’s proclamation, legislative authority in the Province was to be exercised only by the governor with the consent of a council and assembly, and that no assembly had ever been summoned. This is not the place for a discussion of this subject. I prefer the view of those who maintain that the English law was introduced by the proclamation of 1763. The case of Campbell and Hall is sufficient authority for the proposition, that the King had the power without parliament to alter the law of Quebec. It seems to me that the natural construction of the proclamation itself is, that the King intended to introduce the English law there and then. Murray, as Masères says in his very convincing argument, ‘meant only to erect and constitute courts of judicature to administer a system of laws already in being, to wit, the laws of England.’ The whole affair was to a great extent a misunderstanding. The English government had no intention to force the English laws on an unwilling people. They understood that they were giving ‘Home Rule’ to the Province of Quebec, and expected that the Canadians would abrogate such parts of the English law as they did not consider suitable, and would re-enact the portions of the old French law which they desired to retain. They did not foresee that, owing to the impracticability of calling an assembly, the Province would be left without any authority competent to legislate.”

It was, indeed, a time of great misunderstanding.

NOTE

GOVERNORS UNDER BRITISH RULE

As it may be convenient henceforth to omit mention of the advent of successive governors, this list is appended for the purpose of reference.

* | (Gen. Jeffrey Amherst) | 1760
* | Gen. James Murray | 1763
| P. Aemilius Irving (President) | 1766
* | Gen. Sir Guy Carleton (Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor General) | 1766
| H.G. Cramahé | 1770
* | Gen. Sir Guy Carleton | 1774
* | Gen. Frederick Haldimand | 1778
| Henry Hamilton (Lieutenant Governor) | 1784
| Henry Hope (Lieutenant Governor) | 1785
* | Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) | 1786
ON THE DIVISION OF THE TWO CANADAS
| Alured Clarke | 1791
* | Lord Dorchester | 1793
* | Maj.-Gen. Robert Prescott | 1796
| Sir. R.S. Milnes | 1799
| Hon. Thomas Dunn | 1805
* | Sir James H. Craig | 1807
| Hon. Thomas Dunn | 1811
* | Sir George Prevost | 1811
| Sir Gordon Drummond | 1815[33]
| Gen. John Wilson | 1816
* | Sir John Sherbrooke | 1816
* | Duke of Richmond | 1818
| Sir James Monk | 1819
| Sir Peregrine Maitland | 1820
* | Earl of Dalhousie | 1820
| Sir. F.N. Burton | 1824
* | Earl of Dalhousie | 1825
| Sir James Kempt | 1828
* | Lord Alymer | 1830
* | Earl of Gosford | 1835
* | Sir John Colborne | 1838
* | Earl of Durham | 1838
* | C. Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham) | 1839
UNDER THE UNION
* | Baron Sydenham (Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson) | 1841
| R.D. Jackson (Administrator) | 1841
* | Sir Charles Bagot | 1842
* | Sir Charles Metcalfe | 1843
* | Earl Cathcart | 1845
* | Earl of Elgin | 1847
| W. Rowan (Administrator) | 1853
* | Sir Edmund Head | 1854
* | Lord Viscount Monck | 1861
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
* | The Rt. Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G. | 1867
* | The Rt. Hon. Lord Lisgar, G.C.M.G. (Sir John Young) | 1868
* | The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dufferin, K.P., K.C.B., G.C.M.G. | 1872
* | The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lome, K.T., G.C.M.G., P.C. | 1878
* | The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G. | 1883
* | The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley of Preston, G.C.B. | 1888
* | The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Minto, G.C.M.G. | 1898
* | The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G. | 1893
* | The Rt. Hon. The Earl Grey, G.C.M.G. | 1904
* | Field Marshal, H.R.H., The Duke of Connaught, K.C., G.C.M.G. | 1911
——
Those not marked * acted only as administrators. When a governor had acted as administrator immediately before becoming governor, the earlier date is given. The names of all the ad interim administrators are not given.

[34]

LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS OF QUEBEC

(After Confederation)

- The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau
- The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau (re-appointed)
- Hon. Rene Edouard Caron
- Hon. Luc Letellier de St. Just
- Hon. Theodore Robitaille
- Hon. Louis François Rodique Masson
- Hon. Auguste Real Angers
- Hon. Sir J.A. Chapleau
- Hon. L.A. Jetté
- Hon. L.A. Jetté (re-appointed)
- Hon. Sir Charles A.P. Pelletier
- Hon. Sir François Langelier

[35]

### CHAPTER IV

CIVIC GOVERNMENT UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

1764

RALPH BURTON, GOVERNOR OF MONTREAL, BECOMES MILITARY COMMANDANT—FRICTION AMONG MILITARY COMMANDERS—JUSTICES OF PEACE CREATED—FIRST QUARTER SESSIONS—MILITARY VERSUS CITIZENS—THE WALKER OUTRAGE—THE TRIAL—WALKER BOASTS OF SECURING MURRAY’S RECALL—MURRAY’S DEFENSE AFTER HIS RECALL—THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ABUSE THEIR POWER—CENSURED BY THE COUNCIL AT QUEBEC—COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ESTABLISHED—PIERRE DU CALVET—CARLETON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE “DISTRESSES OF THE CANADIANS.”

The governor of Three Rivers, Ralph Burton, proclaimed to the Montrealers on October 29, 1763, his nomination by General Amherst as governor of Montreal in succession to General Gage. He announced that the civil justice would be administered by the same courts as hitherto. His ordinances have nothing striking beyond one ordering all who had gunpowder in their homes, and there were many, to take it to the powder magazine, and another announcing that on April 24, 1764, all who in accordance with the definitive treaty of peace wished to leave for France must within three weeks send in their declarations with their exact descriptions and the number of their household they propose to take with them. In August, Murray reported that only 270 men, women and children, mostly officers and their families, left the colony.

On August 10th military rule ended in Montreal but Burton continued on as military commandant.

Burton resigned his governorship in July, 1764. As the position of governor was not to be continued at Montreal or Quebec, no one succeeded him. He was confirmed, however, as Brigadier. Yet, although in command of a few troops, he refused to recognize Murray as his military superior, hence complications and conflicts arose. Murray wrote in indignation that if Burton were removed it would be better for himself and everybody. Murray is accused by his enemies of quarreling with everybody, but it is evidently hard on a governor general to have his wings clipped by having under him in a civil capacity a commander who took his orders from General Gage of New York. Where the military rights and civil duties of Burton at Montreal or of Haldimand at Three Rivers and Murray at Quebec, began and ended, was a harassing doubt to all three.

On January 11, 1764, letters patent were sent to the first justices of the peace at Montreal, including Moses Hazen, J. Grant, John Rowe, Francis McKay,[36] Thomas Lambe, F. Knife, John Burke, Thomas Walker and others. Among these were two Swiss Protestants, Catholics being excluded from the office as yet, owing to the difficulty of their subscribing to the religious test not being yet solved.

The first general quarter sessions of the peace was held on December 27, 1764, and there were present Moses Hazen, J. Dumas, F. McKay, Thomas Lambe and Francis Knife. The court adjourned. The first case was one of battery and assault.

On August 10, 1764, military rule ceased. The new civil government brought to a head much of the ill feeling existing in the city. The tables were now turned, the merchant class, already become the magistrates, were now in the ascendant and rancours prevailed. The old-time antipathies between the soldiers and citizens at New York and Boston were being reproduced in Montreal. There were no barracks, although the troops had been there four years. Consequently the system of billeting became necessary and caused continual annoyance.

The famous Walker outrage grew out of one of these troubles. Captain Fraser had billeted a Captain Payne on a French-Canadian. In the house lodged one of the new justices of the peace who claimed exemption for the house. In reply he was told that the justices’ rooms were exempt but not the other rooms, and on Payne’s persistence in claiming the billet, the magistrate refused to yield his possession. The case was brought before Justice Walker, who, as a magistrate, ordered Payne to vacate the rooms and on his refusing to comply committed him to jail for contempt. He was released on bail. Two days afterwards, on the 6th of December, 1764, occurred the “Walker outrage,” which has been described more or less fully in various histories of Canada, sometimes incorrectly.

Walker was an Englishman who had lived for many years in Boston, coming to Montreal some time after the close of the war in 1760, where he engaged in trade with the upper country. He was a bold, aggressive man, full of democratic notions, who set himself up as the agent of the people, opposed the actions of Governor Murray in every way, and afterwards had endeavoured to use his influence to have Murray recalled. In many ways he showed that he was no great friend of the Military then established in Montreal.

The outrage on him, dated on the night of the 6th, he attributed to the Military, and was the occasion of the seizure of “John Fraser, Esq.,” Deputy Grand Paymaster; “John Campbell, Esq.,” now Captain of His Majesty’s Twenty-seventh Regiment; “Daniel Disney, Esq.,” now Captain of the Twenty-fourth Regiment; “St. Luke La Corne, Esq.,” (Knight St. Louis), “Samuel Evans,” Lieutenants in His Majesty’s Twenty-eighth Regiment, and “Joseph Howard,” Merchant, all of the City of Montreal, being to their great surprise seized and taken out of their beds in the middle of the night of the 18th inst., November, 1766, by “Edward William Gray, Esq.,” Deputy Provost Martial in and for the district of Montreal, assisted by a party of soldiers with fixed bayonets, and by them hurried down to Quebec, where they were in close custody on the charge of having on or about “the sixth day of December, 1764, feloniously and with malice forethought, and by lying in wait assaulted, wounded and cut off part of the ear of ‘Thomas Walker, Esq.,’ of Montreal in this Province, with intention in so doing to disfigure the said ‘Thomas Walker.’” The informant was[37] “George Magovock” late soldier in the Twenty-eighth Regiment of foot, making oath before “William Hey,” Chief Justice in and for the Province of Quebec.

The Chief Justice was petitioned by the prisoners to be released on bail, but apparently the influence of Walker was so great, that this was not easy. The whole of Montreal was in a great state of irritable excitement, a deputation of the members of the Council, the principal merchants of Montreal and the officers of the Fifteenth, Twenty-seventh, Fifty-second and Royal American Regiments entreated the Chief Justice to grant the petition of the prisoners for bail, asking him to interpose his authority and to mitigate the rigour of the law for gentlemen, “whose honors we are so well convinced, that we offer to become their bail until the trial.”

The petition is signed by the following: Colonel Irving, A. Mabane,1 Thomas Dunn,1 J. Goldfrap, F. Mounier, T. Mills, Members of the Council; Thomas Ainslie, Collector of the Customs and Justice of the Peace; J. Marteilhe, J.P.; J. Collins, J.P.; C. Drummond, Comp. of the Customs; J. Porteus, Charles Grant, S. Frazer, J. Woolsey, W. Grant, G. Measam, T. Scott, J. Werden, E. Gray, J. Aitken, Wm. Garett, G. Allsopp, J. Antill, Gridley, H. Boone, J. Watmough, Samuel Jacobs, H. Taylor, F. Grant, S. Lymbery, Amiet, Perras, Dusault, Deplaine, Fleurimont, Fremont, Perrault, Bousseau, Guillemain, Panet, Beaubien, Principal Merchants; La Naudiere, Crois de St. Louis; Captain Grove, Royal Artillery; Colonel Irving, Captain Prescott, Captain-Lieutenant D’Aripe, Lieutenants Mitchel, Lockart, Dunn, Magra, Doctor Roberts, Fifteenth Regiment; Captain Morris, Ensign Winter, Twenty-seventh Regiment; Colonel Jones, Captains Phillips, Williams, Addison, Davidson, Alcock, Geofrey, Lieutenants Neilson, Dinsdale, Smyth, Aderly, Hamilton, Watters, Holland, Hawksley, Adjutant Splain, Ensigns Stubbs, Molesworth, Fifty-second Regiment; Captains Carden, Etherington, Schloser, Tucker, Burin, Rechat, Ensign McKulloch, Royal Americans.

Whatever the whole hubbub was about it was evidently of such importance that the Chief Justice did not see his way to grant the bail, and it was not until two years later that the case came before the Grand Jury in Montreal. Meanwhile the city had been divided in two factions.

On the 28th of February, the cases against all but Captain Disney were thrown out by the Grand Jury,2 but a true bill was brought against him. This[38] was on a Monday. Francis Masères, who succeeded Suckling as attorney general, prosecuted for the Crown, and Morison, Gregory and Antill defended Town Major Disney.

We may now tell the story in the words of the report of Chief Justice Hey, transmitted to London on his return to Quebec on April 14, 1767.

“The bill against Major Disney being returned on a Monday, I appointed Wednesday for his trial, his Jury, after some few challenges on both sides, was composed of very reputable English merchants residing at Montreal, of very fair characters & as unprejudiced as men could be who had heard so much of so interesting a story.

“The only evidence that affected Major Disney was that of Mr. & Mrs. Walker & Magovock, the substance of which I will take the liberty to state to yr. Lordship as shortly & as truly as my notes & my memory will enable me to do, all the other witnesses speaking to the fact as committed by somebody without any particular knowledge of Major Disney.

“The narrative will perhaps be less perplexed—The house opens with two doors, one a strong one next the street, (within that a sashed one), into the hall where the Family were at supper when the affair began; short on the right hand at the entrance from the street are folding doors which lead into a Parlour, at the further end of which Fronting the Folding doors is ye door of the bed chamber where Mr. Walker keeps his fire arms of which he has great numbers ready loaded. In the hall almost fronting the street doors, are 2 which lead into a kitchen & a back yeard, through which Mrs. Walker & the rest of the family separately made their escape very soon after the entrance of the Ruffians.

“The account which Mr. Walker gave to the Jury upon the trial was that on the 6th of Decr. 1764 at ½ past 8 in the evening Mrs. Walker looked at her watch and said it was time to go to supper—that the cloth was laid in the hall but that he not having been very well that day she was persuading him to stay & eat his supper in the Parlour—that they staid about 10 or 15 minutes in this and other conversation & then went into the hall to supper—that he sat with his back to, & very near the street door—that he had been but a very little time at supper when he heard a rattling of the latch of the door as of Persons wanting to come in in a hurry—that Mrs. Walker said Entre, upon which the outward door was thrown open & thro’ the sash of the inward one he saw a great number of People disguised in various ways, some with little round hats others with their faces blacked, and others with crapes over their faces—that he had time to take so much notice of them as to distinguish 2 Persons whose faces tho’ blacked he was sure he should know again if he saw them—that they burst the inward door & several of them got round to the doors leading to the Parlour as designing to cut off his retreat into that room—that upon turning his head towards that room he received from behind a blow which he believes was given with a broad sword,—that he passed thro’ them into the Parlour receiving many wounds in the passage[39] got to the further end of the room near the chamber door before which stood 2 men who had got before him & prevented his entrance into it—that these 2 with others who had followed him striking and wounding all the way, sett upon him & forced him from the door into window, the curtains of which entangled itself round him and he believes prevented their dashing his brains out against the wall, that he received in the whole no less than 52 contusions besides many cuts with sharp instruments—that he believes during the struggle in the window he was for some little time deprived of his senses, sunk in stupefaction or stunned by some blow, till he heard a voice from the opposite corner of the room say ‘Let me come at him I will dispatch the Villian with my sword’ that this roused him and determined him to sell his life as dear as he could—that ’till this time tho’ he had apprehended & experienced a great deal of violence, he did not think they intended to take away his life because he had seen Major Disney in the outer room & knowing he had done nothing to disoblige him, he did not believe that he would have been amongst them if they had intended to murther him—that he broke from the persons who held him in the window & advanced towards the Part of the room from whence the voice came where 2 persons were standing with their swords in a position ready for making a thrust at him, but does not know whether they actually made a Pass at him or not, that he put by one of their swords with his left hand upon which they both retreated into the corner—that his Eyes at this time being full of blood, he was not capable of distinguishing the features of a face with great accuracy, but from the size & figure & gesture of the person whose sword he parried & from whom he believes the words came, he thought it to be Major Disney—that several of them then seized him at once (one of them in particular taking him up under the right thigh) and carried him towards the fire place with the intention as he believed to throw him upon the fire—that the marks of his bloody fingers were upon the jamb of the chimney—that he turned himself from the fire with great violence & in turning received a blow on his head which the surgeons say must have been given with a Tomahawk—which felled him to the ground & after that a blow upon his Loins which he feels to this day—that then one of them sat or kneeled by him (he lying at his length upon the floor) andeavouring as he imagined to cut his throat—that he resisted it by inclining his head upon his shoulders & putting his hand to the place, a finger of which was cut to the bone—that it was a fortnight before he knew that he had lost his ear, his opinion all along having been that in that operation they intended to cut his throat & believed they had done it—that one of them said the Villian is dead, another Damn him we have done for him, and a third uttered some words but his senses then failed him & he does not recollect what they were.

“This was the whole of the Evidence given by him in Court in the cross-examination great stress was laid upon his positive manner of swearing to Major Disney in disguise upon the transient view which by his own account he had of him, and under the circumstances of terrour and confusion which such an appearance must have occasioned; to which he answered that he had time in the hall before any blow was given to take a distinct view of him, and that he actually did do it, and tho’ it was true he had a crape over his face, yet it was tied so close that he discerned the features and Lineaments of it very perfectly and that he was positive it was Mr. Disney, of his dress other than the crape upon his face he could give no account, and then he was questioned if he had not often declared that he knew[40] nobody but upon slight surprise he said that he remembered Mr. Disney perfectly the next morning, but that he mentioned him to nobody but Mrs. Walker, charging her at the same time to conceal it, because he thought he had suffered by her in discretion in mentioning the name of another Person whose influence with People in Power had prejudiced the inquiry which was then making into the affair.

“Mrs. Walker confirmed all the circumstances of their manner of coming in & swore as directly to Major Disney, that Lieut. Hamilton (as she did for some time believe but has since had occasion to think she was mistaken) was the first that entered that she saw Major Disney among a Groupe of figures very distinctly with a crape over his face and dressed in a Canadian Cotton Night Gown.

“Magovock went thro’ his story as contained in his affidavit a copy of which has been transmitted to your Lordship, not without a manifest confusion of his countenance & a trembling in his voice common to those who have a consciousness that they are telling untruly, & a fear of being detected—his cross examination took a great deal of time in the course of which he contradicted all the other witnesses & himself in circumstances so material that I am persuaded he was not himself present at the transaction.

“Major Disney proved by several witnesses, Dr. Robertson, Madam Landrief, Madam Campbell & Mrs. Howard that he spent that afternoon from 5 till ½ past 9 when he was sent for by Genl. Burton (he being town Major, upon the uproar that this affair had occasioned) at the house of Dr. Robertson—it was a particular festival with the French of whom the company was mostly composed, that he danced ’till supper time with Madam Landrief in the midst of which Genl. Burton’s servant came & called him out—they spoke all very positively to his being present the whole time & the impossibility that he could be absent for 5 minutes without their knowing it.

“Upon this evidence the Jury went out of Court and in about an hour returned with their Verdict Not Guilty—In justice to them and to Major Disney I must declare that I am perfectly satisfied with the Verdict.

“Mr. Walker’s violence of temper and an inclination to find People of rank in the Army concerned in this affair, has made him a Dupe to the artifices of a Villian whose story could not have gained credit but in a mind that came too much prejudiced to receive it, the unhappy consequence of it I fear will be that by mistaking the real objects of his Resentments the public will be disappointed in the satisfaction of seeing them brought to justice.

“I should inform Your Lordship that the G. Jury inflamed with Mr. Walker’s charge against them are preparing to bring in several actions for words and have presented both him and Mrs. Walker for Perjury—I have endeavoured to put a stop to both and I hope I shall succeed.

“I have the honour to be

“My Lord

“Yr. Lordship’s most obedt & humble servant,

“W. Hey.”

The report of the trial was printed by Brown and Gilmour at Quebec, it being the second book that appeared in Canada. The first book published is generally believed to be “Catechisme du Diocese de Sens Imprimé a Quebec chez, (Brown and Gilmour).” Brown and Gilmour were the printers of the first journal[41] “The Quebec Gazette” published on June 21, 1764. It was printed with columns of English and French and was issued weekly.

Walker was afterward removed on the consideration of the Council from the commission of the peace at Montreal because of his seditionary tendencies and of the frequent accusations of his insolent and overbearing temper which made it impossible for his brother magistrates to associate with him. General Murray reluctantly consented if for no other reasons than his enemies would otherwise see vindictiveness in his actions.

On the 27th of March, 1766, Walker, who had powerful friends in England, was ordered by His Majesty to be restored to the magistracy. On the same day an order from the privy council was issued by the governor of Michillimackinac and Detroit to give him effectual assistance in his business pursuits. At the same time stringent orders were given for the discovery of the perpetrators of the outrage on him. The government offered a reward of two hundred pounds, and of a free pardon and a discharge from the army to any person informing. Montreal inhabitants offered another three hundred pounds. But there was nothing done.

Between the actual outrage and the final acquittal of Captain Disney, Walker had been a thorn in the flesh to Murray. His dismissal from the bench made him no friend of the Governor and he boasted afterwards that he had influenced Murray’s recall.

The first news of this likely recall came in 1765; on February 3d Murray wrote lamenting that Mr. Walker should have known it before himself.

Murray’s position was an unenviable one; his sympathy with the French Canadians was the basis of the anger of the little knot of powerful merchants against him; he was made the scape-goat for the difficulties arising from the bad working of the unfavorable new civil government. In addition he had troubles with the commandants of Montreal and Three Rivers who as military commanders had much independent authority, over which Murray had no control, much to his chagrin. The constitutional documents of this period contain the petitions signed by twenty-one of the merchants for his recall, and that of the seigneurs for his maintenance. Their description of those allied against Murray runs thus: “A cabal of people who have come in the train of the army as well as clerks and agents for the London merchants.” Their testimony to Murray is his justification. “We were suited in the government of Mr. Murray. We knew his character, we were fully satisfied with his probity and his feelings of humanity; he was fitted to bring your new subjects to a regard for the yoke of your kindly domination by his care to make it light.”

On April 1, 1766, Conway, secretary of the colonies, wrote to Murray requesting his immediate return. He left Quebec on June 28th, leaving the government in the hands of the senior councillor, Lieut.-Col. Aemilius Irving; on the same day there arrived the new bishop, M. Briand to fill the vacancy left by Pontbriand, who died in Montreal before the capitulation.

The result of the Walker outbreak was that Murray’s frequent representations that barracks should be built were listened to and in 1765 they were erected, but hardly so, when in February, 1766, they were burned down with all the stores placed there. A public meeting was called to appeal for shelter for the soldiers, who were again billeted upon the inhabitants, but with the promise that by May 1, houses should be hired for them. On his return to London[42] Murray in his report to Shelburne on August 20, 1766, had his revenge on the New England settlers whom he calls broadly the most immoral collection of men he had ever known, and says:

“Magistrates were made and juries composed from four hundred and fifty contemptible sutters and traders. The judge pitched upon to conciliate the minds of seventy-five thousand foreigners to the laws and government of Great Britain was taken from a jail, entirely ignorant of law and of the language of the people.

“* * * On the other hand the Canadians, accustomed to an arbitrary and a sort of military government, are a frugal, industrious and moral race of men who from the just and mild treatment they met with from His Majesty’s military officers that ruled the country for four years past until the establishment of the civil government had greatly got the better of the natural antipathy they had of their conquerers. They consist of the noblesse who are numerous and who pride themselves much upon the antiquity of their families, their own military glory and that of their ancestors. These noblesse are Seigneurs of the whole country and though not rich are in a situation, in that plentiful part of the world where money is scarce and luxury still unknown, to support their dignity. The inhabitants, their tenanciers, who pay only annual quit rent of about a dollar for one hundred acres, are at their ease and comfortable. They have been accustomed to respect and obey the noblesse; their tenure being military they have shared with them the dangers of the field and natural affection has been increased in proportion to the calamities which have been common to both in the country. So they have been taught to respect their Seigneurs and not get intoxicated with the abuse of liberty; they are shocked at the insults which their noblesse and the king’s officers have received from the English traders and lawyers since the civil government took place.”

He adds: “The Canadian noblesse were hated because their birth and behaviour entitled them to respect and the peasants were abhorred because they were saved from the oppression they were threatend with.”

The letter concludes: “I glory in having been accused of war with unfairness in protecting the king’s Canadian subjects and of doing the utmost in my power to gain to my royal master the affections of that great, hardy people whose emigration, if ever it should happen, will be an irreparable loss to this country.”

Though Murray was recalled it must not be assumed that his policy of colonial government was disapproved of by the ministers for it was not until April, 1768, that he relinquished the office of governor in chief. After a time the opposition between the military and the magistrates died down, but the latter now became a fertile source of oppression to the civil population.

Let us then turn our attention to the Montreal justices of the peace. In 1769, reports had reached the Council at Quebec as to the oppresive practices of some of the magistrates of the Montreal district, and in consequence the council addressed to many of them on July 10, 1769, a letter of remonstrance applicable to “those magistrates only who had given occasion for the complaint.”

The circular prepared by a committee of the Council was addressed “To the Justices of the Peace active in and for the district of Montreal.” It opened with a charge that[43] “it appears from facts too notorious to be dispelled that His Majesty’s subjects in general, but more particularly his Canadian subjects, are daily injured and abused to a degree they are no longer able to support nor public justice endure.” The chief charges were of extorting excessive fees from litigants applying freely to the court and that in addition a low class of bailiffs, many of them French Canadians, who provoked and instituted lawsuits among the inhabitants were going about with blank forms signed with the justices’ names ready to be filled up at any moment. Thus abuses were numerous.

In August a committee of the Council sat to consider further the state of the administration of Justice under the justices of peace. A report was prepared and was read on August 29th and September 11th. It was agreed to in the Castle of St. Louis by the council on September 14th, and Acting Attorney General Kneller was instructed to prepare an ordinance on the point.

The report after stating that although the original powers in matters of property given to justices of the peace by the ordinance of September 14, 1764, were exceedingly grievous and oppressive to the subjects, yet even so “the authority given to the Justices hath been both too largely and too confidently entrusted and requires to be retrenched if not wholly taken away.” It then notices “The Justices of Montreal have in one instance, and probably in many others which have passed without notice, assumed to themselves powers of a nature not fit to be exercised by any Summary Jurisdiction, whatsoever, in consequence of which Titles to Land have been determined and possessions disturbed in a way unknown to the laws of England and inconsistent with the solemnity and deliberation which is due to matters of so high and important a nature. And we are not without information, that even where personal property only has been in dispute, one magistrate in particular under pretense that it was at the desire and request of both the contending parties has by himself exercised a jurisdiction considerably beyond what the ordinance has allowed even to three Justices in full court at their Quarter Sessions.

“From an omission of a similar nature and for want of ascertaining the manner in which their judgments were to be inforced, we find the Magistrates to have assumed another very high and dangerous Authority in the exercise of which Gaols are constantly filled with numbers of unhappy objects and whole families reduced to beggery and ruin.”

Later the report refers to evils “which will probably always be the case when the office of a Justice of Peace is considered as a lucrative one and must infallibly be so when it is his principal, if not, only dependence.”

One consequence of the report was the appointment in the ordinance of a Court of Common Pleas to be held before judges constantly residing in the town of Montreal. This court was now to be independent of, and with the same powers as, that at Quebec. Hitherto the latter had held adjourned meetings on different days at Montreal. The object was to give inexpensive, speedy and expert hearing to Montrealers.

The ordinance passed in the council on February 3, 1770, was translated and soon appears in English and French in the “Gazette.” When it appeared in Montreal it roused strong indignation among the magistrates whose powers were now curtailed. A memorial signed by fifty signatures only was presented on the part of “merchants and others of the city of Montreal” with twenty objections to the Ordinance. Pierre du Calvet, a French Huguenot magistrate, was one of the indignant protestors and his usual high-flown style characterizes his memorial.[44] According to Sir Guy Carleton’s statement to the deputation they had issued handbills calling a meeting of the people to discuss grievances, they had importuned and even insulted several French Canadians because they would not join them. Carleton who had now succeeded Murray in the Government of Canada warned them that they were acting against their own interests, that the firm refusal of the Canadians as well as of most of their countrymen plainly showed the opinion the generality of the public entertained. In his letter to Lord Hillsborough of the 25th of April, 1770, Carleton, however, after pointing out the evils caused by the law as administered by the justices says: “Though I have great reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of some of the justices there are worthy men in the commission of the peace in both districts and particularly in this of Quebec.” (See Brymner’s Canadian Archives Report, 1890, whose abstract is here used.)

To the credit of the better class of Montreal merchants of this period we must clearly dissociate the names of men who like James McGill and others have deserved the city’s most grateful remembrance, from the inferior “grafters,” to use a modern term, then exploiting the people. These were disapproved of by many of their own race. Carleton’s report of them to Lord Hillsborough dated Quebec, 28th of March, 1770, clearly designates the “rascals” of the day. “Your Lordship has already been informed that the Protestants who have settled, or rather sojourned here since the conquest, are composed only of Traders, disbanded soldiers and officers, the latter, one or two excepted, below the Rank of Captains, of those in the Commission of the Peace such as prospered in business could not give up their time to sit as Judges, and when several from accidents and ill-judged undertakings became Bankrupts they naturally sought to repair their broken fortunes at the expense of the people; hence a variety of schemes to increase their business and their own emoluments. Bailiffs of their own creation, mostly French soldiers either disbanded or Deserters, dispersed through the parishes with blank citations, catching at every little feud or dissension among the people, exciting them on to their Ruin and in a manner forcing them to litigate what, if left to themselves, might have been easily accommodated, putting them to extravagant Costs for the Recovery of very small sums; their Lands, at a time there is the greatest scarcity of money and consequently but few Purchasers, exposed to hasty sales for the Payment of the most trifling debts, and the money arising from these sales consumed in exorbitant Fees, while the Creditors reaped little benefit from the Destruction of their unfortunate Debtors. This, My Lords, is but a very faint sketch of the Distresses of the Canadians and the cause of much Reproach to our National Justice and the King’s Government.” (Report Canadian Archives for 1890.)

FOOTNOTES:

1 For their action in this case Carleton removed their names from the council.

2 List of the grand jury of the district of Montreal before which bills were laid against the prisoners charged with the assault on Thomas Walker:

1. Samuel McKay, Esq. (Foreman).
2. M. St. Ours (K. of St. Louis).
3. Isaac Todd.
4. Francis de Bellestre (K. of St. Louis).
5. Louis Mattorell.
6. Mons. Contrecoeur (K. of St. L.).
7. Mons. Niverville (K. of St. L.).
8. Thomas Lynch.
9. Mons. La Bruiere.
10. John Livingston.
11. Jacob Jordan.
12. Mons. Niverville de Trois Rivières.
13. Mons. Normanville.
14. Moses Hazen.
15. Dailbout de Cuisy.
16. Jas. Porteous.
17. Jno. Dumas.
18. Wm. Grant.
19. Samuel Mather.
20. Augustus Bailie.
21. John Jennison.

In a P.S. from Sir Guy Carleton to Lord Shelburne it is stated:[45] “The attorney general at the desire of Mr. Walker objected to the Knights of St. Lewis being of the grand jury as not having taken the oath of allegiance, which objection they immediately removed by cheerfully taking them.”

### CHAPTER V

THE PRELIMINARY STRUGGLE FOR AN ASSEMBLY

THE BRITISH MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL

“VERY RESPECTABLE MERCHANTS”—A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON BRITISH LINES PROMOTED BY THEM—INOPPORTUNE—VARIOUS MEMORIALS TO GOVERNMENT—THE MEETINGS AT MILES PRENTIES’ HOUSE—CRAMAHE—MASERES—COUNTER PETITIONS.

Trade passed over almost bodily to the English. The records of the Chambre de Milice de Montreal at present at Quebec reveal even in the civil disputes during the Interregnum of 1760-63 a boom in trade in Montreal such as those of the past never portrayed.

The early traders have been whipped unmercifully by Murray and Carleton but there were certainly some who were recognized as “very respectable merchants.” The British merchants were first at Quebec at its fall, and soon they also followed to Montreal at the Capitulation. Many were weeded out by failure and the climate, but the residue that remained of the class of the canny mercantile adventurers who always adorn the hour of advancing civilization, with the addition of more solid representatives of the large English houses, was the foundation of the enterprising merchant class of Quebec and Montreal, but especially of the latter centre, which quickly seized the control of the wholesale business, particularly the fur trade, the traffic with the Indians and the foreign commerce. Despite the narrowness of their vision and the jealous grasping after power due to them, they considered, as the conquering body, this small group of men by their superior activity, wealth and political skill came to wield great influence in the city and on the country on the whole well and wisely.

Hitherto, we have had to point out some of the weaknesses of those of the less honourable and unsuccessful merchant class, even of those who became magistrates. It remains now to chronicle the action of a well meaning body of the substantial business men at Montreal toward consolidating the constitutional system of the country and developing it along British colonial lines. Their political foresight was ahead of their time. Yet from the earliest days of British rule the English merchants of Montreal, together with those of Quebec, certainly kept before themselves and the Home Government the need of a representative assembly as promised to them, such as they had been familiar with in other British colonies in America. Unfortunately the desire to have this manned by Protestants only was made too evident from the outset and alienated the sympathy of those of the French Canadians otherwise becoming well disposed. Their[46] narrow inherited spirit of intolerance, their conception of British rights, for they came “bearing all the laws of England on their backs,” their belief in their own capabilities, their evident business success and the large capital they invested in Canada,1 the strong conviction of the ultimate needs of such an institution, if ever the country was to be reduced to the same uniformity as the other colonies where British institutions flourished, blinded them to the inopportuneness of the hour for the establishment of such an assembly. They forgot, imbued as so many of them were with democratic and republican tendencies, that the New British Province was not an infant colony, but one which had been long in existence and impregnated with French feudalism.

Again the upper classes were against the assembly, and the lower not prepared by education 2 or desire, to take their share in popular government; much less were they inclined to be permitted to vote for a class who desired openly and not very discreetly to ignore the political existence of their race.

Still the merchants persisted. An opportunity was given by the departure of Carleton, who had asked leave of absence for a few months to place his views directly before the government, but it was not till 1774 that he returned. During that time his delayed presence in London was valuable for consultation in the preparation of the “Quebec Act.” Carleton left behind his first counsellor, a Swiss Protestant, Hector Theophile Cramahé, to act for him. Carleton departed early in August and on the 9th Cramahé issued a proclamation declaring that the command had temporarily devolved upon him. In 1771, on July 21st, Cramahé was appointed Lieutenant Governor. Shortly after Carleton’s departure Cramahé sent two petitions to him to be presented to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty.

The first was that of the Quebec and Montreal British free-holders, merchants and traders on behalf of themselves and others. His Majesty is reminded of his direction to governors in his Royal proclamation of the 7th of October in the third year of his reign, that general assemblies should be called as soon as the state and circumstances thereof would admit, in such manner as is used in the provinces of America under His Majesty’s immediate government. The arguments adduced are, that such an assembly would strengthen the hands of government, give encouragement and protection to agriculture and commerce, increase the public revenue and in time would be a happy means of uniting the new subjects in a due conformity to the British laws and customs.

The memorialists represented: “That Your Majesty’s British subjects residing in this province have set examples and given every encouragement in their power to promote industry, are the principal importers of British manufactures, carry on three-fourths of the trade of this country, annually return a considerable revenue into Your Majesty’s exchequer in Great Britain; and though the great advantages this country is naturally capable of, are many and obvious, for promoting the trade and manufactures of the mother country, yet for some time past both the landed and commercial interests have been declining and if a General Assembly is not soon ordered by Your Majesty to make and enforce due obedience[47] to laws for encouraging agriculture, regulating the trade, discouraging such importations from the other colonies as impoverish the Province, your petitioners have the greatest reason to apprehend their own ruin as well as that of the province in general.

“That there is now a sufficient number of Your Majesty’s subjects residing in and possessed of real property in this province and who are otherwise qualified to be members of a General Assembly.”

This petition is signed by thirty-one of the principal merchants. It will be noticed that there are only two of these names that appeared on the petition of 1765 for the assembly and the recall of Murray. The whole document is more dignified. The memorialists are men of great weight. Their claim as the developers of commerce is undoubted. The only weakness lay in the concluding clause which is merely the outcome of the traditional intolerance then in vogue but which was to be the chief cause of the delay of their efforts till the act of 1791 at last crowned their efforts. Among the Montreal signatures in the above memorial are those of Alexander Henry, John Porteous, James McGill, Alexander Paterson, Richard Dobie, J. Fraser and Isaac Todd.

The above memorial was set off by that of fifty-nine “Canadian” leaders who appealed for the restoration of their customs and usages according to the laws, customs and regulations under which they were born and which served as the basis and foundations of their possessions. They also ask not to be excluded from offices in the service of the king. The petition is to be presented by Sir Guy Carleton. “It is to this worthy representative of Your Majesty who perfectly comprehends the ambitions of this colony and the customs of this people that we confide our most humble supplications to be conveyed to the foot of your throne.”

The year 1773 saw great activity in the duel; the case of the old and new subjects was being argued in London. The most eminent statesmen and lawyers, state officials, were studying the numerous documents in view of the proposed Quebec act of settlement. The merchants of Montreal and Quebec determined to make a great effort. In the winter of 1772 Thomas Walker, of Montreal, and Zachary Macaulay, of Quebec, had already conferred in London with Masères about the prospect of an Assembly. Mazères, though now a cursitor baron of the exchequer, still kept his interest in Canadian affairs as when attorney general at Quebec. There is no name more prominent among those who contributed to the elucidation of the difficulties of this time than this able man. His Huguenot upbringing, however, somewhat warped his otherwise calm judgment in surveying the French Canadian position, yet his was a warning of the opportunist. “I told them,” wrote Masères to Dartmouth on January 4, 1774, “that I thought a legislative council, consisting of only Protestants and much more numerous than the present, and made perfectly independent of the Governor so as to be neither removable nor suspendible by him on any pretense but only removable by the King in council, would be a better instrument for that province than an assembly for seven or eight years to come, and until the Protestant religion and English manners, laws and affections shall have made a little more progress there and especially an assembly unto which any Catholics shall be admitted.”

The two representatives, however, seemed to have been resolved to push for an Assembly for they were both found to be on the committee organized for[48] that purpose on October 30, 1773, in Quebec at Miles Prenties’ Inn. The meeting was called by John McCord. The circumstances are related by Cramahé’s letter to Dartmouth of December 13th when he inclosed the final petitions sent to him by the merchants. “About six weeks or two months ago a Mr. McCord from the north of Ireland, who settled here soon after the conquest, where he picked up a very comfortable livelihood by the retailing business in which he is a considerable dealer, the article of spiritous liquors especially, summoned the principal inhabitants of this town that are Protestants to meet at a tavern where he proposed to them, applying for a house of assembly.”

The transactions, of the meeting called by McCord and of the subsequent ones, were recorded and sent to Masères by Quebec and Montreal citizens. He was thought to be the right person to approach as their agent, to have their case ventilated in London. They wrote to him on November 8, 1773, “The British inhabitants of whom we are appointed a committee are of very moderate principles. They wish for an assembly as they know that to be the only sure means of conciliating the new subjects, etc.” How the assembly is to be composed is a matter of the most serious consideration; “They would submit that to the wisdom of His Majesty’s council.”

They had evidently become less exacting in their demands that it should be reserved for Protestants. What they really wanted was the Assembly.

The meeting at Miles Prenties’ in the Upper Town held on October 30th resulted in a committee of eleven being formed to draw up a petition for an assembly. The following were the eleven: William Grant, John Wells, Charles Grant, Anthony Vialars, Peter Fargues, Jenkin Williams, John Lees, Zachary Macaulay, Thomas Walker (of Montreal), Malcolm Fraser (secretary), John McCord (chairman). It was resolved that a copy of the minutes be sent to the gentlemen of Montreal. At the second meeting at Prenties’, November 2d (Tuesday), it was resolved to translate the petition into French and that the principal French inhabitants be invited to meet them at Prenties’ on Thursday, November 4th. It was further resolved to send a copy of the minutes and a draft of the petition by next post to Montreal addressed to Mr. Gray, to be communicated to the inhabitants of Montreal. On Thursday, November 4th, of the fifteen invitations sent out only eight French gentlemen appeared. The translation of the petition was read, and the clause on the composition of the assembly according to His Majesty’s wisdom, doubtless noted. After discussion M. Decheneaux and M. Perras undertook to convene a meeting of their fellow French citizens at 2 o’clock on Saturday next, to interest them in furthering the petition.

On Monday, November 8th, the English committee met at Prenties’. Being anxious to know what measures had been taken by the French on Saturday, Malcolm Fraser sent a note by a bearer to M. Perras, M. Decheneaux being out of town. A brief reply was sent back dated Quebec, 8-10th November, saying that the hasty departure of the vessels for Europe had not permitted him to reply according to his desire; “However I have seen some of my fellow citizens who do not appear to me to be disposed to assemble as some of us could wish. ‘Le grand nombre l’emporte et le petit reduit a prendre patience.’”

The next meeting of the committee was to be called at the discretion of the secretary as[49] “the business will depend on the letters to be received from Montreal.”

Cramahé, explaining to Dartmouth, who had succeeded Hillsborough as Colonial Secretary, the want of cooperation by the French, says: “The Canadians, suspecting their only view was to push them forward to ask, without really intending their participation of the privilege, declined joining them here or at Montreal.” Had the petition asked for the abolition of the religious test and the inclusion of Catholics in the assembly the Canadians would have doubtless cooperated. The petition was presented on December 4, 1773; the Quebec (fifty-two) and Montreal (thirty-nine) signatures are both dated November 29th. It was presented to Cramahé as the Lieutenant Governor and he was prayed in accordance with the powers given the Governor by the Royal proclamation of 1763: “To summon and call a general assembly of the freeholders and planters within your government in such a manner as you in your jurisdiction shall judge most proper.” As the words stand it may be argued that the merchants were ready to forego their Protestantism in favour of a mixed assembly, but evidently the acting Governor had his doubts. Cramahé therefore answered cautiously, as was expected, “That the petition was altogether of too much importance for His Majesty’s Council here to advise at a time when the affairs of the province were likely to become an object of public regulation. The petition and his answer would be transmitted to His Majesty’s Secretary of State.”

The second petition already arranged for, and containing the answer of Cramahé, was prepared and sent to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, praying him “to direct Your Majesty’s Governor or Commander in Chief to call a general assembly in such manner and of such constitution and form as to Your Majesty, in your Royal wisdom, shall seem best adapted to secure its peace, welfare and good government.” Besides the copy sent through Cramahé to Dartmouth, the committee sent another to Masères to enable him to present their case and to communicate its purport to their mercantile associates in London. The signatures of the Quebec subscribers, dated December 31, 1773, numbered sixty-one, those of Montreal dated January 10, 1774, reached eighty-one.

Cramahé’s comment on these signatures in his letter to Dartmouth reads: “It may not be amiss to observe that there are not above five among the signers to the two petitions who can be properly styled freeholders and the value of four of these freeholds is very inconsiderable. The number of those possessing houses in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, or farms in the country held of the king for some private seigneur upon paying a yearly acknowledgment, is under thirty.”

As an offset, the memorial to the petition sent by the seigneurs and principal Catholics about February, 1774, and made in opposition to an assembly, urges the granting of their request “because we possess more than ten out of twelve of all the seigneuries of the province and almost all the lands of the other tenures or which are holden by rent service.”

In addition to the petition to the king signed by the “ancient and loyal subjects” of Quebec and Montreal, two memorials to Lord Dartmouth were separately sent by the promoting committees at either place. These seemed to have been presented through Masères since they are not indorsed, as were the petitions to the king, as received through Cramahé.

The Montreal memorial urging the furtherance of their petition is dated Montreal, January 15, 1774, and signed by a committee appointed at a general[50] meeting of the inhabitants of Edw. W. Gray, R. Huntley, Lawrence Ermatinger, Will Haywood, James McGill, James Finlay, Edward Chinn.

The memorial included a new element, viz., “Your Lordship’s memorialists further see with regret the great danger that children born of Protestant parents are in of being utterly neglected for want of a sufficient number of Protestant pastors and thereby exposed to the usual and known assiduity of the Roman Catholic clergy of different orders who are very numerous and who for their own friends have lately established a Seminary for the education of youths in this province, which is the more alarming as it excludes all Protestant teachers of any science whatever.” The name of James McGill, the founder afterwards of McGill University, is significant, therefore, on this petition.

The counter petition and the memorial accompanying it, signed by sixty-five of the noblesse, followed in February, 1774. Thus the duel went on. We delay recounting its outcome till the case for the Seigneurs is more fully disclosed in the next chapter.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Witness the appeal for Murray’s recall. Thomas Walker is said to have brought ten thousand pounds into the province.

2 M. Lothbiniere, the representative of the noblesse in London said that he doubted whether more than four or five persons in a parish could read.

[51]

### CHAPTER VI

THE QUEBEC ACT OF 1774

THE NOBLESSE OF THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

THE GRIEVANCES OF THE SEIGNEURS—MONTREAL THE HEADQUARTERS—“EVERY INTRIGUE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE WILL BE HATCHED THERE”—PETITIONS—CARLETON’S FEAR OF A FRENCH INVASION—A SECRET MEETING—PROTESTS OF MAGISTRATES TODD AND BRASHAY—PROTESTS OF CITIZENS—CARLETON’S CORRESPONDENCE FOR AN AMENDED CONSTITUTION IN FAVOUR OF THE NOBLESSE—THE QUEBEC ACT—ANGLICIZATION ABANDONED.

The Noblesse of the district of Montreal are now to play a great part in the making of the constitutional history of Canada. They had appreciated the government of Murray and had petitioned for his continuance but in vain. At the same time while thanking the king for the appointment of the Bishop Briand which was a great concession, they asked for two favours: first, the suppression of the Land Register, the expense of which exhausted the colony without its drawing any profit therefrom; second, that all the subjects of this province without any distinction of religion should be admitted to all offices without any other qualifications but those of talent and personal merit; for to be excluded by the state from having any participation in it is not to be a member of the state. This petition was signed by Chevalier D’Ailleboust and thirty-nine other seigneurs and was endorsed as received on February 3, 1767.

The grievance of the seigneurs in the latter request was briefly this: that though the French Canadians were not obliged by the Royal Instructions of 1763 to take the oath of the test of allegiance, supremacy and religious abjuration, yet these oaths were obligatory on all who would hold an appointment under government such as members of the proposed assembly, civil and military officials, etc. Hence the constant effort of the noblesse to remove this odious civil disability continued until in 1774 the act of Quebec made it disappear and saw a formula substituted which was acceptable to all honest and conscientious “new subjects.” The following oath, afterwards taken almost textually by Bishop Briand, in the light of today will be seen to be quite adequate:

“Je, A.B. promets et jure sincèrement que Je serai fidèle et porterai vraie allégeance à Sa Majesté le roi George, que Je le défendrai de tout mon pouvoir contre toutes conspirations perfides et tous attentats quelconques, dirigés contre sa personne, sa couronne et sa dignité; et que Je ferai tous mes efforts pour découvrir et faire connaitre à Sa Majesté, ses heretiers et successeurs, toutes trahisons et conspirations perfides et tous attentats que Je[52] saurai dirigés contre lui ou chacun d’eux; et tout cela, Je le jure sans aucune équivoque subterfuge mental ou restriction secrète, renoncant pour m’en relever, à tous pardons et dispenses de personne ou pouvoir quelconques.

“Ainsi que Dieu me soit en aide,”

The same form taken from the English was as follows:

“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George, and that I will defend him to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against His Person, Crown and Dignity, and that I will do my utmost endeavor to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies and attempts which I shall know to be against him or any of them; And all this I do swear without any equivocation, mental evasion or secret reservation and renouncing all pardons and dispensations from any Person or Power whichever to the Contrary.

“So help me God.”

After the recall of Murray the seigneurs and clergy had looked forward to the arrival of the new lieutenant governor, Sir Guy Carleton, who reached Quebec on September 23, 1766, to relieve Col. Aemiluis Irving, who had acted for nearly three months as administrator on the departure of General Murray. He did not become governor-in-chief until October 25, 1769, Murray yielding up the government about April, 1768.

It may be noted that Carleton’s first message to the Council is one which promulgated the doctrine Salvation through Harmony or, Safety in Concord, which under the form of “Concordia Salus” is that now recognized as the official motto of the City of Montreal:

“Gentlemen of the Council:

“I return you Thanks for your kind and dutiful Address and for the Respect shown to His Majesty’s Commission; I doubt not but I shall always find your hearty Concurrence to Everything I shall propose for the Good of His Service.

“My present Demand is that all may join to preserve good Humour and a perfect Harmony, first among His Majesty’s natural born Subjects, also between His Subjects by Birth and His Subjects by Acquisition, so that no Distinction may be noted but the great Difference between good men and bad. As the Good and Happiness of His People is the first Object with the King, our Sovereign, we must all know, nothing would be more acceptable to them; We must all Feel nothing can be more agreeable to the great Laws of Humanity.

“Quebec, 24th Sept., 1766.”

The new Governor soon found that in proportion to the arrogance of the English-speaking minority demanding an assembly in which they would be the sole representatives, the noblesse were becoming increasingly restless, for while accepting the English criminal law they demanded their French civil code and customs unmodified. Carleton was inclined to accept this view, but Masères, the attorney-general, who had presented lengthy reports on the situation and had pointed out his own remedies, argued that the English law should be the basis of jurisdiction with the admission of certain sections of Canadian law and customs which would have been acceptable to the English inhabitants, also. He recommended the immediate[53] preparation of a code reviving the French law relating to tenure, dower and inheritance of landed property, and the distribution of the effects of persons who died intestate.

What may have influenced Carleton in his willingness to concede so much to the demand of the seigneurs was the fear of the movement spreading in Canada among the seigneurs to cast off British rule. His attention was drawn to Montreal as the center of the secret negotiations and dissatisfaction. General Murray in his letter of October 29, 1764, had already pointed out to the Lords of Trade and Plantation the difficulties likely to be created there if the Canadians were not accepted on juries. “I beg leave,” he says, “further to represent to Your Lordship that a lieutenant-governor at Montreal is absolutely necessary; that town is in the heart of the most populous part of the province. It is surrounded by the Indian nations and is 180 miles from the capital. It is there that the most opulent priests live and there are settled the greatest part of the French noblesse, consequently every intrigue to our disadvantage will be hatched there.” (“Canadian Archives,” Vol. II, page 233.)

One of the causes of General Murray’s allusions to plots at Montreal at this time may have been the presence of Ensign William Forsyth who had commanded an independent patrol of Scotch settlers in New Hampshire during the Indian war along the border, shortly after the session of Canada in 1763. He had been wounded and escaped to Montreal. He was related to several of the Canadian noblesse, particularly that of the Denys family. It is suggested that on the occasion of this visit there may have been planted the germs of an alliance between the French noblesse and the Scotch legitimists in favour of a Stuart dynasty which afterwards ripened into a more complete understanding.

On January 7, 1763, a petition signed by ninety-five of the chief inhabitants, including Montrealers such as Guy, and Jacques Hervieux, was presented to the king, protesting against the attitude of the British minority in excluding them from the law courts and asking for a confirmation of the privileges contained in Murray’s act for French Canadians. “Who are they that wish to proscribe us? About thirty English merchants of whom fifteen at the most are settled. Who are the proscribed? Ten thousand heads of families who breathe only submission to Your Majesty’s orders.”

Can it be wondered that at Montreal, the headquarters of the seigneurs, there is much dissatisfaction? The seigneurs at this time in petitioning the king for the maintenance of General Murray complained: “Our hopes have been destroyed by the establishment of the civil government that had been so highly extolled; we saw rise with it cabal, trial and confusion.” This may be taken as their prevailing attitude of mind.

On the 25th of November, 1767, Carleton wrote a remarkable letter in which, forecasting the possibility of a French war surprising the province, he recommends “The building of a citadel within the town of Quebec that the troops might have a fort capable of being defended by their numbers till succour could be sent them from home or from the neighbouring colonies; for should a French war surprise the province in its present condition the Canadian officers sent from France with troops might assemble such a body of people as will render the king’s dominion over the province very precarious while it depends on a few troops in an extensive fort open in many places.” (“Archives,” Series Q, Vol. V, page 250.)

[54]

Again Carleton, in the same letter to Shelburne, feared the possibility of former French officers, especially those who left after the capitulation, being sent back to Canada to lead an uprising. He knew these had been encouraged to return to France and were being upkept as a separate body with pay. “For these reasons,” he says, “I imagine, an edict was published in 1672, declaring that, notwithstanding the low state of the king’s finances, the salary of the captains of the colony troops of Canada should be raised from 450 livres, the establishment by which their pay was fixed at first, to 600 livres a year, to be paid quarterly, upon the footing of officers in full pay, by the treasurer of the colonies, at the quarters assigned them by His Majesty in Tourraine, and that such of them as did not repair thither should be struck off, the king’s intentions being that the said officers should remain in that province until further orders, and not depart from thence without a written leave from the secretary of state for the marine department.

“A few of these officers had been sent to the other colonies, but the greater part still remained in Tourraine, and the arrears due to those who have remained any time in this country are punctually discharged, upon their emigration, from them and obedience to the above mentioned injunction.

“By the secretary of state’s letter a certain quantity of wine, duty free, is admitted to enter the towns where these Canadian officers quarter, for their use according to their several ranks.”

In a further letter to Shelburne of December, 1767, he again clearly recognized the difficult political situation. “The most advisable method in my opinion for removing the present as well as for preventing future evils is to repeal that ordinance (of September 17, 1764) as null and void in its own nature and for the present leave the Canadian laws almost entire; such alterations might be afterwards made in them as time and occurrences rendered the same advisable so as to reduce them to that system His Majesty shall think fit, without risking the dangers of too much precipitation; or else such alterations might be made in the old and new laws judged necessary to be inevitably introduced and publish the whole as a Canadian code as was practiced by Edward I after the conquest of Wales.”

Meanwhile the seigneurs were not idle. In 1767 there was an assembly at Montreal of the noblesse presided over by the Chevalier D’Ailleboust and the petition was signed of remonstrance to the king, dated February 3d, already quoted, against discrimination against them.

This leads us to ask the question: Did the seigneurial body meet in open or secret conclave when their interests were to be safeguarded? Both kinds of conclaves would seem likely. It is certain, however, that such meetings were as far as possible prevented. Garneau “Histoire du Canada,” 4th edit., (Vol. II, page 400) relates that in 1766 Hertel de Rouville in the name of the seigneurs of Montreal applied for permission for the seigneurs to meet, which was granted on condition that two of the Supreme Council should be present with power to dissolve the gathering. When the seigneurs assembled General Burton, who had not been warned, wrote to the magistrates who replied that all was in order. “In any case,” replied the suspicious general, “if you have any need of assistance I will send it you.” The meeting was called by Hertel de Rouville “by a particular order of the Governor and Council” who doubtless thought by conciliating[55] the seigneurs, so far the responsible representatives of the people, that peaceful relations could be maintained with the new subjects.

A document recently unearthed by Mr. Massicotte, at the Court House archives, reveals that on the 3d of March, 1766, the Montreal merchants met in the house of James Crofton, inn-keeper “to protect against the meeting of the seigneurs held in the public court house on Friday, February 21st, 1766.” Their declaration before Edward William Gray, “Notary and Tabellion Publick,”1 protested that the seigneurs had been unconstitutionally chosen at the different parish meetings to represent the inhabitants of the seignories as agents “without the knowledge or consent of the magistrates of the districts, the commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces or the inhabitants of the city;” that these separate meetings not only for the entire exclusion of His Majesty’s ancient British subjects in general but of the mercantile part of His Majesty’s new subjects, did not make for unity or content. They further protested that “several of His Majesty’s British subjects who are possessed of seignories never received an order or summons to this said meeting.” The declaration further states that upon the principal English and French citizens assembling at the courthouse in order to be present at and know the cause of the public meeting they were informed by Adam Mabane, Esq., one of His Majesty’s council for the province that their presence was not necessary, as the meeting did not regard them and ordered them out. There were two of His Majesty’s justices of the peace present, Isaac Todd and Thomas Brashay, who “the public, thinking they had been given sanction to it, expressed them in such a manner that they sent down their resignation to the governor.” The malcontents withdrew under the impression that representatives for the people were being chosen without their consent. They flattered themselves, however, that when the house of assembly promised in His Majesty’s proclamation should come “His Majesty’s ancient subjects will be permitted at least to have a share in the choice of their representatives.”

The document written in English and French is signed in the former by John Wells, R. Stenhouse, Mathew Lessey, Samuel Holmes, John Stenhouse, G. Young, Joseph Howard, Lawrence Ermatinger, Mathew Wade, James Price, Thomas Barron, Jonas Desaulles, Richard Dobie, William Haywood, John Blake, and in the French by Jean Orilliat, Le Cavelier Pappalon, Le Prohon Dissan, Guy, Am. Hubert, St. Germain, Gagnée, Hervieux, Jacques Hervieux, Lg Bourassa, C. Depré, P. Le Duc, Pillet, Augé, Chenville. The witnesses to both documents are B. Frobisher, John Thomson.2 The names of the seigneurs given as present at the meeting are, (1) Claude Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, (2) Roch St. Ours Deschaillons, (3) Jacques Michel Hertel de Rouville, (4) Joseph, Michel Legardeur Sr. de Croiselle-Montesson, (5) Joseph Boucher de Niverville, (6) Joseph Godfrey de Normanville, (7) Louis François Pierre Paul Margane de Lavaltrie, (8) Hyacinthe Godfrey de Lintot, (9) Pierre Louis Boucher de Niverville, (10) Louis Gordian or Louis Charles, D’Ailleboust, (11) René Ovide[56] Hertel de Rouville, (12.) Louis Joseph Godefroy de Tonnancourt, (13) Jean François Nepveu, Seigneur d’Autray, (14) Jacques Hyacinthe Simon dit Delorme, Seigneur Delorme (or St. Hyacinthe), (15) Jean Baptiste Normand, Seigneur de Repentigny, (16) Charles Etienne Crevier, Seigneur de St. François, (17) Joseph de Fleury, Sr. d’Archambault, (18) René Boudier de la Breyère, (19) Abbé Etienne Montgolfier (Superior of the Seminary and Seigneur of the Isle of Montreal).

Carleton writing to Earl of Shelburne, one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries (given in Q 5, page 260, “Canadian Archives”), may again be quoted as indicating the grounds on which his toleration of such meetings as the one above recorded.3

“Quebec, 25th November, 1767.

“The king’s forces in this province, supposing them compliant to their allowance and all in perfect health, rank and file, would amount to 1,627 men. The king’s old subjects in this province, supposing them all willing, might furnish about five hundred men able to bear arms, exclusive of his troops; that is, supposing all the king’s troops and old subjects collected in Quebec; with two months’ hard labor they might put the works in a tolerable state of repair and would amount to about one-third the forces necessary for its defense. The new subjects could send into the field about eighteen thousand men well able to carry arms; of which number above one-half had already served with as much valour, with more zeal and more military knowledge for America than the regular troops of France that were joined with them. As the common people are greatly to be influenced by their Seigneurs, I annex a Return 4 of the noblesse of Canada, showing with tolerable exactness their age; rank and present place of abode, together with such natives of France as served in the colony troops so early in life as to give them a knowledge of the country, an acquaintance and influence over the people equal to natives of the same rank; from whence it appears that there are in France and in the French service about one hundred officers, all ready to be sent back in case of a war to a country they are intimately acquainted with and with the assistance of some troops to stir up a people accustomed to pay them implicit obedience. It further shows there remain in Canada not more than seventy of those who ever had been in the French service; not one of them in the king’s service nor any one who from any motive whatever is induced to support his government and dominion; gentlemen who have lost their employment at least by becoming his subjects and as they are not bound by any offices of trust or profit we should only deceive ourselves by supposing they would be active in the defense of a people that has deprived them of their honours, privileges, profits and laws and in their stead have introduced much expence, chicannery and confusion with a deluge of new laws unknown and unpublished. Therefore, all circumstances considered, while matters continue in their present state, the most we can hope for from the gentlemen who remain in this province is a passive neutrality on all occasions, a respectful submission to government and deference for the king’s commission in whatever hand it may be lodged; this they almost to a[57] man have persevered in since my arrival, notwithstanding much pains have been taken to engage them in parties by a few whose duty and whose office should have taught them better. * * *

“Having arrayed the strength of His Majesty’s old and new subjects and shewn the great superiority of the latter, it may not be amiss to observe there is not the least probability this present superiority should ever be diminished. On the contrary ’tis more than probable it will increase and strengthen daily. The Europeans who migrate never will prefer the long inhospitable winters of Canada to the more cheerful climates and more fruitful soil of His Majesty’s southern provinces; the few old subjects at present in this province have been mostly left here by accident and are either disbanded officers, soldiers or followers of the army, who not knowing how to dispose of themselves elsewhere, settled where they could at the Reduction; or else they are adventurers in trade or such as could not remain at home, who set out to mend their fortunes at the opening of this new channel for commerce, but experience has taught almost all of them that this trade requires a strict frugality they are strangers to, or to which they will not submit; so that some from more advantageous views elsewhere, others from necessity, have already left this province and I fear many more for the same reason will follow their example in a few years; but while this severe climate and the poverty of the country discourages all but the natives, its healthfulness is such that these multiply daily so that, barring a catastrophe shocking to think of, this country must to the end of time be peopled by a Canadian race who already have taken such a firm root and got to so great a height that any new stock transplanted will be totally hid and imperceptible amongst them except in the towns of Quebec and Montreal.”

This last consideration no doubt largely influenced Carleton in his readiness to uphold the ancient laws and customs. He had not the vision of an English-speaking Dominion such as that of today, of which the British merchants of Montreal and Quebec of the early days with all their faults were laying the sure foundation by their commercial enterprise and dogged pertinacity.

Writing again to Shelburne on December 24, 1767, Carleton reminds his Lordship that the colony had submitted to His Majesty’s arms on certain conditions. He doubtless had in view, good tory as he was, the objection of the noblesse to the institution of a democratic representative assembly already urged by the merchants of Quebec and Montreal with their experience of such in the English colonies, as inimical to the established order of things, for the system of laws so long in vogue before the act of 1763 maintained the subordination between the different social divisions from the highest to the most humble ranks and upheld the harmony now being threatened, thus keeping this far-off province in its loyalty to the crown.

On January 20, 1768, he again wrote recommending the inclusion, in the Council and the army, of a number of the noblesse. By this means he said:[58] “We would at least succeed in dividing the Canadians and in case of war we would have a certain number on our side who would stimulate the zeal of the national troops of the king. Besides, the nobles would have reason to hope that their children without having received their education in France and without serving in the French service would be able to support their families in the service of the king, their master, in the exercise of offices which would prevent them from descending to the level of the common people through the division and the subdivision of their lands in each generation.” (Constitutional Documents, French Edit.)

On April 12, 1788, he again champions the noblesse and even recommends that the ceremony of seigneurial feudalism be kept up as under the ancient régime. “All lands here,” he says, “are dependent on His Majesty’s Château of St. Louis and I am persuaded that nothing can be more agreeable to the people and more suitable to secure the allegiance of the new subjects as well as the payment of fines, dues and rights which take the place of quit rents in this colony as a formal requisition, enjoining all who hold their lands directly from the king to render him foi et homage in his Château of St. Louis. The oaths taken by the vassals on this occasion are very solemn and binding and involve serious obligations; they are obliged in consequence to produce what they call here their ‘aveux et dénombrement,’ i. e., an exact return of their tenants and their revenue. In addition they have to pay their dues to their sovereign and to take arms to defend him in the case of an attack on the province.” (Constitutional Documents, French Edit.)

A letter of Carleton to Lord Hillsborough of November 20, 1768, is headed “Secret Correspondence” (“Archives,” Series Q, Vol. V, page 890).5 It shows that others besides Murray and Carleton had been viewing with suspicion the actions of the noblesse who were thought to be meditating a revolt. “My Lord,” writes Carleton,[59] “since my arrival in this province I have not been able to make any discovery that induces me to give credit to the paper of intelligence inclosed in Your Lordship’s letter of the 20th of May, last, nor do I think it probable the chiefs of their own free notion in time of peace dare assemble in numbers, consult and resolve on a revolt; that an assembly of military men should be so ignorant as to fancy they could defend themselves by a few fire ships only against any future attack from Great Britain after their experience in fifty-nine. Notwithstanding this and their decent and respectful obedience to the king’s government hitherto, I have not the least doubt of their secret attachment to France and think this will continue as long as they are excluded from all employment under the British government and are certain of being reinstated at least in their former commissions under that of France by which chiefly they supported themselves and families. When I reflect that France naturally has the affections of all the people, that to make no mention of fees of office and of the vexations of the law, we have done nothing to gain one man in the province by making it his private interest to remain the king’s subject, and that the interests of many would be greatly promoted by a revolution, I own my not having discovered a treasonable correspondence never was proof sufficient to convince me that it did not exist in some degree, but I am inclined to think if such a message had been sent, very few were intrusted with the secret; perhaps the court of France informed a year past by Mons. de Chatelet that the king proposed raising such a regiment of his new subjects caused this piece of intelligence to be communicated to create a jealousy of the Canadians and prevent a measure that might fix their attachments to the British government and probably of those savages who have always acted with them; however that may be, on receiving this news from France last spring, most of the gentlemen in the province applied to me and begged to be admitted to the king’s service, assuring me that they would take every opportunity to testify their zeal and gratitude for so great a mark of favour and tenderness, extended not only to them but to their posterity.”

The passage following is prophetic of the active interference which ten years later France was to take in the American war against Great Britain. “When I consider further that the king’s dominion here is maintained but by a few troops necessarily dispersed without a place of security for their magazines, for their arms or for themselves, amidst a numerous military people, the gentlemen all officers of experience, poor, without hopes that they or their descendants will be admitted into the service of their present sovereign, I can have no doubt but France as soon as determined to begin a war will attempt to regain Canada, should it be intended only to make a diversion while it may reasonably be undertaken with a little hazzard should it fail, and where so much may be gained should it succeed. But should France begin a war in hopes the British colonies will push matters to extremities, and she adopts the project of supporting them in their independent notions, Canada, probably, will then become the principal scene where the fate of America may be determined. Affairs in this situation, Canada in the hands of France would no longer present itself as an enemy to the British colony but as an ally, a friend and protector of their independency.”

The sympathy, respect and even fear of the seigneurs which Carleton evinced in his reports home largely influenced the final passage of the Quebec act. Their firmness and persistency in their demand for their privileges and their influence over the habitant and the possibility of their allegiance being tampered with by France made them prevail over the small but active minority of the commercial class. At this time preparations were being made in London for the settlement of the Quebec difficulty. Secrecy was being observed in high quarters. Lord Hillsborough’s answer, January 4, 1769, to Carleton’s last is also secret, “acknowledging your secret dispatch of November 21st before His Majesty. The remarks you make upon the state and temper of His Majesty’s new subjects will be of great utility in the consideration of the measures now under deliberation and do evince both the propriety and necessity of extending to that grave and faithful people a reaonable participation in those establishments which are to form the basis of the future government of Quebec.” He fears, however, although he agreed with Carleton’s recommendation, that prejudice being so strong it will be difficult to admit them to military offices.

The following summary of investigations conducted for the governments at this time may now be added as evidence of the military strength of the party Carleton wished to conciliate.

Noblesse in the Province of Quebec:

Captains having the order of St. Louis | 9
Captains named in the order but not invested | 1
Captains who have not the order | 4
Lieutenants having the order | 1
Lieutenants | 16
Ensigns | 2
Officers de Reserve | 2[60]
Cadets | 23
Have never been in the service | 44
In the upper country who have never been in the service | 6
| ——
Total | 126
(At least eighty-five of these are reported as in the Montreal district.)

Noblesse in France:

Grand Croix | 1
Governors, lieutenant governors, majors, aide majors, captains and lieutenants of ships of war, having the order of St. Louis | 26
Aide-majors and captains not having the order | 6
Lieutenants | 12
Ensigns | 19
Canadian officers in actual service whose parents have remained in Canada | 15
| ——
Total | 79

Natives of France who came over to Canada as cadets, served and were preferred in the colony troops and were treated in France as Canadian officers:

Captains not having the Croix of St. Louis | 7
Had the rank of captain in 1760, raised to lieutenant in France, Knight of St. Louis | 1
Lieutenants | 7
Was captain in the colony troops at Mississippi, came to Canada in 1760 and is raised to the rank of colonel in the Spanish service at Mississippi; Knight of St. Louis | 1
Having had civil employment | 5
Officers of the port | 2
| ——
Total | 23

The case of the seigneurs and that of the merchants was by this time well understood in England by the colonial authorities and the parliament. The insistent demand for an assembly had been well presented by Masères, while the no less repeated opposition to it in the form of an amended constitution to guarantee French-Canadian liberties had been equally well presented by the seigneurs and their upholders. It remained for legislators to settle which was the more opportune, the delay of the assembly or the immediate concessions of favours to the conquered race.

The session of 1774 was drawing to a close but the culminating point looked to with such eagerness on both sides of the Atlantic, the Quebec act, was not introduced till May 17th, when it quickly passed the three readings in the house of lords. On the 26th it reached the second reading in the commons when the serious opposition began. The debate was continued on June 6th, 7th, 8th and 19th, on which latter day the bill was carried in committee by eighty-three to forty. On the third reading the final vote was fifty-six to twenty. The House[61] of Lords received the bill and its amendments for further consideration on June 17th and the bill was passed on June 22d. The house was prorogued.

The Quebec Act restored the French civil law in toto. It declared that Roman Catholics were to enjoy the free exercise of their religion, though the clergy might only levy tithes on their own subjects. It amended the oath of allegiance so as to make it possible for an honest Roman Catholic to take it.

The act was in a sense a formal renunciation of the British government to Anglicize the province of Quebec.6 It was the logical ratification of the British government’s promises to protect the laws and institutions of the French-Canadians. It was also a wise move. We know the views of Murray and Carleton. General Haldimand, writing in 1780, six years after it had been tried, confirms this thus: “It requires little penetration to discover that had the system of government solicited by the old subjects been adopted in Canada this colony would, in 1775, have become one of the United States of America.”[62]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Mr. Gray was the first English notary of Montreal, being named such October 7, 1765; on August 15, 1768, he became an advocate; on the 1st of May, 1776, he succeeded Mr. Turner as sheriff. In 1784 he accepted the position of sub-director of the post in the city.

2 The above names are not given with this fullness. Some are obscure, hence Mr. Massicotte’s identification of them is used here. (Canadian Antiquarian, January, 1914.)

3 The object of this letter is to urge the strengthening of the fort at Quebec against the possibility of an uprising.

4 (Canadian Archives, Q 5, page 269.) This is printed in full in Canadian Archives for 1888, page 44.

5 This letter does not appear among the state papers in the Canadian Archives.

6 Cf. F.P. Walton, Dean of the Faculty of Law, McGill University, in an article in the University Magazine, April, 1908, entitled “After the Cession.”

[63]

### CHAPTER VII

THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR OF 1775

MONTREAL THE SEAT OF DISCONTENT

THE QUEBEC ACT, A PRIMARY OCCASION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION—MONTREAL BRITISH DISLOYAL—THE COFFEE HOUSE MEETING—WALKER AGAIN—MONTREAL DISAFFECTS QUEBEC—LOYALTY OF HABITANTS AND SAVAGES UNDERMINED—NOBLESSE, GENTRY AND CLERGY LOYAL—KING GEORGE’S BUST DESECRATED—“DELENDA EST CANADA”—“THE FOURTEENTH COLONY”—BENEDICT ARNOLD AND ETHAN ALLEN—BINDON’S TREACHERY—CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS FEEBLY ANSWERED—MILITIA CALLED OUT—LANDING OF THE REBELS—ENGLISH OFFICIAL APATHY—MONTREAL’S PART IN THE DEFENCE OF CANADA—THE FIRST SOLELY FRENCH-CANADIAN COMPANY OF MILITIA—NOTE: THE MILITIA.

The Quebec act, which was hailed by the leaders of the French-Canadians as their Magna Charta, was received with execration in England and America. On the day of the prorogation of Parliament, June 22d, the mayor of London, attended by the recorder, several aldermen and 150 of the common council, went to St. James with a petition to the king to withhold his assent from the bill. The lord chamberlain receiving them, told them that it was too late, that the king was then on the point of going to parliament to give his consent to a bill agreed on by both houses of parliament and that they must not expect an answer. Among other objections this petition claimed: “that the Roman Catholic religion which is known to be idolatrous and bloody is established by this bill and no legal provision is made for the free exercise of our reformed faith nor the security of our Protestant fellow subjects of the church of England in the true worship of Almighty God according to their consciences.”

In the American colonies the Quebec act largely precipitated the American Revolution then being concocted. Strong protest was made, as for example, that shown by the delegates of Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, in the address to the people of England; “By another act the Dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modeled and governed as that by being disunited from us, detached from our interests by civil as well as by religious prejudices, that by their numbers, swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to administration so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasion be fit instruments in the hands of power to reduce the ancient free Protestant colonies to the same state of slavery as themselves.” Again speaking of the Quebec Act, it adds[64] “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion which has deluged your Island in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.” The Quebec act added fuel to the fire of discontent and the people were ready for war if the Congress said so. The congress of Philadelphia at the same time published a long, bombastic and revolutionary address signed by Henry Middleton, president.

“To the inhabitants of the province of Quebec.”

“We do not ask you to commence hostilities against the government of our common sovereign but we submit it to your consideration whether it may not be expedient to you to meet together in your several towns and districts and elect deputies who after meeting in a provincial congress may chose delegates to represent your province in the continental congress to be held at Philadelphia on the 10th of May, 1775.” An unanimous vote had been resolved “That you should be invited to accede to our federation.” It is interesting to note that, forgetful of the previous letter to the British parliament breathing religious intolerance just referred to, the artful Americans now used also the following argumentum ad hominem: “We are too well acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your nation to imagine that difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. You know that the transcendent nature of freedom, elevates those who unite in the cause above all such low-minded infirmities.”

This was printed for wide circulation in Canada and the question of sending the delegates was eagerly discussed in Montreal’s affected circles.

The Quebec act was one of the causes of grievance which led to the American Revolution; it was one of the acts of tyranny specified in the Declaration of Independence, “For abolishing the free system of English law in a neighbouring province (Canada), establishing therein an arbitrary government and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rules into these colonies.”

But how was the bill received in Montreal? Truth to tell, Montreal was the seat of discontent in Canada. Its infection was carried to Quebec. Sir Guy Carleton, who shortly after the passage of the Quebec bill left England with his young wife,1 the Lady Maria Howard, the third daughter of Thomas, the second Earl of Effingham, to resume his office as governor general, tells how the trouble started at Montreal in his letter to Dartmouth, dated Quebec, 11th of November, 1774. We are there informed that at Quebec there were addresses of loyal acceptation of the situation. “I believe,” wrote Carleton,[65] “that most of them who signed this address were disposed to act up to their declaration, which probably would have been followed by those who did not, if their brethren at Montreal had not adopted very different measures. Whether the minds of the latter are of a more turbulent turn or that they caught the fire from some colonists settled among them, or in reality letters were received from the general congress, as reported, I know not; certain it is, however, that shortly after the said congress had published in all the American papers their approbation of the Suffolk County Resolves 2 in the Massachusetts Assembly, a report was spread at Montreal that letters of importance had been received from the general congress and all the British there flocked to the coffee house to hear the news. Grievances were publicly talked of and various ways for obtaining redress proposed, but that the government might not come to a true knowledge of their intentions a meeting was appointed at the house of a person then absent, followed by several others at the same place and a committee of four named, consisting of Mr. Walker, Mr. Todd, Mr. Price and Mr. Blake, to take care of their interests and prepare plans of redress. Mr. Walker now takes the lead. * * * Their plans being prepared and a subscription commenced, the committee set out for Quebec, attended in form by their secretary, a nephew of Mr. Walker and by profession a lawyer.”

Carleton proceeds to describe how the Montreal emissaries worked up the Quebecers 3 through several “town meetings” to join in petitions, for a repeal of the Quebec act, which were sent to “His Majesty, to the Lords spiritual and temporal, to the Honourable, the Commons.” The chief grievances were that they had lost the protection of the English laws and had thrust on them the laws of Canada which are ruinous to their properties as thereby they lose the invaluable privilege of trial by juries; that in matters of a criminal nature the habeas corpus act is dissolved and they are subjected to arbitrary fines and imprisonment at the will of the governor and council. Masères was entrusted with the promotion of their cause. The petitions were signed on November 12th. In February secret agents from congress were in Montreal to see if an aggressive policy could be safely pursued.

The majority of the English population was on the side of the discontented provinces. The French-Canadian habitants were encouraged to remain neutral, being plied with specious arguments to undermine their loyalty to the king. They were told that they had nothing to lose from the government by this position and everything to gain from the congress faction who threatened reprisals if they became actively opposed to them. But the noblesse, the gentry and the clergy were against the congress, for the Quebec act had guaranteed them the securities for the rights they most valued; they knew that there was little to hope for from the Americans. The Quebec act came into operation on May 1st and an instance of the unsettled state of men’s minds in Montreal is remembered by the incident of the desecration of the king’s bust on this day. It was discovered daubed with black and decorated with a necklace of potatoes, and a cross attached with the words “voila le pape du Canada et le sot Anglais.”4 Kingsford, following Sanguinet,[66] says that the perpetrator of the foolish insult, for such it was intended to be, was never discovered. The act was regarded as insolent and disloyal and it caused great excitement. A public meeting was called at which 100 guineas were subscribed to discover the perpetrators. The company of grenadiers of the Twenty-Six made a proclamation by beat of drum offering a reward of $200 and a free pardon excepting the person who had disfigured it to any one giving information which would lead to the discovery of the offenders. The principal French-Canadians were greatly annoyed at this proceeding, the words being in French. It was claimed, however, that they were written by an English speaking revolutionist.

On April 19th the affair at Lexington, the commencement of a civil revolution, took place and rapidly the news of it spread. Montreal was well posted. The leaders of the provincial sympathizers here reported to the leaders of congress the easy fall of Canada to the insurgents. Canada was more feverishly coveted at this time than ever. In 1712 Dummers had written: “I am sure it has been the cry of the whole country ever since Canada was delivered up to the French,—Canada est delenda.” In 1756 Governor Livingston of New Jersey had cried: “Canada must be demolished—Delenda est Carthago,—or we are undone.” And now Canada was desired as the “fourteenth colony.”

In Montreal those who had received in the coffee house John Brown, John Adams’ ambassador, were still keeping up communications led by Thomas Walker, Price and others. At last the Congressists thought the conquest was being made, relying on the presumed neutrality of the Canadians. Ticonderoga had fallen in the beginning of May to the revolutionary party under Ethan Allen’s self-constituted forces. The road to Canada was being cleared. Benedict Arnold, sailing from Ticonderoga, had arrived unexpectedly on the morning of the 18th of May at Fort St. John’s and captured the small war sloop there and took prisoners the sergeant and ten men in charge of the military garrison. A second landing was made by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys at St. John’s on the 18th and 19th with a party said to be three hundred strong, as Carleton was informed at Quebec. There was great consternation in Montreal when the news of the seizure of Ticonderoga and Crown Point and the first capture of St. John’s was brought by Moses Hazen,5 a merchant of Montreal now living near St. John’s. The military was immediately put in motion by Colonel Templer who dispatched Colonel Preston with a regiment of one hundred men of the Twenty-sixth and this would have cut off Allen’s descent up the lake with his bateaux had not Bindon, a friendly Montreal merchant, hurried on horseback from Longueuil to St. John’s to apprize Allen of the approach of the party from Montreal.6

[67]

Allen before embarking gave a letter to this same Bindon addressed to one Morrison and the British merchants at Montreal, lovers of liberty, demanding a supply of provisions, ammunition and spirituous liquors which some of them were inclined enough to furnish had they not been prevented. (Carleton to Dartmouth, June 7, 1775, from Montreal.) Bindon in returning to Montreal fell across Colonel Preston who would have detained him but he rode off and, crossing the St. Lawrence, found his way to Montreal with his letters. On arriving he added to the excitement of Montreal—it being market day—by reporting that Preston’s detachment had been defeated. Colonel Templer called a meeting of the citizens for 3 o’clock at the Récollet church to consider the situation. It was numerously attended and it was resolved to take arms for the common defense. During the proceedings Templer received a letter from Preston detailing Bindon’s reprehensible conduct. Bindon was himself present and turned pale as the facts were read. The meeting was adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning when it was held on St. Anne’s common. Templer proposed that the inhabitants should form themselves into companies of thirty and elect their officers. Several well known citizens were chosen to make the roll of those willing to serve.7 They were of the old Canadian families known for their loyalty. Preston’s detachment returned to Montreal, the men greatly infuriated against Bindon. They had learned that it was from no fault of his they had not been intercepted in the woods and shot down. So soon as they were dismissed for parade they went in search of him. When he was found the men forcibly led him to the pillory with the intention of hanging him, but they were without a ladder and the officers rescued Bindon before one could be obtained. But he was arrested and carried before the magistrates, when he pleaded guilty to imprudence but protested his innocence. To save his character he played the part of a loyalist and took service in the force organized for defense. The action of the troops with regard to Bindon was the occasion of a public meeting called by the party for congress.

Meanwhile a call for volunteers was met by an insignificant enrollment of fifty Canadians who set out for St. John’s under Lieutenant McKay, to remain there until relieved by the Twenty-sixth regiment. Carleton moved the troops from Quebec thither, also. The few troops at Three Rivers were also sent; the garrison of Montreal as well. Carleton arrived at Montreal on May 26th. He found how poorly the French-Canadians had responded to the call to organize themselves into companies. In St. Lawrence suburb the commissioners sent to enroll volunteers had been met by the women with threats of stoning. The loyalty of the French-Canadians had been sorely tampered with. There is not a family resemblance between the letters written by Carleton about the quality of their obedience, before the Quebec act and after. On June 7, 1775, Carleton wrote from Montreal to Dartmouth gloomily reviewing the situation and telling of the preparations for the safety of St. John’s. “The little force we have in the Province was immediately set in Motion and ordered to assemble at or near St. John’s; the Noblesse of this Neighbourhood were called upon to collect their Inhabitants in order to defend themselves. The Savages of these parts likewise[68] had the same orders but though the Gentlemen testified great Zeal, neither their Entreaties or their Example could prevail upon the People; a few of the Gentry consisting principally of the Youth residing in this place and its Neighbourhood, formed a small Corps of Volunteers under the Command of Mr. Samuel McKay and took post at St. John’s; the Indians showed as much Backwardness as the Canadian Peasantry. * * * Within these few Days the Canadians and Indians seemed to return a little to their senses, the Gentry and Clergy had been very useful on this occasion and shewn great Fidelity and Warmth for His Majesty’s Service, but both have lost much of their influence over the People. I proposed trying to form a Militia and if their minds are favourably disposed will raise a Battalion upon the same plan as the other Corps in America, as to Numbers and Experience, and were it established I think it might turn out a great public Utility; but I have my doubts as to whether I shall be able to succeed.

“These Measures that formerly would have been extremely popular require at present a great Degree of Caution and Circumspection; so much have the Minds of the People been tainted by the Cabals and Intrigues, I have from time to time given to your Lordship some information of. I am as yet uncertain whether I shall find it advisable to proceed in the forementioned Undertaking; to defame their King and treat with Insolence and Disrespect, upon all Occasions to speak with the utmost contempt of His Government, to forward Sedition and applaud Rebellion, seems to be what too many of his British-American Subjects in those parts think their undoubted Right.” (Constitutional Documents, 1760-1791, page 450.)

On the 9th of June, Carleton, by proclamation, authorized the calling out of the militia throughout the whole province according to the provisions of the old law, reinstating officers appointed by Murray, Gage and Burton. The movement was not popular even with the new subjects, uninfluenced by the discontent of the disloyalists who feared in the return of the old militia the exactions of the French régime. Chief Justice Hey, then in Montreal, prevailed upon some of the dissatisfied “old” but “loyal” subjects to enroll for good example, which done, they were joined by the French-Canadians so that a sufficient force was ready for a review before General Carleton.

The Indians of Caughnawaga at first hesitated in their loyalty, which had also been tampered with, but they were also brought to serve. At this time Colonel Johnson arrived in Montreal with 300 Indians of the six nations; a council of 600 Indians was held and all agreed to take the field in defense, but not to commence hostilities. The congressists had endeavoured to persuade them to neutrality and the leaven was still working.

July was drawing to a close. Carleton left Montreal by way of Longueuil to inspect the militia at Sorel and then proceeded to Quebec, where he arrived on August 2d, to make preparations for the establishment of the new Legislative Council. This met for the first time on August 17th but it was adjourned on September 7th on account of news of the congress troops again appearing on the Richelieu. The lieutenant governor, Cramahé, writing to Dartmouth from Quebec on September 21st, tells the circumstances how on the news of the rebel army approaching, Carleton set out for Montreal in great haste; that[69] “on the 7th inst. the Rebels landed in the woods near St. John’s and were beat back to their Boats by a Party of Savages encamped at that Place. In this Action the Savages behaved with great Spirit and Resolution and had they remained firm to our Interests probably the Province would have been Saved for this Year, but finding the Canadians in General adverse to taking up Arms for the Defence of their Country, they withdrew and made their peace. After their Defeat the Rebels returned to the Isle aux Noix, where they continued till lately, sending out some Parties and many Emisaries to debauch the Minds of the Canadians and Indians.”

Cramahé adds that no means had been left untried to bring the Canadian peasantry to a sense of their duty and to engage them to take up arms in defense of the province but to no purpose. “The Justice must be done to the Gentry, Clergy and most of the Burgeoisie that they have shewn the Greatest Zeal and Fidelity to the King’s Service and Exerted their best Endeavours to reclaim their infatuated Countrymen. Some Troops and a Ship of War or two would, in all likelihood, have prevented this general Defection.”8

Chief Justice Hey, writing at the end of August to the Lord Chancellor, says in a postscript dated September 11th “that all there was to trust to was about five hundred men, two war boats at St. John’s and Chambly; that the situation is desperate and that Canada would shortly be in complete possession of the rebels.” In a further postscript of September 17th he adds that not one hundred Canadians, except in the towns of Quebec and Montreal, are with the king. He holds himself ready to return, to be of more use in England. Carleton, sick at heart with disappointment at the ingratitude of the Canadians who would not march to defend their own country, the uncertainty of the Indians, and the disloyalty of many of the old subjects, and crippled by an inadequate army which was nearly all enclosed in Forts Chambly and St. John’s, nevertheless determined to act boldly on the defensive until General Gage should send from Boston the two regiments earnestly asked for.

Canada was abandoned at this period by as criminal apathy and ignorance on the part of English officials, as it had been before by the French. As Cramahé had pointed out, some troops and a ship of war or two sent from England, or from Gage in America, would have saved Canada from the invasion of 1775.

The part that Montreal took in the defence of Canada must now be told. When the news of the rebels advancing on to St. John’s reached Montreal, Colonel Prescott, then in command, sent an order to the parishes around the city for fifteen men of each company of militia to join the force at St. John’s. Though no report came from without, the Montreal army men came forward to the number of 120 French and Canadians under the command of de Belestre and de Longueuil, many of the volunteers being young men of family and several being prosperous merchants, this being perhaps the first recorded separate unit composed solely of French-Canadians, ever raised as an arm of Imperial defence. The party for St. John’s departed on September 7th. The loyal British volunteers remained to perform duty in Montreal. Time will discover who were truly loyal and who were not.

The Imperial forces in Canada were now represented by the two companies in Montreal, eighty-two men at Chambly and the garrison of St. John’s, consisting of 505 men of all rank, of the Seventh Royal Fusiliers and the Twenty-sixth Regiment, thirty of the Royal Artillery, eight of Colonel McLean’s newly raised[70] corps from Quebec and fifteen of the Royal Horse and 120 volunteers from Montreal—the whole making a total of 696 in the garrison, not counting some artificers.

Around St. John’s and in the district of the Richelieu the inhabitants were either neutral or, with the majority, actively espousing the congress party, some by taking to the field, others by supplying provisions, assisting in the transport of munitions of war and artillery and giving information.

Surely the morale of the once loyal French-Canadian habitants had been undermined effectively by Walker and other malcontents and had been recently further weakened by the manifesto of General Schuyler from the Isle aux Noix on September 15th to his “dear friends and compatriots, the habitants of Canada,” advising them to join him and escape the common slavery prepared for them. Montgomery’s scouting parties, out for supplies and information, did the rest. Of Richard Montgomery, Schuyler’s second in command, we shall hear more.

NOTE

THE MILITIA

The militia, which was called out for service in the field in 1775, 1776, 1812, 1814, 1837, 1839, with the exception of a few small independent corps, consisted of provisionally organized units armed and equipped from the magazines, the regular army, paid by the British government, drilled, disciplined and often commanded by regular officers. After the denudation of Canada of the regular troops at the time of the Crimean war, it became necessary for the colony to take more provisions for its own defence. In 1855 the military act (18 Victoria, Chapter 77), passed by the Upper Canada, for raising and maintaining at the colonial expense, created the nucleus of our present militia system. The “Trent” excitement of 1861-62 and the Fenian raids of 1867-70 further stimulated the movement. The first Dominion militia act (31 Victoria, Chapter 40) was passed in 1868. The present militia act (4 Edward VII, Chapter 23) received assent on August 15, 1904. According to this statute the militia is divided into active and reserve forces.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Carleton was then in his fiftieth year, his wife in her twenty-second. They were married on May 22, 1772.

2 Adopted on September 9, 1774.

3 The Montreal agitators were fiercer than those of Quebec. John McCord, of Quebec, wrote April 27, 1775, to Lieutenant Pettigrew, “I pray God to grant peace at any price; the blood of British subjects is very precious.” Walker, writing to Samuel Adams on April 7th, breathes fire: “Few in this colony dare vent their quip but groan in silence and dream of Lettres de Cachets, confiscations and improvements.” The colonists had declared they would fight for their rights and liberties while they had a drop of their blood left.

4 “This is the pope of Canada and the fool of England.”

5 Moses Hazen passed his boyhood at Haverhill, in Massachusetts. He served in the Louisberg expedition, rose to be a captain in the Rangers at the taking of Quebec and was remarked by General Wolfe as a good soldier. Later he obtained a lieutenant’s commission in the 44th Foot and soon after the conquest retired on half pay. We then find his name attached to petitions of the Montreal merchants. At this time he appears to have settled near St. John’s, carrying on not only large farming operations but owning sawmills, a potash house and a forge.

6 When the Americans appeared there in arms he saw, doubtless, the losses war would bring him and he wished them elsewhere. For a time he “trimmed” successfully, but at last was held suspicious by both parties and was held prisoner by both.

7 Dupuy-Desauniers, de Longueuil, Panet, St. George Dupré, Mesére, Sanguinet, Guy and Lemoine Despins. (See the Abbé Verreau’s valuable book “Invasion du Canada par les Americains.”)

8 Constitutional Documents, page 435.

[71]

### CHAPTER VIII

MONTREAL BESIEGED

1775

THE SECOND CAPITULATION

ETHAN ALLEN—HABITANTS’ AND CAUGHNAWAGANS’ LOYALTY TAMPERED WITH—PLAN TO OVERCOME MONTREAL—THE ATTACK—ALLEN CAPTURED—WALKER’S FARM HOUSE AT L’ASSOMPTION BURNED—WALKER TAKEN PRISONED TO MONTREAL—CARLETON’S FORCE FROM MONTREAL FAILS AT ST. JOHN’S—CARLETON LEAVES MONTREAL—MONTREAL BESIEGED—MONTGOMERY RECEIVES A DEPUTATION OF CITIZENS—THE ARTICLES OF CAPITULATION—MONTGOMERY ENTERS BY THE RECOLLECT GATE—WASHINGTON’S PROCLAMATION.

While Montgomery at Isle aux Noix is planning his descent on St. John’s, the portal of Canada, twelve miles lower down, it will be well to follow Ethan Allen on his venturesome and abortive attempt to take Montreal. Ethan Allen, of Bennington, was, as Carleton had reported, “an outlaw in the province of New York, who had become famous by his daring capture of Ticonderoga and had been emboldened enough by his success to persuade the New York congress to raise a small regiment of rangers.” Thus this freebooter, with his Green Mountain Boys, became a commissioned officer. He got employment under Schuyler and it was Ethan Allen with John Brown, now Major, who had formerly been sent to Montreal to sound the merchants, who bore Schuyler’s manifesto from Isle aux Noix to the habitants of Canada. From parish to parish he hurried and his ready wit and hustling address captivated the peasant housewives who, being educated better than their husbands, read the proclamation with approval to them. He visited the Caughnawaga Indians and played havoc with their loyalty, receiving beads and wampum from them. His reappointment was from Montgomery, then commencing the investment of St. John’s, who, it is said, wanting to find employment for Allen at a distance from himself, sent him to gather up a recruit of Canadians around Chambly. According to his own account he was easily successful. Writing to Montgomery on September 20th from St. Ours, “You may rely on it,” he says, “that I shall join you in three days with five hundred or more Canadian volunteers. * * * Those that used to be enemies to our cause come cap in hand to me; and I swear by the Lord I can raise three times the number of our army provided you continue the siege.” Yet, on the night of September 23d, when he found himself at Longueuil looking across the St. Lawrence to the city which it was his ambition to capture, he had only about eighty still following.[72] He was returning to St. John’s next morning, and when two miles from Longueuil he met John Brown, now Colonel in command of a considerable force at La Prairie. These two, retiring to a house with some others, conceived the plan of attacking Montreal. The plan was for Brown with two hundred followers to cross over the St. Lawrence in canoes above the town, and Allen’s party below it; each would silently approach the gate at his end of the city; Brown’s party would give three Huzzas! Allen’s would respond and then both would fall to.

It was a brilliant idea and elated Allen. Montreal, captured by a force of two to three thousand and the easy fall of the rest of Canada had been the vision put before congress often enough. “I still maintain my views,” says Colonel Easton before the congress of Massachusetts on June 6, 1775, “that policy demands that the colonies advance an army of two or three thousand men into Canada and environ Montreal. This will inevitably fix and confirm the Canadians and Indians in our interests.” On June 13, 1775, Benedict Arnold wrote to congress, sketching out a plan by which with an army of 2,000 men, Chambly and St. John’s should be cut off with 700 men, 300 more should guard the boats and the line of retreat and a grand division of 1,000 should appear before Montreal, whose gates on the arrival of the Americans were to be opened by friends there “in consequence of a plan for that purpose already entered into by them.”

On May 29th Allen, over confident, had written to the Continental Congress: “Provided I had but 500 men with me at St. John’s when we took the king’s sloop, I would have advanced to Montreal.” On June 2d he wrote to the New York congress: “I will lay my life on it that with 1,500 men and a proper train of artillery I will take Montreal,” and on July 12th to Trumbull that if his Green Mountain Boys had not been formed into a battalion under certain regulations and command he would further “advance then into Canada and invest Montreal.”

Here, then, was Allen to attempt to take the city of his dreams with a smaller force than his dreams provided for! He had forgotten, perhaps, that Carleton was in that city. He was elated that he had added about thirty English Americans to his force, but he was sorry that Thomas Walker had been communicated with at his home in L’Assomption. Night came on. Allen’s little fleet spent all the night being driven backward and forward by the currents, but at last after six crossings were made to land his men in the limited number of available boats, on the morning of the 25th the daring invaders were all landed at Longue Pointe. But they heard no Huzza! from Brown’s party from the other side of the city. Brown had either known better or was jealous of Ethan Allen’s desire to claim the capture of Montreal, as he had done that of Ticonderoga.

Longue Pointe was not unfriendly but thought discretion better than valour. Allen saw himself in a foolish position; his slightness of force would soon be known in Montreal through the escape from his guards of a Montrealer named Desautel going out early to his Longue Pointe farm.

Montreal was in great excitement and confusion at the news of the presence of the notorious New Hampshire incendiary. Even some of the officers took to the ships.1 It was, however, only at 9 o’clock that Carleton heard the news. There was a hurry and scurry and a beating of drums and the parade ground of the Champ de Mars behind the barracks was filled with the people.[73] Carleton briefly told the citizens of their dangers and ordered them to join the troops at the barracks. The instinct of self-preservation in a common danger made most obey except some, chiefly American colonists, that stepped forward and turned off the contrary way.

COLONEL ARNOLD

GENERAL RICHARD MONTGOMERY

HOUSE AT THE CORNER OF NOTRE DAME AND ST. PETER STREETS

Occupied by Montgomery and the American officers during the winter of 1775-76.

HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF RUE BONSECOURS AND ST. PAUL STREET

Occupied by government representatives from 1775 to 1791.

At last the Montreal party was ready. They dashed through the Quebec gate, smashing the boats there to cut off the enemies retreat, and hurried up north. The fight with Allen’s men began at 2 o’clock and lasted an hour and three-quarters by the watch. Though carefully using all natural advantages of the ground, ditches and coverts chosen beforehand, Allen himself was compelled to surrender his sword to Peter Johnson, a natural son of Sir William, “providing I can be treated with honour,” he added. The officers received him with politeness, like gentlemen. In the fight Allen lost twelve to fifteen men, killed and wounded; some had fled, but a body of forty prisoners were marched to the city. The defenders had lost only six to eight of their men, so it was a famous victory. When the prisoners were brought before Colonel Prescott in Barrack Yard an extraordinary incident occurred, according to “Allen’s Narrative.”

“Are you the Colonel Allen who took Ticonderoga?” thundered out the British soldier. “The very man,” was the reply. Prescott angrily raised his cane to strike the roughly dressed, dust-stained ranger in a short deerskin coat, breeches of sagathy, and woolen cap. “You had better not strike me, I’m not used to it,” cried the aroused prisoner, shaking his fist at the angry commander of the garrison. Prescott then turned to the habitant prisoners and ordered a sergeant to bayonet them. Allen then stepped between his men and the soldiers and, tearing open his clothes and exposing his shaggy bosom, exclaimed to Prescott: “I am the one to blame. Thrust your bayonets into my breast. I am the sole cause of their taking up arms.” A long pause. Finally muttered Prescott, “I will not execute you now, but you shall grace a halter at Tyburn, —— ye!” There was no suitable prison in Montreal so Allen was put into the hold of the Gaspé in the harbour to wait until he should be shipped to England for trial.

Montreal was saved for the present; and Allen’s failure, as the governor reported it, gave a favourable turn to the minds of the people and many began now to come back to loyalty. It seems strange, the impunity with which known plotters had been hitherto treated. Carleton would now make an example. He turned his eyes sternly upon Thomas Walker. Already Mrs. Walker had been told that her husband must quit the country. Now an order for arrest on the charge of high treason was issued. Prescott handed the warrant to Captain Bellair. On the night of the 5th-6th of October in their comfortable farm house at L’Assomption they were surprised by a posse of twenty regulars and twelve Canadians. Walker, determined to resist, shot into the crowd, who fusilladed back. At last the four corners of the house were fired. As the house began to burn, the smoke within almost suffocated Mrs. Walker, so that he took her to a window and held her by the shoulders while she lowered herself in her nightdress as far as she could, clinging to the windowsill. Finally she was rescued by one of the soldiers setting a ladder to the wall. The floor that Walker was standing on was in flames, and on the promise of good treatment from the soldiers, he surrendered. Their property was plundered and destroyed and the farm house wrecked. The Walkers were given some wraps to cover their unfinished attire and were hurried to Prescott at Montreal. Charged with rebellion, Walker was taken to the barracks and[74] for thirty-three days and nights he was confined in his solitary cell on a straw pallet under a heavy load of irons. Then he was taken to Lisotte’s armed schooner and buried in the hold prison, to be taken for trial over seas. It was a terrifying example to all, a leading citizen, a wealthy merchant, a Montreal magistrate and a felon! Truly a warning to traitors.

Using this as a propitious moment Carleton issued another levy of men from the militia around Montreal. That October he was so encouraged that he assembled on St. Helen’s island, facing Montreal, seven or eight hundred men, counting Indians, and later on the afternoon of October 30th pushed off, accompanied by Luc la Corne and Lorimier with thirty-five or forty boats for the shore of Longueuil to bear relief to the invested fort of St. John’s. Alan Maclean was to go from Quebec to meet Carleton at St. John’s. But as they approached the harbour they were met with such havoc by a force under Seth Warner that had been making use of Longueuil Castle and who had a four-pounder emptying grape and a goodly backing of musketry at the landing, and quickly playing upon the astonished flotilla, so that it turned around, bearing some forty or fifty dead and as many wounded. No American received a scratch.

The grand stroke had failed. Maclean’s force heard the bad news and many began to desert. It was a game of battledore and shuttlecock for the French Canadian peasantry. It was not that their want of loyalty was to be blamed as the practical politics of the affair. It was a war of Englishmen again Englishmen, and they were for the winners. The loss of Chambly was the turning point in the siege of St. John’s which had been going on since September 18th. Chambly had been surrendered by Major Stafford after a siege of one day and a half, on October 17th, a sorry event, for it was well supplied with winter provisions and ammunition. The rebels, with the aid of others, were able for six weeks to reinforce Montgomery at St. John’s, when he would have been forced by the approach of winter to retire. Thus on the morning of the 3d of November, at 10 o’clock, the surrender of St. John’s was made by Colonel Preston to Montgomery.

The fall of Montreal was now assured and with winter approaching, Montgomery secured his position at Chambly, St. John’s and the Richeleau district. At Longueuil, Warren was posted with 300 men. The complacent Indians at Caughnawaga willingly enough received an order to remain neutral. Everything was ready for the march on Montreal and Montgomery advanced to La Prairie, there collecting all the boats and bateaux available for the transportation of the troops across the river to the city. On the 11th of November news came to Carleton in Montreal that Montgomery was crossing over. It was now his policy to leave. The capture was inevitable and he had prepared for it since the fall of St. John’s. He spiked the guns and burned the bateaux he could not use and caused the munitions, provisions and baggage to be loaded on the three armed sloops. About one hundred and twenty regular troops were embarked on the vessels available. In the evening at 5 o’clock Carleton went aboard. Brigadier Prescott and the military and staff accompanied. Eleven sail went down to Quebec. At Lavaltrie, twelve miles west of Sorel, owing to contrary winds the flotilla was detained during the 13th and 14th of November. On the 15th a written summons came from Colonel Easton calling on Carleton to capitulate. On the night of the 16th and 17th of November Carleton went on the barge of Captain Bouchette and[75] arrived at Quebec on Sunday, November 19th, escaping the batteries erected beyond Sorel to intercept the fleet at Lavaltrie.

On the same day this fleet was visited by Major Brown with a peremptory order to surrender. Prescott saw no way out of it; he first threw the powder into the St. Lawrence and then surrendered. The congress troops now took charge of the fleet and with a favourable north wind convoyed the army and fleet back to Montreal. Walker, a prisoner in irons in the hold, was released as soon as possible. The fleet arrived on November 22d. The prisoners were ordered by Montgomery to parade on the river front the following morning before the market and then lay down their arms.

We must go back to the 11th of November and visit defenseless Montreal. The loyalists were sad, as having been at a funeral, in the passing away of its defenders. The discontented, now that Montreal was on the point of changing hands, openly abandoned their arms and threw off their disguise. That night Montgomery’s force encamped on St. Paul’s Island. On Sunday morning, about 9 o’clock, when many were going to church, news arrived that Montgomery was coming from the island to Point St. Charles and a committee of twelve citizens was appointed to go to meet him. Meanwhile he had arrived and the inhabitants of the suburbs west of the city had assured him of their neutrality. He had also received encouraging messages from the disaffected within the city, for Bindon, now a sentry at one of the embrasures, traitorously allowed a partner of Price, whom we have mentioned as in league with the Boston party, and another, to communicate with the congress party now advancing. Montgomery must have learnt that there was a strong following in the city prepared to side with him and that those opposed to him were handicapped for want of ammunition and provision. It was reliance on these elements within and without the city, with the knowledge that few were willing to take up arms against him, that made it possible for Montgomery with his slight force to capture a city of 1,200 inhabitants.

The deputation meeting him was told that he gave them four hours to consider the terms on which they would accede to his authority. Being told that he must not approach nearer the city, he answered that it was somewhat cold weather and he immediately sent fifty men to occupy the Récollet suburb, and before 4 o’clock his whole force was established there. This made an uproar in the town and the loyalists were for shooting on them. The articles of capitulation were prepared and presented to Montgomery. “I will examine them and reply soon,” said he. They demanded that[76] “The religious orders should enjoy their rights and properties, that both the French and English should be maintained in the free exercise of their religion, that trade in the interior and upper part of the provinces and beyond the seas should be uninterrupted, that passports on legitimate business should be granted, that the citizens and inhabitants of Montreal should not be called upon to bear arms against the mother country, that the inhabitants of Montreal and of every part of the province, who have borne arms for the defense of the province then prisoners, should be released, that the courts of justice should be reestablished and the judges elected by the people, that the inhabitants of the city should not be forced to receive the troops, that no habitant of the country parishes and no Indians should be admitted into the city until the commandant had taken possession of it and made provision for its safety.”

The general in reply stated first, “that owing to the city of Montreal having neither ammunition, adequate artillery, troops nor provisions and not having it in its power to fulfill one article of the treaty, it could claim no title to its capitulation, yet the continental army had a generous disdain of every act of oppression and violence; they are come for the express purpose of giving liberty and security.”2 He accepted most of the provisions laid down. But from the unhappy differences of Great Britain and the colonies he was unable to engage that trade should be continued with the mother country. In acceding to the demands he made it understood that the engagements entered upon by him would be binding on his successors.

Next day, the 13th of November, the congress troops, many of whom wore the scarlet uniforms of the British troops found in the military stores at St. John’s and Chambly, entered by the Recollet gate (at the corner of McGill and Notre Dame streets) and, receiving the keys to the storehouses of the city, marched proudly along Notre Dame Street to the barracks opposite what is now known as Jacques Cartier Square.

The capture of Montreal was quickly made known in the American province. “Dispatches for His Excellency, General Washington; news of Montreal’s quiet submission of that city to the victorious arms of the United Colonies of America” was soon announced in the New England Chronicle.

Montgomery remained in Montreal until November 28th. News came of the success of the detachment placed at Sorel. For, on the 22d, as already stated, the eleven vessels captured by Colonel Easton at Lavaltrie were brought into Montreal with Colonel Prescott and the military prisoners and the released Thomas Walker. One reason for Montgomery’s delay was due to the expectancy of the arrival of the detachments he had ordered. He now left General David Wooster in command of the detachment kept behind in the city and went down the river to join Benedict Arnold, who had been unsuccessful in his attack on Quebec, and to take command of the besieging forces. For unless Quebec were taken, Canada could not be said to have been subdued.

Wooster’s first action was to disseminate Washington’s proclamation confided to Arnold for the inhabitants of Canada. It started “Friends and Brethren.” The second paragraph runs thus:[77] “Above all we rejoice that our enemies have been deceived with regard to you. They have persuaded themselves, they have even dared to say, that the Canadians were not capable of distinguishing between the blessings of liberty and the wretchedness of slavery; that gratifying the vanity of a little circle of nobility would blind the people of Canada. By such artifices they hoped to bind you to their views, but they have been deceived; they see with a chagrin equal to our joy that you are enlightened, generous and virtuous; that you will not renounce your own rights or serve as instruments to deprive your fellow subjects of theirs. Come then, my brethren, unite with us in an undissoluble union, let us run together to the same goal. We have taken up arms in defence of our liberty, our property, our wives and our children; we are determined to preserve them or die. We look forward with pleasure to that date not far remote, we hope, when the inhabitants of America shall have one sentiment and the full enjoyment of a free government.”

ENDORSEMENT ON SAMUEL ADAMS’ LETTER OF FEBRUARY 21, 1775

FROM LETTER OF APRIL 8, 1775, TO ADAMS AND HIS ASSOCIATES

SAMUEL ADAMS

GEORGE WASHINGTON

FROM SCHUYLER’S LETTER TO WASHINGTON

The reference to the little circle of noblesse blinding the people of Canada shows the line of argument which had been making the people, until lately so happy, now so discontented and disloyal. Will any impartial student of Canada under the French régime say that the Bostonians’ insinuation of oppression as being the habitual lot of the French Canadian peasants, was founded on fact? They had succeeded so far in unsettling for a time a people newly enfranchised with powers hitherto not entrusted to them, but the reaction will follow and the argument of slavery and oppression will fall on deaf ears. To the credit of the clergy, seigneurs and professional classes of this period be it said that they saved Canada.

If the French habitant was weak in 1775, watching which way to jump, he will be strong in 1812 and 1813 and the victory of Chateauguay, though but a “bush fight,” will serve to consolidate the British rule in Canada. It has been noticed that the French Canadian loyalty is of the “head” rather than of the “heart.” But the analogy between French Canadians and Scotchmen has also been pointed out. The latter point with pride to Bannockburn as well as to Waterloo. They, with the help of time, have a hearty affection for the Empire. So it is with the French Canadians in a more and more growing manner.

[78]

FOOTNOTES:

1 There must have been a miscellaneous collection of canoes, and one or two bateaux.

2 A transcript lately issued by the Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Society of Montreal, of the expense book of the commissary under Arnold which has entries from February to May, 1776, goes to show that, to give the invader his due, large sums of money were disbursed for beef and other supplies. During the war bread was very dear and wheat was scarce. A brown loaf cost thirty sols or 1 s. and 3 d. a pound; white, 25 sols, or 1 s. ½ d. a pound.

[79]

### CHAPTER IX

MONTREAL, AN AMERICAN CITY SEVEN MONTHS UNDER CONGRESS

1776

THE CONGRESS ARMY EVACUATES MONTREAL

MONTREAL UNDER CONGRESS—GENERAL WOOSTER’S TROUBLES—MONEY AND PROVISIONS SCARCE—MILITARY RULE—GENERAL CONFUSION—THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY, AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS—THE COMMISSIONERS: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, SAMUEL CHASE AND CHARLES CARROL—FLEURY MESPLET, THE PRINTER—THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSIONERS—NEWS OF THE FLIGHT FROM QUEBEC—MONTREAL A STORMY SEA—THE COMMISSIONERS FLY—THE WALKERS ALSO—THE EVACUATION BY THE CONGRESS TROOPS—NOTES: I. PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED; II. DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES.

Meanwhile the efforts of Montgomery and Arnold with a force of about one thousand, five hundred men, among whom were the Canadians under Major Duggin, formerly a Quebec barber, were engaged in besieging Quebec, a more difficult task than they expected. On the last day of 1775 Montgomery met his death. Arnold was wounded in the foot and many of the congress soldiers had caught the smallpox. Still the siege went on, although under great depression. The death of Montgomery had placed General Wooster in command of the province till the appointment of General Charles Lee in February. “For God’s sake,” wrote Arnold to Wooster at Montreal on December 31st, “order as many men as you can possibly spare consistent with the safety of Montreal.”

But Wooster had his own troubles. The Canadians around him could not be relied on. Besides he had no cash. Price, of Montreal, who had enticed the Americans over, had enabled them to subsist as an army, having already advanced about £20,000; but now he was “almost out of that article himself,” and could find no one in the city willing to lend. (Price to General Schuyler, January 5th.) Wooster, therefore, looked upon Montreal as the place to be reserved for a retreat. “I shall not be able to spare any men to reinforce Colonel Arnold,” he wrote to Schuyler on January 5th. “What they will do at Quebec for want of money God only knows, but none can be spared from Montreal.” Yet in the last week of January Wooster had been enabled to send about one hundred and twenty from Montreal.

[80]

During February Wooster’s letters from Montreal were gloomy: “Our flour is nearly expended, we have not more than enough for the army for one week; we can purchase no provisions or wood or pay for the transporting of anything without hard cash. Our credit sinks daily. All the provisions and wood that we want for the army for two or three weeks to come must be purchased and transported to camp by the middle of March. There will be no passing for a month or six weeks; these things must be provided immediately, or the consequences will be dreadful.”

In Montreal, Wooster found other trouble. The clergy were in favour of the British régime. On January 6th, writing to Warner, the commandant wrote: “The clergy refuse absolution to all who have shown themselves our friends and preach damnation to all those who will not take up arms against us.” Then there was nothing but paper money, which had little value, seeing that it might never be redeemed. At Quebec and Montreal men were forced to serve congress, even when legally freed. Quarrels between the military authorities such as that between Schuyler and Wooster were not edifying to the Canadians, used to harmony in government. A mutiny arose among the soldiers who refused to go to serve at Quebec. Six ring leaders were flogged. On the 14th of January an ordinance of General Wooster appeared at the church doors forbidding anyone speaking against congress under penalty of being sent out of the province. It is to be owned that orders were given for the soldiers to live peacefully and honestly with their Canadian brethren, but in spite of this, there were many individual abuses, at least. The people began to feel that the strangers who came to them as suppliants to succour them, ruled them with military law at times despotic. General Lee gave an order to General Wooster which made the Montreal merchants consider their trade injured; he was told “to suffer the merchants of Montreal not to send any of their woolen cloths out of the town.”

The loyalists were named tories and Wooster became convinced “of the great necessity of sending many of their leaders out of the province,” and he would have sent Hertel de Rouville, the Sulpician Montgolfier, and many others out of the way, and it is said no less than forty sleds of indignant tories made the journey to Albany.1 Carleton, be it remembered, took a long time before he requested Walker to leave the country. When expostulated with by a number of citizens Wooster answered: “I regard the whole of you as enemies and rascals.” He was unwise enough to have the churches shut up on Christmas eve. Altogether the reports, sent to Schuyler and others, indicated that there was great confusion in Montreal and Canada. Soon it began to appear as if nothing but terror was keeping the Canadians. A plot was laid as early as January to overcome the garrison of Montreal.2 Secretly many were combining under the royal flag.

FROM THE COMMISSIONERS’ LETTER TO CONGRESS, MAY 1, 1776

FROM THOMAS WALKER’S LETTER TO ADAMS, MAY 30, 1776

POSTSCRIPT OF ARNOLD’S LETTER TO CLINTON, MAY 12, 1776

FROM CARLETON’S LETTER TO GERMAIN, MAY 25, 1776

FROM MONTGOMERY’S LETTER TO MONTREAL, NOVEMBER 12, 1775

[81]

Meanwhile at Quebec, Carleton pursued Fabian tactics and would not venture out into the open. He had seen this mistake made by Wolfe, and he had not been his quarter-master-general for nothing, so he waited for the ships from England to come, as indeed they did, at last, on May 6th, the Surprise leading, followed by the Isis and the Martin. The flight of the Americans to Montreal soon began.

At Montreal exciting circumstances had occurred at the American headquarters, the Château de Ramezay, which had been that of Gage, Burton and other British commandants since it had ceased being the seat of the East India Fur Company under the French regime.

On April 26th its doors had opened to General John Thomas on his arrival to take command of the army before Quebec, and its council chamber had been the scene of hasty conference with Arnold and other gentlemen. It was now to receive the commissioners from congress, long asked for by Montgomery and Schuyler, but only named and appointed on the 15th of February by the resolution “that a committee of three (two of whom to be members of congress) to be appointed to proceed to Canada, there to pursue such instructions as shall be given them by congress.” The instructions given later directed the commissioners to represent to the Canadians in the strongest terms that it was the earnest desire of congress to adopt them as a side colony under the protection of the Union and to urge them to take a part in the contest then on, that the people should be guaranteed “the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion,” that the clergy should have the full, perfect and peaceable possession and enjoyment of all their estates and the entire ecclesiastical administration beyond an assurance of full religious liberty and civil privileges to every sect of Christians should be left in the hands of the good people of that province and such legislature as they should constitute. The commissioners started from New York on April 2d. They were men of mark—the great Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, described by John Adams as a “gentleman of independent fortune, perhaps the largest in America, one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand pounds sterling, educated in some university in France, though a native of America, of great abilities and learning, complete master of the French language, a professor of the Roman Catholic religion, yet a warm, a firm, a zealous supporter of the rights of America in whose cause he has hazarded his all.” With the commissioners was adjoined John Carroll, the brother of Charles. He was a clever ecclesiastic, become through the suppression of the Society of Jesus, an ex-Jesuit who was afterwards to become the first archbishop of Baltimore. Much reliance was placed on his intermediary overtures to the Canadian clergy. On their arrival at St. John’s the commissioners felt their first check. They had carried no hard cash with them. They were brought up at once against the fundamental difficulty. In their letter to congress on May 1st the commissioners wrote, “It is impossible to give you a just idea of the lowness of continental credit here from the want of hard money and the prejudice it is to our affairs. Not the most trifling service can be purchased without an appearance of instant pay in silver or gold. The express we sent from St. John’s to inform the general of our arrival there and to request carriages for La Prairie, had to wait at the ferry till a friend, passing, changed a dollar for us into silver.” This friend, a[82] Mr. McCartney, had also to pay for the calèches for La Prairie or they would have had to remain stranded.

They reached Montreal on April 27th and were received by Arnold with some ostentation at the Château, where guests among the French ladies were invited to meet them. That night after supper the commissioners lodged in Thomas Walker’s house.

Walker’s house was that originally built by Bécancourt, which became the depôt of the Compagnie des Indes. It passed finally into the McGill family. It stood immediately west of the Château de Ramezay. It was demolished in 1903.

With the commissioners there came about the same time the French printer, Fleury Mesplet. He was brought, along with his printing press, to spread campaign literature for the congress. His press was soon installed in the basement of the Château. It had been his press in Philadelphia from which the original proclamation of 1775 to the Canadians originated. He became the first printer of Montreal. The first book published by him is supposed to be “Réglement de la Confrèrie de l’Adoration Perpetuelle du Saint Sacrément et de la Bonne Mort, chez F. Mesplet et C. Berger, 1776.”3 Another book bearing the same date, 1776, and published by Mesplet at Montreal, is “Jonathan et David, ou le Triomphe de L’Amitié,” tragedie en trois actes, representèe par les ecoliers de Montréal, a Montréal chez Fleury Mesplet et C. Berger, Imprimeurs et Libraires, 1776.

John Carroll early began to get in touch with the clergy, but he found an impenetrable barrier—the clergy had nothing to gain by swerving from their allegiance to England. What more than the Quebec act could the provincials give them? They feared the intolerance of the Americans. Had they not seen Wooster’s conduct? They were now offering religious freedom, but the clergy could not forget the letter addressed by congress to the British people in 1774, after the Quebec act, containing this significant sentence: “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has deluged your island in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”

The political arguments of the commissioners were of no avail, either. The great Continental Congress was there before their eyes, and the great Continental Congress was bankrupt. The paper money was discredited. Not all Charles Carrol’s wealth was of avail, unless it were in hard cash. An urgent request was sent to Philadelphia to send £20,000 in specie. Only one-twelfth of this could be promised.

There were other grievances, but most were from the non-payment of money lent or furnished for supplies. On the commissioners fell the superintendence of the army. This was no easy task, as provisions were giving out. Smallpox was breaking out among the soldiers. The commissioners were not trained to rule the army and in the confused state of affairs they recognized the failure of their mission. In their letter of May 17th to congress they said:[83] “The possession of this country must finally be settled by the sword. We think our stay here no longer of service to the publick * * * and we await with impatience the further orders of the congress.”

FROM FRANKLIN’S LETTER TO CHASE AND CARROLL

FROM CHASE AND CARROLL’S LETTER TO THOMAS

JOHN CARROLL

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL TABLET (ENGLAND)

CHARLES CARROLL

LETTER FROM CHASE AND CARROLL TO GENERAL WOOSTER

CARROLL’S REPORT ON MRS. WALKER’S CONDUCT

The commissioners in their first report from Montreal blamed Wooster and declared him totally unfit for his command; the state of Canada was desperate; everything was in confusion, there was no discipline, the army unpaid, credit exhausted. “Such is our extreme want of flour that we were obliged yesterday to seize by force sixteen barrels to supply the garrison with bread. We cannot find words to describe our miserable condition.”

To crown the difficulty of the commissioners, the news of the Quebec disaster and flight reached their ears on the 9th of May. “Every military plan and hope staggered under the shock. Montreal became a stormy sea.” Dreading that one of the British frigates, which were ascending the river but with an unfavourable wind, would run up and cut them off, the commissioners began to prepare to leave the city.

The state of Montreal after the news of Quebec, is well described by Justin H. Smith in “Our Fight for the Fourteenth Colony,” (Vol. II, page 374): “Montreal is listening eagerly for his drum (Captain Young’s of St. Anne’s Fort).” Hazen had declared a month before, “There is nothing but plotting and preparations making against us throughout the whole district.” When it was proposed to abandon the town after the news of the flight from Quebec arrived, Arnold feared the people would attack his departing troops. On all sides the tories whom Ripley had found very plenty in March but mostly living like woodchucks underground, were now showing noses and even feet. The commissioners, getting daily intimations of plots hatching and insurrections intended, had abandoned perforce the rôle of dispensing pure liberty, filled the jails with malcontents and sent others into the exile they had lately protested against, but these measures did not reach the seat of the trouble. Night after night a rising was talked of and expected; Lieutenant Colonel Vose would go round the barrack, waken the men coming down with smallpox and make them dress themselves and load their guns. “If they do take us it shall not be for nothing,” he quietly said.

On the morning of May 17th Benjamin Franklin left, accompanied by Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Price.4 Next day he was joined by Father Carroll and the party ascended Lake Champlain for New York. Walker joined them later and both were left at Albany, “civilly but coldly.” So he passes out of the history of Montreal.

The other commissioners, Carroll and Chase, left Montreal on May 29th for Chambly for a council of war; on the 31st they left St. John’s; on the 2d of June they left for Crown Point, a distance of 106 miles. Thus ended their unsuccessful mission.

How finally the congress troops were driven out of the country, how the additional reinforcements arrived at Quebec on June 1st under Burgoyne, is Canadian history beyond that of Montreal. Suffice it to say that by June 17th[84] things had become so hot in Montreal for Arnold who saw that the junction of the Canadas with the colonies was now at an end, that the evacuation commenced on this day. In two hours, the sick, the baggage and the garrison, reduced by this time to 300 men, embarked on eleven bateaux and in two hours more a procession of carts, escorted by the troops, set out from Longueuil for La Prairie.5

Wilkinson, who was Arnold’s aide-de-camp in Montreal, has placed it on record “that among the property on the bateaux was the merchandise obtained by Arnold in Montreal. It was transferred to Albany and sold for Arnold’s benefit.” “This transaction is notorious,” says Wilkinson (Volume I, page 58), “and excited discontent and clamour in the army; yet it produced no regular inquiry, although it hurt him in the esteem of every man of honour and determined me to leave his family on the first proper occasion.”

NOTE I

PRINCIPAL REBELS WHO FLED

That those of the French Canadians of the better class who sided with the Bostonians were very few is evinced by a list sent by Carleton to Lord George Germain on May 9, 1777. There is only one French name mentioned and that is Pelissier, of Three Rivers, who was a Frenchman from France. The list is referred to in a postscript by Carleton as follows: “Enclosed your Lordship will receive a list of principal leaders of sedition here. We have still too many remaining amongst us that have the same inclination, though they at present act with more caution and so much subtlety as to avoid the punishment they justly deserve.” The enclosure is headed “List of the principal persons settled in the province who very zealously served the rebels in the winter of 1775-1776 and fled upon their leaving it, the place they were settled at, and the country are natives of as England, Scotland, Ireland, America or France.”

At Quebec two Englishmen, two Scotchmen and seven Americans are named. At Three Rivers, Pelissier, a Frenchman. At Montreal were named:

Thomas Walker | E |  | Lived many years at Boston.
Price Heywood | A A | } | Great zealots, originally barbers.
Edward Antill | A |  | Lieutenant colonel and * * *
Moses Hazen | A |  | Half-pay lieutenant of the 44th. Colonel of the rebel army.
Joseph Bendon or Bindon | E |  |
William Macarty or McCartney | A |  |
Joseph Tory and two brothers | A |  |
David Salisbury Franks | A |  |
Livingston and two brothers | A |  | The eldest, lieutenant colonel; second, major; and youngest, captain.
John Blake | A |  | Carried goods down to the colonies in winter and did not return. The first known to be a rank rebel.
—— Blakeley | A |  |

[85]

NOTE II

DESCRIPTION OF DRESS OF AMERICAN RIFLES

Lossing’s Field Book—Vol. I, p. 195—thus describes the dress of the invaders: “Each man of the three rifle companies (Morgan’s, Smith’s and Hendrick’s) bore a rifle-barreled gun, a tomahawk or small axe, and a long knife, usually called a scalping knife, which served for all purposes in the woods. His underdress, by no means in a military style, was covered by a deep ash-coloured hunting shirt,—leggings and moccasins, if the latter could be procured. It was a silly fashion of those times for riflemen to ape the manners of the savages. The Canadians who first saw these (men) emerge from the woods said they were vêtus en toile—‘clothed in linen.’ The word ‘toile’ was changed to ‘tôle,’ iron plated. By a mistake of a single word the fears of the people were greatly increased, for the news spread that the mysterious army that descended from the wilderness was clad in sheet-iron.

“The flag used by what was called the Continental troops, of which the force led into Canada by Arnold and Montgomery was a part, was of plain crimson, and perhaps sometimes it may have had a border of black. On the 1st of January, 1776, the army was organized and the new flag then adopted was first unfurled at Cambridge at the headquarters of General Washington, the present residence of the poet Longfellow.

“That flag was made up of thirteen stripes, seven red and six white, but the Union was the Union of the British flag of that day, blue bearing the Cross of St. Andrew combined with the Cross of St. George and a diagonal red cross for Ireland. This design was used by the American army till after the 14th of June, 1777, when Congress ordered that the Union should be changed, the Union of the English flag removed and in its place there should be a simple blue field with thirteen white stars, representing the thirteen colonies declared to be states.

“Since then there has been no change in the flag, except that a star is added as each new state is admitted.”

W.C. Howells.6

[86]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Among those banished by Wooster was St. Luc de la Corne. He had been well treated under the British régime and was one of the first legislative council formed by Carleton. He is reported to have been a trimmer during the late troubles.

2 One advantage in holding Montreal was that British supplies and presents for the savages could not reach the interior that way. Yet the Americans had little means of supplying the Indian trade. To meet the difficulty, the commissioners, desirous of being on good terms with the Indians up country, offered early on their arrival, passports to all traders who would enter into certain engagements to do nothing in the upper country prejudicial to the continental interests.

3 The first book published in Canada is believed to be “Catéchisme du Diocèse de Sens Imprimé a Quebec, chez Brown et Gilmour, 1765.” The latter were the proprietors of the Quebec Gazette, the first journal, established on June 21, 1764. The Gazette Littéraire appeared in French, June 3, 1778, and in French and English.

4 Mrs. Price, according to Franklin’s letter to the commissioners, had three wagon-loads of baggage with her. The Walkers “took such liberties in taunting at our conduct in Canada that it almost came to a quarrel. I think they both have an excellent talent in making themselves enemies and I believe even here they will never be long without them.” (Franklin’s Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 182-3.)

5 On July 4, 1776, the American Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and in 1781, on July 9th, the Articles of Confederation were ratified.

6 Cf. Lemoine’s[87] “Picturesque Quebec.”

### CHAPTER X

THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST

1776-1791

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791

REOCCUPATION BY BRITISH—COURTS REESTABLISHED—CONGRESS’ SPECIAL OFFER TO CANADA—LAFAYETTE’S PROJECTED RAID—UNREST AGAIN—THE LOYALTY OF FRENCH CANADIANS AGAIN BEING TEMPTED—QUEBEC ACT PUT INTO FORCE—THE MERCHANTS BEGIN MEMORIALIZING FOR A REPEAL AND AN ASSEMBLY—HALDIMAND AND HUGH FINLAY OPPOSE ASSEMBLY—MEETINGS AND COUNTER MEETINGS—CIVIC AFFAIRS—THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROJECTED “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE”—THE FIRST NOTIONS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—THE MONTREAL CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE REPORT—THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALIST—THE DIVISION OF THE PROVINCE PROJECTED—THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF 1791. NOTE: MONTREAL NAMES OF PETITIONERS IN 1784.

Montreal was again occupied by the British in the last week of June.1 Sir John Johnson arrived about this time with 200 followers. On June 28th Carleton held a meeting in the Jesuit church of about three hundred Iroquois who offered their services. The Caughnawagas, of whom some were present, were blamed for their neutrality during the war. An arrangement was entered into for the services of the Iroquois for a year. As the ceremony ended the braves passed by Carleton, each one giving him his hand. On July 18th Carleton, still in Montreal, received a deputation of about one hundred and eighty Indians from the west offering their active service to their great father, the king of England, and to their father Carleton. They were received graciously and sent away happy.

Before leaving, Carleton issued commissions for the creation of judges in the districts of Montreal and Quebec; a court of appeal was established and judges were given authority to examine into, and report on, the damages suffered during the invasion of the Congress troops.

On the 20th of July 4 the governor returned to Quebec to reestablish the courts of justice and to restore the legislative council to its functions. Mr. Fraser, who had been judge of the Court of Common Pleas at Montreal since 1764 was at this time a prisoner among the rebels. In the meantime Carleton, unable to get on with[88] Lord St. Germain, the secretary in England, resigned his position on June 27th, but he did not leave the country till June 27th of the following year, 1777, when he was replaced by Haldimand.

Meanwhile Congress still eyed Canada with longing. On the 4th of July the eleventh article of “confederation and perpetual union” provided that Canadas acceding to the confederation and joining in the measures of the Union “shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union, but no other colony shall be admitted to the same unless such admission shall be agreed to by nine states.” In 1793 another bill was introduced into the United States Congress for the admission of Canada, as one or more of the United States, whenever asked with the consent of Great Britain.

During the year 1777 young Marquis de Lafayette, who had joined the continental army and had become a major general, backed by Silas Deane, Major General Horatio Gates and those who thought they could use him as a Frenchman to promote the political views of the congress in Canada, was appointed with an independent command to make an inroad into Canada, Montreal being his objective. He was to prevail upon the people to confederate with the States, but there was not wanting opposition to ruin the Canada expedition lest it should ruin Congress, among these being Gouverneur Morris and Arnold. Finally the mortified Lafayette was recalled to the “grand army.” But those who promoted him on the grounds of using him and the affection of the French in Canada for France, as a lever in the present situation were soon rejoiced with an alliance with France. Lafayette’s projected descent on Montreal had come to naught, but what could be expected now that the news of an alliance between France and America became known? The symptoms became evident of universal unrest. Montreal, already in ferment, was further disturbed in November by a proclamation to the Canadians which was spread broadcast through the parishes and seems to have unsettled many of the best minds as well as those of the hitherto disaffected, but who were settling down to loyalty again. It came from the Comte d’Estaing, who had sailed from Toulon in May, 1778, in command of a French fleet of twelve ships of the line and six frigates, to throw in their lot with the Americans. It was a move long thought of secretly, perhaps long previously nurtured in the circle of the seigneurs around Montreal. The longings for the old régime, it had been thought, had died down. The new appeal carried weight not for any love for Congress or sense of injustice or tyranny evoked on the part of the English government, but from the powerful reminiscences it awoke. It is said that even the clergy wavered.

The proclamation was dated from the “Languedoc in the harbour of Boston, October 28, 1778.” It opened with the statement that the undersigned was authorized by His Majesty to offer assistance to all who were born to taste the sweets of his government. “You were born French. There is no other house so august as that of Henry IV, under which the French can be happy and serve with delight.” He did not need to appeal to the companions in arms of M. le Marquis de Lévis, to those who had seen the brave Montcalm fall in their defence. “Could such fight against their kinsmen? At their names alone the arms should fall from their hands.” The priests were promised particular protection and consideration against temporal interests. He then argued that it were better for a vast monarchy having the same religion, the same customs and the same language to unite for commerce and wealth with their powerful neighbours of the United States than[89] with strangers of another hemisphere who as jealous despots would doubtless, sooner or later, treat them as a conquered race. “I will not suggest to a whole people when it is gaining the right to think and act, and understand its interest, that to link itself with the United States is to seek its happiness; but I will declare, as formally I do in the name of His Majesty who authorized and commanded me so to act, that all the former subjects of North America who will no longer recognize the supremacy of England may count on His Majesty’s protection and support.”

ADDRESS TO THE ANCIENT FRENCH OF NORTH AMERICA

WILLIAM PITT

MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE

This proclamation which said ten words for France and one for Congress, did not please even the leaders of the Revolution. Washington viewed it with suspicion for he suspected it meant eventual separation with the advantage all for the French. In Canada it was most successful. It played adroitly upon the hopes, ambitions, pride, vanity, race instincts and dearest memories, so that Haldimand noted in 1779 “a very visible alteration amongst all ranks of men.” This alteration continued for some time for Haldimand wrote later: “I have for many months observed in the Canadian gentry expectations of a revolution.”

The war of 1775 had delayed the putting into force of the Quebec act of 1774. In 1777 the work of readjustment took place. But on the 2d of April, 1778, the merchants of Quebec and Montreal, through a committee of them then in London, returned to the charge of petitioning Lord George Germain for the repeal of the Quebec act. They again demanded trial by juries and the commercial laws of England. They claimed that the Quebec act reintroduced the feudal system and in consequence the system of forced corvées and other compulsory services without any emoluments whatever during the war; hence discontent and dissatisfaction with His Majesty’s government had crept up. For these reasons the memorialists “humbly entreat Your Lordship to take into consideration the dangerous and confused situation of this colony and grant us your Patronage and assistance in endeavoring to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act, the source of these Grievances, and an establishment in its stead of a free Government by an assembly or Representation of the People agreeable to His Majesty’s Royal Promise contained in the proclamation made in the year 1763.”

Haldimand in 1780, after an experience of upwards of two years in the country, wrote to Germain a direct negative.[90] “It Requires but Little Penetration to Discover that had the System of Government Solicited by the Old subjects been adopted in Canada this colony would in 1775 have become one of the United States of America. * * * On the other hand the Quebec Act alone has prevented, or can in any Degree prevent, the Emissaries of France from succeeding in their Efforts to withdraw the Canadian Clergy and Noblesse from their allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain. For this reason among many others this is not the time for innovations and it cannot be Sufficiently inculcated on the part of Government that the Quebec Act is a Sacred Charter granted by the king and Parliament to the Canadians as a Security for their Religion, Laws and property. * * * The clamour about the trial by juries and Civil Causes is calculated for the Meridian in London; in Canada Moderate and upright Men are convinced of the abuses to which that institution is liable in a Small Community where the jurors may be all Traders and very frequently either directly or indirectly connected with the Parties. * * * Be assured, My Lord, that however good the institution of Juries may be found in England, the People of this Country have a great aversion to them.”

On September 2d the definitive treaty of peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America was signed at Paris. As soon as this was known the British population at Montreal with that of Quebec again began agitating for a change in the constitution. Their numerical strength was little, but their activity great. Four years later Mr. Hugh Finlay, postmaster general and member of the council, writing on October 2, 1784, to Sir Evan Nepean criticizing the agitation for an assembly says: “The advocates for a House of Assembly in this Province take it for granted that the people in general wish to be represented; but that is only a guess for I will venture to affirm that not a Canadian landowner in fifty ever once thought on the Subject and were it proposed to him he would readily declare his incapacity to Judge of the Matter. Although the Canadian Peasants are far from being a stupid race they are at present an ignorant people from want of instruction; not a man in 500 among them can read. The Females in this Country have a great advantage over the males in point of Education. * * * Before we think of a house of Assembly for this country let us lay the Foundation for useful Knowledge to fit the people to Judge of their Situation and deliberate for the future wellbeing of the Province. The first step towards this desirable End is to have a free School in every Parish. Let the schoolmasters be English if we would make Englishmen of the Canadians; let the Masters be Roman Catholic if it is necessary, for perhaps the people at the instigation of their Priests would not put their children under the tuition of a Protestant.”

The English population of Quebec and Montreal did not think with Finlay, for two days later, on November 24th, at Quebec, they presented a petition for a House of Assembly outlining a definite plan which they had never done before, having always left it to his Majesty’s pleasure. It was the most numerously signed document as yet appearing, bearing over two hundred and thirty-three Quebec names, with, about eighteen of Three Rivers and two hundred-forty-six in Montreal.

On November 30th, a counter meeting was held in a convent of the Recollects and the objections of the French Canadians to the petition above were registered, at the same time an address was drawn up to the king briefly stating that the House of Assembly “is not the unanimous wish nor the general Desire of your Canadian People who through Poverty and the misfortunes of a recent war of which this colony has been the Theatre are not in condition to bear the Taxes which must necessarily ensue and that in many respects the petition for it appears contrary to and inconsistent with the wellbeing of the New Catholic Subjects of Your Majesty.” On the 25th of February next, 1785, the seigneurs and leading men were authorized at meetings held in the parishes to sign a petition against any change as advocated by the petition of 1784.

While the constitutional struggle is going on and preparations are being made for the drafting of some inevitable amendments to the Quebec act, we may now turn to an important move being agitated to promote a larger sense of civic progress and municipal freedom. The history of the future municipality of Montreal may now be said to be in its conceptional stage.

In November of 1786 the merchants and citizens of Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers were taken into consideration by a committee of the Council of Legislature who asked them to give their views on the state of the external and[91] internal commerce and the police of the province. The Montreal names given in the invitation are: Neven Sylvestre, E.W. Gray, St. George Dupré, James McGill, Pierre Guy, James Finlay, J.S. Goddard, Pierre Messiere, Pierre Fortier, Hertel de Rouville, John Campbell, Edward Southouse, Alexander Fraser, Jacques Le Moyne, Benj. Frobisher, Stephen de Lancey, Esq., and Messrs. Jacob Jordan, Isaac Todd, Forsyth J. Blondeau, P. Perinault, Richard Dobie, F. Chaboillez, McBeth and William Pollard, merchants. These who appreciated the courtesy of being taken into consideration thought it their duty to “call in and collect the general voice of our citizens without delay.” “The report of the Merchants of Montreal by their Committee to the Honorable Committee of Council on Commercial Affairs and Police” subsequently appeared dated Montreal, 23d January, 1787, and contained observations on various points: e. g., “the establishment of a chamber of commerce duly incorporated.”

This had been already promoted in Quebec ten years previously and a plan presented on April 3, 1777. The object of this Quebec plan, according to Shortt and Doughty (Constitutional Documents) was to avoid bringing commercial matters into the regular courts where under the Quebec act the French and not the English civil law was made the basis of decision. The virtual effect of this plan, had it been authorized, would have been to set up a legislative, executive and judicial system within the Province to govern the trade relations of the members of the Chamber; and this in time must have involved the trade of others dealing with them. The observation of the Montreal committee on this is: “However beneficial to Trade and Commerce, Institutions of this nature be considered, yet we are of opinion that the same would prove ineffectual and inexpedient at this time; considering the connection that subsists more or less among the Trading People of this Place.” Observations were also returned on “Holding tenures and the abolition of Circuits,” “The present establishment of Appeals in Commercial Causes,” “The establishment of a Court of Chancery” on “a register of all deeds,” on a “Bankrupt Law,” and on the subject of Police in city administration in general.

There also were a number of important observations made of a historical value. The first to be quoted heralds the idea of a charter of corporation for Montreal. The question had also been put for Quebec: “Whether or not we should apply for a charter, incorporating a select number of citizens on some good and Improved Plan with Powers to make By-laws, deeds, Civil and Criminal Causes under certain restrictions, whether under the stile and Title of Recorder, Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City and County of Quebec and the Precincts and Liberties thereof or under any other Denomination,”—and similarly for a like charter for Montreal. The observation of the Montreal Committee was as follows:

[92]

“The bad state of the Police of this Town calls loudly for Reform and tho’ Government in its Wisdom has attended thereto by the Appointment of an Inspector of Police, yet we are sorry that the Appointment has in no wise proven adequate to the Intent, and by Experience we find that the exertions of the Magistrates are not sufficient to remedy the Evil complained of. We beg leave to point out as the only remedy that can be applied with Effect the incorporating by Charter, of a select number of the Citizens of Montreal on a good and approved Plan with such Powers and privileges as are usually granted to Corporations for the purpose of Police only. And we further beg to request that in case the Honorable Council should approve of this move and Government inclined to grant the same, That it be recommended to His Excellency, Lord Dorchester, to bestow on the Corporations such lots of Ground and Houses, the Property of the Crown, within the Town and Suburbs of Montreal as Government has no present use for in order to the same being applied towards the Erecting Schools, workhouses and other Establishments of Public Utility.”

Other observations followed on the necessity of regulations to reduce the number of liquor licenses for public houses, and for the avoidance of fires, to enact that no wooden fence or building of wood of what description soever be erected in the town of Montreal in future under a severe penalty.

But the idea of a Municipal Corporation though now sown was not to fructify till many years later. In the meantime the civic government by justices of the peace or magistrates obtained as before.

We must now return to the final stages of the Constitutional struggle for an Assembly. An important factor has now entered into the political aspect of the province, namely the advent of the United Empire Loyalists, now beginning to leave the United States for a wider freedom to settle on the lands above Montreal, as were also the disbanded troops, a move which did much more than anything else to promote the movement for an assembly, and to point the direction in which the amendments to the Quebec act must follow.

On April 11, 1786, Sir John Johnson, then in London, presented a petition from the officers of the disbanded troops praying for a change in the tenure of land. They prayed for the establishment of a district from Point au Baudet upwards, distinct from the province of Quebec, in which they prayed that “the blessings of the British laws and of the British government and an exemption from the French tenures,” might be extended to them. There is no doubt, as Lord Dorchester 2 remarked in his letter of June 13, 1787, that the English party had gained strength by the arrival of the loyalists and the desire for an Assembly would no doubt increase.

At this time the movement for dividing the country into an upper and lower province began. It was thought premature by Dorchester. But the act of 1791 thought otherwise. By February 9, 1789, according to the letter of Hugh Finlay, “the great question whether a House of Assembly would contribute to the welfare of this Province in its present state has been so fully discussed that the subject is entirely exhausted; both old and New Subjects here who have openly declared their sentiments now Composedly await the decision of the British Parliament with respect to Canadian affairs.”

In the Montreal district the seigneurs held their old position while the merchants never budged from their original demand in general for an assembly though their plans had been greatly modified. The next two years were spent in preparing drafts for the Constitutional act which was passed in 1791 under the title of “An act to repeal certain Parts of an Act” passed in the Fourteenth Year of His Majesty’s Reign entitled[93] “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.”

Owing to the uncertainty of the maintenance of peace with Spain in 1789, the Canada act was not introduced into parliament until 1790. On the 7th of March, 1791, Pitt introduced the bill to divide Canada into two provinces. The bill became a law on the 14th of May, 1791. It divided Canada into two parts, Lower and Upper; each province was to have an executive council appointed by the crown, Lower Canada to have no less than fifteen members and Upper Canada no fewer than seven; each was to have a legislative assembly, the members for Lower Canada to be no less than fifty and those for Upper Canada to be no less than sixteen.

The long struggle of the Merchants of Montreal for an assembly was at last ended.

NOTE

MONTREAL NAMES ATTACHED TO THE PETITION FOR AN ASSEMBLY. DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1784

These are given as an indication of the national origins of the citizens of the period.3

- Jacob Jordan,
- James McGill,
- James Finlay,
- Benjn Frobisher,
- Nicholas Bayard,
- William Kay,
- Alexr Henry,
- J. Blackwood,
- Geo. McBeath,
- Jno Askwith,
- William Allen,
- Joseph Frobisher,
- Hugh Ross,
- Angus Cameron,
- Alexander Hay,
- Charles Paterson,
- Saml Birnie
- James Dyer White
- J. McKinnsy,
- Jacob Ruhn,
- Fran Winton,
- John Forsyth,
- John Franks,
- William Harkness,
- Wm. Griffin,
- Rosseter Hoyle,
- Robert Griffin,
- Abraham Hart,
- Samuel Gerrard,
- Colin Hamilton,
- Laurence Taaffe,
- Wm Hy McNeill,
- Charles Smyth,
- Angus Macdonald,
- John Smith,
- Dad Lukin,
- James Cameron,
- G. Young,
- Felix Graham,
- John Gregory,
- J. Grant,
- David McCrae,
- John Lilly,
- Geo. Selby,
- W. Maitland,
- James Caldwell,
- R. Sym,
- Robert Jones,
- William Taylor,
- F. Bleakley,
- Jno. Bell,
- Alexander Campbell,
- I.R. Symes,
- Robt McGrigor,
- James Laing,
- R. Gruet,
- David Davis,
- John Russell,
- Thomas Sullivan,
- Richd Dowie,
- (Oliver Church, Late Lieut 2d B.K.R.R. New York),
- John Dusenberg, Ensn Late Royal Rangers,
- samuel Burch,
- Levai Michaels,
- Henry J. Jessup,
- Isaac Ht Abrams,
- Isaac Hall,
- John Campbell,
- Donald Fisher,
- Jos. Forsyth,
- (H. Spencer, Lieut late 2d B.K.R.R., New York),
- Richd Pollard,
- John Grant,
- John McKindlay,
- Wm Packer,
- John McGill,[94]
- Fras Badgley,
- Peter Pond,
- Thos Burn,
- Davd Alexr Grant,
- Alexr Fraser,
- Thomas Frobisher,
- John Ogilvy,
- Andrew Todd,
- Thomas Corry,
- Walr Mason,
- Gor. Moore,
- R.J. Wilkinson,
- James Noel,
- R. Cruickshank,
- John Rowland,
- E. Edwards,
- Thomas Forsyth,
- D. Sutherland,
- James Grant,
- Allan Paterson,
- John Ross,
- Levy Solomons,
- Levy Solomon, Junr,
- John Turner and Sons,
- Uriah Judah,
- Chy Cramer,
- Alexr Henry,
- Adam scott,
- Alexr Mabbut,
- Jonas schindler,
- William Hunter,
- Alexr Walmsley,
- Henry Edge,
- Allexr Martin,
- James McNabb,
- James Ruott,
- Thomas McMurray,
- Isaac Judah,
- Saml Judah,
- Laurence Costille,
- Saint Louis,
- Henry Campbell,
- John Bethune,
- Nomd MacLeod,
- James MacKenzie,
- Wm Murray,
- James Finlay, Junr,
- J. Symington,
- J. Pangman,
- John Tobias Deluc,
- Cuthbert Grant,
- Robert Grant,
- Thos Nadenhuvet,
- James Foulis,
- William Bruce,
- John Macnamara,
- Daniel Sullivan,
- Finlay Fisher,
- John Stewart,
- David Mackenzie,
- Joseph Anderson,
- Paul Heck,
- Robert Thomson,
- Samuel Heck,
- Alexr Milmine,
- Robert Smith,
- William Smith,
- Jacob Tyler,
- Chars Grimesley,
- Wm Grimesley,
- Charles Lilly,
- Duncan Fisher,
- John Ridley,
- Alexr Campbell,
- John Milroy,
- Joseph Hamly,
- Saml White,
- Saml Douney,
- C. Rolffs,
- Wm Hall,
- Geo. McDougall,
- Robert Lindsay,
- Jas Robertson,
- Thos Breckenridge,
- John Foulis,
- Francis Crooks,
- Geo. Edw. Young,
- George Aird,
- Joseph Provan,
- Simon McTavish,
- John Lawrence,
- Saml Embury,
- S. Anderson,
- Danl Daly,
- Richd Whitehouse,
- James Fraser,
- Richd Whitehouse,
- James Fraser,
- Alexander fraser,
- Richd Whitehouse,
- Levi Willard,
- Joseph Johnson,
- M. Cuthell,
- James Leaver,
- Tobias Burke,
- Robt McGinnis,
- Richd McGinnis,
- John Hicks,
- George Hicks,
- Stephen Milers,
- William Tilby,
- James Perry,
- Edward Corry,
- Stephen Waddin,
- Peter Smith,
- Owen Bowen,
- Peter Grant,
- Js Chaorles,
- James Fairbairn,
- John Hughes,
- Ranald McDonald,
- Watkin Richard,
- jenbaptiste Lafrenay,
- Thomas Sare,
- Andw Cockburn,
- Thos Isbusther,
- Joseph Landrey,
- Robert Withers,
- David Ross,
- Abram. Holmes,
- William Fraser,
- William Hassell,
- David Ray,
- Thomas Busby, Senr,
- Thomas Busby, Junr,
- William England,
- Conrad Marsteller,
- William Creighton,
- Hugh Holmes,
- Jervis George Turner,
- Rd Warffe,
- James Nelson,
- Philip Cambell,
- Duncan Cumins,[95]
- Henry Gonnerman,
- Firedrick Gonnerman,
- John Maxwell,
- Thos Little,
- Christr Long,
- Edward Gross,
- Nicholas Stoneman,
- Jno Daly,
- Thos Oakes,
- John Grant,
- Willm Wintrope,
- Joel Andras,
- Thomas Fraser,
- Jno Lumsden,
- William Holmes,
- Nicholas Montour,
- Patrick Small,
- David Rankin,
- (Richard Duncan, Late Capn. Royl. Yorkers),
- Duncn Cameron,
- Andw Wilson,
- Donald McFonell,
- Angus McDonald,
- Ed. Umfreville,
- John Lockhart Wiseman,

(Parchment Copy) endorsed: In Lt Govr Hamilton’s No 2 of 9 Jan., 1785. [96]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Montreal was occupied by General Phillips with the artillery including a company of the Hesse Hanon and the Twenty-ninth Regiment. McLeans’ Regiment and that of Sir John Johnson were quartered on the island and the Ninth Regiment at Ile Jésus.

2 Sir Guy Carleton returned to Quebec as the Earl of Dorchester on August 23, 1786.

3 A special chapter on National origins will be found in Part II of this volume.

[97]

### CHAPTER XI

THE FUR TRADERS OF MONTREAL

THE GREAT NORTH WEST COMPANY

MERCHANTS—NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINS—UP COUNTRY TRADE—EARLY NORTH WEST COMPANY—CHARLES GRANT’S REPORT—PASSES—MEMORIALS—GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES—RIVAL COMPANIES—THE X.Y. COMPANY—JOHN JACOB ASTOR’S COMPANIES—ASTORIA TO BE FOUNDED—THE JOURNEY OF THE MONTREAL CONTINGENT—ASTORIA A FAILURE—THE GREAT RIVAL—THE HUDSON’S BAY COMPANY—SIR ALEXANDER SELKIRK—THE AMALGAMATION OF THE NORTH WEST AND HUDSON’S BAY COMPANIES IN 1821—THE BEAVER CLUB.

After the inefficient and unstable set of trade adventurers, sutlers and purveyors for the army who came in upon the heels of Amherst’s conquering band had been sifted, there remained a strong nucleus of substantial business men, whose connections were good in credit and in business methods, and who founded the basis of Montreal’s future mercantile success. We get an idea of the national origins or religion of some of the early settlers from the censuses prepared by government for jury service. In the last of 1765 there are 136 Protestant names and their birthplace, former occupation and present calling are given. Of these thirty-seven were from Ireland (mostly soldiers who became inn-keepers), thirty from England, twenty-six from Scotland, thirteen from New England, sixteen from Germany, six from Switzerland and one each from France, Canada, Lapland, Italy and Guernsey. The origin of three is undetermined.

The earliest merchants, as we have seen, were scored by Murray and afterwards by Carleton. The records of the “military courts” from 1760 to 1763 show that there was some cause for it. Yet it is pleasing to hear Murray writing as early as December, 1760, confess as follows: “I flatter myself you will pardon the liberty I take in troubling you with the enclosed (petition); it regards a set of men who have been very serviceable to His Majesty’s troops, who have run many risks and who have been induced to pour in their merchandise here for a laudable prospect of promoting trade at the invitation of Mr. Amherst, the commander in chief.”

Howard, Chinn and Bostwick was probably the first British firm in Montreal. Chinn became the deputy provost marshal and got the licenses from Quebec; he also himself traded up country. Joseph Howard shortly severed his connection with the firm and established himself successfully on St. Paul street.[98] William Bostwick was a hatter but, hats not being in much demand, he joined the Indian trade.

Jew merchants early settled here; the earliest firm was probably that of the Levy Brothers, Solomon, Eleazer, Gershom and Simon. Gershom came with the soldiers, Eleazer in 1763, and the other two were already settled here by this date. The firm of Ezekiel Solomon & Company was established in 1764. Tobias Isenhout was a German sutler who prospered in the Indian trade, but was murdered in 1771 or 1772 on a business trip by Michel Dué, his French clerk, who was subsequently hanged under the mutiny act. The Honourable Conrad Gugy, a Swiss, settled in the Montreal district and became a legislative councillor. He died in April, 1786, and was buried in the Dorchester street cemetery. Lawrence Ermantinger arrived in 1762 and became a prosperous merchant. His name appears on many of the petitions sent from Montreal. Benjamin Price was another legislative councillor, coming to Canada in 1762 and died in 1768. James Price, of Price & Haywood, was from New England, as was his partner. James Price it was who abetted Ethan Allen in his march on Montreal. The name of Thomas Walker, another merchant, enters largely into Montreal history, as we have seen. James Finlay came to Montreal in 1762; he was the first of the Englishmen to reach the upper Saskatchewan, wintering at Nipawi House in 1771-2. He was one of those who established the first Protestant school in the city; one of the founders of the first Presbyterian church and one of the signers of the capitulation to Montgomery in 1775. Alexander Henry came to Montreal with the troops and became a great explorer in the Indian trade. One of his spells up country lasted fifteen years. He was one of the founders of the North West Company. In 1796 he retired from the Indian trade and lived to the age of eighty-four, dying in Montreal on April 4, 1824. The prosperous city merchants, McGill Brothers, John, James and Andrew, were all settled by 1774. The firm of McTavish, Frobisher & Company stands out as the actual founders of the North West Company, the rivals of the Great Company. Of the Frobisher Brothers, Benjamin seems to have settled first, before 1765. He died in 1787; Joseph retired from business in 1798; Thomas died ten years earlier at the age of forty-four. Simon McTavish came after the others.

The professions were not well represented by the English at this time. Dr. Daniel Robertson, a retired lieutenant from the forty-second regiment, practiced medicine in the city after the conquest and there was a Doctor Huntly. Edward Antill was the only English lawyer, moving here from New England in 1770. The first Protestant school master was an Irishman, John Pullman, brought from New York in 1773. The first Protestant divine was a Swiss, the Reverend Dr. Chatrand Delisle, who came in 1766. In striking contrast with latter-day practice, this clergyman’s name heads the list of the supporters of practically all applicants for liquor licenses in the city in his time.

The traders who left Montreal for the distant posts had no license office in the city. Recourse had to be made to Quebec, and the delay was annoying, although, no doubt, Edward Chinn, who was the deputy provost marshal, did his best for his fellow Montreal merchants. The value of the cargoes taken on the up-country ventures averaged about five hundred pounds, and their destinations, recorded on the passes, were mostly Oswegatchie, LaBarge, Niagara, Detroit,[99] Michillimackinac and the Grand Portage on Lake Superior. The canoe men were voyageurs from Montreal and the district.

THE HON. JAMES McGILL

A prosperous Montreal merchant, the founder of McGill University. He was born in Glasgow, October 6, 1744, and died at Montreal, December 18, 1813.

The following gives some idea of their ventures:

Monday, April 26, 1771, pass for Edward Chinn’s men—seven men—£550 merchandise, ten fusils, 500 pounds gunpowder, 350 pounds shot and ball.

No. 10—Ezekial Solomon (April 10, 1772)—two canoes to Michillimackinac, value £800; twenty men (La Prairie); 1,400 pounds shot and ball.

No. 21—Benj. and Jos. Frobisher—3 canoes for Grand Portage; merchandise £2,000, fusils 96, powder, 2,000 pounds, shot, etc., 1,300 pounds; liquor, 260 gals.; men, 28.

No. 10—Jas. and John McGill (March 10, 1773)—3 canoes; value about £1,500; 48 guns, etc.; 23 men.

No. 65—James Morrison—1 small bateau, Niagara (July 17, 1775)—4 men; 22 bales mdse.; 1 quarter cask wine; 1 bbl. loaf sugar; 1 bbl. coffee; 1 bbl. salt; 1 bbl. tea; 1 nest brass kettles.

In the beginning the merchants themselves would join the party; later, becoming richer, they entrusted it to an agent. On the return they brought down the pelts to Montreal, whence they were transferred by river sloops to Quebec for London, with which there was a close connection. The “Mdse.” carried was for Indian trade and contained scalping knives, hatchets, paints, blankets, hosiery, beads, etc.

We have spoken of the Montreal merchants after the capitulation of the city engaging in the fur trade.1 As early as 1765 yearly attempts were made by the first adventurers to trade with the northwest beyond Michillimackinac, but with little success. In 1768 other adventurers joined, but in 1769 Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher formed a connection with Messrs. Todd and McGill. Gradually others were added. At first their canoes had difficulty in getting beyond Lake La Pluye, for the natives plundered their goods, but later they reached Lake Bourbon. This encouraged the traders to persevere and by 1774 new ports were discovered, hitherto unknown to the French. New adventurers followed in their wake, independently, and, without regard to the management of the Indians and the common good of the trade, soon caused disorder, so that many of the substantial traders retired, there only remaining at the latter end of 1782 twelve who persevered. These, convinced by long experience of the advantage that would arise from a general connection, not only calculated to secure and promote their mutual interests but also to guard against any encroachments of the United States on the line of boundary as ceded them by treaty from Lake Superior to Lake du Bois, entered upon and concluded articles of agreement under the title of the North West Company, dividing it into sixteen shares. These were arranged as follows: Todd & McGill, two shares; Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher, two shares; McGill & Paterson, two shares; McTavish & Company, two shares; Holmes & Grant, two shares; Walker & Company, two shares; McBeath & Company, two shares; Ross & Company, one share; Oakes & Company, one share. The above seemed to have been bound together about[100] 1779, but the North West Company, as such, seems to date from about 1782 and for a “term of five years” as first promoted. (Benjamin Frobisher to Doctor McBane, April 1, 1784.)

The story of the North West Company founded at Montreal must now be told. The war of 1775-6 had sadly interfered with the trade of Montreal with the Indians up country. Haldimand set to work to help the traders to rebuild it. A report of April 24, 1780, of Charles Grant, one of the members of the North West Company, to Haldimand, reveals the enterprise of the founders of Montreal’s commercial prosperity, thus, that “at all times the trades of the upper countries had been considered the staple trade in this Province but of late years it has been greatly increased, in so much that it may be reckoned one year with another to have produced an annual return to Great Britain in Furrs to the amount of £200,000 sterling, which is an object deserving of all the encouragement and protection which Government can with propriety give to that trade. The Indian Trade by every communication is carried on at a great expense, labour and risk of both men and property; every year furnishes instances of the loss of men and goods by accident and otherwise; indeed few of them are able to purchase with ready money such goods as they want for their trade. They are consequently indebted from year to year until a return is made in Furrs to the merchants of Quebec and Montreal who are importers of goods from England and furnish them on credit. In this manner the Upper Country Trade is chiefly carried on by men of low circumstances, destitute of every means to pay their debts when their trade fails; and if it should be under great restraints or obstructed a few years the consequences will prove ruinous to the commercial party of this Province and very hurtful to the merchants of London, shippers of goods to this country, besides the loss of so valuable branch of trade in Great Britain. In these troublesome times the least stop to the Indian Trade might be very productive of very bad effects, even among the savages who are at present our friends or neuter, who on seeing no supply of goods would immediately change sides and join the enemies of the Government under pretense that the rebels had got the better of us and that we had not it in our power to supply them any more. All the property in the Upper Countries in such a case would become an easy prey to their resentment; and the lives of all of His Majesty’s Subjects doing business in these Countries at the time of a rupture of this nature might probably fall a sacrifice to the fury and rage of disappointed, uncivilized barbarians.”

He then gives an insight into the value of each canoe load: “I am informed that of late years, from ninety to one hundred canoes have annually been employed in the Indian Trade from Montreal by the communications of the Great River to Michillimackinac, Lakes Huron and Michigan, LaBarge, and the North West. * * * In this I shall insert the average value of a canoe load of goods at the time of departure from Montreal, Michillimackinac and at the Grand Portage. * * * A canoe load of goods is reckoned at Montreal worth in dry goods to the amount of £300, first sterling cost in England, with fifty per cent charges thereon makes £150; besides that every canoe carries about 200 gallons of rum and wine which I suppose worth £50 more, so that every canoe on departure from that place may be said worth £500, currency of this Province. The charges of all sorts included together from Montreal to Michillimackinac,[101] £160, and from thence to the Grand Portage, £90; so it appears that each canoe at Michillimackinac is worth £660, currency; every canoe is navigated by eight men for the purpose of transporting the goods only and when men go up to winter they commonly carry ten.”

From a sketch by R.G. Mathews, Esq.

FIRST RESIDENCE AND STORE OF THE HON. JAMES McGILL

The report ends with an appeal for the early issue of passes. For “last year the passes were given out so late that it was impossible to forward goods to the places of destination, especially in the North West. Considering the great number of people in this province immediately interested in the Indian Trade it is hardly possible to suppose but there may be among them some disaffected men, but the major part of them I sincerely believe are sure friends to Government and it would be hard the whole community should suffer for the sake of a few bad men since regulations and laws are or may be made sufficiently severe to prevent in a great measure, or altogether, every effort that may be made to convey goods to the enemy and if any person, whatever, should attempt to ignore or violate such regulations as are made for the safety of the whole, the law ought to be put into execution against him with the utmost rigour on conviction of guilt and the offender never should be forgiven offences committed against the publick in general.” From which we may learn that our justly honoured pioneer Montreal merchants were law-abiding citizens and were not among the rebels of 1775-6.

This letter was followed by a memorial from the North West traders on May 11, 1780, asking for no let or hindrance to the departure of the canoes. The additional names of Adam Lymburner and J. Porteous appear adjoined to this.

On October 4, 1784, Benjamin and Joseph Frobisher, the directors of the North West Company, memorialized General Haldimand, praying him to recommend to His Majesty’s ministers to grant to the North West Company an exclusive privilege of trade from Lake Superior to that country for ten years only as a reward “for discovering a new passage to the River Ouinipigue and thereby effectively securing to this Province the Furr trade to the North West. And in consideration, also, of exploring at their own expense between the latitudes of 55 and 65, all that Tract of Country west of Hudson’s Bay to the North Pacific Ocean and communicating to Government such surveys and other information respecting that Country as it may be in their power to obtain.”

Mr. Peter Pond, one of the company, in memorializing Governor Hamilton on the 18th of April in the following year, begs him to recommend the memorial, already mentioned, of the Frobishers “as a plan which will be productive of Great National advantages” and the ten years’ exclusive monopoly as “only a reward for the toil and expense of such an arduous and public Spirited Enterprise.”

This company gained in strength. While its headquarters were in Montreal, it had “wintering” partners in the interior posts. Fort William became the meeting ground of the partners who were merchant princes of the period for the annual meetings which are described by Washington Irving in “Astoria” as marked with great splendour. It provided serious competition for the Hudson’s Bay Company. The policy of the latter had been only to trade in the winter with the natives, thus making a close season in summer. Their posts were at first all on the coast, but the competition forced them also to seek interior quarters.[102] The contributions to our geographical knowledge provided by the earlier explorers of the first North West Company include the first overland journey to the Pacific Ocean made by Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1793 and his previous descent in 1789 from Lake Athabasca to the Arctic Ocean by the Mackenzie River, called after this explorer, from Montreal. The discovery of the Peace River must also be attributed to him.

In 1798, troubles arising among the partners, the seceding party formed a rival firm popularly known as the “X.Y.” from those initials following the W. in N.W. Company.2 Jealous and rancourous friction arose again and the two companies were amalgamated in 1804 into one firm called the North West Company. It became a powerful body, purely Canadian and with exclusive privileges. Sir Alexander Mackenzie was its moving spirit and his cousin Roderick became one of the chief agents.

Meanwhile the great North West Company by 1806 had spread over the continent from the Great Lakes to the remote side of the Rocky Mountains and had established a trading post at Columbia River. By 1812 it had fifty agents, seventy interpreters and over one thousand one hundred voyageurs. Thus when the partners, mostly Scotchmen, met at Fort William they were surrounded by retainers and they acted like barons of old, the story of their feasting and lavishness lighting up the tale of the otherwise dreary days—the old north west days—and when they met at their famous Beaver Club in Montreal they added considerable magnificence to the social life of the city.

Meanwhile another rival to the North West Company was arising in the person of the founder of the Astor family. John Jacob Astor, born in the honest little village of Waldorf, near Heidelberg, on the banks of the Rhine, arrived in America in a ship bound for Baltimore in the month of January, 1783. In 1784 he settled in New York and soon turned his attention exclusively to the fur trade. The peltry trade not being regularly organized in the United States, he determined to go to Canada, the seat of the main supply. Accordingly he made annual visits to Montreal and thence shipped furs to London, as trade was not allowed otherwise than directly with the old country.

In 1794 or 1795 a treaty with Great Britain lifted the trade restrictions and a direct commercial intercourse was established with the United States. Mr. Astor then made a contract with the North West Company and he was now enabled to ship furs direct from Montreal to the United States for the home supply. In 1809 he obtained a charter from the legislature of New York state incorporating a company under the name of “The American Fur Company.” In 1811 he bought out the Anglo-Canadian Company, the “Mackinaw,” whose headquarters were at Michillimackinac, and merging it into the American Fur Company, called it the “South West Company,” or the “Pacific Fur Company,” as it afterwards became known. He associated with himself, as his agents several of those who had hitherto served the North West Company of Montreal,[103] among these being Alexander McKay, who had accompanied Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1789 and 1793, Duncan McDougal and Donald Mackenzie. He planned headquarters at the north of the Columbia River. Accordingly the expedition was sent out in duplicate to the mouth of the Columbia River, one-half going on a six-months’ voyage around Cape Horn in a sailing vessel, the Iroquois, the other marching overland or canoeing on lakes and rivers in eighteen months from Montreal via the Mississippi and the Missouri, to the mouth of the Columbia River.

ERECTED 1759

John Jacob Astor, the founder of the Astor fortunes, is said to have lived in this building, on the southwest corner of Vaudreuil and Ste. Therese streets, still standing, and stored here Canadian beaver, racoon and muskrat skins, Canadian coatings, etc., all of which he sold in 1789 at No. 81 Queen Street, New York.

OLD ST. GABRIEL CHURCH ON ST. GABRIEL STREET

Erected in 1792, standing till recently. The first “Scotch” Church in the Province. Its chief supporters were the Scotch fur-traders of the North-West Company. The bell in the steeple of this church is said to have been “the first Protestant bell sounded in Canada.”

The voyageurs he got at Montreal in July, 1810, were not of the best, for the old rival North West Company had secretly interdicted the prime hands from engaging in the new service. It was not long after the party left Lachine for St. Anne’s that the “recruits enlisted at Montreal were fit to vie with the rugged regiment of Falstaff; some were able-bodied but inexpert; others were expert but lazy; while a third class were expert but totally worn, being brokendown veterans incapable of toil.” (“Astoria,” by Washington Irving, Chapter XII.)

These two parties together founded “Astoria” at the mouth of the Columbia. But most of Astor’s employees were British subjects derived from men of the North West and Mackinaw Companies, and when the 1812 War broke out between the United States and Great Britain a British warship came up the Pacific coast and promptly turned it into “Fort George.” Forthwith the North West Company bought up the derelict property of Mr. Astor’s company. British employees and a few Americans in the concern retreated inland and after almost incredible suffering from the attacks of unfriendly Indians succeeded in reaching the Mississippi.” (“Pioneers in Canada,” by Sir Harry Johnston.)

But the most powerful rival of the North West Company was to be found in the person of Lord Selkirk, who had bought two-fifths of the stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company. In May, 1811, he prevailed on the directors to grant him 160,000 square miles of territory in fee simple on condition he should establish a colony and furnish from the settlers men required by the company at a certain rate. In 1811 ninety persons, mostly Highland cotters from Sutherlandshire, with some emigrants from the west of Ireland, reached Hudson’s Bay, sent by Selkirk. Others followed in subsequent years. This may be regarded as the beginning of the North West Red River settlement. Its history was one of bitter rivalry for the Montreal company. This was felt all the more since Lord Selkirk, being a Douglas and a Scot, had after the failure of this first settlement in Canada at Buldoon received much hospitality and attention at Montreal from the Scottish merchants of the company, who had given him so much inside information on the subject of the fur trade industry that he had turned his thoughts to the Hudson’s Bay Company and become for many years the most determined opponent of his hosts. This opposition, to the extent of bloodshed, did not cease till the union of the two bodies as the reestablished Hudson’s Bay Company in 1821.

But the competition with Selkirk’s Hudson’s Bay party had brought sorry losses to both; no dividends were able to be paid by the North West and there was a loss of men on either side in the sanguinary incursions into one another’s territories. The amalgamation of 1821 was therefore not too soon. The union was followed by the gift of the government to the impoverished companies of the exclusive trade of the territory which, under the names of the Hudson’s Bay[104] and North West territories, extended from Labrador to the Pacific and from Red River to the Arctic Ocean. The Hudson’s Bay Company, as the amalgamated company was called, held Rupert’s Land by perpetual charter and the rest of the territory, including Vancouver Island, granted to it in 1848 by special license till 1859, maintaining under its supreme rule about four million square miles. In 1860 it employed five surgeons, eighty-seven clerks, sixty-seven postmasters, 1,200 permanent servants and 500 voyageurs, making with temporary employees about three thousand men on its payroll, while about one hundred thousand Indians were actively engaged in supplying it with furs. Its profits were enormous, being from May 31, 1852, to May 31, 1862, an annual average of £81,000 on a paid-up capital of £400,000. In 1863 the company was reorganized with a capital of £2,000,000, with Sir Edmund Head as governor. After confederation the northwestern territories and Manitoba were joined to the Dominion on the indemnification of £3,000,000. This will be told in its place. Henceforth the old company, no longer a feudal government, is to play its part as one of the mercantile bodies of Canada, but one which still has a great civilizing power in the northern wilds of Canada.

THE BEAVER CLUB

“The members of the famous Beaver Club, constituted perhaps the most picturesque and magnificent aristocracy that has ever dominated the life of any young community on this continent, with the possible exception of the tobacco lords of Virginia. The majority of them were adventurous Scotsmen, but they included French-Canadians, Englishmen and a few Irishmen, and were thoroughly cosmopolitan by taste and associations.”

The Beaver Club was instituted at Montreal in the year 1785, by the merchants then carrying on the Indian trade of Canada. Originally the club consisted of but nineteen members, all voyageurs, having wintered in the Indian Country, and having been in the trade from their youth. Subsequently the membership was extended to fifty-five, with ten Honorary Members.

On the first Wednesday in December of each year, the social gatherings were inaugurated by a dinner at which all members residing in the town were expected to be present.

The club assumed powers which would, in the present day, be strongly resisted; among the most notable of them was the rule, that “no member shall have a party at his house on club days, nor accept invitations; but if in town, must attend, except prevented by indisposition.”

The meetings were held fortnightly from December to April and there was, in addition, a summer club for the captains of the fur vessels, who, in some instances, were honorary members.

The object of the meetings (as set forth in the rules) was “to bring together, at stated periods, during the winter season, a set of men highly respectable in society, who had passed their best days in a savage country and had encountered the difficulties and dangers incident to a pursuit of the fur trade of Canada.”

The members recounted the perils they had passed through and after passing around the Indian emblem of peace (the calumet), the officer appointed for the purpose, made a suitable harangue.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The effect of the conquest on the fur trade in the Northwest, according to Mr. Beckles Wilson, “The Great Company,” was that for awhile the Indians and the voyageurs and coureurs de bois awaited patiently for the French traders. Many of the French thus cut off intermarried with the Indians and virtually lived as such.

2 The new North West Company were composed of Gregory and McLeod, now independent. It was first called the “little Company,” or the “Potties,” an American corruption of the French “Les Petit.” Later it developed into the X.Y. Company, or Sir Alexander Mackenzie’s Company. Alexander Mackenzie and his cousin, Roderick Mackenzie, became the chief agents of the new company. (Alexander Mackenzie was knighted in 1799.)

[105]

### CHAPTER XII

FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS

MONTREAL THE SEAT OF JACOBINISM

THE ASSEMBLY AT LAST—MONTREAL REPRESENTATIVES—FRENCH AND ENGLISH USED—THE FRENCH REVOLUTION—MUTINY AT QUEBEC—THE DUKE OF KENT—INVASION FEARED FROM FRANCE—MONTREAL DISAFFECTED—ATTORNEY GENERAL MONK’S REPORT—THE FRENCH SEDITIONARY PAMPHLETS—PANEGYRIC ON BISHOP BRIAND—MONTREAL ARRESTS—ATTORNEY GENERAL SEWELL’S REPORT—M’LEAN—ROGER’S SOCIETY—JEROME BONAPARTE EXPECTED.

The persistence of the English merchants had at last secured constitutional government with an assembly. It was inaugurated by the lieutenant-governor, Sir Alured Clarke, in the absence of Lord Dorchester in England, the day of its coming into effect being December 26, 1791. The division of the province into twenty-one counties with four town buroughs was made later in 1792, viz., Gaspé, Cornwallis, Devon, Hertford, Dorchester, Buckinghamshire, Richelieu, Bedford, Surry (sic), Kent, Huntingdon, York, Montreal, Northumberland, Orleans, Effingham, Leinster, Warwick, St. Maurice, Hampshire and Quebec. Each county returned two members except Gaspé, Bedford and New Orleans, returning one each. Quebec and Montreal were to return four each, Three Rivers two and William Henry (Sorel) one; in all fifty members.

The house met on December 17, 1792, there being about sixteen members of British origin, a proportion more or less maintained for forty-six years. The Catholic members, objecting to take the oath prescribed by the act of 1791, were allowed by Sir Alured Clarke to take that of the act of 1774. The meeting was held in the Bishop’s palace of Quebec hired by government and altered and repaired at a cost of £428. Chief Justice Smith was nominated speaker of the legislative council, the fifteen (legal number) members being J.G. Chaussegros de Léry, Hugh Finlay, Picotté de Belestre, Thomas Dunn, Paul Roc de St. Ours, Edward Harrison, François Baby, John Collins, Joseph de Longueuil, Charles de la Naudière, George Pownal, R.A. de Boucherville, John Fraser, and Sir Henry Caldwell, Receiver General, subsequently named.

The assembly met to chose a speaker. Mr. Joseph Antoine Panet, a lawyer of eminence in Quebec, was appointed. Montreal was represented in the west ward by James McGill and J.B. Durocher and in the east ward by Joseph Frobisher and John Richardson, the county being represented by James Walker and Mr. Joseph Papineau. French and English were both used from the beginning,[106] being accepted as a matter of course without any formal resolution.1 The first formal vote on the subject was taken a year later, on December 27, 1792, when the following motion was proposed by Mr. Grant, who accepted an amendment by Mr. Papineau “that it be an instruction of the committee of the whole house charged with the correctness of the minutes (or journals) that the digest they may prepare as the journal of the house from the commencement to the time of reference shall be in the English or French language, as it may have been entered in the original minutes without drawing into precedent for the future.”

Number 9 of the rules for conducting the business of the assembly ran:

“No motion shall be debated or put unless the same be in writing and seconded. When a motion is seconded it shall be read in English and French by the speaker if he is master of both languages. If not, the speaker shall read in either of the two languages most familiar to him and the reading in the other language shall be at the table by the clerk or his deputy before the debate.”

On the method of keeping the journals:

“Resolved, that this house shall keep its journal in two registers, in one of which the proceedings of the house and the motion shall be wrote in the French language, with a translation of the motions originally made in the English language; and in the other shall be entered the proceedings of the house and the motions in the English language with a translation of the motions originally made in the French language.”

Finally it was resolved that the rules for introduction of bills should be as follows:

“The bills relative to the criminal laws of England enforced in this province and to the rights of the Protestant clergy as specified in the act of the thirty-first year of His Majesty, Chapter 31, shall be introduced in the English language; and the bills relative to the laws, customs, usages and civil rights of this province shall be introduced in the French language in order to preserve the unity of the texts.”

On the 9th of May, 1793, Sir Alured Clarke in his speech from the throne was forced to make allusions to the first French revolution, which had been already four years in progress before the opening of the assembly of Lower Canada in December, 1792. The Bastille had fallen on June 17, 1789. “At the first meeting of the legislature I congratulated you,” he said,[107] “upon the flattering prospects which opened to your view and upon the flourishing and tranquil state of the British empire, then at peace with all the world; since that period, I am sorry to find, its tranquility has been disturbed by the unjustifiable and unprecedented conduct of the persons exercising the supreme power in France, who, after deluging their own country with the blood of their own fellow citizens and embruing their hands in that of their sovereign, have forced His Majesty and the surrounding nations of Europe in a contest which involves the first interests of society.”

The king of France had been executed on January 21st and war with Great Britain had been declared on February 1st, although Great Britain had made every effort to avoid hostility. Washington had issued the proclamation of neutrality on April 22d, warning Americans of the penalties incurred by its infraction. The revolted provinces had first shown great sympathy with the French revolutionists. On the news of the evacuation of the allied forces which began on September 20, 1793, all New England seems to have lost its head: McMaster in his “History of the People of the United States” (Vol. II, page 13-14) says: “Both men and women seemed for a time to have put away their wits and gone mad with republicanism. Their dress, their speech, their daily conduct were all regulated on strict republican principles. There must be a flaming liberty cap in every house. There must be a cockade in every hat, there must be no more use of the old titles, Sir and Mr. and Dr. and Rev., etc.”

But later when the excesses of the Revolution began to be known excitement somewhat cooled. It was no pleasure, consequently, to Washington to hear on the day of the proclamation of neutrality that Genet, sent as minister by the French republic, had arrived at Charleston. Genet was well received on his way to Philadelphia, but was chilled by the reception given by Washington and left in a rage. (Archives Report, 1891, Douglas Brymner.)

Lower Canada was not uninfluenced by all this. Genet’s agents, or those of his successor, Fauchet, for Genet was superseded in February, 1794, had succeeded in creating a disaffected spirit among people. At Quebec there was an open manifestation of sedition on the parade. Kingsford tells how Prince Edward (Duke of Kent)2 was in command of the Seventh Fusileers at Quebec when a threatened mutiny was suppressed. Several were charged on a plot to seize the Prince, the general and the officers. One man was sentenced to be shot, but at the Prince’s interception was spared. Three men were severally sentenced to 500, 700 and 400 lashes, one being a sergeant. The details cannot be traced. (Kingsford, Vol. VII, page 383.)

A descent on Canada by way of St. John’s and Lake Champlain was reported to be meditated by congress. In April, 1794, the authorities of Vermont had, as reported to Lord Dorchester, made an offer to Congress to undertake the conquest of Canada without assistance from the federal government, provided the troops were allowed to plunder the inhabitants, and in order to facilitate communications[108] with the seditious of Montreal, Mason lodges were instituted in Vermont under pretended charters from lodges in Montreal.

On September 23d Dorchester arrived in Quebec; shortly Sir Alured Clarke returned to England. The second parliament was opened on November 11th. In January M. Chartier de Lothbinière succeeded M. Panet as speaker, the latter having been made judge of Common Pleas. At the end of November, 1793, Dorchester issued proclamations to take means against the French emissaries in the country. In May, 1794, orders were issued for the embodiment of 2,000 militia to be ready for service. The extent of the poisonous and seditious influences at work is shown by the fact that out of the 7,000 men fit for service in forty-two parishes only 900 men obeyed the law. Lord Dorchester attributed this unwillingness to serve as due more to long absence from military duty than disloyalty. The habitants were, however, dissatisfied, for though the hand of the government was easy they claimed to be oppressed by the expenses of the law and to be unprotected against the exactions of their seigneurs as they had been under the French intendants. (Dorchester to Dundas, May 24, 1794.)

The district of Montreal was reported to be universally disaffected, though the British subjects were loyal and well disposed. The militia law was opposed. At Côte de Neiges a party of habitants had become possessed of arms and were determined to defend themselves if attacked. As said, information was received that a Freemasons’ lodge had been established at Montreal in connection with a lodge in Vermont for the sole purpose of carrying out a traitorous correspondence with the disaffected. On all sides it was reported that the French were coming to seize Canada.

Attorney General Monk, writing from Quebec to Dundas on May 3, 1794, gives an alarming picture of the spread of French revolutionary principles becoming general. He states that threats were used by disaffected new subjects against the loyal new subjects; that it was astonishing to find the same savagery exhibited here as in France, in so short a period for corruption; that blood alliances did not check the menaces upon the non-compliant peasants of burning their houses, of death, emboweling, decapitation and carrying their heads on poles; that religion was being thrown aside. The intrigues had been traced to Genet and the French consuls; that correspondence had been carried on between the disaffected Canadians of the United States and Canada, and that French emissaries had been sent to prepare the people to follow the example of France.

A pamphlet, extracts from which have been preserved, was circulated in January, 1794, under the title of “les Français Libres a Leurs frères les Canadiens.” This pamphlet deserves the extracts extant being made known as indicating a picture of the feelings of the seditionary party. They are to be found in French in the Canadian Government Archives, Q 62, page 224.

The object was to encourage the Canadians[109] “to emulate the example of the people of America and of France. Break then, with a government which degenerates from day to day, and which has become the most cruel enemy of the liberty of the people. Everywhere are found traces of the despotism, the avidity, the cruelties of the king of England. It is time to overthrow a throne which has been seated so long on hypocrisy and imposture. In no way fear George III with his soldiers, too small in number to successfully oppose your valour. The moment is favourable and insurrection is for you the holiest of duties. Remember that being born French you will always be envied and persecuted by the kings of England and that this title will be more than ever today a reason for exclusion from all offices. Also what advantages have you drawn from the constitution which has been given you since your representatives have been assembled? Have they presented you with a single good law? Have they corrected any abuse? Have they had the power to free your commerce from its shackles? No! And why not? Because all the means of corruption have been secretly and publicly employed to make the balance weigh in favour of the English. They have dared to impose an odious veto which the king of England has reserved only to prevent the destruction of abuses and to paralyze all your movements; here is the present which the vile stipendaries have dared to offer you as a monument of the beneficence of the English government. Canadians, arm yourselves. Call to your assistance your friends, the Indians; count on the help of your neighbours and on that of Frenchmen.”

A resumé is given of the advantages that Canadians will obtain in throwing over the English domination.

1. Canada will be a free and independent state.
2. It can form alliances with France and the United States.
3. The Canadians will choose their own government; they will themselves name the members of the legislative body and the executive power.
4. The veto will be abolished.
5. All persons who have obtained the right of citizenship in Canada can be named for all offices.
6. The Corvées will be abolished.
7. Commerce will enjoy a more extensive liberty.
8. There will be no longer any privileged company for the fur trade. The new government will encourage this trade.
9. The seigneurial droits will be abolished. The lods et ventes, the millrights, the tolls, the lumber reservations, work for the service of the seigneur, etc., will be equally abolished.
10. Hereditary titles will be also abolished. There will be no lords, seigneurs or nobles.
11. All cults will be free. Catholic priests named by the people as in the primitive church will enjoy a treatment analogous to their ability.
12. Schools will be established in the parishes and towns; there will be printing offices; institutions for the high sciences; medicine and mathematics. Interpreters will be trained who, known for their good morals, will be encouraged to civilize the savage nations and by this means to extend the trade with them.

In spite of these inflammatory circulars, and outside those immediately disaffected, the majority of the Canadians were in good disposition with the government. They would have resisted an American invasion without hesitation. When their own people tampered with them and offered to regain Canada to the French it is only natural that many should have been unsettled. But it[110] must clearly be understood that the reports of the French emissaries being in the country were not the dreams of visionaries. It was expected in many quarters that Napoleon, the First Consul, would have redemanded Canada at the general treaty of peace. Canada was desired for the French “as an outlet for French products and for the means of speculation to an infinite number of Frenchmen who have no resources in their own country.” The last quotation occurs in a letter dated January 12, 1803, from France by an ex-Canadian, Mr. Imbert, to a brother of Judge Panet.

Yet a panegyric on the occasion of the death of Bishop Briand in 1794 reveals a change of opinion undergoing at this period with regard to the relations of the English and the French. “Ah!” cried the preacher, “how the perspective of our future formerly spread out bitterness in all Christian families! Each one mourned his unhappy plight and was afflicted not to be able to leave a country where the kingdom of God seemed about to be forever destroyed. No one could be persuaded that our conquerors, strangers to our soil, to our language, our law, our customs, our worship, could ever be able to give back to Canada what it had just lost in the change of masters. Generous nation! which has made us see with so much evidence how this prejudgment was false; industrious nation! which has made riches sprout forth which the bosom of this land enclosed; beneficent nation! which daily gives to Canada new proofs of your liberality; No! no! you are not our enemies, nor those of our properties which your laws protect, nor those of our religion, which you respect. Pardon this first mistrust in a people which had not yet the honour of knowing you.”

At Montreal some important arrests were made; one, Duclos, an active agent of the United States who had moved among the people confidently foretelling the invasion of the French, and a traitor named Costello, who was proved to have been diligent in circulating the incendiary pamphlets in French. To meet this disaffection Constitutional Associations were formed in Montreal and Quebec of the leading French Canadian and British loyalists. Gradually the sedition died down. But during the great fear of a French invasion there had been no little doubt and uncertainty among the mercantile classes as to the fate of the vessels that might be dispatched with cargoes on the St. Lawrence. Jay’s treaty, 19th of November, 1794, with Great Britain, for the amicable adjustment of all differences between it and the United States, was a potent factor in making for peace. It was finally agreed to in the senate of the United States in 1795, although the sympathizers of the French fought it determinedly.

In April, 1796, Dorchester, who had sent in his resignation, received official information that Gen. Robert Prescott had been appointed lieutenant governor of Lower Canada and commander-in-chief in North America. Prescott arrived at Quebec on the 18th of June and Dorchester sailed in July, being wrecked on the island of Anticosti, but, being taken off by a ship of war, reached his destination in safety. On the 18th of June, 1796, Sir Robert Prescott, Lord Dorchester’s successor, did not find matters in the province in a satisfactory state. The French republican designs on Canada were still represented in the Montreal district by many sympathizers. Riots were caused and the magistrates of Montreal seemed to have acted weakly, if not with connivance, so that a new commission of the peace was issued with several names omitted. The ostensible cause was opposition to the execution of the Road Bill, but in reality it was a[111] disaffection stirred up by emissaries from the French republic, then in the province.

Attorney General Sewell had been sent to Montreal to get information and he reported the above to the executive council at Quebec on Sunday, October 30, 1796, on the authority of Messrs. de Lothbinière, McGill, Richardson, Murray, Papineau and others. He reported: “That a pamphlet of most seditious tendencies, signed by Adet, the embassador from the French republic to the United States, was now in circulation in the district. That this pamphlet bore the arms of the French republic and was addressed to the Canadians assuring them that France, having now conquered Spain, Austria and Italy, had determined to subdue Great Britain and meant to begin with her colonies; that she thought it her duty in the first instance to turn her attention to the Canadians, to relieve them from the slavery under which they groaned, and was taking steps for that purpose; that it pointed out the supposed advantages which the republican form of government possessed over the British and concluded that in a short time there would only be heard the cry of ‘Vive la Republique!’ from Canada to Paris.” The attorney-general added that he had heard at Montreal that the French republic intended to raise troops in Canada and had actually sent four officers’ commissions into the country. This brought a proclamation from Lieutenant-Governor Prescott, commander-in-chief, ordering the arrest of seditious persons, especially “certain foreigners being alien enemies who are lurking and lying concealed in various parts of the province.” This proclamation was ordered to be published for three successive weeks in the Quebec Gazette and Montreal papers in both languages, and also copies to be printed to be affixed to the church doors in the province. During the rest of the year various people were examined in Montreal, which revealed the existence of a widespread revolt organized by agitators.

On May 17th at the recent assizes for the district of Quebec and Montreal a number had been arrested and tried. Attorney-General Sewell in his report to Prescott on May 12, 1797, mentions among the several indictments preferred the following:

“High Treason: Inciting persons to assemble in a riotous manner for the purpose of opposing the execution of the Road Act; Conspiracy to prevent the market of Montreal being supplied with Provisions until the inhabitants of that city should unite with those of the Country in their opposition to the Road Act.

“Assault on a Constable in the execution of his office under the Road Act.

“Riot and assault on a justice of the peace in the execution of his Office.

“Riots, assaults on and false Imprisonment of different overseers of the High Roads.

“Riots and Rescue of Persons apprehended for the offence last above mentioned from the hands of the sheriff’s officers. Assault on the sheriff of Montreal in the execution of his Office and Rescue of a Prisoner from his custody for an offence against Government.

“Seditious Conversation and Libels on the House of Assembly.

[112]

“The number of Persons indicted in Montreal for the above offences amounted in all to nineteen, of which four for High Treason have not yet been tried. Thirteen were tried and of that number eleven were convicted and received Judgment. The remaining Two absconded.

“The number of persons indicted at Quebec for the above offences amounted to twenty-four, of which twenty-three were convicted and received punishment.”

It is needless to review these cases. As, however, the name of McLean stands out in this sedition, he must be noticed. This man was not arrested till May 10, 1797, although information of his seditionary mission work on the borders of Canada and the United States was in the hands of the authorities in December, 1796. On July 7th he was tried and found guilty and executed on the 21st. On various occasions he had been known to be in Montreal planting sedition. He was in close touch with Ira Allen, of Vermont, who had been on board the “Olive Branch” from Ostend with 20,000 stand of arms. He tried to explain that these were purchased for the Vermont militia. But there is no doubt that they were furnished by the Directory in Paris for the army of the Lower Canadians in an expedition in which McLean was to be interested. Among McLean’s papers was found one from Adet confirming this.

The attempts of the French on Canada already mentioned under the dates of 1796 and 1797 seemed never to have entirely relaxed. In 1801 Lieutenant-Governor Milnes became warned that persons were plotting for the subversion of Canada and that a society of “a parcel of Americans” had been formed in Montreal, proceeding on the principles of Jacobinism and Illuminism, having one Rogers as leader, it being supposed that he was the only one who knew the real objects of the society, which had increased from six to sixty-one members. Six were arrested and held for trial but Rogers escaped. Attorney-General Sewell made a report of his investigation. Rogers was a New England schoolmaster who had settled a short time before at Carillon, forty miles west of Montreal. The society formed by him was composed “of sundry individuals of desperate fortunes,” and among them were many of the persons concerned in McLane’s (sic) conspiracy, particularly Ira Allen and Stephen Thorn, who were lately arrived from France. The pretext on which Rogers founded his society was to search for treasure. The depositions accompanying Sewell’s report implicate Ira Allen and his Vermont marauders as bent on plundering Canada. In this regard Montreal was especially aimed at. The trouble died down somewhat in 1802 when peace with France was proclaimed, but on June 1, 1803, long before any steps could be taken after the declaration of war again, French emissaries were in the province sapping the loyalty, some of them being in Montreal. Again, this was no visionary conception, but a reality. A keen lookout was maintained on strangers. Mr. Richardson, a magistrate of Montreal, was appointed secret agent. One of those to be watched was Jerome Bonaparte, the brother of the First Consul of France. His description is as follows, as sent by Barclay from New York, 2d December, 1803, to Milnes:[113] “Jerome Bonaparte appears about twenty-one years of age, five feet, six or seven inches high, slender make, sallow complexion, sharp and prominent chin, cropped dark hair, short, but he sometimes adds a queue and is powdered; dark eyes.” Jerome had arrived at New York about November 20th and was reported to be making, via Albany, for Lake Champlain, where there was “a Frenchman named Rous, who is notorious for assisting deserters. McLean, hung for treason, is particularly intimate with Rous.” Richardson came to terms with this Rous, whom he employed as a spy. The attempt on Canada by the French was temporarily abandoned, the reason, given by Pichon, Chargé d’affaires at Washington, being that Great Britain was too powerful by sea.

[114]

FOOTNOTES:

1 One of the first statutes was an act to prevent gun powder drawn in ships and other vessels into the harbour of Montreal and to guard against the careless transportation of the same into the powder magazines.

2 He landed at Quebec in August, 1791, and left Canada in 1794. On the 13th of September, in passing through Montreal, he received a complimentary address. He went up country probably as far as Niagara, returning through Montreal in September of 1792. On December 6, 1793, Chief Justice Smith died at Quebec. His remains were interred on December 8th, and were attended to the grave by H.R.H. Prince Edward.—(Quebec Gazette, Thursday, December 12, 1793.)

[115]

### CHAPTER XIII

THE AMERICAN INVASION OF 1812

MONTREAL AND CHATEAUGUAY

FRENCH CANADIAN LOYALTY

THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF 1812—THE CHESAPEAKE—JOHN HENRY—HOW THE NEWS OF INVASION WAS RECEIVED IN MONTREAL—THE MOBILIZATION—GENERAL HULL—THE MONTREAL MILITIA—FRENCH AND ENGLISH ENLIST—MONTREAL THE OBJECTIVE—OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLE OF CHATEAUGUAY—COLONEL DE SALABERRY—RETURN OF WOUNDED—THE EXPLANATION OF THE FEW BRITISH KILLED.

The loyalty of the British and French Canadians was again to be tested during the American war of 1812, which involved Canada in war as a dependency of England.

Its causes were as follows: In 1806, on November 1st, Napoleon issued his “Berlin decree” declaring a blockade on the entire British coast, and let loose French privateers against her shipping and that of neutral nations trading with her. Great Britain retaliated by the celebrated “orders in council which declared all traffic with France contraband and the vessels prosecuting it with their cargoes, liable to seizure.”1 By both of these the United States was injured in its carrying trade. Congress, therefore, in the following year superceded President Jefferson’s contra-embargo on all shipping, domestic and foreign, in the harbours of the United States, by a “non-intercourse act” prohibiting all commerce with either belligerent till the “obnoxious decree” or “orders” were removed.

Another cause conspired to fan the war feeling to a flame. Great Britain, pressed by the difficulty of manning her immense fleets, asserted the “right of search” of American vessels for deserters from her navy. The United States frigate “Chesapeake” resisted this right, sanctioned by international law, but was compelled by a broadside from H.M. Ship Leopard (June, 1807) to submit. The British government disavowed the violence of this act and offered reparation. But the democratic party was clamorous for war and eager to seduce from their allegiance and annex to the United States, the provinces of British North America.

A further cause exasperating the United States, was the publication of the secret correspondence of a Captain Henry, an adventurer, sent by Sir James[116] Craig, Governor General of Canada, in 1809 to ascertain the state of feeling in New England towards Great Britain. Henry reported a disposition to secede from the Union and subsequently offered his correspondence to the American government, demanding therefor the exorbitant sum of $50,000, which he received from the secret service fund. His information was authentic but unimportant and the British government repudiated his agency, but the war party in Congress was implacable.

This John Henry had lived as a boy in Montreal, after which he crossed the border. In 1807 he applied through merchants in Montreal for the office of puisné judge in Upper Canada, it appearing that he had obtained the favour of the merchants of Montreal by defending their conduct in a party newspaper. His correspondence (1808-9) with Sir J. Craig while on his mission, reveals that for some time in April, 1808, Henry was in Montreal.

On June 18, 1812, James Madison, the president, and Congress approved the “act declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof and the United States of America and their territories.” This news, sent by an express of the North West Company, did not reach the governor, Sir John Prevost, till July 7th. It had, however, been sent by private means to General Brock in Upper Canada about June 26th by the Hon. John Richardson of Montreal, though others say by John Jacob Astor, who had extensive fur interests in Canada.

How the news of the war was received in Montreal has been published recently in the Huntingdon “Gleaner” (under the editorship of Mr. Robert Sellar). The late Mr. Lewis MacKay of Huntingdon, then twenty-one years of age, there relates what he saw as an eye witness. “I recollect very well the day when word reached Montreal that the American government had declared war against Britain. It caused great dejection, for the general belief was that the Americans would come at once and take Canada. At night especially, there was great alarm. Everything in the shape of a man was pressed into service. If dogs could have carried firelocks they would have been taken. I saw at the sentry posts mere boys too weak to carry their guns which they rested against their bases.”

Quickly the militia and military were organized. Colonel Baynes, adjutant general, writing to Brock from Quebec on July 3d, says: “The flank companies here are on the march and 2,000 militia will form a chain of posts from St. John’s to La Prairie. The town militia of Montreal and Quebec to the number of 3,000 from each city have volunteered, and are being embodied and drilled, and will take their part in garrison duty to relieve the troops. The proclamation for declaring martial law is prepared and will be speedily issued. All aliens will be required to take the oath of allegiance or immediately quit the Province.”

Writing from Montreal on August 17th, Sir George Prevost wrote to Lord Bathurst, secretary of war:[117] “A part of the Forty-ninth Regiment has already proceeded from Montreal to Kingston and has been followed by the remainder of the Newfoundland Regiment of some picked Veterans; the other companies of the Forty-ninth Regiment will proceed to the same destination as soon as sufficient number of bateaux can be collected. * * * From Kingston to Montreal the Frontier line appears at present secure. * * * The Eighth or King’s Regiment has arrived this M(ornin)g from Quebec to relieve the Forty-ninth Regiment. This fine and effective Regt. of the Eighth, together with a Chain of Troops established in the vicinity of this place, consisting of regular and militia Forces, the whole amounting to near four thousand, five hundred men, effectually serve to keep in check the enemy in this quarter where alone they are in any strength and to prevent any Attempt to carry on a Predatory Warfare against this flourishing portion of Lower Canada.”

MONTREAL IN 1810

A view of the city of Montreal and the river St. Lawrence from the mountain, by E. Walsh, Forty-ninth Regiment, 1810.

Brock made preparations to meet the American general, William Hull, who was early in July descending on Canada from Detroit. He had soon to return in hot haste and on August 16th surrendered Detroit to Sir Isaac Brock.2 Brock paroled many of the prisoners but the rest he sent to Montreal on their way to Quebec for embarkation. The Montreal Herald of Tuesday, September 12, 1812, facetiously describes their entry thus:

“Montreal, September 12th.

“Last Sunday evening the inhabitants of this city were gratified with an exhibition equally novel and interesting. That General Hull should have entered our city so soon at the head of his troops rather exceeded our expectations. We were, however, happy to see him and received him with all the honours due to his rank and importance as a public character. The following particulars relative to his journey and reception at Montreal may not be uninteresting to our readers.

“General Hull and suite, accompanied by about twenty-five officers and three hundred and fifty soldiers, left Kingston under an escort of 130 men commanded by Major Heathcote of the Newfoundland Regiment. At Cornwall the escort was met by Captain Gray of the quartermaster general’s department who took charge of the prisoners of war and from thence proceeded with them to Lachine, where they arrived about 2 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. At Lachine Captains Richardson and Ogilvie, with their companies of Montreal militia and a company of the King’s, commanded by Captain Blackmore formed the escort till they were met by Colonel Auldjo with the remainder of the flank companies of the militia, upon which Captain Blackmore’s Company fell out and presented arms as the general passed with the others, and then returned to Lachine, leaving the prisoners to be guarded by the Montreal militia alone.” Then follows the order of march in procession into the town through the illuminated streets to the Château de Ramezay:

[118]

“When they arrived at the governor’s house the general was conducted in and presented to his Excellency, Sir George Prevost. He was received with the greatest politeness and invited to take up his residence there during his stay in Montreal. The officers were quartered in Holmes Hotel and the soldiers were marched to Quebec Gate Barracks. The general appears to be about sixty years of age and bears his misfortune with a degree of resignation that but few men in similar circumstances are fitted with.”

General Hull was exchanged for thirty British soldiers taken by the Americans. The rest of the prisoners proceeded to Quebec.3

Montrealers were elated at Hull’s capture, but they knew well that revenge was being prepared. Montreal was still the objective of the congress army as of old. Their secretary of state had said that “Montreal was the apple of his eye. Why waste men and money upon distant frontiers? Strike at their vitals, then you will paralyze their extremities. Capture Montreal and you will starve de Rottenburg and Proctor. In Montreal your troops will find winter quarters and an English Christmas.”

The Montreal militia, therefore, had to keep up their drill in earnest. On November 19th there was a call to arms on a report the city was to be attacked. The militia left the city to meet the foe, but on November 28th returned from “their pleasure trip” unscathed, for either the enemy had disappeared or it was a false alarm.

But it was not only volunteers for the militia that were being required. Men were wanted for the front. Lewis MacKay describes how Colonel McDonell (or Macdonnell) of Glengarry (who was afterwards mortally wounded and whose remains were buried beside those of Brock) came to Montreal to enlist men for his regiment. “The men he brought with him were mostly from Glengarry. As I spoke Gaelic I got amongst them. I enlisted with them, but on examination was rejected because I was not up to the standard in height. I was transferred to the Voltigeurs. There was nothing doing in Montreal but raising troops of cavalry and regiments, and they took everybody that offered, almost. The bounty was $100, but the pay was very small. There were French among the Glengarries and there were old country men in the Voltigeurs. * * * Among others in Montreal was Captain Coleman of the Eighth Dragoons. He got liberty to raise a troop for himself. He was rich and bought horses with his own money and men were keen to enlist with him. Wanting me as his body servant he got me transferred from the Voltigeurs. When he had got his complement of men the government did the rest, giving uniforms, saddles, arms, etc. The troop got the name of the ‘French Troop’ and were ordered to Upper Canada.”

The enthusiastic readiness of the French Canadians to protect their country and the camaraderie with which the different subjects, old and new, now joined side by side, are also evidenced in glancing at the lists of militia records of the times. A picture is preserved by Dunlop of the good times of the two corps “formed of the gentlemen of Montreal,” of whom he says,[119] “that if their discipline was commendable their commissariat was beyond all praise. Long lines of carts were to be seen bearing in casks and hampers of the choicest wines, to say nothing of the venison, turkeys, hams and all other esculents necessary to recruit their strength under the fatigues of war. With them the Indian found a profitable market for his game, and the fisherman for his fish. There can be little doubt that a gourmand would greatly prefer the comfort of dining with a mess of privates of these distinguished corps to the honour and glory of being half starved (of which he ran no small risk) at the table of the Governor-General himself.”

LETTER OF DE LORIMIER (1812)

A call to arms

While, therefore, the struggle was in the Upper Province, the attack on Montreal was, however, reserved for the next year and the Montreal militia, with men like Lieut. Col. Charles de Salaberry, Lieutenant McDonell, Captains Jean Baptiste and Jucherau Duchesnay, Daly and Ferguson, Bruyère and la Motte, with adjutants O’Sullivan and Hedder—all to be mentioned in despatches—were to give the Americans no cause to doubt either British or French Canadian loyalty to the British flag.

The chance came to save Montreal in 1813, on October 21st, when the militia battalions of Montreal and the district took the field at Chateauguay to prevent the advance on the city by the American army under General Hampton. It was a glorious victory for the militia.

The attack on Montreal was planned by Major-General Wilkinson, who had arrived about the end of August, 1813, in Sacketts Harbour to take charge of the troops of the North American frontier. There in his council of officers it was determined: “To rendezvous the whole of the troops on the lake in the vicinity 4 and in cooperation with our squadron to make a bold feint upon Kingston; step down the St. Lawrence; lock up the enemy in our rear to starve or surrender; or oblige him to follow us without artillery, baggage or provisions, or eventually to lay down his arms; to sweep the St. Lawrence of armed craft; and in concert with the division of Major-General Hampton to take Montreal.”5

Montreal was therefore the main object of attack. “Montreal is the safer and greater object,” wrote Armstrong to the Secretary of War, fearing hard blows at Kingston, the weaker place, “and you will find there a small force to encounter.” Montreal offered no terrors for there were “no fortifications at that city, or in advance of it,” and only “200 sailors and 400 marines with the militia, number unknown,” but there were, to be sure, “2,500 regular troops expected daily from Quebec.”

Yet the American force which made its way under Major-General Hampton from Burlington was a powerful army. It arrived on October 8th at Chateauguay Four Corners, a small settlement distant five miles from the national boundary, about forty-six from Montreal, and about forty-five from the proposed junction of Hampton’s force with Major-General Wilkinson’s.

William James, who published in London in 1818, “a full and correct account of the military occurrences of the late war between Great Britain and the United States of America,” says of General Hampton’s force, now prepared against Montreal, that it “has been stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry,” but we have no American authority for supposing that the latter exceeded 180 or the former 5,520, making a total of 5,700 men accompanied by ten pieces of cannon.[120] This army, except the small militia force attached to it, was the same that, with General Dearborn at its head, paraded across the line and back to Plattsburg in the autumn of 1812. During the twelve months that had since elapsed, the men had been drilled under an officer, Major-General Izard, who had served one or two campaigns in the French army. Troops were all in uniform, well clothed and equipped; in short, General Hampton commanded, if not the most numerous, certainly the most effective regular army which the United States were able to send into the field during the war.

At Montreal there was bustle and stir in getting the additional forces out which were to join Lieutenant-Colonel Salaberry of the Canadian Fencibles, who commenced operations to check the American advance as soon as he had learned that the Americans had crossed the lines. But the whole of the force that went to meet Hampton between October 21st and 29th was only about eight hundred rank and file, with 172 Indians under Captain Lamotte at the settlements of Chateauguay. The battle of Chateauguay and its results may now be told by Sir George Prevost in his dispatch from Montreal to Earl Bathurst.

“Headquarters, Montreal, October 30, 1813.

“My Lord:

“On the 8th instant I had the honour to report to Your Lordship that Major-General Hampton had occupied with a considerable force of regulars and militia a portion of the Chateauguay River, near the settlement of the Four Corners. Early on the 21st the American army crossed the line of separation between Lower Canada and the United States, surprised the small party of Indian warriors and drove in a picket of sedentary militia posted at the junction of the Outard and Chateauguay Rivers, where it encamped, and proceeded in establishing a road of communication with its last position for the purpose of bringing forward its artillery. Major-General Hampton having completed his arrangements on the 24th, commenced on the following day his operations against my advanced posts. At about 11 o’clock in the forenoon of the 26th his cavalry and light troops were discovered advancing on both banks of the Chateauguay by a detachment covering a working party of habitants employed in felling timber for the purpose of constructing abattis.6 Lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry (sic), who had the command of the advanced piquets composed of the light infantry company of the Canadian Fencibles and two companies of Voltigeurs on the north side of the river, made so excellent a disposition of his little band that he checked the advance of the enemy’s principal column led by Major-General Hampton in person and accompanied by Brigadier-General Izard; while the American Light Brigade under Colonel McCarty was in like manner repulsed in its progress on the south side of the river by the spirited advance of the right flank company of the Third Battalion of the embodied militia under Captain Daly, supported by Captain Bruyer’s Company of Chateauguay Chasseurs; Captains Daly and Bruyers being both wounded and their companies having sustained some loss, their position was immediately taken up by a flank company[121] of the first battalion of embodied militia; the enemy rallied and repeatedly returned to the attack, which terminated only with the day in his complete disgrace and defeat; being foiled at all points by a handful of men who, by their determined bravery, maintained their position and screened from insult the working parties who continued their labours unconcerned. Having fortunately arrived at the scene of action shortly after its commencement, I witnessed the conduct of the troops on this glorious occasion, and it was a great satisfaction to me to render on the spot that praise which had become so justly their due. I thanked Major-General De Watteville for the wise measures taken by him for the defense of this position and lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry for the judgment displayed by him in the choice of his ground and the bravery and skill with which he maintained it; I acknowledged the highest praise to belong to the officers and men engaged that morning for their gallantry and readiness, and I called upon all the troops in advance as well for a continuance of that zeal, steadiness and discipline as for that patient endurance of hardship and privations which they hitherto evinced; and I particularly noticed the able support lieutenant-Colonel de Saluberry received from Captain Ferguson in command of the Canadian Fencibles and from Capt. J.B. Duchesnay and Capt. J. Duchesnay and adjutant Hedder, of the Voltigeurs, and also from adjutant O’Sullivan of the sedentary militia and from Captain La Motte, belonging to the Indian warriors.

“Almost the whole of the British troops being pushed forward for the defence of Upper Canada, that of the lower province must depend in a great degree on the valour and continued exertion of its incorporated battalions and its sedentary militia until the Seventieth Regiment and the two battalions of marines daily expected should arrive.

“It is therefore highly satisfactory to state to Your Lordship that there appears a determination among all classes of His Majesty’s Canadian subjects to persevere in a loyal and honourable line of conduct. By a report of the prisoners taken from the enemy in the affair on the Chateauguay, the American force is stated at 7,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, with 10 field pieces. The British advanced force actually engaged did not exceed 300. The enemy suffered severely from our fire and from their own; some detached corps in the woods fired on each other.

“I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a return of the killed and wounded on the 26th. I avail myself of this opportunity to solicit from his royal highness, the prince regent, as a mark of his gracious approbation of the conduct of the embodied battalions of the Canadian Militia five pair of colours for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth battalions.

“I have the honour to be, etc.,

“George Prevost.

“Return of killed, wounded and missing of his Majesty’s forces in the action of the enemy in the advance on Chateauguay on the 26th of October, 1813.

“Canadian fencible infantry, light Company; three rank and file killed; one sergeant, three rank and file wounded.

[122]

“Third battalion embodied militia, flank company; two rank and file killed; one captain, six rank and file wounded; four rank and file missing.

“Chateauguay Chasseurs; one captain wounded.

“Total: Five rank and file killed, two captains, one sergeant, thirteen rank and file wounded; four rank and file missing.

“Names of officers wounded: Third battalion embodied militia—Captain Daly twice wounded, severely. Chateauguay Chasseurs: Captain Bruyers, slightly.

“Edward Baynes, Adjutant-General.

Right Hon. Earl Bathurst.”

The slight number of the British forces opposed to the Americans could hardly be believed after the disorganization of the latter. When Captain Debartzch of the militia was sent to the headquarters of General Hampton with a flag and announced the number of the opposing force, Hampton, scarcely able to keep his temper, insisted that the British force amounted to 7,000 men for he asked, “What, then, made the woods ring with rifles?”

This incident must be told. In the early course of the fight the Americans opened a spirited fight upon the Canadians and drove the skirmishers stationed near the left behind the front edge of the abattis. “The Americans,” says William James, already quoted, “Although they did not occupy one foot of the abattis nor lieutenant-colonel de Saluberry retire one inch from the ground on which he had been standing, celebrated this partial retiring as a retreat. They were not a little surprised, however, to hear their Huzzas repeated by the Canadians, accompanied by a noise ten times more terrific than even ‘Colonel Boerstler’s stentorian voice.’ By way of animating his little band when thus momentarily pressed, colonel de Saluberry ordered his bugle men to sound the advance. This was heard by lieutenant-colonel McDonell, who, thinking that the colonel was in want of support, caused his own bugler to answer, and immediately advanced with two of his companies. He at the same time sent ten or twelve bugle men into the adjoining woods with orders to separate and blow with all their might. This little ruse de guerre led the Americans to believe that they had more thousands than hundreds to contend with and deterred them from even attempting to penetrate the abattis. They contented themselves with a long shot warfare in which, from the nature of the defences, they were almost the only sufferers.”

The Americans, after bungling the battle, delayed at Four Corners, but on November 11th Hampton, feeling himself unsafe, broke up his encampment and retreated to Plattsburg.

Chateauguay had served Montreal well and the tide of war again rolled away from its gates.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Cf. Withrow “History of Canada,” pp. 301-302.

2 William Hull was born in Derby, Connecticut, on June 24, 1753. He graduated with honors from Yale at the age of nineteen, studied law and was admitted to practice. He allied himself with the Revolutionary party and obtained a commission from Congress eventually rising to the rank of a colonel. At the conclusion of peace he held a judicial office in Massachusetts and served for eight years as a senator. In 1805 he was appointed the first governor of the territory of Michigan and was commissioned a brigadier general in the army of the United States on April 8, 1812. He was court-martialed for his surrender of Detroit in 1814 and after a trial of three months he was ordered to be shot, but President Madison remitted his sentence in consideration of his services in the Revolutionary war. His name was, however, dropped from the army lists. He died at Newton, Massachusetts, in November, 1825.

3 Their arrival at Quebec is thus described by A.W. Cochran, assistant civil secretary to the governor general in a letter to his mother: “Both men and officers are a shabby looking set as ever you set your eyes on, and reminded me of Falstaff’s men very forcibly. Some of the officers talked very big and assured us that before long there would be 100,000 men in Canada and that they soon would have Quebec from us.” Later on, writing to his father from Montreal on October 10th he further expresses his views on the Americans: “The Americans, I think, bid fair to rival and surpass the French in gasconading as well as in everything that is dishonorable, base and contemptible. * * * Yankees cannot tell a plain story like other folks; they cannot help ‘immersing the wig in the ocean’ as Sterne says of the Frenchmen.”

4 The spot chosen was Grenadier Island, eighteen miles from Sacketts Harbour.

5 “Wilkinson’s Memoirs,” Vol. III, Appendix No. 1.

6 Abattis. These were obstructions made by felled timber which served as a succession of breastworks.

[123]

### CHAPTER XIV

SIDE LIGHTS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

1776-1825

THE “GAZETTE DU COMMERCE ET LITTERAIRE”—A RUNAWAY SLAVE—GUY CARLETON’S DEPARTURE—GENERAL HALDIMAND IN MONTREAL—MESPLET’S PAPER SUSPENDED—POET’S CORNER—THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY DISCUSSED—FIRST THEATRICAL COMPANY: THE “BUSY BODY”—LORD NELSON’S MONUMENT—A RUNAWAY, RED CURLY HAIRED AND BANDY LEGGED APPRENTICE—LAMBERT’S PICTURE OF THE PERIOD—MINE HOST OF THE “MONTREAL HOTEL”—THE “CANADIAN COURANT”—AMERICAN INFLUENCE—THE “HERALD”—WILLIAM GRAY AND ALEXANDER SKAKEL—BEGINNINGS OF COMMERCIAL LIFE—DOIGE’S DIRECTORY—MUNGO KAY—LITERARY CELEBRITIES—HERALD “EXTRAS”—WATERLOO—POLITICAL PSEUDONYMS—NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION—THE ABORTIVE “SUN”—A PICTURE OF THE CITY IN 1818—THE BLACK RAIN OF 1819—OFFICIAL, MILITARY AND ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE—ORIGIN OF ART, MUSIC, ETC.

Colonel Moses Hazen, who took command of Montreal, on April 1, 1776, for the congressional cause, was shrewd when in order to strengthen their position he wrote to General Schuyler for a printer, and Benjamin Franklin did a good thing for Montreal when he brought Fleury Mesplet, the French printer, and his plant with him, to the Château de Ramezay as an adjunct to the commission which was to seduce the French Canadians from their allegiance. Though this aim failed Mesplet remained behind on his own account after the commissioners had returned on their bootless quest and after publishing two works he started the “Gazette du Commerce et Littéraire Pour Le Ville et District de Montreal” which first saw light in French on Wednesday, June 3, 1778. His previous address to the public announced that the subscription was to be two and a half Spanish dollars per annum. Subscribers would pay one Spanish dollar for every advertisement inserted in the said paper during three weeks successively, non-subscribers one and one-half Spanish dollars, and the paper was to be a quarter sheet. The first number was rather literary than commercial. Advertisements came with the second number. Jean Bernard exhorts the public not to throw their wood-fuel ashes away. He would buy them at ten coppers a bushel. In number four occurs the advertisement: “Ran away on the 14th instant, a slave belonging to the widow Dufy Desaulnier, aged about thirty-five years, dressed in striped calico, of medium height and tolerable stoutness. Whoever will bring her back will receive a reward of $6, and will be repaid any costs that may be proved to have been incurred in finding her.”

[124]

The Gazette du Commerce did not realize its name for some time, there being in the small community a dearth of such, as Mesplet deplored in the first paragraph of No. 1. Very little political news ever filtered through the Gazette, but the arrival and departure of governors was safe; consequently he printed the address of Colonel Sevestre commanding the militia at Montreal to Sir Guy Carleton, who finished his term of office in July, 1778; and the reply commending the virtues and experience of his successor, General Haldimand.

The issue of August 12, 1778, records the latter’s visit thus:

“On the 8th instant at 6 P.M. General Haldimand made his entrance into the town amid discharges of artillery from the citadel and the vessels in the harbour. The English merchants were in the front, followed by the Canadian Militia and the regulars, the whole forming a line from the Quebec gate to the Company’s house, where His Excellency now resides. A band of 600 Indians, with Messrs. St. Luc de la Corne and Campbell, their officers and interpreters at the head, came out of the town and welcomed the new Governor with cries which proclaimed the joy they felt at his arrival. The citizens of the two nations proved their gratification by their enthusiasm and cheerful countenances.”

The next number does not appear, apparently being suppressed by the new Governor, but in the succeeding week it again was issued through the good graces of certain leading citizens who had procured him this liberty. He promises gratitude to the Governor and the succeeding numbers are strictly literary subjects, such as discussions on the opinions of Voltaire and the utility of the establishment of an Academy of Science.

In April, 1779, Mesplet invited criticism on a recent judicial decision, for which he was summoned to court and reprimanded against any repetition of the offence. But he was recalcitrant and in the fall he was arrested and taken to Quebec, the paper being suspended apparently till 1785.

By 1788 Mesplet’s paper was enlarged from quarter to foolscap four pages, printed in double columns in French and English. It seems to have become more of a newspaper and news a month old was served up to eager Montrealers. In 1789 there was still little commercial news, but there was a “Poet’s Corner” and several poems of Robert Burns, then rising to fame, are honoured there. In this year political discussion, a subject in the early days tabooed, appears in the Gazette. A correspondent discussing the burning question of a House of Assembly sums up thus:

“We are all Canadians and subjects of Great Britain. The distinction of old and new subjects ought to have been done away with long since. The prosperity of this country must depend on the unanimity that prevails amongst us. I am of the opinion that much good may be derived from a House of Assembly. Yet I fear the consequent evils, one of which is taxing a country unable to support the dignity of a House. The peasantry would not easily digest what that House of Assembly might impose and few, if any, of their class would be able to share in the legislation. It will, therefore, be the policy of Government to procrastinate this event until the province is really and fully Anglified, when, perhaps, a House of Assembly may be better known and received with the united voice of approbation.”

Up to this year the paper was published by F. Mesplet, 40 Notre Dame Street. In 1795 it passed into the hands of Thomas A. Turner and was issued from an[125] office on the corner of Notre Dame Street and St. Jean Baptiste. By 1804 it had passed over to E. Edward, 135 St. Paul Street.

The date of November 10, 1804, records the movement for the first theatre in Montreal.

“Mr. Ormsby from the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, respectfully informs the ladies and gentlemen of Montreal that he intends, with their approbation, establishing a company of comedians in Canada, to perform in Montreal and Quebec alternately. The theatre in this city is fitted up in that large and commodious house next door to the Post Office, where will be presented on Monday evening, 19th inst., a comedy in five acts called ‘The Busy Body,’ to which will be added the much admired farce called ‘The Sultan.’

“N.B. Particulars in advertisement for the evening: Boxes, 5s; gallery, 2s. 6d. Tickets to be had at Mr. Hamilton’s Tavern, the Montreal Hotel and at the theatre where places for the boxes may be taken.”

The news of the death and victory of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar on October 21, 1805, reached Montreal in the winter of 1805-6 and was the occasion of great activity among the inhabitants, so that immediately a subscription was taken up to raise their first monument. A committee was appointed and these in conjunction with Six Alexander Mackenzie, Thomas Forsyth and John Gillespie, then in London, took steps to raise it. The Governor-General, Sir J. Craig, having given the magistrates a piece of ground for general improvement, these granted a portion of it, at the upper end of the new market place, as a site for the intended column. The foundation stone was laid on August 17, 1809, and the monument was built of grey compact limestone of the district.

The four panel ornaments were of artificial stone invented by Coade & Seeley, of London. The battle of the Nile is represented on the north side. That on the east represents the interview between Lord Nelson and the Prince Regent of Denmark on the landing of Lord Nelson after the engagement off Copenhagen. The panel on the south side facing the river commemorates the battle of Trafalgar. The west side has the neatest panel, being ornamented with cannon, anchors and other appropriate naval trophies with a circular wreath surrounding the whole inscription:

In Memory of
The Right Honorable Vice-Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson
Duke of Bronté
Who terminated his career of Naval glory in the memorable
Battle of Trafalgar
On the 21st of October, 1805,
After inculcating by Signal
This Sentiment
Never to be forgotten by his Country,
“ENGLAND EXPECTS EVERY MAN WILL DO HIS DUTY.”
This monumental column was erected by the
Inhabitants of Montreal
In the year 1808.

[126]

The expense of this column when complete with the iron railing was £1,300. In the first cut stone at the east corner of the base, a plate of lead was deposited bearing the following inscription:

“In memory of the Right Honourable Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronté, who terminated his career of naval glory on the 21st of October, 1805, this monumental pillar was erected by a subscription of the inhabitants of Montreal, whereof the Hon. Sir John Johnston, Knight and Baronet, the Hon. James Monk, Chief Justice of Montreal, John Richardson, John Ogilvie and Louis Chaboillez, Esquires, were a committee appointed for carrying it into execution, and the same was erected under the direction of William Gilmore, stone cutter and mason, from designs obtained from Mitchell, an architect in London.—17th August, 1809.”

Returning to the Gazette, a sidelight of 1806 thrown by an advertisement of William Gilmore, dated 7th June, reveals to us the apprenticeship system as then in vogue. It may seem to some an industrial tyranny.

“Ran away from the subscriber: Alexander Thompson, an indentured apprentice, about 22 years of age, 5 ft. 5 in. in height, red curly hair and bandy legs. All persons are hereby forbid hiring him under penalty of law. Any person who will bring him back shall receive three pence reward, no charges paid.”

Thus far the Gazette. The history of the Gazette of today, its successor, may be found in “Montreal, the Commercial Metropolis of Canada,” 1907.

Let us now present a side light of about this period.

At this time the Montreal Hotel was one of the chief hotels and it was kept by a Mr. Dillon who had some reputation as a water colourist of local scenes.

John Lambert, who visited the United States and Canada in 1806, 1807 and 1808, has the following picture: “The only open place or square in the town,” he says in his account of Montreal, “except the two markets, under the French Government was the place where the garrison troops were paraded. The French Catholic church occupies the whole of the east side of this square; and on the south side, adjoining some private houses, is a very good tavern, called the Montreal Hotel, kept by Mr. Dillon. During my stay in this city I lodged at his house and found it superior to any in Canada; everything in it is neat, cleanly and well conducted.” From his characterization of the landlord, one is somewhat disappointed that he does not mention his artistic gift. “The old gentleman,” he says, “came out in the retinue of Lord Dorchester; he is a very ingenious character.” But then, instead of commending his water colors, as one would naturally expect, Lambert concludes his notice of Dillon in these words: “and fond of expressing his attachment to his King and country by illuminations and firing his pedereroes off in the square.” Lambert also refers to the new parade ground. “At the back of the town, just behind the new courthouse, is the parade ground where the troops are exercised.” And, after some further words of description, he proceeds to suggest a truly attractive picture of suburban Montreal in the early nineteenth century. “Here,” he says, “the inhabitants walk of an evening and enjoy a beautiful view of the suburbs of St. Lawrence and St. Antoine, and the numerous gardens, orchards and plantations of the gentry, adorned with neat and handsome dwelling houses.” These, with green fields interspersed, lead up to the mountain from which the island and the city have taken the name of Montreal.

We will now turn to a new literary venture.

About 1875

NELSON’S MONUMENT

The building on the left is the house originally built in 1720 by Baron de Becancourt. It became the store of the Campagnie des Indes, which in the French times answered to the Hudson’s Bay Company. This was also the residence of the Hon. James McGill, founder of McGill University. It was demolished in 1903.

[127]

After the Gazette there came the “Canadian Courant” founded at Montreal in 1807 by Nahum Mower, a native of Worcester, Massachusetts. There came with him Stephen Mills, who was born in Rozalton, Vermont. The latter remained at Montreal till 1810, when he went to Kingston, where he founded the Kingston Gazette. He became a minister in 1835. These two New Englanders placed a distinctly American stamp on the new paper. The name “Canadian” was revolutionary to the old British colonists, but it pleased the French. The “Courant” lasted until between 1835 and 1840. That it should have continued its existence so long, looked on with suspicion by the chief English residents as democratic and revolutionary, would suggest that it was subsidized either by American merchants, for the trade relations now between the two countries were becoming intimate and profitable, or by the government of the United States, who, baulked in their revolutionary designs hitherto, were still desirous of seducing the neighbouring “Fourteenth” colony from its allegiance.

Nahum Mower left in 1829, and in his valedictory he claims to have made good his pledge in the first number that he “should make it his duty to become a good subject and endeavour others to continue so.” He worshiped, till 1813, when he sold his pew, in St. Gabriel’s Church, the only non-Anglican church then in existence, and the temporary home of all English-speaking non-conformists. Still he was accused of undue intimacy with the enemies of the British Connexion in Canada, especially during the troublous times of 1812 and the years of apprehension after.

The Canadian Courant had an early rival in the Montreal Herald, which published its first number on Saturday, October 19, 1811. Its first printer and founder was a young Scotchman, William Gray, of Huntly, Aberdeenshire, born on August 12, 1789. He arrived in Montreal in June, 1811. In 1812, May 25th, he was married to Agnes Smith, of Aberdeen, by the Reverend Mr. Somerville. William Gray, as surmised by Doctor Campbell in his “History of St. Gabriel’s Church,” seems to have been related in some degree of cousinship to Alexander Skakel, the most noted of the Montreal early British schoolmasters. He died at the early age of thirty-three, on February 28, 1822, having caught a cold on a journey in a Durham boat on his way from Toronto to attend to his business affairs, on hearing that in his absence his office had been mobbed by a crowd of French-Canadians, displeased with the tone of some of his articles. This young editor has left behind him a record of personal probity, good discernment and strong personal courage. His task in 1811 was no easy one—to establish an independent and unsubsidized paper in a small town.

The files of the early Herald give a contemporary picture of life of the community. Canada then had about four hundred thousand inhabitants, of whom most were in the Lower province; about four thousand five hundred regular British troops were mostly stationed there, also. Upper Canada consisted of only a few settlements, scattered here and there on the highways. Fur trading was the basic industry of the colony and its headquarters was at Montreal, the home and storage centre of the wealthy fur traders of the Beaver Hall Club. Agriculture was neglected till after the War of 1812, when it became realized that farming should be the staple industry of the colony. Unskilled labour was then performed by French Canadians, for there was yet no British immigrant labouring class. The skilled artisans came mostly from across the border, but the lesser[128] storekeepers and merchants, chiefly Scotch, with an admixture of English and Yankees, were beginning to build up the permanent commerce of the city that was not always to be exclusively that of the fur trade. Among the business men then building up Montreal trade who were already well established before the war of 1812 were Alexander Henry, auctioneer; Benaiah Gibb, merchant; John Dillon, lumber merchant; James Brown, book-seller and owner of the Gazette; Peter McCutcheon, merchant; James and Andrew McGill, Forsyth, Richardson & Company, Maitland, Garden & Auldjo, Woolrich & Cooper, John Shuter, Samuel Gerrard, John Molson & Son, brewers and steamboat proprietors; Daniel Arnoldi, surgeon, and others.

The first home of the Herald, as far as ascertainable, was the 23 St. Paul Street given in Doige’s Directory of Montreal in 1819, the first systematic list of Montreal addresses. There is no proof of its having moved from elsewhere since 1811. On either side of it were two taverns, the Montreal Academy, a famous school kept by William Ryan, the residence of Joseph Papineau, eminent notary and public notary and father of the famous Louis Joseph, who was to become the “patriot” leader, and a small bookshop kept by a J. Russell. Near at hand, following Doige’s numbering, was the commissariat office and the residence of Colonel McKey, of the Indian Department, while a few doors away was the house of Peter McCutcheon, the famous merchant who afterward took the name of McGill. The “Canadian Courant” was established at 92 St. Paul Street, barely thirty doors from the Herald, and shared its premises with Daniel Campbell, a grocer. William Gray lived above his printing premises, as did his editor in 1819, Doctor Christie, and probably the latter’s predecessor, Mungo Kay, who was a Montreal merchant before he took to the journalist’s pen. At that date, and indeed for many long years, most of the storekeepers on St. Paul Street lived over their places of business. St. Paul Street was then the chief retail street; it ran the southern length of the town from the eastern fortifications of the Quebec suburbs to the western ones, ending at the present McGill Street. At either end there was a generous supply of taverns to meet the needs of those coming in from the country. In between them was a close succession of groceries, tailor shops, dry goods houses, hardware stores, druggists, bootmakers, glaziers, plumbers and the like. The Gazette at this period had its home on St. François Xavier Street.

The newspapers of the period received an addition by the advent of the first French-Canadian paper issued in Montreal, the “Spectateur.” They frequently had “brushes” with one another. In 1814, on July 2, a writer for the Herald, probably Mungo Kay, addressed an ode to a French-Canadian writer in the Spectator whom he calls “a certain gros bourgeois” and rallying him concerning a story, evidently known, of his efforts to cozen a certain negro:

See, wrapt in whirlwinds, from his stand
On leathern wings he takes his flight,
And on fell Mungo, with unequal hand
Sped rancorous the rodures of the night;
In deeds of darkness are their chief delight.
And see, advancing ’thwart the storm
Deception with his blotted form;
[129] Who tried the sable African to charm,
But failed in his attempt to make him green,
Albeit he the Justice did alarm,
Who quaked with fear that he ’mong Truth’s friends should be seen.

THE PRESS BUILDINGS: The Herald

THE PRESS BUILDINGS: La Presse

THE PRESS BUILDINGS: The Star

THE PRESS BUILDINGS: La Patrie

Next week another satiric poem was addressed to certain “Spectators” who had two urns.

“One flows for B. and M——r warm with praise,
And one for M——o bitter gall displays.”

For B. read Brown (John), the owner of the Gazette; for M——r, Mower (Nahum), the proprietor of the Courant; and M——o for Mungo Kay. Mungo Kay is credited by the Gazette in an obituary notice of him in 1813 on his death on September 18th, as having as editor for nearly seven years justified his choice of motto: “Aninos Novitate Tenebo”—“I will hold attention by means of novelty.” This was not meant to be satire but a tribute to his efforts to obtain the earliest intelligence. The Herald early began its “extra special additions.” In 1812, before it had been a year in existence, the Quebec Gazette reprinted such a special edition with the following acknowledgment:

“We beg the editors of the Herald to accept our thanks for their attention in transmitting the intelligence of the surrender of General Hull. This is not the first time that the public has been indebted to them for early intelligence.”

News in those days was hard to obtain, but even if a month late it was read with avidity, for the Napoleonic wars, involving the peace and security of the mother country and their own colony, which became involved in all British quarrels, found a passionate source of interest in the truly colonial loyalists of Montreal, who were surrounded by ill-wishers, secret or open, on all sides. It is amusing, however, to read the account of the Battle of Waterloo under the single line caption “Highly Interesting Intelligence,” the art of display headlines not then having become so pronounced.

The news of the victory of Waterloo reached Montreal in July, 1815. Montreal in its joy bethought itself of the widows and children of those who fell in the fateful battle and in consequence of a meeting called in the courthouse an amount of £2,717 16s 8d was soon raised, which was later added to largely.

Of local or colonial news, there being little or none, there was scant supply. But after 1815 the Montreal papers begin to have criticisms on matters nearer home. A class of writers now arose, especially in the Herald, the most daring unofficial paper of the period, who dealt ably and trenchantly on questions of policy and administration in Canada. These were written mostly under mythological pseudonyms to avoid personal responsibility and attack. This continued for many years. The anonymity of many has not yet been disclosed in literature, although there must have been many at Montreal to whom the real authorship was an open secret. “Nerva,” who wrote in the Herald much to inflame public opinion, has been disclosed later by the Montreal Gazette in an obituary notice, to have been the Hon. Samuel Gale, afterwards a famous justice of the superior court. Others, like “Aristides,” an early critic of the House of Assembly; “A true Jacobin,” a violent satirist of abuses in the police administration;[130] “Observer,” complaining of extortion and sale of justice by police court officials; “Alfred,” with his suggestion that a strip of land ten miles wide should be laid and kept absolutely waste along the American frontiers as the only real safeguard against renewed invasion after the peace of 1814 (this same writer also protests earnestly against the insidious effects of Webster’s republican spelling book); “Veritas,” with his crushing exposure of the incapacity of Sir George Prevost—these contributed letters, together with outspoken editorial utterances written by Gray or Skakel, causing a fluttering in the dovecots of officialdom.

In 1815 bills of indictment were found against the editor and printer of the Herald for libel on the commander in chief, but as Sir George Prevost was recalled the case never came to trial.

The earliest extant copy known of the Herald is dated March 2, 1812. It was a paper 13 inches by 20½ inches, and contained four pages of four columns, which latter, in 1814, was changed to five. It started with a circulation of 170 subscribers, 150 being Montrealers. On its third anniversary the statement was given in the paper that the “weekly distribution rather exceeds one thousand impressions.” The price was $4.00 per annum. In August a larger sheet appeared, 15 inches wide by 21½ inches deep, and was divided into five columns, the editor calling his paper “a quarter larger than our former or any other paper published in North America,” and adding “The Herald has more circulation, probably by some hundred, than any other paper in Canada.” The enlargement of the sheet, which was followed by frequent supplementary sheets on a Wednesday, indicate the growth of advertising and commercial correspondence, and the immense increase of commerce after the peace. Indeed, at the time an attempt was made to establish a fourth Montreal paper, “The Sun.” Its promoters were Lane, a printer on St. Paul Street, and Bowman, a stationer on St. François Xavier Street. It only lasted a few issues.

Anti-American animadversions, however, still survived. The democratic leaders of the time were accused of being supplied with Yankee money and Yankee ideals. Samuel Sherwood, an American by birth and an early leader for popular government, was accused by the Herald of having given traitorous support and advice to the Americans during the War of 1812 and of keeping the “Sun” and the Canadian Courant supplied with “Jacobin” information from American sources.

A picture of the pigmy city of the period, written in 1870 by Mr. T.S. Brown in a small, forgotten pamphlet entitled “Montreal Fifty Years Ago”, may fitly help to illustrate this period:

“On the 28th of May, 1818, I first landed at Montreal. On my left was a dirty creek running down inside of a warehouse, being the outlet of a ditch, now tunnelled, that then, as a part of the old fortifications, ran around the city, westerly from the Champ de Mars through Craig street, with dilapidated banks, the receptacle of all sorts of filth. Above and below there was a revetment of a few hundred feet; except this, the beach and river bank were in their natural state. Just above the Grey Nunnery there was a cottage with a garden running down to the river, and adjoining this a ship yard where vessels continued to be built for some years later. Further on, the place of the Lachine Canal was a common with three windmills and the graves of three soldiers shot for desertion. The Island Wharf was then a little island, far off and alone.

“The city gates and fortifications, such as they were, had been removed some time previous. A remnant of walls remained at the corner of McGill and Commissioners streets, and between Bonsecours street and Dalhousie Square there was a mound of earth 55 feet high, called the ‘citadel.’ The old rampart on Great St. James street had been levelled, but[131] there was no building on the west side between St. François Xavier and McGill streets. The northern portion had been a cemetery and an old powder magazine still stood in the middle of the street.... I came into the city through a narrow passage leading to the Custom House Square, then the ‘Old Market,’ a low, wooden shed-like building; and along the south side of the square was a row of old women seated at tables with eatables for sale. Capital street was a succession of drinking houses carrying on an active business from morning until night.... The largest was that of Thomas l’Italien (Thomas Delvecchio), facing the Market with a clock, on which small figures came out to strike the hours, to the continued wonderment of all, and next came Les trois Rois, of Joseph Donegani. This was the center of trade. A new market of similar construction had been erected on the present Jacques Cartier Square, running from Nelson’s monument (opposite to which was the guard house, jail, pillory and courthouse) to St. Paul street, but it was not liked. Everybody crowded to the little space of the Old Market and habitant vehicles so filled St. Paul street in each direction that constables were often sent to drive them down to the new market....

“Along the beach were moored several small ships and brigs, constituting the spring fleet.... The city was bounded by the river on the east, by Bonsecours street and the Citadel on the north, Craig street on the west, and McGill street on the south; within which limits all the ‘respectable’ people with few exceptions resided. The population in it was nearly as great as today—the upper part of nearly every store being occupied as a dwelling. All the houses in Notre Dame street were dwellings—in its whole length there were but two shops and three auction rooms. The cross streets’ buildings were nearly all dwellings and commercial business was almost confined to St. Paul street. Wholesale stores, except the establishment of Gillespie, Moffat & Company, were small indeed compared to the growth of after years.... There were numerous shops for country trade, all doors and no windows, always open winter and summer, with a goodly portion of the stock displayed outside, where salesmen without number were stationed to accost and bring in customers, who were often dragged forcibly....

“Nunneries occupied more space than now—the Hotel Dieu making an ugly break in St. Paul street. Of churches there were few.... The city was composed of one and two story houses, very few of three stories, built, with very few exceptions, of rubble stone, plastered over. All the stores and many of the houses had iron doors and shutters; many buildings had vaulted cellars and many had the garret floored with heavy logs, covered with several inches of earth, and flat paving stones, with a stone staircase outside, so that a roof might burn without doing other damage....

“Four streets leading to the country—St. Mary’s, St. Laurent, St. Joseph and St. Antoine—were bordered by houses, mostly of wood—one story, but intervening streets were short and vacant ground extensive. Log fences divided fields on the west of Craig street as far as Beaver Hall Hill, which was a grassy lawn with a long, one-story wooden building across the summit and a garden behind. All to the west of this was open fields where now stands the city of our richest people....

“Village primitiveness had not disappeared in Montreal fifty years ago. Old men sat out on the doorsteps to gossip with passing friends and often the family would be found there of an evening. In the suburbs neighbours would collect for a dance in the largest house and any respectable passer-by was welcomed if he chose to step in.... Business relations were more intimate between French and English fifty years ago than now, and I think there was more kindly feeling.... But social relations were much as they are now, the races keeping separate in their charities, their amusements and their gatherings. The English were more dominant—they were more generally the employers, the French the employed.”

November of 1819 was marked by an alarming natural phenomenon. On Sunday the 9th a dense black rain descended, depositing a substance which to the eye and taste resembled common soot. On the following Tuesday, after a dark morning of gloom, with the sun clouds at times greenish black, pitch black, dingy orange colour and blood red, so that some thought that the history of Pompeii or Herculaneum was to be repeated, and feared that Mount Royal,[132] reported already to be the extinct crater of a volcano, was again in activity. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon rain fell again of the same sooty character mid fearful lightning and thunder. At 4 o’clock the summit of the steeple of Notre Dame Church was struck with lightning. The tocsin sounded a fire alarm; the steeple was on fire. The people gathered on Place d’Armes and before the conflagration was extinguished, the great cross fell with a crash, breaking into many pieces. The rain had deposited greater quantities of the sooty substance than on the Sunday preceding and “as it flowed through the streets it carried on its surface a dense foam resembling soapsuds. The evening again became darker and thus ended a day which may be classed among the dies atri of Montreal.”

At this time there was a certain official society life in the city which was fostered by the young military officers from the old country, to whom, apart from their extravagances, the colony is largely indebted for its heritage of culture, literature and art. The religious situation was filled by three Catholic churches, the Notre Dame parish church, built in 1672; the Bonsecours Chapel, rebuilt in 1771, and the “Recollets,” built in 1695, and loaned at different periods to the Anglicans and Presbyterians till they had their own temples. There were two Protestant churches, the Anglican Christ Church, which was the old disused Jesuit church till 1803, but which was now in its own edifice on Notre Dame Street in 1814, and the Presbyterian or Scotch chapel on St. Gabriel’s Street, built in 1792. The religious horizon was not clear. The Catholics and Presbyterians, or non-Conformist group, both had grudges against the Anglicans, arising from the question of the clergy reserves by which, according to the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Anglicans were the established church and reserves of land were provided for their growth and expansion to the exclusion of other Protestant denominations, who resented this privilege in a new country, especially by the “Church of Scotland,” who claimed equal rights to establishment, and the Catholics who had become civilly crippled and disestablished since the conquest, when they came under the same condition of the civil disabilities meted out to the Catholics in the old country.

The government officials and most of the British military officers therefore attended the Anglican services, while the fur lords and the traders, those of St. Gabriel’s church. The newspapers took sides. The Gazette followed the government party, while the Courant and the Herald voiced the views of the dissentients. In 1825 the Herald was bought by Archibald Ferguson, a rich merchant of Montreal, for the express purpose of upholding the rights of the Presbyterian church to a share in the clergy reserves, on the ground that the Scottish Church in Canada should be considered as much an established church as that of the Anglicans. Eventually it gradually came to be recognized in the courts that there were three “established” churches in Canada, the Anglicans, the Scottish and the Catholics.1 But the increasing number of non-conformist bodies arising could not brook this, and so the old opposition against the “clergy reserves” was renewed and it was not till 1854 that this long burning question was settled by total diversion of the reserves from all religious purposes.

We may now return to the story of the Constitutional struggles again about to commence and in which Montreal was to take a leading part.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The historical development of the churches of Montreal is specially treated in the second part of this volume.

[133]

### CHAPTER XV

BUREAURACY vs. DEMOCRACY

THE PROPOSED UNION OF THE CANADAS

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT—MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS—FRENCH-CANADIANS AIM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR POLITICAL POWER—THE “COLONIAL” OFFICE AND THE BUREAUCRATIC CLASS VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY—L. J. PAPINEAU AND JOHN RICHARDSON—PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST UNION—THE MONTREAL BRITISH PETITION OF 1822—THE ANSWER OF L.J. PAPINEAU—THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—THE BILL FOR UNION WITHDRAWN. NOTES: NAMES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE FROM 1796 TO 1833—MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT, 1791-1829—PETITION OF MONTREAL BRITISH—1822.

The new Constitution of 1791 was honestly framed with the desire of giving a measure of representative government, but it was used, before long, by an oligarchy of the bureaucratic classes to whom the governors were victims. In Lower Canada the bureaucratic party opposed the French-Canadians and many of those of British origin. Furthermore there was added the development of a race enmity which ended so disastrously in the uprising of the “patriots” in 1837. The political situation was tense for half a century. The fight for mastery was between the legislative and executive council appointed by the Governor, and the legislative assemblies elected by the people.

Montreal felt the strain keenly. Viewed municipally its affairs were regulated from Quebec. The Parliament there exercising similar powers to those of our municipal council of today, but greater. The justices of the peace nominated by the executive council of the Province were but the executive arm carrying out the will of Quebec.

The constitutional struggles of this period so affected the life of Montreal, that to preserve a true picture we must still study their history. Passion always showed itself there more than elsewhere.

The war with the United States being over, the prevailing sentiment of all parties was one of loyalty to Great Britain. To none was this more attributable than to the French-Canadians, for they saw that an alliance with the States would swamp them politically and subvert their religion. They turned their attention to securing a strong hold on the management of government with the intention of strengthening the position granted them by the Quebec and Constitutional acts in the retainment of their laws, institutions and customs. They were learning self-government. They were beginning to demand a form of responsible government. Not, indeed, as it was afterwards understood, for it[134] took the form only of desiring an elective council, one that, being outside crown nomination, would give them real power to control revenues. This the Governors, acting under instructions from the Colonial Office, were not prepared to grant. Canada was to be ruled as a colony from Downing Street. It was in statu pupillari.

The history of the next twenty-five years and more reveals the efforts of the two classes; on the one hand, of the Governors, the legislative council, the office holders under government, British and French-Canadians and the wealthier British merchants, whose interests lay in being in combination with the governing classes; and on the other, the majority of the people feeling their power, using their new freedom and striving democratically to make their numerical superiority give them the dominance they thought their right. Add to this the natural tendency of any democratic assembly to assert itself and to claim the fullest of powers for itself. Hence the House of Assembly, reflecting the people, is seen to be in constant opposition to the executive council, sometimes extravagantly asserting itself and running to extremes. Thus attacked, the bureaucratic party grew nearer together. Hence two spirits of suspicion and race enmity were being formed. All this was reflected in the life of the people and nowhere more strongly than in Montreal.

It would be tedious to follow the various sessions of Parliament, even to watch the Montreal county and town representatives such as the members for Montreal West, L.J. Papineau, the son of Joseph Papineau, now being in the ascendant and the incarnation of the most advanced Canadian pretensions, and Mr. Richardson, a Montreal merchant, a member of the council of legislature who represented the British minority, strongly siding with the government. The tension existing between the two parties was voiced by Mr. Richardson in 1821, when he exclaimed: “How can we (the legislative council) rescind our resolutions when there is a secret committee sitting in the House of Assembly which is, perhaps, deliberating on the appointment of the governor of their choice and on the removal of the person now in the castle, and putting their own in his place. The committee even sits without the knowledge of several members of the house of which there is no example in England except in the times of Charles I. The committee is, perhaps, a committee of public safety.” (“Christie,” Vol. II, page 72.)

The words produced a hurricane. The assembly passed resolutions calling for Mr. Richardson’s removal from all posts of honour. The adverse state of feeling may be best described by the passion aroused over a supposed act for the union of the two provinces in 1822, when the legislatures were to be united under the name of “the legislative council and assembly of the Canadas.” The bill was introduced in the English parliament by Sir Wilmot Horton, Under Secretary of State of the Colonies. It was opposed by Sir James McIntosh and others on the ground that Canada had not been made aware of the contemplated changes, which was very true. Consequently the bill was delayed.

In November Lower and Upper Canada were preparing their petitions for and against the proposed union, both French and English names being attached to the petition. Quebec was against it; Montreal district was divided. The French constitutional committee also refuted it. The names of those present embrace the Honourables: L.J. Papineau (chairman); Chs. de St. Ours, [135]M.L. C.; L.R.C. de Léry, M.L.C.; P.D. Debartzch, M.L.C.; Chs. de Salaberry, C.K. and M.L.C.; and Messrs. Louis Guy, Frs. Derivières, D.B. Viger, M.P. P., J. Bouthillier, J. Bedard, J.R. Roland, H. Cuvillier, M.P.P., H. Henry, M.P.P., F.A. Quesnel, M.P.P., Louis Bourdage, M.P.P., F.A. Larocque, J. Quesnel, and R.J. Kimber. Eventually L.J. Papineau and Mr. John Neilson were chosen to proceed to England to represent the non-union case. Lower Canada as such prepared a petition against the union. It is claimed to have been signed by 60,000 by signature or by a mark. The Montreal bulky petition of twenty-nine pages in favour of the union from His Majesty’s “dutiful and loyal subjects of British birth and descent, inhabitants of the city and county of Montreal” bore 1,452 signatures and the date, December, 1822. The committee in charge of forwarding the petition was: John Richardson (chairman); C. W. Grant; J. Stuart; S. Gerrard; George Garden; Fred’k W. Ermatinger; Samuel Gale; G. Moffatt; John Molson; John Fleming. Mr. Stuart was chosen to present the case for union in England.

The petition represented that the division of the Province of Quebec into two provinces has been prolific of evil; that it has resulted in that the English population of Lower Canada has been rendered inefficient from the comparative smallness of their numbers since the whole power of the representative branch of the government had been given to the French-Canadians, so that of fifty members who represent Lower Canada only ten are English; that the assembly may indeed be said to be exclusively in possession of the uneducated peasantry of the country, under the management and control of a few of their countrymen whose personal importance, in opposition to the interests of the country at large, depend on the continuance of the present vicious system; that the speaker elected by the assembly was never of English origin “although if regard had been had to ability, knowledge and other qualifications, a preference must have been given to persons of that description;” that the French-Canadian population hitherto unused to political power had not used it with moderation, so that British emigration had been prevented; that the advancement of the colony was paralyzed; agriculture and “all commercial enterprise and improvement have been crippled and obstructed and the country remains with all the foreign characteristics which it possessed at the time of the conquest; that is, in all particulars French. The division into two provinces would result in Upper Canada availing itself of the advantages offered to trade with American seaports through the new canal system being elaborated by the state of New York. Secondly it has resulted in the continual disputes between Upper and Lower Canada respecting revenues from import duties, which can only be settled by the union of the provinces under one legislature. The petition refers to the desire of the French to establish a separate nation under the nature of the “Nation Canadienne.” The petitioners in conclusion beg leave to[136] “specify succinctly the benefits to be expected from a Union of the Provinces. By this measure the political evils complained of in both Provinces would be removed. The French population in Lower Canada, now divided from their fellow subjects by their national peculiarities and prejudices and with an evident disposition under the present system to become a separate people, would be gradually assimilated to the British population of both Provinces; and with it moulded into one people of British character and with British feelings. All opposition of interest and cause of difference between the Provinces would be forever extinguished: an efficient Legislature, capable of conciliating the interests of the Colony with those of the Mother Colony, and providing for the security and advancing the agricultural and commercial prosperity of the country, would be established, by means of which the international improvement of both Provinces would not only be rapidly promoted with the consequent benefits thereto arising from Great Britain, but the strength and capacity to resist foreign oppression be greatly increased: the tie of connection between the Colony and the Parent State would be strengthened and confirmed and a lasting dependence of the Canadas on the latter be ensured, to the mutual advantage of both.”

Having given the British view of the situation it would only be just to give that of the other side. Analysis of their various petitions shows that they relied mainly on the wisdom of the Government in its past enactments which had been successful so that the country was progressing in agriculture and commerce in spite of great obstacles. The differences that had arisen between Upper and Lower Canada relative to revenues were not in consequence of the division of the two provinces but of temporary causes which could easily be removed by the acts of the executive legislature. The Union of the Provinces would only resuscitate dissension resulting from differences of language, religion, laws and other local interests. The new bill was directed against the dearest interests of nine-tenths of the population of this province. Allusion was made to the injustice of the new bill which would make English the language of debate, would exclude many from being elected to the Assembly and would give humiliating preference to the members of the Assembly from Upper Canada by affording the minority an equal representation with those of the Lower Province, whose population was five times as numerous.

It may be well here to allow the criticisms of Mr. L.J. Papineau to supply an element underlying the opposition of the opponents of the bill. In a letter to Mr. R.J. Wilmot, M.P., 23 Montague Square, London, Mr. Papineau alluding, doubtless, to the Montreal pro-union petition of which he had known, and speaking for his committee, wishes to dispel the odious aspersions on the great body of the people in this province, contained in several communications intended for England:[137] “such as assertions that the opposition, manifested in this province on the part of the population so stigmatized, is the effect of prejudices alone; alluding to their supposed attachment for France and French principles; calling them foreigners (foreigners in their own land!). The bill in question, say these friends of the union, being so well calculated to Anglify the country which is to be ultimately peopled by the British race. * * * The preposterous calumny against the Canadians of French origin as to their supposed attachment for France requires no further answer than that which is derived from their uniform conduct during the wars and the loyalty evinced by them on every occasion. They are not foreigners in this, the land of their birth; they claim rights as British subjects in common with every other subject of His Majesty in these colonies. By what they call Anglifying the country is meant the depriving the great majority of the people of this province of all that is dear to men, their laws, usages, institutions and religion. An insignificant minority wish for a change and are desirous of ruling against every principle of justice by destroying what they call Canadian influence, that is to say, the influence of the majority of men entitled to the same rights as themselves, of the great mass of the natives. * * * Great Britain wants no other Anglifying in this country than that which is to be found in the loyalty and affection of the inhabitants, no other British race than that of natural born subjects, loyal and affectionate.”

The opinion of the legislative council of Lower Canada is finally to be recorded. In its petition it gives its fixed and determined opinion that the union of the two legislatures in one would only tend directly to enfeeble and embarrass His Majesty’s government and finally to create discontent in the minds of His Majesty’s faithful subjects in this colony. Upper Canada was quite satisfied with the existing conditions. The chief agitators, therefore, for the bill were to be found in Montreal and with them sided the Eastern Townships.

The bill for the union was withdrawn. When it was brought up later it was more wisely thought out. It did not tread on established prejudices and rights and it brought with it the panacea of true responsible government. But at the present date this was not fully seen. The great objective was to become independent of the colonial office by a representative and elective legislative council. It was hoped thus to control all expenditures. Hence the members of the lower assembly, not content with the exercise of mere municipal legislation, were ever asserting their rights in the latter regard and the Colonial Office as often, checking their aspirations.

NOTE I

NAMES OF JUSTICES OF PEACE OF MONTREAL FROM 1796-1833

- James McGill
- John McKindlay
- St. George Dupré
- Charles Blake
- Louis Porlier
- Thomas McCord
- Pierre Vallèe
- John Lilly
- Robert Cruickshank
- Patrick Murray
- John McGill
- James Finlay
- Neveu Sylvestre
- Alexander Henry
- Gabriel Franchere
- James Walker
- James Alexander Grant
- Joseph Frobisher
- John Richardson
- Isaac Winslow Clarke
- Alexander Auldjo
- William Maitland
- James Hughes
- Simon McTavish
- James Dunlop
- Thomas Forsyth
- John Lees
- Louis Chaboillez
- Jean P. Leprohon
- Jean Bouthillier
- Francois Desrivièrés
- Jean Durocher
- Jean Marie Mondelet
- François Rolland
- Paul Lacroix
- Etienne St. Dizier
- James Caldwell
- Henry Deschambault
- Henry McKenzie
- James Milne
- William McGillivray
- Jean Jorand
- L.C. Deléry
- Chartier de Lothbinière
- Joseph Turgeon
- Archibald N. McLeod
- Louis Guy
- Thomas Porteious
- Joseph Senet
- Francois Ant. Larocque
- William Robertson
- Pierre de Boucherville
- Hughes Heney
- Charles Fremont
- Alexandre Malbut
- Henry Bing
- Louis Marchand
- Thomas A. Turner
- Angus Shaw
- Pierre de Rocheblave
- James Miller
- Fred W. Ermatinger
- Samuel Safe
- George Auldjo
- James Leslie
- John Gray
- George Moffatt
- Jonas Wurtele
- George Garden
- William Lunn
- Horatio Gates
- N.B. Doucet[138]
- Henry Griffin
- Peter McGill
- Robert Frost
- D.C. Napier
- Thomas Barron
- William McKay
- William Prady
- John Fleming
- Charles de Montenac
- David Ross
- Touissant Pothier
- Denis Benjamin Viger
- Joseph Shuter
- John Fisher
- Jules Quesnel
- Adam McNider
- Pierre Lukin
- Benjamin Holmes
- Andre Jobin
- Austin Cavillier
- Joseph Roy
- Joseph Masson
- William Hall
- John McKenzie
- J.P. Saveuse de Beaujeu
- John Forsyth
- Jos. Ant. Gagnon
- Tancrede Bouthillier

NOTE II

MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM MONTREAL DISTRICT FROM 1792-1829

SESSION | COUNTY OF MONTREAL | MONTREAL WEST | MONTREAL EAST
1 | Joseph Papineau James Walker | James McGill J.B. Durocher | James Frobisher John Richardson
2 | J.M. Ducharme E. Guy | Joseph Papineau D. Viger | A. Auldjo L.C. Foucher
3 | Joseph Papineau Thomas Walker | James McGill Joseph Perinault | P.L. Panet F. Badgeley
4 | Benjamin Frobisher L. Roy Portelance | James McGill Louis Chaboillez | John Richardson J.M. Mondelet
5 | J.B. Durocher L. Roy Portelance | Wm. McGillvray D.B. Viger | J. Stuart J.M. Mondelet
6 | J.B. Durocher L. Roy Portelance | E.B. Viger Thomas McCord | J. Stuart Jos. Papineau
7 | J.B. Durocher L. Roy Portelance | E.N. St. Dizier A.N. McLeod | Stephen Sewell Joseph Papineau
8 | James Stuart Aug. Richer | L.J. Papineau James Fraser | Sauveuse de Beaujeu George Platt
9 | James Stuart August Richer | L.J. Papineau F. Souligny | L. Roi Portelance John Molson
10 | Joseph Perrault Joseph Valois | L.J. Papineau George Garden | Hughes Heney Thomas Busby
11 | Joseph Perrault Joseph Valois | L.J. Papineau George Garden | Hughes Heney Thomas Thain
12 | Joseph Perrault Joseph Valois | L.J. Papineau P. de Rocheblave | Hughes Heney James Leslie
13 | Joseph Perrault Joseph Valois | L.J. Papineau Robert Nelson | Hughes Heney James Leslie

[139]

### CHAPTER XVI

MURMURS OF REVOLUTION

RACE AND CLASS ANTAGONISM

“CANADA TRADE ACTS”—LORD DALHOUSIE BANQUETED AFTER BEING RECALLED—MOVEMENT TO JOIN MONTREAL AS A PORT TO UPPER CANADA—THE GOVERNOR ALLEGED TO BE A TOOL—EXECUTIVE COUNCIL—RIOTOUS ELECTION AT MONTREAL—DR. TRACY VERSUS STANLEY BAGG—THE MILITARY FIRE—THE “MINERVE” VERSUS THE GAZETTE AND HERALD—THE CHOLERA OF 1832—MURMURS OF THE COMING REVOLT—MONTREAL PETITION FOR AND AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES—MR. NELSON BREAKS WITH PAPINEAU—THE NINETY-TWO RESOLUTIONS—MR. ROEBUCK, AGENT FOR THE REFORM PARTY, ADVOCATES SELF-GOVERNMENT—FRENCH-CANADIAN EXTREMISTS—THE ELECTIONS—PUBLIC MEETING OF “MEN OF BRITISH AND IRISH DESCENT”—TWO DIVERGENT MENTALITIES—THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS—PETITIONS TO LONDON—LORD GOSFORD APPOINTED ROYAL COMMISSIONER—HIS POLICY OF CONCILIATION REJECTED—MR. PAPINEAU INTRANSIGEANT—RAISING VOLUNTEER CORPS FORBIDDEN—THE DORIC CLUB—“RESPONSIBLE” GOVERNMENT DEMANDED.

The bill for the proposed union, shorn of the notion of union, came up in the Imperial parliament and passed as the “Canadian Trade Acts.” Its object was to secure Upper Canada from the possible injustice and caprice of the legislature of Lower Canada and the imposition and payment of duties. The act was challenged in the house of Quebec, but to no avail. In 1824 the president of the United States claimed the free navigation of the St. Lawrence to the ocean. This was objected to by the legislative council as pernicious to the interests of British trade and the merchants of Montreal in a petition of February 20, 1826, combatted the admission of the claim.

The constitutional record of the next few years of Montreal shows the growth of contention between the English and French population. In 1828 this came temporarily to a head in the petition and counter petition for the recall of Lord Dalhousie, the Governor General. Messrs. Denis B. Viger and Cuvillier were the bearers of a petition from Montreal. Lord Dalhousie was in consequence appointed commander in chief in India. At a banquet held in Montreal on June 7, 1828, with the Hon. John Richardson in the chair, a farewell was given to Lord Dalhousie prior to his leaving Canada, approving of his just government.

In 1831 a movement began to be advocated, especially in Upper Canada, that the island of Montreal should be separated from the Lower province and added to the Upper, so that this might have a seaport of its own, with power to regulate[140] the duty on the imports without interference from Quebec. It was argued that in a few years the Upper province would be in advance of Lower Canada in agriculture and population. The movement found favour among the British party in Montreal but was strongly resented by those of French-Canadian birth. The house in session in 1832 rejected it as a premeditated and unprovoked spoilation in violation of the Capitulation treaty. This year, Montreal was incorporated as a city with a charter. (William V, Cap. 39.)

It was a charge against the legislative council that it consisted largely of officials holding their places at the pleasure of the crown and therefore irresponsible to the people and subversive of its interests. A view of the position of the legislative council may be seen from the returns that Gov. Gen. Sir James Kempt (1828-1830) was requested to furnish to the colonial office. These showed that the legislative council consisted of twenty-three members, twelve of whom held office under the crown, sixteen were Protestants and seven Roman Catholics. The executive council consisted of nine members, only one being unconnected with government, and all were Protestants with one exception.

In order to gain confidence and to remove the suspicion that the legislative council was under the influence of local government and guided in its proceedings by the will of the Governor, which he alleged to be an absolute misrepresentation, Sir James advised that one or two of the most important of the assemblymen should be advanced to the legislature.

Lord Aylmer, who succeeded Sir James Kempt, in a private letter to Mr. Hay said, on the other hand, that the impression on the public mind was that a sinister influence was continually operating on the governor, who was being swayed to a very great extent by the executive council; although this was not the case, he thought the public should be satisfied on that head. But he agreed that Mr. Papineau and Mr. Neilson should be advanced. He disapproved of Mr. Papineau’s public conduct and language, though he esteemed his private character. “There is,” he wrote to Mr. Hay, “one consideration which, more than any other, renders it desirable, in my view of the matter, to make choice of these gentlemen. A very general opinion prevails in this country that the person at the head of the government is always more or less influenced by the executive council which, whether justly or otherwise, I will not take it upon myself to say, is not held in general estimation, and it appears to me that the introduction of two gentlemen enjoying like Mr. Papineau and Neilson the confidence of the public, into that body and, as it were, behind the scenes, would go far towards removing the opinion alluded to, and which I can positively state, as far as regards myself, is wholly without foundation.”1

In 1832 a vacancy occurred in the west ward of Montreal by the resignation of Mr. Fisher. As it reflects the turbulent conflicts that had been going on so long in the House at Quebec and indicates the high pitch of excitement to which minds were then brought, a lengthy notice is not out of place. It also foreshadowed the violent scenes of 1837. The candidates were Mr. Stanley Bagg, a representative of one of the oldest British firms in Montreal who shared in the views of British party, and Doctor Tracy, an Irishman attached to the “Vindicator” which had espoused the extreme views of the assembly; indeed, he had been recently[141] imprisoned for his censures on the legislative council. The contest was very close and lasted for some days. On May 21st, when Doctor Tracy was a few votes ahead, there was every appearance of a riot around the polls. The Fifteenth Regiment was called out, the riot act was read but the tumult continued. The account given by Kingsford’s History of Canada, Volume IX, pp. 481-99, tells graphically what follows. As the poll was being closed the partisans of Tracy, headed by himself, rushed against those of the opposite side. The troops were now ordered to advance and reached the old Montreal Bank, the site of the present postoffice. The troops were received with volley after volley of stone. Colonel McIntosh called to the mob to cease this aggressiveness, or he would give orders to fire. The troops continued to advance up St. James Street, giving opportunity for the mob to retire. The stones continued to be thrown. A second halt was made. The crowd, now composed almost entirely of Tracy’s supporters, had greatly increased. The attack upon the military continued. Again Colonel McIntosh threatened to give the order to fire. According to the evidence of the lieutenant present, Mr. W. Dawson, from whose testimony this narrative is taken, several men in the ranks were severely hurt by these missiles. The colonel was struck, as was the subaltern. Colonel McIntosh, still hesitating to act, again warned his assailants. It was all in vain. To judge by the testimony given at the inquest the mob evidently believed that the military would not dare to act. They were cruelly mistaken. The first platoon of sixteen men were ordered to fire; three of the crowd fell dead, two were wounded. In a few seconds the street was cleared. * * * It was the first event of this character in Canada and caused a great sensation. From the violence shown it was dreaded that the riot might continue. The consequence was that a detachment with some field pieces was stationed at the Place d’Armes. During the night pickets paraded the streets. The Minerve in its continuation of abuse described the event as the massacre of peaceable, unarmed citizens, and that in order to make the military forget their crime they had been abundantly supplied with rum. * * * No arrests were made. * * * The coroner’s inquest was held. Mr. Papineau attended every day.2 * * * Nine witnesses testified that the soldiers fired upon the people as they were dispersing after the close of the poll. Three witnesses described the act as the consequence of the riot. No verdict was given.3 * * * The coroner, nevertheless, issued warrants for the arrest of McIntosh and Temple. They were immediately bailed to the amount of £1,000. The proceedings of the coroner were set aside as illegal, but the matter did not stop here. These officers were again arrested and subjected to much annoyance. Finally, in September, the grand jury returned the indictment with “no bill.” The same result was obtained in the case of the magistrates, Messrs. Robertson and Lukin, indicted on a similar criminal charge as having given orders to the troops.

The action of the military was approved by the grand jury, and by the commander in chief, the latter being further commended by Lord Fitzroy Somerset through Lord Aylmer, the governor general. An address of sympathetic citizens was presented to the two officers. La Minerve on the 24th of May, 1832, however,[142] was implacable. “It is difficult,” it says, “not to be convinced that there was a desire to make a general massacre. It is clearly proved that the faction hostile to the Canadians has been preparing for this atrocity for a long time. The party that we have opposed for thirty years desired today to shoot us down. * * * They also wished to shoot Mr. Tracy. * * * Mr. Bagg’s partisans laughingly approached the corpses and saw with fierce joy the Canadian blood flowing down the street. They have been seen shaking hands congratulatingly and regretting that the number of the dead was not greater. * * * Let us never forget the massacre of our brethren. * * * Let the names of the wrongdoers who have planned, advised and executed this crime be inscribed in our annals handed down to infamy and execration.”4 (History of Canada, page 109.)

The funeral of the three Canadians was attended by about five thousand persons and following the bodies were Mr. Papineau, the speaker of the assembly, the leader of the French-Canadian party and his chief supporters.

From this date the tone of the newspapers Le Spectateur at Quebec and La Minerve at Montreal is noticeably inflammatory in the demand for the redress of their grievances. On the other hand, the English papers representing the British party, especially the Gazette and Herald of Montreal, dealt no uncertain blows in return and Mr. Papineau fared ill. He was looked upon as a demagogue inciting dissension and making political capital from the late misfortune of May 21st.

The memory of the riot was not allowed to die down in the neighbourhood of Montreal and elsewhere. At Longueuil on June 11th a resolution, provoked by the affair of May 21st, set forth that “the British government deceived by men who are our envenomed enemies, are following in a line of conduct leading to our destruction and slavery; that the fate of the Acadians is being prepared for us, that the neglect of the frequent demands of our rights on the part of England had tended to break the contract between her and us.” In these and other meetings there was generally a protest against granting to capitalists independently of the colonial legislature a large portion of the uncultivated lands of the crown. This was aimed at members of the British party.

Another protest was at immigration from Great Britain. The parishes were being inoculated with discontent. This last was emphasized at this period especially, as in 1832 Canada was suffering from cholera; from June 9th to September 30th, the number described as having died being 3,292. It was at this date that Gross Ile, thirty miles below Quebec, was established by the provincial executive as a quarantine station on the warning from the home government, having itself suffered its ravages in the winter of 1831-2. The disease was thought to have been brought early in June by the “Carrick” with emigrants from Dublin containing 133 passengers, of whom fifty-nine had died on the voyage. The malady is supposed to have quickly spread from the emigrants to others through Quebec and Montreal. Apparently the disease did not spread in Upper Canada to any extent. The boards of health lately established did all they could, by the establishment of hospitals, to stay the disease. The Montreal board of health reported on the 26th day of June that there had been from the 10th to the 25th of June inclusive 3,384 cases and 947 deaths. The Fifteenth Regiment suffered[143] severely. But at the end of June the disease was abating. A correspondent writing from Montreal on the 25th of June said that the printers, like others, had deserted their work a fortnight before, but at the date he wrote activity was resumed, the stores were again opened and the markets better supplied. On the 6th of July Lord Aylmer wrote: “The panic in the public mind is rapidly subsiding and the people are returning to their ordinary occupations, which at one period of the prevalence of the disease were almost entirely abandoned.” The arrival of emigrants during 1831 and 1832 had been numerous. The official returns for 1831 and 1832 give the numbers as being 48,973 and 49,281.

At Montreal the seriousness of the political and social situation and the menaces that were looming to the peace and to the security of life and property, was not blinked. Moderate men of both parties already heard the rumblings of the revolt of 1837. A meeting was held at the British American Hotel on the 4th of November with 500 persons present. Mr. Horatio Gates, a prominent merchant, was in the chair and many other important men discussed the situation earnestly. A committee was formed to draft the petition, to the throne, based on the resolutions of the meeting. The names reveal the inclusion of weighty French-Canadians: “J.C. Grant, Hypolite Guy, Alex Buchanan, Jules Quesnel, George Auldjo, Turton Penn, Pierre Bibaud, Dr. W. Caldwell, Dr. B. Rollin, Augustin Perreault, T.B. Anderson, Felix Souligny, Joseph Masson, and J.T. Barrett.”

Briefly the resolutions expressed confidence in the present system of government, desiring no change in the system of the legislative council which was an essential product of the legislature; it was stated that the political excitement of disaffected persons was creating a want of confidence in the security of property and had embarrassed all commercial relations, and it was felt now a boundened duty “to declare their unalterable attachment to the government, etc.”

This action at Montreal was offset by a petition from Montreal considered in the session, praying for constitutional changes; it demanded an elective government in every department; it protested against any system of emigration which, while being beneficial to the Upper Province was not so to the Lower. It assailed the officials for the proceedings consequent upon the riot of May 21st at Montreal. Mr. Leslie, a British merchant of Montreal and extreme supporter of Mr. Papineau, moved the inquiry into the affairs of the 21st. On this occasion Mr. Andrew Stewart threw it into the face of Mr. Papineau that he was creating national distinctions, that he had given rise to the consternation which he felt, when he should have shown moderation. During this session Mr. Neilson also took a decided stand against Mr. Papineau, the first step towards a break in their political relationship. The discussion on the events of May 21, 1832, was deferred to next session. The house was prorogued on April 3, 1833.

This year, 1833, was remarkable as that of coming into effect of the municipal act of Montreal and Quebec, a forward movement treated of elsewhere. During the session of 1834 the famous Ninety-two Resolutions introduced by Mr. Bibaud kept up the agitation for change and redress. In 1834 Mr. Roebuck, who had left Canada in 1825 and had, as member for Bath, moved in April, 1834, in the house of parliament in London for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the means of remedying the evils in the government of Upper and Lower Canada, took a step which largely fanned the fire of discontent in Montreal.[144] Addressing the united and permanent committee of the reform party of Montreal in favour of self-government as then meditated through a representative elective legislative council, he advised them to resist the parliament of Great Britain. He advocated peaceable methods before taking to arms. But they had to fight sooner than lose all hope of self-government.

This infused, if possible, more vigour to the pens of the writers in La Minerve and the Vindicator, of which Doctor O’Callaghan was editor.5 Violent attacks on the government were renewed. French-Canadians were urged to organize for the revolutionary movement. The moderate French-Canadians were fearful of the outcome. The British party, in self-defence, prepared a petition, and a deputation to Quebec to Lord Aylmer with an address conceived in opposition to the spirit of the Ninety-two Resolutions. On August 24th Mr. Hume presented Mr. Bibaud’s Ninety-two Resolutions to the imperial parliament signed by 18,083 persons. On the 24th of September the supporters of the Ninety-two Resolutions met and supported resolutions on the same lines. Among those present was Girod as a delegate from Verchères; he was a strong adherent of Papineau and later, in 1838, was one of the leaders in the insurrection of St. Eustace.

In October and November the elections took place. In the west ward of Montreal Papineau and Dr. Robert Nelson were declared elected by the returning officer Lusignan before the legal time for the close of the polls had arrived. A protest was made by Mr. Walker and Mr. Donnellan, the opposing candidates, without avail. A few days later Mr. Papineau issued a fiery philippic—a common custom of his—against the Governor General with the effect when Lord Aylmer visited Montreal later, La Minerve and the Vindicator appeared with their columns in mourning. In Quebec the new city council had the insolence to pass a vote not to pay the “visite de cérémonie” to Lord Aylmer on New Year’s Day.

During November Constitutional Associations were formed in Montreal and Quebec by the British party who now feared a separation with the mother country. At Montreal an address was prepared as a result of a public meeting on November 22d to men of “British and Irish descent.” It was signed by John Molson, Jr., and was directed to their fellow countrymen of the Province of British America for their oppressed brethren of Montreal, and solicited their “attention to a brief and temperate exposition of our principles and grievances.” It is a lengthy statement containing about three thousand words, though not so long as the grievances of the Ninety-two Resolutions, which occupied twenty-five pages of the journals of the house in 1834. As we have not reproduced the latter neither do we those of the British party, though a perusal of each would give a vivid picture of the seriousness of the situation and the tension on both sides. It was the conflict of two mentalities become, for the time, hopelessly irreconcilable and highly inflamed by the vision of their real or imaginary grievances and injustices. It was commercial progress and British expansion versus a conservative agriculturalism and a “nation Canadienne” for Lower Canada.

Drawn by John Murray.

ABOUT 1845

St. James Street, West. The Bank of Montreal on the right

[145]

In February of 1835 the new parliament met. Its proceedings are more marked with the signs of the anarchy so soon to become a thing of fact. In answer to the Governor’s address there was demanded in the name “of the great body of the people without distinction, the introduction of the elective principles for the legislative council.” A petition was also prepared for the king, in which it was claimed that the people at large “fully participated in the opinions of the majority of the house.” The real proportion of the constituencies for and against the Ninety-two Resolutions was less than three to one,6 the country parishes largely contributing to this result. The house was prorogued on March 18th, having sat only twenty-five days.

Scenting trouble, the “constitutional associations” of Quebec and Montreal prepared to meet emergencies. Branches were multiplied in other places when possible. Circulars to public bodies and prominent men over Canada were diffused. The interest and aid of the United States were canvassed. The statement of grievances from Montreal signed by John Molson was a dangerous precedent. Leading men in London were approached. To meet the activity of Mr. Roebuck, who had recently been appointed an agent for the reform party, Mr. Neilson was sent to present a petition to the king from Quebec, and Mr. William Walker that of Montreal. They left via New York in April. Mr. Roebuck presented the counter petition of the House of Assembly to the House of Commons on March 9, 1835. That from Montreal was presented by Mr. Stuart on March 16th.

The Canadian difficulties were now so notorious that the king determined to send an extraordinary commissioner. Lord Gosford was finally appointed and with him were associated Sir Charles Grey and Sir George Gibbs. These arrived at Quebec on August 23d. On September 17th Lord Aylmer with his family left for England. His term of office had been stormy but while vituperation fell upon him on one hand, he was otherwise sustained by the strong minority. Lord Gosford came with a policy of conciliation openly manifested and openly rejected. He met his parliament within two months after his arrival. His opening speech as governor general, the longest on record on such an occasion, was delivered on October 27, 1835. He unfolded his theory of conciliation and promises of redresses of grievances. The house, however, was tuned up only for extremes and showed no readiness for compromise. This lesson has been since well learned, experience of the failure of any other course having been abundant. The concluding words of Lord Gosford’s speech are noteworthy and impressive.[146] “To the Canadians, both of French and British origin, and every class and description, I would say, consider the blessings you might enjoy and the favoured situation in which but for your own dissensions you would find yourselves to be placed. The offsprings of the two foremost nations of mankind, you hold a vast and beautiful country, a fertile soil, a healthy climate and the noblest river in the world makes your most remote city a port for the ships of the sea. Your revenue is triple the amount of your expenditure for the ordinary purposes of government. You have no direct taxes, no public debt, no poor who require any aid more than the natural impulses of charity. If you extend your views beyond the land in which you dwell you find that you are joint inheritors of the splendid patrimony of the British empire which constitutes you in the best sense of the term citizens of the world and gives you a home on every continent and in every ocean on the globe. There are two paths open to you. By the one you will advance to the enjoyment of all the advantages which lie in prospect before you. By the other I will say no more than you will stop short of these, and will engage yourselves and those who have no other object than your prosperity in darker and more difficult courses.”

The existence of the Commission was studiously ignored by the Assembly. But on the 6th of November an amendment to the draft in answer to the address was moved, approving of the appointment of the commission as a proof of the wisdom and magnanimity with “which the grievances of the province had been listened to, and now confidently hope that the results of its labours will be satisfactory to all classes.”7 Mr. Papineau vehemently attacked the motion. The commissioners were without legal or constitutional power. Their report, favourable or not, was immaterial. The motion was voted down by forty-five to eight. The governor general’s position as such was, however, recognized.

The “Constitutional” associations of Montreal and Quebec, composed of those who held substantially by the existing constitution with certain reforms dictated by expediency, were meanwhile viewing with dissatisfaction the intransigeant attitude of the majority of the house. At Montreal it was proposed by the British population to raise a volunteer corps of 800 strong. A memorial was sent at the close of December to the Governor General asking for official sanction for the enrollment and offering its services to the Government. It was not granted on the grounds that no rights were in danger and that the enrollment would endanger public tranquillity. The organization was proceeded with. Lord Gosford issued a proclamation declaring it illegal and unconstitutional. The corps was dissolved and in notifying Lord Gosford he was informed that “As committee men of the British Rifle Corps we must express to Your Excellency our regrets that the day has arrived when, in a colony conquered by British arms, a body of loyal subjects has been treated as traitors by a British Governor General for no other crime than that of rousing themselves to protect their persons and property and to assist in maintaining the rights and privileges granted them by the constitution.”

In addition a meeting was called and a memorial sent to Lord Gosford justifying their conduct on the grounds that the constitution was endangered. They[147] would always be ready to defend British institutions.8 It is said that the Doric Club, a more or less secret society of Britishers, now dated its formation.

The policy of conciliation was meeting a rebuff on both sides. The Montreal “Vindicator” later even spoke of “the treacherous administration of Lord Gosford.”

On the 21st of March, 1836, the parliament was prorogued. There was the same stubborn determination of the majority of the assembly to assert itself to overrule the existing constitution and thus control the situation on the lines of the Ninety-Two Resolutions so as to make government impossible. It met again on September 22d. No bills were passed; two were introduced, one for the appointment of an agent in London, another to amend the Imperial act of 1791 (an unconstitutional proceeding beyond the powers of the assembly), with a view of establishing an elective legislative assembly directly responsible to the representatives of the people. This appeal for “responsible” government as it was then vaguely conceived, was always steadfastly pursued as the basic reform needed to solve all the other grievances under which the province was suffering. The aim was self-government and the abolition of the bureaucracy and privileged class incidental on an appointed legislative council chosen by the Crown. After a short session of thirteen days in all, the house was prorogued on October 4th. The parliament of Lower Canada met again on August 18, 1837, but as its members would not transact any business at all, it was prorogued on August 20th, never to meet again.

The annual meeting of the Montreal Constitutional Association met in December, 1835. Ward committees were appointed. Among the principles to be advocated was the abolition of the feudal tenure, the continued improvement of the harbour of Montreal and of the canal communications. In February, 1836, Sir John Colborne was relieved of his position as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Before embarking for England he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the forces in both provinces. On July 1st he issued a general order from Montreal on the assumption of command. In June a movement of a “Constitutional” committee was afoot in Montreal for the recall of Lord Gosford. It dropped, however, on opposition from the Quebec Constitutional party.

[148]

FOOTNOTES:

1 “Canadian Archives,” Q. 197, p. 78; see report by Dr. Brymner for 1899.

2 The Quebec Gazette justified Mr. Papineau’s being present as he was acting in his profession as an advocate.

3 These were French Canadians.

4 Bibaud, “History of Canada,” Vol. III, p. 109.

5 Dr. O’Callaghan was subsequently returned to the house of assembly in the new parliament of 1835 as the representative of Yamaska. There he was unknown but Mr. Papineau’s influence carried the seat. In the subsequent parliament he became a staunch lieutenant of his leader.

6 Mr. Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal and also a conscientious historian and archaeologist, made a concise statement of the political strength of the opposing parties in the counties, towns and boroughs as recorded in the votes at the last election for and against the spirit of the Ninety-Two Resolutions on which the election turned.

| For |  | Against |  | Not Voting
| 361,801½ |  | 115,838 |  | 35,619½
Quebec | 7,120½ | (i.e. ¼) | 20,148½ | (i.e. ¾) |
Montreal | 13,714 | (i.e. ½) | 6,254 | (i.e. ¼) |

One-fourth did not vote, owing to the vacancy in the seat of one of the representatives. See “Christie,” Vol. V, 238-242.

7 The commissioners finished their six reports before the end of 1836. They were eventually doubtless useful to Lord Dunham in the preparation of his report. The commissioners considered an elective legislative council undesirable but they formulated a system of representative government on lines which we now understand. While granting the government of internal affairs it strove to preserve the unity of empire.

8 In the Imperial parliament in 1837 Mr. Robinson quoted La Minerve of Montreal, which stated that immediate separation from England was the only means of preserving French Canadian nationality.

[149]

### CHAPTER XVII

MONTREAL IN THE THROES OF CIVIL WAR

1837-1838

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO REMAIN CROWN-APPOINTED—THE SIGNAL FOR REVOLT—FIRST INSURRECTIONARY MEETING AT ST. OURS—DR. WOLFRED NELSON—CONSTITUTIONAL MEETINGS—THE PARISHES—THE SEDITIONARY MANIFESTO OF “LES FILS DE LIBERTE” AT MONTREAL—REVOLUTIONARY BANNERS—IRISH REJECT REVOLUTIONARY PARTY—MGR. LARTIGUE’s MANDEMENT AGAINST CIVIL WAR—THE FRACAS BETWEEN THE DORIC CLUB AND THE FILS DE LIBERTE—RIOT ACT READ—THE “VINDICATOR” GUTTED—MILITARY PROCEEDINGS—WARRANTS FOR ARREST—PAPINEAU FLIES—RELEASE OF PRISONERS AT LONGUEUIL—COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES—ST. DENIS—LIEUTENANT WEIR’S DEATH—GEN. T.S. BROWN—ST. CHARLES—ST. EUSTACHE—CAPTURE OF WOLFRED NELSON—SECOND MANDEMENT OF BISHOP LARTIGUE—DAY OF THANKSGIVING—CONSTITUTION SUSPENDED—THE INDEPENDENCE OF CANADA PROCLAIMED BY “PRESIDENT NELSON”—THE REGIMENTS LEAVE THE CITY—LORD DURHAM ARRIVES—AMNESTY AND SENTENCES—DURHAM RESIGNS—THE SECOND INSURRECTION—MARTIAL LAW IN MONTREAL—SIR JOHN COLBORNE QUASHES REBELLION—STERN REPRISALS—ARRESTS—TRUE BILLS—POLITICAL EXECUTIONS—“CONCORDIA SALUS.”

In the March and April of 1837, the parliament in London seriously considered the Canadian emergency. On March 6th, Lord John Russell introduced ten resolutions, which passed. The fourth stated that it was inadvisable to make the legislative council of Canada an elective body, but that measures should be taken to secure for it a greater degree of public confidence, and the fifth, that while expedient to improve the composition of the executive council, it was inadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly.

The news was received with welcome by the British constitutional party who had clung tenaciously to the crown-appointed executive as their only hope of adequate representation in the government of the province. To the national party it came as a signal for revolt. On May 7th, the first insurrectionary meeting was held at St. Ours, Dr. Wolfred Nelson having a large share in its convention. Mr. L.J. Papineau was acclaimed as an O’Connell, a man called by God as the regenerator of his nation. Other meetings now began in the parishes of the Montreal district and Mr. Papineau left his home in Montreal for his mission of agitation.

[150]

On July 6th the constitutional party held a meeting in the Place d’Armes. On the motion of the Hon. Peter McGill, the Hon. George Moffatt took the chair. Messrs. Quesnel and de Bleury were elected vice presidents. Among the resolutions proposed were those of the necessity of the connections with the mother country for the prosperity and advancement of the colony and the necessity of resisting any attempts at dismemberment. A similar meeting was held at Quebec on July 31st, on which day the news of the death of William IV reached Canada. On August 1st Victoria was proclaimed Queen of British North America.

The country districts outside of Montreal were fomenting revolt. At St. Eustache and St. Benoit “anti-coercion” meetings were held, as well as at Napierville, seven miles west of the Richelieu. On August 18th the last parliament of Lower Canada was called but was prorogued on the members refusing to legislate because of want of confidence in the Imperial government in London through its failure to grant their demands. Forty years later the House of Assembly was reestablished as that of the Province of Quebec. The proceedings of the last assembly were regarded by the constitutional association as a virtual annihilation of the constitution and an address was issued on September 4th to this effect and signed by the Hon. Peter McGill and Mr. Badgley as secretary. This address given in full in the Montreal Gazette on the 9th of September advocates the union of the legislatures of the two provinces as affording a solution by giving a fair share of proportional representation to the British population.

On the 5th of September the new society “Les Fils de Liberté” held a meeting in Montreal. The members were to meet as a military corps with arms for the purpose of being drilled as if under sanction of the government. Its motto was to be “En Avant!” On October 1st it published a manifesto of which certain paragraphs clearly disclose its seditionary purpose. “The authority of a parent state over a colony can only exist during the pleasure of the colonists; for the country, being established and settled by them, belongs to them by right and may be separated from all foreign connection, whenever the inconveniences, resulting from an executive power residing abroad and ceasing to harmonize with the local legislature, makes such a step necessary to the inhabitants for the pursuit of happiness.” Again: “The separation as commenced between parties which will never be cemented but which will go on increasing until one of those sudden, those unforeseen events that attend the march of time, affords us a fit opportunity for assuming our rank among the independent sovereignties of America. Two splendid opportunities have been lost. Let us not be unprepared for the third.”

Writing on October 6th Sir John Colborne, an old Peninsular veteran who had fought at Waterloo and was now the commander in chief of the forces, says: “The game which Mr. Papineau is playing cannot be mistaken and we must be prepared to expect that if four hundred or five hundred persons be allowed to parade the streets of Montreal at night, singing revolutionary songs, the excited parties will come in collision.” On the 7th of October the offer of a British rifle corps in Montreal was again politely declined. Yet those of British, Irish and United States origin were facing the inevitable conflict foreseen by them.

It soon came. On October 23d a meeting took place at St. Charles on the Richelieu. Dr. Wolfred Nelson took the chair. Mr. Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, L.M. Viger, Lacoste, Coté, Girod, and others, being present among the[151] speakers. It was a fine day and the militia were there. Flags in abundance streamed out with inscriptions such as “Long live Papineau and the elective system!” “Down with Debartzch!”1 “Independence, Lord of the Eagle Heart and Lion Eye!” “The Canadians know how to die but not to surrender!” “Papineau and the Majority of the House of Assembly!” “An elective council, a sine qua non of liberty: I will conquer or die for her!” A death’s head and cross-bones with the words “Legislative Council.” (See Montreal Gazette, Tuesday, 31st October, 1837.)

It is said that on this occasion Papineau, fearing the excitement prevalent, counseled moderation, but Wolfred Nelson rejoined: “Well, I differ from Mr. Papineau. I think the time has come to melt our spoons and make balls of them.” A wooden pillar with a cap of liberty was erected with an inscription in French that was dedicated to Papineau by his grateful brother patriots of 1837. Lengthy resolutions were passed of no uncertain seditionary tendency. The British soldiers were encouraged to desert and assistance was promised. On the same day a great meeting of constitutionalists was held in Montreal with Peter McGill in the chair; 7,000 persons were said to be present. The note struck was the need of organization in anticipation of crimes now threatening civil life. On this occasion the Irish, abhorring attempts to connect them with the rebellious party, declared their readiness to repel by force, if necessary, the enemies of the constitution.

Next day, October 24th, Monseigneur Lartigue, who had become the first Catholic bishop of Montreal on September 8, 1835, issued a mandement taking the view that revolt to constituted authorities was against the doctrine of the Catholic church. It condemned the proceedings of the revolutionary leaders at public meetings. He bade the faithful not to be seduced, and called upon the country to reflect on the horrors of civil war. On November 6th what Sir John Colborne had feared, took place. The Doric Club, a kind of secret society recently founded and joined by a number of the British and Irish young men, met the “Fils de Liberté.” It had been reported that the “Fils de Liberté” were to proceed in procession and to hold a demonstration in the Place d’Armes and there plant a tree of liberty. A proclamation was issued calling upon all to refrain from the procession. About 2 o’clock the “Fils de Liberté” began to muster at Bonacina’s Tavern at the corner of St. James and McGill streets, opposite the American church which then stood there. A party of “loyalists” watching the proceedings provoked the “Fils de Liberté” to chase them up St. James street, breaking the windows of the loyalists’ houses, among them being that of Doctor Robertson. The members of the Doric Club now came to the rescue, changing the face of affairs and driving the opponents “pell mell” down St. Lawrence Main Street in confusion until they were dispersed. In the early course of the fracas “Gen.” Thomas Storrow Brown, a leader, or at least a sympathizer of the “Fils de Liberté,” received an injury which resulted in the loss of an eye.

The riot act was read in the afternoon and the First Royals and the artillery, with some field guns, marched through the streets headed by two French-Canadian[152] magistrates, Mr. Desrivières and Mr. John Donegani. The loyalists marched to Bonsecours Street and were, with difficulty, restrained from attacking Mr. Papineau’s house. The office of the Vindicator on St. Lambert’s Hill, near Fortification Lane, was gutted, type, presses, paper, etc., being thrown into the street.

This paper in the reform and malcontent interest had made itself particularly obnoxious to the constitutionalists. Such incitements as the following had been appearing in its columns: “Henceforth there must be no peace in the province, no quarter for the plunderers. Agitate! Agitate!! Agitate!!! Destroy the revenues; denounce the oppressors. Everything is lawful when the fundamental liberties are endangered. The guards die, they never surrender.” During that night the main guard was strengthened; pickets were placed on St. Lawrence Main, Place d’Armes and in the Quebec suburbs. The Montreal Royal Artillery patroled the streets and Griffintown was paraded by a body of independent mechanics. On November 9th Sir John made Montreal his headquarters and his firm conduct gave confidence in contrast with the dilatory methods of Lord Gosford. Soon Montreal began to receive fugitives from the parishes, many of these being magistrates and militia officers and others under government who had been forced by threats to resign.

On the 12th of November a proclamation was issued against meetings for military drills. All public assemblies and processions were forbidden. Volunteer corps of riflemen, artillery and cavalry were now raised under the authority of the Government. A new commission of the peace was issued for the Montreal district. Sixty-one of the former had been struck off.

On November 16th 2 warrants were issued for the arrest of twenty-six insurgents, among them being Mr. Papineau, Doctor O’Callaghan, Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown and the accredited leaders of the “Fils de Liberté.” The principal leaders escaped, Mr. Papineau flying to Doctor Nelson at St. Denis.

On the same day Lieutenant Ermatinger with a party of eighteen of the Montreal cavalry was sent to St. John’s to arrest three who had been instrumental in forcing the resignation of government officials. They were returning with the prisoners when they were surprised at Longueuil by a rescue party of two or three hundred and after some heavy firing the assailants departed with the rescued prisoners. This victory organized by Mr. Bonaventure Viger and others, gave courage to the insurrectionists and was the commencement of hostilities. To counteract the dangers arising from the éclat of the release, an address to the parishes was issued and signed by thirteen French-Canadian magistrates of Montreal, D.B. Viger, Pierre de Rocheblave, Louis Guy, Edouard M. Leprohon, Etienne Guy, P.R. Leclerc, W.B. Donegani, Charles J. Rodier, Alexis Laframbroise, Jules Quesnel, Felix Souligny, P.J. LaCroix, and N.G. Barron, counseling submission to law and order. “Those who urge you to these excesses,” it said,[153] “are not your true friends. They have already abandoned you and will abandon you in a moment of danger, whilst we, who recall you to the paths of peace, believe ourselves to be the most devoted servants of the country.”

The insurrection feared was likely to be confined to the counties bordering on the Richelieu and to the county of Two Mountains north of Montreal. Consequently detachments of military were sent from Montreal to the disaffected districts, such as St. Denis and St. Charles. At St. Denis on November 23d Colonel Gore’s detachment besieged Madame St. Germain’s storehouse, whither Dr. Wolfred Nelson had retreated with a number of men and from which Papineau had already fled early in the day. Gore left behind him thirteen of the defenders killed, and of his own, six dead, five wounded, and a spiked howitzer. On the morning of November 23d the tragedy of the death of Lieutenant Weir of the Thirty-second regiment took place. He had been sent with dispatches and was captured by Doctor Nelson’s patrol. He was given to a Captain Jalibert to be taken in a wagon to St. Charles. On the way thither Weir attempted to escape. It was alleged that he was brutally cut down. The autopsy disclosed many sword wounds and pistol shots. His body was found in the Richelieu weighted down with stones, lying on its face in two feet of water. On December 8th it was buried with much solemnity. In 1839 Jalibert was tried for murder but was acquitted.

At St. Charles the insurgents were under the leadership of Thomas Storrow Brown who, from being in the iron retail trade in Montreal, now became “General” in the absence of the accredited leaders. He had lost an eye in the riot of November 6th and was looked upon as a patriot. At St. Charles the curé, M. Blanchet, lent his support to the insurgents, one of the few examples of the clergy meddling in this trying time. The other was M. Chartier of St. Eustache, who was afterward interdicted by Mgr. Bourget for his conduct. The engagement at St. Charles took place on November 24th. Of Colonel Wetherall’s detachment, the official report gives one sergeant, two rank and file killed, eighteen wounded, ten seriously. It is difficult to chronicle the returns of the insurgents. One statement is that 152 of the insurgents were killed and 300 wounded. The tradition in the village today is that forty-two were left on the field and a great many wounded. It is certain that thirty prisoners were received in Montreal.

In the north of Montreal the insurrection broke down after the news of St. Charles, so that even at St. Eustache the opposition offered by Amery Girod and Doctor Chenier collapsed on December 14th, though it is said not without the loss of seventy killed. The loss of military is reported as one private killed, one corporal and seven privates wounded. Sir John Colborne had been in charge of the column. This returned to Montreal on the 16th with 106 prisoners from the insurrectionary district, including St. Eustache. The Abbé Chartier escaped to the States; Amery Girod fled but on the fourth day of his flight he blew his brains out to avoid falling into the hands of the police. Doctor Chenier fell pierced with a ball as he was escaping from the window of the parish church.

On the 29th of November a proclamation had been issued offering £500 for the apprehension, among others, of Dr. Wolfred Nelson, Thomas Storrow Brown, Doctor O’Callaghan, Doctor Coté and Drolet of St. Marie. On December 1st a proclamation offered £1,000 for the arrest of Mr. Papineau. Mr. Papineau and his faithful companion, Doctor O’Callaghan, had fled together from St. Denis to St. Hyacinthe and after the news of the disaster at St. Charles they made[154] for Swanston in Vermont. Afterwards he spent some years in Paris. Doctor O’Callaghan never returned to Montreal, although permitted with Wolfred Nelson and Thomas Storrow Brown by the nolle sequi of 1843, secured through Mr. Hippolyte Lafontaine, attorney general under the Union. He became distinguished at New York as a peaceful translator and editor of the documentary history of New York. Dr. Wolfred Nelson escaped in the direction of the United States, but was captured on December 12th, worn out with hunger and cold, and was taken back prisoner to Montreal. His courage and uprightness, however, entitled him to the respectful treatment he was there accorded. On December 5th martial law was proclaimed and the banks conveyed their “specie” to the citadel. On January 8, 1838, Mgr. Lartigue issued a second mandement in which he blamed those who turned a deaf ear to the clergy, who had warned them against the danger of listening to the “coryphèes d’une faction” with whom they had become infatuated.

On February 20th a day of thansgiving was held for the termination of rebellion and the renewal of peace. This day also marked the handing over of the administration of Lord Gosford to Sir John Colborne, who entered on his authority on the 27th. In the meantime, in London, it had been determined to send Lord Durham as special commissioner. The act suspending the constitution of Canada reached Canada in February and was proclaimed on the 20th of March. A special council 3 of the legislature was appointed and gazetted on April 5th with a summons to meet on the 18th. This provisional council was afterwards dissolved by Lord Durham on his arrival.

About the beginning of March an abortive attempt to arouse insurgents was made under Robert Nelson, brother of Wolfred, and Doctor Coté, on the frontier, who were both arrested and handed to the civil power. Six hundred “patriots” surrendered on this occasion to General Wool of the United States army. At this time a fatuous declaration of the independence of Canada appeared in the Montreal papers signed by Robert Nelson, president, by order of the Provincial Government: the proclamation accompanying it was also signed by Nelson as Commander-in-Chief.

About the end of April the Glengarry and Lancaster Regiments marched through Montreal on their way home, their presence being no longer required, owing to the proclamation of the termination of martial law on April 27th.

On May 29th Lord Durham arrived with his large staff. One of his early acts was to issue on the 28th of June an amnesty to all who had engaged in the late insurrection on giving security for their good behaviour applicable to those in custody or who had fled. There was an exception made for eight who were to[155] be sent without trial to the convict station of Bermuda. These were Dr. Wolfred Nelson, R.S.M. Bouchette, Bonaventure Viger, Simeon Marchesseault, Godda, Dr. L.H. Masson, Gauvin, and Desirivières. Death penalties were to be awarded to L.J. Papineau, Doctor O’Sullivan, Thomas S. Brown, John Brown (father and son), George Etienne Cartier and others if they should return of their own accord. This was afterward annulled. On the 7th of July, Durham left Quebec for Montreal and the west. In Montreal he was well received. His stay in the country as a commissioner was, however, very short. For on September 25th, as the Imperial government disallowed these ordinances, Durham notified his resignation to the British government, remaining at his post till November 1st, when he sailed for Quebec.4 Sir John Colborne assumed the administration on this day. On the 16th of January, 1839, he became governor general.

LORD DURHAM

The second insurrection opened on November 4th, when Robert Nelson entered Napierville to declare himself President of the Republic of Canada. During the summer Nelson, Coté, Mailhot and others of the refugees on the Vermont and New York frontiers had been organizing the insurrection among the habitants of the counties of the Richelieu extending west to Beauharnois. The district of the Two Mountains did not rise this time.

Sir John Colborne was at Sorel when he heard of the Richelieu gatherings. Posting to Montreal he proclaimed martial law and by the 7th and 8th of November the military was dispatched from the city under Sir James Macdonell. The campaign was over by November 10th, when the resistance at Beauharnois was suppressed. Yet but for the decisive action of Colborne it might have been serious. Sir John wrote that no fewer than thirteen thousand habitants had assembled between the 3d and 8th of November expecting to be furnished arms by their Vermont and New York sympathizers.

If the second insurrection was of less importance its reprisals were more serious. The first rebellion had passed without the judicial shedding of any blood and with a generous amnesty. On the second revolt it was thought necessary by Sir John Colborne to put the fear of the law into all further harbourers of treason. A special court martial was constituted in Montreal, and many suspects were imprisoned. In Montreal 679 had been arrested in December, and in January following 129 more. Sir Hippolyte Lafontaine was one, but he was released on December 13th. Mr. D.B. Viger refused to give a security for his good conduct and he was kept prisoner until he was specially and unconditionally released by Governor General Lord Sydenham. Those arrested elsewhere were few. Of those convicted and sentenced to death, twenty-seven were pardoned on security of good behaviour. Four were bound not to come within a stated distance of the frontier. Of the prisoners tried in Montreal, sixty-eight were embarked at Quebec on the transport “Buffalo” for New South Wales, accompanied by eighty-three from Upper Canada. Later, within five years, they returned, pardoned, to the Province.

In September, 1839, the trial of Jalibert and others for the murder of Lieutenant Weir took place, and the prisoners were released. The grand jury found true bills against Louis Joseph Papineau, Thomas Storrow Brown, Robert[156] Nelson and E.B. O’Callaghan. The political executions which took place in Montreal as the aftermath of the January insurrection were twelve in number. Six were convicted as murderers and five zealous insurgents of 1838. The last was a foreign adventurer. The executions were as follows:

Friday, December 21, 1839: Joseph Narcisse Cardinal, a notary and member of the Assembly for Beauharnois. Joseph Duquette, a young man who had followed his leader, Cardinal, in the attack of Caughnawaga.

Eighteenth of January, 1839: Pierre Theophile Decoigne, notary of Napierville, a leader in the insurrection of January, 1838, at Napierville. Joseph Jacques Robert, a farmer and leader. François Xavier Hamelin, a lieutenant of Robert; Ambroise Sanguinet, a captain; Charles Sanguinet, his brother, a lieutenant; who all four had been engaged in the murder, in 1838, of one, Walker, living at La Tortue, seven miles from La Prairie.

Fifteenth of February, 1839: Pierre René Narbonne, a house painter, present at Napierville. Marie Thomas, Chevalier de Lorimier, a lawyer, who had been prominent in the insurrection and had been engaged in the seizure of the “Lord Brougham”; François Nicholas and Amable Daunais, both acquitted of murder of Chartrand in 1837, but retaken on the occasion of their presence in the engagement of Odelltown, and Charles Hinderlang, taken at Odelltown, a foreign adventurer.

On the eve of their execution 5 the five last named were allowed to give a supper to their “compatriotes” imprisoned with them. It was a sorry repast. The Chevalier de Lorimier is reported to have said on this occasion: “Can my country ever forget that we die for her upon the scaffold? We have lived as patriots—as patriots let us die. Down with the tyrants! Their reign is over!” Next day, as Hindelang was approaching the gallows, de Lorimier called to him: “Courage, mon ami! the end is near!” “Death is nothing to a Frenchman,” was the reply. On his arrival at the scaffold Hindelang addressed the crowd. “On this scaffold, raised by English hands, I declare that I die with the conviction of having done my duty. The sentence which condemns me is unjust, but I willingly forgive my judges. The cause for which I die is noble and great. I am proud of it and I fear not to die. The blood shed will be redeemed by blood. Let the blameworthy bear the responsibility. Canadians! In bidding you adieu I bequeath to you the device of France! ‘Vive liberté.’” Nicholas also made a short address: “I have only one regret,” he said, “and that is, to die before seeing my country free, but Providence will end by having pity on it, for there is no country in the world more badly governed.” The Chevalier de Lorimier was the last to suffer the extreme penalty. When he was cut down, a brief letter was found on his breast addressed to his wife and children. It ended, “Adieu, my tender wife, once more adieu! Live and be happy. (Signed) Your unhappy husband, Chevalier de Lorimier.”6

Among the prominent Montrealers arrested in 1838 and 1839 the following names are found: Louis H. Lafontaine, Denis B. Viger, Charles Mondelet, François Desrivières, advocates; L.J. Harkins, D. Chopin, Aug. Racicot, George Dillon, Henry Badeau, Louis Coursolles, F. Pigeon, Cyrille David, François Blanchard, Louis Morin, William Brown, T. Willing, J.A. Labadie, J.B. Choquette,[157] Derome P. de Boucherville, J. Donegani, M. de Marchand, Felix Goulet, Avila Weilbrenner, Richard Dillon, H. Hamelin, J.B. Houlée, A. Dupère, M. Bourbonnière, Samuel Newcombe, Pierre Lussier, François Lauzon, Luc Dufresne, E.A. Dubois, Bouthillier, John Fullum, François Contant, François St. Marie, E. Hauschman, J.E. Coderre, P. Coté, Jérémie Hippolyte, Jérémie Barrette, Leandre Ducharme, John McDonald, J. Berthelet, A. Perrault, E.R. Fabre, G.J. Vallée, Jean Dubrec, A.B. Lesperance, Jean Leclaire, Chevalier de Lorimier, François Cinq Mars, J.P.B. Belleville, S. Reeves, J.S. Ney Smith, Celestin Beausoleil, Louis Dubois, Jérémie Longpré, etc.

It is a significant commentary on the sad troubles of 1837-8 that the names of several prominent British Montrealers are to be found as actively sympathizing with the insurgents. The fact, too, that the “Vindicator,” conducted by Doctor O’Callaghan, could find sufficient English readers to support it, is another indication of a wider sympathy than usually recognized. A man like Dr. Wolfred Nelson who had lived with the French habitants at St. Denis, spoke their language and understood their grievances, a man of uprightness, sincerity and disinterestedness, would never have resisted authority and risked his reputation and fortune unless the irksomeness of the situation had become intolerable.7 Writing from jail at Montreal on the 18th of June, 1838, to Lord Durham, he said on behalf of his fellow prisoners: “We rebelled neither against Her Majesty’s person nor her government, but against colonial misgovernment. * * * We remonstrated; we were derided. The press assailed us with calumny and contumely; invective was exhausted; we were goaded on to madness and were compelled to show we had the spirit of resistance to repel injuries or to be deemed a captive, degraded and recreant people. We took up arms not to attack others but to defend ourselves.”

His imprisonment and his loss of fortune effected his health, but without repining he boldly played the game of life. In 1843 a “nolle sequi” allowed him to return to practice medicine in Montreal. He was shortly elected to the Assembly under the Union. He became twice mayor of his native city. He was one of the first harbour commissioners and became the inspector of prisons. In siding with the insurgents he was no hair-brained enthusiast or adventurer and he died without the stain of reproach—an honoured citizen.

It has been felt necessary to delay long on this unpleasant part of civic history because it exemplifies the evil of different races living together with mistrust and misunderstanding of one another. If they would but strive to see each other’s viewpoints and would read each other’s history there would be an end of racial prejudices.

“Tout savoir, c’est tout pardonner.” May the mutual misunderstanding of 1837-8 never occur again. “Concordia Salus,” the motto chosen by Jacques Viger, the first mayor of Montreal, for the city arms, should never be forgotten.

[158]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Mr. Debartzch, of St. Charles, a legislative councillor, had till this date been a strenuous upholder of Mr. Papineau. The turn of events seemed to him to be unconstitutional and he became opposed to the new insurrectionary methods. He was now accounted a traitor. He escaped to Montreal with his family.

2 On November 16th Mr. Turton Penn, one of the justices of the peace, signed the order for the imprisonment of Charles A. Leblanc (afterwards sheriff), Jean Dubrec, Amable Simard, Georges de Boucherville, Andre Ouimet and François Tavernier accused of high treason on November 17th, Jean François Bossé Lionnais, and on the 18th Louis Michel Viger (Beau Viger), the president of the recently founded Banque du Peuple and father of D.B. Viger were imprisoned; on the 21st Michel Vincent, and on the 26th, Narcisse Lamothe suffered the same fate.

3 The following constituted the first special council, District of Quebec: The Honorable C.E.C. de Léry (Quebec); the Honorable James Stuart (Quebec); John Wilson, Esq., and William Walker, Esq. (Quebec); Amable Dionne, Esq. (Kamouraska); Charles Casgrain, Esq. (Rivière Oulle); the Honorable R.P. de Sales de la Terrière (Eboulements), District of Montreal: The Honorable T. Pothier; P. McGill; P. de Rocheblave (Montreal); Samuel Gerrard, Esq.; Jules Quesnel, Esq.; W.P. Christie, Esq.; Turton Penn, Esq.; and John Molson, Esq. (Montreal); the Honorable J. Cuthbert (Berthier); the Honorable B. Joliette (St. Paul Lavaltrie); Joseph E. Fairbault, Esq. (L’Assomption); Paul H. Knowlton, Esq. (Brome); Icabod Smith, Esq. (Stanstead). District of Three Rivers: Joseph Dionne, Esq. (St. Pierre les Becquets); Etienne Mayrand, Esq. (Rivière du Loup).

4 Lord Durham did not live to see the eventual success of the Union recommended by his famous report. Prematurely worn out, he died at Cowes on the 28th of July, 1840.

5 See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

6 See “Histoire Populaire de Montreal,” p. 357. LeBlond Brumath.

7 Writing a reminiscence of Montreal from 1818 to 1868. Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown has the following allusion to 1837-8: “Mixing much with these French Canadians, I became interested in the cause. I thought the stipulation of the capitulation had not been fulfilled to a ceded people and when grown to manhood a sense of justice, that generous inheritance from a British ancestry, urged me to a knight errancy in their battle that terminated in the overthrow of my own fortunes and that after years of hard struggle to regain a lost position, all for no thanks or even recognition of service.”

[159]

### CHAPTER XVIII

PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION

1841

HOME RULE FOR THE COLONY

THE DURHAM REPORT—THE RESOLUTIONS AT THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY—LORD SYDENHAM—THE PROCLAMATION OF UNION AT MONTREAL—RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AT LAST.

Durham was wisely lenient with the political prisoners waiting for trial at Montreal, but his injudicious step in securing confessions, through an intermediary, from Doctor Nelson and his companions—by inducing them to place themselves at his discretion, and then his condemnation of them without trial to be transported to Bermuda, forbidding them to return under pain of high treason, and his extraordinary ordinance declaring that Papineau and the fifteen others who had escaped and had neither confessed nor been found guilty should suffer death if they returned to Lower Canada—was held in the English parliament, on the initiative of his enemy, Lord Brougham, to be utterly subversive of the principles of English colonial law. Accordingly his ordinance was disallowed; hence his resignation and return to England. He died about eighteen months later, a broken man. But he did much for Canada and his famous report stands out a masterpiece of statesmanship. It is to the credit of Adam Thom, of Montreal, to have been associated in its compilation as Durham’s secretary for the purpose.

This report of Durham has had far reaching effect. It was based on a study of the situation. He found an acute political association as follows:

The Assembly complained that the constitutional government given them in 1791 was a mockery. They could elect members but members who had no control, who might fret and fume and froth but could not appoint a single crown servant. In name it was a representative body, French, Catholic and popularly elected. The legislative council was all powerful, its members nominated by the government, and holding their offices permanently, but British, Protestant and exclusive, and above all the clatter was the Executive Council and the governor, who were dependent hand and foot on Downing Street officialdom and from it received instructions, so that the few ruled the many, independently of the council’s representation of the latter. Thus a race war had developed, the majority, French, savagely demanding their rights of popular representation and the minority, British, desirous of keeping the upper hand. Thus the French Assembly developed into a permanent opposition to everything British till it[160] flamed out into recourse to arms when British and French paired off into distinct camps.

“I expected,” says Durham in his report, “to find a contest between a government and a people. I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state. I found a struggle not of principles but of races.” Hence his grand solution was “home rule” for the colony and the abolition of the Downing Street restrictive régime of red tape. He was accused by the British of deserting his own side; he pleased the French-Canadians by this above recommendation but bitterly disappointed them by making responsible government dependent on the Union of the Canadas, for it was feared by this Union with Protestant Ontario their national existence was jeopardized. But this was precisely what Durham wanted, trusting in the inevitable growth of immigration: “I have little doubt,” he says, “that the French, when once placed in a majority by the legitimate course of events and the working of natural causes in a minority, would abandon their vain hopes of nationality.”

Durham looked forward to the time when British North America should have one parliament only. Thus he foresaw confederation.

Lord Durham’s masterly and statesmanlike report was presented to the Imperial parliament on January 31, 1839. It advocated the repeal of the Constitutional Act of 1791, which divided the two provinces and so created two distinct nationalities, and it recommended the legislative Union of the Canadas. The bill proposed for this effect by Lord John Russell was postponed till next year. Another bill, however, passed to continue the legislative council in their especial powers till 1842. Canada was still, therefore, without a constitution.

The new governor general to succeed Sir John Colborne, who had been invested with the Grand Cross of the Bath for his services, arrived at Quebec on October 17th. He was Mr. Charles Poulett Thomson, who had been president of the Board of Trade in England. He entered on his office on October 19th. He left for Montreal in October to meet the legislative council, now established there.

The news of the proposed union was grateful, especially at Montreal, to the British merchant class, who foresaw commercial expansion and progress. At Quebec there was some dissension, since the meeting place of the projected union parliament was likely to be at Montreal, and thus Quebec would lose its ancient prestige. The measure was not as yet looked on with full favour by the French-Canadians in general, as it seemed to them to be a scheme to weaken the influence of their political life and to be destructive of their national aspirations. On the 11th of November the legislative council of Lower Canada met and on the 16th six resolutions were passed at the Château de Ramezay.

First: The Union was affirmed to be an indispensable and urgent necessity. Second: that the determination to reunite the Provinces received ready acquiescence. Third: that suitable civil lists should be provided securing the independence of the judges and maintaining the executive in its functions. Fourth: that the proportion of debt of Upper Canada contracted for the improvement of internal communication should be charged to the revenue of both provinces; the outlay for defraying expenses of a local character not to be included. Fifth: that the adjustment and settlement of the terms of Union should be submitted to the wisdom and justice of the Imperial parliament. Sixth: that a permanent[161] legislature composed of the people of both Provinces should be convened as soon as possible.

The resolutions were carried with three dissenters, Messrs. Cuthbert (Berthier), Neilson (Quebec) and Quesnel (Montreal), the members of the council supporting the union being Chief Justice Stuart, Pothier, de Léry and Walker (Quebec), McGill, de Rocheblave, Gerrard, Christie, Molson, Moffatt (Montreal), Harwood and Hale (Sherbrooke).

The majority of the legislative assembly being ready for the union of the provinces, which was an equivalent to yielding to responsible government power they had held so long and arbitrarily, must be noted as significant of the trend of opinion. Some ordinances were passed: first, continuing until June, 1840, the power to retain arms and gunpowder; second, continuing the ordinance relating to persons charged with high treason; third, incorporating the Ecclesiastics of Montreal in the fief and seignories of St. Sulpice and of Two Mountains—the conclusion of many years’ negotiations.

On November 18th Mr. Paulett Thomson wrote from Montreal to Lord John Russell to urge the speedy adoption of the Union by parliament. He wrote: “All parties look with extreme satisfaction on the present state of government. * * * The suspension of all constitutional rights affords to reckless and unprincipled agitators a constant topic of excitement. * * * All parties, therefore, without an exception, demand a change. On the nature of that change there undoubtedly exists some difference of opinion. The large majority, however, of those whose opinions I have had the opportunity of learning, both of British and French origin, and of those, too, whose character and station enable them to the greatest authority, advocate warmly the establishment of the union and that upon terms of perfect fairness, not merely to the two provinces but to the two races within the provinces.” Mr. Thomson then left for the Upper Province, arriving at Toronto on November 21st.

The union bill of Lord John Russell received the royal sanction on July 23, 1840, but it did not take effect till February 10, 1841. On this day the union was solemnly established at Montreal. Mr. Paulett Thomson now became Lord Sydenham of York and Toronto in recognition of his part in the union. He took the oath of office as governor-general in 1840.

February 10, 1841, Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation uniting Upper and Lower Canada into the province of Canada.

“The choice of this date,” says Kingsford, “was because it was on this day that the Imperial parliament assented to the act which had suspended the constitution of Lower Canada three years previously, and it was thought an act of wisdom to re-establish on the anniversary of this extreme measure constitutional liberty, which effectively terminated it. It was also the date of the conclusion of the treaty of 1763, which ceded Canada to the British crown, and it was likewise the marriage day of the Queen.

“On that day, in Montreal, in the presence of all the dignitaries of the church and of civil life, of the commander of the forces, of officers commanding regiments, and all who could be collected of the principal citizens, the oath was taken and the two provinces were established as the province of Canada.

[162]

“Lord Sydenham issued a proclamation on this occasion, in which he urged the inhabitants to be united in sentiment as in name and reminded them that they were ‘a part of the mighty empire of England, protected by her arms, assisted by her treasury, admitted to all the benefits of trade as her citizens, their freedom guaranteed by her laws, and their rights supported by the sympathy of their fellow-subjects there.’”

Lord Sydenham lived to call the first session of the United Province, which met at Kingston on June 14th, when Mr. Cuvillier was elected speaker, and on July 15th His Excellency gave the speech from the throne, but he was a sick man and he never lived to the close of the session. The prorogation of the legislature had been appointed for September 15th. It was deferred till September 17th to allow him to be present, since on September 4th he had met an accident horse-riding (taken for his health) in the neighbourhood of Kingston. He died on September 19th. “The Success of the Union,” as Kingsford 1 remarks, in the last chapter of his “History of Canada,” “is Lord Sydenham’s epitaph.”

Responsible government was at last attained. The union so ardently denied by the British party and needlessly feared by the other was to bring progress and prosperity to both. The Union was not a perfect measure, but it redressed many grievances and made for a more united people.

“The act provided for a legislative council of not less than twenty members for a legislative assembly in which each section of the united province would be represented by an equal number of members—that is to say, forty-two for each, or eighty-four in all. The speaker of the council was appointed by the crown and ten members, including the speaker, constituted a quorum. A majority of voices was to decide and in case of an equality of votes the speaker had a casting vote. A legislative counsellor would vacate his seat by continuous absence from two consecutive sessions. The number of representatives allotted to each province could not be changed except with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of each house. The quorum of the assembly was to be twenty, including the speaker. The speaker was elected by the majority and was to have a casting vote in case of the votes being equal on a question. No person could be elected to the assembly unless he possessed a free-hold of land and tenements to the value of £500 sterling over and above all debts and mortgages. The English language alone was to be used in legislative records. A session of the legislature should be held at least every year and each legislative assembly was to have a duration of four years unless sooner divided.” (Bourinot’s “Constitution of Canada,” page 35.)

FOOTNOTES:

1 Mr. Kingsford published, after twelve years of labour the last of his ten volumes of the “History of Canada,” in 1898. The preface was signed “Ottawa, 24th of May, 1898.” He died on September 29, 1898. His work is that of a conscientious historian and the facts he has marshalled together are invaluable to students.

[163]

### CHAPTER XIX

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UNION

KINGSTON THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT—THE RACE CRY RESUSCITATED—LAFONTAINE—RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT—MONTREAL ELECTIONS—RESTRICTION REMOVED ON FRENCH LANGUAGE IN PARLIAMENT—FREE TRADE MOVEMENT—FINANCIAL DEPRESSION—GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER—REBELLION LOSSES BILL—THE BURNING OF THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE—THE MONTREAL MOVEMENT FOR ANNEXATION WITH THE STATES—“CLEAR GRITS” AND THE “PARTI ROUGE”—THE RAILWAY AND SHIPPING ERA—THE GAVAZZI RIOT—THE RECIPROCITY TREATY—EXIT THE OLD TORYISM—CLERGY RESERVES AND SEIGNEURIAL TENURE ACTS—THE MILITIA ACT—MONTREALERS ON THE ELECTED COUNCIL—THE Année Terribe OF 1857—THOMAS D’ARCY MC GEE—QUEBEC TEMPORARY SEAT OF GOVERNMENT—PROTECTION FOR HOME INDUSTRIES—CONFEDERATION BROACHED IN MONTREAL—THE TRENT AFFAIR—ST. ALBAN RAID PROSECUTIONS—THE REMODIFIED CIVIL CODE—FENIAN RAID EXCITEMENT IN MONTREAL—OTTAWA SEAT OF GOVERNMENT—THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN ACT—CONFEDERATION.

The seat of the new parliament was chosen for Kingston. This was naturally regarded jealously by Montreal and Quebec. The Montreal elections resulted in the sending thither of Mr. Benjamin Holmes and the Hon. George Moffatt to represent the city at the first session, which opened for the dispatch of business on the 14th of June, 1841. Mr. D.B. Viger was elected for the Richelieu district. Another well known at Montreal, one who had there conducted the “Minerve,” Mr. Augustus Norbert Morin, sat for Nicolet.

The language of the house was English. This, together with the absence of any French name from the new cabinet ministry was a natural grievance which was seized upon by a part of the French press and race hatred seemed in danger of being renewed. The following extract from a British Montreal paper of the day adverts to this:

[164]

“It is but a few weeks since the olive branch has been frankly and honorably extended, since several English journals earnestly advocated an oblivion of the past and a reconciliation of the future. We must own that, however much we respect the attempt, we never anticipated that it would be successful, and we daily find in the pages of the Canadien, the French Gazette, the Aurora and the other small fry, the proof of our prognostication. It is the truth, a truth boldly and continually proclaimed by the above mentioned public journals printed in the French language, that the Canadian leaders and all who aspire to lead this class of the population, now, as heretofore, must base their only pretentions to popular support on their utter and entire abhorrence of everything that is English. The word ‘anti-British’ is the type of their political existence, the only true passports to the affections of a French constituency. They hate us not because we are unionists or anti-unionists, whigs, tories, radicals or conservatives, but because we are British. They hate us not because we are Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians or Methodists, but because we are British. They hate us because we speak English, because we love English laws, because we admire English constitutions, because we would introduce English improvements, because we have given them two or three good English drubbings and are ready to give them again if provoked. First they hate the Briton, secondly the American and lastly their seigneurs and clergy are included in the same category, and if they could only accomplish what they never will, get rid of the Briton, they would be rapidly ‘used up’ by the Americans, who would rob their seigneurs, discard their priests and improve the ‘nation Canadienne’ off the face of the earth.”

It is pleasing to find that our newspapers of today do not reflect a like jarring exchange of bitterness. Montreal has learned that its “salvation lies in harmony,” according to the city’s motto, “Concordia Salus.”

The session passed without any hitch. The Union act had stood its test. The advent of Sir Charles Bagot as governor-general with his policy of reconciliation saw M. Joseph Remi Vallières appointed chief justice of the district of Montreal and Dr. Jean Baptiste Meilleur the superintendent of public instruction for Lower Canada. When parliament met on September 8, 1842, Montreal looked with interest for the development likely to follow on the entrance into the House of Mr. Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, an able lawyer who had practiced at Montreal and who was known to be a born leader of men and to have succeeded to the position of M. Papineau in popular estimation. His short imprisonment as a rebel in 1838 added to his prestige. He was an old parliamentarian, having been in 1830, when only twenty-three years of age, elected to the assembly of Lower Canada. On October 12th the reconstructed government 1 saw the Hon. L.H. Lafontaine as attorney-general for Lower Canada (his friend, the Hon. Robert Baldwin, held the same office for Upper Canada) and the Hon. A.N. Morin, commissioner of crown lands. These appointments made the Union more palatable to French-Canadians and it began to appear that out of evil good was to come.

During the next session of 1843 question of the future location of the parliament was settled by the choice of Montreal, on the motion of Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Lafontaine.

The full signification of the term “Responsible Government” now began to be tested. The new governor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had been sworn in on March 29, 1843, had come from Bengal with Indian ideas of dictatorship and he acted now independently of his ministers, making appointments without consultation with them, so that nine out of ten of the ministers resigned on November 26th on the ground that by the system of responsible government adopted in the resolutions of the house in September, 1841, to carry on a government the ministry must not only have the confidence of the house and through it of the people, but also of the head of the government. For nine months, therefore, the country was without a ministry, Sir Charles Metcalfe being unable to construct one.

At this point Mr. D.B. Viger came into prominence as a supporter of the[165] governor and it was his efforts to win over the French-Canadians. Accordingly he visited Montreal and Lower Canada to be followed by Mr. Draper, but Lafontaine’s hold was too great. The hold-up of government created much anxiety, and trade and industry were affected. After great efforts a partial ministry was formed, the post of attorney-general for Lower Canada being accepted by Mr. James Smith, of Montreal, Mr. Denis Benjamin Papineau, a brother of Louis Joseph, becoming commissioner of lands. Other offices were filled but the completion of the names was left until after the election.

These were held over the country mid scenes of riot and even bloodshed. At no place was the party strife more keenly shown than at Montreal. By an election scheme it is said, to the surprise of the opposition who ought to have commanded a majority, the Hon. George Moffatt and Charles Clement Sabrevois de Bleury, supporters of the newly formed ministry, were elected against Mr. Lewis Thomas Drummond, a lawyer of Irish Catholic origin, afterwards a well known judge, and Doctor Beaubien. Mr. Drummond was returned, however, for Port Neuf. Among the new members of other constituencies Dr. Wolfred Nelson was returned for Richelieu against D.B. Viger, the president of the new council, who found a seat, however, elsewhere. John Alexander Macdonald was returned for Kingston as a supporter of the government. The new government entered into power with a small majority. Early in 1844 the government moved from Kingston to Montreal and Monklands became the home of the governor-general. On July 1st the Parliament met in Montreal, being dissolved on September 23d.

On November 12th the general elections began, the like of which had never been seen in Canada. The voting in these times was open, lasting for days. Citizens were keen politicians; axe handles were in readiness; heads were broken and the “claret” flowed. Party spirit ran high and men were kept drunk in the taverns so as not to allow them to reach the polls. In this election at Montreal, Drummond was opposed to Molson, who was beaten. On November 28th parliament met and was prorogued on March 29th of the following year.

The removal of the restrictions on the French language in parliament took place on January 31, 1845. Mr. Lafontaine had desired to make the motion, but his plan, having become known to the new government, desirous of furthering a popular move, he was anticipated by Mr. D.B. Papineau, seconded by the Hon. George Moffatt of Montreal.

In 1846 the merchants of Montreal held meetings to protest against the Free Trade movement, then being promoted in England by Cobden. On January 30, 1847, Lord Elgin, the successor of Sir Charles Metcalfe, proceeded from Monklands, the home of the governor-general of Montreal, to be sworn in at Government House. On May 31st Mr. Peter McGill became speaker of the legislative council, with a seat in the cabinet of the reconstructed cabinet, known as the Sherwood-Daly ministry. Mr. D.B. Papineau was the only French-Canadian in it. Parliamentary life this year was affected by the evils of the “ship fever” brought over by the Irish emigrants who had made their exodus after the failure of the potato crop. The opposition made political capital out of the event by making the government responsible for the emigration laws of the country.

On Friday, the 25th of February, 1848, the new parliament was held at Montreal. Messrs. L.H. Lafontaine and Benjamin Holmes were returned for[166] the city. On the occasion Mr. L.J. Papineau, who had been in pleasant exile so long in Paris, although he could have returned in 1843, found himself elected in the Union parliament. He was little changed, but his star had waned, while that of Lafontaine was in the ascendant. On March 10th Mr. Lafontaine accepted office as Premier and attorney-general and with his friend Baldwin formed the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry. During this year the Canadian merchants suffered great commercial depression, owing to the working out of the free trade act of 1846. “Three-fourths of the merchants were bankrupt and real estate was practically unmarketable.”

The session of 1849 saw the advent into political life of George Etienne Cartier, the erstwhile rebel. He was born in Verchères county, at St. Antoine, but was educated at the college of St. Sulpice at Montreal. His early law studies were in the office of M. Edouard Rodier and he was called to the bar and began practice in Montreal in 1835. He came early under the magnetic influence of Mr. Papineau and we find him a member of the “Fils de Liberté” and engaged in the fight under Doctor Nelson at St. Denis, thence flying as a proscribed man to the States. He quietly returned later, when the embargo was raised, and settled down again to practice law at Montreal, but still keeping his attention on politics.

An important bill came up this session entitled “an act to provide for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose property was destroyed during the rebellion in the years 1837 and 1838.” It was called the Rebellion Losses Bill. It would seem rather belatedly brought in but it had been promised in some form during the past ten years as a means of indemnifying those who had suffered from the very great destruction of property during that agitated period. In 1845 the rebellion losses committee first sat. On April 18th the commissioners reported that they recognized 2,276 claims, amounting in the aggregate to £241,965, and were of the opinion that £100,000 would be sufficient to pay all real losses. On January 18, 1849, Mr. Lafontaine moved the belated bill. It made provision for the appointment of five commissioners to carry out the act and a sum of £100,000 was appropriated to pay the claims. Those, however, who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion and who had been sent to Bermuda, were excepted from claiming any share in the grant. This, it will be seen, allowed “rebels” who had not been convicted, an equal right to compensation with the “loyalists.” Consequently a storm broke out in parliament and in the country, but especially in Montreal. Various pamphlets appeared in Montreal at this time, indicating opposition, such as that entitled “The Question Answered; Did the Ministry intend to pay Rebels? Montreal, 1849,” supposed to have been written by the Hon. Alexander Morris, then a law student, and a young tory journalist, Hugh E. Montgomerie. Yet the government was right in their inclusion of “rebels” for it would have been very unwise at that period to reopen the question as to who had been rebels and who had not. Besides the amnesty granted long since had plastered over all differences.

Yet, within and without Parliament the opposition was loud, fierce and tumultuous. The bill, however, passed the third reading in both houses. For some time previously petitions from the tories of the opposition body had been pouring in to Lord Elgin, praying that the bill should either be reserved for Imperial sanction, or that parliament should be dissolved. Lord Elgin, who personally[167] did not approve of the diversion of so much public money from more useful objects, feeling, however, that while no imperial interests were at stake, that the principle of responsible government was assented to the bill when it had passed both houses. This he did on Wednesday afternoon, the 25th of April, 1849. On this occasion the galleries of the house were packed with “loyalist” opponents to the bill, and a tumult immediately arose which was continued as the crowd went out down the stairs to await Lord Elgin’s departure. When the governor-general, having finished his business, reached the front door, a hostile crowd had gathered and the fury of the opponents to the bill visited itself on him in oppobrious epithets. Groans, hisses, mud and addled eggs brought for the purpose were hurled at him. Some say also stones were added and in the midst of this hostile demonstration he drove off to Monklands, surrounded by the military, by a long detour east and round the mountain to his home. Three days afterwards at a special meeting of the Scotch National Association, the “St. Andrew’s Society,” a resolution was passed, erasing his name as a patron and an honorary member of that body.

AUGUSTIN-NORBERT MORIN

GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER

ROBERT BALDWIN

LOUIS-JOSEPH PAPINEAU

SIR LOUIS-HIPPOLYTE LAFONTAINE

A.A. DORION

That night about 8 o’clock the parliament buildings were burned by an angry mob. It was not unpremeditated, for the day previously even some of the soldiers were warned to shut their eyes next day if anything happened, and many did. After the signing of the bill a meeting was held on Champ de Mars as the result of printed notices, at which inflammatory speeches were made. One of the leaders was a Fred Perry, who lived to be sorry for his deed. “We are not in ’37,” he cried. “If you are men follow me to the parliament house!” and he drove in a buggy, surrounded by a sympathetic crowd, some carrying lighted torches and crying, “To the parliament house.” The parliament building which had been built as St. Ann’s market and leased to the government, was a two-story building, the bottom floor of which was remodeled to contain the government offices, while upstairs, at the head of a broad staircase, leading off a wide passage, were two halls, one that of the legislative assembly, a room 342 by 50 feet, and the other of the legislative council. Meanwhile the house of assembly was discussing the judicature bill, and it was warned by the noise of the advancing mob. When the crowd reached the building, at a given signal stones crashed through the windows like hail. A rush was made by some of the crowd into the assembly hall from which the members had retreated. One of the mob named Courtney sat boldly in the Speaker’s chair and muttered threats about dissolving the parliament. The work of demolition was begun, sticks being thrown at the glass globes on the gaseliers that were out of reach. Then there was raised the cry of “fire!” The gas pipes in the building had been cut and a light applied. An explosion followed and a blinding sheet of flame lit up the scene. Then ensued a mad rush of the members and their friends and enemies to get out of the building. The mob made no attempt to save it. The fire engines were only used upon the surrounding property and an eye witness relates that the soldiers who were ordered to fire on the mob discharged their shots in the air. In half an hour the whole building was wrapped in one sheet of flame. The valuable library containing the archives and records of the colony was destroyed. In the beginning of the incendiarism lighted torches thrown through the window began the sad work of destruction. Little was saved but the mace and the picture of Queen Victoria with the gilt crown surmounting it. A newspaper account of two days later stated in effect[168] “that the Queen’s picture was carried away by four scoundrels.” These have lately been identified as Colonel Wiley, formerly chief of police, a Scotchman of the name of McGillivray, from the eastern townships, an employee of the parliament, the uncle of Mr. Todd, of the Library of Parliament, and Mr. Sanford Fleming (afterwards Sir).

The latter in reply to the historian, Henry J. Morgan, wrote in 1901:

“Having spent a number of days previously in examining rare books, I felt I should try to save some of them. I gained an entrance but the fire had taken possession of the library and I could do nothing. Turning to the legislative hall I saw the Queen’s picture. With three other men (then) unknown to me I made an effort to save it, but it was no easy matter. It was in a massive gilt frame, firmly bolted to the wall. We at last put our shoulders underneath and raised the whole, little by little, allowing it to fall down each time. This was repeated many times till at last the fastenings gave way and all came down. We laid it on its face and, not being able to carry very easily the heavy frame, removed the canvas on its stretching frame and the four of us carried it out in a horizontal position, a shoulder under each corner. With difficulty we got it downstairs on account of the flames passing overhead, but each stooped and covered the picture to prevent it getting scorched and thus got it to the open door. Having done so, I left it to be taken to a place of safety by others, some of whom were connected with the House. I thought I would return to the chamber to try to save something else, but I saw nothing of much value which I could myself remove. I did, however, carry out the gilded crown which had been over the picture, carrying it to Mack’s Hotel, where I was stopping, and afterwards took it with me in a tea chest to Toronto, where it remained in my possession for some years. What afterwards became of it I am not aware.” The picture of Queen Victoria is in the House of Commons at Ottawa.

The most unpopular man of the hour after Lord Elgin was Mr. L.H. Lafontaine, who was in charge of the bill. His stables were burnt and his house ransacked. There were no proceedings taken against the rioters and incendiarists, this being an evident sign that many of those in power secretly sympathized with the movement. The house of Mr. Hays, on Dalhousie Square, was leased for a temporary parliament house, but shortly afterwards government moved to Toronto and Montreal lost its position as the political capital of Canada.

In August, 1849, the British American League was formed in Montreal with branches at Toronton, Kingston and elsewhere in Upper Canada. It had various aims—the chief planks being opposition to the existing government, a return to a protective policy, the election of members of the legislative council, and most important of all, a general union of the British North American provinces. A meeting was held in Kingston towards the end of July. Among the chief speakers were George Moffatt and Hugh E. Montgomerie, of Montreal, John A. Macdonald, of Kingston, also spoke. The League did not hold together, but the extreme party soon banded together and in consequence during the month of October a manifesto “to the people of Canada,” advocating the annexation of Canada to the United States, appeared in Montreal, signed by many leading citizens, including the Torrances, the Redpaths, the Molsons, the Workmans, the Dorions, Luther Hamilton Holton, Benjamin Holmes, David Lewis Macpherson, Jacob de Witt, Edward Goff Penny, D. Lorn Macdougall and John Ross—325[169] signatures in all. L.J. Papineau threw in his weight to the movement. Among the subscribers to the manifesto were justices of the peace, officers of the militia, Queen’s counsels and others holding commissions at the pleasure of the crown. Men of different political parties forgot their differences to promote the scheme. The ebullition was the outcome of the commercial depression and unpromising outlook then prevailing. The manifesto, after pointing out the deplorable state of the country, proceeded to suggest the remedies: the revival of protection in the markets of the United Kingdom; the protection of home manufactures; a federal union of the British American colonies as a federal republic and reciprocal free trade with the United States. But the most sweeping remedy of all was the last one suggested, namely, a “friendly and peaceful separation from British connection; a union upon equitable terms with the great North American Confederacy of Sovereign States,” in brief, annexation.2 The movement was known in England and the Morning Advertiser of London of the period said in comment that England would be no loser were the Canadas to carry their threat of annexation into effect; indeed, England would gain.

“The result,” it says, “of careful examination of the Canadian connection in all its aspects, is, that so far from England being a sufferer from the renunciation of their allegiance to the British Crown on the part of the Canadas, she would be an actual gainer. It is a well ascertained fact that the expenses of the connection have more than counterbalanced its advantages. The maintenance of that part of our colonial possessions subjects us to a yearly expenditure of £800,000 hard cash. Will any one tell us that the Canadas confer on us benefits at all equivalent to this? It may, indeed, be debated whether our exports to the Canadas would not be as great as they have been at any former period. At any rate we speak advisedly when we say that this country would be no loser by the secession of the Canadas. That is certainly the conclusion at which ministers have arrived after the most able and careful consideration. On that conclusion they have determined to act. When the session meets we shall see the fact brought fully before the public, with the ground on which the cabinet has come to the conclusion at which it arrived.”

Such a statement, from a responsible English journal, sounds strangely to us even today—but it is of value in reminding us that at that time Britain was spending some four millions of dollars annually on the Canadas. Four years later, in 1854, the annexation movement received its quietus at the hands of Lord Elgin, when he secured the passage of the Reciprocity Treaty.

As there was no very general support in Canada, the movement soon collapsed. It was begotten of temporary gloom and despair. Annexation was thought by serious and well meaning men to be the necessary remedy—if it could come peaceably. Hence it was not rebellion. The annexation movement was communicated to the Upper Province, but it never had as great a hold anywhere as in Montreal. There was little aftermath beyond the cancelling of the commissions of those who held them at pleasure, a course deemed necessary as a protest by the governor general, Lord Elgin.

In the beginning of November of this year, 1849, the government offices were removed to Toronto. In the early part of 1850 a party known as the[170] “Clear grits,” composed of the more progressive of the reform party in Upper Canada, and dissatisfied with the slowness of ministry, elaborated a programme which, among other heads, advocated, first, the complete application of the elective principle from the highest to the lowest member of the government, and, secondly, universal suffrage. A corresponding but more radical movement was organized at Montreal for Lower Canada by L.J. Papineau, under the title of “La Parti Rouge.” Its members were mostly young French-Canadians, although a number of British radicals were with them, such as L.H. Holton, and others. The “Parti Rouge” pronounced in favour of the repeal of the Union, of a republican form of government and of annexation to the States. “La Parti Rouge,” says La Minerve, the organ of the “bleus,” “has been formed at Montreal under the auspices of Mr. Papineau in hatred of English institutions, of our constitution, declared to be vicious, and above all, of responsible government which is regarded as a takein, with ideas of innovation in religion and in politics, accompanied by a profound hatred for the clergy and with the very formal and very pronounced intention of annexing Canada to the United States.” By the end of the year the prospects of trade had so brightened that with this annexation and other desperate remedies were forgotten. In October the first provincial exhibition of agricultural and industrial products was held at Montreal.

During the session of 1851, the legislation for railways was of primary importance to Montreal; if it was to keep its place as the center of transportation by land as it had been by water it would now enter into its new railroad era forced by the competing enterprises of the adjoining republics. In October the great Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry resigned. Mr. Lafontaine resumed his law practice at Montreal. In the month of August, 1853, he became chief justice of Lower Canada and held that position to his death, February 26, 1864. Ten years previously, in 1854, he was created a baronet. Sir L. Hippolyte Lafontaine’s name and fame stand high in the remembrance of Montreal.

On the 6th of November the existing parliament was dissolved. In the following elections Mr. John Young was returned from Montreal and was given a place in the Hincks-Morin cabinet as commissioner of public works. Mr. Papineau was defeated in Montreal, but found a seat for the county of Two Mountains. In the early part of 1852 Mr. Hincks visited England and arranged for the capitalizing of the Grand Trunk Railway to proceed westward from Montreal. Consequently during the fourth parliament’s first session at Quebec, which opened on August 19th, conspicuous among the acts passed was one to incorporate the Grand Trunk Railway. Other acts interesting to Montrealers were the municipal loan fund act to enable municipalities to borrow money on the credit of the province for local improvement, an act for the establishment of a trans-Atlantic line of steamers and the appropriating of £19,000 sterling per annum for the purpose. The contract was secured by McKean, McLarty & Company, of Liverpool, and steamers began to run during the following spring. Two years later the contract was annulled and an arrangement was made with Messrs. Edmonstone, Allan & Company, of Montreal. The small fleet of the last named company has since developed into the well known Allan line of trans-Atlantic steamships. On October 23d Mr. Charles Wilson, mayor of Montreal, was added to the legislative council. Before the session ended there occurred the famous Gavazzi riots in Quebec and Montreal, the latter place especially maintaining[171] its reputation for mob violence. As the government was afterwards attacked for delay in ordering an unavoidable and searching investigation into the perpetrators of the fatal disaster at Montreal the story may be told here rather than in the ecclesiastical history of the city. During the spring of 1853 Alessandro Gavazzi, an ex-monk, had been giving a course of lectures in the States, mostly against Romanism. He had previously been received with success in England. Posing as an Italian patriot of liberty, with the reputation for impassioned and eloquent oratory and the added piquancy of being an ex-priest, he had attracted elsewhere a favourable hearing. But on his entrance to Lower Canada, at Quebec, he received a check on June 6th when delivering a lecture on the Inquisition in the Free Church on St. Ursule Street. A scene of disorder occurred in the church. The lecturer was attacked in the pulpit, and though he defended himself right valiantly with a stool, knocking down some sixteen of his assailants, he was overmastered and thrown on to the heads of the people below. Confusion reigned. The military were providentially soon on the scene and quiet obtained. The proceedings were sufficient to warrant an informal discussion in the House next day. On the night of the 9th of June Gavazzi was in Montreal, lecturing in Zion Church on the Haymarket square, now Victoria Square. Without, to prevent a recurrence of the Quebec assault, a posse of police was placed opposite the church, another in the Square and a small body of military, hard by, in concealment. These were the “Cameronians” but recently arrived in the city. There was an attempt of a body of Catholic Irishmen to break a way into the church, but they were repulsed. On retreating the second time a shot was fired by one of the intruders who was immediately shot down by a Protestant. Other shots followed. Confusion reigned. The lecture was hurriedly concluded and the people made for home. On the church being attacked the Gavazzi called for three cheers for the Queen and congratulated his hearers on freedom of speech being maintained. On their way through the streets shots were fired at them by the military. Who gave the order to fire has never been discovered. The mayor, the Hon. Charles Wilson, who had read the riot act, was accused and denied it. So also did Colonel Hogarth, of the Twenty-sixth Cameronian Rifles, also accused. It is said that the soldiers fired, at the order of some one in the crowd, but over the heads of the people, so that those making their way up Beaver Hall Hill received the shots. The Cameronians were very unpopular for a time. About forty were killed or wounded, of whom many were injured by stones and other missiles. Two women were struck down and almost trampled to death. The scene was one of frenzied riot, heightened by the screams of women. Gavazzi made his way between two clergymen to St. James street, narrowly escaping with his life. He afterwards escaped from St. Lawrence Hall in an inclosed cab to the wharf, where the Iron Duke took him to La Prairie. Thus his career ended in Canada. On June 26th an investigation was held into the causes of the riot, but nothing was the outcome and there were no apprehensions, at which there was much disapproval, as it was thought the affair was being hushed up as a political move. It is for this reason that the story has been inserted in this portion. The occasion was made an occasion of odium theologicum. At that time the St. Patrick’s Society, founded in 1834, was composed of Irishmen of different religions, but as Mr. Hincks and the mayor, the Hon. Charles Wilson, were both prominent members, Mr. Hincks was accused of being under the influence of the[172] Roman Catholic majority for political purposes. Mr. Drummond, the attorney-general for Lower Canada, being a Catholic, was also accused in being dilatory in bringing the rioters to justice.

L.H. HOLTON

SIR FRANCIS HINCKS

D’ARCY McGEE

Parliament adjourned on the 14th of June. It did not meet again till June 13, 1854, just a day within the limit allowed by the thirty-first clause of the Union act. The chief reason for this was the absence of the governor and the premier in England and at Washington, at which latter place, on June 15th, the treaty of reciprocity was signed between the United States and Canada. The parliament was dissolved in view of the general elections to come in July and August, when the attitude of the people on the two great questions so long postponed, the clergy reserves and the seigneurial tenure was to be taken as an index of confidence and trust in the government. Mr. L.H. Holton and Mr. (afterwards Sir) A.A. Dorion, the leader of the “Parti Rouge,” since Mr. Papineau did not seek reelection, were returned for Montreal. The country as a whole had pronounced in favour of the abolition of the seigneurial tenure and the secularization of the clergy reserves. The parliament met on the 5th of September. The rejection of the ministerial candidate, George Etienne Cartier, for speaker in the assembly, in favour of Mr. Sicotte, indicated to Mr. Hincks and Mr. Morin that they could not carry on the administration against the combined opposition of the conservative, clear grits and the “Parti Rouge.” This was confirmed on September 7th when, on a question of privilege, the opposition carried it. On September 8th the resignation of the Hincks-Morin ministry was accepted by Lord Elgin. The government fell without dishonour. It had obtained the imperial acts enabling the Canadian parliament to deal with the clergy reserves and the application of the elective principle to the legislative council. It had completed the reciprocity treaty with the States and had inaugurated the era of Canadian railway. Montreal largely shared in the prosperity which prevailed in its term. The task of forming a new ministry was entrusted by Lord Elgin to Sir Allan MacNab. With the concurrence of Mr. Morin, Sir Allan effected a coalition between his own conservative following and the late liberal government resulting in the liberal-conservative alliance as the only method possible of obtaining a majority in the assembly capable of conducting the administration in accordance with the now accepted principle of responsible government. The death knell of the old toryism had been sounded. It also marked the virtual extinction of the British party in Lower Canada as a separate political body. Since that date there may be traced the growth of a more united policy in Montreal in the common welfare.

A bill giving effect to the reciprocity treaty with the United States was introduced by attorney-general (East), Hon. L.T. Drummond. The long delayed bill for secularizing the clergy reserves was introduced by Attorney-General (West), Hon. John A. Macdonald, and that abolishing the seigneurial tenure originally introduced by Mr. L.T. Drummond became law. By the former not only the Anglican establishment, but all churches were deprived of any participation in the funds accruing from the reserved lands granted for the support of the Anglican communion since the commencement of the British régime, a privilege that had been all along keenly contested by other denominations. It was now enacted that all proceeds arising from the sale of these lands should be placed into the hands of the receiver-general, by whom, after expenses were paid, they[173] were to be apportioned equally among the several county and city municipalities in proportion to population.

The Seigneurial Tenure Act while abolishing the system of feudal rights and duties so long prevailing in Lower Canada, authorized the governor to provide commissioners to appropriate indemnifications for the despoiled seigneurs. Thus the two great questions which had long been exercising Montreal politicians were at last solved. Parliament was prorogued on the 18th of December and Lord Elgin concluded his office as governor-general with credit and honour.

Parliament opened on February 23, 1855. It was marked by the retirement of Mr. Morin from the ministry. The McNab-Taché administration was therefore formed. The Crimean war was now on, and as it became necessary to remove the Imperial Troops from Canada “a militia act was passed, which was the first step toward the modern organization of a regular volunteer force in Canada.”

The fifth parliament was opened at Toronto on the 15th of February, 1856. On Her Majesty’s birthday, May 24th, through the resignation of Sir Allan McNab, the Taché-Macdonald ministry assumed the reins, in which John A. Macdonald held the whip hand. In this session the postponed elective legislative council act was passed for which imperial authority had already been given. While those already in the legislative council were to retain their seats for life, every future member was to be elected by the people for a term of eight years. This continued till confederation, in 1867, when the system of appointment for life was reverted to. The Montreal members in the legislative council for 1856 were the Honourables Peter McGill, William Morris, Adam Ferrie, James Ferrier, Denis B. Viger, James Leslie, Frederic A. Quesnel, Joseph Bourret and Charles Wilson. This year the stringency in the money market was felt as the result of the Crimean war.

The year of 1857 is spoken of as l’année terrible. The toll of death was exacted as the price of advancing civilization. Near Hamilton seventy lives were lost by a train crashing through a bridge spanning the Desjardins canal. The steamer Montreal which plied between Montreal and Quebec, was burned so rapidly near Cape Rouge that about two hundred and fifty emigrants lost their lives. The harvest was a failure. By the beginning of winter trade had become almost stagnant. Mercantile disaster which was to last for a long time stared the wholesale and retail merchants in the face. Mercantile credit collapsed and every industry was crippled. Agriculture also shared in the general paralysis. The cause of this disastrous state was the public extravagance in that era of public works and railway development. The whirlwind was being reaped. During the year the Taché-Macdonald government had sat continuously from February 26th to June 10th. The premier, Colonel Taché, resigned on November 25th and thereupon the Hon. John A. Macdonald and the Hon. George Etienne Cartier formed their administration. At the general elections held in consequence at Montreal, Mr. A.A. Dorion, leader of the “Rouge Party,” was one of the few of his party returned, but Mr. Holton was defeated by the new attorney-general.

A new member for the city was the brilliant young Irishman, Thomas D’Arcy McGee, who had only been a year in Canada. He was, however, well known in the United States as a powerful journalist and public speaker imbued with Irish-American ideas. He was born in Carlingford, County Louth, in Ireland, in 1825. In his seventeenth year he went to the States and began journalism.[174] In 1845 he undertook the editorship of the “Freeman’s Journal” in Dublin. Becoming identified with the New Ireland party and involved with Charles Gavan Duffy in the Smith-O’Brien’s insurrection, he escaped to New York, where he started the “New York Nation,” which was suppressed by Bishop Hughes for the attacks on the Irish hierarchy. At Boston he founded the “American Celt” and continued it at Buffalo for five years. Gradually he became reconciled to the hierarchy and received their support, so that his paper was the exponent in America of Irish Catholic opinions. In 1857 he accepted an invitation from the Irish party in Montreal to settle here. After having fulfilled the necessary period of “domicile” he was soon nominated for parliament, as we have seen.

The new parliament assembled on February 25th. It had become known after the election that Her Majesty had fixed upon Ottawa as the permanent seat of government. Parliament had ratified the choice and a sum of money had been appropriated for the erection of buildings. But there was serious opposition in many quarters. It broke out in the House on July 28th, when Mr. Dunkin moved an address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to reconsider the decision and have Montreal named instead of Ottawa. Mr. Brown moved for an amendment for delay in the erection of buildings and the removal of government offices to Ottawa, and Mr. Piché moved as a further amendment that “in the opinion of this house Ottawa ought not to be the permanent government for the province.” The amendment was carried, supported by the opposition, and being considered by the minority equivalent to a vote of censure on Her Majesty, the government resigned on the following day. Mr. George Brown was put in charge of forming a ministry which was announced on Monday, August 2d. At once a vote of want of confidence in the new Brown-Dorion government, moved by Mr. Hector Langevin, was passed in the Assembly and in the Upper House. On Wednesday afternoon after having been in office for forty-eight hours and without having initiated a single act, parliamentary or administrative, the short-lived administration was forced to resign. On August 6th George Cartier becoming prime minister, the Cartier-Macdonald ministry virtually resumed the situation of the Macdonald-Cartier government of a few days ago. The portfolios, however, were exchanged and thus, by making use of a statute of 1857 there was avoided the necessity of the ministers going to the people for reelection. This was known as the “Double Shuffle.” The reconstructed government found themselves with a strong majority. During the session of this year the question of “protection to home industries,” a live subject at Montreal, came up for legislation and was followed by the protective tariff of the following year.

The government offices having been removed from Toronto, parliament met at Quebec on January 29th, for the government offices were not removed to Ottawa till 1865, where the first session was held in 1866. During this year the principle of Confederation began to be broached tentatively but surely, by the opposition party led by Mr. George Brown. A reform convention in Toronto held in November drew up a series of resolutions which, when compared with the British North American act of 1867, show a clear family likeness. At Montreal similar meetings were held under the auspices of Messrs. Dorion, Drummond, McGee and others for the same purpose of approving a federal union, but as yet the movement was weak in Lower Canada.

[175]

The sixth parliament met at Quebec for its fourth and last session on the 16th of March, 1861. By a proclamation of the governor-general on the 10th of June it came to an end.

On the 8th of November there occurred in mid-ocean, during the Civil war in the States between the North and South, the “Trent Incident,” which caused a commotion at Montreal and throughout Canada. The British Mail steamer Trent had on board the Confederate envoys, Messrs. Mason and Slidell, when they were forcibly taken prisoners by Captain Wilkes of the United States sloop of war San Jacinto. War looked inevitable and the Canadian Volunteers were augmented, drilled and ready for war. Regular military troops arrived also from England. The first day of the new year, 1862, saw the envoys delivered back to England and the danger of war was over. One result of the “Trent” affair was a great deepening of the Canadian sympathy, especially at Montreal, with the southern Confederacy.

In 1862 the Cartier-Macdonald government fell, on the occasion of their “Militia Bill,” on May 21st, and on the 24th the Macdonald (J.S.)-Sicotte ministry was sworn in, being succeeded on May 26, 1863, by the Macdonald (J.S.)-Dorion combination, which only lasted till the 2d of March, 1864, when the Taché-Macdonald (J.A.) again came into power. It was agreed upon, that the government should be pledged to introduce the federal principle into Canada and to aim at a confederation in which all British America should be “united under a general legislature based upon the federal principle.”

The idea of confederation as a remedy for government ills had occupied attention at intervals with increasing acuteness even before the Union of 1841. It had not been confined to Upper and Lower Canada, for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island had long discussed the idea of a union among themselves. Various political dreamers had forecasted it, no doubt following the lead of the United States. A meeting for the purpose being called at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the coalition government of Canada sent eight ministers 3 to confer with their representatives on the merits of a larger scheme of union between all the provinces with the result that by agreement a further convention was to be held at Quebec on a day named by the governor general. His excellency fixed upon October 10th and notified the respective lieutenant governors of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The result was the pledge to promote the projected confederation.

During the fall of this year, 1864, Montreal was the scene of the St. Alban’s Raid prosecutions. As already said, Canada and Montreal especially had sympathized with the Southerners. Many refugees had found a home here. Canada being so close to the frontier was, therefore, frequently used as the basis of southern plots. In the summer two vessels plying on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, belonging to American merchants, had been seized and partially plundered by the southern refugees. In September St. Albans, a little town in Vermont,[176] on the frontier, was raided by twenty-three southerners from Canada under the command of Bennett H. Young, an ex-Confederate soldier, who escaped to Canada on captured horses with $223,000 booty, after having plundered three local banks and shot one of the cashiers. Their excuse was that they were representatives of the Confederate States of America and they were there to retaliate the outrages committed by General Sherman. In November the trial of the captured rioters took place at Montreal and on March 30th they were discharged.

Parliament met on the 19th of January. It was prorogued on the 18th of March. During the following month four of the administration, J.A. Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and Galt, proceeded to England to discuss with the imperial government the scheme of confederation. The delegates returned in time for the opening of the last session of the Canadian legislature at Quebec on the 8th of August. The premier, Sir E.P. Taché, had died full of honours on the 30th of July. He was succeeded by Sir N.F. Belleau. During this session the bill was passed to carry out the recommendation of the commissioners appointed in 1857 “to reduce into one code to be called the civil code of Lower Canada those provisions of the laws of Lower Canada which relate to civil matters and are of a general and permanent character.” Attorney-General Cartier who had introduced the bill appointing the commission in 1857 had the satisfaction of seeing its labours adopted in 1865. The code came into operation in 1866. This was welcomed by the jurists of Montreal and Quebec, as it simplified the law, reducing order out of chaos; the abolition of the seigneurial tenure act of 1854 had rendered the codification very necessary. Parliament closed on the 18th of September. The public offices were removed to Ottawa during the autumn, but for a time the cabinet meetings were held at Montreal.

In the beginning of 1866 a delegation was sent by the government to Washington to obtain a renewal of the reciprocity treaty which came to an end this year. The mission was a failure. St. Patrick’s day, March 17th, was looked forward to in Canada by more than those of Irish nationality. For although during the year 1865 rumours had gone around that the Fenian Brotherhood of the States, organized about this time with a branch in Ireland to liberate Ireland, had determined to invade Canada as a base of their operations against England, they were not taken very seriously. But in 1866 the announcement of combined movements upon Canada to commence on St. Patrick’s day forced serious preparation for their reception and caused great anxiety over the country and much recruiting in volunteer circles. St. Patrick’s day passed and nothing happened. Beginning, however, in April and gaining strength in May and June, the filibustering Fenians massed their forces at various points, such as that marked by the raid under O’Neill upon the Niagara frontier in June, that of Ogdensburg, menacing a march upon Ottawa, and that at St. Albans on the Vermont frontier, where 1,800 men had collected on June 7th to pass over into Canada. In Montreal doubtless they hoped to find some sympathizers. None of these movements met eventual success and quiet was successfully maintained on the frontier by both governments. But these were the occasion of military ardour, shown by the enrollments of the militia and of general patriotism.

The parliament met at Ottawa on the 8th of June in the midst of the Fenian excitement. The address of His Excellency, the governor general, forecasted the hope that the next time parliament met at Ottawa it would be under the confederation[177] of Province. It lasted to the 15th of August. About three months later a joint delegation of the representatives of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick met on December 4th in London at the Westminster Palace Hotel and a conference was held. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had seceded from the project. The upshot of the negotiations was such that on the 22d of May, 1867, the Confederation Act, technically known as “the British North American Act, 1867,” was proclaimed at Windsor Castle by Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, appointing the 1st of July following as the date upon which it should come into force. This act joined Canada (Upper and Lower), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one Dominion, under the name of CANADA. There should be one federal parliament, consisting of the Queen, represented by the governor general, an upper house consisting of seventy-two life members appointed by the Crown, and a House of Commons elected on the principle of representation by population. Its jurisdiction was to affect matters concerning the Dominion at large. Each of the four provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was to have a provincial legislature to manage its internal affairs. Each was to have a lieutenant governor. In Ontario the legislature consisted only of a house of assembly. In the other three provinces a council was added.

CONFEDERATION SISTERS

Arranged from studies of the Cartier monument (G.W. Hill) being erected in 1914

In the following year the northwest territories were added to the Dominion, in 1870 Manitoba, in 1871 British Columbia, and in 1873 Prince Edward Island, and in 1905 the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were established. Since confederation the history of Canada has been one of continued commercial and social development. The British North American act was the Magna Charta of Canadian nationhood.

Montreal is proud of the share it took in the promotion of Confederation.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT, 1791 TO CONFEDERATION, 1867

MEMBERS

Montreal (County)— |
Papineau, Joseph | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Walker, James | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Ducharme, Jean-Marie | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
Guy, Et. | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
Papineau, Joseph | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
Walker, Thomas | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
Frobisher, Benjamin | August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808
Roy Portelance, Louis | August 6, 1804, to March 22, 1814
Durocher, Jean Baptiste | June 18, 1808, to July 12, 1811
Stuart, James | December 4, 1811, to February 9, 1820
Richer, Augustin | May 13, 1814, to February 9, 1820
Perrault, Joseph | April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830
Valois, Joseph | April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830[178]
Montreal (East)— |
Frobisher, Joseph | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Richardson, John | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Papineau, Joseph | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
Viger, Denis | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
Panet, Pierre Louis | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
Badgley, Fra | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
McGill, James | August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808
Chaboillez, Louis | August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808
Mondelet, Jean-Marie | June 18, 1808, to October 2, 1809
Stuart, James | June 18, 1808, to March 1, 1810
Papineau, Joseph | November 23, 1809, to March 22, 1814
Sewell, Stephen | April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814
Beaujeu, Saveuse de | May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816
Platt, George | May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816
Roy Portelance, Louis | April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820
Molson, John | April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820
Heney, Hughes | April 11, 1820, to September 2, 1830
Busby, Thomas | April 11, 1820, to May 29, 1820
Thain, Thomas | July 25, 1820, to July 6, 1824
Leslie, James | August 28, 1824, to September 2, 1830
Montreal (West)— |
McGill, James | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Durocher, Jean-Baptiste | July 10, 1792, to May 31, 1796
Auldjo, Alex | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
Foucher, Louis Charles | July 20, 1796, to June 4, 1800
McGill, James | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
Périnault, Joseph | July 28, 1800, to June 13, 1804
Richardson, John | August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808
Mondelet, Jean-Marie | August 6, 1804, to April 27, 1808
McGillivray, William | June 18, 1808, to October 2, 1809
Viger, Denis Benjamin | June 18, 1808, to March 1, 1810
McCord, Thomas | November 23, 1809, to March 1, 1810
St. Dizier, Et. N. | April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814
McLeod, Arch. N. | April 21, 1810, to March 22, 1814
Papineau, Louis Joseph | May 13, 1814, to September 2, 1830
Fraser, James | May 13, 1814, to February 29, 1816
Vinet dit Soulignay, Félix | April 25, 1816, to February 9, 1820
Garden, George | April 11, 1820, to July 6, 1824
Rocheblave, Pierre de | August 28, 1824, to July 5, 1827
Nelson, Robert | August 25, 1827, to September 2, 1830
Montreal (County)— |
Valois, Joseph | October 26, 1830, to October 9, 1834
Perrault, Joseph | October 26, 1830, to August 28, 1831
Mondelet, Dominique | October 13, 1831, to November 24, 1832
Papineau, l’hon. Louis Joseph | November 22, 1834, to November 3, 1835
Cherrier, Côme | November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838
Jobin, André | November 25, 1835, to March 27, 1838[179]
Montreal (East)— |
Heney, Hughes | October 26, 1830, to February 28, 1832
Leslie, James | October 26, 1830, to March 27, 1838
Berthelet, Oliver | April 6, 1832, to October 9, 1834
Roy, Joseph | November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838
Montreal (West)— |
Papineau, l’hon. Louis Joseph | October 26, 1830, to March 27, 1838
Fisher, John | October 26, 1830, to March 26, 1832
Tracey, Daniel | May 22, 1832, to July 18, 1832
Nelson, Robert | November 22, 1834, to March 27, 1838
Montreal (City)— |
Moffatt, l’hon. George | April 8, 1841, to October 30, 1843
Holmes, Benjamin | April 8, 1841, to September 23, 1844
Beaubien, Pierre | November 22, 1843, to September 23, 1844
Moffatt, l’hon. George | November 12, 1844, to December 6, 1847
Bleury, Charles-Clément Sabrevois de | Nov. 12, 1844, to Dec. 6, 1847
Lafontaine, l’hon. Louis-Hippolyte | Jan. 24, 1848, to Nov. 6, 1851
Holmes, Benjamin | January 24, 1848, to November 6, 1851
Young, l’hon. John | December 6, 1851, to June 23, 1854
Badgley, l’hon. William | December 6, 1851, to June 23, 1854
Montreal (County)— |
Delisle, Alexandre-Maurice | April 8, 1841, to July 13, 1843
Jobin, André | October 26, 1843, to November 6, 1851
Valois, Michel-François | December 10, 1851, to June 23, 1854
Montreal (City)— |
Dorion, Antoine-Aimé | July 28, 1854, to June 10, 1861
Holton, Luther-Hamilton | July 28, 1854, to November 28, 1857
Young, l’hon. John | July 28, 1854, to November 28, 1857
Rose, John | December 28, 1857, to June 10, 1861
McGee, Thomas D’Arcy | December 28, 1857, to June 10, 1861
Montreal (Center)— |
Rose, l’hon. John | July 9, 1861, to July 1, 1866
Montreal (East)— |
Cartier, l’hon. George-Etienne | July 9, 1861, to July 1, 1867
Montreal (West)— |
McGee, Thomas D’Arcy | June 26, 1861, to July 1, 1867
Montreal (County)— |
Hochelaga |
Laporte, Joseph | July 24, 1854, to November 28, 1857
Jacques-Cartier |
Valois, Michel-François | July 20, 1854, to November 28, 1857

[180]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Sometimes called the “First Baldwin-Lafontaine Government.”

2 See Dent, “The Last Forty Years of Canada,” Vol. II, pp. 180-1.

3 The eight were J.A. Macdonald, George Brown, George Etienne Cartier, A.T. Gault, T. D’Arcy McGee, H.L. Langevin, W. McDougall and Alexander Campbell. Of these fathers of confederation, Montreal records with pride the names of Cartier and McGee, its sometime political representatives. The two especially did much to disarm the strong opposition in certain quarters in the province of Quebec.

[181]

### CHAPTER XX

THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL

EARLY EFFORTS TOWARDS MUNICIPAL HOME RULE—1786—1821—1828—THE FIRST MUNICIPAL CHARTER OF 1831—THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL—JACQUES VIGER FIRST MAYOR—THE RETURN TO THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE—LORD DURHAM’S REPORT AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE CORPORATION IN 1840—CHARTER AMENDMENT, 1851—FIRST MAYOR ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE—CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 1874—THE CITY OF MONTREAL ANNEXATIONS—CIVIC POLITICS—THE NOBLE “13”—1898 CHARTER RECAST, SANCTIONED IN 1899—CIVIC SCANDALS—THE “23”—JUDGE CANNON’S REPORT—THE REFORM PARTY; THE “CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION”—REDUCTION OF ALDERMEN AND A BOARD OF CONTROL, THE ISSUE—THE WOMEN’S CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS—THE NEW REGIME AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL—FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER—THE ELECTIONS OF 1912—ABOLITION OF THE SMALL WARD SYSTEM ADVOCATED—THE ELECTIONS OF 1914—A FORECAST FOR GREATER MONTREAL—SUPPLEMENT: LIST OF MAYORS—CITY REVENUE.

The citizens of Montreal, as already narrated, had had in view for many years under the British rule, the introduction of a responsible form of Home Rule in municipal affairs. As early as 1786, on the invitation of the Superior Council, they had reported in favour of the incorporation by charter of a municipality, but notwithstanding, the system of government by justices of the peace was continued. At a meeting of October 23, 1821, the citizens again agitated for a charter. In 1828 a great meeting was held on December 6th and resolutions were passed to the effect that in the flourishing state of the growth of population and the progress of trade the government by magistrates was not sufficient to provide for municipal advance in the future; that among the evils due to insufficient powers granted to the magistrates was the inefficiency of police regulations and the want of an efficient system of bookkeeping in the appropriation of the revenues of the town; the deplorable state for many years of the water front and the lands adjoining the “little river,” which by their unhealthy condition, had become dangerous to the well being of the great part of the surrounding population; the lack of means and authority for undertaking and executing a preconceived and general plan of improvement, it being left to the individual to put obstacles to the proper growth of the town which narrowness of view and self-interest might suggest to the delay in growth and the increase of avoidable expenses. The citizens concluded by demanding from the legislature the incorporation of the town. The committee formed to present the petition was as follows: For the town, J.B. Rolland, P. McGill, J. Quesnell and A. Laframbroise; for the districts of St.[182] Antoine, St. Ann and the Recollets, John Fry, Father Desautels, John Torrance, Charles de Lorimier, C. Wagner and H. Corse; for St. Lawrence, C.S. Delorme, A. Tullock (Père), A. Tullock (Fils), John Baptiste Castonguay, B. Hall and Louis de Chantal; for the Quebec and St. Louis districts, John Richelieu, Louis Parthenais, Francis Derome and C.S. Rodier.

In 1830 the harbour commission was appointed as a partial remedy.

In 1831 the first act incorporating the city of Montreal was presented on March 31st for the sanction of His Majesty, which was given on April 12, 1832, its publication being by proclamation of the governor general on June 5th following. On the 18th of July, 1833, the city council unanimously adopted the seal of the arms of the city, the Beaver,1 the Rose, the Shamrock and the Thistle, and its motto, “Concordia Salus.” By this act under the name of “The Corporation of the City of Montreal” the city was divided into eight wards, East, West, St. Ann, St. Joseph, St. Antoine, St. Lawrence, St. Louis and St. Mary. Each was to elect two councillors with certain financial qualifications, and these sixteen were to elect from their number one to act as mayor to whom a salary not exceeding four hundred dollars should be granted. The right of citizenship was to be accorded to every man attaining the age of twenty-one years and possessing real estate in the limits of the city and having resided therein for twelve months prior to the election. Every elector became a member of the corporation. The corporation acquired powers to borrow, acquire and possess property, to take action at law, to be in turn liable to legal prosecution and to have a seal. The other powers granted them were similar to those exercised hitherto by the justices of the peace for the government and maintenance of the city. The act was not to remain in force after May 1, 1836.

On the first Monday in May, 1833, the justices of the peace met to appoint the first Monday of June as the day of election of the councillors. These, when elected, met on June 5th in the courthouse for the first séance. Jacques Viger, who acted as secretary, was elected the first mayor, the councillors being John Donegani, William Forbes, Joseph Gauvin, Alexander Lusignan, John McDonell, Robert Nelson, C.S. Rodier, Joseph Roy, John Torrance, Augustin Tullock, John Turney, Guillaume J. Vallée, François Dérome, Mahum Hall, Julien Perrault, and Turton Penn. The secretary appointed was Francis Auger. On the first Monday of June, each year, half of the council had to be replaced or re-elected. The charter required that each regulation of the council before taking effect should be submitted for approbation to the court of King’s Bench after having been published in the newspapers and by town criers.

This charter remained in force till May 1, 1836, when for unaccountable reasons its renewal was refused, and the justices of the peace again ruled the city till August, 1840. These, following the official lists, were: Denis B. Viger, Peter McGill, Pierre de Rocheblave, William Robertson, Lawrence Kidd, James Miller, Austin Cuvillier, James Quesnel, Adam L. McNiver, Joseph Shuter, William Hall, Jos. Ant. Gagnon, Daniel Arnoldi, E.M. Leprohon, George S. Holt, Joseph T. Barrett, Jacob DeWitt, Pierre Lukin, Turton Penn, Thomas Cringan, Joseph Masson, Henry Corse, John Molson, Sidney Bellingham, James Browne, Pierre[183] E. Leclere, John Donegani, Guillaume J. Vallée, Charles Lamontagne, Henri Desrivières, Theophile Dufort, Benjamin Hart, James McGill Desrivières, Charles S. Rodier, John Jones, Charles Tate, Hugh E. Barron, Alexis Laframboise, J. Bte. Castonguay, Patrice Lacombe, Olivier Berthelet, Paul Jos. LaCroix, Thomas B. Wragg, M.J. Hayes, Etienne Guy, Logan Fuller, François P. Bruneau, Pierre Louis Panet, Hugh Brodie, Joseph Baby, Alexander Buchanan, John Dyke and William Evans. The clerks of the justices were Delisle and Delisle, then Delisle and Brehaut.

SEAL OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL

During this period Lord Durham arrived and his report animadverting on the absence of municipal government in Montreal and Quebec, doubtless caused the reintroduction of the municipal council under the name of the mayor, the aldermen and the citizens of the city of Montreal. The governor, Mr. C. Poulett Thomson (afterwards Lord Sydenham) was authorized to name the first council for the first term to end on December 2, 1842. His choice was as follows: Mayor, the Hon. Peter McGill; councillors, Jules Quesnel, Adam Ferrier, C.S. Rodier, J.G. McKenzie, C.S. De Bleury, J.M. Tobin, Olivier Berthelet, F. Bruneau, Hippolyte Guy, John Donegani, Charles Tate, J.W. Dunscomb, Thomas Philipps, Colin Campbell, Stanley Bagg, Archibald Hume, D. Handside and William Molson. On September 12, J.P. Sexton was appointed city clerk and remained in office till 1858.

In 1843 the second council was elected by the people from six wards only, viz., East, Center, West, Queen, St. Lawrence and St. Mary. These councillors, two for each ward, elected the mayor from among themselves, as well as six other citizens under the title of aldermen who all composed the council as follows: Mayor, Joseph Bourret; aldermen, Joseph Masson, Benjamin Holmes, William Molson, Joseph Roy, Joseph Redpath, C.S. De Bleury; councillors, James Ferrier, Pierre Jodoin, Peter Dunn, William Lunn, William Watson, Olivier Frechette, Pierre Beaubien, P.A. Gagnon, François Trudeau, François Perrin, and John Mathewson. The six wards into which the city was divided were: East, Center, West, Queen, St. Lawrence and St. Mary. In 1845 the city was divided into nine wards, the city wards being East, Center and West and having each three representatives in the council, the other six, called the suburban wards, only having two councillors each. Thus the whole council had twenty-one members.

This system obtained till 1852,2 when by the statute Victoria, 14, 15, chapter 128, passed in 1851, the election of the mayor passed from the council to the people at large. The first thus elected was the Hon. Charles Wilson. The number of the aldermen was raised to nine and each of the suburban wards received the same rights as the city wards to three representatives. This brought the council up to twenty-seven members. The statute of 1851 only imposed four quarterly sessions of the council, but the mayor had the right, however, to call special meetings. As an instance of the parochial measures then engaging the thoughts of our municipal rulers, we may quote the following relating to the breaking of a monopoly:

[184]

“Mayor Wolfred Nelson, in his address to the Council in 1854, after alluding to the pestilence which had visited the city and the poverty which followed, said: ‘The misery in which we have been involved would have been immeasurably greater had not the Council adopted energetic measures having the effect of breaking down a cursed monopoly—that of firewood—by purchasing several hundred cords of firewood and selling it in small lots at cost price; as well as of arresting the most extraordinary practice of converting our greatest thoroughfares, the wharves, into wood yards by speculators and monopolists, who prevented the purchase of wood in small quantities from the boats. The adoption of these measures in one week reduced the price of fuel over one quarter, at a period when it had been boasted that it would be worth ten or twelve dollars a cord during the winter. Instead of this exhorbitant rate the best wood can now be obtained for $6 a cord.’”

In 1859 Charles Glackmeyer was appointed city clerk and remained in office till 1892, when he was succeeded by L.O. David till today.

In 1874 (Victoria 37, Chapter 41) the charter was amended and the name of the corporation was changed to that of “The City of Montreal.” The distinction between aldermen and councillors was abolished, the title for all being that of aldermen, who were all elected by the people.

The history of Greater Montreal now begins in the annexation of the rural municipalities. In 1883 the new Hochelaga ward added three aldermen; in 1886 that of St. Jean Baptiste three others; in 1887 St. Gabriel ward also added three.

Commenting on the state of civic politics under this charter a contemporary has the following chatty appreciation:3

“For many years the English-speaking element had dominated in civic affairs by virtue of a very small majority in the City Council, and there was just a little tendency among the city fathers forming that majority, not only to dominate but to domineer. They were not disposed to be unjust to the citizens who formed the majority of the electorate, but they showed a lack of tact amounting at times to a want of delicacy in dealing with and speaking of the diverse elements of the population. The French-Canadians had the good sense to elect their ablest men. To be quite frank there was a long period during which the English-speaking people seemed to think that almost anybody was good enough to make an alderman. The result was inevitable. Each ward was represented by three aldermen, one retiring each year and the English-speaking majority in the Center Ward was in 1880 only a little one. It took just three years of good electioneering work to replace three English-speaking aldermen by three French-Canadians. The latter element now dominated the Council and to prevent accident Hochelaga was annexed in 1883. This not only brought in three more French-Canadian aldermen on December 1, 1883, but it brought in Raymond Préfontaine, who was a host in himself, and who almost immediately became the ruling spirit in civic affairs. Of course, most of the English-speaking aldermen did not take kindly to the new régime and Raymond Préfontaine got his full share of their hot shot and it hurt him as much as water hurts a duck’s back. The attitude of most of the English journalists (including the writer) must have been consoling to the Council minority, on account of the sweet sympathy expressed. ‘The Honest Minority,’ the[185] ‘Noble Thirteen,’ the ‘Faithful Anti-Monopolists’ were among the compliments lavished by a discriminating press; and were taken not only seriously but appreciatively by the recipients, some of whom were in the habit of discussing on the floor of the Council their own sterling qualities with a frankness which left nothing to be desired. One of the noblest Romans of them all could seldom speak of his own honesty (and he had no false delicacy about introducing the subject), without shedding tears and sobbing. Strangers might have imagined he was crying over his lost opportunities, but he wasn’t; it was just his way.

“Time is apt to and ought to modify our judgments of our fellowmen. Let it be said for Raymond Préfontaine by one who generally disagreed with his plans and disapproved of his public actions that among his qualities were some decidedly good ones. He was a man of his word and a man of ideas and infinite resource. He was the first public man to set about systematic modernizing and development of Montreal. When he talked about electric cars and electric lighting, he was laughed to scorn by the ‘Noble Minority’ in the Council and the rest of the nobility outside the Council. He went in for street widening and permanent paving (no doubt at an expensive rate) and he added to the size of the debt as well as to the size of the city. He was, in fact, Montreal’s Baron Haussmann. The Baron was ‘fired’ by the Olivier government for his financial extravagance; he only borrowed a hundred million dollars, from 1865 to 1869; but he made the modern Paris.

“The Noble Thirteen and their admirers, like the coloured troops in the American Civil war fought nobly against Mr. Préfontaine’s schemes and predicted unmerciful disaster if the City Passenger Railway were electrified. To the plea that electric railways were a success elsewhere the opposition replied triumphantly and without fear of contradiction ‘but New York isn’t Montreal’—and neither Alderman Préfontaine nor any of his followers ever dared to take up the challenge and prove that New York was Montreal.

“Then the Noble Thirteen had its own troubles. One, at least, lost his patent of nobility by voting wrong on the gas question; another was laid out on the City Passenger Railway Monopoly; a third was promoted to the retired list because his popularity threatened to make him a dangerous rival to another nobleman in a parliamentary election. Strenuous opponents of ‘monopoly’ in street railways became first lukewarm, then indifferent, then apologetic, and finally strenuous supporters of Monopoly with the biggest ‘M’ in the printer’s upper case. Most of the Noble Thirteen have gone to a better world, which is a good thing for them, because if they were still in the Council, they would miss the old admiration dreadfully.”

The city charter was recast in 1898 and the work was confided to the mayor, Raymond Préfontaine, Aldermen Rainville, Beausoleil, Martineau, Laporte, McBride, Ames and Archambault, aided by the city law officers and the heads of departments. This commission revised and examined clause by clause the preliminary draft prepared by Messrs. Choquette and Weir, appointed revising advocates in conjunction with the city clerk and the city attorneys. The new charter, a progressive document, was sanctioned on the 10th of March, 1899. By it Montreal was divided into seventeen wards called respectively East, Center, West, St. Ann, St. Antoine South, St. Antoine West, St. Antoine East, St. Lawrence, St. Louis, St. James South, St. James North, St. Mary West, St. Mary East, Hochelaga, St.[186] Jean Baptiste, St. Gabriel and St. Denis. In 1903 Duvernay Ward was formed with a part of St. Jean Baptiste Ward. Among the clauses of this charter was one giving power to the council to extend the limits of the city and to annex municipalities. The elections now began to take place every two years instead of annually. The mayor’s qualifications required that he should possess real estate in the city under his own name to the value of $10,000. His yearly salary was not to exceed four thousand dollars. The property qualification for an alderman was fixed at $2,000 and his yearly indemnity at $600, with an additional sum of $200 for every chairman of a permanent committee. These permanent committees were appointed at the first monthly meeting in February for the year and apportioned the general superintendents and administration of the various city departments among themselves. These were supplemented by an occasional special committee. The council assembled once a month, on the second Monday, but the mayor could convoke a special meeting on notice given to each alderman. Five members of the council could also call a special meeting. The mayor could only cast his vote when there was an equality of votes.

The fault of the civic administration under this charter was in the ever-growing abuses arising from the system of standing committees of aldermen conflicting with one another, delaying the course of business. Towards its close corruption and inefficiency were rampant under the monopoly of a few who became stigmatized in the mouths of the citizens as the “23.” In 1909 a royal commission was appointed to examine into the malversations under the late administration. On December 12, 1909, Mr. Justice Cannon presented his report, in which he named twenty-three of the aldermen as guilty of malpractices. Twenty-two of these were not returned in the subsequent elections. The following general conclusion may be taken as a summary of his recommendations and findings:

1. The administration of the affairs of the city of Montreal by its Council has, since 1892, been saturated with corruption arising especially from the patronage plague.

2. The majority of the aldermen have administered the committees and the council in such a manner as to favor the private interests of their relatives and friends, to whom contracts and positions were distributed to the detriment of the general interests of the city and of the taxpayers.

3. As a result of this administration, the annual revenue of $5,000,000 has been spent as follows: 25 per cent in bribes and malversation of all kinds; as for the balance, the greater part has been employed in works of which the permanence has very often been ephemeral.

6. As for the division and the representation of the city by wards, all agree in condemning this system, which gave rise to patronage and to its abuses. I recommend to the citizens of Montreal, after a serious study of this question, to adopt another system creating a council composed of aldermen representing the entire city and working in unity for its growth and prosperity.

7. The council of today is composed of groups and coteries struggling one with another with such bitterness that they necessarily lose sight of the high interests of the community.

Meanwhile many of the prominent citizens, about 1908, began to prepare for a charter reform. In 1909 the “Citizens’ Association” was formed for governmental reform. Its president was an ex-mayor, Mr. Hormisdas Laporte, and the[187] honorary treasurer was Mr. James Morgan, a prominent merchant and a good citizen, who personally contributed to the funds of the campaign, begun then and carried on for some years, very substantial sums of money and its other adherents, men of solid and approved citizenship. The object of the charter reformers was to remedy the prevalent abuses by a reduction of the number of aldermen to one representative to each ward, making thirty-one in the council, and by a curtailment of their powers, reducing them to a purely legislative body, with no executive power in financial matters. This latter function was to be held by a body of four commissioners or “controllers” and the mayor elected from the city at large. It was hoped that by this adaptation of the “commission” form of government, then obtaining great prominence in muncipal literature in the United States, where the method was being practiced, that the waste of civic energy, time and money would be best secured by a small executive board elected by the people at large and uninfluenced by ward politics. The charter for the Board of Control, (9 Edw. Chap. 82) of 1909, at the request of Farquhar Robertson, Charles Chaput, Victor Morin, S.D. Vallières and others, was accordingly secured from the provincial government after a plebiscite had been previously taken in favour of this great radical change of government, the most important since the original municipal charter in 1831. The new form had already been foreseen by Mayor Wilson Smith in his valedictory address in 1896. He said:

“The question has been frequently discussed, both in the Council and outside of it, as to whether the aldermen should be paid for their services. I have to acknowledge that one result of my experience has been to change my mind on this subject. I am now decidedly of the opinion that not only should the aldermen be remunerated for their services, but that they should be relieved, as far as possible, of attending to purely administrative duties. And it is worthy of serious consideration whether it would not be in the best interests of the city to appoint paid Commissioners to superintend all details, in connection with the civic administration. These Commissioners might have associated with them the heads of the departments, with the Mayor as chairman, who might form an Advisory Board, and submit all matters to the City Council, which would act as a legislative body, but their recommendations should be subject to a veto of a two-thirds vote of the Council. The Commissioners might be three in number, one of whom could be elected by the rate-payers generally, one by the real estate owners, and one by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; said Commissioners to be under the control of the City Council, and subject to dismissal for cause, by a two-thirds vote of the Council.”

In virtue of the recent change in the charter, the new Board of Control was invested with the following powers:

1. To prepare the annual budget and to submit it to the council;

2. To recommend every expense, no expense or matter referring to city finances being able to be adopted unless recommended by the controllers;

3. The council on the report of the controllers to be charged with the granting of franchises and privileges by regulation, resolutions, contracts, by the issue of debentures and contraction of loans;

4. The controllers were further to prepare contracts and plans, to ask for tenders, to decide all formalities relating to the latter, to receive and to open such;

5. To inspect or oversee public works;

[188]

6. To employ the money voted by the council for the purpose designed;

7. To nominate and suspend all employees, except those nominated by the council whose nomination, suspension and dismissal should be made by the council on the recommendation of the controllers;

8. No report or recommendation made by the controllers to be executed without the acceptation of the majority of the council;

9. No amendment to a report or recommendation of the controllers to be made without the approbation of two-thirds of the members of the council present at the meeting.

The work now to be given to the Board of Control was that hitherto done by eleven committees of the aldermen of seven members in each.

The Citizens’ Association undertaking the campaign for good government and the conduct of the forthcoming elections formed up in the middle of 1909, and was hailed by all good citizens, receiving the support of all public and volunteer associations having a civic tendency. About this time an important association was formally inaugurated on April 12, 1909, by His Excellency Earl Grey entitled the “City Improvement League,” and lent its aid in the campaign of education on good government and civic progress. Other societies also cooperated. The women associations under the local Council of Women on the English-speaking side, and La Fédération Nationale St. Jean Baptiste on the French, entered more largely than ever before into the movement for civic progress and influenced the women voters for clean government. The choice of the people for the new officers was made on February 1, 1910, when the “whole slate for the board” prepared by the Citizens’ Association was unanimously adopted at the polls as follows: Mayor, J.J. Guerin, M.D.; controllers, E.P. Lachapelle, M.D., president of the Provincial Board of Health; L.N. Dupuis, merchant; Joseph Ainey, labour candidate; and F.L. Wanklyn, a civil engineer and former manager of the Montreal Street Railway. (The latter resigned in the fall of 1911 and was succeeded by the election in the spring of 1912 of Mr. C.H. Godfrey.) The thirty-one wards were represented as follows:

East | L.A. Lapointe
Centre | J.Z. Resther
West | S.J. Carter *
St. Ann | T. O’Connell *
St. Joseph | U.H. Dandurand
St. Andrew | Joseph Ward *
St. George | Leslie H. Boyd, K.C. *
St. Louis | Jean B. Lamoureaux
St. Laurent | James Robinson *
Papineau | J.A.E. Gauvin
St. Mary | J.P. Roux, M.D.
St. Jacques | A.N. Brodeur
Lafontaine | Eudore Dubeau
Hochelaga | J.H. Garceau, M.D.
St. Jean Baptiste | Noé Leclaire
St. Gabriel | Patrick Monahan *
St. Denis | Ernest D. Tétreau[189]
Duvernay | Ludger Clément
St. Henry | O. Letourneau, M.D.
St. Cunegonde | N. Lapointe
Mount Royal | A.E. Prud’homme, N.P.
De Lorimier | George Mayrand, N.P.
Laurier | N. Turcot
Notre Dame de Graces | George Marcil
St. Paul | M. Judge
Ahuntsic | T. Bastien
Emard | J.U. Emard, K.C.
Longue Pointe | E. Larivière
Bordeaux | E. Lussier
Cote des Neiges | A.S. Deguire
Rosemount | J.N. Drummond *

* English-Speaking.

The consequent dispatch in city business, the improvement in public works, the strengthening of heads of departments in the city hall, hitherto hampered by aldermanic interference, and the abolition of patronage secured universal approbation of the new form of civic government. After awhile the spirit of opposition among a certain number of the aldermen began to jeopardize the early universal acceptance of the board of control system. Again the Citizens’ Association, with its backing, had to seek to strengthen the hands of the Board of Control. The following extracts from the Secretary of the Board of Trade’s annual report (Mr. George Hadrill) will indicate the new phase:

“In 1908, it being evident that the City Council, while comprising some good and capable men, was sadly misgoverning this city, your Council, with representatives of other organizations, endeavoured to secure such amendment of the City Charter as would provide for a reduction in the number of Aldermen and for the election of a Board of Commissioners. This effort resulted successfully in 1909, but unfortunately the amendments to the Charter submitted by the Citizens Committee were so changed in their passage through the Legislature that the Board of Commissioners did not possess the full powers it was intended to give them, and the result has been that, while the Commissioners have done much for the City, many of their plans for its advantage have been frustrated by the City Council and hence the hope for improvement in the condition of the City has been only partially realized. Your Council, therefore, in October last, joined with the following other organizations in an endeavour to secure such further amendments to the City Charter as would give the Board of Commissioners all executive powers, leaving with the City Council the general legislative powers and the making of by-laws: Montreal Trades and Labour Council, Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, La Chambre de Commerce, Montreal Citizens’ Association, Association Immobilière Montréal, Montreal Business Men’s League.

The substance of these amendments was as follows:

“That the Commissioners shall prepare the annual budget and the supplementary budget, and submit each to the City Council, which shall have the power to amend them by a two-thirds majority, or to reject them by a majority.

[190]

“That in the event of the budget not being adopted, amended or rejected within a certain period, it would be considered adopted.

“That once the budget is adopted, with or without amendment, the entire control of the expenditure, within the limits prescribed by the budget, would be left to the Board of Commissioners.

“That the Board of Commissioners shall have the appointment, suspension, dismissal and full control in all respects of all employees, including the heads of departments.

“That the initiative as to loans and franchises shall be with the Board of Commissioners, subject to approval by the City Council, who could amend or reject by a two-thirds majority.

“That the general legislative power and the making of by-laws shall be with the City Council, but the Board of Commissioners shall have all executive powers.

“That if any change in the composition of the City Council is decided upon, it would best be obtained by dividing the city into five wards (each to elect three aldermen), such division to be made equitably in proportion to population, assessed value and possible growth.

“Amendments to the City Charter Bill, based upon the foregoing, were presented to the Private Bills Committee at Quebec by the Citizens Association, the Board of Trade and other leading associations resulted in their adoption, with a slight change and thus the Board of Commissioners is now in possession of the powers necessary for the proper discharge of its duties.”

It is to be noted that, by a strange oversight of the framers of the amended charter, the following important clause in the original charter for the Board of Control was omitted: “To make all recommendations involving the expenditure of money. No recommendation involving the expenditure of money, and affecting in any manner whatever the finances of the city shall be adopted by the Council without it having been previously submitted to the Board of Commissioners and approved by them.” There was, however, added the power to conclude without tender, urgent purchase of materials not exceeding the value of $2,500.

The elections of 1912, in which the four controllers, who had completed their term of four years, did not compete, resulted in the election of Mr. L.A. Lavallée, K.C., as the next mayor. Among the new aldermen elected were several of those who had been scored in Judge Cannon’s report, so short-lived is a city’s remembrance. During the next two years the position of the Board of Control was further jeopardized by organized opposition from the part of the council, but the evident value of the system still retained the favour of the people.

In preparation for the campaign of 1914 the chief civic bodies of the city called together by the Citizens Association sought to diminish the number of the aldermen further by a redistribution of the city into five districts with three aldermen to each, with the object of the abolition of the small ward system as such. An amendment to the charter was prepared for five districts with three aldermen to each, and presented to the legislative committee of the Provincial Government at Quebec. Its delegation obtained a lukewarm reception as its opponents, within the Council, fearing to be reduced in number in the city hall, had forestalled the deputation by previous action. In addition it was thought that the redistribution demanded was premature. The “status quo” therefore remained, and at the municipal elections of 1914 the organized reaction against the Citizens Association[191] leading the reform party was very clearly marked in the results of the poll. An attempt was made to vilify the Citizens Association for its efforts to provide a harmonious “slate” representative of the different elements in the city; disorganization and want of cohesion reigned among those otherwise interested in good government, and the unwritten law which should have offered the mayoralty this year to an English-speaking citizen was broken.

This election was the most important of recent years, the positions of mayor, four controllers and thirty-two aldermen being vacant. The mayor elected was the Mr. Médéric Martin, the controllers being Mr. Joseph Ainey, E. Napoléon Hébert, Thomas Coté and Duncan McDonald. The personnel of the Council was likewise overwhelmingly French Canadian.

This Government is now under trial. Let us repeat the city’s motto “Concordia Salus.”

There are not wanting signs in forecast that the reduction of the number of wards will take place on the lines above indicated. Montreal civic students of this period, seeing the growth of the Greater Montreal, are groping towards some coherent system, which will eventually embrace the whole island while securing the local government of its various subdistricts or municipality. Another movement of the future connected with the foregoing will be a larger measure of Civic Home Rule, than is at present allowed by the Province of Quebec.

The system of the financial government of the city by the Board of Control is not, however, universally approved of, especially by the aldermen. The fault lies in the manner of election of the mayor, aldermen and the controllers, all being elected by the people on a Democratic basis of public favour; hence there is likelihood of temporary popularity rather than special professional ability being the criterion in the selection of controllers and the mayor, who is, by his office, chairman of their board.

There are, therefore, at present several theories under discussion which will influence a further change of the latest charter amendments.

Among these are the following:

(1) The appointment by the Provincial Legislature of a Board of Control. This militates against the upholders of Civic Home Rule and is a partial recurrence to the old system of Justices of the Peace, appointed by Government before the erection of the municipality.

(2) The removal of the Board of Control and the restitution of the standing committees as hitherto. This has not proved successful in the past.

(3) The aldermen to be elected by the city at large through five or six great divisions.

(4) The election of the councillors by the city at large with the establishment of a permanent “Board of Works” with at least a fair proportion of professional men, such as engineers, who shall be appointed by the people for a long term of usefulness so as to encourage the best men to devote a life service in the city’s employ.

(5) The mayor to be elected by the people but not to sit as chairman of the Board of Control. This Board to be elected only by the votes of the electors entered as “proprietors” on the voters list. Thus, with property qualifications for controllers added perhaps, a more judicious choice could be made. The election of alderman to be as before or by larger divisions.

Of these modifications the last compromise has more weight.

[192]

NOTE 1

MAYORS OF MONTREAL

Term. | Name. | Elected by.
1833-36 | Jacques Viger | The Council
(The interval was filled again by the Justices of the Peace.)
1840 | Hon. Peter McGill | Governor General
1841-42 | Hon. Peter McGill (2 terms) | The Council
1843-44 | Joseph Bourret (2 terms) | The Council
1845-46 | Hon. James Ferrier | The Council
1847 | John E. Mills (died in November, was replaced by Joseph Bourret) | The Council
1848 | Joseph Bourret | The Council
1849-50 | E.R. Fabre | The Council
1851-52-53 | Hon. Charles Wilson (3 terms) | The People
1854-55 | Wolfred Nelson | The People
1856-57 | Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) | The People
1858-59-60-61 | Hon. Charles S. Rodier (4 terms) | The People
1862-63-64-65 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) | The People
1866-67 | Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) | The People
1867-68-69 | William Workman (3 terms) | The People
1871-72 | Charles J. Coursol (2 terms) | The People
1873 | Francis Cassidy (died in June, 1873, being replaced by Aldis Bernard) | The People
1874 | Aldis Bernard | The People
1875-76 | Sir William Hingston (2 terms) | The People
1877-78 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (2 terms) | The People
1879-80 | Hon. Severe Rivard (2 terms) | The People
1881-82-83-84 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) | The People
1885-86 | H. Beaugrand (2 terms) | The People
1887-88 | Sir J.J.C. Abbott (2 terms) | The People
1889-90 | Jacques Grenier (2 terms) | The People
1891-92 | Hon. James McShane (2 terms) | The People
1893 | Alphonse Desjardins | The People
1894-95 | Hon. J.O. Villeneuve (2 terms) | The People
1896-97 | R. Wilson Smith (2 terms) | The People
1898-99-1900-01 * | Hon. Raymond Préfontaine (3 terms) | The People
1902-03 | James Cochrane | The People
1904-05 | H. Laporte | The People
1906-07 | H.A. Ekers | The People
1908-09 | L. Payette | The People
1910-11 | Hon. J.J. Guerin | The People
1912-13 | L.A. Lavallée | The People
1913-14 | Médéric Martin | The People

* By the new charter to begin with 1900 the term of mayor was now increased to two years.

[193]

NOTE II

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL, FROM 1880 TO 1912

| Assessment on real estate. | Water rate. | Business and personal tax.
Year | Current year | Arrears | Current year | Arrears | Current year | Arrears
1880 | $ 582,100.31 | $ 190,866.89 | $ 327,104.61 | $ 37,846.38 | $146,148.23 | $14,726.00
1881 | 612,255.49 | 239,469.45 | 364,797.47 | 33,640.71 | 145,957.06 | 13,690.77
1882 | 643,687.06 | 190,534.03 | 384,936.51 | 25,820.51 | 147,949.57 | 14,409.82
1883 | 676,613.03 | 187,408.78 | 395,768.74 | 27,301.43 | 150,578.69 | 15,941.73
1884 | 708,134.15 | 155,180.45 | 424,014.38 | 34,126.87 | 156,552.32 | 23,523.55
1885 | 748,507.00 | 142,092.33 | 412,660.04 | 27,739.88 | 164,872.65 | 27,181.73
1886 | 798,041.29 | 192,874.42 | 468,398.72 | 49,712.67 | 167,052.18 | 19,132.84
1887 | 842,852.25 | 109,218.52 | 502,408.72 | 35,657.91 | 175,320.72 | 26,255.86
1888 | 895,298.75 | 137,475.38 | 533,614.60 | 48,638.03 | 183,394.44 | 29,968.13
1889 | 936,528.54 | 139,897.14 | 578,312.19 | 56,617.51 | 188,181.97 | 31,547.90
1890 | 991,620.11 | 154,769.43 | 539,917.37 | 48,489.27 | 187,383.57 | 43,583.58
1891 | 1,027,719.09 | 174,498.63 | 610,401.75 | 115,879.28 | 188,398.82 | 44,661.04
1892 | 1,129,198.38 | 208,519.69 | 532,699.00 | 76,086.76 | 190,375.42 | 49,987.64
1893 | 1,238,494.32 | 218,969.31 | 559,666.06 | 80,509.28 | 204,052.81 | 51,332.26
1894 | 1,257,092.01 | 312,836.50 | 544,739.91 | 76,061.81 | 200,414.69 | 48,692.44
1895 | 1,270,846.41 | 307,656.66 | 524,930.94 | 81,914.08 | 194,972.07 | 55,850.02
1896 | 1,271,628.00 | 384,043.97 | 539,740.82 | 98,472.93 | 190,191.66 | 63,607.71
1897 | 1,290,911.32 | 386,608.08 | 546,515.51 | 101,250.89 | 202,234.84 | 66,407.16
1898 | 1,313,352.17 | 394,688.51 | 589,188.08 | 183,163.07 | 204,464.48 | 56,453.88
1899 | 1,277,513.19 | 388,715.13 | 596,851.18 | 119,868.04 | 205,471.49 | 63,398.28
1900 | 1,250,163.18 | 524,900.81 | 565,239.23 | 139,196.59 | 199.447.86 | 64,879.10
1901 | 1,304,407.26 | 580,162.53 | 663,767.73 | 140,590.76 | 233,329.61 | 71,463.20
1902 | 1,319,782.89 | 536,518.81 | 662,467.11 | 82,253.19 | 240,932.44 | 49,114.44
1903 | 1,386,212.56 | 564,227.48 | 706,285.49 | 93,339.97 | 275,618.26 | 57,703.28
1904 | 1,486,917.48 | 531,599.76 | 737,518.15 | 92,634.46 | 272,081.82 | 42,599.27
1905 | 1,672,867.93 | 613,298.99 | 792,649.33 | 110,868.30 | 310,909.06 | 46,218.33
1906 | 1,933,357.09 | 539,999.99 | 849,222.70 | 114,373.15 | 347,924.80 | 42,512.48
1907 | 1,979,426.63 | 721,218.19 | 885,686.24 | 131,719.63 | 364,117.27 | 48,306.12
1908 | 2,160,037.12 | 864,946.19 | 786,825.16 | 148,894.53 | 413,888.74 | 59,813.81
1909 | 2,542,513.68 | 962,555.19 | 860,925.60 | 113,733.26 | 473,248.26 | 64,269.42
1910 | 2,915,396.10 | 1,026,172.07 | 934,362.14 | 104,250.34 | 538,678.14 | 51,383.66
1911 | 3,344,172.04 | 1,328,208.87 | 1,037,436.56 | 114,608.06 | 619,855.08 | 58,105.94
1912 | 4,176,083.47 | 1,547,827.75 | 1,174,773.84 | 132,365.69 | 739,384.95 | 66,028.93

[194]

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL, FROM 1880 TO 1912 CONTINUED

Year | Markets | Licenses | Recorder’s Court | Miscellaneous | Interest | Yearly totals
1880 | $ 30,366.85 | $ 43,635.35 | $ 7,770.57 | $ 40,008.23 | $ 24,956.94 | $1,495,616.39
1881 | 77,709.42 | 45,001.32 | 12,665.03 | 35,824.04 | 35,706.65 | 1,617,117.41
1882 | 80,364.50 | 48,275.30 | 14,380.72 | 35,982.90 | 26,940.95 | 1,618,221.87
1883 | 81,777.71 | 50,968.15 | 11,130.62 | 42,307.44 | 30,474.54 | 1,670,270.91
1884 | 86,853.04 | 54,077.70 | 12,019.15 | 47,597.39 | 39,541.19 | 1,732,620.69
1885 | 85,242.01 | 60,006.80 | 11,547.08 | 41,179.60 | 24,991.31 | 1,746,020.43
1886 | 89,086.77 | 65,579.00 | 18,003.98 | 57,259.56 | 33,717.82 | 1,908,859.25
1887 | 89,279.69 | 70,264.82 | 25,053.06 | 39,491.95 | 32,589.57 | 1,948,393.07
1888 | 88,336.37 | 74,269.48 | 26,097.64 | 33,404.47 | 45,913.48 | 2,095,411.27
1889 | 83,308.64 | 76,475.15 | 22,883.41 | 41,081.31 | 67,263.63 | 2,222,097.39
1890 | 82,705.63 | 81,365.85 | 26,269.59 | 42,269.33 | 42,557.56 | 2,240,931.29
1891 | 85,533.93 | 81,370.00 | 23,445.91 | 53,196.77 | 34,971.51 | 2,440,076.73
1892 | 80,470.91 | 66,627.00 | 22,412.25 | 57,650.17 | 44,925.52 | 2,458,952.74
1893 | 80,686.81 | 66,654.25 | 16,314.49 | 94,004.66 | 40,471.31 | 2,651,155.56
1894 | 76,970.59 | 66,823.91 | 17,356.02 | 92,052.64 | 56,295.23 | 2,743,335.75
1895 | 78,697.98 | 72,755.23 | 14,506.19 | 98,740.43 | 56,790.92 | 2,757,660.93
1896 | 77,362.82 | 70,767.50 | 14,372.98 | 91,194.69 | 64,678.40 | 2,866,061.48
1897 | 77,599.25 | 79,555.25 | 17,341.68 | 99,197.85 | 54,303.55 | 2,921,925.38
1898 | 76,190.41 | 78,546.00 | 13,961.57 | 115,985.25 | 52,845.73 | 3,078,839.15
1899 | 74,419.99 | 101,009.80 | 20,569.05 | 105,263.48 | 51,649.09 | 3,004,728.72
1900 | 75,363.96 | 121,348.00 | 31,578.77 | 121,854.76 | 63,642.07 | 3,157,614.33
1901 | 86,190.48 | 132,064.77 | 26,957.69 | 124,309.24 | 69,992.61 | 3,433,235.88
1902 | 84,790.51 | 140,955.75 | 26,032.01 | 144,287.28 | 92,085.47 | 3,379,219.90
1903 | 90,384.42 | 151,957.00 | 25,827.64 | 144,721.60 | 58,150.26 | 3,554,428.96
1904 | 97,451.78 | 179,706.50 | 33,431.38 | 178,180.65 | 43,135.00 | 3,695,256.25
1905 | 100,761.59 | 204,688.75 | 43,186.37 | 208,713.78 | 45,399.61 | 4,149,562.04
1906 | 102,305.08 | 223,008.15 | 38,851.88 | 293,499.54 | 56,001.63 | 4,541,056.49
1907 | 108,801.41 | 244,618.07 | 38,927.38 | 306,511.29 | 68,943.86 | 4,898,276.09
1908 | 111,260.20 | 243,418.25 | 47,944.03 | 353,515.93 | 67,700.39 | 5,258,244.35
1909 | 112,555.26 | 261,789.00 | 37,352.83 | 361,658.19 | 107,393.45 | 5,897,994.14
1910 | 106,690.76 | 315,447.50 | 57,278.12 | 435,478.08 | 130,564.67 | 6,615,701.58
1911 | 109,407.42 | 371,252.50 | 68,100.61 | 445,024.90 | 160,661.26 | 7,656,833.24
1912 | 112,167.43 | 422,013.57 | 80,150.35 | 566,092.70 | 173,767.81 | 9,190,656.49

The annexation of the suburban municipalities, begun in 1883, has added partially to the revenue.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Before 1815 Commander Jacques Viger had introduced the beaver into a fancy coat of arms.

2 In 1844 the council which hitherto sat in a house belonging to Madame de Beaujeiu, situated between St. Francois Xavier and St. John streets on Notre Dame Street, and demolished in 1858 on the enlargement of the latter street, was moved to the Hayes Acqueduct House and sat below the reservoir. In 1852 it held its first sessions in the Bonsecours Market.

3 Mr. Henry Dalby, Herald Centennary number, 1913.

[195]

### CHAPTER XXI

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE UNDER THE UNION

FOREWORD—MARKED PROGRESS GENERAL—THE EMBRYONIC COSMOPOLIS—THE DEEPENING OF LAKE ST. PETER—FOUNDATION OF PHILANTHROPIES—LIVING CHEAP—THE MONTREAL DISPENSARY—RASCO’S HOTEL AND CHARLES DICKENS—PRIVATE THEATRICALS—MONTREAL AS SEEN BY “BOZ”—DOLLY’S AND THE GOSSIPS—THE MUNICIPAL ACT—ELECTION RIOTS—LITERARY AND UPLIFT MOVEMENTS—THE RAILWAY ERA COMMENCES—THE SHIP FEVER—A RUN ON THE SAVINGS’ BANK—THE REBELLION LOSSES BILL AND THE BURNING OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE—RELIGIOUS FANATICISM—GENERAL D’URBAN’S FUNERAL—A CHARITY BALL—THE GRAND TRUNK INCORPORATORS—EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENTS—THE “BLOOMERS” APPEAR—M’GILL UNIVERSITY REVIVAL—THE GREAT FIRE OF 1852—THE GAVAZZI RIOTS—PROGRESS IN 1853—THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854—THE PATRIOTIC FUND—THE ASIATIC CHOLERA—THE ATLANTIC SERVICE FROM MONTREAL—ADMIRAL BELVEZE’S VISIT—PARIS EXHIBITION PREPARATIONS—“S.S. MONTREAL” DISASTER—THE INDIAN MUTINY—THE FIRST OVERSEAS CONTINGENT—THE ATLANTIC CABLE CELEBRATED—A MAYOR OF THE PERIOD—THE RECEPTION OF ALBERT EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES—FORMAL OPENING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGE—THE GREAT BALL—“EDWARD THE PEACEMAKER”—THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR—MONTREAL FOR THE SOUTH—FEAR OF WAR—CITIZEN RECRUITING—THE MILITARY—OFFICERS OF THE PERIOD—PEACE—THE SOUTHERNERS—THE WAR SCARE THE BIRTH OF MODERN MILITIA SYSTEM—THE MILITARY FETED—CIVIC PROGRESS—FENIAN THREATS—D’ARCY McGEE—SHAKESPEARE CENTENARY—GERMAN IMMIGRANTS’ DISASTER—ST. ALBAN’S RAIDERS—RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES TO END—ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CITY COUNCIL—THE FIRST FENIAN RAID—MONTREAL ACTION—MILITARY ENTHUSIASM—THE DRILL HALL—A RETROSPECT AND AN APPRECIATION OF THE LATTER DAYS OF THE UNION.

“Annals and sidelights” best suits the title of this chapter, and as such are necessarily disjointed, the events recorded reflect a corresponding note. Therefore, origins and seeds are only indicated, of many movements which have since grown to great proportions. These latter, such as primary, secondary, technical, and university education, the public services of fire, water, lighting, health, law and order; the commencements of commercial and financial bodies; the growth of the municipal life, as such; the development and modernization of the harbour and of our public places; the progress of general city improvement; the development[196] of our transportation system by canal, river and roads by rail and by carriage; the charitable, the religious, the national, the literary, the intellectual and the artistic institutions of the city, etc., are left for special historical treatment in the second part of this volume.

In this place the general social aspect of the life of the city is chronologically treated, with partial reference at times to the above as they make their first bow to the public under the Union. A similar foreword might preface a subsequent chapter of annals of social life under the Confederation.

The picture presented by Montreal at the beginning of the Union was one of hopeful promise. The bill, when understood, was acceptable to most, and it soon became seen, that with responsible government,—though a daring experiment,—in working order, peace and prosperity would be assured. The re-birth of municipal life insured by the new charter was also gratifying. The mayor and corporation and the institution of the recorder’s court gave a dignity soothing to civic “amour propre.” City development in municipal functions, in the public services and physical embellishments, began to be marked. Trade began to raise its head, for Montreal was becoming recognized as the commercial metropolis of Canada. The meeting of April 6, 1841, to organize the new board of trade, was a significant fact of the period of progress now anticipated. The improvement in the harbour facilities, of the water transportation system, and the advent of the railway era soon to be celebrated, also marked the beginning of a new period of progress.

The city, too, was coming to be recognized as an embryonic cosmopolis. It was already beginning to have a mixed population. Sir Richard Bonnycastle, who visited Montreal in the year before the Union, has described this in “The Canadas in 1841” (Volume I, pp. 76-77). “In this city, one is amused by seeing the never changing lineaments of the long queue, the bonnet rouge and the incessant garrulity of Jean Baptiste, mingling with the sober demeanour, the equally unchanging feature and the national plaid of the Highlander, while the untutored sons of labour, from the green isle of the ocean, are here as thoughtless, as ragged and as numerous as at Quebec. Amongst all these the shrewd and calculating citizen from the neighbouring republic drives his hard bargain with all his wonted zeal and industry, amid the fumes of Jamaica and gin sling. These remarks apply to the streets only. In the counting houses, although the races remain the same, the advantages of situation and of education make the same differences as in other countries. I cannot, however, help thinking that the descendant of the Gaul has not gained by being transplanted; and the vastly absurd notions which a few turbulent spirits have of late engendered and endeavoured to instil into the unsophisticated and naturally good mind of the Canadian, tilling the soil, have tended to restrict the exercise of that inborn urbanity and suavity which are the Frenchman’s proudest boast after those of ‘l’amour et la gloire.’”

At the beginning of this period great ideas are reflected in the newspapers, such as the Herald and the Times.

The deepening of Lake St. Peter was a burning theme at the time; and there is abundant editorial comment in the connection.

“The governor-general has sanctioned the immediate deepening of Lake St. Peter,” says the editor;[197] “but it appears that there was great difficulty in getting the proper dredging machines manufactured.”

“We have other resources at our command,” exclaimed the editor; “and the manufacturers of New York or Great Britain would gladly accept orders to any extent. The aid of steam, all powerful steam, must be invoked. We have no hesitation in saying that the expenditure of £100,000, if that sum would suffice to deepen Lake St. Peter, would be submitted to with perfect prudence.

“Few will be dogmatical enough to deny that when the navigation is free, ships descending the river may avoid the use of steam tugs; and if we calculate the saving thus effected upon 200 vessels annually at £30 each, the amount thus realized would suffice to pay the interest on a loan at 6 per cent.

“A brisk, fair, and continuous breeze would ensure the speedy, safe and cheap progress of ships up the St. Lawrence, and augment the extent of our commercial marine.”

Referring, in another part of the paper, to the actual commencement of the work of deepening Lake St. Peter, which only gave eleven feet of water, the Times says:

“Improvements thus disseminating the germs of future wealth and prosperity command the applause of every colonist. The spirit of patriotism must be dormant, indeed, in the breasts of those who would thwart the efforts of a governor, who has thus identified himself with the system of internal navigation.

“The repose of the colony has been too long disturbed by those theoretical revolutions which sprang from the fluctuating councils of the late Viceroy. A healthier tone of feeling has been produced; and the practical labours of Sir Charles Bagot bid fair to soothe the asperities of political warfare. Under his auspices the deepening of Lake St. Peter has been commenced and ere his departure, we trust the undertaking will be brought to maturity.”

Since then something in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 have been spent between the work of deepening and lighting and buoying the channel, and the extension and improvement of the port of Montreal.

The editors of these days had to burn the midnight oil or tallow candle, for then gas was not general. As for matches, the old tinder chips dipped in sulphur ind ignited by use of the flint still prevailed. The rich used wax candles or lamps, but the poor made their own “dips,” or for the nonce, even small improvised lamps out of spoons filled with oil. Tallow candle moulds were the prized possession of many poor houses before the manufactured candles became cheap on the market. When coal oil came, it was looked on as a miracle.

The town was inadequately provided with water works, as it was not till 1845 that the municipality took over the old-fashioned plant in Montreal, and the old puncheons, driven by horses still went from door to door distributing the water taken from the river.

Place d’Armes was still a poor straggling square, though it was faced by the handsome new Notre Dame Church, opened in 1829. At this time there still stood the bell tower of the old Parish Church, standing solitary like a lighthouse till 1843. Crossing the square the genteel folk, the wives of doctors, lawyers, and merchants, would come from their residences on St. James and Craig streets to the Bonsecours Market, not ashamed to carry their baskets. There the “habitants” from the country could be seen dressed in blue or gray homespun cloth suits, with their picturesque, heavy knitted sashes and wearing the tuque and moccasins in winter.

For as yet, the city was in truth of small size. A four-paged, demi-zinc copy of the Times and Commercial Advertiser, the first daily to be printed in Montreal,[198] of the issue of March 3, 1842, gives a glimpse of this. An advertisement announces that a three-storey stone house at the head of Coté Street, “enjoys a commanding situation in a most quiet and healthy part of Montreal and which nevertheless is within five minutes walk of the business part of the city.” Splendid dwelling houses are for rent on Great St. James Street suitable for genteel families.

Yet life was intense and earnest and the bases of many of the present educational, philanthropic and artistic associations were being laid. This same number of the Times mentions that the

“The Montreal Provident and Savings Bank, which has just been projected, under the patronage of the governor-general, and which is to receive deposits of from one shilling and upwards, is a patriotic institution, as the directors and all concerned have only the advantage of the entire community at heart, receiving nothing for their services, and desiring, chiefly, to extend, by this means, the basis of social order and morality, and religion. For these reasons the directors respectfully entreat the ministers of religion, masters employing numerous bodies of workmen, and all having influence, to exert the same; and by the sanction of their names, and the moral weight of their advice, to induce the numerous classes, for whose use it is chiefly intended, to avail themselves of the benefits which the institution holds out for their acceptance.”

Living was cheap and quite a good deal could be bought with but a little money. Money, however, was scarce and wages were small. Twenty-five cents would buy a pair of chickens, 15 cents a pound of butter, 10 cents a dozen eggs and 5 cents a pound of beef. A man would work for 50 cents a day and walk many miles to his job. A mechanic who got $1, earned good wages. Clothing was expensive, and consequently simplicity ruled. Yet furs were cheap in comparison with the present date. Ladies would wear very large muffs, capable of holding in their mysterious interiors a week’s supply of groceries. Long boas were worn twice wound around the neck, and reaching to the toes. The dresses of the middle class of women and girls were for the most part print, with thick homespun for winter wear. Boys would go to the few schools in the town in “moleskins” as woolen was expensive. They would often come home on a rainy afternoon with their moleskin trousers shrunk up to their knees.

The houses of the ordinary working class were built for the most part of wood and consisted of one storey and a garret. Rents ran from about two dollars to four dollars a month.

In 1843 a dispensary which is still flourishing today was started and came as a great supplementary aid to the hospitals of the city. This was the Montreal Dispensary with which so many of our best citizens have been connected.

The memory of Rasco’s suggests that of the famous “Dolly,” J.H. Isaacson, who came out from England as a waiter here in 1838, but afterwards started for himself in a restaurant on St. François Xavier Street overlooking the Garden of the Seminary. He later moved to St. James Street, close to St. Lawrence Hall, a famous hostelry of this period, built in 1851, on the site where the Royal Bank now stands. His chop house became famous as “Dolly’s” from the original “Dolly’s” in London. Dolly, a little typical old John Bull of a Boniface, with[199] shining face beaming benevolence, with a ready fund of repartee and trenchant criticism, and resplendent in velvet coat, knee breeches and irreproachable calves, white silk stockings and silver buckles on his shoes, was in great favour with the military.

The social life of the period found one of its highest points of reflex in Rasco’s Hotel, on Bonsecours Street, which still stands, though with diminished glory. But when it was opened on May 1, 1836, it was, during the Union, the resort of the fine people of the time. It had the politicians gathered together during the rebellion of 1837 and it was for long the home for banquets. It expressed the social life of the time. The garrison officers knew it well. Distinguished strangers put up there as did Charles Dickens, who arrived from Niagara Falls in the spring of 1842. As private theatricals were then the rage, and were greatly promoted by the officers to while away the time, the histrionic ability of the great novelist was called into requisition at the first Theatre Royal, standing nearly opposite until it was pulled down to make room for the Bonsecours Market.

In one of the author’s letters from Montreal quoted in Forster’s “Life of Charles Dickens,” he says: “The theatricals, I think I told you I had been invited to play with the officers of the Coldstream Guards here, are ‘A Roland for an Oliver,’ ‘Two O’Clock in the Morning,’ and either ‘The Young Widow,’ or ‘Deaf as a Post,’ Ladies (unprofessional) are going to play for the first time.”

His last letter, dated from Rasco’s Hotel, Montreal, Canada, 26th of May, 1842, described the private theatricals and inclosed a bill of the play:

“The play came off last night, the audience, between five and six hundred strong, were invited as to a party, a regular table with refreshments being spread in the lobby and saloon. We had the band of the 23d (one of the finest in the service) in the orchestra; the theatre was lighted with gas, the scenery was excellent and the properties were all brought from the private houses. Sir Charles Bagot, Sir Richard Jackson and their staffs were present, and as the military portion of the audience were all in uniform it was really a splendid scene.

“I really believe I was really funny; at least, I know that I laughed heartily myself and made the part a character such as you and I know very well—a mixture of F. Harley Yates, Keeley and ‘Jerry Sneak.’ It went with a vim all the way through; and as I am closing, they have told me that I was so well made up that Sir Charles Bagot, who sat in the stage box, had no idea who played ‘Mr. Snobbington’ until the piece was over. * * *

“All the ladies were capital and we had no wait or hitch for an instant. You may suppose this when I tell you that we began at eight and had the curtain down at eleven. * * * It is their custom here to prevent heart-burnings, in a very heart-burning town, whenever they have played in private, to repeat the performance in public, so on Saturday (substituting, of course, real actresses for the ladies) we repeat the two first pieces to a paying audience, for the manager’s benefit. * * * I send you a bill to which I have appended a key.”

The programme was as follows:

[200]

PRIVATE THEATRICALS.

Committee

Mrs. Torrens | W.E. Ermatinger, Esq.
Mrs. Berry | Capt. Torrens
The Earl of Mulgrave.
Stage Manager | Charles Dickens
Queen’s Theatre, Montreal,
Wednesday Evening, May 25, 1842.
Will Be Performed

A ROLAND FOR AN OLIVER.

Mrs. Selborne | Mrs. Torrens
Maria Darlington | Miss Griffin
Mrs. Fixture | Miss Ermatinger
Mr. Selborne | Lord Mulgrave
Alfred Highflyer | Mr. Charles Dickens
Sir Mark Chase | Hon. Mr. Methuen
Fixture | Captain Willoughby
Gamekeeper | Captain Granville
After the Interlude, in one scene, (from the French) called

PAST TWO O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING

The Stranger | Captain Granville
Mr. Snobbington | Mr. Charles Dickens

To conclude with the farce, in one act, entitled

DEAF AS A POST.

Mrs. Plumpley | Mrs. Torrens
Amy Templeton | Mrs. Charles Dickens
Sophy Walton | Mrs. Perry
Sally Maggs | Miss Griffin
Captain Templeton | Captain Torrens
Mr. Walton | Captain Willoughby
Tristram Sappy | Doctor Griffin
Crupper | Lord Mulgrave
Gallop | Mr. Charles Dickens
| Montreal, May 24, 1842.
| Gazette Office.

RASCO’S HOTEL OPENED IN 1836, ST. PAUL STREET

The leading hotel in the ’30s, standing on site of former palace of Gov. Gen. Vaudreuil. This building, with original name on it, can be seen today although changed on lower floors.

THEATRE ROYAL, AT EASTERN EXTREMITY OF ST. PAUL STREET

Built by subscription in 1825, afterwards owned by Mr. John Molson.

PROGRAMME OF DICKENS’ PLAYS GIVEN AT THEATRE ROYAL DURING THE AUTHOR’S VISIT.

CHARLES DICKENS

[201]

Dickens visited the Bonsecours Church hard by, and met the leading citizens in the News Room on St. Sulpice Street, and cantered with the officers over the mountain or rode out to Lachine and the Back River. “All the rides in the vicinity,” he says in his American Notes, “were made doubly interesting by the bursting out of spring which is here so rapid that it is but a day’s leap from barren winter to the blooming youth of summer.” In the same recollections he refers to the quiet manners of the Canadian people, their self-respect, their hospitality in Montreal and the unassuming manners of their life. He notes the modernizing spirit even of that day. “There is a very large cathedral here, recently erected with two small spires, of which one is as yet unfinished. In the open space in front of this edifice stands a solitary, grim-looking square brick tower which has a quaint and remarkable appearance and which the wiseacres of this place have consequently determined to pull down immediately.” This the vandals did in 1843.

Walking along the quays he admired “the granite quays” which are remarkable for their beauty, solidity and extent. Referring to his walk here and his interest in the immigrants, he says: “In the spring time of the year vast numbers of emigrants who have newly arrived from England or from Ireland pass between Quebec and Montreal on their way to the back woods and new settlements of Canada. If it be an entertaining lounge, as I have found it, to take a morning stroll upon the quays of Montreal and see the groups in hundreds on the public wharfs about their chests and boxes, it is matter of deep interest to be their fellow passenger on one of these steamboats and, mingling with the concourse, see and hear them unobserved.”

Then follows a characteristic digression of the Master’s sympathetic pleading for the poor.

At the above meeting places the events of the day would have been discussed by the gossips, such as the marriage of Queen Victoria on February 10, 1840, the shooting at of the young Queen Victoria and Prince Albert on June 10, 1841, Her Majesty’s coronation of June 28th, the birth of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, on November 9th, and the progress of preparations for the union proclaimed on February 10th in Montreal by Lord Sydenham. Municipal politics would have become an absorbing topic of conversation on January 1, 1842, when the municipal act went into force. On March 11th when the Montreal Board of Trade was incorporated, and on July 9th when the Shamrock was lost in the St. Lawrence, with its many immigrants there was plenty to discuss. Montreal, in 1843, talked of the birth of Princess Alice on April 25th, the visit to Montreal of the new governor general, Lord Metcalfe, on June 12th, while the “Nolle Sequi” against Wolfred Nelson, Dr. E.B. O’Callaghan and T.S. Brown renewed the painful memories of the revolt of 1837. This year the scientists and educationalists rejoiced at the Museum of Geological Survey then opened in the city. And again when, in 1844, the Mercantile Library Association purchased the Montreal Library and the Institut Canadien was formed.

Great interest prevailed in political circles when the seat of government was removed to Montreal on March 5th of this year, and the House met on July 1st.

On November 12th, such an election was held that many of the oldest inhabitants remember it still. It was the days of open voting and sometimes lasted for weeks. Axe handles were used, heads were broken, the “claret” flowed, and[202] the opposing parties used to keep men drunk in the taverns so that the other side could not get their men to the polls. Such scenes were long repeated, notably in the “Barney” Devlin and D’Arcy McGee election contests. The fight on this occasion was between Drummond and Molson. Drummond was Irish and it was recalled that he had been the defending lawyer for the rebels in 1837. The French-Canadians, therefore, rallied to his support and Molson was beaten. Parliament met on November 28th.

On March 27, 1845, Parliament was prorogued and on July 1st the new governor, Lord Cathcart, arrived. This year various educational movements were furthered. Bishop’s College, Lennoxville, was opened and the Mechanics’ Institute, so long in existence as an educational force, was incorporated. In December, John Dougall issued his specimen Witness and the first weekly Witness was published on January 5, 1846. Meanwhile the commission appointed in 1845 to investigate the rebellion losses indemnities was sitting and on April 18, 1846, it presented its report that the sum of £100,000 would be sufficient to pay all real losses. Already bitter feeling was being aroused among the English on this point. But the railway era, then commencing, diverted some attention from their grievances. In June, James Ferrier and others sought a charter for a railway from Kingston to Prescott and John A. Macdonald, then beginning his parliamentary career, and others, sought one from Montreal to Kingston, John Molson and others demanding one from St. Johns to the international boundary. On August 10th, on the Champ de Mars, a gathering of 2,000 Montrealers resolved to have a railway to the sea. Men were seeing visions and the Hon. John Young wrote this year to the Economist, advocating a bridge across the St. Lawrence. His dream was to come true.

The year 1847 saw the line from Montreal to Lachine opened. Otherwise the year was one of disaster—that of the ship fever. In this year 100,000 emigrants, mostly from Ireland, escaping the scourge of typhus fever and famine, came to Canada, but being exposed to ship fever nearly 10,000 became its victims; hundreds and hundreds died. The quarantine station of Grosse Isle was the most pestilential spot in the country. Every ship that could be chartered, good, bad and indifferent, was engaged in transporting emigrants. They were all slow-going vessels. Through want of sufficient room, neglect of ventilation, need of eatable food and cleanliness, the worst form of typhus soon appeared. “On the 8th day of May,” says Maguire’s “Irish in America,” “on the arrival of the ‘Urania’ from Cork, with several hundred immigrants on board, a large proportion of them sick and dying of the ship fever, it was put into quarantine at Grosse Isle, thirty miles below Quebec. This was the first of the plague-smitten ships from Ireland which that year sailed up the St. Lawrence. But before the first week of June as many as eighty-four ships of various tonnage were driven in by easterly gales. Of all the vessels there was not one free from the taint of malignant typhus, the offspring of famine and of the foul ship-hold.”

Montreal suffered terribly, also. There the Government caused to be erected three sheds of provisory hospitals from 100 to 150 feet in length and from 40 to 50 feet in width on the river banks at Point St. Charles. Soon eleven sheds had to be erected to receive the sick. In June, the city was in consternation and many fled to the country. But there were many who did noble service. The governor general, Lord Elgin, who had made his first coming to Montreal on January 29th,[203] visited the sheds; the mayor, John E. Mills, also made frequent visits and in November his assiduous devotion brought him low in death, a martyr to civic duty. The clergy, the doctors and the women of the city, Catholic and Protestants, were heroic in their services. The priests hurried down to the sick who were mostly Catholics, but only a few, two Sulpicians and a Jesuit, du Ranquet, could speak English adequately. In this extremity the rector of the Jesuits, who had returned to the city since 1842, sent to Fordham University, and two priests, Fathers du Merle and Michael Driscoll, were sent to assist Father du Ranquet, who was the first of the Montreal priests on the ground. This devoted man found the sick or dead lying in rows stretched on the bare ground, and there he ministered till 3 o’clock in the morning.

Conditions were soon improved by the municipal authorities. Wooden bunks were built to hold two patients; there were no mattresses but only straw strewn under them. Oftentimes the living lay side by side with the dead. To add to the horror, the letters of this period tell us that “after a few weeks’ service these wooden structures contained colonies of bugs in every cranny; the wool, the cotton, the wood were black with them. Double the number of nurses and servants would not have sufficed to keep this monstrous hospital clean.”

Things were better when the tents to be given to those who, unable to find shelter in the sheds, were placed on the banks of the St. Lawrence with a blanket over them, under the trees. Fortunately it was summertime.

Bishop Bourget called upon the nuns to act as nurses. The Providence Sisters were the first approached, on June 24th. Each one answered simply, “I am ready.” Next morning twelve of these brave women were driven in carriages to the sheds. There they found hundreds of the sick crouched upon straw, wrestling in the agony of death; little children weeping in the arms of their dead mothers; women, themselves stricken, seeking for a beloved husband, amid a doleful chaos of suffering and evil odours. Other nuns were called out; even the enclosed Sisters of the Hôtel Dieu were allowed to leave their cloisters for the sad work of tending the dying and burying the dead in their hastily constructed, rude coffins of planks. Fifty or sixty died each day and their bodies, awaiting burial, were placed in an immense charnel house erected on the river banks. In this were some that were buried alive. Many of the orphans were adopted in the city or cared for by the nuns. For this the Irish population of Montreal love the city with a personal love.

Not only did the mayor die, but numerous others, physicians, clergy and nurses, and the police officers of the city.

The events of 1848 include the flooding, on January 15th, of Wellington and Commissioners streets, and the run on the Savings Bank of the city on July 15th, which was shortly followed by a re-deposit. Educationalists will note the opening of the Jesuits’ College on September 20th in the improvised school at the corner of Alexander and Dorchester streets.

The year 1849 was one of political turmoil already recorded, centering around the rebellion losses bill and resulting in the burning of the Parliament house and the removal of the seat of government from the city, a loss to its social life.

An aspect of the burning of the Parliament house was that, with the political rancour there was mixed, in certain misguided quarters, a fanatical religious frenzy. It was planned to burn the “Grey Nuns,” near at hand, as well as the[204] Jesuits’ residence and St. Patrick’s Church. The menaces came to nothing, owing to the guards of Irish watchers. Yet at the time, according to a letter written from Montreal in August, 1849, by the Jesuit Father Havequez to a friend in France, the Grey Nuns hard by were likely to become a prey to the fire “had not the brave Irish run to the rescue and succeeded, after extraordinary efforts, in mastering the flames.”

The imposing public ceremony this year was the funeral, in the military cemetery on Papineau Road, of Sir Benjamin D’Urban, from whom Durban, in South Africa, bears its name, the charger of the deceased soldier being led through the streets in the procession by the groom, carrying the reversed boots of this companion of Wellington. It was long a remembered incident.

The next year, 1850, saw the first meeting of the Mount Royal Cemetery Company for the burial of non-Catholics and the consecration of the Rev. Francis Fulford in Westminster Abbey as the first Bishop of Montreal, both signs of the growth of the English-speaking population.

This year there was a great charity ball and it is interesting to note that among the subscribers to this ball were the Earl and Countess of Errol; Sir George and Lady Simpson (who lived at Lachine in a big stone mansion, standing on the present site of the Lachine Convent); the Chief Justice and Madame Rolland, Sir James and Lady Alexander, Colonel and Mrs. Dyley, Honorable Mr. and Mrs. Moffatt, Honorable Mr. Justice and Madame Mondelet, Honorable Mr. and Mrs. Drummond, Madame Rochblave, Mr. and Mrs. John Molson, the Commissary General and Mrs. Filder, Honorable Mr. and Madame Rolland, Mr. and Madame de Beaujeau, Honorable Mr. Justice and Mrs. Smith, Mr. Sheriff and Mrs. Coffin, Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvy Moffatt, Captain and Mrs. Claremont, Major and Mrs. MacDougall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Howard Dalrymple, Honorable McCall, Major Chester, Major Colley, Mr. and Mrs. Collingwood, Mr. Arthur Mondelet, Mr. Arthur Lamothe and many others.

The band of the Nineteenth Regiment also attended by kind permission of Lieutenant-Colonel Hay.

The Grand Trunk was formed in 1851. The name of the incorporators which follow are also those of familiar families in the city of today: Thomas Allan Stayber, William Collins Meredith, Sir George Simpson, William Macdonald, David Davidson, J.G. McTavish, N. Finlayson, John Rawand, Edward B. Wilgress, John Boston, Theodore Hart, T. McCullough, John Matthewson, John M. Tobin, E.H. Mount, Wilkinson John Torrance, Isaac Gibb, Donald P. Ross, Robert Morris, James Henderson, Aaron H. David, John Ostell, J.H. Birss, William Lunn, Dougall Stewart, C. Wilgress, William Molson, W.S. McFarlane, A. Dow, John Lavanston, Peter McKenzie, D. McKenzie, John McKenzie, Hector McKenzie, William Foster Coffin, Hon. James Ferrier, William Molson, George Crawford, Duncan Finlayson, John Silveright, John Ballenden, Allen Macdonnell, Samuel Gall, Benjamin Hart, John Carter, Andrew Cowan, Walter Benny, John H. Evans, James H. Lamb, W. Watson, Charles H. Castle, J.B. McKenzie, James Crawford, W. Murray, M. McCullough, M.E. David, J.F. Dickson, John Leeming, Jesse Joseph, D.L. Macpherson, James Cormac, Archibald Hall, Hugh Taylor, Colin Campbell, John Simpson, Thomas Taylor, E.M. Hopkins, John Miles, Charles Geddes, John Macdonald, E.T. Renaud, J.D. Watson, and William Cunningham.

[205]

Educational movement also began to gain strength in 1851. The College Ste. Marie on Bleury Street the Young Men’s Christian Association and the new Theatre Royal were opened, while this year the first external signs of the modern movement for woman’s emancipation was strikingly illustrated in July in the streets of Montreal by the appearance for the first time of the “bloomer costume,” made famous at the time by the cartoons of Punch.

Times of commercial prosperity seemed now promised.

The next year, 1852, McGill received its new lease of life, obtaining its new charter, and from this date its success was assured.

The great fire of 1852 started on July 8th; it is said to have burnt 11,000 houses, while thousands were rendered homeless. Money, however, was not scarce, for this year in December £5,000 was raised by merchants for a Merchants’ Exchange. Another financial sidelight is that in October of this year the Bank of Montreal issued its first notes like those of the Bank of England, the denominations being water-marked.

The Gavazzi riot, already described, with the investigations into its cause, was the social excitement for the year 1853, as well as the preparations for the Atlantic service between Montreal and England, secured by the first charter of May 23d.

On July 22d Pier No. 1 of the Victoria Bridge was begun, and on August 24th Lake St. Peter was deepened four feet, two inches. On July 20th of the next year, 1854, the first stone of the Victoria Bridge was laid and on August 2d the first cofferdam was ready for masonry. On October 11th the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway was opened from Longueuil to Richmond. These facts illustrate the early movement of the era of progress by land and water, then beginning.

Among other events of this year it was announced that accounts could be kept from September 1st to the end of the year, either in pounds, shillings, or pence, or in dollars and cents, the decimal currency being expected to be generally in use by January 1st following. Money order offices were first opened on December 1st; reciprocity was established between Canada and the United States; the seigneurial tenure was abolished and the secularization of clergy reserves was brought about.

The year 1854 was memorable as that of the Crimean War, when the English and French were allied against the Russians. In 1914 all three are allied against a common foe. The social life was invaded by the spirit of patriotism. An appropriation of £20,000 sterling was made by the Canadian Government “in favour of the widows and orphans of England and France.” It was the gift of the people of both French and English descent and the Emperor of the French, in acknowledging the gift, commented on the union of races it implied. A patriotic fund was organized in Montreal by concerts and other forms of charity as in 1914.

The year 1854 is also sadly memorable by the Asiatic cholera which carried off 1,186 persons.

After the commercial depression of 1854, due to the Crimean War, the spring of 1855 saw brighter prosperity.

The annals of this year record as signs of general progress the first issue, in February, of money orders in Canada, the coming into force of the reciprocity act with the United States, the establishment by the H. & A. Allan Company of[206] the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company with four steamers fortnightly, the completion of the general postoffice, the new building of the Mechanics’ Institute, the incorporation of Molson’s bank, and the opening of a new industry through the completion of Redpath’s sugar refinery.

In March the Industrial Exhibition, promoted to select articles to be sent to the coming Paris Exhibition was formally opened by the governor general, Sir Edmund Head, who made his first visit to Montreal on this occasion.

On July 27th the first French ship to sail the St. Lawrence since the conquest reached Montreal under Commander de Belvèze. The object was to obtain information to extend the commercial relations between Canada and France. The occasion, coming so soon after the fall of Sebastopol, was one of great public demonstration, illuminations and torchlight processions, the like of which the city had never yet beheld. The arrival of Admiral Belvèze’s warship, with dinners and receptions, especially among the French citizens, also made 1855 a memorable social year.

In 1856 Montreal was filled with preparations for the great Paris Exhibition and Alfred Perry was voted £500 to represent Montreal. It is remembered that at this exhibition he had a fire fighting invention on show which was lucky enough to be in readiness to stop a conflagration in the exhibition, a fact largely noticed in the continental papers and illustrated journals. A balloon ascension on September 16th in Griffintown, in the “Canada,” is seriously chronicled by the annalists as a striking novelty of the year.

On June 11, 1856, thirty-five lives were lost in the Grand Trunk ferry boat to Longueuil by the explosion of the boiler, through the carelessness of the engineer. The burning of the steamer Montreal off Quebec on June 27, 1857, which was carrying to Montreal about five hundred emigrants who had just arrived from the John McKenzie, caused great excitement in the city and was the occasion of much hospitality. As the immigrants it carried were mostly Scotch, the activities of St. Andrew’s National Society were largely engaged.

On June 18, 1856, the Thirty-ninth Regiment which had fought in the Crimea reached Montreal transported by the John Munn and Quebec. A civic dinner closed the day in the City Concert Hall with covers laid for 1,200 guests.

The 12th and 13th of November saw the city again en fète to celebrate the opening of the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal, which terminated on the 12th in a banquet at Point St. Charles with 4,000 present. The evening of the 13th closed with a promenade through the brilliantly illuminated city with the roar of cannon at intervals and a great ball.

On November 5th a violent hurricane swept over Montreal and on December 10th Christ Church Cathedral was burnt down.

This year the additions and new works of Montreal waterworks were being made ready for use.

The cause of science received a great impetus in the city by the convention which started on Wednesday, August 12, 1857, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was continued for a week, during which the University of McGill, the Natural History Society and other learned organizations entertained their distinguished guests. In September of the same year the Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition was successfully held.

[207]

On September 7th 500 of the Thirty-ninth Regiment left Montreal for active service, for this was the year of the Indian mutiny.

Educational circles remember the year of the meeting in Montreal of the American Association for the Advancement of Learning and as the opening of the Jacques Cartier and the McGill Normal schools for teachers. This was practically the earliest converging point of the two boards of school commissioners in the building up of their educational system.

January 1, 1858, marks the supplanting of the L.S.D. system by the decimal coinage; January 5th, the purchase of the Montreal and Bytown (Ottawa) Railway for £5,300 by Mr. (afterward Sir John) J.J.C. Abbott.

On February 26th, Griffintown was flooded and beds stood three feet in water, being one of the annual spring floods.

The martial enthusiasm of the citizens was evoked in the city in the early part of 1858 by the Indian mutiny, when the Imperial Government accepted the offer of a regiment to be raised in Canada for service abroad under the title of the “One Hundredth Prince of Wales Royal Canadian Regiment.” The recruiting sergeant, with his flying ribbons, fife and drum band and his cry of “Come, boys, and join the war,” was a novelty then. Montreal contributed for the first overseas contingent 110 young men, who drilled with the detachment of 500 men on St. Helen’s Island previous to being embarked for England in July following. This was the first contingent raised for the front, but it did not get as far as India, doing duty at Malta and Gibraltar. None the less, as the old ballad says, “Their will was good to do the deed, that is if they’d have let ’em, with a ‘Re fol de roy, etc.’”

On September 1st the laying of the first Atlantic telegraph cable was celebrated in the city by trades, military and torchlight processions, the latter being two miles long on the average of six abreast. A bonfire on the mountain signalized this occasion.

Next year, 1859, the Prince of Wales presented the One Hundredth Regiment with its colours at Shorncliffe.

On December 12th, the Victoria Bridge was at last opened and on the 17th the first passenger train went through. It was called the “Victoria” after the revered Queen of that name and it was hoped to have had Her Majesty formally open it.

Before leaving the construction works the men engaged placed the great boulder over the resting place of the many victims of the ship fever of 1847. The words of a Montreal lady, Mrs. Leprohon, commemorate the event thus:

“Long since forgotten, here they rest,
Sons of a distant shore
The epoch of their short career
These footprints on life’s sand,
But this stone will tell through many a year
They died on our shores and slumber here.”

This year Mr. Charles S. Rodier was mayor. A picture worth preserving has lately been given of the city hall life of that time. The city was then very small and the questions were comparatively parochial and the revenue was negligible in comparison with today’s, yet the meetings were very important and very dignified[208] and probably more eloquence flowed than now. The English were then predominant and Mr. Rodden was the leader of the council. The mayor, Mr. Rodier, was, as a contemporary has recently described him, “a man of much eccentricity, but a man also of education and ability. He was what you might call an aesthete—well groomed, neat, and polished, to the finger nails; always with his frock coat and silk hat; always ready to make a sweeping bow; always on the watch to assist a lady from her carriage—a lady who might be shopping on Notre Dame Street, which was the great retail street of the city in my young days. It didn’t matter that His Worship was not always acquainted with the ladies; he was naturally a gallant and, anyway, there was less formality in those days than now.”

As he was the first mayor to receive royalty this description will serve as an introduction. Mr. Rodier’s home was at the corner of Guy and St. Antoine streets and was afterward purchased by the Dominion Immigration Agency for its offices.

The next great social event was the reception of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII, the Peacemaker, and the preparation of the exhibition which was to be opened by him, both in connection with the formal opening of the great Victoria Bridge, marking the era of railways now prevailing.

In preparation for this event the Board of Arts and Manufactures, in March, 1860, decided upon and took immediate steps for the erection of a Crystal Palace for a permanent exhibition on land purchased by them on Peel Street, above St. Catherine Street. On Tuesday, May 22d, a public meeting was held to form the “reception committee fund.” A programme of festivities and functions was drawn up in June. Triumphal arches and illuminations were prepared, the house of the Hon. John Rose, afterward owned by the Ogilvie family, was decorated for the stay of the young prince therein and on Friday, August 24th, the royal visitor, described as a Prince of Romance, under the escort of the austere Duke of Newcastle, arrived by river from Quebec in a perfect deluge of rain. But he did not land till next day and all went well. The mayor, Mr. Rodier, the council, magistrates, the clergy, the heads of national and other societies with regalia, received him under a superb pavilion. Then followed the great procession, headed by the Caughnawaga Indians in full native costume. The scene was wild, with church bells ringing and the shouting of enthusiasm and loyalty. All the society of Canada had come to the city to be present. The royal party visited the Crystal Palace, where an address was presented by the governor general, Sir E.W. Head, and the Prince declared the Palace open.

In the afternoon took place the ceremony of the laying of the last stone by the Prince of the Victoria Bridge. The royal party entered the car of state and proceeded to the centre of the bridge and the Prince drove in the last—a silver—rivet. The party then proceeded to the other side of the river, where Mr. Blackwell, in the name of the Grand Trunk, presented the Prince with a gold medal, executed by Wyon, commemorative of the occasion, the suite receiving similar ones, but in silver. The royal car then returned to the city. A great lunch took place and the city and the harbour were given over that evening to wonderful illuminations, when the Prince rode through the streets. On Sunday the Prince and royal party attended divine service at the recently rebuilt Christ Church Cathedral on St. Catherine Street and were received at the door by Sir Fenwick Williams and Sir A. Milne. Bishop Fulford officiated and Reverend Mr. Wood[209] read the sermon. In commemoration of this visit His Royal Highness presented to the Cathedral a magnificent Bible with an autograph inscription.

In the evening the Montreal Oratorio Society of 400 voices performed a grand cantata especially written by a Mr. Semper and composed by M. Sabatier, in commemoration of the royal visit. On this occasion Marie Louise Lajeunesse, afterward Madame Albani, sang. She was then unknown, although she had made her debut as a piano player at the Mechanics’ Institute about 1854, when but seven years of age.

The great ball, at which the young Prince danced with the ladies of the charmed circle chosen by the committee of reception, took place later in the completed Crystal Palace, a building of colossal dimensions for the time, being nearly three hundred feet in diameter. It was then thought to be in the fields.

A recent reminiscence of the time describes the scene:

“But the grand ball in Montreal was the climax of the Prince’s visit. A special pavilion had been built for the occasion, and here the élite of the city, the province, the whole country it might be said, had assembled. The Prince with his suite appeared about ten o’clock and opened the ball. The Duke of Newcastle presented the Hon. Mrs. Young, and the ball was opened by the Prince dancing with that lady. He had on his right the Hon. Mr. Cartier with Mrs. Dumas, on his left Major Teesdale and Miss Rodgers. On the Prince’s right were Governor Bruce and Mrs. Denny, Captain Connolly, and Miss Penn; and on his left the Earl of Mulgrave, and Miss de Lisle, and Captain De Winton and Miss Tyre. His Royal Highness danced incessantly from half-past four in the morning, with a large number of ladies, most of whom are dead and gone.

“Among the ladies who had the honour of dancing with the Prince were Miss de Lisle, Miss Tyre, Mrs. F. Brown, Miss Leach, Miss Fisher, of Halifax, Mrs. Sicotte, Miss de Rocheblave, Mrs. C. Freer, Miss Laura Johnson, Miss Belson, Miss Napier, Miss King, Mrs. Forsythe, Miss Sophia Stewart, the Hon. Mrs. J.S. Macdonald, Miss Servorte, Lady Milne, Mrs. King, Miss E. Smith.

Although all the ladies, or most of them, are dead, they have relatives who might be interested in recalling the brilliant scene, which was witnessed at the famous ball, which was described with great particularity, even by the United States press, which sent over many representatives.”

On Wednesday morning there was a review at Logan’s Farm, now Lafontaine Park, the property of Sir William Logan, the geologist, who was knighted about 1856, and the Prince appeared in his uniform as colonel of the One Hundred Prince of Wales Royal Canadian Regiment. In the evening the firemen had a torchlight procession, each fire fighter carrying a torch or Roman candle. On Thursday night the “peoples’ ball” took place in the new ballroom, with the Prince present. That night the foot of the mountain was illuminated with fireworks. Next day the royal party proceeded to Ottawa. The visit to Montreal was a great success. Its cost to the citizens’ reception committee was $43,031, not including the decorations of public buildings which cannot have been less than ten to twenty thousand dollars more. One of the permanent mementos of the visit is the name of Victoria Square, which a by-law of the city changed from its former title of Haymarket and Commissioners Square.

One of the acts of the young Edward, the Peacemaker, was on this occasion of his visit, to establish uniformity and harmony in the various companies comprising the Prince of Wales Regiment, which had heretofore turned out on parade in different facings and different racial emblems according to the company.[210] This had always been provocative of rivalry, but henceforth uniformity ruled.

Two events of artistic and literary interest marked this period. On the 23d of April the Art Association of Montreal was formed and on August 13th the first number of the Daily Witness appeared.

The year 1861 stands out preeminently in the military history of the city, for it was that of the Civil War between the northern and the southern states of the adjoining republic, and Montreal reflected the general turmoil. The Civil War began on January 9th, when the Southern Confederacy fired into the Federal steamer Star of the West. It was early feared that there might be war between Great Britain and the United States and the North British troops were ordered to Canada in January. Meanwhile, in January, the city was excited over the case of a fugitive slave named Anderson charged with murder, whose extradition was demanded. A meeting was held and addressed by Messrs. Dorion, Drummond, Holton, Benjamin Holmes and John Dougall, Dr. W.H. Hingston and the Rev. Messrs. W. Bond and Cordner, opposing surrender. In February it was decided that Anderson was not to be delivered without instructions from England. Finally he reached England in June.

Montreal sympathies were with the Southerners, but as yet according to instructions from Queen Victoria on May 13th, strict neutrality was to be observed. The position became, however, acute after November 8th, when Captain Wilkes, of the United States warship San Jacinto, took from the British mailship Trent the Confederates John Slidell and John G. Mason, Confederate commissioners to the Imperial Government. On the refusal of the American Government to hand them over, war was anticipated and there was extreme tension. Six steamers were chartered to bring troops to Canada. Reinforcements of regulars were sent from England and in Montreal, space being inadequate to receive them, the Molson College on St. Mary Street, the Collège de Montreal on College Street and the stores at the northeast corner of St. Sulpice and Notre Dame streets, then recently erected on the site of the property of Hôtel Dieu, which had been also recently transferred to Pine Avenue, were leased and known as Victoria Barracks. Canada was prepared to share the troubles of the Empire should war break out, and in consequence Montreal saw a hurrying to and fro of citizen soldiers. Recruiting in every arm of the service and drilling went on everywhere. “Stand to your arms,” “Defense not defiance” and such mottoes are to be found in newspapers of the period, in the exercise of their duty of making public opinion.

For two weeks the tension was great in the city. One of the soldiers has recently given his reminiscences of this time as follows:

“We marched to Molson’s College in the east end. Yes, it was called a college then, and had originally been built for some educational purpose. It was at the back of St. Thomas’ Church, or rather, this church, at the time, formed part of the building. Back of this again, and close to the river, was Molson’s Terrace, which is a pretty tawdry place today but which, when I was stationed in the city with my regiment, was most select. Why, the Molson’s themselves lived in the Terrace—that is, the founders of the brewery and of the college. The houses were then considered elegant, and that part of the city had a reputation which it does not now possess.

“At the time I am speaking of, the total military strength of Montreal was considerable. There was the First Battalion of the Sixteenth Bedfordshire Regiment, to[211] which I belonged. The Forty-seventh Lancashire; the Fourth Battalion; Sixtieth Rifles, which latter was quartered in the College Street Barracks; the Second Battalion of the Guards; the Second Battalion of the Scotch Fusiliers; three field batteries of Artillery, which later were stationed at the Quebec Gate Barracks where the Dalhousie Square depot is now, and the Forty-seventh Regiment.

“This Quebec Gate Barracks had two entrances—one on Water Street for the men, and one on Notre Dame Street for the officers. In that same barracks were two companies of the Royal Engineers. The commissariat and two troops of the Military Train were stationed at Hochelaga.

“The city was full of troops at the time. There was every belief that we would speedily be at war with the North, but the ill feeling passed over. Nothing happened. We remained, and lived the lives of soldiers. We had good times; we had no care; we had our beer; we had a brisk time in Montreal.”

His recollection of the officers is as follows:

“At that time the sons of noblemen thought it an honour to belong to the army, and the officers in Montreal were, for the most part, highly connected. Now the commission is obtained by competitive examination; but the old soldiers like to be under gentlemen born. Some of the officers stayed at the Donegana Hotel, and many of them messed in the building opposite Dalhousie Square, where the band played in the evening; but the bulk of the higher officers put up at the St. Lawrence Hall. The officer of the day, and the subaltern of the day, always lived in Molson’s Terrace, to be near the scene of their duties.

“Several of the officers, I remember, put up at the Cosmopolitan Hotel, which stood on the present site of the New York Life Building. Opposite Molson’s brewery was the regimental hospital, while the Garrison Hospital was on Water Street. Each regiment had its own hospital.”1

At the time the hero of Kars, Lieut.-Gen. Sir William Fenwick Williams, Bart., K.C.B.; commander of the forces in British North America; Lord Paulet, in charge of the Guards; Sir William Muir, chief medical officer of the forces; Major Penn, of Crimean fame, in command of the gallant Grey Battery; Colonel Peacock, of the Sixteenth Bedfordshire; and others, were among the officers then in Montreal.

In its midst news came of the death of Queen Victoria’s husband, the Prince Consort. A loyal city sent its message of condolence to their beloved Queen. But on the release of Slidell and Mason the war alarms were over. This good news came on December 28th, and on Sunday the continuance of peace between the Empire and the United States was devoutly and thankfully blessed. The outburst of militarism served to keep the companies as already organized on a permanent basis. On January 1st, Slidell and Mason were released by the United States, but on January 4th Victoria Bridge had still to be guarded for fear of destruction by marauders from across the boundary.

“The alarm, which soon subsided, was really the birth of modern militia movement in Canada. I remember well,” says Lieut.-Col. Robert Gardner, in a reminiscence,[212] “the excitement that ruled everywhere. I can recollect the time when the business men and merchants of Montreal were all imbued with the necessity of defending their country. So enthusiastic were they that drilling was going on practically all the time. Everyone expected war, and patriotic feelings ran high. Business men would slip out in the morning and put in an hour at drill, another drill would be held after lunch, and more in the evening. It was that war scare of 1861-2 which really showed the necessity of a defensive force, and proved the forerunner of our militia system of today.”

During the war there were, however, merry times at the hotels and at Dolly’s restaurant. A reminiscence relates:

“That was a merry time in Montreal. The Americans had plenty of money, and were not afraid to spend it. The officers, too, were well supplied, and they, too, were prodigal with it. St. James Street was always busy, what with the soldiers and officers, the Southerners, the local military, the excitement attending the events of the war, and which were reflected in the city in the matter of sentiment, as well as the matter of money. I recollect very well that the feeling of our people was in favour of the South in the struggle. As time went on, the conviction gained ground that the South would be defeated; but the general feeling was in its favour. This made life for the Southerners very pleasant. They fraternized with the people; they spent their money; they made life merry in and about the old St. Lawrence Hall.”

Greenbacks, however, were looked askance at till the fortunes of war were with the North, so that silver was in demand. The Civil War meant good times for Canada for the farmers’ produce and stock were readily bought by the United States.

The military troops in town came in for a great recognition on the 6th, 7th and 8th of May, 1862, when they were feasted in sections on these days. It is recorded that among the items for the festivities there were ordered 3,200 pounds of sandwiches, 5,000 tarts, 3,700 pounds of cake, 50 barrels of fruit, besides an abundant supply of tea and coffee, the entertainments being on strictly temperance principles.

Montreal’s generosity was also that year shown to the destitute operatives in the manufacturing districts of England, when in consequence of a meeting in the Merchants’ Exchange $30,000 was subscribed for their relief.

The Civil War over, the arts of peace were resumed. The Montreal Street Railway, started in the year previous, was making its humble beginnings with its few horse-drawn cars. On April 2d there was a municipal by-law to establish the fire brigade. On May 20th, the Montreal waterworks were enlarged and improved as a result of the dearth of water at this time which had caused the ancient custom of providing water in puncheons again to be resorted to.

This year the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society was founded and the Corn Exchange organized, being incorporated the next year, when eight floating elevators were proudly said to be discharging hourly 24,000 bushels.

1863 saw the fire alarm established on January 19th, indicating the progress of our fire service.

On July 15th, the Corvette Oernen, the first Norwegian vessel to visit the St. Lawrence, sailed up to Montreal and civic hospitality was again displayed as previously to the French vessel.

The Provincial Exhibition, held on the 9th of September of this year, was superior to any other. A grand rifle tournament was opened by Sir William Fenwick Williams and lasted over ten days.

On April 21, 1864, there appeared a published letter of D’Arcy McGee, the Irish poet, litterateur and politician, in which he said:[213] “Even the threat of assassination covertly conveyed and so eminently in keeping with the entire humbug has no terrors for me. I trust I shall outlive these threats,” indicates that there was a ring of organized Fenianism in the city in sympathy with the movement now looming large in the United States. About this time he exposed the dangers and sophisms of those seducing the young Irish of the city and moreover told some of his young, hotheaded auditors at several meetings, then and subsequently, that he held in his pocket evidence enough to hang some of them. “I ask you,” he said, “to frown upon this thing. I ask you to have nothing to do with it. I tell you that I know many of the men who are associated with Fenianism. And I say this, that if they do not separate themselves from the organization, I will denounce them to the Government. Come out from among them. The organization will bring you to ruin. There are some who think they are secure; that they can go on and that they cannot be found out. I tell you I know such, and will denounce them if they do not mend their ways.”

At this time McGee was told that his days were numbered. Thus coming events cast their shadows before. But Confederation was in the air and its discussion was uppermost.

The Shakespeare centenary of 1864 was brilliantly celebrated at Montreal in April at the Crystal Palace. But sad news fell upon the city when, on June 29th, a train of eleven cars, having aboard 354 German emigrants leaving St. Hilaire for Montreal, was precipitated through an open drawbridge into the river at Beloeil. Ninety were killed and a very large number were drowned. The hospitable city opened its hospitals and public institutions for the sufferers and the bodies of the dead were brought to the city and buried in the Protestant cemeteries.

In September, 1864, the city saw the departure of six companies of the Scotch Fusileers and other military.

In November there was excitement in the city over the St. Alban’s raiders who had been captured and brought to the city for examination. On the 19th of October some southern raiders from Canada had made a descent on the St. Alban’s bank, compelling Mr. Sowles, the cashier, to surrender the bank’s money, and after intimidating the citizens, saying that “we represent the Confederate States of America and we come here to retaliate outrages committed by General Sherman,” they had returned to Canada on captured horses.

On March 30th of the next year, the St. Alban raiders were discharged. On this occasion Mr. Bernard Devlin had an opportunity of airing his forensic eloquence, being employed to defend certain of the prisoners. It is said that the motive behind the raid was to make a diversion in favour of the South by means of the raid which was to bring Federal troops from southern points to defend the invaded territory of the North.

The year 1865, which opened with the usual spring floods in April, was otherwise an interesting and exciting time to the merchants of the town, for Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, gave the requisite notice to terminate reciprocity between the United States and Canada on March 17, 1866. In July there was a convention at Detroit, from the 11th to the 14th, which promoted the forming of a new reciprocity treaty. At this several Montrealers attended, but only to give desired information. In September there was a delegation to Montreal to form an International Board of Trade. This year the Board of Trade Building, erected in 1855, was burnt down.

[214]

The following resolution, passed unanimously on April 19th by the city council, on the motion of Alderman Grenier, seconded by Alderman Rodden, on the occasion of the assassination of the President of the United States, shows the gloom and commiseration of the city which went into mourning on the day of the funeral:

“Resolved, That in respect to the memory of the late President of the United States and sympathy with the people in the great calamity which has befallen them, and also as an expression of the regret and horror felt at the crime perpetrated upon the person of President Lincoln, this council do now adjourn.”

This allows us to cast a glance at our peaceful municipal life. One 2 who knew it well has recently recorded his reminiscences:

“Citizens criticized the council then as they do today and on one particular occasion they manifested their disapprobation on some burning question by gathering in front of the council room, and, after due oratory from their leader, sent a volley of stones through the windows, to show the depth of their feelings. This stirred up the members most effectively, and if the celerity with which they jumped from one place to another, to avoid the ‘arguments’ was any indication of the attention they would give to the cause in question, it would not have remained long unattended to.

“One member, however, more courageous than the others, kept his seat with contemptuous indifference until he saw a missile coming direct for his desk, when he cleverly caught it in his hands, and called on the mayor to maintain order. His Worship looked unutterable things, and told Darcy to do it. The latter, however, disappeared, and was not seen more that night. It was suspected he went over to the enemy, and when he told me next morning that it was ‘the best bit of fun he had seen for many a day,’ I thought there was ground for the suspicion.

“But criticisms of the council were not confined to demonstrations of this kind. The press was not backward in saying what it thought, although in a more refined and cultured way. One editor, for instance, gave a free notice of a meeting of council in the following words, in large type:

“‘The Municipal Banditti meet in their den at the City Hall at 8 o’clock this evening.’

“We were more deliberate in those days than at the present. We were deliberate in all things. We did not hurry away the snow as we do now. We thought it cheaper to let the sun do that. Now in this advanced age we think nothing of spending $10,000 to beat the sun by twenty-four hours; but speed is everything today. At the time of speaking our whole revenue was not one-fourth of the interest on our debt today.

“I have enumerated the personnel to show the speed of time, for at the present time not one of those mentioned, except myself, remain. They have all passed to the ‘majority.’

“Prominently among the aldermen of that period were Ferdinand David, and William Rodden; the former as chairman of the roads committee, may be regarded as having been the father of our expropriation system, and the latter, as chairman of finance, was regarded as the father of our 7 per cent consolidation. Were both these men alive today they would be appalled at the outcome of their pet schemes. In those days we spoke with bated breath of $100,000, now we play with the millions as a very little thing. Then our 6 per cent securities sold at a heavy discount, since then our 3 per cent securities have sold over par.

[215]

“An orator about this time, haranguing the taxpayers from the steps of the Nelson Monument, assured them that if they should elect him as their representative, he would reduce their taxes 150 per cent. Poor fellow, he meant well, but he was allowed to sink, with his invaluable arithmetical genius, into oblivion, while the other one, who was able to rouse another mob, occupies a seat on the king’s bench. This shows that it is better to break people’s windows than to abolish their taxes and give them a 50 per cent bonus beside. O, tempora, O, mores.”

This year (1865) Sir John Michel was sworn in as administrator of the governor general, then absent in England. As he took up his residence in the city and during his administration the executive council met here twice in each month, this event may be chronicled in the series of social events.

The peaceful progress of the inhabitants was again thrown into confusion and the military spirit reincarnated when news came the latter part of this year, 1865, that the threatened invasion of Canada by the Irish Fenian Brotherhood, led by “General” O’Neil, were at last becoming actual. They made use of the ill-feeling aroused between the United States and Britain by an element discontented through hard times, to strike a long premeditated blow. The first Fenian invasion eventually came to nothing at all of importance, but it was a great scare. Montreal was on the qui vive for a while, fearing the invasion, for the supineness of the American Government in allowing the invasion to be planned and provided for by filibusters, gave an unpleasant impression, suggesting that there might, possibly, be serious consequence if a strong front were not presented to the audacious attempt. The feeling, too, at the time, was not too friendly to Canada, which, with Great Britain, was supposed to sympathize with the South during the Civil War.

On Monday, March 13, 1866, a company of the Prince of Wales regiment and a battery of artillery were reviewed at 5 P.M. and by 9 P.M. were sent to the threatened frontier. A patriotic “relief” fund was started on March 26th. On June 2d, on account of news arriving on June 1st, the Fenians being already at Fort Erie, a further detachment of four more companies were sent to the west, viz., Nos. 3 and 8 batteries of the Brigade of the Montreal Garrison Artillery, under Captains Brown and Hobbes; a company of Prince of Wales Rifles, under Captain Bond; Victoria Rifles, under Captain Bacon; Royal Light Infantry, under Capt. K. Campbell; and the Chasseurs Canadiens, under Captain Labelle, who all left by special train for Point St. Charles for St. Johns and Isle aux Noix. The same evening a strong reinforcement of regulars left for the same stations, and on the 4th, several additional companies of volunteers were dispatched to Hemingford and other places along the frontier. Among those going to the front were the famous “Barney” Devlin, the great criminal lawyer and the political opponent of D’Arcy McGee, and the Rev. Father James Hogan of St. Patrick’s, who acted as chaplain.

The chief fight in Lower Canada was at Pigeon Hill, in the Township of St. Armand, adjoining the State of Vermont, which was attacked by the Fenians on June 17th, but from which, after a brief skirmish, they retired, not without several of their party being secured as prisoners by the “Montreal Guides,” and being brought, a sorry and ragged crowd, to the city gaol.

On June 18th, the volunteer companies returned, being welcomed enthusiastically by their fellow citizens, and June 23d was observed as a day of general rejoicing and inspection. The mayor, on behalf of the civic authorities, tendered an address to the troops, offering sincere expressions of gratitude and thanks for their devotion, loyalty and courage in the late emergency, and bidding them a[216] hearty welcome back to the city and to their happy homes and beloved and expectant families. This was responded to by Major-General Lindsay.

The loyalty of all sections of the community had again been proved against a common enemy. Every section had answered the call to arms, for Fenianism, after all, had few weighty supporters in Montreal.

The military enthusiasm, however, evoked by the late events had an immediate effect in determining the city council and other authorities already considering the point, to open a drill hall capable of meeting the increased demands, and in May, 1867, the contract for the armory on Craig Street, opposite the Champ de Mars, was given to Foster & Roy.

The confederation of the provinces was now in the air. It was not universally understood at the time and it was feared, and somewhat actively combatted, especially by the group of young French-Canadians opposed to Cartier in their new journal the Union Nationale, as likely to absorb them so that they might lose their political identity.

Confederation was, however, to mark a great period of progress and to see Montreal emerge from provincial citydom to the great metropolis of today. Before passing to the story of its achievement, a glance back will show that Montreal was a very quiet place under the Union. Yet it produced strong-minded and able men, even if the racial, religious and political rancours of a “heart burning town” showed themselves in no equivocal colours. The foundations of our present artistic, literary, religious, charitable and financial associations were also already being well laid. The life was simple; there was not much society but great heartiness. There were no millionaires, but the people spent freely. Public amusements were fewer, but private hospitality greater. The city hall was decorous, there were no emoluments for service, and the best men of the time thought it an honour to represent their wards.

Into the simplicity of the life there entered the society centering around the military. At the close of the Union there were about a hundred officers generally stationed here, many of them distinguished men of high rank and fame. There were often four or five regiments in the town, and the soldiery fraternized with the citizens. Pranks there were, the ringing of bells, the wrenching off of knockers and signs, and more serious peccadillos, but the indulgent public was not censorious. The officers gave many parties, balls, receptions, dances and hunts, all of which the prominent citizens participated in and returned. There were not highly organized kennel or hunt clubs, but they ranged the country far and wide. The officers were good judges of horse flesh as were the humbler citizens and Tattersalls, on St. James Street, opposite the present Star offices, was a busy place for such. It was no infrequent sight to see the horses being trotted up and down past Dolly’s, St. Lawrence Hall and Banque du Peuple for inspection along the street which is today’s busy financial thoroughfare, lined with banks and insurance buildings.

The ordinary people participated indirectly in the gaiety of the military régime through the brisk, lively trade with the officers and soldiery, who spent freely.

The life, colour, and zest they gave were also a free entertainment. Not only were the streets bright with the uniforms of the soldiers and gay with the sound of fife, drum and brass, but the people would make their way to the Champ de Mars during the day to see the evolutions of the military, where the firing of[217] the cannon frightened the timid boys and girls, or in the early evening the young folk would stroll sweethearting to Dalhousie Square (now the Viger Station tracks) to hear the regimental bands in Barrack Square, and the boys and girls, now no way shy, would peep in at the mysteries of the officers’ mess, which was in plain view. The music would last for hours and the square would resound with laughter till the sun-down gun from St. Helen’s Island proclaimed the time for early bed.

Art, literature and music were cultivated by associations at the time and to these the military officers contributed no little initiative. The scholastic system of the two boards of school commissioners was being solidified and Montreal at the end of the Union was progressing substantially, but not so dramatically or so visibly as after the next few decades when bustle began to rule. Life was then more leisurely, more reposeful and at least quite as happy and more contented.

[218]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Reminiscences of Private Fitzgerald, who came out with the Sixteenth Bedfordshire Regiment in 1861. Cf. “I Remember” series of the Star, 1913.

2 Mr. William Robb, recently city treasurer. Cf. I Remember Series, The Star, 1913.

[219]

### CHAPTER XXII

CONSTITUTIONAL LIFE UNDER CONFEDERATION

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL INFLUENCE

MONTREAL AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL POLITICS—CONFEDERATION TESTED—CARTIER AND THE PARTI ROUGE AT MONTREAL—ASSASSINATION OF THOMAS D’ARCY M’GEE—THE HUDSON’S BAY TRANSFER—THE METIS AND THE RIEL REBELLION—LORD STRATHCONA—THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL—RESIGNATION OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD—SECOND FENIAN RAID—THE “NATIONAL POLICY”—VOTING REFORM—TEMPERANCE BILL—ORANGE RIOTS—SECOND NORTH WEST REBELLION—THE “SIXTY-FIFTH REGIMENT”—THE MANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION—PROMINENT CITIZENS—BRITISH PREFERENTIAL TARIFF—BOER WAR—“STRATHCONA HORSE”—THE NATIONALIST LEAGUE—RECIPROCITY AND FEAR OF ANNEXATION—THE ELECTIONS OF 1911—NAVAL BILL—PROVINCIAL POLITICS—MONTREAL MEMBERS—PROVINCIAL OVERSIGHT OVER MONTREAL—HOME RULE—THE INTERNATIONAL WAR OF 1914—THE FIRST CONTINGENT—MONTREAL’S ACTION.

Constitutionally Montreal has always been an influence in the moulding of the Dominion. This has been brought about by its geographical situation and its public men. From the first the city has been favored in its sons—men who have controlled the destinies of the growing country, and who in turn have been influenced by their closer environments. This is seen in the constitutional acts of both the Province and the Dominion, for practically most public events, particularly since Confederation, have been shaped to meet the requirements of the commercial metropolis.

Confederation had its opponents, particularly amongst the younger members of the “parti rouge” or democratic party, who in Lower Canada, but now the Province of Quebec, had been waiting for an opportunity to break the power of Sir George Etienne Cartier, the great French Canadian leader in the confederation movement, so that in the elections called for to ratify the British North America Act, they determined, in spite of the advice to the contrary, of their brilliant leader (Dorion), to give Cartier the fight of his life. The new Federal government realized that the permanency of the constitution depended largely on the attitude of Quebec and much anxiety was felt as to the results of the elections which were to be held in the autumn of 1867—the British North America Act having come into force on July 1st.

Cartier particularly realized the crisis, and put his whole energy into the fight. He personally contested Montreal East, now St. James Division, having as[220] opponent Médéric Lanctot, a popular labour leader. Every division in the Province was contested, but thanks to the strong stand made by the Roman Catholic 1 church in approving Confederation, the party headed by Cartier, who beat his opponent, won and the new constitution was confirmed in the Province of Quebec forty-three out of sixty-five seats. In Ontario the government won sixty-eight out of eighty-five seats and in New Brunswick twelve out of fifteen seats, but in Nova Scotia, owing to the opposition of Joseph Howe, only one government supporter, Charles Tupper, was returned. On the whole, Confederation was confirmed by the people.

Practically this most momentous election—upon which depended the future of Canada’s national life—was decided in Montreal, for had Cartier failed in winning his own seat, the impetus given to the “parti rouge” would have been strong enough to have wrecked the government and consequently the British North America Act. The Provincial legislature returns showed a similar result, the first provincial premier being that brilliant Montreal writer and orator, the Hon. P.J.O. Chauveau, who held office until 1873, his two immediate successors in the premiership being Montrealers also, the Hon. G. Ouimet and Sir Charles E.B. de Boucherville. The last named is still living, in the best of health, though in his ninety-fourth year, and enjoying the dual offices of Senator for Canada, and member of the Legislative Council of Quebec. Sir Charles is the last of the dual office men.

During the adjourned session of the first Dominion parliament which had met in Ottawa in March, 1868, the Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee, who represented Montreal West, was assassinated just outside his Ottawa lodging. There is no doubt that this dastardly outrage was the consequence of Mr. McGee’s condemnation of the Fenian movement against Canada, and though one man, Whelan, an ex-soldier and tailor, suffered the extreme penalty for being the instrument, the real miscreants got away. The murder of D’Arcy McGee robbed this country of one of her best sons. Brilliant and large minded he had risen to cabinet rank before he was thirty-eight years of age and in the last government under the Union he held the port-folio of Agriculture. Always a believer in the closest union between the component parts of British North America, he was an eloquent advocate for Confederation and on the formation by Sir J.A. Macdonald of the first Dominion government (1868) McGee’s eminent services gave him every right to be included, but his sense of loyalty made him stand aside so as to allow Sir John to form his cabinet on territorial lines. This great man, whose remains rest in Cote de Neiges Cemetery, is still—forty-six years after his death—the outstanding figure of Irish Canadianism—an example in broad mindedness and patriotism.

Another Father of Confederation was the Hon. A.T. Galt, whose representation of Sherbrooke, P.Q., and his years of residence here, made him a local figure. Mr. Galt’s great financial ability was very helpful in making equitable arrangements in the consolidation of the Dominion. To commemorate the consummation[221] of confederation the Hon. J.A. Macdonald received the honour of Knight Commander of the Bath, while his co-workers, including Cartier and Galt, received companionships of the Bath. The title was refused by both Cartier and Galt for the reason that being representatives of Lower Canada they could not accept a lesser title than Sir John Macdonald. The difficulty was overcome by a baronetcy conferred on Cartier and a K.C.M.G. on Galt.

In 1868 Cartier and William McDougall went to England on behalf of the Canadian government to negotiate the transfer of the Western territories from the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Dominion. The Hudson’s Bay Company asked the sum of $5,000,000 for the cession of its rights but had to be satisfied with $1,500,000 and a reservation of one-twentieth of the fertile belt. But a new difficulty had arisen in the transfer—in the territory itself—for in 1870 the half-breed settlers, who had the distinctive title of the “Metis,” feeling that they and their holdings had not been affected—stopped the new lieutenant-governor, the Hon. William McDougall at the border, and under Louis Riel the first North West rebellion was started, soon, however, to be broken. It was in this rebellion that the late Lord Strathcona, as chief officer of the Hudson’s Bay Company, was first brought into the public limelight. Mr. Donald Smith, as he was then known, and whose headquarters were at Montreal, was asked to go to Fort Garry (now Winnipeg) with Col. de Salaberry and Abbé Thibault with the object of pacifying the settlers, but the mission failed. On the breakdown of the rebellion Donald Smith administered the affairs of the territory until the arrival of Lieutenant-Governor Archibald.

Around this time (1870) the home government withdrew the Imperial troops from Canada—with the exception of a garrison left at Halifax—which was a blow to the social life of the commercial metropolis. The officers of the local garrison with their bright uniforms and gentlemanly manners and their cultivated entourage had been an acquisition to Montreal society, literary, social and artistic.

The material building up of Canada, and particularly Montreal, has been made possible by the splendid transportation facilities, both by stream, canal and rail, engineered by the big men of the time. During the ’70s and ’80s Montreal was well represented by names like Cartier, Dorion, and Sir John Rose, who though in separate political camps fought hard together for the Grand Trunk in parliament, and won.

Cartier in introducing the Victoria Bridge Bill met much opposition; the principal objection being that it would take the trade out of the country. His reply, which proved correct, was that the bridge would bring trade into the country. In the agitation for the Intercolonial Railway with its terminus at Montreal, Cartier was the leader. He was also the introducer into the parliament of 1872 of the first Canadian Pacific Bill. Both of these undertakings were urged as the best and most practical means of consolidating the new Dominion.

One cannot leave railway legislation without referring to what is known as the Canadian Pacific scandals, though Sir Charles Tupper in his “Reminiscences of Sixty Years” writes of it as the “Canadian Pacific Slanders,” because two of the principal actors were Montrealers and the place, Montreal. The bare facts are: Two companies, one of which was under the control of Sir Hugh Allan of Montreal, had competed for the construction of the railroad, the bill for which the Government, through Cartier, had passed in parliament. Owing to disputes[222] an effort was made to amalgamate the companies but without avail, so that Sir Hugh formed a new company under the title of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. This Company obtained a charter on February 19, 1873, to build the railway, and it was in connection with the granting of this charter that in the following April a Mr. L.A. Huntingdon charged the government with making a corrupt bargain with Sir Hugh Allan; in other words, that the Montreal promoter and his company had advanced large sums of money to the Conservative fund to secure the returns of candidates favourable to their obtaining the charter. The receiving of the money was neither contradicted by the government nor the contractors, and on behalf of the government it was offered as an extenuating circumstance that it was only in accordance with the “invariable custom,” and before a Royal Commission the ministers denied any corrupt bargain having been made. But the whole country was up in arms, and Sir John Macdonald, seeing inevitable defeat for his government, placed his resignation in the hands of the Governor-General. In the elections which followed, the new government, under the leadership of the new premier, the Hon. Alexander McKenzie, was sustained by a large majority.

When in 1870 the Fenians for the second time under “General” O’Neill made a raid into Canada, crossing the border at Trout Lake in the Eastern Townships, a flutter was caused at Montreal, but the “general” was soon routed by a small contingent made up largely by volunteers from Montreal.

Owing to a depression in trade, which set in about the fall of 1873 and which gradually grew worse in centres like Montreal as the years rolled by, Sir John A. Macdonald’s appeal to the country that it should protect its own industries by placing heavy duties against goods imported from other countries, met with success and he was returned at the elections of 1878 by a large majority. This became known as the “National Policy” and though immediate prosperity was the outcome, there is no doubt that the same policy has made possible the formation of trusts, which in this country go under the name of mergers.

The next constitutional act of importance that affected Montreal was the passing of an act which relieved the elections from the old time voting. On May 26, 1876, a Federal bill was passed introducing the vote by ballot, simultaneous elections, the abolition of property qualifications for members of the House of Commons and making stringent enactments against corrupt practices at elections.

The Canada Temperance Bill of 1878 (usually called the Scott Act) was the result of a great temperance movement that spread over the whole of Canada and has been the foundation in Montreal of scores of temperance societies. Practically all the churches have joined in lessening the drink evil and on the same platforms will be found the Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops of Montreal, as well as the ministers of other denominations. Montreal is a much more temperate city today than it was thirty years ago, in spite of a rapidly growing cosmopolitan population.

About this time (1878) there occurred in Montreal the Orange riots, which resulted in the death of one of the citizens named Hackett by shooting, an event of no importance, though magnified by certain writers.

In 1885 occurred the second North West rebellion. This was felt very deeply in Montreal for the reason that, the insurgents being French half-breeds, charges[223] of disloyalty were made against the whole French speaking people. To show its sense of loyalty Montreal despatched a large contingent to the scene of the disturbance, including the French-Canadian regiment—The Mount Royal Rifles, now known as the Sixty-fifth Regiment. This regiment did some remarkable work, marching as many as forty-five miles a day through brush and muskeg and arriving in time to take part in the routing out at Frog Lake of Big Bear, the Cree Chief who was supporting Riel, the rebel leader. The spirit of loyalty underlying this splendid achievement was sufficient evidence of the patriotism of French Canadianism, even to satisfy the most rabid of partisans.

The execution of Riel, which took place in Regina in the latter part of the year, again raised the racial cry and many demonstrations were held in Montreal by both French and English partisans. To exaggerate the feeling of bitterness, about this time small-pox had broken out and the heads of the local industries having insisted on vaccination and the bulk of the employees being French Canadian, the cry was raised that the employers were interfering with the work of Providence.

Montreal has not been directly affected by what is commonly known as the “school question,” that has at different times raised so much bitterness in other parts of Canada, particularly in New Brunswick and Manitoba, but because the majority of its citizens are Roman Catholics, and the fact of its own separate school system working satisfactorily, the local political parties have always taken a keen interest in the school problem in the other provinces, and every government when dealing with it has to take Montreal sentiment into account. This Cartier found to his cost in the 1872 elections, when, because his government sided, though only on legal grounds, with the New Brunswick Provincial government in its determination not to have separate schools, he lost his seat to Mr. L.A. Jetté, who afterwards became Lieutenant-Governor of the Province. Again because in Manitoba in 1890 the provincial legislature, by adopting nonsectarian schools, had in the minds of Roman Catholics broken the clause of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which secured to the religious minority the right in respect to denominational schools, much bitterness was caused in Montreal. To this vexed question a settlement was brought about in 1896 by the Laurier government, by which the Manitoba Government while adhering to the principle of a national school system under provincial control, agreed to make provision for religious teaching during certain school hours.

In the year 1888 two Montrealers of cabinet rank died, Sir John Rose, a former cabinet member, and Hon. Thomas White, M.P., Minister of the Interior.

Montreal in 1891 was particularly honoured in one of its citizens in the person of Hon. J.J.C. Abbott, who had twice been mayor, becoming Premier of Canada on the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, though he only held office for little more than a year, resigning November, 1892, on account of ill-health. In this year also died Sir A.A. Dorion, Chief Justice of Queen’s Bench, Montreal, who had been a big factor in the public life of Canada. As leader of the Liberals, or “patri rouge,” he was Sir G.E. Cartier’s chief opponent, and on the formation of the Liberal Government of 1873, he was appointed Minister of Justice, which office he resigned on June 1, 1874, to become Chief Justice of Montreal.

[224]

On August 15, 1893, the Behring Sea Tribunal of Arbitration, of which Canada’s Prime Minister was a member, gave the decision that the Behring Sea was to be kept open and that seals be protected. At a banquet given in his honour by the citizens of Montreal, the Premier in a great speech explained Canada’s advantage by the arbitration.

In 1895 a treaty was made between this country and France which largely affected the trade of Montreal, because of the impetus given by the agreement to the importation of wines.

When the Liberals came into power in 1896, very largely on a Free Trade policy, it was found inexpedient by the government to change the general tariff of the country, but it made a compromise in 1899 by giving a preferential tariff of 25% to British made goods, which in 1901 was increased to 33⅓%. This was a popular move and no doubt, together with the wave of prosperity which spread itself over the country and in which Montreal largely participated, did much to keep the Liberals in power for fifteen years.

In 1898 the Boer war broke out, when the country as a whole demanded that the Federal government on behalf of Canada should take its share of the burden, although there was a certain contra agitation amongst a section of French Canadians, led by the eloquent and versatile grandson of Louis Joseph Papineau M. Henri Bourassa, who afterwards became the Chief of the young Nationalist Party.

In October of 1899, Mr. Bourassa gave up his seat for St. Hyacinthe in the Federal House in order to vindicate his position on the constitutional aspect of the participation of Canada in the South African war, contending that such participation, as contemplated and organized by the British Government and its representative in Canada, meant a deep change in our relations with Great Britain upon which the people of Canada should be thoroughly enlightened and directly consulted. In January of the following year he was returned by acclamation.

Though the attitude taken by Mr. Bourassa was mostly academic yet, like his renewal in 1914 of a similar obstructional and dialectical position, not always understood by the general public especially in time of war, it helped to encourage demonstrations of loyalty and patriotism throughout the Dominion, which forced the government to raise an expeditionary force. The first contingent embarked for the Transvaal October 30, 1899. At the beginning of the following year, Lord Strathcona equipped a mounted infantry regiment of 500, which became famous as “Strathcona’s Horse.” This body was despatched to South Africa with the second contingent. The Canadian regiments throughout the war did splendid service, particularly at Paardeburg, when the Boer general Cronje was completely surrounded and defeated. Montreal itself contributed largely to the contingent which represented Canada.

In 1902 the Nationalist League was organized by Mr. J.T. Olivar Asselin, who became president of the Montreal branch and Mr. Henri Bourassa became recognized as the outstanding leader. The Nationaliste was founded as the party organ in 1904 by its editor Mr. Asselin who, on its lapse, became a writer on the Devoir founded by Mr. Henri Bourassa.

A political event of far reaching importance took place in 1910 when the Hon. William Fielding and the late Hon. William Patterson on behalf of the Canadian Government signed an agreement with the government of the United[225] States by which certain goods, principally food-stuffs, were to pass from one country to the other free of duty. Since 1866 the United States had steadily refused all offers to negotiate for reciprocal relations, but in the spring of 1910 they veered around and sent plenipotentiaries to Ottawa. The Dominion Government received them courteously and sent Messrs. Fielding and Patterson to Washington to carry on the negotiations, which resulted in what became known as the “Reciprocity Pact.” But in submitting the agreement to the country for ratification in the election of 1911 the government was badly defeated. It should be stated though that the main issue itself throughout the country, and especially in Montreal, had become involved, from a question originally of purely commercial reciprocity, into one also of fear of danger of annexation to the United States. This was sufficient to bring out the latent patriotism of the electors, who gave a very decided answer to those across the line who had any belief in the American slogan that reciprocity was to be but the first step to annexation. The Montreal election returns showed this very strongly, not in the change of representatives, for there was none, but in the comparison of the votes. In the country parts of the Province the Navy Bill of 1910, which was unpopular with the French Canadians, gave an opportunity to the Nationalists, who by joining forces with the opposition were enabled to reduce the Federal Government’s majority sufficiently to cause its downfall.

THE STRATHCONA HORSE

(From the plaque on the Strathcona Monument, Dominion Square)

The defeat of the Federal Government ended the lengthy premiership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the Empire’s great statesmen. Sir Wilfrid has many associations with Montreal and many of his triumphs, national as well as political, have taken place in the city. The new government in 1911 introduced a bill into Parliament giving a contribution of $35,000,000 to the British admiralty to represent Canada’s naval contribution to the Empire. The bill passed the Commons but failed in the Senate. It was in connection with this naval contribution that the late Hon. F.D. Monk, the member for the Jacques Cartier division of the city, and one of Montreal’s brightest and most upright minds, resigned from the government, his reason being that a plebiscite of the people should have been made on the naval question. His death following hard upon his departure from politics made the latter the more deplored.

Of importance to the Port of Montreal is the West Indian commercial agreement made in 1913 between Canada and the British West Indies. By this reciprocal pact Canada secured a new market on advantageous terms, and the principal factor in bringing it about was the Canadian West Indian League with its headquarters in Montreal.

As in Federal politics, so also in the life of the Provincial parliament, Montreal has also been a large factor, the principal reason being that it supplies the biggest share of the income of the Province, and also because the city’s representatives have usually been leaders of thought and probity. Practically all the premiers, from confederation to the present holder of the office, have been either citizens of Montreal or largely connected with the city. In the first legislative assembly of 1867 Montreal had four members; they being Sir George E. Cartier, Edward Cartier, his brother, and law partner, and who Sir George always said was the legal brains of the firm; A.W. Ogilvie, a prominent member of one of Montreal’s best known families; and the Hon. Louis Beaubien, who became Commissioner of Agriculture in the de Boucherville and Flinn administrations. Since[226] that time Montreal has been represented at Quebec by such men as the Hon. L.O. Taillon (1875-1887) who became Premier in 1887, and afterwards joined the Federal government as Postmaster General; to-day he is Postmaster of Montreal; Hon. James McShane (1878-1891), who became in turn Provincial Minister of Public Works, Mayor of Montreal and Harbour Master of the Port; Hon. L.O. David (1886-1890), now Senator of Canada and City Clerk of Montreal; Dr. G. A. Lacombe (1897-1908), the author of the famous Lacombe Law of 1906, by which a debtor upon being too hard pressed by his creditors could come under the protection of the courts without any extra cost to himself; Sir Lomer Gouin, the present Premier, who first entered the legislature as member for St. James in 1897; Henri Bourassa (1908-1909); D.J. Decarie (1897-1904), and his son, the Hon. Jérémie Decarie, Provincial Secretary, who succeeded his father in the latter year; Hon. Dr. J.J.E. Guerin (1895-1904), Cabinet minister and Mayor of Montreal; Robert Bickerdike (1897-1900), the present federal member for St. Lawrence division of the city; the Hon. H.B. Rainville and the two George Washington Stephens—father and son—the one representing Montreal Centre from 1881 to 1886 and the other the St. Lawrence division, 1904 to 1908, being afterwards Chairman of the Harbour Commission.

The work of the Provincial legislature being largely of a constructive nature, such as the raising of taxes for the building of roads and the conserving of its vast resources, its principal effect on the city of Montreal itself is the oversight of the legislative work of the city council, and if acceptable to make it legal by passing it in the form of amendments to the city charter. In this respect a very important amendment to the charter was made in 1910 as a result of the report of the Cannon inquiry, which condemned the city administration of the period. Under the amendment the Council is cut in half by each ward having one instead of two representatives, and its work is of a legislative nature only, leaving the administration subject to the ratification of the council, in the hands of a board of control composed of four members, who with the mayor is elected by the city as a whole.

For a long time there has been a strong feeling that Montreal should have more freedom and a large measure of Home Rule in its local affairs, some even going so far as to urge that the island of Montreal should be a separate Province. At present, there is certainly a groping toward some such autonomy.

MONTREAL REPRESENTATIVES IN THE SENATE OF CANADA FROM CONFEDERATION

- The Honourable:
- Jacques Bureau
- Louis Renaud
- John Hamilton
- James Ferrier
- Thomas Ryan
- F.X.A. Trudel
- E.G. Penny
- Hector Fabre
- J.R. Thibaudeau
- A.W. Ogilvie
- A. Lacoste
- L.A. Senecal
- Sir J.J.C. Abbott
- J.B. Rolland
- Sir George A. Drummond
- C.S. Rodier
- E. Murphy
- A. Desjardins
- James O’Brien
- J.C. Villeneuve[227]
- William Owens
- Sir W.H. Hingston
- L.J. Forget
- A.A. Thibaudeau
- Raoul Dandurand
- J.P.B. Casgrain
- Robert McKay
- Frédéric L. Beique
- Laurent O. David
- Henry J. Cloran
- Arthur Boyer
- Joseph Marcellin Wilson

MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT FOR MONTREAL SINCE CONFEDERATION

Date of Election. | District. | Member.
1867 |  | Montreal | City |
|  |  | West | Hon. T. D’Arcy McGee
|  |  | Centre | T. Workman
|  |  | East | Hon. G.E. Cartier
1868, | April 30th |  | West | M.P. Ryan, vice Hon. T.D. McGee, deceased.
1872 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | Hon. J. Young
|  |  | Centre | M.P. Ryan
|  |  | East | L.A. Jetté
1874 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | F. McKenzie
|  |  | Centre | M.P. Ryan
|  |  | East | L.A. Jetté
1874, | December | Montreal | City | F. McKenzie (re-elected, former election being voided)
1875 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | T. Workman, vice McKenzie (election voided)
1875, | January 12th | Montreal | City
|  |  | Centre | B. Devlin (elected vice Ryan, election voided)
| November 26th |  |  | B. Devlin (re-elected, former election declared void)
1878, | November 21st | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | M.H. Gault
|  |  | Centre | M.P. Ryan
| [228] |  | East | C.J. Coursol
1882 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | M.H. Gault
|  |  | Centre | J.J. Curran
|  |  | East | C.J. Coursol
1887 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | Sir Donald A. Smith
|  |  | Centre | J.J. Curran
|  |  | East | C.J. Coursol
1888 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | East | A.T. Lepine, vice Coursol (deceased)
1891 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | West | Sir Donald A. Smith, K.C.M.G.
|  |  | Centre | J.J. Curran
|  |  | East | A.T. Lepine
1892 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | Centre | J.J. Curran (re-elected on accepting office)
1895 |  | Montreal | City
|  |  | Centre | James McShane
|  |  |  | J.J. Curran (appt. Judge)
1896 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | M.J.F. Quinn
|  |  | (St. Antoine) | T.G. Roddick
|  |  | (St. James) | William Demarais
|  |  | (St. Lawrence) | E.G. Penny
|  |  | (St. Mary) | Hercule Dupré
1900 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | Daniel Gallery
|  |  | (St. Antoine) | T.G. Roddick
|  |  | (St. James) | William Demarais
|  |  | (St. Lawrence) | Robert Bickerdike
|  |  | (St. Mary) | Hon. J.J. Tarte
1902, | June | Montreal | (St. James) | Joseph Brunet (vice Demarais)
|  |  | (St. James) | Brunet (unseated Dec., 1902)
1904 |  | Montreal | (St. James) | H. Gervais
1904 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | D. Gallery
|  |  | (St. Antoine) | H.B. Ames
|  |  | (St. James) | H. Gervais
|  |  | (St. Lawrence) | R. Bickerdike
| [229] |  | (St. Mary) | C. Piché
1906 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | C.J. Walsh
|  |  | (St. Mary) | Médéric Martin
1908 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | C.J. Doherty
|  |  | (St. Antoine) | H.B. Ames
|  |  | (St. James) | H. Gervais
|  |  | (St. Lawrence) | R. Bickerdike
|  |  | (St. Mary) | M. Martin
1911 |  | Montreal | (St. Anne) | Hon. C.J. Doherty
|  |  | (St. Antoine) | H.B. Ames
|  |  | (St. James) | L.A. Lapointe
|  |  | (St. Lawrence) | R. Bickerdike
|  |  | (St. Mary) | M. Martin

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL FROM THE CONFEDERATION, 1867, TO THE PRESENT

(From 1867 to 1890)
Date. | District. | Name.
1867-1871 | Montreal Centre | Edward Cartier
1871-1874 | Montreal Centre | The Hon. Luther H. Holton
1874-1875 | Montreal Centre | Charles Alexander
1875-1878 | Montreal Centre | Alexander Walker Ogilvie
1878-1881 | Montreal Centre | Horatio Admiral Nelson
1881-1886 | Montreal Centre | George Washington Stephens
1886-1890 | Montreal Centre | James McShane
1867-1871 | Montreal East | Sir George Etienne Cartier
1871-1875 | Montreal East | Ferdinand David
1875-1886 | Montreal East | Louis Olivier Taillon
1886-1890 | Montreal East | Laurent Olivier David
1867-1871 | Montreal West | Alexander Walker Ogilvie
1871-1873 | Montreal West | Francis Cassidy
1873-1878 | Montreal West | John Wait McGauvran
1878-1886 | Montreal West | James McShane
1886-1890 | Montreal West | John Smythe Hall
1867-1886 | Hochelaga | Louis Beaubien
1886-1887 | Hochelaga | Joseph Octave Villeneuve
1888-1890 | Hochelaga | Chas. Laplante dit Champagne
(From 1890 to 1912)
1890-1891 | Montreal Division No. 1 | Joseph Béland
1892-1897 | Montreal Division No. 1 | Francois Martineau
1897-1908 | Montreal Division No. 1 | George Albini Lacombe
1908-1912 | Montreal Division No. 1 | Napoleon Séguin
1890-1891 | Montreal Division No. 2 | Joseph Brunet[230]
1892-1897 | Montreal Division No. 2 | Olivier Maurice Augé
1897-1908 | Montreal Division No. 2 | Lomer Gouin
1908-1909 | Montreal Division No. 2 | Henri Bourassa
1909-1912 | Montreal Division No. 2 | Clément Robillard
1890-1891 | Montreal Division No. 3 | Henri Benjamin Rainville
1892-1897 | Montreal Division No. 3 | Damase Parizeau
1897-1904 | Montreal Division No. 3 | Henri Benjamin Rainville
1904-1912 | Montreal Division No. 3 | Godfroi Langlois
1890-1891 | Montreal Division No. 4 | William Clendenning
1892-1896 | Montreal Division No. 4 | Alexander Webb Morris
1896-1900 | Montreal Division No. 4 | Albert William Atwater
1900-1904 | Montreal Division No. 4 | James Cochrane
1904-1908 | Montreal Division No. 4 | G.W. Stephens
1908-1912 | Montreal Division No. 4 | John T. Finnie
1890-1897 | Montreal Division No. 5 | John Smythe Hall
1897-1900 | Montreal Division No. 5 | Robert Bickerdike
1900-1904 | Montreal Division No. 5 | Matthew Hutchison
1904-1906 | Montreal Division No. 5 | Christopher B. Carter
1907-1912 | Montreal Division No. 5 | Ernest C. Gault
1890-1891 | Montreal Division No. 6 | The Hon. James McShane
1892-1895 | Montreal Division No. 6 | Patrick Kennedy
1895-1904 | Montreal Division No. 6 | James John Edmund Guerin
1904-1908 | Montreal Division No. 6 | Michael James Walsh
1908-(election set aside) | Montreal Division No. 6 | Denis Tansey
1908-1912 | Montreal Division No. 6 | Michael James Walsh
1890-1896 | Hochelaga | Joseph Octave Villeneuve
1897-1904 | Hochelaga | Daniel Jerome Décarie
1904-1912 | Hochelaga | Jérémie Décarie
(from 1912)
1908 | Jacques Cartier | Philémon Cousineau
1908 | Laval | Joseph Wenceslas Lévesque
1912 | Maisonneuve | The Hon. Jérémie Décarie
1912 | Montreal Dorion | Georges Mayrand
1912 | Montreal Hochelaga | Séverin Létourneau
1912 | Montreal Laurier | Napoléon Turcot
1912 | Montreal Ste. Anne | Denis Tansey
1912 | Montreal St. George | C. Ernest Gault
1912 | Montreal St. James | Clément Robillard
1912 | Montreal St. Lawrence | John T. Finnie
1912 | Montreal St. Louis | J.E. Godfroi Langlois
1912 | Montreal St. Mary | Napoléon Séguin
1912 | Westmount | Charles Allan Smart

HON. LOMER GOUIN, K.C.

Prime Minister of Province of Quebec

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

A High Commissioner for Canada

SIR WILFRID LAURIER

A Prime Minister of Canada

MONTREAL FOUNDED 1642

In 1905 this monument, by Philippe Hébert, was erected to the memory of the first Governor of Montreal, Paul de Chomedey, Sieur de Maisonneuve, and commemorates, with its bas reliefs and supplementary statuary, several of the principal personages and dramatic incidents in the early days of the settlement.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Practically every bishop in the Province of Quebec issued an amendment which tended to create Union and promote the acceptance of Confederation. Cf. “The History of the Life and Times of Sir George Etienne Cartier” by John Boyd (McMillan, Toronto, 1914), pp. 288 et seq. The reader will find further interesting details on the political life of Montreal of this period, in the above work.

[231]

### CHAPTER XXIII

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNALS AND SIDELIGHTS OF SOCIAL LIFE

UNDER CONFEDERATION

1867-1914

CONFEDERATION—IMPRESSIONS OF—FUNERAL OF D’ARCY M’GEE—PRINCE ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT—THE SECOND FENIAN RAID—THE “SILVER” NUISANCE—ORGANIZATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD—RUN ON A SAVINGS BANK—FUNERAL OF SIR GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER—NEW BALLOT ACT—THE “BAD TIMES”—THE NATIONAL POLICY—THE ICE RAILWAY—THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD CONTRACT—THE FORMATION OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA—OTHER CONGRESSES—THE FIRST WINTER CARNIVAL—FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION—THE GREAT ALLEGORICAL PROCESSION AND CAVALCADE—THE MONUMENT NATIONAL—THE RIEL REBELLION—SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC AND RIOTS—THE FLOODS OF 1886—THE FIRST REVETMENT WALL—THE JESUITS ESTATES BILL AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY—LA GRIPPE—THE COMTE DE PARIS—ELECTRICAL CONVENTION—HISTORIC TABLETS PLACED—THE TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLE MARIE—THE BOARD OF TRADE BUILDING BURNT—THE CITY RAILWAY ELECTRIFIED—HOME RULE FOR IRELAND—VILLA MARIA BURNT—THE “SANTA MARIA”—CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOURERS CONVENTION—THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY AS A PUBLIC MUSEUM—MAISONNEUVE MONUMENT—LAVAL UNIVERSITY—QUEEN VICTORIA’S DIAMOND JUBILEE—MONTREAL AND THE BOER WAR—THE VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL—TURBINE STEAMERS—A JAPANESE LOAN COMPANY—FIRST AUTOMOBILE FATALITY—FIRES AT McGILL—ECLIPSE OF SUN—THE WINDSOR STATION ACCIDENT—THE “WITNESS” BUILDING BURNT—THE OPENING OF THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE—GREAT CIVIC REFORM—THE DEATH OF EDWARD VII—THE “HERALD” BUILDING BURNT—THE EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS—MONTREAL A WORLD CITY—THE DRY DOCK—THE “TITANIC DISASTER”—CHILD WELFARE EXHIBITION—MONTREAL AND THE WAR OF 1914.

The same foreword as that prefacing a preceding chapter is similarly applicable here. The curious reader is warned to pursue the history of the main movements indicated, in the second part of special history.

Confederation was received with mixed feelings. There were many of the parti national who thought that Confederation came too soon, that it had been hurried through without the people thoroughly being instructed in the details and[232] without their being consulted, and that the French Canadians would be politically annihilated, a foreboding never realized. It was indeed the quietus to the parti national, who had opposed it in their newspaper, the Union Nationale, established in 1865 by Médéric Lanctot, which represented the views of the young blood opposed to Cartier, such as Messrs. Joseph Loranger, Doutre, Dorion, Judge Delorimier, Lanctot, Labelle, Laflamme and L.O. David, then a brilliant writer on its staff. But in 1867 on the advent of Confederation agitation ceased and the inevitable was accepted with growing satisfaction. The country, however, was at the time in a bad state, suffering from the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty in 1866.

The year 1868 marks an important event in the French Canadian life of the city, for it saw the Papal Zouaves leave Montreal on February 7th, to fight in Italy against Garibaldi who wished to curtail the temporal sovereignty of the papal throne. On February 15th the roof of St. Patrick’s Hall, the home of St. Patrick’s National Society, at the south end of Craig Street, fell in. In March the first 3-cent letter stamp was issued in Canada, and on April 1st the first postoffice savings banks were opened. This same month saw the assassination of D’Arcy McGee at Ottawa. His funeral took place in Montreal on April 13th and was a great public testimonial to his citizenship and to his devotion to his adopted country.

Eighteen hundred and sixty-nine is remembered as the year the present Governor General, H.R.H., the Duke of Connaught, then the young Prince Arthur, a bright, frolicsome, light-hearted boy, first came to the city, in August, to join his regiment, the First Battalion of the Rifle Brigade. Rosemount, at the head of Simpson Street, a house which was occupied by Sir John Rose, and afterwards owned by the Ogilvie family, was set aside for him, under the tutelage of Lord Elphinstone. His advent added to the military and social gaiety of the small city. Among the brilliant officers then in the city was Col. Garnett Wolseley, then known only as a gallant officer who had served in the Crimea, who had now gone on the Red River expedition to the Northwest to quiet the first Riel rebellion, which occurred about this time, and who lived, at this period, at 172 Havelock Terrace, Mountain Street, above the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge. Another was General Windham, who was buried in this city on February 12, 1870.

One of the acts of the young Prince was to open the Caledonia skating rink on December 15th. A photograph of this represents the Prince surrounded by such men as David Brown, A. McGibbon, F. Gardner, Colonel Lord Russell, Mr. Hugh Allan, Mr. Andrew Allan, Colonel Dyde, H. Hutchinson, the architect, and the Rev. Dr. Robert Campbell. During his stay the Prince also opened the Royal Arthur School on Workman Street, and conferred in the St. Patrick’s Hall the order of St. Michael and St. George on Mr. A.T. Galt,—a striking and unusual ceremony in those days.

The Sixth Art Exhibition was held in Montreal the next year on March 8th and Prince Arthur was present.

The young Prince had more functions for he was soon to accompany his regiment in repelling the second Fenian raid.

Meanwhile, about April 10, 1870, an intimation having been received by the Dominion Government, from the British Minister at Washington, of an intended Fenian raid into Canada, several frontier corps were ordered to hold themselves in readiness for immediate action. There was great military enthusiasm in the city[233] and by the end of the week all the battalions so ordered were under arms. From Montreal, on the Monday following the receipt of this information, Muir’s troop of cavalry was ordered out and they arrived at Huntingdon on Tuesday afternoon, whither also went Prince Arthur. Colonel Chamberlain had already gone to Missisquoi to bring out the force under his command, whilst a large force of the volunteers in Montreal was collected under Lieutenant-Colonel Fletcher, the entire force being under Colonel Lowry.

FUNERAL OF THOMAS D’ARCY McGEE

FUNERAL OF THE LATE T.L. HACKETT AS SEEN COMING DOWN ST. JAMES STREET

The volunteer movement received an impetus and recruiting was lively. During the following week the streets of Montreal appeared gay with marching troops and sounds of martial music from the many bands which were moving to and from the execution of their military duties, now vividly recalled by the citizens of that time who have lived to see the great call to arms of 1914.

The day after the Queen’s Birthday, May 25th, the band of 200 of these, misguided Fenians, under command of “General” O’Neil, crossed the frontier and entered Canada, trying to effect a lodgment at Pigeon Hill. A finely equipped little army of itself in the shape of the Prince Consort’s Own Rifles (Regulars), 700 strong under command of Lord A. Russell and accompanied by our present Governor-General, then Prince Arthur, went by special train to St. Johns, where the volunteers had preceded them.

General Lindsay assumed command of the whole. The only fighting that occurred was at Cook’s Corners, where the whole of the Canadian troops did not exceed seventy men, though ample reserves were in waiting at points near at hand. The actual fighting was of no importance; it was a flash in the pan that made a great scare.

On May 26th President Grant issued a proclamation against Fenian raids into Canada and on May 30th in Montreal the mayor thanked the volunteers for their services. Little had had to be done but it was serious work mobilizing and there was much activity over the city in preparation.

Several other events are to be recorded for this year, the appearance of the Tyne Crew and the meeting to form the Dominion Board of Trade. The Frazer Institute was incorporated in 1870 and opened to the public in 1885 after a long delay from litigious actions. This year the “silver” nuisance was lessened by the export of $4,000,000 at a cost of $140,000, through the adoption of the plan of Sir Francis Hincks and Mr. William Weir, afterward president of the Ville Marie Bank.

In 1871 the first post cards issued by the Dominion postoffice were welcomed in the city. In this year the fuller organization of the Canadian Pacific Railway, organized by Montreal men, took place and the preliminary surveys were made for which Parliament had in 1870 appropriated $250,000.

On February 27, 1872, loyal Montreal observed the day as one of thanksgiving for the recovery of the Prince of Wales. On April 27th the intense interest of Montrealers in the new railway culminated in the voting on the million dollar railway subsidy. October 2d of this year saw St. Patrick’s Hall burned down; a run on the City and District Bank on the 7th, which was stopped by a citizen’s large deposit and by the timely advice of the Rev. Father Dowd, the pastor of St. Patrick’s parish; and on the 17th the city cars, then horse drawn, were stopped, owing to the animals suffering from the epizooty. This year was marked by the establishment of the first cotton mill at Hochelaga.

[234]

The memorable events of 1873 include the obtaining of the charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the public funeral in Montreal, on June 13th, of Sir George Etienne Cartier, who died in London on May 20th at the age of fifty-nine years, the unveiling of the statue of Queen Victoria by Lord Dufferin and the opening of the Wesleyan Theological College and the new Y.M.C.A. building.

In 1874 the manifesto of the Canada First party was issued on January 6th, preceding the general elections of January 29th.

In March the Queen’s Hall, the home of concerts and theatrical entertainments, was burnt down.

In September, 1875, the reinterment of Guibord in the Catholic cemetery took place under military escort.

On May 26th an act was passed that introduced vote by ballot, simultaneous elections, the abolition of property qualifications for members of the House of Commons and stringent enactments against corrupt practices at elections. On June 6, 1876, the Emperor and Empress of Brazil were entertained in this city.

This year was chiefly noticeable for trade depression and the number of business failures. This was in consequence of the bad times begun in 1874. On August 14th a great mass meeting was called to consider the Montreal taxes. The country was in a poor state after the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty with the United States and was suffering from the reaction after the Civil war.

In 1875 the Mechanics Bank and the Banque Jacques Cartier suspended payment. The industries were very few and could not compete with those of the States, and agriculture was feeble. There were heavy duties to pay for the many goods coming from the States. There was little population and many crossed the border line. Work was scarce; there was great distress. People were starving and free public soup kitchens were established for poor relief by the charitable agencies. Funds were too low for more liberal treatment. Politicians placed the blame on the free trade policy of Mr. McKenzie’s party then in power. This was opposed to the genius and the needs of a young country feeling its industrial way. While the Americans had a duty at that time of twenty to seventy per cent the Canadians for purely revenue purposes had only something like fifteen per cent, and nothing for protection. The occasion was one that demanded practical relief and not finely strung political theories, built on the experience of the custom prevailing in England. But nothing was done so that the people became hopeless and gloomy and there was a project about this time, as already recorded, for annexation, encouraged by the American party in Montreal for business reasons.

Meanwhile the city saw, in June and July, of 1878, the Orange troubles and the shooting of Hackett, a state of excitement no doubt caused by the general unsettled state of affairs. The great hope of this time was the national policy which Sir John A. Macdonald began to make public. The effect was magical at the start. In March, 1878, he expressed his opinion that to be prosperous Canada must adopt a “national policy” for the protection of home industries. It had to be fought out at the polls. There was now hope in every breast. Financial men began to look out for sites upon which to build mills and factories, the sugar refineries were reopened, the people took heart and when the policy carried at the polls in September by a tremendous majority and was ratified by a formal vote in the house, and when the national policy was introduced March 14, 1879, going into effect next day, it was felt that Montreal and Canada were saved. It was the[235] remembrance of this that caused the older men to vote against reciprocity when before the public in 1911.

A social event of this year was the investiture by the Marquis of Lorne, Governor-General of Canada, authorized by Her Majesty, of the six knights of the most distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. Gregory.

On January 1, 1880, the South Eastern Railway began the construction of a railway across the ice from the north side of the river to the station between Bellerive Park and Longueuil Ferry, across to Longueuil. The contractors were Auguste Laberge & Son, who had built the city hall, its promoters being Mr. Sénecal, A.B. Foster, Judge Mousseau, J.B. Renaud and others. On the 29th of January loaded cars were drawn across to Montreal. Next day an engine of 50,000 pounds avoirdupois crossed from Montreal. On March 15th horses replaced the engines; on March 31st twenty cars were on the ice railway, when it began to be found insecure so that the rails were removed from the ice on April 1st.

In September the Governor General visited the exhibition at Montreal, when 50,000 persons were present.

On October 1st the contract was signed for the Canadian Pacific Railway, but at midnight on December 10th it was placed before the House. On February 16th of the next year the company received its letters patent and on May 2d broke the first ground for the great transcontinental railway.

On December 23d of this year Sarah Bernhardt made her first appearance here.

On January 5th, 1881, the South Eastern Railway laid a railway again across the ice but it was shortly abandoned on the loss of an engine by the freight train breaking through, without the loss of life.

The next year, 1882, was one of intellectual progress in the city for this year, on May 25th, the Royal Society of Montreal was formed with Sir William Dawson, principal of McGill, as president.

On August 21st there were the meetings of the Forestry and Agricultural congresses and on August 23d the American Association for the Advancement of Learning again chose the city for its convention after twenty-four years’ absence.

The first Montreal Winter Carnival was held in January, 1883, and was the outgrowth of a suggestion by Mr. R.D. McGibbon, an advocate of the city. One of the great features was the ice palace, which was erected in Dominion Square, a mediaeval castle of transparent crystal. The attack of 2,000 snowshoers, and the defence by the volunteers, was a great scene amid the detonation of bombshells and the interchange of pyrotechnic missles till at last the castle capitulated. After this an immense line of showshoers, each bearing aloft a blazing torch, scaled the mountain in a seemingly endless trail of fire. This has been repeated at more or less regular intervals but the fear that the ice palace would harm prospective immigrants through unnecessary fear of our bright, brisk and invigorating winter has caused the carnival pageant to fall into desuetude. Yet the carnival is but a development of the old frost fairs on the Thames, that most known being on the occasion of the visit of Charles II and the Royal Family to the Frost Fair of 1684, when the printers made a souvenir as follows:

[236]

Charles, | King | Mary, | Duchess
James, | Duke | Anne, | Princess
Katherine, | Queen | George, | Prince
Hans in Kilder
London, printed by J. Croome on the ice on the River
Thames, Jan. 31st, 1684.

The month of June, 1884, was the scene of great festivity among the French-Canadian population on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the parent society of St. Jean Baptiste Association of Montreal, being taken to hold a national congress of French-Canadians from June 24th to the 28th, to inaugurate the placing of the first stone of the Edifice Nationale, which afterwards became the “Monument National.” Outside of the literary, artistic and other intellectual sessions of the congress there were public sports, balloon ascensions and amusements, and a great procession of all the societies of St. Jean Baptiste in Canada and the United States, when a magnificent array of allegorical cars representing the chief features of Canadian history passed through the principal streets of the city.

In addition there was a grand historical cavalcade representing St. Louis, King of France, receiving the oriflamme of St. Denis and departing for the Seventh Crusade. The dresses for this dignified cavalcade cost about ten thousand dollars and the whole spectacle was one that far surpassed any similar dramatic pageant that had preceded it or has followed since in Canada.

On January 1, 1884, the River St. Lawrence again notably flooded the lower part of Montreal as was usual in the spring.

On July 4, 1884, Louis Riel arrived at Duck Lake and began to inflame the discontent in the half-breeds and Indians, who feared dispossession of their lands by the incoming settlers and the encroachment of the iron road of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. This, together with the Soudan war then in progress, produced a revival of the military spirit so that in the following year, 1885, Montreal sent the Sixty-fifth Regiment to suppress the rebellion.

The Montreal contingent returned home at a critical juncture and was employed to quell the anti-vaccination riots of 1885. At this time a virulent epidemic of smallpox had broken out in the city and a compulsory vaccination act had been passed which was resented by a great portion of the people, many complaining that the vaccine used had poisoned them, while others complained on sentimental and medical grounds. It was a time of terror. Mobs attacked the houses and even the persons of Larocque, Drs. E. Persillier-Lachapelle, J.W. Mount, Hingston, and others, who were before the public as the chief promoters of the vaccination movement. Meanwhile the doctors appointed for each district had their stations and went from door to door to vaccinate, while the houses could be seen with their isolation papers posted on them and with guards around and the yellow ambulances plying through the streets, taking away the affected sick or the dead.

The friends of many of the victims refused to allow the patients to be removed to the Exhibition grounds where a temporary hospital had been arranged. All the local troops were called out. The cavalry was there, too. A tremendous mob assembled at Mount Royal and attacked it with stones. Many of the men received cuts in the face. When the mob was at its worst, it was discovered that[237] there was no magistrate to read the riot act, and no ammunition for the rifles, in case the rifles had to be used. However, the cavalry rode through the crowds. A better feeling finally prevailed, so that the patients were peaceably allowed to be taken to the public hospital.

WINTER SPORTS IN MONTREAL: Skiing

WINTER SPORTS IN MONTREAL: Snow shoeing

WINTER SPORTS IN MONTREAL: The Ice Palace

WINTER SPORTS IN MONTREAL: Hockey match at Victoria Rink

WINTER SPORTS IN MONTREAL: Toboggan slide on Mount Royal

The epidemic had important results in the effect it had on the modernizing and reconstruction of the medical bureau of the city hall.

The Montreal annals of 1886 for January 2d recall the meetings of the famous evangelist, D.L. Moody. In the same month Sir John A. MacDonald, while in England, defended French-Canadian loyalty and affirmed at the same time that 40,000 of the best soldiers in Canada were ready to leave to defend Imperial interests in Burmah or Turkestan.

This year was signalized by Montreal’s worst inundation, so that on April 17th from the foot of Beaver Hall Hill there was a 5 cent ferry by boat and carts to St. James Street. The flood abated on April 20th, after having been five feet, ten inches above the revetment wall. A similar flood occurred next year and a delegation went to Ottawa to arrange with the Government for adequate protection. In consequence the following year a wooden embankment, filled with cement, was built and pumping stations were erected to protect Montreal from further inundations. This revetment wall, however, gave place to the present one of stone.

On the 28th of June the first passenger train to the Pacific left the city, reaching Vancouver on July 4th, a distance of 2,906 miles having been covered in 140 hours.

On May 12, 1888, the Quebec Parliament passed the Jesuits’ estates bill.

On September 3d the first labour day was celebrated in the city, 5,000 taking part in the procession.

During the next year, 1889, the Jesuits’ bill was contested by the Equal Rights party; finally the Quebec Legislature paid the Jesuits $400,000 which was further divided among Catholic educational bodies and an additional sum of $60,000 was turned over to the Protestant Board of Education.

The year 1890 opened with la grippe which was then prevalent in the United States, Canada and Europe.

On May 6th the lunatic asylum at Longue Pointe was burnt down with the loss of seventy lives, owing to the incendiarism of a patient.

This year saw the reception of the Comte de Paris and his son. The reception tendered them was a brilliant affair. Not only the French population but the English also received them most royally, although a counter demonstration was started by a few revolutionary spirits, but they had no following and their efforts came to nothing.

The annals of 1891 recall the arrival in the city, on August 21st, of the Continental Guards from New Orleans.

On September 8th there was the first electrical convention and this was followed on September 18th by the Montreal Exhibition, which took place on the former Guilbeault’s zoological and pleasure grounds above Mount Royal Avenue, these having been moved from the first location on Sherbrooke Street, the attendance at the exhibition being 50,000, surpassing those of 1880, 1881, 1883 and 1884.

[238]

Lovers of the antiquities of the city will note the date of October 21st, as that of the historic tablets being unveiled under the auspices of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Montreal, the movement having been promoted by Messrs. W.D. Lighthall with the aid of A.U. Beaudry, Gerald Hart and others of a subsequent committee.

The fifth jubilee of the founding of Montreal occurred in 1892. As early as April 17, 1888, a resolution was passed by the above association to celebrate it by an international exhibition in 1892. In October of 1888, Mr. Roswell Corse Lyman, one of its members, wrote a pamphlet “Shall we have a World’s Fair in Montreal in 1892 to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Ville Marie?” It never eventuated in this city, but Montreal can rightly claim that through this pamphlet and the Montreal initiation the wonderful Chicago World’s Fair of 1893 had its origin.

In April many Jewish families left Montreal to colonize the Northwest.

April of 1893 opened with three incendiary fires and on April 3d Bonsecours Market was partially burnt with a loss of $20,000, without insurance. On May 18th the cornerstone of the new Board of Trade Building was laid by Sir Donald Smith, who humorously remarked that he had come down from Ottawa as a common labourer, but that his brother member of Parliament, Mr. J.J. Curran, afterward the Hon. Mr. Justice Curran, had come to make a speech. On May 28th the will of Mr. J.W. Tempest was published, bequeathing the Art Association of Montreal about $80,000. One of the first benefactors to this had been Mr. Benajah Gibb, a former citizen.

At the second congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, held in London from June 28th to July 1st, the Montreal Board of Trade was represented by Mr. Donald A. Smith and Mr. Peter Redpath.

On July 5th, Sir William Dawson welcomed the Teachers’ Association to the city.

This year the street railway of Montreal was electrified and city planners saw the beginning of the present leap in the growth of Montreal through its suburbs following on the annexations which began in 1883.

On July 19th the city granted a thirty years’ franchise to the Street Railway Company.

In 1893 the progress of McGill University since 1852 was made manifest. University life was enlivened in this city on January 20th, when the students of the universities of Vermont and McGill held a joint concert in the city. At this time McGill had sixty-six professors. In April the chairs of pathology and hygiene were founded by the chancellor, Sir Donald A. Smith. McGill was benefited this year by the addition of the engineering and physics building, the gift of (Sir) William C. Macdonald, by the workshops, the gift of Thomas Workman, the library, by Peter Redpath, and the new Aberdeen medal, given by the new Governor General, Lord Aberdeen. But in the midst of the triumphs of this year, McGill regretfully received the resignation of Sir William Dawson, whom it had received as its principal in 1852, the year of its second lease of life.

On February 23d the International Mining Association met in Montreal.

On April 24, 1893, the interest of Montrealers in Imperial politics was manifested by the telegram of St. Patrick’s Society to the Canadian statesman, the Hon. E.S. Blake, a member of Parliament for an English constituency, to congratulate[239] Mr. Gladstone and himself on the second reading of the Home Rule bill.

A GROUP OF MONTREAL RESIDENCES

Residence of Sir William C. Van Horne

Residence of the Hon. Dr. James J. Guerin, Ex-Mayor of Montreal

“Ravenscrag,” residence of Sir Hugh Montagu Allan

Montreal residence of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

Residence of the late Hon. Sir William Hales Hingston

Residence of the late Charles M. Hays, Esq.

On May 1st there was held the first meeting of the Corn Exchange in its newly erected building. On the 23d Montreal was visited by the tornado which passed over the province, but without much injury or death.

On June 8th, Villa Maria, belonging to the “Congregation” Sisters, one of the largest educational structures on the American continent, was destroyed by fire.

On June 19th the three caravels, intended as the facsimiles of the ships of Columbus, were at Montreal on their way to the World’s Fair at Chicago. In the summer of 1914 one of them, the Santa Maria, reappeared at Montreal on a long tour in preparation for the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco in 1915.

The harbour also saw in July the arrival of the warship Etna. July witnessed a great convention of many thousands of an unsectarian body named the Christian Endeavourers. This year the railways of Montreal were flourishing and the fact that 132 trains were daily entering by the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways show the steady growth of the population and commerce. The earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway had increased by almost five million dollars since 1887.

On October 30th the city mourned the loss by death of a great Montrealer, the late Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott, K. C, M.G., a former mayor of the city and a prime minister of Canada. His burial took place on November 2d and his remains were followed by his successor, Sir John Thompson, and by many hundreds of the leaders of Canada.

The most important event closing the year of 1893 was the inauguration of the Royal Victoria Hospital in honour of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria.

On November 27th, Montreal experienced a shock of earthquake which was felt over Canada with no loss of life and little of property.

In 1894, Sir William Van Horne, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and one of its pioneers, was knighted.

This year closed on December 31st with one of the greatest windstorms ever recorded in the history of Montreal, the velocity of the wind reaching eighty miles per hour, so that much damage was done.

In 1894, the first attempt towards a public portrait gallery, a museum of antiquities and the securing of the Château de Ramezay as its permanent home originated with the members of the Antiquarian Society of Montreal, the idea of the picture gallery arising with Mr. de Léry MacDonald, that of saving the Château from passing into private hands, with Mr. Roswell Lyman, and the employment of it as a public historical museum by Mr. W.D. Lighthall, which was promoted by a petition to the mayor and aldermen organized by Mr. R.W. McLachlan and others and signed by about three thousand principal citizens. The agitation was successful and the first reception was given in the Château de Ramezay on November 11, 1897.

The next year, 1895, was marked with the inauguration of other public movements. On June 6th the statue of Sir John A. MacDonald was unveiled in Dominion Square by Sir Donald A. Smith and the Maisonneuve monument by Phillipe Hébert was unveiled on the Place d’Armes on Monday, July 1st, by the Hon. J.A. Chapleau, lieutenant governor of the Province of Quebec, the president of the committee being M.S. Pagnuelo and the secretary being the Vicomte H. de la Barthe. This was followed on October 8th by the inauguration of the new[240] edifice of the Montreal branch of Laval University, but recently established in the city.

In 1896, Sir Donald A. Smith, later Lord Strathcona, was appointed High Commissioner for Canada. Another prominent Montreal citizen, Mr. Charles M. Hays, was appointed general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway.

Among the notable city events of 1897 were the meeting, in Montreal, of the Behring Sea Commissioners on June 16th, the celebration of the first day of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, the consecration on June 30th of His Grace, Archbishop Bruchesi, by the Apostolic delegate, Mgr. Merry del Val, and the great meeting of the British Medical Society on August 31st.

In 1898 the public benefactions of a notable citizen, Sir William C. MacDonald, were rewarded by a knighthood.

January 1, 1899, is memorable as the day when the reduction of the 3 cent postage stamp to 2 cents came into force.

This year also marked the progress of the movement for the higher education of women by the opening of the Royal Victoria College for Women, being endowed with a gift of $1,000,000 by the chancellor of the University of McGill, Lord Strathcona.

This year being that of the beginning of the Boer war, Montreal again shared in the Imperial burden by providing a considerable part of the Canadian contingents for service in South Africa, it being represented in the first contingent by Company E, which sailed on October 30, 1899, and more largely in the second contingent which departed on January 4, 1900. The famous Strathcona Horse of three squadrons with 597 of all ranks sailed on March 1, 1900. During the progress of the war the citizens were actively engaged in promoting the patriotic fund and in works of providing comforts for the soldiers and those left behind by them.

During the course of 1900 the statue of Queen Victoria by Princess Louise was unveiled by the Governor General, Lord Minto.

The year 1901 was ushered in by the disastrous fire which destroyed the Board of Trade and many other commercial buildings on St. Paul Street to the extent of $2,500,000 loss. The new building was raised on the same site and was taken possession of on May 1, 1903.

On September 18, 1902, Montreal was honoured by the royal visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, who are now happily reigning as King George V and Queen Mary. The loyalty of the city was manifested as on previous royal visits, the city being magnificently decorated and illuminated.

The growing importance of Montreal as a factor in Imperial commerce was demonstrated in the following year, 1903, when the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire met in the city.

The destruction by fire of the Mount Royal Club, frequented by the wealthiest and most important citizens, taking place this year is another sidelight calling attention to the growth of club life since the old Beaver Club days. Other clubs had, in the meantime, been established in great numbers to cope with the growth of its needs.

In 1905 the first turbine steamers to cross the Atlantic, the Virginian and Victorian, of the Allan Line, were placed on the St. Lawrence route, a fact showing[241] that navigation methods at Montreal have always kept abreast with the times. This same year the value of new buildings erected was $5,590,698.

The year 1904 opened with a terrible conflagration at St. Cunégonde on January 18th.

On June 4th, Lord Dundonald, on military service in Canada, made his famous arraignment at the Windsor Hotel of his government, for which he was recalled on June 14th. The harbour this year showed the prevalent great commercial development when an elevator capable of holding 1,000,000 bushels was erected. On the 22d of August the Manufacturers’ Association held a great banquet at the Windsor Hotel. In November, Patti made her last appearance in the city to be followed on January 5, 1905, by Rejanne, both of these latter appearances chronicling the position of Montreal as a musical and dramatic centre. Since then great singers, such as Calvé, Albani, Caruso and others have each triumphed here, as have the leading instrumental artists.

The Russo-Japanese war was the occasion of a subscription for a Japanese loan being started on March 31st. On August 22d Royalty again visited Montreal in the person of Prince Louis of Battenberg.

In 1906 the Labour party in Montreal elected a labour representative, M. Alphonse Verville, for Maisonneuve. This year St. Helen’s Island was secured for the people of Montreal by a purchase by the city from the Federal Government for $200,000.

In this year the advent of the automobile era is recorded at Montreal by the first fatality occurring, on August 11th, in the death of one named Toutant.

In 1907 the early months saw the burning of the Protestant school at Hochelaga and the civil engineering and medical buildings of McGill University. On April 1st the old Theatre Royal, which had fallen from the high palmy days into flagrant spectacles of a low class of vaudeville, was interdicted by the Archbishop Bruchesi and its final doom occurred a few years later.

The Bremen, one of the first German cruisers to visit this port, arrived on August 25, 1907. A significant sidelight of a phase of the continued growth of Montreal is the signing, on November 7th, of the contract for the building of the new city prison at Bordeaux. This year the temperance movement was greatly forwarded by the foundation of the Anti-Alcoolique League on December 29th.

International trade expansion was demonstrated in Montreal on February 5th, when the Marconi commercial telegraph service was installed.

The eclipse of the sun of 1908 was visible at Montreal on July 22d.

In 1909 a great accident took place in the Windsor Station by a train running off the tracks causing damage to the extent of $200,000, but with the loss, however, of only four lives.

The shipping in the port this year was increased by the advent of the White Star Liners, S.S. Laurentic on May 7th, and S.S. Megantic on June 27th. On the 27th of August the steamship Prescott was burnt in the harbour. The “Back to Montreal” movement recalled citizens to their homes for the week beginning September 13th, while the following day saw the closing of the civic investigation into aldermanic scandals at the city hall to be followed by the “Cannon Report.”

On September 23d the Witness Building was gutted by fire. In October the Royal Edward Tuberculosis Institute, the first of its kind in Canada, was[242] opened by telegraph from England by His Majesty, King Edward, who gave the name to the building. The last day of the year ended with a gas explosion at Viger Station with the loss of thirty-eight lives.

The year 1910 is memorable for the triumph of civic reform and the establishment of the Board of Control, owing to a change in the city charter, as the outcome of the referendum to the people in 1909, to stop which an aldermanic delegation to the Provincial Legislature had been fruitless.

In the year in question the electors were asked to vote on these two vital questions:

Do you approve of the creation of a Board of Control?

Do you approve of one alderman a ward instead of two?

The answer given to both of the queries was overwhelmingly in the affirmative. The following figures prove this beyond the question of a doubt:

SUMMARY OF THE VOTE

| Votes.
For reduction of aldermen | 19,585
Against reduction | 1,640
| ———
Majority in favor | 17,945
For Board of Control | 18,528
Against Board of Control | 2,413
| ———
Majority in favor | 16,115

There was not a single ward, throughout the city, which did not favour the proposed changes and no less than 34 per cent of the entire vote was polled on this memorable occasion.

On May 6th, His Majesty, King Edward, died and loyal Montreal grieved as a city with majestic and magnificent emblems of sorrow over all the public buildings. On the occasion of the royal funeral in Westminster Abbey the city was represented by His Worship the mayor, Dr. J.J. Guerin. In preparation for this event the high commissioner of Canada, Lord Strathcona, in London, protested against the inferior position given to the representatives of autonomous colonies of the Empire and his timely intervention was generously acted upon.

The Montreal trade fleet again was reinforced in 1910 by the advent on May 11th of the Royal Edward from Bristol, the first of the Canadian Northern Railway steamers. On the 28th, of the same month, transportation was effected by the inauguration of the electric tramway between Longueuil and McGill streets via the Victoria Bridge.

In June the Herald Building, facing Victoria Square was destroyed by fire with the loss of thirty-three lives. During this month M. de Lesseps, of aviation fame, was received in the city hall, while on November 27th the city was visited by the Marquis de Montcalm, a name honoured in the city from the general who made Montreal his headquarters under the French régime.

In October a flight, however, has to be recorded—that of the plausible financial gambler, Sheldon, who had ruined many widows among his dupes. He was, however, captured in the following year and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

[243]

But the Eucharistic Congress of 1910, held in Montreal, at the choice of the Catholic world, was an event before which all others of a social character have paled during recent years. It was prepared for long in advance as a great civic occasion, irrespective of its denominational character. The railway and steamship companies, the civic authorities and public bodies fitly put forth all their strength to make Montreal realize its now acknowledged position as a world city, which its choice connoted.

All was in readiness when Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, at the end of August, came to Quebec on the Empress of Britain, to represent His Holiness, Pius X. There in the old City of Champlain the eminent visitor was honourably and worthily entertained. After this the Government tugboat, the Lady Grey, and the Government steamboat Montmagny, with prominent members of the legislature and leading citizens, accompanied by other vessels, eighty yachts, motor boats, etc., went down to meet the delegate on the way up the river. Meanwhile great crowds were gathered to receive the party on the wharf, but the flotilla entered the port on Saturday afternoon, September 3d, in a downpour of torrential rain. At the foot of McGill Street, on the wharf, a splendid kiosk, topped with a handsome cupola, was crowded with the civic functionaries, who shortly left on receiving the Cardinal and the whole party were forced to adjourn to the city hall, where the ceremony of further reception by the mayor, Dr. James J. Guerin, was more worthily and comfortably performed. The rain, however, had not prevented the ringing of church bells and the shrill whistling of half a hundred steamships and numerous factories and the crowds of the expectant citizens from voicing a welcome. From the city hall, the Papal representative proceeded to the residence of Archbishop Bruchesi, who had organized the congress, to be held in Montreal, the first place in the new world to be so honoured by this national event, a sign of the growing recognition of the place of Montreal in the cities of the world. The Archbishop’s house was to be the home of the Minister for the week.

On Tuesday evening the formal opening of the congress took place in St. James’ Church on Dominion Square, amid picturesque religious ceremonies and brilliant ecclesiastical functions that surpassed anything previous on this continent. The delegate opened his remarks by a recognition of the enthusiastic reception given him by the provincial and municipal authorities, as well as by all classes. Archbishop Bruchesi, in his address of welcome, recognized the kindly feelings which other creeds had manifested towards the congress, how many prominent non-Catholic citizens, such as Lord Strathcona, had given their help in various practical ways in demonstrations of a high spiritual belief in the Unseen which the congress portended for all. Various telegrams were sent to Pius X at Rome and to George V in London expressing gratitude for the recent modification made by him in the form of the royal declaration which had continued till then to contain obsolete and obnoxious discriminations against a loyal part of his subjects.

It may also be noted here that at the luncheon given that day at the Windsor Hotel by Sir Lomer Gouin, prime minister of the Province of Quebec, the Cardinal, proposing the health of the King, congratulated the Canadians on the liberty that had been assured them under the British King who had shown how he could respect the legitimate susceptibilities of his Roman Catholic subjects throughout the Empire.

In the evening of this day, September 7th, the representative of the Federal Government, the Hon. Charles Murphy, Secretary of State of Canada, gave his official reception, which was attended by the largest throng of citizens that ever had entered this hotel. That night, midnight high mass was celebrated at the Notre Dame Church, which commenced when the great bell in the west tower, weighing 24,600 pounds, pealed out the hour of midnight, and the files of thousands of the representatives of the secular clergy and of the religious orders, and the laity, with prelates of a dozen different nations, assisted at a memorable occasion.

The practical work of the congress began on Thursday, September 8th. There were thirteen sessions held in the various large halls of the city, and in addition there were three general meetings held, two at Notre Dame Church and one in the Arena, at which three the Cardinal Legate presided. On two successive evenings, September 8th and 9th, 15,000 people crowded into the great entrance of Notre Dame to hear the most distinguished French and[244] English speakers of the congress. Among those who spoke were His Eminence, Cardinal Logue, Primate of Armagh, Ireland; Archbishop Bourne, of Westminster, England; Archbishop Ireland, of St. Paul, Minnesota; Monsignor Heylen, of Namur; Monsignor Touchet, of Orleans; Monsignor Rumeau, of Angers; Hon. Judge O’Sullivan, of New York; Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Lomer Gouin, the Hon. Thomas Chapais, and the Hon. C.J. Doherty, Henri Bourassa and J.M. Tellier, members of the federal and provincial governments of Canada. The sacred edifice, capable of seating 15,000, was crammed to the utmost, hundreds upon hundreds standing for two or three hours.

The enthusiasm was intense and the sacred edifice rang with unwonted applause. The sanctuary and the stalls were filled with brilliant ecclesiastical costumes and gay uniforms and the church was a mass of colour. Perhaps the most electrical moment of the evening was after the plea of the Archbishop of Westminster advocating, before this vast audience which was for the most part composed of French-Canadians of the Province of Quebec, a more general adoption of the English language to meet the changing conditions of Greater Canada, when Henri Bourassa, who had already been appointed to speak at this point, took the psychological opportunity of the occasion so temptingly offered him, to voice the aroused thoughts of his compatriots to whom their language, religion and racial traditions seemed inseparably bound. His words were punctuated with thundering applause and the waving of hats and hands amid a scence of vibrant national and religious feeling, the while the people hung upon the word of the speaker, who for the nonce was but the mouth-piece of their individual thoughts made a scene which the writer will never forget as an instance of a clever orator speaking under the best and most popular surroundings.

The third meeting, at the Arena, was composed of about eight thousand young men who were addressed by the Cardinal, Archbishhop Langevin, of Manitoba, and by Mr. Henri Bourassa on “Noble Ideals and Inspirations.” Both speakers urged them to hold to their traditions and national rights. There was plenty of room for English and French in Canada. Both could work out a noble destiny in this young and growing country.

Another, but one of the most appealing spectacles of the congress, was the procession of 30,000 school children who, wearing picturesque dresses and bearing emblems and banners, passed constantly before the Legate who was seated on the steps of St. James’ Cathedral and received their individual courtesy, the while he bestowed his blessing amid the thousands of spectators assembled around Dominion Square, the whole making a magnificent and unusual sight lasting for three hours, during which time all traffic in the neighbourhood was absolutely blocked.

The historic Mount Royal has witnessed many picturesque scenes but none more so than the great open air mass celebrated on Saturday, September 10th, at the foot of the mountain on the great open space below Mount Royal Avenue, where a superb and ornate altar, open to the winds of heaven, had been placed. Around it were 100 bishops, 2,000 priests in their picturesque costumes, and 200,000 of the faithful. A choir of 1,000 voices responded to the chaunts of the celebrant, Monsignor Farley, Archbishop of New York. Monsignor O’Connell, of Boston, and a Dominican priest, Father Hage, preached to all who could hear their voices. During the solemn celebration the Cardinal Legate arrived at St. Patrick’s Church, where another function was being held, and on his way to the altar he had to walk over a path carpeted with flowers, and there pausing, he bestowed his blessing on the kneeling multitude.

The supreme moment of the congress was to come in the great procession the following day. For weeks the long route from the Church of Notre Dame to the foot of Mount Royal, where stood the altar already described, had been given over to architects and workmen; tall handsome arches, things of beauty, had been raised here and there along the route, one of them being made of wheaten sheaves sent from the Western Canadian prairies. Thousands of Venetian columns, obelisks, pedestals and flag poles lined the streets; flags of all nations and innumerable electrical signs adorned the housefronts.

The forenoon of Sunday was spent in completing the details of the procession and precisely at 1 o’clock files of men, six abreast, began to move past the doors of Notre Dame and, like the corps of an immense army, then swung into the route of the procession. Long before the route had been densely thronged, and the mountain slopes thickly covered with expectant onlookers, for the various railways centering in Montreal had reduced their[245] passenger rates in every direction within a radius of hundreds of miles and trains laden with humanity had followed each other at close intervals and unloaded their thousands all day Saturday and during the early hours of Sunday. It is estimated by the railway authorities that 200,000 strangers entered Montreal in twenty-four hours to witness the procession. For hours before it began the whole route was lined with people patiently waiting, while at the foot of the mountain near the altar of repose at least 75,000 had gathered, 20,000 of whom had been there from early morning. It was an extraordinary spectacle to look from the top of the mountain and see the mass of human beings moving in every direction over the immense sward, all eventually turning towards the handsome repository with its overtopping dome, the whole a design of great architectural beauty. Downtown at 1 o’clock began the greatest demonstration of any kind, civic or religious, that Canada ever witnessed. During four hours and a half, between fifty and sixty thousand men marched silently and prayerfully between at least half a million spectators lining the route. The demonstration was international in its widest extent. Citizens of the United States and Canada, together with Lithuanians, Chinese, Syrians, Iroquois Indians in their tribal costumes and feathers, Italians, Poles and a dozen other nationalities besides, carrying their distinctive banners and religious emblems, marched in one solid phalanx and in perfect order.

But the most imposing spectacle of all was that following the lay sections at 4 o’clock, when 1,000 choir boys, clothed in red cassocks and surplices, followed by the Christian Brotherhoods, hundreds of seminarians and the various religious orders of the city took their place in the great procession; then came 2,000 priests in sacerdotal vestments, followed in order of precedence by 100 bishops and archbishops, in cope and mitre. In the rear of the papal officers and chamberlains came the huge golden baldachino under which walked the tall majestic figure of Cardinal Vannutelli, carrying the Sacred Host and accompanied on both sides by ecclesiastical guards of honour and soldiers, with children busily swinging censers and strewing flowers in his path, the while the dense multitude, irrespective of creed, bowed in the reverential awe of the moment. Behind the baldachino walked Cardinals Logue and Gibbons, the prime minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the speaker of the House of Commons, members of the federal and provincial governments, members of the legislative council, the mayor of Montreal, the chief justice and judges of the Superior Court of Canada, all in their robes of office, members of the city council and a long line of men belonging to the liberal professions. When these last bands accompanying the Legate arrived it was already growing dusk and the electric lights on the waiting altar glowed in the gloom. A thousand voices entoned the Tantum Ergo, the Cardinal ascended the steps, took the remonstrance containing the Sacred Host and, raising it aloft over the 200,000 men, women and children kneeling on the grass, gave the benediction of the congress.

The congress was over. Lights went out and the bishops and their attendant clergy retired to the neighbouring convent of the Hôtel Dieu to doff their robes, marching down Pine Avenue chanting the Gregorian “Te Deum,” which sounded like the war song of the priests, and gradually the vast multitude dispersed to their homes.

The events of the succeeding year of 1911 recall the general federal elections on July 11th on the question of a renewal of reciprocity with the United States when, as has been said, it was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the electorate, notably in Montreal.

Harbour development was signalized this year by the signing of the contract with the Canadian Vickers Company for the new dry docks at the east end, and on October 4th in fitting recognition to a great harbour builder, the monument of the Hon. John Young was unveiled on the water front by Earl Grey. Meanwhile the general city development and expansion had been steadily increasing since the annexations of 1883. Its population and religions were becoming increasingly cosmopolitan and domestic troubles among the Mohammedans of the city on July 10th sufficiently indicate this.

The year 1912 is memorable at Montreal through the sorrow caused in the city by the loss of the White liner S.S. Titanic, a huge vessel with a displacement of[246] 60,000 tons, which struck a submerged iceberg off Cape Race on April 14th with the loss of 1,600 souls on board. While the whole world thrilled with horror at the new revelation of the dangers of the sea to modern leviathans, Montreal had its particular grief in the loss of some of its respected citizens, Charles M. Hays, president of the Grand Trunk Railway system, Markland Molson, Thornton Davidson, Vivian Payne, Q. Baxter, R.J. Levy, Mr. and Mrs. H. Allison and daughter, and Albert Malette.

The churches of the city universally mourned this world-wide disaster at the services of April 21st.

The month of October is memorable as the occasion of the great educational Child Welfare Exhibition held for a fortnight under the auspices of the humanitarian societies of the city in the Craig Street Drill Hall, and drawing immense crowds.

The year 1913 was remarkable for the extraordinary activity in building operations. As elsewhere related in the special chapter on City Improvement, Montreal gave more evidences of being a modern New York rather than the Ville Marie of old. It may be called the year of the great real estate boom.

But the last weeks of this year will stand out in civic history as a serious warning of the possibility of a city being deprived of its water supply for a long period with the additional terror of fire and disease. For 193 hours, beginning with Christmas night, the greater part of Montreal was deprived of water by the breaking of the concrete conduit at Lachine. Its story is told elsewhere.

The year 1914 has been one of the greatest gloom. Shortly before 3 o’clock early in the morning of May 29th the disquieting news was flashed from Quebec to Commander J.T. Walsh, superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company, that about 2:30 o’clock its greatest steamer, the Empress of Ireland, had been struck about thirty miles east of Farther Point, but without further information. Shortly another report told that it had been struck by the Storstad, a Norwegian collier bound for Montreal, and was sinking rapidly in sight of Rimouski. At first the news was not credited as possible, but it was too true. The ship sank almost immediately, being struck in the bowels and filling straightway with water. Montrealers felt the disaster most keenly, as its sister ships have their headquarters here and its officers were men personally known on the St. Lawrence and the Montreal route. Of the total 1,367 souls on board, 959 lives were lost and less than four hundred saved. The disaster was faced with courage and sympathetic humanitarianism by the many officers of the company who journeyed down to Quebec and spared no effort by night or day to make the tragedy less painful to the relatives of the survivors. The sailor institutions of Montreal on this occasion were glad to cooperate with those of Quebec and supervised the sad task of identifying the drowned and burying the bodies of the sailors as they were rescued from the waters or the shores of Rimouski and taken to the mournful morgues at Quebec.

Towards the end of July, 1914, war was declared between Austria and Servia. This involved Germany on the side of Austria, and Russia and France on the side of Servia, and on August 30th Great Britain because of Germany breaking the neutrality of Belgium, entered what was to be the most devastating war in the history of nations. Canada at once declared her loyalty to the Motherland in a very practical way. The Federal government presented 3,000,000 bags of flour[247] and raised a contingent of 33,000 of her best men. The Provinces vied with each other in contributing huge quantities of wheat, flour, apples, and in the case of the Province of Quebec, 2,000,000 pounds of cheese. A National Patriotic Fund was started with branches in every municipality throughout the Dominion—Montreal’s contribution totalling $2,000,000, in addition to which a Montreal citizen, A. Hamilton Gault, gave $500,000 to raise a regiment to be composed of veterans. This regiment of 1,000 picked men was named after the daughter of the Governor-General, the Duke of Connaught, the “Princess Patricia Light Infantry” and joined the first contingent, which left Canada on October 2nd, in thirty-one transports, principally vessels trading to Montreal, and under eleven convoys. This armada, which was the largest that ever sailed the Atlantic seas, reached Plymouth, October 16th, and the contingent was immediately entrained to Salisbury Plain to complete its training. Montreal contributed 3,200 men towards this first contingent. Their arrival in England was the occasion of much popular satisfaction at this great spectacle of Imperial union.

HOMES OF PROMINENT MONTREAL CITIZENS

“Rokeby,” the residence of A. Hamilton Gault.

Residence of the Hon. Sir George A. Drummond, K.C.M.G.

Summer residence of Hon. J.A. Ouimet, St. Anne de Bellevue

Country residence of Sir Rodolphe Forget, M.P., at Ste Irénée on the St. Lawrence

“Villa des Epinettes,” summer residence of Isaie Prefontaine, Belle Isle

Whatever doubts there might have been in the minds of some people as to the responsibility of Canada in the Boer war there was absolutely none in this crisis. The spontaneity of the Canadian people in rising to their privileges as British citizens has never been so pronounced. Every man and every woman in the Dominion, irrespective of national origin, wanted to do something to aid the Motherland. And Montreal was in the van.

Immediately the first contingent embarked the government decided on raising a second and recruiting started afresh. While the French-Canadians of the country had contributed 2,146 to the first contingent, being the more notable contribution of Canadian born subjects, the majority of the volunteers were those who were British born. But now the French-Canadians of the city determined to raise a regiment composed entirely of their compatriots to be called “Le Régiment Royal Canadien” and over three thousand men applied for admission. The Irish-Canadians, too, raised a regiment for home defense named the “Fifty-fifth Irish Canadian Rangers” with the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Charles J. Doherty, as Honorary Lieutenant Colonel. The neighbouring city of Westmount, under the direction of the mayor and council, raised the “Westmount Rifles” and even the suburban town of Outremont raised an artillery battery of 105 men. A number of prominent citizens of Montreal, on the initiative of Mr. J.N. Greenshields, K.C., equipped and are sustaining a “Home Guard” of 3,000 at their own expense. Towards the Patriotic Fund the local councils contributed as follows: Montreal, $150,000; Westmount, $5,000; Outremont, $5,000; Maisonneuve, $2,000; Verdun, $3,000; and the smaller municipalities lesser but proportionate amounts. These funds are being augumented daily.

The war affected Montreal in another way, industrially and financially. On the declaration of war the banks called in their loans and though the government came to their aid in the negotiation of their collateral the fact of the stoppage of capital from Great Britain disorganized the industrial machinery of the country and thousands were thrown out of employment. In addition to this the forcible internment of the Germans and Austrians, of which 3,400 were in Montreal alone, caused much anxiety to the authorities, for none would employ them. A delegation from Montreal waited upon the acting premier, Sir George Foster, November 2d, asking for the cooperation of the Government in alleviating the[248] general distress. This Sir George promised as far as the interned enemies were concerned, but thought each municipality should take the responsibility of looking after its own unemployed.

Montreal at this period was like a huge garrison town. Recruits, with and without uniforms, university professors and students, rich and poor alike, were being drilled in every open space and many public and private halls. For barracks the dismantled Protestant High School on Peel Street and other buildings were used for the young men of the second contingent.

Not only were the canals, bridges, wharves and public buildings patrolled by soldiers in uniform, since the first news of the outbreak of the war, but the streets of Montreal and the suburbs have been the constant scenes of much militarism. A lasting memory will survive in numerous streets and avenues, either being opened or bearing names already employed elsewhere, being appointed henceforth to bear the names of generals and towns connected with the war, such as Joffre, Pau, Liège, Namur and Aisne.

About the city committees of devoted women of all national origins and of all the numerous charitable associations, were patriotically visiting the wives and dependents of volunteers for the front and administering the allowances granted by the Patriotic Fund, the headquarters of which were in the new Drummond Building at the corner of St. Catherine and Peel streets. And in this central room a busy committee was engaged all day on the careful systematic organization of the relief fund. Over the city in church, school, club and private rooms, groups were busily knitting and sewing and fashioning all sorts of comforts and necessities for those who had heard the call to fight for the maintenance of the Empire. The city has become a busy loom of patriotic charity.

All honour to the loyal women of Montreal in this moment of the world’s greatest war.

CANADIAN AID FOR BELGIAN SUFFERERS

[249]

[250]
[251]

### CHAPTER XXIV

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS

I

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

EARLY CHAPELS AND CHURCHES—THE FIRST PARISH CHURCH—OTHER CHURCHES STANDING AT THE FALL OF MONTREAL—NOTRE DAME DE VICTOIRE—NOTRE DAME DE PITIE—THE “RECOLLET”—THE PRESENT NOTRE DAME CHURCH—ERECTION AND OPENING—THE “OLD AND NEW”—THE TOWERS AND BELLS—THE ECCLESIASTICAL DIOCESE OF QUEBEC—THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL—THE DIVISION OF THE CITY INTO PARISHES—THE CHURCHES AND “RELIGIOUS”—ENGLISH-SPEAKING CATHOLICS—ST. PATRICK’S, IRISH NATIONAL CHURCH, ETC. NOTE: THE “RELIGIOUS” COMMUNITIES OF MEN AND WOMEN.

The history of the Catholic Church in Montreal is largely that of its churches and its religious orders or congregations.

Its history commences with the date of the first mass on the common on September 8, 1642, in the open air, the day of the arrival of M. de Maisonneuve and the first colonists, though mass had already been said on the island as far back as 1615 in Champlain’s presence at the Rivière des Prairies, by the first Recollect fathers, Joseph le Caron and Denis Jamay.

From 1642 to 1657 the Jesuit missionaries served the small group of colonists, at which dates these were succeeded by the priests of the congregation of St. Sulpice, founded in Paris by M. Jean Jacques Olier, at Vaugirard in January, 1649, a main purpose of which was to supply priests for the mission founded at Montreal by the Compagnie de Notre Dame de Montréal.

The first chapel “of the fort” was one of bark, which was succeeded shortly by a frame building which served adequately till 1656. In this year a new chapel building in wood was adjoined to the Hotel Dieu at the corner of St. Paul and St. Joseph (St. Sulpice) and served as the church of St. Joseph for the hospital and the citizens till 1678 on the completion of the first parish church of Notre Dame, begun in 1672.

This church was regarded as a wondrous monument in its time, and as it was standing at the time of the fall of Montreal, and was not entirely demolished till 1843, its history forms part of that of Montreal under British rule, serving to connect the two regimes.

[252]

It stood on the top of St. Sulpice Street, then St. Joseph, and its front was placed on the axis of Notre Dame Street and Place d’Armes, in front of the site of the modern Notre Dame church. It was raised by subscriptions assisted by the Gentlemen of the Seminary.

The original church begun in 1672 was gradually enlarged. From 1720 to 1724 there were discussions among the Marguilliers or church wardens on the building of an imposing bell tower capable of holding four bells, as well as on the construction of a portail as an imposing entrance facade to the church. In 1722 discussions arose as to whether it should be placed southeast or northwest of the church. The new tower on the northwest was built about 1725. This served as a belfry for various bells cast in Montreal till that named Thomas Marguerite came from London in 1773, being one of the old ones recast, and was blessed on July 4th by M. Montgolfier, superior of the seminary. It received its name after Thomas Dufy Desaulniers and Marguerite, probably the name of Madame Le Moyne, the other godparent. The belfry proper was erected in 1777, the iron cross surmounting it in 1778, the copper gilt cock bought in London being placed in 1782.

Before relating the history of the Notre Dame church of today it will be proper to account for the other churches of Montreal erected before the capitulation in 1760, and bridging over the two periods of rule.

The Church of Notre Dame de Bonsecours was not standing on the arrival of the British. The first church of this name was built in wood by Marguerite Bourgeoys, the first stone being laid in 1657 by the famous Jesuit missionary among the Onondagas, Father Simon Le Moyne, the building being finished in 1659. The second building, also erected by Marguerite Bourgeoys, was the first stone church in Montreal. It was given to the Fabrique in 1678. It was reduced to ashes in the fire of 1754 and the third church was built between 1771 and 1773. In 1847-48 the church was decorated and on October 6, 1840, there was held a procession of the boats on the river and there took place, with Bishop Bourget presiding, the solemn translation of the new statue of Our Lady of Bonsecours specially destined for voyagers and sailors and placed on the exterior to dominate the port. It had been known as the Sailors’ Chapel, being on the quay. It was remodeled in 1889, according to critics, at the expense of many of its Breton-like attractive features. On the apse of the chapel is a colossal statue of the Blessed Virgin with outstretched arms to protect the sea-going vessels and sailors. On the roof is another chapel, a facsimile of the Holy House of Loretto. The church itself possesses a miraculous statue of Our Lady. The sanctuary is all marble, there are handsome stained glass windows and many historic pictures and votive offerings.

Until recently there stood off Notre Dame Street at the northwest entrance to the garden of the “Congregation” the quaint and picturesque church of Notre Dame de Pitié. Its original predecessor was commenced in 1693 and finished in 1695, principally through the benefactions of the recluse, Jeanne LeBer, daughter of the famous merchant, Jacques LeBer, who dwelt for twenty years (from 1694 to her death in 1714) in a little cell behind the altar. After the cession it was burnt down on April 11, 1768, and was rebuilt many years afterwards, the first mass being said in 1786. In 1856 this church of the “Congregation” (60 feet ×30) was demolished to make room for the Notre Dame de Pitié (108 feet ×46). This was built to receive a wooden, miraculous statue of Notre Dame de Pitié, which[253] originally was placed in the Church of St. Didier in Avignon, France, in the fourteenth century. In 1789 this church was demolished during the French revolution and the statue came into the possession of a Madame Paladére, who gave it to the clergy. In 1852 it came into the hands of the Rev. M. Fabris, who, at the request of the Abbé Faillon, the historian, gave it to the Congregation at Montreal. It reached Montreal on July 1, 1855, and, pending the completion of the Church of Notre Dame de Pitié, was kept in the convent hard by, its solemn transference to the church, by Bishop Bourget, taking place on August 15, 1860. In 1912 it was demolished to make room for the projected extension of St. Lawrence Main Street to the wharves, at which time the adjoining historic convent of the Congregation nuns also suffered the same fate.

NOTRE DAME DE PITIE (REAR VIEW)

NOTRE DAME DE PITIE CHURCH

(Demolished)

In 1718 there was built near the church of Notre Dame de Pitié, and on the grounds of the Congregation, the chapel of Notre Dame de la Victoire. This was erected by the ladies of a pious sodality entitled Les Demoiselles de la Congregation Externe, in accordance with a vow made by them in 1711 on the occasion of the safety of Canada by the destruction of the fleet of Sir Hovenden Walker. It was burnt down on April 11, 1768, at the same time as the Mother House but rebuilt the same year. It was finally demolished in 1900. Other chapels connecting the old with the new Montreal were the Convent Chapel of the Charron Brothers, which became that of the Grey Nuns Hospital, and the Convent Chapel of the Hotel Dieu, on St. Paul Street. Their history is coincident with that of the buildings described elsewhere.

Two other churches built in the French régime were still standing at the capitulation during the early British period, the Jesuits’ church, which was commenced in 1692 and finished in 1694, being rebuilt and enlarged in 1742. After the capitulation of Montreal and the subsequent suppression of the Society of Jesuits, it became through the favour of the government the church of the Anglicans till 1803, when it was burnt down in the great fire of that year. The other church bridging over the two periods was that of the Recollects, which was built and finished between 1693 and 1700. There was also the Recollect Chapel, for towards 1709 there took place the blessing of M. de Belmont and the placing of the first stone of the Recollect Chapel by M. le Baron de Longueuil, major governor of Montreal. In the early days of the British rule the Recollects lent their church or chapel to the Anglicans and Presbyterians for service;

Their original grounds extended on the north from Notre Dame west to Lemoine Street on the south, and from McGill Street on the west to St. Peter Street on the east.

The “Récollet” began to fall on evil times, for before 1818 the Recollect property had passed into the hands of the Hon. Charles William Grant; the church, the house and part of the convent was purchased by the Fabrique of Notre Dame on August 28, 1818, from him. Collections were then taken up for its repairs, which were undertaken next year, according to the plan of M. Delorme in order to fit it for divine service. In 1822 the Rev. John Richard (or Richards) Jackson was permitted to occupy the lower part of the house by putting a schoolmaster there for the children of the Irish immigrants then beginning to arrive. About 1830 it became the recognized chapel for the Irish immigrants and at this time it became considerably improved by the gift of the portail of the old Notre Dame. On March 9, 1867, the church on the corner of Récollet and Notre Dame[254] streets with its land was sold to Messrs. Lewis, Kay & Company for the sum of $85,000, or $4.00 a foot, and was demolished. The successors of the Recollects, the Franciscans, O.F.M. (Order of Friars Minor) returned to the city and established themselves on Dorchester Street West about 1900.

NOTRE DAME PARISH CHURCH

We may now trace the history of the present Notre Dame parish church. By 1757 the parish church begun in 1672 being already too small, it was determined to buy land to build one 300 feet in length, and by 1823 land was bought for this purpose and the church commenced this year. This included the land on Place d’Armes on which there was the public library in Montreal. This eventually was not built on for the war ending in the cession took place. The Place d’Armes property bought, according to the description made in 1824 by Roy Portelance, Toussaint Peltier, père, and Charles Coté, père, was “L’Emplacement, situé sur la place d’armes contenait 180 pds de front sur 94 pds de profondeur, tenant pardevant a la place d’armes derrière à la ruelle des fortifications, d’un coté au Sieur Dillon et de l’autre coté au Docteur Leodel; sur lequel etaint construits une maison en pierre à deux etages converte en ferblanc de 60 pds de front sur 62 pds de profondeur, et autres bâtiments en bois.”

The Place d’Armes commenced in the middle of Great St. James Street and occupied the position now filled by the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Trust Building. It was thought then—in 1757—proper to build here and to transfer the Place d’Armes to some other position, the ground in front of the Jesuit residence being thought suitable. Subscriptions began in 1823 for the new church by a minute of the church warden on July 20th. The building committee appointed was M. le Curé; Le Saulnier, president; M.M. Louis Guy, J.P. Leprohon, F.A. Larocque, N.B. Doucet, T. Bouthillier and A. Laframboise, to whom later were added M. Olivier Berthelet in place of M. Doucet, and the following new church wardens, viz., M.M.C.S. Delorme, Pierre Pomminville, Pascal Comte, Jules Quesnel, Joseph Chevalier and Pascal Persillier-LaChapelle. Messrs. Francis Desrivieres and P. de Rocheblave (Marguilliers) were named treasurers in February, 1824.

The land bought for the new church included the houses and grounds of Messrs. Gerrard, Starnes, the estate, Perrault and Fisher, situated on St. Joseph Street (St. Sulpice), and also that proposed to be ceded to the Fabrique by the Gentlemen of the Seminary. The value of the land was estimated at £24,000. On October 5th the blessing of the cross marking the site was conducted by Mgr. B.C. Panet, coadjutor bishop of Quebec. In September, 1824, the first stone was blessed by M. Roux, superior of the seminary. The following minute tells of the blessing of the new church. “1829, June 7. Pentecost Day, at seven o’clock in the morning. The new parish church has been blessed according to the usage and custom of Holy Church under the invocation of the Holy Name of Mary by Messire Jean Henry Auguste Roux, superior of the seminary, curé of the parish and vicar general of the diocese, in presence of the undersigned priests and of several church wardens and other parishioners:

[255]

“Roux, Vic. Gen., Malard, ptre., Sattin, ptre., Sauvage, ptre., Richard, ptre., F. ant. LaRocque, T. Bouthillier, P. de Rocheblave, P. Jos. Lacroix, Joseph Masson, O. Berthelet, Alexis Laframboise, Jules Quesnel, F. Souligny, Pierre Baudry, N.B. Doucet.”

BONSECOURS CHURCH

BONSECOURS CHURCH AT AN EARLY PERIOD

BONSECOURS CHURCH WITH ITS BARNACLES, SHORTLY BEFORE ITS RECONSTRUCTION

The first mass said in the new parish church was by the Rev. Mr. Richards-Jackson, an English convert who died at Montreal of typhus on July 21, 1849, beloved by the Irish population. The celebration of the formal opening took place on July 15th when High Mass was sung by Mgr. J.J. Lartigue, bishop of Telmesse, and the first sermon delivered by M.J.V. Quiblier. A distinguished congregation was present, including the administrator of the province of Lower Canada, Sir James Kempt, his suite and the representatives of the different corporations of the city.

Meanwhile the old church of 1672 stood in front of the new one but not for long. The bodies of the dead were reverently removed to the vaults under the new church. On June 6, 1830, it was resolved by the Fabrique to give the Irish of the city, for the enlargement of the Récollet Church in which they now worshiped, the cut stone of the portail in front of the old church, together with other church objects from within. Then the church was demolished in August, 1830, but the belfry tower stood till 1843, a curious old-time relic blocking the passage on Notre Dame Street. The four bells were taken down on August 23d and the old tower pulled down on August 24th, about 4:30 P.M. Two of the bells, one of them the Charlotte, cast in Canada in 1774 and weighing, without the hammer, 2,167 pounds, were given later to St. Patrick’s Church. The architect of the new parish church died on January 30th, of the same year. He was a Mr. James O’Donnell, a native of Wexford, in Ireland. At his request his remains were buried in the new church.

The towers of the new church were not constructed till later. That on the Epistle side (west) called the Tower of Perseverence, was constructed in 1841 and blessed by the Bishop of Nancy, in November of the same year. That on the Gospel side (east), the Tower of Temperance, was not finished till 1842. Each tower is 227 feet high. The ten bells in the Tower of Temperance arrived at Montreal on May 24, 1843, and were blessed on June 29th by Bishop Bourget. They were cast in London by Mears & Company and were sounded for the first time on June 19th, at midday, from their position in the eastern tower. The history of the bells is as follows:

Name. | Pounds. | Donor.
1. Maria Victoria | 6,041 | The Seminary.
2. Edwardus-Albertus-Ludovicus | 3,633 | Albert Turniss and Edward Dowling.
3. Joannes Genovefa | 2,730 | John Donegani and wife.
4. Olivarius-Amelia | 2,114 | O. Berthelet and wife.
5. Julius-Josepha | 1,631 | Hon. Jules Quesnel.
6. Hubertus Justinin | 1,463 | Hubert Paré and wife.
7. Ludovicus | 1,290 | Louis, Ant. Parent, priest.
8. Joannes-Maria | 1,093 | Jean Bruneau.
9. Tancredes Genovefa | 924 | T. Bouthillier and wife.
10. Augustinus | 897 | Auguste Perrault.

The first Gros Bourdon, cast in February, 1843, weighing 16,352 pounds and the largest bell on the continent, arrived from Mears & Company, London, in[256] October, 1843, the gift of merchants, artisans and farmers. It was broken in the month of May, 1845, and was sent to England to be recast. The second Gros Bourdon weighed 24,780 pounds. It arrived in 1847 an was solemnly blessed under the name of Jean Baptiste on June 18, 1848. The ascent commenced at 3:30 P.M., June 21st, and about 7:30 P.M. it was installed in its present position in the western tower.

The organ of the parish church, constructed in 1857 by Mr. S. Warren, was inaugurated in its unfinished condition on June 24, 1858.

The church may be described as follows: “There are two immense arcades (60 feet high) with three niches containing the statues of the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist, patrons of the City and of the Lower Province. A flight of stairs or an elevator leads to the summit whence a splendid view may be obtained over the City and the St. Lawrence. The interior (including the sanctuary) is 255 feet long by 134 feet wide and 80 feet high. Two galleries extend 25 feet over the lower side aisles. The architect was instructed to plan a building with a seating capacity of 10,000 persons. The idea was to enable the congregation to follow the sacred functions and to hear the preacher without too much of an exertion. Notre Dame complies with this twofold condition. Beauty had to be sacrificed to practical use, and still the wealth of materials, the profusion of paintings and decorations throughout, the numerous statues and especially its imposing and well proportioned dimensions leave a deep and lasting impression on the visitor. There are nine chapels and altars in the body of the church. At the right: The chapels of the Holy Face; Our Lady of Perpetual Help with a copy of the Byzantine Virgin which is venerated in Rome; Saint Amable, St. Joseph’s, and, at the foot of the aisle, the Blessed Virgin’s chapel, with a painting by Del Sarto. On the tabernacle door is a fine painting of ‘The Virgin and Child’ by Fra Angelico. The cross and candlesticks on this altar were manufactured at Paris and are of most exquisite workmanship. On the outer wall of the sanctuary is a good copy of Mignard’s: ‘Saint Ignatius writing the constitutions of his Order.’ The altar of the Sacred Heart is on the other side of the sanctuary. To the right of this altar, which, by the way, is an artistic gem, may be seen a noteworthy old painting: ‘The Presentation in the Temple.’ Down the aisle, other altars may be seen; St. Ann’s (Painting by Carnevalli), the Souls in Purgatory and St. Roch’s. The pulpit is almost on a level with the gallery. On its sounding board are several fine statues and below the statues of two of the Prophets, the work of P. Herbert, one of America’s most renowned sculptors. The sanctuary is raised five steps above the nave and separated by the chancel-rail. The latter is of most precious wood and so are the chancel-seats and the monumental reredos. On the first pillar to the right just outside the chancel, under a gilt dome, is a white marble statue of the Madonna. It is the work of a Bavarian artist and displays remarkable skill. Pius IX, who prized it highly, presented it to the Rector of Notre Dame, Abbe Rousselot. At the other extremity of the railing is a second dome surmounting a bronze facsimile of the statue of St. Peter, in St. Peter’s, Rome. The high altar is ornamented with numerous sculptures of rare design and workmanship. ‘The Last Supper,’ in bas-relief, is most artistic, and so are the ‘Choirs of Angels’ at each side of the tabernacle. The sanctuary is illuminated on festal days with myriads of electric[257] lights which produce a dazzling effect. The organ is one of the most powerful in America. It was manufactured by Casavant Bros., St. Hyacinthe.

“Behind the sanctuary is a richly adorned chapel of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart. Its paintings are inestimable in value and the work of Canadian artists. Over the main door is a copy of Raphael’s: ‘Discussion on the Blessed Eucharist,’ by Larose. From left to right: ‘Paradise Lost,’ ‘The Sybil of Tibur,’ ‘The Annunciation,’ by Larose; ‘The Visitation,’ by Gill; ‘The Adoration of the Magi,’ by Saint Charles; ‘The Virgin of the Apocalypse,’ ‘The Transfiguration’ (above the high altar), ‘Christ the Consoler,’ by Franchere; ‘Dollard and his Sixteen Companions,’ ‘The First Mass in Montreal,’ by Saint Charles; ‘The Rock of Horeb,’ by Franchère; ‘The Wedding of Cana,’ by Beau; and ‘The Multiplication of the Loaves,’ by Franchère. The parochial sodalities meet in this chapel, but more especially so, the male and female members of the Association of Perpetual Adoration. In the treasury may be seen gorgeous costly church-ornaments and vestments, precious reliquaries, chalices, ciboriums of gold and silver, the embroidery work of Jeanne LeBer, a massive monstrance and the artistically arranged hangings or draperies of the grand dais which is used once a year for the solemn procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the streets of the City.”

NOTRE DAME CHURCH

SACRED HEART CHAPEL

INTERIOR OF NOTRE DAME

THE ECCLESIASTICAL DIOCESE

Montreal was ecclesiastically in the jurisdiction of the diocese of Quebec till 1836. At the fall of Montreal there was no bishop, the occupant of the see, Henri Marie Dubreuil de Pontbriand, having died on June 1, 1760. His successors in the see of Quebec were:

Jean Olivier Briand, named January 21, 1766, consecrated March 16, 1766, resigned June 29, 1784, died November 25, 1784; Louis-Philippe Mariauchau d’Esglis, consecrated July 12, 1772, bishop of Quebec November 29, 1774, died June 4, 1788; Jean François Hubert, consecrated November 29, 1786, bishop of Quebec June 12, 1788, resigned September 1, 1797, died October, 1797; Pierre Denaut, born at Montreal July 20, 1743, consecrated June 29, 1789, bishop of Quebec, September 1, 1797, died January 17, 1806; Joseph Octave Plessis, born at Montreal, March 3, 1763, consecrated January 25, 1801, bishop of Quebec, January 17, 1806, archbishop in 1819, died December 4, 1825; Bernard Claude Panet, bishop-archbishop of Quebec December 4, 1825, died February 14, 1833; Joseph Signay, consecrated May 20, 1827, bishop of Quebec February 14, 1833, archbishop Metropolitan July 13, 1844, died October 3, 1850.

The first bishop of Montreal was Mgr. Jean Jacques Lartigue, who was born in Montreal on June 20, 1777, was elected titular bishop of Telmesse on February 1, 1820, and consecrated on January 21, 1821. He was elected bishop of the new diocese of Montreal on May 13, 1836, and enthroned on September 8th following. He died in the Hotel Dieu on April 30, 1849, before, therefore, the incorporation of the diocese on May 30, 1849. His successor to the see was Mgr. Ignace Bourget, born at Pointe Lévis on October 30, 1799. He was elected titular of Telmesse and coadjutor of Montreal “cum futura successione” on March 10, 1837, and was consecrated on July 25th following. He became bishop of Montreal on April 19, 1840, and resigned on May 11, 1876, but was named titular archbishop[258] of Marianopolis in the month of July. He died at Sault au Récollet June 8, 1885. His coadjutor bishop had been Mgr. J.C. Prince from 1845 and Mgr. Joseph Larocque from 1852. His Grace, Mgr. Edouard Charles Fabre, born at Montreal on February 28, 1827, succeeded him as bishop of Montreal on May 11, 1876, and took possession of the seat on September 19th following. He had been previously elected titular bishop of Gratianopolis and coadjutor “cum futura successione” of Montreal on April 1, 1873, being consecrated in the Church of the Gésu on May 1st following. In 1886, on June 8th, Mgr. Fabre became elected the first archbishop of Montreal, receiving the pallium on July 27th of the same year. His death occurred on December 30, 1896. The present occupant of the see is His Grace, Mgr. Paul Bruchesi, who was born at Montreal on October 29, 1855, was elected Archbishop on June 25, 1897, and consecrated in the Cathedral church on August 8th of the same year. Two years later, on August 8th, he received the pallium.

There are two auxiliary bishops: Mgr. Francois Theophile Zotique Racicot, born at Sault au Récollet on October 13, 1845, and elected bishop of Poglia and coadjutor of Montreal on January 14, 1905, and consecrated on the following May 3d; and Mgr. George Gauthier, born at Montreal on October 9, 1871, named titular bishop of Philippolis and auxiliary of Mgr. Bruchesi on June 28, 1912, being consecrated on August 24th of the same year.

Until 1866 Notre Dame was the only parish church. From that date other parishes began to be canonically erected as such. The parish churches of Montreal in the year 1913 were as follows, with the dates of foundation, but not of canonical erection. Those various and numerous semi-public chapels, oratories, or churches, attached to the religious congregations not recognized as parish churches, are not included:

Notre Dame (first church, begun 1672, canonically erected 1678), second, formally opened, 1829; Saint Jacques (first church, 1822-1825), (second, 1857), (third, 1860), constituted the second parish church in 1866; Saint Enfant Jesus, founded in 1849, erected canonically in 1867; Sacré Coeur de Jesus, 1874, 835 Ontario Street, East: Très Saint Nom de Jésus de Maisonneuve, 1888; Très Saint Rédempteur, 1913, Hochelaga; Immaculée Conception, 1884; Nativité de la B.V.M. d’Hochelaga, 1875; Notre Dame de Carmel, 1905, Italian; Notre Dame du Bon Conseil, 1881, 724 Craig Street, East; Notre Dame Della Difesa, 1910, Italian; Notre Dame de Grâce, 1867; Notre Dame des Neiges, 1901; Notre Dame de Perpétuel Secours, 1906; Notre Dame de Saint Rosaire de Villeray, 1898; Notre Dame de Sept. Douleurs de Verdun, 1899; Notre Dame de Victoire, 1907; Saint Agnes, 1903 (E.)1; Saint Alphonse d’Youville, 1910; Saint Ann, 1854 (E.); Saint Anselme, 1909; Saint Anthony’s, 1884 (E.); Saint Arsène, April 11, 1908; Sainte Brigide, 1867; Sainte Catherine d’Alexandre, 1912; Sainte Cécile, 1911; Sainte Charles, 1883; Sainte Claire de Tétreauville, 1906; Sainte Clément, 1898; Sainte Clotilde, 1909; Sainte Cunégonde, 1874; Saint Denis, 1899; Saint Dominic, December 23, 1912; Saint Edouard, 1896; Sainte Elizabeth du Portugal, 1894; Sainte Etienne, 1912; Sainte Eusèbe de Verceil, 1897; Saint François d’Assise, Longue Pointe, 1770: Saint Francois du Pari Lasalle, 1912; Saint Gabriel’s, 1875 (E.); Saint Georges, June 27, 1908; Saint Hélène, 1902; Saint Henri, 1868; Saint[259] Jacques, 1866; Saint Jean Baptiste, 1874; Saint Jean Baptiste de la Salle, 1913; Saint Jean Berchmans, April 24, 1908; Saint Jean de la Croix, 1900; Saint Joseph, 1862; Saint Joseph de Bordeaux, 1895, erected canonically, 1912; Saint Léon, Westmount, 1901 (E. and F.); Saint Louis de France, 1888; Saint Aloysius, March 24, 1908 (E.); Sainte Madeleine d’Outremont, July 22, 1908; Saint Marc, April 19, 1903; Saint Michael, May, 1902 (E.); Saint Nicholas d’Ahuntsic; Saint Pascal Baylon, Cote des Neiges, 1910; Saint Patrick’s, 1847 (E.); Saint Paul, 1874; Sainte Philomene de Rosemont, 1905; Saint Pierre Apôtre, 1900; Saint Pierre aux Liens, 1897; Saint Stanislaus de Kostka; Saint Thomas Aquinas, June 18, 1908 (E.); Saint Viateur d’Outremont, 1902; Saint Victor de la Terrace Vinet, 1912; Saint Vincent de Paul, 1867; Saint Willibrod, June 6, 1913 (E.); Saint Zotique, 1909.

MGR. PAUL BRUCHESI

Fourth bishop, second archbishop of Montreal

MGR. EDOUARD-CHARLES FABRE

Third bishop, first archbishop of Montreal, 1827-1896

MGR. IGNACE BOURGET

Second bishop of Montreal, 1799-1885

MGR. JEAN-JACQUES LARTIQUE

First bishop of Montreal, 1777-1840

In addition there are missions to Chinese (numbering 200), Lithuanians (1,000), Poles (1,500), Ruthenians (5,000), Syrians (3 rites), Pure Syrians, Syro-Maronites and Syro-Melchites (1,000).

It would require a volume to give the history of all these parishes or of their many beautiful churches, but we may choose the following for historical reasons, viz.: the present Cathedral of St. James, the seat of the Archbishop of Montreal; the Church of St. James, the second parish and the site of the first Cathedral; the Chapel of Our Lady of Lourdes, as a type of several of the non-parish chapels in the city; the Gésu and St. Peter’s, as an example of public churches conducted by religious priests; and, as the English-speaking Catholic community is an entity of its own, St. Patrick’s church and others will be treated as affording an opportunity of reviewing the religious history of the Irish in the city.

ST. JAMES CATHEDRAL

The Cathedral, one of the largest temples on the continent, is admirably situated on Dominion Square, and its location adds to the majestic loftiness of its monumental cupola. It is one third the size and an adapted replica of St. Peter’s, Rome. When Mgr. Lartigue became Bishop of Telmesse (1821) with jurisdiction over the Church in Montreal, his residence was at the Seminary of St. Sulpice, and Notre Dame was to all intents and purposes the cathedral church of Montreal. He realized the disadvantages of the situation and took up his quarters at the Hôtel Dieu. Its modest chapel became the temporary Cathedral. In 1825, the people petitioned the Bishop to sanction the erection of a Cathedral and a residence in keeping with his exalted dignity. Their request was granted and a site chosen at the corner of St. Catherine and St. Denis streets, where St. James church stands today. The new Cathedral was dedicated by Bishop Lartigue, in 1825. His house was a very plain building. An episcopal residence soon replaced it, and was considered one of the finest structures in Montreal. Unfortunately, in 1852, the fire which consumed a great part of the City reduced the Cathedral and the residence to ashes. Mgr. Bourget, his successor, lived at St. Joseph’s Home, and the humble chapel of the Providence Asylum became the fourth Cathedral. The present site was then chosen. A modest brick chapel was erected by the side of the episcopal residence which for over forty years has been the home of the Bishops of Montreal and of their assistants in the administration of diocesan affairs.

[260]

July 25th, 1857, a cross was planted to mark the site of the future Cathedral. Mgr. Bourget, conceived the bold idea of erecting a duplicate of St. Peter’s Rome, to symbolize the union of the Church in Canada with the See of Peter, and he instructed Victor Bourgeault, the architect, to prepare his plans accordingly. The cornerstone was solemnly laid August 28, 1870. In 1878, the walls were raised to the height of thirty feet. The columns to support the dome were built as high as forty feet, and the other columns of the nave were elevated to the same height. The front of the portico was completed as far as the spandrel of the first arch, but the outer dome was left unfinished. In 1885, Archbishop Fabre, his successor, resumed operations which had been suspended for seven years. In 1894, the Cathedral was opened for worship. In 1886, the dome was finished, a noble adornment and a salient feature in the architecture of Montreal. The cross, of gilded iron, is eighteen feet in length, weighing sixteen hundred pounds, and was placed in position during August of the same year. Over the portico are thirteen bronze statues, donations of various parishes of the Diocese. They are the statues of St. James, St. Joseph, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Vincent of Paul, St. John, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Patrick, St. Charles Borromeo, St. John the Baptist, St. Hyacinth and St. Ignatius. The interior is very imposing, with its rich white and gold decorations. The graceful lines of its arches, the symmetry of its pillars and the simplicity of its appointments inspire a sense of due reverence and devotion. Under the dome there is a faithful reproduction of Bernini’s baldachino. It was made at Rome by Victor Vincent and donated to the Cathedral by the Seminary of St. Sulpice. It cost about twelve thousand dollars. The main altar is under the baldachino. Like the chancel-rail it is of marble and onyx. At the Gospel side set against one of the pillars supporting the dome is the archiepiscopal throne finely sculptured and inlaid with ivory. Several interesting paintings recalling historical facts and events connected with the foundation and establishment of Montreal adorn the arcades of the transepts and the lower walls. With one exception they are from the brush of G. Delfosse, a gifted artist of Montreal, and under each is an inscription explaining the different subjects. “The First Mass in Montreal” was painted by Laurent, a French painter, and was presented to Archbishop Bruchesi by the Government of the French Republic. The most interesting chapel is the “Papal Zouaves.” There is an exquisite painting over the altar of “Our Saviour revealing to Blessed Margaret Mary the treasures of His Sacred Heart.” The names of the 507 Knights, who took part in the nineteenth century crusade, are inscribed in letters of gold on four large marble tablets. In the chapel are the Regiment’s military colors; a painting of St. Gregory the Great, a gift of Pope Pius IX, to the Union Allet; a silver statuette, a gift of General Charette; a copy of “St. John the Baptist,” the original of which hangs in the Zouaves headquarters at Rome; a silver vessel used as a sanctuary lamp, a facsimile of the votive offering which the Zouaves made to the Shrine of Notre Dame de Bonsecours.

At the north entrance is a fine bronze statue to the memory of Bishop Bourget. Adjoining the vestry and communicating with it is “The Bishop’s Palace,” a palace in name only. In the near future this huge brick building will be replaced by an edifice worthy the Diocese.

PRESENTATION OF PLANS OF ST. JAMES CATHEDRAL

INTERIOR OF ST. JAMES CATHEDRAL

ST. JAMES CATHEDRAL

[261]

ST. JAMES

(St. Catherine and St. Denis Streets.)

In 1822-25 the first church of St. James (St. Jacques le Majeur) was built by Mgr. Lartigue, who became the first bishop of Montreal on January 21, 1821. He was a sulpician and lived until 1849. This church served as the Cathedral until 1852 when it was destroyed by the terrible fire which consumed a great portion of the City. Bishop Bourget, his successor, definitely left the neighbourhood of St. James and took up his quarters on Mount St. Joseph. In 1855, the Priests of the Seminary were placed in charge of the parish. The church was scarcely built in 1857 when it was destroyed by another fire. As the walls were uninjured the damage was easily repaired, and, in 1860, the new church was opened to the public. It is Gothic in style and the interior consists of three naves. It has the form of an irregular cross. The pulpit is a handsome design with its statues and turrets. In the transept are four paintings, the work of E. Cabane, a French artist: “Our Lady of the Rosary,” “The Education of the Virgin,” “The Death of St. Joseph,” and “The Holy Family.” The steeple is the bequest of the city and contains a very fine chime of bells. The entrance on St. Catherine Street is a splendid piece of architectural work and looks spacious in its framework of trees and terraces.

When the parishes were created in 1866 to supplement the Parish of Notre Dame, mother to the sole parish church, St. James became the second parish church.

OUR LADY OF LOURDES

(St. Catherine Street)

Close by the Church of St. James is the chapel of Our Lady of Lourdes dedicated to the Immaculate Virgin of Massabielle. It is a charming specimen of Canadian religious art. It was built under the supervision of the late Father Lenoir, with the generous cooperation of the Seminary of St. Sulpice and the Catholics of the City. The style of architecture is Byzantine and in art it is of the Renaissance order. The gallery is divided by an exquisitely beautiful rose-window. A nicely gilt statue of the Blessed Virgin has been placed on the dome and the crown of stars on its head is brilliantly lighted up at night by means of an ingenious electrical device. The alternate layers of white marble and grey stone give the front an attractive look. The central dome, thirty-five feet in diameter and 120 feet in height, looks down upon the nave and transept. There are two chapels in the church. One is in the basement and is a good reproduction of the Grotto of Lourdes, with an altar where Mass may be celebrated. The upper chapel is very richly decorated. Mr. N. Bourassa, the artist, has embodied in a series of beautiful tableaux the arguments of Catholic belief in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Among the subjects treated, there is a fine scroll above the high altar, at the first arch, representing “The Annunciation;” there are also two tableaux in the arcades at each side of the altar: “The Crowning of the Virgin,” and “The Assumption;” the large compositions of the transept: “The Adoration of the Magi” and[262] “The Visit of St. Elizabeth;” finally, “The Proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” which takes up the whole interior of the dome.

Mass is celebrated and a sermon preached in this chapel every Sunday of the academic year for the benefit of the students of Laval University.

This chapel is the meeting place of four sodalities of men, women, and young men and young women.

RELIGIOUS CHURCHES

THE GESU

The Gésu is the successor in order of time of the church built in 1692 on the site of the present courthouse and city hall. This was burned in 1803. The Jesuits had left the colony after the capitulation and their property was held by the government, but in 1842 they were invited to return by Mgr. Bourget and in consequence there arrived soon the Fathers Pierre Chazelle, Felix Martin, Remi Tellier, Paul Luiset, Joseph Hanipaux and Dominique Duranquet. Several undertook the charge of the curé of La Prairie and others were employed at the bishop’s house. In 1843 a novitiate for future members was opened on July 31st in a little house adjoining the church at La Prairie and on September 9th it was transferred for five years to a house loaned by Lieut.-Col. C.S. Rodier, who became mayor in 1858.

In 1845 a public meeting invited the Jesuits to build a residence and college in the city and in 1846 the present lands on Bleury Street were sold at a very liberal price by Mr. John Donegani. But owing to the typhus epidemic intervening in 1847-48 the building was delayed. In the meantime the Fathers worked in the fever sheds for the suffering Irish with six fathers who came from New York and afterwards founded with the Seminary the first residence of St. Patricks, then situated at Nos. 57-59 St. Alexander Street. In 1850 the first stone of their college of Ste. Marie was laid and on July 31, 1851, the college, with its public chapel attached, was blessed. In 1851 their noviceship was transferred hither and on August 5, 1853, it was again transplanted to its present position at Sault au Recollet, outside the city.

In 1863, on October 22, M. Olivier Berthelet made a gift of an arpent and a half (for which he had paid $20,000) for a church to be built after the model of the Gésu in Rome. The work was commenced in the following year.

The Gésu, as it became to be called, is one of the finest specimens of its kind. It is 194 feet long, 96 feet wide, the transept 144 feet, and the nave 95 feet high. The style of architecture, Renaissance and Florentine, is fascinating and gives the church an aspect of elegance and comfort. It is not unlike the Gesu at Rome in its appointments. Its collection of fine paintings and tableaux deserves a special mention. They imitate or complete the plastic work of the sacred edifice. They are, for the most part, copies of masterpieces of the modern German School and are the work of Mr. Miller. Among its many rich chapels, one in particular attracts the attention of the visitor, on account of an old statue it possesses. It is under the gallery to the right of the main altar and is known as the Chapel of Our Lady of Liesse. A reliquary over the tabernacle contains the ashes of the statue of Our Lady of Liesse, which was burned during the French Revolution. Two[263] large tableaux which are on either side of the sanctuary represent St. Aloysius and St. Stanislaus Kostka in the attitude of receiving Holy Communion, the former from the hands of St. Charles Borromeo and the latter from an Angel. There are two smaller paintings over the altars of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph: “The Holy Family” and “The Flight into Egypt.” These remarkable paintings are from the studio of Cagliardi Bros., Rome.

ST. PETER’S

Montreal is the headquarters of several religious orders of men. Besides the Jesuits there are numerous others who are devoted either to the ministry or education, or to both. One of the first communities to be invited were the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, an order founded at Aix in Provence on January 25, 1816, by Mgr. de Mazenod, bishop of Marseilles. In 1841 four Oblates reached Montreal, Fathers Honorat (Superior), Telmont, Baudrand and Lagier. Their settlement was first at St. Hilaire de Rouville, then at Longueuil. In 1848 a provisory chapel in wood was built in the Faubourg de Quebec (Quebec Suburbs). In 1851 the first stone of the new church of St. Peter, on the same spot, on Visitation Street, was laid. From this first home there went forth the first missionaries of the modern Canadian Northwest. To this order the Rev. Albert Lacombe, the northwest missionary, became early attached.

St. Peter’s has three naves of equal height. The sanctuary is lighted by large arched, stained-glass windows, which produce a magnificent effect. The white marble altar is surmounted by a turreted reredos and is shown to advantage by numberless electric bulbs most ingeniously adapted. St. Peter’s is one of the best proportioned churches of the City. The stained-glass windows of the sanctuary and side aisles are most attractive. They are from the factory of Champigneulle of Bar-le-Duc, France. The Sacred Heart altar is a rare work of art with its handsome candlesticks and its tabernacle door of gilded bronze.

ENGLISH CATHOLIC CHURCHES

ST. PATRICK’S

Especial notice should be given to the origin of the English-speaking Catholics of the city. Although before 1800 a few Irish immigrants sought a home in the city, the history proper of the Irish population of Montreal starts in 1817, when a Sulpician, the Rev. Father Richards-Jackson, commonly known as Rev. M. Richards, discovered a little band of worshipers from the Emerald Isle, driven thence by poverty and privation, gathering at Bonsecours church. A directory of 1819 only reveals about thirty presumably Irish names.2 In 1820 the number was still so small that a visitor to Bonsecours Church stated that “he could have covered with a good-sized parlour carpet all the Irish Catholics worshipping there on Sundays.” Yet the number of Irish orphans were so great that by 1823 the[264] “Salle des Petites Irlandaises” was opened in the Grey Nuns’ hospital and supported by the Gentlemen of the Seminary. Soon the complement of forty was reached. But by 1831, with the increase of immigration, the old “Récollet” church on Notre Dame Street, being considerably enlarged, was reopened for the use of the Irish Catholics of the center and western portions of the city, those of the eastern section still remaining attached to Notre Dame de Bonsecours. The Rev. Patrick Phelan, afterwards bishop, was the first Irish pastor. The Irish soldiers of the garrison met principally at the new Notre Dame church opened in 1829. Soon the “Récollet” became inadequate. On Sundays it was so overcrowded with devout Irish that the overflow knelt in the rain or the sunshine on Notre Dame Street or Dollard Lane. This was to be remedied by the steps taken on May 20, 1843, to purchase land for a church to be named St. Patrick’s, the present area of St. Patrick’s Church and the St. Bridget’s Home being secured by the Fabrique of Notre Dame from the Rocheblave family for £5,000. On the 26th of September the cornerstones were blessed by Bishop Bourget. They were seven in number and were laid by the following: First, by Bishop Bourget; second, by the mayor; third, by the speaker of the assembly; fourth, by the chief justice; fifth, by the president of the Irish Temperance Association; sixth, by the president of St. Patrick’s Society; seventh, by the president of the Hibernian Benevolent Society.

On the 17th of March, St. Patrick’s Day, 1847, the church of St. Patrick’s was dedicated. The first patron of St. Patrick’s was the Rev. J.J. Connolly, who had succeeded Father Phelan at the “Recollet” when the latter had been consecrated coadjutor bishop of Kingston in 1843.

Father Connolly nobly served the typhus-stricken emigrants in 1847 for a period of six weeks or more, consigning to the silent grave more than fifty adult persons a day. At this time Father Richards and Father Morgan died martyrs of charity. In this ministration, therefore, the Seminary called in the services of five Jesuit Fathers who laboured at St. Patricks for some years till the Seminary was able to provide its own members. The Rev. J.J. Connolly left St. Patricks in 1860 for Boston, where he died three years later, on the 16th of September, 1863, at the age of forty-seven years. He was succeeded by Father Dowd, who had been transferred with Rev. Father O’Brien, McCullough and others for service here from Ireland about 1848 at the request of M. Quiblier, superior of the Seminary.

In 1887, on the occasion of Father Dowd’s celebration of his fiftieth year of priesthood, the occasion was taken by every section of the community to testify its appreciation of his work as the pastor of St. Patrick’s and as a good citizen.

He commenced the St. Patrick’s Orphan Asylum, opened in November, 1851. In 1863 he established St. Bridget’s Home for the Old and Infirm and the Night Refuge for the Destitute, and in 1866-7 erected the building on Lagauchetière Street for a home and refuge. In 1872 he established the St. Patrick’s School for Girls on St. Alexander Street. In 1877 he organized the great Irish Canadian pilgrimage to Rome.

FRANCISCAN CHURCH

NOTRE DAME DE LOURDES CHURCH

THE JESUITS CHURCH AND ST. MARY’S COLLEGE

ST. PATRICK’S CHURCH

ST. JACQUES CHURCH

The position of St. Patrick’s as a national church for the Irish was jeopardized in 1866, when the dismemberment of the ancient parish of Notre Dame was proclaimed. St. Patrick’s would have become in the new division a general district, one for use by French-Canadians, but on the representations of Father Dowd to[265] the Holy See, the national privileges were confirmed to the church. Each succeeding pastor of St. Patrick’s has done much to the beautifying of this church, one of the purest specimens of the Gothic style in Canada. Its outside dimensions are: Length, 233 feet; width, 105 feet; inside height from floor to ceiling, 85 feet. The steeple is 228 feet high. The work of renovation of the interior of St. Patrick’s was carried out in 1893 under the late Father Quinlivan, S.S. pastor. Under the present pastor, the Rev. Gerald McShane, S.S., the parish has seen great improvements, notably those at the Eucharistic Congress of 1910 when the grounds adjoining the church and partially occupied hitherto by St. Bridget’s Orphanage were tastefully laid out as a semi-public garden. At this same time there took place the development of the chimes of St. Patrick’s. The following reproduction of the inscriptions on the memorial tables placed in the church tells its story:

AS A PERPETUAL MEMORIAL OF THE

XXI INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS,

At MONTREAL, SEPT 7-11, A.D. 1910,

And in Lasting Remembrance of the Solemn Congress Mass

And the Presence of the CARDINAL LEGATE in

SAINT PATRICK’S CHURCH, Sept. 10, was Erected

A CHIME OF BELLS,

Blessed with Imposing Liturgical Rites, May 15, 1910, by the

MOST REVEREND PAUL BRUCHESI,

Archbishop of Montreal.

“Ring out, sweet chime, from Gothic tower!
“A people’s faith thy belfry knells;
“At Matins, Lauds, and Vesper Hour,
“Peal forth our joy, sweet Congress Bells.”

TO COMMEMORATE THE RESTORATION AND SOLEMN

DEDICATION OF THE HISTORIC BELL,

CHARLOTTE,

Cast in Whitechapel Foundry, London, England,

A.D. 1774;

First Placed in Notre Dame, and Presented to

St. Patrick’s, A.D. 1840.

CHARLOTTE injured, was re-cast at Whitechapel, Blessed with

the Holy Name Bell in this Church, Dec. 13, 1908,

and Restored to the Tower.

“VOX POPULI, VOX DEI.”

|  | FATHER QUINLIVAN’S BELL
THE HISTORIC BELL |  | “John, Martin, Thomas.”
“Charlotte,” Restored by the Parishioners. |  | From Mr. Martin Egan, in memory
Note E. | 2,250 lbs. |  | of his beloved Wife.[266]
| C. sharp. | 812 lbs.
THE POPE’S BELL |  | THE SEMINARY BELL
“Pius, Edward, Vincent.” |  | “Charles, George, Frederick.”
Mr. C.F. Smith, donor. |  | Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Ryan.
F. sharp. | 1,615 lbs. |  | D. sharp. | 705 lbs.
THE ARCHBISHOPS BELL |  |
“Paul, Gerald, James.” |  | THE CONGRESS BELL
Gift of Mrs. M.A. McCrory, in memory of |  | “Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament.”
her Daughter, May. |  | Mr. J.T. Davis, donor.
G. sharp. | 1244 lbs. |  | Note E. | 674 lbs.
THE HOLY NAME BELL |  | THE CHOIR BELL
Blessed be His Holy Name. |  | “Cecilia, Margaret, Mary.”
From “The Holy Name Society.” |  | Presented by the Choir.
Note A. | 1100 lbs. |  | F. sharp. | 582 lbs.
FATHER DOWD’S BELL |  | THE CHILDREN’S BELL
“Patrick, Andrew, Cornelius.” |  | “Aloysius, Francis, De La Salle.”
Gift of Mrs. M.P. Ryan. |  | Presented by the Children.
Note B. | 951 lbs. |  | G. sharp. | 516 lbs.

In further commemoration of the Eucharistic Congress the Congress hall was added in 1914 and the blessing and laying of the foundation stone took place on Sunday, October 18th, of this year.

The interior of the church is most imposing with its beautiful Gothic arches and the wealth of its appointments and decorations. The walls are finished in imitation Venetian mosaic, after the style of St. Mary’s, Venice; the sanctuary pillars are imitations of Numidian marble, while those of the nave are delicately colored like Sienna marble; the coloring of the high altar resembles the tints of old ivory. The Celtic Cross predominates in the decorations of the arches and walls. There are some fine paintings in the sanctuary and on the side walls. “The Annunciation” and the “Death of St. Joseph” are very fine. Under St. Joseph’s altar is a life-sized figure of the Apostle of Ireland, attired in the pontifical vestments of the sixth century. The paintings of the Way of the Cross are works of art. The stained-glass windows are admirable. A series of painted panels ornaments the upper part of the wainscoting. The oak confessionals and pews are pretty in design. The harmonious combination is pleasing to the eye and gives the interior a picturesqueness of original conception.

ST. ANN’S

St. Ann’s Parish, the fifth in point of age and the second Irish parish of Montreal, was founded by the Sulpician Fathers. In early days, mass was celebrated in a brick house which is still standing and used as a tenement on the corner of Ottawa and Murray streets. The present church was commenced in 1851, the blessing and laying of the foundation stone being on August 3d and the opening on December 8, 1854. The Redemptorist Fathers took charge in 1884. The church which was found too small for the congregation was lengthened thirty-two feet and a tower added to the extension. In the tower is a fine chime of bells. Besides parochial work, the Fathers give missions throughout Canada and the United States. The origin of the name of St. Ann’s dates back to 1698, when[267] Pierre Le Ber, brother of the recluse, built a chapel at Point St. Charles to St. Anne. The first mass was said on November 12, 1698.

The ruins of the chapel were still to be seen in 1823.

The subsequent English-speaking Catholic churches that followed St. Patrick’s were founded in the following order:

1854, St. Ann’s, 32 Basin Street, served by the Redemptorist Fathers since 1884; 1875, St. Gabriel’s; 1884, St. Anthony’s; 1889, St. Mary (Our Lady of Good Counsel); 1902, St. Michael’s; 1903, St. Agnes’; 1908, St. Aloysius’; 1908, St. Thomas Aquinas’; 1912, St. Dominic’s; 1913, St. Willibrod’s.

NOTE

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

Besides the Diocesan clergy composed of “Secular” priests, an essential feature of Catholicism in Montreal is the number of “Religious” orders or “Congregations” of men and women, Montreal being in many cases, especially of women organizations, the scene of the foundation and mother-house of numerous branch establishments in various parts of the American continent.

The following lists will, therefore, be of value. The names are those only of houses in Montreal or immediately close at hand:

COMMUNITIES OF MEN

Sulpician Fathers (1657): Notre Dame, St. James Church, Grand Seminary, Seminary of Philosophy, Petit Séminaire, St. Jean l’Evangeliste’s School (Montreal), Lac des Deux Montagnes.

Oblate Fathers: (1848) St. Peter’s Church (Novitiate at Lachine).

Jesuit Fathers (1642 and 1842): Immaculate Conception, N.D. du Mont Carmel Church, Immaculate Conception, The Gésu, Ste. Mary and Loyola College (Montreal, Caughnawaga, Sault-au-Recollet).

Redemptorist Fathers (Belgian Province), took charge of St. Ann’s in 1884: House and Novitiate, St. Ann’s, St. Alphonse de Ligouri, d’Youville, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Churches (Montreal).

Clerics of St. Viateur (Outremont, Montreal): Academy St. John the Baptist, Scholasticate Sacristy of Church (Montreal), Chapel, Parochial School (Bordeaux), Provincial House, Juvenate, Church, Parochial School (Outremont), Catholic Institute for Deaf Mutes, Parochial School, Patronage of St. Francis de Sales, Patronage of St. George, St. Jean de la Croix (Montreal, Boucherville, St. Eustache, St. Lambert’s, St. Remi, Sault-au-Recollet, Terrebonne).

Congregation of The Holy Cross, founded from Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S. A., came to Montreal in 1897: Scholasticate and Notre Dame des Neiges College, Hochelaga Parish, St. Joseph’s Commercial College (Hochelaga, Pointe Claire, St. Genevieve, St. Laurent).

Company of Mary (Montreal).

Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament, originally at Rome, called to Montreal in 1890: (Montreal, Terrebonne.)

[268]

Franciscan Fathers (1692 and 1890): St. Joseph’s Convent, Parc Lasalle residence, Church on Dorchester Street West.

Dominican Fathers (new quarters at St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.): Notre Dame de Grace.

Fathers of St. Vincent de Paul (Tournai, Belgium): St. Georgés.

Brothers of the Christian Schools, came to Montreal in 1837: Motherhouse and School, Maisonneuve, Pensionnat Mt. St. Louis, Archbishop’s Academy, Ste. Ann’s School, St. Bridget’s School, St. Gabriel’s School, St. James’ School, St. Joseph’s School, St. Laurent’s School, St. Patrick’s School, St. Henri des Tanneries, St. Leon (Westmount), Salaberry and Sacred Heart Schools (Lachine, Longueuil, St. Cunégonde, St. Jerome), St. Paul’s College (Varennes, Viauville, Oka).

Brothers of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, called to Montreal in 1865: (Montreal, Longue Pointe).

Brothers of the Sacred Heart: St. Eusèbe, Notre Dame de Grace (Verdun, Pointe-aux-Trembles).

Marist Brothers, from Iberville, P.Q.: St. Peter’s School, St. Michael’s School, St. Vincent de Paul.

Brothers of the Christian Instruction, La Prairie, P.Q.: St. Edward’s College, St. Elizabeth du Portugal School, St. Mary’s, St. Gregory’s, St. Stanislaus Schools (Chambly, La Trappe, Napierville, St. Scholastique, St. Anne de Bellevue, Vercheres), Coté St. Paul, St. John College.

Brothers of St. Gabriel: College and Patronage St. Vincent de Paul and School, St. Hélène, St. Claire de Tetreaultville Schools, St. Arsène’s School and Orphanage (La Assomption, St. Martin, Ste. Rose, St. Therese).

Brothers of the Presentation: (1910) High School, Durocher Street, for boys; St. Gabriel’s, school for boys.

COMMUNITIES OF WOMEN

Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, founded by Marguerite Bourgeoys: Mother House, School of Higher Education for women, affiliated with Laval University, Villa-Maria, Pensionnats, Mt. St. Mary and St. Catherine’s Pensionnats, Visitation School, Ste. Ann’s School, St. Agnes’ School, St. Denis’ School, St. Anthony’s School, St. Hélène’s School, St. Joseph’s School, St. Stanislaus School, Notre Dame des Anges School, Notre Dame du Perpetuel Secours School, Notre Dame de Bonsecours School, Bourgeoys’ School, St. Leo’s School, St. Urbain’s School, Notre Dame du Bon Conseil School, St. Laurent’s School, St. Anthony’s School, St. Eusèbe School, St. Patrick’s School, St. Louis’ School, Jeanne Le Ber School, St. Alphonsus’ School, St. Claire de Tetreauville School, St. Vincent de Paul’s School, Our Lady of the Seven Dolors (Verdun), St. Ann’s Schools.

Hospital Nuns of St. Joseph, founded for Montreal by M. de la Dauversière and erected as a community in 1659. Hôtel Dieu first administrated by Jeanne Mance (1642).

Grey Nuns Hospital Général, founded in Montreal by Madame d’Youville in 1747: St. Patrick’s Asylum, St. Joseph’s Hospice, St. Bridget’s Home, Nazareth[269] Asylum, Bethlehem Asylum, Notre Dame Hospital, Patronage d’Youville, Catholic Orphanage, St. Paul’s Hospital, St. Cunégonde Asylum, Hospice St. Antoine.

Religious of the Sacred Heart came to Montreal in 1842: St. Alexandra Street 1860, Secondary Education (School).

Sisters of Charity of Providence, founded in Montreal by Madame Gamelin: Mother House, Gamelin Asylum, Providence Asylum. Institution for Deaf Mutes, St. Alexis Orphan Asylum, St. Vincent de Paul Asylum, Hospital des Incurables, Providence Ste. Geneviève, Hospice Auclair, Hospice Bourget, Holy Child Jesus.

Sisters of the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, founded at Longueuil in 1844 by Eulalie Durocher (Sister Marie Rose): Mother House, Pensionnat, Academy Marie-Rose, Academy of the Most Holy Names, Hochelaga Parish School, St. Clement School (Viauville).

Sisters of Notre Dame of Charity of the Good Shepherd, came to Montreal in 1841: Provincial Monastery, Ste. Marie Asylum, St. Louis de Gonzaga Academy.

Sisters of the Holy Cross and of the Seven Dolours, came in 1847: Mother House, Novitiate, Academy and School, St. Laurent School, St. Bridget’s School, St. Gabriel’s School, St. Denis’ School. Our Lady of the Holy Rosary (Villeray): St. Edouard’s School, St. Paschal’s School, St. Ignatius and St. Basil’s Academies.

Sisters of Miséricorde, founded in Montreal by Madame Jetté in 1845: Mother House, Hospital and Foundling Asylum, Maternity Hospital.

Sisters of Ste. Anne, founded at Vaudreuil, 1850, by Esther Sureau dit Blondin: St. Arsène School, Ste. Cunégonde School, St. George School, St. Henry School, St. Jean de la Croix School, St. Michael School, Ste. Elizabeth of Portugal School, Holy Child Jesus School, St. Pierre aux Liens School, Three other Academies.

Sisters of the Precious Blood (Contemplative order), founded at St. Hyacinthe in 1861, came to Montreal district in 1874: Notre Dame de Grâce.

Carmelite Sisters: (Contemplative) established at Hochelaga in 1875.

Daughters of Wisdom: (Founded at La Vendèe), came to Montreal in 1910.

Little Sisters of the Poor (care of poor), came to Montreal in 1887.

Little Daughters of St. Joseph, founded in Montreal in 1857 by the Rev. M. Antoine Mercier.

Little Sisters of the Holy Family, founded at Sherbrooke: Notre Dame des Neiges (1877), Notre Dame College, St. Peter’s Church, St. John the Evangelist School, Archevêché de Montréal.

Soeurs de L’Espérance (Nursery Sisters), came to Montreal in 1901: Rue Sherbrooke.

Sisters of Immaculate Conception, erected in 1904 as an order by Mgr. Bruchesi: Montreal (Outremont).

Sociéte de Marie Réparatrue, came to Montreal in 1911.

[270]

FOOTNOTES:

1 These marked E have English-speaking congregations. The rest have French.

2 The names, however, of the students at the College de Montreal show many unmistakable Irish names. See the note in the chapter dealing with the history of Laval University.

[271]

### CHAPTER XXV

OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS

ANGLICANISM—EARLY BEGINNINGS—FIRST “CHRIST CHURCH”—THE BISHOPS OF MONTREAL—HISTORY OF EARLY ANGLICAN CHURCHES.

PRESBYTERIANISM—ST. GABRIEL’S STREET CHURCH—ITS OFFSHOOTS—THE FREE KIRK MOVEMENT—THE CHURCH OF TODAY.

METHODISM—FIRST CHAPEL ON ST. SULPICE, 1809—THE DEVELOPMENT OF METHODIST CHURCHES.

THE BAPTISTS—FIRST CHAPEL OF ST. HELEN STREET—FURTHER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT—PRESENT CHURCHES.

CONGREGATIONALISM—CANADA EDUCATION AND HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY—FIRST CHURCH ON ST. MAURICE STREET—CHURCHES OF TODAY.

UNITARIANISM—FIRST SERMON IN CANADA, 1832—ST. JOSEPH STREET CHAPEL—THE CHURCHES OF THE MESSIAH.

HEBREWS—SHEARITH ISRAEL—SHAAC HASHOMOYIM AND OTHER CONGREGATIONS.

SALVATION ARMY—ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

OTHER DENOMINATIONS.

A RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF MONTREAL FOR 1911.

ANGLICANISM

Some notes written about 1790 on the “state of religion” (Canadian Archives, Series Q, Volume XLX, page 343) help us to see the beginnings of the Anglican church in Montreal. This document appears to be issued by the “Society for Propagating the Gospel” on England. After the peace of 1762 it was thought advisable by the English government to send some French Protestant clergymen who could minister to French Protestants, whose number were greatly exaggerated. Accordingly, while M. de Montmolten was sent to Quebec and M. Veyssiere to Three Rivers, M. De Lisle came to Montreal. There was, of course, no church as the account proceeds to say:

“The minister at Montreal (who is also chaplain for the garrison) when he does officiate it is in the chapel of the Recollects Convent on Sunday mornings only and on Christmas day and Good Friday.” Again,[272] “there is not a single Protestant church in the whole province. The greater part of the inhabitants of Montreal are Presbyterians of the church of Scotland. These being weary of attending a minister (M. de Lisle) whom they did not understand and for other reasons, have established a Presbyterian minister and subscribed liberally to his support. His name is Bethune and he was late chaplain of the Eighty-fourth Regiment, and while Mr. Stuart assisted Mr. de Lisle (which he did for a short time) he used constantly to attend the service of our church.”

Even on the arrival of the first Protestant bishop for the country, Doctor Mountain, who was made Bishop of Quebec about 1793, there were but nine Protestant clergymen in Canada. In the first years the duty was performed by the military and naval chaplains. In 1766 the Rev. D.C. De Lisle, a Swiss Protestant, was appointed rector of Montreal; hitherto, as said, he had acted as chaplain for the regiment. A minister was appointed for Three Rivers in 1768 and one for Sorel in 1783. In 1784 the Loyalists, establishing themselves in the north of the St. Lawrence and founding the Modern Ontario, chaplains were appointed for New Oswegatchie (Prescott), New Johnstone (Cornwall), and Kingston (Cataraqui).

The first Episcopal visitation of an Anglican prelate took place in Canada in 1787, Dr. Inglis, the first bishop of Nova Scotia, and then the only bishop in Canada, being appointed on August 12, 1787. He arrived at Quebec on June 11th. After a fortnight’s visitation he ascended the river, visiting Three Rivers, Sorel and Montreal. At Montreal he found that a part of the Récollect Church was kindly loaned at certain hours for the Protestant services. The city Protestants urged the Bishop to obtain permission from the government for the Jesuits church, now in its hands, the order being suppressed and the church falling into disrepair. The Governor, Lord Dorchester, agreed to place the building in good repair, but the interior of the pews were to be fitted up by the congregation. He proposed that the church be called Christ Church. We may call this the establishment of the Church of England in Montreal.

Christ Church was opened for service on December 20, 1789, when the sermon was preached by Mr. De Lisle. Mr. De Lisle died in 1794, being succeeded by the Rev. James Tunstall, who was followed in 1801 by the Reverend Dr. Mountain, brother of the Rev. Jacob Mountain, who had been appointed in 1793 to the new Anglican see of Quebec. In June, 1803, the church was destroyed by fire. A building committee was appointed, consisting of Doctor Mountain, the Hon. James McGill, George Ogden and the Messrs. Ross, Gray, Frobisher and Sewell. The site of the old French prison (about where No. 23 Notre Dame Street, West, now stands) was granted by the government. The cornerstone was laid in 1805. Meanwhile the Scotch Presbyterian Church of St. Gabriel’s, which had been erected since 1792, was loaned for services. On the 9th of October, 1814, after much delay, the new Christ Church was opened and dedicated. Doctor Mountain died in 1816 and the Rev. John Leeds succeeded. On his resignation in 1818 the Rev. John Bethune was presented by the king as rector under letters patent, which created a rectory and defined the limits of the parish. Thus Christ Church became the Anglican Mother Church of the city.

In 1850 Montreal was made a diocesan see and the Rev. Francis Fulford was appointed by letters patent the first bishop, and Christ Church was named his cathedral. These two seats of letters patent were the beginning of a long dispute as to the limitations of authority within the cathedral. Bishop Fulford was enthroned in Christ Church on September 15th of that year. In 1853 Doctor Bethune became the first dean of Montreal. In 1856, on the night of December 10th, the first cathedral was totally destroyed by fire; the tablets to the memory[273] of the Hon. John Richardson, now in the east transept of the present edifice, and the copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper, now hung on the south wall, being among the few objects saved. A new building committee, of which the Hon. George Moffatt and Chief Justice McCord were leading members, then set to work. The present site of the cathedral was chosen, in spite of those who thought it was too far from the city, and in 1859, on November 27th, the beautiful Gothic cathedral, one of the most handsome of its kind on the continent, was opened for worship. In the interval, Gosford Street church was appropriated for worship under the name of St. John’s Chapel. In 1867 the Cathedral was consecrated by the Metropolitan Bishop Fulford. The rectory house was completed in 1877. In 1901 the cathedral act was promoted defining the rights of the rector, the bishop, the archbishop and the primate within the cathedral, and the duties of the cathedral chapter. The following is a list of the rectors of Christ Church and Christ Church Cathedral: 1789, Rev. D.C. De Lisle; 1791, Rev. James Tunstall; 1801, Rev. Dr. Mountain; 1815, Rev. John Leeds; 1818, Rev. John Bethune, afterwards dean; 1872, Rev. Maurice Baldwin, afterwards dean of Montreal and subsequently bishop of Huron; 1884, Rev. J.G. Norton, subsequently archdeacon of Montreal; vicars in charge of the parish, 1902, Rev. F.J. Steen; 1903, Rev. Herbert Symonds.

The Anglican Bishopric of Montreal has its origin as follows:

In 1787 His Majesty, George III, had created Nova Scotia into an Episcopal see, the bishop of the diocese being also granted jurisdiction, spiritual and ecclesiastical, over the province of Quebec as it then existed. In 1793 the bishopric of Quebec was created and curtailed the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia. The first bishop was the Rev. Dr. Jacob Mountain who was succeeded on his death, in 1826, by Bishop Stewart, a younger son of the Earl of Galloway, and when he died, in 1837, Dr. George Jehoshaphat Mountain took charge of the extensive diocese. Dr. G.J. Mountain had been appointed to assist the bishop of Quebec under the title of Bishop of Montreal, but he had no separate jurisdiction nor was any see erected at Montreal. This was divided in 1839 by the creation of a diocese of Toronto, in 1845 by that of Fredericton and by that of Montreal in 1850. The bishops of the diocese of Montreal from this date are: Francis Fulford, September 15, 1850, to September 9, 1868; Ashton Oxenden, August 31, 1869, to May 7, 1878; William Bennett Bond, January 25, 1879, to October 9, 1906; James Carmichael, November 4, 1906, to September 21, 1908; John Farthing, consecrated January 6, 1909.

Of the earliest Anglican churches of the city, the Gosford Street Church, now no longer existent, served as a temporary place of worship for the Christ Church Cathedral congregation between 1856 and 1859 after the fire on Notre Dame Street and saw many vicissitudes. It was purchased by Trinity Church Congregation in 1860 and used for worship till 1865. It then afterwards became the Dominion Theatre. Here Miss Emma Lajeunes of Chambly, afterwards famous as Madame Albani, made a debut as a plain piano player, for as yet she had not discovered the powers of her beautiful voice. In 1871 it was changed to “Debars Opera.” The Cercle Jacques Cartier, a dramatic organization of French-Canadian amateurs, who were the pioneers of the French theatre in America, presented a number of plays there. In 1889, the building passed into the hands of Mgr. Bourget, who placed the property at the disposition of the Union Allet,[274] an organization of Canadian Zouaves, who had fought for the temporal power of Pius IX. It then became a vinegar factory, and when demolished was a carriage depot, and the site has now become, in 1914, that of the City Hall Annex.

The original Trinity Church was built in 1840 on St. Paul Street, immediately opposite the center of Bonsecours Market, at the personal expense of Major William Plenderleath Christie, a son of General Christie of the “Royal Americans,” subsequently designated the Sixtieth Rifles. It was built on a lot 75 feet 6 inches, more or less, in front, by 174 feet, more or less, in depth. This church and its successor are proud of the military associations surrounding it. The edifice is described as an elegant structure, built in the Gothic style, 75 feet long by 44 wide. The first incumbent of the church was the Rev. Mark Willoughby. In 1860 the congregation of Trinity purchased the Gosford Street Church, lately used by the Congregation of Christ Church, under the title of St. John’s Chapel, and worshipped there for five years. The old building on St. Paul Street was torn down and the lot sold. In 1864 the Trinity Church congregation secured the present site of the church at the northwest corner of Viger Square and St. Denis Street. The corner stone was laid on Thursday, June 23, 1864, by the Lord Bishop Metropolitan, Bishop Fulford. It was opened for public worship September 17, 1865. It was consecrated on January 13, 1908, by Bishop Farthing, being his first official act.

The predecessor of St. George’s Church was opened as a proprietary chapel on St. Joseph Street on June 30, 1843, with St. George’s Society present in force. The present St. George’s Church was built in 1870 at the corner of the streets then named St. François de Sales and St. Janvier (now facing Dominion Square). It was opened on October 9th of the same year.

St. Stephen’s Church on Dalhousie Street, Griffintown, was consumed by the great fire of 1850. St. Luke’s Church, at the corner of Champlain Street and Dorchester Street, East, was opened in 1854 and enlarged in 1864. The church of St. James, the Apostle, had its foundation stone laid on July 4, 1853. Its congregation was formed partly of that originally belonging to St. Stephen’s church. St. John, the Evangelist, on Ontario and St. Urbain streets, was built in 1860 and opened in 1861. St. Thomas Church, corner of Sherbrooke, East, and Delorme Avenue, succeeded the former church of the same name on Notre Dame and was conducted by a clergyman of the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion, but opened for the regular Anglican clergy in 1866. St. Mary’s Church (Hochelaga) dates from 1828, when a stone church was erected on Marlborough Street on a lot presented by a farmer to the Rev. John Bethune, then rector of Christ Church. Shortly after 1851 the church was closed, but was reopened in 1861. In 1889 it was torn down and in 1891 the present church on the corner of Préfontaine and Rouville streets was built. In the meantime the congregation worshipped in a building at 321 Notre Dame Street.

Other Anglican churches are: St. Stephen’s Church, Weredale Park; St. Edward’s Church, corner of St. Paul and the Haymarket; St. Martin’s Church, corner of St. Urbain and Prince Arthur streets; St. Jude’s Church, corner of Coursol and Vinet streets; All Saints Church, corner of St. Denis and Marie Anne streets, East; St. Simon’s Church, corner of Courcelles Street and Notre Dame Street. West: Eglise du Rédempteur, corner Sherbrooke and Cartier streets; Grace Church, 715 Wellington Street; Church of the Advent, corner of Wood Avenue[275] and Western Avenue, Westmount; Church of the Redeemer; St. Clement’s Belcher Memorial Church, Gordon Avenue and Wellington Street, Verdun; the Bishop Carmichael Memorial Church, corner of St. Zotique and Chateaubriand streets; Church of the Good Shepherd, corner of Claremont and Sherbrooke Street; St. Cyprian’s Church, corner Pie IX Avenue and Adam Street, Maisonneauve; St. Augustine’s Church, corner of Dandereau Street and Fourth Avenue, Westmount; St. Margaret’s Church, Longue Pointe Ward.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL

ST. ANDREWS CHURCH

SPANISH AND PORTUGESE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE

OLIVET BAPTIST CHURCH

The Anglican Missions are as follows: St. Thomas Mission, held in Delorme schoolroom; St. Cuthbert’s Mission, corner of Beaumont and King Edward Boulevard; St. Hilda’s Mission, Marquette Street; St. Aidan’s Mission, Hamilton Avenue.

PRESBYTERIANS

Presbyterianism, according to the Rev. Dr. Robert Campbell, in his history of St. Gabriel’s Street Church, started in Montreal in a room in St. Lawrence Suburbs on March 12, 1786, when the meeting for the organization of the first Presbyterian congregation took place. Most of those present were Scotch soldiers of the old Seventy-Eighth, or Fraser Highlanders, who had fought the campaign leading to the conquest of Canada at the capitulation of Montreal in 1760. After the peace of 1763 a large proportion of the Highlanders elected to stay in the country, many settling round Montreal and its district. When the North West Company was organized these men were of the same metal as that adventurous Gaelic band, and of the men now gathered, some “as youths had been actually engaged in the fight at Culloden in 1745, while several were the children or the descendants of those brave men who had stood on the side of ‘Prince Charlie’ on that fated field.” The organizer was the Rev. John Bethune, an ex-chaplain of the Eighty-Fourth Regiment who, however, left Montreal in 1787. His son, the Rev. John Bethune, an Anglican, became afterwards famous as the first principal of McGill University, from 1835 to 1852.

From May, 1787, till 1790 there exists no records of services held according to Presbyterian forms. They seem as said to have followed those of the “Rector of the Parish of Montreal and Chaplain of the Garrison,” the Rev. David Chatbrand De Lisle, a Swiss who spoke English indifferently. The first regular Presbyterian minister was the Rev. John Young, from Schenectady, who was a stormy petrel, but he did good work for eleven years at Montreal. It was he who organized the erection of St. Gabriel’s Street Church, the first regular Protestant Church in Old Canada, prior to 1867, for that chapel erected at Berthier six years earlier by James Cuthbert, seigneur of Berthier, a Scotch Presbyterian, is claimed to have been only in the nature of a private domestic chapel attached to his seigneurial manor. In the interval between 1786 and 1792, occasional services were held in the government property known as the old Jesuit Church, which was also being shared by the Anglicans prior to the erection of the first Christ Church.

The land was bought on St. Gabriel Street on April 2, 1792. Until the church was built the Récollet Fathers allowed the use of their church to the “Society of Presbyterians,” also for occasional services. The fathers refused any remuneration, but were induced to accept a present of two hogsheads of Spanish wine, containing sixty-odd gallons, each, and a box of candles, amounting in all to[276] £14-2-4. The “Scotch Church,” “the Protestant Presbyterian Church” or “the Presbyterian Church of Montreal,” as it was variously called at the time, was built in 1792, Messrs. Telfer and McIntosh executing the mason work and Mr. Joseph Perrault the carpentry work.

The Rev. Mr. Young’s committee were elected on May 8, 1791, to arrange the “temporals” of the congregation, and were mostly good Scotch traders, viz.: Messrs. Richard Dobie, Alex. Henry, Adam Scott, William Stewart, Alex. Fisher, John Lilly, William Hunter, Duncan Fisher, William England, Alex. Hannah, Peter McFarlane, George Kay, John Robb, Thomas Baker, John Empey, John Russell. Of these nine were to be sufficient to form a quorum.

The list of subscribers to the church building fund reveals the names of most of the principal merchants at this time, as well as those of the “Gentlemen of the North West,” so that St. Gabriel’s was a weighty congregation. But although Protestants, the worshippers were not all Scotch or Presbyterians. Doctor Campbell points out John Gregory, Joseph Frobisher, Benaiah Gibb, Thomas Baker, John Molson, James Woolrich, J.A. Gray, Thomas Busby, R. Brooks and John Gray, as Englishmen; Sir John Johnson, Andrew Todd, Thomas Sullivan, Isaac Todd and John Neagles, Irishmen; John J. Deihl and Andrew Winclefoss, Germans; J.H. Germain and François Deslard, Frenchmen; Hannah Empey and Peter Pangman, New England Loyalists, the others being Scots either by birth or descent, some Highlanders, others Lowlanders.

A portion separated from the Mother Church and formed a congregation for themselves on St. Peter Street in 1804, building a church in 1807 opposite to St. Sacrament Street. This was continued by St. Andrew’s (Beaver Hall Hill) Church, opened in 1851. It was then thought to be a long way from the city. It was burnt down in 1869, but was shortly afterwards restored to the original plan.

The next off-shoot from St. Gabriel’s was the predecessor of the present church of St. Paul, erected in 1834 in St. Helen Street, at the corner of Récollet Street, which in 1867 was sold and taken down, and a new church built on the corner of Dorchester Street and St. Geneviève Street. During the interval the congregation worshipped in the Belmont Street Normal School below.

The above scissions had been merely local and physical. But the greatest crisis in the history of the old church of St. Gabriel was caused by the great constitutional Free Church controversy, being agitatedly carried on in the parent church of Scotland and necessarily duplicated in the loyal colonial presbytery of Montreal. So that from 1830 bitter and personal rancours cleft the community.

The crisis was brought about by the Rev. Henry Esson, of St. Gabriel’s Street Church, who seceded about 1844 from the Synod of Canada in connection with the church of Scotland. The members who desired to remain with St. Gabriel’s still clave to the old ways and claimed the Church property, but did not gain possession of it till 1864, but those who followed the Rev. Henry Esson, being the majority—claimed and occupied the temporals on the ground that St. Gabriel’s had never been held in connection with the Established Church of Scotland. But this contention finally failed, for in 1864 St. Gabriel’s reverted to the Church of Scotland on the decision of Government. At this time of the scission of 1843-4 the “Free Church Committee,” which had been formed in the city from different Presbyterian churches, consisted of John Redpath, chairman: James R. Orr, David and Archibald[277] Ferguson, A. McGown, James Morrison, William Hutchison, Alexander Fraser, Donald Fraser, Evander McIvor, William Bethune and William McIntosh. The object was to form a church in connection with the Free Church of Scotland.

Writing in 1893, Mr. John Sterling, an adherent of the Free Kirk movement, speaks of the memorable conflict in the Established Church of Scotland, or the non-intrusion question and its relation to the movement in Montreal which resulted in the Coté Street Free Church.

This conflict lasted for about ten years, and culminated in the disruption of the church, on the 18th day of May, 1843, when 474 of its ministers and missionaries, for conscience sake, severed their connection with it, and constituted themselves into a body called the “Free Church of Scotland,” giving up their churches, their manses, their livings, and risking every worldly prospect, going forth with their wives and families, not knowing what might befall them, but with a clear conscience, trusting in God for the future, whatever it might be—one of the noblest sacrifices for principle that the world has ever seen.

During all the time of the conflict, many of the members of the Presbyterian churches of this city, in connection with the Established Church of Scotland, strongly sympathized with the non-intrusion movement, and on the disruption taking place, considered it their duty to manifest their sympathy with the Free Church principles. At that time (1843-44) there were five Presbyterian Churches in this city, viz.: St. Gabriel’s Street Church, St. Andrew’s Church, St. Paul’s Church, Lagauchetiere Street Church, and the American Presbyterian Church, the first three of which were in connection with the Established Church of Scotland. The first concerted movement in this direction took place on the 10th day of January, 1844, when twelve ardent and good men, who might well be called the twelve apostles of the Free Church in Canada, met together and called themselves the Free Church Committee, others joining them afterwards, their object being to extend and propagate Free Church principles. The ultimate result of the work of this committee was that in May, 1845, a new Presbyterian congregation was formed in Montreal, which worshipped for a time in a wooden building on Lagauchetiere Street, near the head of Cote Street, which had been hastily and cheaply erected, being only intended to accommodate the congregation temporarily, until the projected new church to be built on Cote Street should be ready for occupation.

At this time (1845) this locality was most respectable and quite uptown, and the new church which was proposed to be erected there, turned out to be the largest and finest Presbyterian church building of its day in the city. It was opened for public worship on Sabbath, the 16th day of May, 1848, and the name chosen for it was the “Free Church, Coté Street.”

The population of the city had increased threefold, and the character of the locality by 1877 had entirely changed. The Protestant part of the population had mostly removed westwards to an inconvenient distance from the church, and the remnant were gradually moving away in the same direction, and the consequent dropping off of families and members, who were joining churches much more convenient to their dwellings, made the absolute necessity of the removing the church building westwards, quite apparent.

Consequently it was then decided to build uptown and the Crescent Street Presbyterian Church was commenced early in the fall of 1876, the corner-stone being laid on May 5, 1877, and the church being opened for service on March 10, 1878.

Beside the Coté Street secession from St. Gabriel’s which is now continued by the Crescent Street Church, the Knox Church organization is now to be described: The free church movement in Canada ended in a secession, not a disruption. Accordingly after the dispute relating to the temporals of St. Gabriel’s Street Church the seceding body in 1864 agreed to retire and formed the session of Knox church. This held its last meeting in St. Gabriel’s Street Church on July 31, 1865, and the last meeting of the Knox congregation for worship there was on October 31, 1865. The Knox Church at the corner of Mansfield and[278] Dorchester Street was opened for divine service December 3, 1865. According to the Reverend Doctor Campbell this church represents de facto, but not de jure, the original congregation established in 1786.

The St. Gabriel’s Street Church was sold to the Government in 1886 and the congregation migrated to the New St. Gabriel’s Church on St. Catherine Street opposite the present St. James Methodist Church. This was demolished in 1909. St. Gabriel’s legitimate successor is the First Presbyterian Church at the corner of Prince Arthur and Mance streets.

Intervening between the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Free Kirk Secession, there remains to be chronicled the settlement of the American Presbyterian church in Montreal which arose originally through the secession from St. Gabriel’s Street Church in 1803, and later through a succession from Mr. Easton’s church on St. Peter Street which by a change of name in 1824 became the first St. Andrew’s Church.

The American Presbyterian Church was the result of the minority of Mr. Easton’s church on St. Peter Street becoming offended at the resolution of the majority to procure a minister of the Established Church of Scotland, withdrawing from what henceforth became St. Andrew’s Church, so that a new congregation was formed on December 15, 1822. This organized the first church at the corner of St. James Street and Victoria Square, which was opened on December 1, 1826. It was called “American” because it was recognized by the Presbytery of New York, as under its care on March 23, 1823; otherwise it was Canadian in the composition of its membership. The second church, that of today, on Dorchester Street, was opened on June 24, 1866.

It is not necessary to pursue further the story of the various off-shoots of the Presbyterian churches. Suffice it to say that in June, 1875, in Montreal the Presbyterian church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, the Canada Presbyterian Church of the Lower provinces, the Presbyterian Church of the Maritime provinces, in connection with the Church of Scotland, united and became the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The St. Andrew’s Church remained, however, in connection with the Church of Scotland.

The Presbyterian churches in the city today are: St. Andrew’s Church (Church of Scotland), Beaver Hall Hill; St. Paul’s Church, corner of Dorchester West and St. Monique Street; the American Presbyterian Church, corner of Dorchester and Drummond streets; Knox Church, Dorchester Street, West, corner of Mansfield Street; St. John’s Church (French Presbyterian), St. Catherine and Cadieux streets; St. Mathew’s Church, corner of Bourgeoys and Wellington streets; Calvin Presbyterian Church, 946 Notre Dame West; First Presbyterian Church, corner of Prince Arthur and St. Lawrence Boulevard; Erskine Church, Sherbrooke Street, West, corner of Ontario Avenue; Crescent Street Presbyterian Church, corner of Dorchester Street, West and Crescent Street; Stanley Street Church, 96 Stanley Street, near Windsor Hotel; St. Mark’s Presbyterian Church, William and Dalhousie streets; Taylor Church, Papineau Avenue and Logan Street; St. Giles Presbyterian Church, St. Denis, corner of St. Joseph Boulevard; Victoria Church, corner of Conway and Menai streets; Westminster Presbyterian Church, Atwater Avenue, Westmount; Montreal West Presbyterian Church; Melville Presbyterian Church, Elgin Avenue, Westmount Park; St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Stanton Street and Coté St. Antoine Road; Maisonneuve[279] Presbyterian Church, corner of Letourneux Avenue and Adam Street, Maisonneuve; Salem Welsh Presbyterian Church, Alexandra Rooms, 314 St. Catherine, West; Fairmount Presbyterian Church, corner of Masson and Papineau streets; McVicar Memorial Church, St. Viateur Avenue, West, corner of Hutchinson Street; Verdun Presbyterian Church, 47 Ross Street, Verdun.

AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

EMANUEL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH

ST. JAMES METHODIST CHURCH

ST. GEORGE’S CHURCH (EPISCOPAL)

Presbyterian missions are: Nazareth Street Mission, corner of Wellington and Nazareth streets; St. Paul’s Mission, 184 St. Charles Street.

THE METHODISTS

The first chapel of the Wesleyan Methodists, opened in 1809, was situated on St. Joseph Street, afterwards called St. Sulpice. In 1821 the Congregation moved to the corner of St. François Xavier and St. James streets, when the old chapel became the first public newsroom of Montreal. In 1845 the Great St. James Street Methodist Church was erected with an entrance on St. James Street and two on Fortification Lane. This church was burnt down. In the meantime a Methodist church had been erected in Griffintown, called the Ottawa Street Church, on Wellington Street, close to where Duke Street now stands. This was also burnt down and it was replaced in 1846 by the church on the corner of St. Ann and Ottawa streets. In 1845 another church was opened on Lagauchetière Street, at the corner of Durham Street. In 1857, in August, the new Connexion Methodist Salem Chapel on Panet Street was opened, followed on September 26, 1858, by Ebenezer Chapel, on Dupré Street. In 1864, there was a movement, for expansion among the Wesleyan Methodist body, which had for its result the Sherbrooke Street Church, corner of St. Charles Borromee and Sherbrooke Street, West, of which the foundation stone was laid on July 5, 1864, and the opening occurred on May 21, 1865. The foundation stone of the Dorchester Street Church, corner of Windsor Street and the Point St. Charles Church on Wellington Street, were laid on Saturday, October 1, 1864. The Centenary Methodist Church was built in 1865 at the corner of Wellington Street and was rebuilt in 1891 at the corner of Charron and Wellington streets.

The other Methodist churches in the city are, St. James Methodist Church (St. Catherine Street, corner of St. Alexander Street); Mountain Street Methodist Church (corner of Mountain and Torrance Street); Douglas Methodist Church (corner of Chomedy and St. Catherine Street, West); Dominion Square Methodist Church (Dorchester Street, corner of Windsor); West End Methodist Church (corner of Canning and Coursel Street); East End Methodist Church (corner Cartier and DeMartigny streets); Fairmount Avenue Methodist Church (corner of Hutchison Street and Fairmount Avenue, West); Marlborough Street Methodist Church; Mount Royal Avenue Methodist Church; Ebenezer Methodist Church (corner of St. Antoine and Convent streets); Westmount Methodist Church (corner of Lansdowne Avenue and Western Avenue); Verdun Methodist Church (86 Gordon Avenue, Verdun); Huntley Street Methodist Church (Huntley Street near St. Zotique Street); First French Methodist Church (services held in the lecture room of St. James Methodist Church); and Eglise Méthodiste Française (De Lisle Street).

In giving the above list of churches it has not been thought necessary to pursue the later history of their separate cessions, or off-shoots from the parent[280] churches. It is sufficient to note that on August 29, 1883, at Belleville, Ontario, the Methodist Church of Canada, the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, the Protestant Methodist Church in Canada and the Bible Christian church of Canada, united and became the Methodist Church of Canada.

BAPTIST CHURCHES

As early as 1820,1 a number of Baptists in the city met in the parlour of the residence of Mr. Ebenezer Muir “for the worship of God and mutual edification” each Lord’s day for ten consecutive years. In 1830, they invited the Rev. John Gilmour of Aberdeen, Scotland, to come to Canada and lead the little flock into larger fields.

On the 12th day of September of the same year, two days after landing, Mr. Gilmour, missionary of God, preached his first sermon to his new charge in this new land in what was then known as the Bruce Schoolroom on McGill Street.

This little band opened their new chapel, situated on St. Helen Street and completed at the cost of £935-0-1 of which £572-10-9 were paid before its opening, leaving a debt of £362-9-4 due to two of their own members, John Fry and Ebenezer Muir, in equal parts of £181-4-8 each. On the 13th day of November, 1831, the First Baptist Church was regularly organized in this building with twenty-five constituent members. A marble tablet placed on the wall of Gault Bros’ wholesale establishment on St. Helen Street bears the following inscription:—

Here Stood

The First Baptist Chapel of Montreal,

1831.

The Rev. John Gilmour, Pastor.

Abandoned, 1860.

Immediately underneath this tablet there is another which illustrates the spirit of Christian enterprise and helpfulness that characterized this mother church in her early days, as follows:

This Tablet

Commemorates the Organization on this Site of the

First Young Men’s Christian Association

on the American Continent.

November, 1851,

Erected on the Occasion of the Jubilee Celebration,

June 8, 1901.

It may not be very widely known that the first Young Men’s Christian Association on this continent was organized by a member of the First Baptist Church, Mr. T.J. Claxton, in the First Baptist Church and especially for the young men who were members of this church and their Christian associates in the city.

The period from Mr. Gilmour’s resignation in 1835 to the building of the[281] Beaver Hall Hill Chapel, was one of trial and testing but finally of establishment and triumph. The following are the names of the pastors who served the church during this time, with the dates on which they took charge:—Rev. Newton Bosworth, September 29, 1835; Rev. John Hatch Waldon, September 19, 1837; Rev. Beniah Hoe, September 18, 1839; Rev. John Girdwood, June 21, 1841; Rev. Thomas Spalding, April 19, 1851; Rev. Phaucellus Church, January 5, 1853; Rev. James Lillie, D.D., November 29, 1853; Rev. J.N. Williams, April 20, 1856; Rev. John Goadby, D.D., May 1, 1859—nine pastors in twenty-six years, or an average of a little less than three years each, indicating an unsettled period in the history of the church, yet one that laid solid foundation for future work.

With the advent of Doctor Goadby, May 1, 1859, the church entered upon a second stage or epoch in her history which we can properly designate the growing and multiplying period.

The church, under the leadership of Doctor Goadby, with a membership of 160, decided to build a house of worship in a more residential and convenient location than St. Helen Street was. With this end in view a site was secured at the corner of Beaver Hall Hill and Lagauchetiere Street on which a beautiful and up-to-date church home, with excellent equipment for Sunday-school work and other departments of Christian activity, was erected at the cost of $25,000. This was opened in January, 1862, and sold in 1878 to the Reformed Episcopal Church. On the twenty-seventh day of March, 1863, the Rev. John Alexander accepted the pastorate of this church. During his incumbency the church entered upon a period of uninterrupted prosperity; constant accessions were made to its membership.

In 1864 a mission was started in the East end of the city in the lecture room of the German Lutheran Church on St. Dominique Street, with a Sunday-school of twenty-eight scholars and eight teachers. Shortly after the starting of this school a Thursday evening prayer meeting and a Sunday evening service were commenced. These, after the lapse of some time, outgrew their accommodation and in 1868 Mr. T.J. Claxton and other members of the church erected a commodious building on the corner of St. Catherine and St. Justin streets, afterwards known as Russell Hall, for the accommodation of this mission. This building was called Russell Hall in honor of Major General Russell of the British Army, a loyal Baptist, who at the time resided in this city and who in every possible way supported the work of this mission.

Russell Hall Sunday-school, under the leadership of Mr. T.J. Claxton, was for some years, from the numerical standpoint at least, one of the most successful in connection with the Baptist denomination, the enrollment reaching 600 and the average attendance 500. On September 3, 1869, through the advice of a large council called for the purpose, this mission was organized into a regular Baptist church of which Rev. Robert Cade, ordained by the same council, was chosen pastor.

In 1875 building on St. Catherine Street, at present occupied by the First Baptist Church, was erected as the house of worship for the St. Catherine Street Church, at the cost of about $60,000, in which they continued to worship in their separate capacity for three years. During the period between 1869 and 1878 the following were the pastors:—Rev. Robert Cade, 1869-70; Rev. J. Denovan, afterwards Doctor Denovan, 1870-77; Rev. J.L. Campbell, now Doctor Campbell of[282] the First Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1877-78; during his pastorate the union between the St. Catherine Street and First Churches was consummated.

Going back now to the point, in 1864, at which we diverged from the history of the First Baptist Church, in tracing the story of Russell Hall Mission and St. Catherine Street Church, we find that after the lapse of about two years, in 1866, another mission was started at Point St. Charles which shortly afterwards was organized into an independent church that gave great promise of usefulness in that interesting community, with Rev. Thomas Gale as its pastor. Mr. T.J. Claxton of the First Church erected a building for the accommodation of the Point St. Charles interest. We find, however, that this church disbanded, the cause for which, owing to lack of information, we are unable to state nor are we able to say what disposition was made of the building nor with what church did the remnant of the membership unite.

In the year 1875 eighty-five members withdrew from the First Church in order to organize the Olivet Baptist Church. In after years many other members withdrew and united with this church. While the First Church and its affiliated institutions suffered greatly by this movement yet the after history of both the First and Olivet Churches clearly shows that no single Baptist church could, in the City of Montreal, be as strong and influential as the two have been and are now.

In 1878 the First Baptist Church worshipping in the house of Beaver Hall Hill and the St. Catherine Street Church worshipping in the building on the corner of St. Catherine and City Councillor streets united, this united body to be known as the First Baptist Church, making the house on St. Catherine Street, in which they now worship, their church home. The house on Beaver Hall Hill was at that time sold to the Reformed Episcopal church for the sum of $25,000. The Rev. J.L. Campbell, pastor of the St. Catherine Street Church, retiring, the Rev. A.H. Munroe, pastor of the First Church continued to shepherd the united flock.

During this interesting section of the growing and multiplying period of the church’s history, lying between the erection of the Beaver Hall Hill house of worship and the union of the First and St. Catherine Street Churches, the following were the pastors of the First Church:—Rev. John Goadby, D.D., May 1, 1859; Rev. John Alexander, March 27, 1863; Rev. William Cheetham, 1870; Rev. A.H. Munroe, 1876.

Between the years 1881 and 1886 two missions were started by individual members of the church, one at Cote St. Louis and the other at St. Louis de Mile End, both of which continued for some time and gave promise of considerable success. Owing, however, to the lack of helpers, the former was by the discouraged workers handed over to Canon Evans of the Anglican Church who had a mission in that neighborhood, and so has become the nucleus of that which is now All Saints’ Church; and the latter was closed because the workers united with the band that withdrew to organize Grace Baptist Church.

In the year 1888 the Gain Street Church was started as another mission and Sunday-school in the East End of the city to which in 1897 a number of members were dismissed to organize it into an independent church.

In 1890, during the months of March and April, thirty-four members of the First Baptist Church were dismissed in order to organize with the St. Louis de Mile End workers, the Grace Baptist Church, now known as the Westmount[283] Baptist Church. In 1902 the First Church assumed charge of the North Baptist Mission on St. Urbain Street and Duluth Avenue. About this time another mission was started on Berri Street, not under the auspices of this church, but successfully carried on by one of its deacons—Mr. John Ede, who had associated with him a number of the members of this church and other workers.

More recently the North Mission property was sold to the Protestant school commissioners. On the completion of the Temple Baptist Church (corner of Park and Laurier avenues) the Berri Street Mission lapsed and its workers returned to the First Baptist Church or to the Temple Church, the Rev. Mr. Ede afterwards being called to the Tabernacle Church. The latest church added is the Verdun Baptist Church on Rockland Avenue. Mention must be made of the French Baptist Church L’Oratoire at 14 Mance Street, above Sherbrooke Street.

CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH

Organized Canadian Congregationalism began in Montreal in 1829 when the Canada Education and Home Missionary Society was founded in Montreal with Mr. Henry Wilkes, then a young man in business, as its first secretary. This society was designed to support pioneer Presbyterian, Baptist or Congregational ministers. There had been, however, previous sporadic and unorganized attempts at church establishment in upper Canada. One such was that founded in 1817 by a Congregational minister, the Rev. Joseph Silcox, bearing the extraordinary title of “The Congregational Presbyterian Prince of Peace Society.” Mr. Wilkes went to Scotland shortly after the formation of the Montreal society and while a church student in Glasgow induced some ministers, among them the Rev. Richard Miles, to come to Canada. The Rev. Richard Miles came to Montreal in 1831, while Rev. Adam Lillie went to Brantford in 1833. The visit of the Reverend Doctors Reed and Matheson, delegates from England to the American churches in 1834, who also made a trip through Canada, led the foreign missionary society to send out some missionaries here, and in 1836, under Mr. Wilkes’ leadership, the Colonial Missonary Society, still the foster mother of Canadian Congregationalism, was organized in Montreal. The Rev. Mr. Wilkes became the agent in Montreal and the Rev. Mr. Roaf in Toronto.

The first Congregational Church was opened for service on St. Maurice Street on the second Sabbath of February, 1833. This was sold and in 1846 Zion Church was erected. The third church dates to 1868 and was erected at the corner of Amherst and Craig streets. Other churches of a later date are Calvary Church (302 Guy Street), Emanuel Church (Drummond Street, near Sherbrooke Street, West), Zion Congregational Church, Point St. Charles (185 Congregation Street), Bethlehem Congregational Church, corner of Western Avenue and Clark Avenue.

UNITARIAN

The history of the Unitarian movement in Montreal dates from the year 1832, when on the 29th of July the Rev. David Hughes of England preached in the Union School Room at the corner of St. Sacrament and St. Nicholas streets the first Unitarian sermon ever delivered, it is believed, anywhere in Canada. This was the year in which Montreal was devastated by the Asiatic cholera, 1,900[284] persons dying in four months, out of a population of little more than thirty thousand. Mr. Hughes was one of these victims of the plague, but the work which he had inaugurated survived him. A small band of Unitarian believers secured a place to hold services in a building which was known on account of its location as St. Joseph Street Chapel. Here the Rev. Mr. Angier, an American minister, took charge of the services, and a Sunday School was inaugurated by Mr. Benjamin Workman. A movement was begun by the infant society to acquire land, and erect a church, but the times were unpropitious. A return of the cholera in 1834, together with the subsequent depression of business and the political disturbances which culminated in the Riel Rebellion of 1837, caused so much discouragement that interest flagged, and for a while even the regular services were discontinued. Occasional meetings were, however, held until, in 1841, the movement was definitely renewed under the inspiration chiefly of a few devoted women, prominent among whom were Mrs. Cushing and Mrs. Hedge, whose conviction that the time had come for a new and more vigorous Unitarian propaganda was shared by a group of men whose names have been synonymous with good citizenship and philanthropy in Montreal during more than one generation. Mr. John Frothingham, Mr. Benjamin Workman, Mr. Luther Holton, Mr. William Molson, and Doctor Cushing, were actively interested in the formation of the second Unitarian congregation of Montreal, and their efforts were stimulated by the eloquent preaching of an English minister, the Rev. Mr. Giles, who for several months conducted services in a small building situated at the corner of Fortification Lane and Haymarket Square. Subsequently an invitation was extended by this small company of worshippers to the Rev. John Cordner, of Belfast, Ireland, to become their first settled pastor. Mr. Cordner, who preached his first sermon in Montreal in November, 1843, had been ordained by the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, and his congregation remained for several years in official relation with the Irish Synod. In 1858 this alliance was dissolved, and the Montreal Church united in fellowship with its nearest neighbor, the American Unitarian Association, having headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. During its early years of struggle financial aid, as well as friendly interest and the service of visiting ministers, had been given by this Association to the Montreal congregation, and it was with their assistance that, in 1844, a piece of land was purchased and a church building erected on Beaver Hall Hill on a site once occupied by the old Frobisher mansion, historically connected with the early development of the fur-trade in Canada, and with the pioneer days of the North West Company. In the following year the Unitarian congregation received legal status by Act of Parliament, and its ministers were authorized to keep record of civil acts required of all settled pastors under the laws of the Province. By 1857 the congregation had outgrown its first building, and a new place of worship was erected which, with its simple dignified architecture, and beautiful spire, remained for fifty years a well-known landmark of the city, under the name at this time adopted, the Church of the Messiah.

In 1869 this building was seriously damaged by fire, and during the time when it was undergoing repairs its congregation worshiped in the hall of the St. Patrick’s Association in response to the generous invitation of the Rev. Father Dowd.

Towards the end of his long pastorate of thirty-six years Doctor Cordner was assisted, first by the Rev. Edward Hayward for a period of one year, and afterwards,[285] by the Rev. J.B. Green, during three years. In 1879 when Doctor Cordner’s advancing years made it desirable for him to retire from the active duties of the ministry he was succeeded by the Rev. William S. Barnes, of Boston.

Like his predecessor Mr. Barnes enjoyed a long pastorate, serving his congregation faithfully for thirty years. Of each of these ministers it may truly be said that he gained a unique place in the affection of his congregation, combined with one of honor and respect from the community at large. Each was distinguished by a life of constant devotion to the service of his ideals, and the duties of his pastorate, by unusual intellectual gifts, and by great pulpit eloquence. The University of McGill recognized the ability and public services of both ministers by awarding to them the degree of LL. D. The story of the growth and unification of the Church of the Messiah is largely the story of the devoted lives of the two ministers who occupied its pulpit for a combined period of nearly seventy years.

In 1905 the congregation decided that, owing to the movement of the population uptown, and away from the old-time centers, the situation of its place of worship had become inconveniently remote, and the property was therefore sold, and a new church building erected at the corner of Sherbrooke West and Simpson streets. The new building, considered to be architecturally one of the most successful erections of the city, owes much of its harmony of design and execution to the artistic taste and culture of Dr. Barnes, who felt its erection to be the culmination of his life-work.

HEBREW SYNAGOGUES

Jewish settlers arrived in Canada towards the close of the period of French rule. Among the officers and soldiers who fought in the armies of Amherst and Wolfe were a number of men of the Hebrew race who did their modest share towards assisting in the conquest of the country and making it a part of the British Empire. When they became sufficiently numerous to establish their first Jewish congregation in Montreal, Canada, in 1768, they followed the ritual of the Spanish and Portuguese or Sephardic Jews. This congregation took the name of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, “Shearith Israel,” and the Congregation has continued ever since in existence, being one of the most ancient of the Jewish congregations in America. It at present worships on Stanley Street above St. Catherine. The first place of worship was in a room or hall on St. James Street, but in 1777 there was built the first regular synagogue building on a lot of land belonging to David David, son of Lazarus David, the first Jewish settler in this city. The building was described as a low walled edifice of stone with a red roof and high white-washed wall enclosing it. It stood on Notre Dame Street at the junction of St. James Street adjoining the present Court House and had an entrance on either side. Shortly after the erection of this synagogue the Congregation bought its first lot of land for a cemetery on St. Janvier Street near what is now known as Dominion Square.

The first synagogue built near the Court House had to be abandoned on account of the land on which it was built reverting to the David family after the death of David David, and after worshipping temporarily at the south-west corner of St. Helen and Recollet streets, the second synagogue building of the Spanish and[286] Portuguese Congregation was erected on Chenneville Street in 1835 and completed in 1838. It was a small but dignified stone building with a Doric portico and quasi-Egyptian interior. The work was mainly carried out under the direction of Moses J. Hays, a son of Andrew Hays, one of the earliest Jewish colonists, and he was at that time a trustee of the Congregation.

When the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue was founded its first rabbi was the Rev. Jacob Raphael Cohen, who came to Montreal in 1778, and held office for a number of years. He was succeeded by M. Levy, and after him came Isaac Valentine. Rev. David Piza was appointed minister of the Congregation in 1840 and held office for six years, when he returned to London and became one of the ministers of the Sephardic congregation there.

In 1846 the Rev. Abraham de Sola, LL. D., of London, England, was elected rabbi and arrived in Canada early in the following year. Dr. Abraham de Sola belonged to a family that had long been prominent in the annals of the Jewish people in Spain and afterwards in Holland and in England. His mother was of the equally distinguished Meldola family. For over thirty-five years he remained the spiritual chief of the Sephardic Jews in this country. He died in 1882 and was succeeded by his eldest son, Rev. Meldola de Sola.

In 1890 the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Congregation removed to a new synagogue building which they had erected on Stanley Street above St. Catherine. The corner stone had been laid three years previously. Its architectural features are interesting as being a conscientious attempt to carry out a pseudo Judeo-Egyptian style with considerable success. Its design was due to Mr. Clarence I. de Sola, one of the sons of Dr. Abraham de Sola, who directed its erection and who had much to do with the carrying out of the undertaking.

In the same year the Spanish and Portuguese Jews obtained a new act of incorporation from the Provincial Parliament, its earlier act of incorporation proving now inadequate to the needs of the growing body.

Up to the year 1846 the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation, “Shearith Israel” had remained the only Jewish Congregation in Montreal, but during that year a number of recently arrived German and Polish Jews established a second synagogue, and in consequence of this a joint act of Parliament had been secured for the two congregations. The second congregation, however, existed only for a very short time, as its members were very few in number so that they disbanded and joined the original Spanish and Portuguese Congregation. In 1857-58, however, a number of new arrivals of Jews from Poland, availing themselves of the act of incorporation that had been obtained by their predecessors, organized in 1858, what is now known as the Congregation of German and Polish Jews, “Shaar Hashamoyim.” They gathered regularly for worship about 1860 and erected their first synagogue on St. Constant Street, now known as Cadieux Street. Among the founders of the congregation were A. Hoffmann, M.A. Olandorff, Edward Hymes and Lewis Anthony and were shortly afterwards joined by David Moss, Edward Moss, Lawrence Moss and Solomon Silvermann. The members of the Moss family were long among the most prominent of the leaders in this synagogue and were active here in Jewish communal affairs for two generations. Among those of the younger generation of this family were Samuel D. Moss, Hyman D. Moss and John Moss, who all in turn held office in “Shaar Hashamoyim.” Among others who occupied the office of president of this congregation[287] were Lyon Silverman, Moses Vineberg and D.A. Ansell. In 1887 the congregation built a new synagogue in McGill College Avenue. During recent years it has grown immensely in membership. This has been notably the case under the administration of its late president, Mr. Lazarus Cohen, as well as during the administration of his son, Mr. Lyon Cohen, both of whom have been very active and capable workers in the Jewish community of to-day. So well, indeed, have these men and their associates managed the affairs of the Congregation that they have already acquired land near Atwater Avenue and St. Luke Street to put up a much larger synagogue to meet the demands of its ever-growing membership. The first regular rabbi of Congregation “Shaar Hashamoyim” was the Rev. Mr. Foss and among his successors were the Rev. I.M. Cohen, Rev. E.M. Myers, Rev. L. Friedlander, Rev. Isador Myers and the Rev. B. Kaplan. The present incumbent of the office is the Rev. Dr. Hermann Abramowitz.

Up to the year 1881 the Jewish population of Montreal was not large, and the membership of the two congregations which then existed was, in consequence, limited; but the terrible outbreak of persecution of Jews in Russia in 1881 and the recurrence of these outbreaks periodically in the following decades resulted in immense numbers of Jews immigrating from Russia to Canada and other countries. As a result the Jewish population of Montreal increased by tens of thousands in a very short time, and it is estimated that to-day there are in this city alone fully 60,000 Jews. One of the results was the formation of a large number of new Jewish congregations and the erection of quite a number of commodious synagogues. Among these are the Congregation of “B’Nai Jacob,” which erected a new building on the site of the old one in Cadieux Street. Among its founders were L. Aaronson and L. Lazarus. The Roumanian Jews formed the Congregation “Beth David,” and purchased the Chenneville Street building from its former occupants after they had altered it considerably. Shortly afterwards the Congregation “Chevra Kadisha” was formed, and they erected their present handsome building on St. Urbain Street, while the Austrian Jews erected a large synagogue on Milton Street. The building of new synagogues has continued apace, and the formation of new congregations of Hebrews is a common occurrence.

All the congregations referred to above follow the customs of traditional or orthodox Judaism, but in 1882 a small number of gentlemen who favored the principles of American Reform Judaism met in the old Lindsay Building on St. Catherine Street to form a “Reform” congregation, and thus was founded what is now known as Congregation Temple Emanuel. They held their first services in the autumn of 1882 and obtained an act of incorporation in March, 1883. Among the founders of this congregation were B.A. Boas, B. Kortosk, Leopold Isaacs, L. Abrahams, E. Lichtenhein, S. Fishel, and A. Goldstein. They were soon afterwards joined by Samuel Davis, who for a number of years held office as president and who was a popular member of the reform community. They first rented a building but afterwards erected a temple on Stanley Street, in the rear of the Windsor Hotel. On September 17, 1911, they dedicated their new temple building on Sherbrooke Street, West, near Westmount. This Congregation is up to the present the only one following the Reform ritual in Canada, and although they form but a small minority of the total community, they have adhered to their views in a typical manner. Their present president is Mr. Maxwell Goldstein, K.C. Their first minister was the Rev. Samuel Marks, who was followed[288] among others by the Rev. H. Veld, and Rev. Isaac Landman. Their present rabbi is the Rev. Nathan Gordon.

THE SALVATION ARMY

The religious work of the Salvation Army began in Montreal on the 13th of November, 1884, with the following as the first corps of officers: Commissioner T.B. Combs, territorial commander, in charge of the work throughout Canada; Staff Commander Madden, divisional commander; Captain and Mrs. “Happy Bill” Cooper, corps officers; assisted by Lieutenant Eva Lewis. It met initial difficulties, principally in the injunction that forbade the holding of meetings unless they kept moving, which was circumvented by moving around in a circle at the same spot, a necessity which was finally allowed to drop.

The first corps held its meetings for the first two years in Webber’s Hall, which stood on the site of the present Canadian Northern Steamship Company’s building on Dollard Lane and St. James Street. Next the Mechanic’s Hall, on St. James and St. Peter streets was used as a meeting place for six months. The next location was the basement of Leggett’s boot and shoe factory at the corner of Craig and Victoria streets, where the present Greenshield’s building stands, until the St. Alexander Street building was erected.

This was the citadel and training home for officers and the main corps of the army. The fine structure on University Street, the divisional headquarters, was erected in 1903, and the building on St. Alexander Street was altered entirely to become the present “Metropole” for social relief work. The University Street building, in addition to serving as the divisional headquarters of the Army also houses the finance and immigration departments and is the home of Corps No. 1, and includes the Young Women’s Lodge.

Following the opening of the work by Corps No. 1, Corps No. 2 was organized in Point St. Charles on March 15, 1885.

Corps No. 3, the French Corps, opened its work on the 9th of December, 1887, in a little store on St. Lawrence Main and St. Viateur streets. French-speaking officers, brought over from Paris, organized the work and still continue in charge of its affairs. This little home was at first the scene of much turmoil, many serious fights occurring in which chairs and other weapons were freely used, but out of this grew, with the passing of the years, the present strong, harmonious body.

On the 30th of June, 1890, Corps No. 4 was formed in the East End, and on April 5, 1905, Corps No. 5 on St. Alexander Street, which is the Men’s Social Corps. Corps No. 6, the most recent to be organized, began its work on June 25, 1914, in Verdun.

It is difficult to account fully for the origin of other religious bodies in the city. The German Lutherans established their church in 1858 on St. Dominique Street, immediately in the rear of St. Lawrence market. It is now occupied by the “Temple of Labour.” The Swedenborgians were established on Dorchester Street, corner of Hanover, in 1862. The Assembly of Christians, at the corner of St. George Street and Fortification Lane, about the same period. The French Evangelical Church, on Craig Street, was established in 1864. Lovell’s directory of today gives the location of the following churches: Christian Science—First Church of Christ Scientist—41 and 43 Closse Street, Western Square: New Jerusalem[289] Church, corner of Dorchester West and Hanover Street; Lutheran Churches—St. John’s Church (German Lutheran), corner of Mance and Prince Arthur Street; Church of the Redeemer (Evangelical Lutheran), 365 Mountain Street; Catholic Apostolic Church, 314 St. Catherine Street, West; Church of Christ (Disciples), 109 Fairmount, corner of Mance Street; Seventh Day Adventist Church, corner of Villeneuve, West, and Hutchison streets; Montreal Chinese Mission (Protestant), 336 Lagauchitiere Street, West; Undenominational Mission (City), 294-296 Cadieux Street; Desrivières Street Mission; Italian Methodist Mission, corner of Dorchester Street, West, and St. Urbain. The following charts will provide the curious student the religious origins of our population as revealed by the census of 1911.

Religions of the People of the City of Montreal, 1911.

| Total Population
|  | Adventists
|  |  | Anglicans
|  |  |  | Baptists
|  |  |  |  | Brethren
|  |  |  |  |  | Christians
|  |  |  |  |  |  | Congregationalists
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Disciples
Districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Friends
and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Greek Church
Sub-districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Jews
Montreal-Ste. Anne | 21,676 | — | 2,385 | 174 | — | — | 67 | — | — | 122 | 841
Centre ward | 458 | — | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 22 | —
Ste. Anne ward | 20,992 | — | 2,334 | 173 | — | — | 67 | — | — | 100 | 833
West ward | 226 | — | 44 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8
Montreal-St. Antoine | 48,638 | 6 | 10,653 | 840 | 18 | 9 | 453 | 10 | 4 | 111 | 1,247
St. Joseph ward | 17,879 | — | 2,241 | 340 | — | 1 | 40 | — | 1 | 61 | 483
St. Georges ward | 13,844 | 1 | 4,373 | 241 | 18 | 8 | 186 | 2 | 3 | 45 | 419
St. Andrews ward | 16,915 | 5 | 4,039 | 259 | — | — | 227 | 8 | — | 5 | 345
Montreal-St. Jacques | 44,057 | 1 | 429 | 45 | 2 | 3 | 15 | — | — | 188 | 547
East ward | 3,561 | — | 17 | — | — | — | 1 | — | — | 118 | 1
Lafontaine ward | 25,026 | — | 348 | 37 | — | 3 | 11 | — | — | 13 | 409
St. James ward | 15,470 | 1 | 64 | 8 | 2 | — | 3 | — | — | 57 | 137
Montreal-St. Laurent | 55,860 | 2 | 4,109 | 280 | 23 | 14 | 205 | 2 | 4 | 411 | 19,193
St. Laurent ward | 25,039 | 2 | 3,342 | 197 | 12 | 1 | 170 | 2 | 4 | 165 | 7,712
St. Louis ward | 30,821 | — | 767 | 83 | 11 | 13 | 35 | — | — | 246 | 11,481
Montreal-Ste. Marie | 54,910 | — | 1,651 | 113 | — | 11 | 12 | — | — | 42 | 326
Papineau ward | 39,079 | — | 1,409 | 67 | — | — | 12 | — | — | 39 | 292
Ste. Marie ward | 15,831 | — | 242 | 46 | — | 11 | — | — | — | 3 | 34
Hochelaga | 75,049 | 3 | 9,302 | 954 | 48 | — | 698 | 3 | 1 | 44 | 580
Ste. Cunégonde ward | 11,174 | 3 | 658 | 44 | 1 | — | 31 | — | — | 9 | 102
St. Gabriel ward | 18,961 | — | 2,855 | 278 | 8 | — | 323 | — | — | 11 | 54
St. Henri ward | 30,335 | — | 1,560 | 113 | 4 | — | 19 | 3 | — | 15 | 50
Westmount | 14,579 | — | 4,229 | 519 | 35 | — | 325 | — | 1 | 9 | 374
Jacques-Cartier | 65,023 | 4 | 8,905 | 511 | 63 | 8 | 201 | 2 | — | 236 | 541
Côte St. Paul | 3,421 | — | 732 | 16 | 4 | — | 10 | — | — | — | 6
Notre-Dame des Neiges | 912 | — | 46 | — | — | 4 | — | — | — | — | 8[290]
Présentation de la Ste. Vierge | 221 | — | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Saints-Anges de Lachine | 828 | — | 106 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 13
Ste. Anne du Bout de l’Ile | 813 | — | 98 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8
Ste. Geneviève | 1,075 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
St. Joachim de la Pointe Claire | 805 | — | 91 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
St. Laurent | 2,228 | — | 258 | 10 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | 9
St. Raphaël de l’Ile Bizard | 586 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Summerlea | 161 | — | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3
Beaconsfield | 375 | — | 70 | — | — | — | 2 | — | — | — | 2
Dorval | 1,006 | — | 184 | 6 | — | — | 12 | — | — | — | 11
Lachine | 10,699 | — | 1,600 | 43 | — | 4 | 4 | 2 | — | 57 | 322
Montréal | 703 | 1 | 205 | 6 | — | — | 14 | — | — | — | —
Notre-Dame de Grâce | 5,217 | — | 978 | 64 | — | — | 17 | — | — | 80 | 2
Outremont | 4,820 | — | 917 | 129 | 21 | — | 57 | — | — | — | 41
Pointe Claire | 793 | — | 116 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Anne de Bellevue | 1,416 | — | 76 | 9 | — | — | 7 | — | — | — | 9
St. Laurent | 1,860 | — | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Verdun | 11,629 | — | 2,309 | 154 | 15 | — | 67 | — | — | 8 | 67
Ville Emard | 6,179 | — | 418 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | —
Youville | 2,394 | 3 | 134 | 6 | 16 | — | 5 | — | — | 2 | 2
Cartierville | 905 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 10
Côte des Neiges | 2,444 | — | 254 | 3 | — | — | 6 | — | — | — | 23
Côte St. Luc | 303 | — | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève | 612 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
St Pierre aux Liens | 2,201 | — | 192 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | 88 | 5
Senneville | 418 | — | 40 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Maisonneuve | 170,978 | 33 | 11,642 | 1,176 | 52 | 21 | 309 | 5 | 1 | 272 | 5,227
De Lorimier ward | 10,453 | — | 745 | 232 | — | 6 | 2 | — | — | 1 | 3
Duvernay ward | 13,445 | 1 | 188 | 4 | — | 4 | 5 | — | — | 12 | 37
Hochelaga ward | 20,986 | — | 1,236 | 133 | — | — | 7 | — | — | — | 42
Laurier ward | 37,000 | 17 | 4,608 | 379 | 48 | 6 | 190 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 1,204
Maisonneuve | 18,684 | 2 | 970 | 51 | — | 5 | 2 | — | — | 45 | 8
Rosemont ward | 1,319 | — | 58 | 51 | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
St. Denis ward | 40,364 | 13 | 2,284 | 187 | 4 | — | 69 | — | — | 31 | 1,015
St. Jean Baptiste ward | 21,116 | — | 1,121 | 123 | — | — | 26 | — | — | 30 | 2,918
Ste. Marie ward | 7,611 | — | 432 | 16 | — | — | 8 | — | — |  | —[291]

Religions of the People of the City of Montreal, 1911.

| Lutherans
|  | Mennonites
|  |  | Methodists
|  |  |  | Mormons
|  |  |  |  | Presbyterians
|  |  |  |  |  | Roman Catholics
|  |  |  |  |  |  | Salvation Army
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Protestants
Districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Pagans
and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Various Sects
Sub-districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Unspecified
Montreal-Ste. Anne | 101 | 8 | 526 | — | 1,719 | 14,835 | 28 | 799 | 11 | 33 | 27
Centre ward | — | — | 3 | — | 17 | 409 | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Anne ward | 99 | 8 | 507 | — | 1,675 | 14,318 | 24 | 798 | 5 | 33 | 18
West ward | 2 | — | 16 | — | 27 | 108 | 4 | 1 | 6 | — | 9
Montreal-St. Antoine | 294 | — | 2,305 | — | 7,117 | 24,774 | 46 | 399 | 8 | 255 | 89
St. Joseph ward | 76 | — | 467 | — | 1,030 | 13,029 | 6 | 37 | — | 53 | 14
St. Georges ward | 110 | — | 825 | — | 2,732 | 4,489 | 30 | 78 | 8 | 202 | 74
St. Andrews ward | 108 | — | 1,013 | — | 3,355 | 7,256 | 10 | 284 | — | — | 1
Montreal-St. Jacques | 39 | 1 | 108 | — | 349 | 41,832 | — | 315 | 9 | 63 | 111
East ward | — | — | 11 | — | 41 | 3,311 | — |  | — | 13 | 48
Lafontaine ward | 26 | — | 84 | — | 252 | 23,601 | — | 165 | — | 23 | 54
St. James ward | 13 | 1 | 13 | — | 56 | 14,920 | — | 150 | 9 | 27 | 9
Montreal-St. Laurent | 178 | 1 | 1,412 | — | 2,772 | 25,831 | 30 | 754 | 6 | 426 | 207
St. Laurent ward | 149 | — | 1,149 | — | 2,166 | 9,272 | 25 | 202 | 6 | 334 | 129
St. Louis ward | 29 | 1 | 263 | — | 606 | 16,559 | 5 | 552 | — | 92 | 78
Montreal-Ste. Marie | 33 | — | 366 | — | 1,130 | 50,082 | 46 | 995 | — | 39 | 64
Papineau ward | 23 | — | 238 | — | 796 | 35,454 | 30 | 644 | — | 28 | 47
Ste. Marie ward | 10 | — | 128 | — | 334 | 14,628 | 16 | 351 | — | 11 | 17
Hochelaga | 226 | — | 3,598 | — | 7,677 | 50,745 | 112 | 637 | 5 | 375 | 41
Ste. Cunégonde | 23 | — | 230 | — | 424 | 9,498 | 8 | 88 | — | 52 | 3
St. Gabriel ward | 68 | — | 1,206 | — | 2,104 | 11,815 | 94 | 71 | — | 61 | 13
St. Henri ward | 12 | — | 535 | — | 723 | 26,828 | 8 | 417 | 4 | 34 | 10
Westmount | 123 | — | 1,627 | — | 4,426 | 2,604 | 2 | 61 | 1 | 228 | 15[292]
Jacques-Cartier | 127 | — | 2,441 | — | 5,073 | 46,085 | 41 | 592 | 3 | 173 | 17
Côte St. Paul | 31 | — | 235 | — | 30 | 2,331 | — | 26 | — | — | —
Notre-Dame des Neiges | 1 | — | 9 | — | 22 | 822 | — | — | — | — | —
Présentation de la Ste. Vièrge | — | — | — | — | 1 | 217 | — | — | — | — | —
Saints-Anges de Lachine | 5 | — | 22 | — | 108 | 556 | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Anne du Bout de l’Ile | — | — | 3 | — | 76 | 587 | — | 40 | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève | — | — | — | — | — | 1,063 | — | 12 | — | — | —
St. Joachim de la Pointe Claire | — | — | 8 | — | 38 | 662 | — | 2 | — | — | —
St. Laurent | — | — | 35 | — | 224 | 1,670 | 8 | 6 | — | — | 1
St. Raphaël de l’Ile Bizard | — | — | — | — | — | 585 | — | — | — | — | —
Summerlea | — | — | 9 | — | 39 | 77 | — | — | — | — | —
Beaconsfield | 2 | — | 36 | — | 20 | 225 | 3 | 10 | — | 5 | —
Dorval | 1 | — | 18 | — | 179 | 585 | — | 8 | — | — | 1
Lachine | 9 | — | 373 | — | 673 | 7,288 | — | 287 | — | 33 | 4
Montréal | 3 | — | 119 | — | 272 | 74 | — | — | — | 9 | —
Notre-Dame de Grâce | 3 | — | 254 | — | 432 | 3,344 | 1 | 16 | — | 26 | —
Outremont | 11 | — | 389 | — | 768 | 2,425 | — | 16 | 3 | 39 | 4
Pointe Claire | 3 | — | 6 | — | 70 | 580 | — | 15 | — | 1 | —
Ste. Anne de Bellevue | — | — | 43 | — | 73 | 1,188 | — | 7 | — | 4 | —
St. Laurent | — | — | 1 | — | 19 | 1,812 | — | 1 | — | 3 | —
Verdun | 40 | — | 723 | — | 1,530 | 6,631 | 27 | 26 | — | 29 | 3
Ville Emard | 6 | — | 86 | — | 77 | 5,526 | — | 37 | — | — | 4
Youville | 5 | — | 1 | — | 117 | 2,102 | 1 | — | — | — | —
Cartierville | — | — | 4 | — | 20 | 838 | — | 32 | — | — | —
Côte des Neiges | 6 | — | 41 | — | 122 | 1,971 | 1 | — | — | 17 | —
Côte St. Luc | — | — | — | — | — | 245 | — | 36 | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève | — | — | — | — | — | 612 | — | — | — | — | —
St. Pierre aux Liens | 1 | — | 26 | — | 156 | 1,720 | — | — | — | 1 | —
Senneville | — | — | — | — | 7 | 349 | — | 15 | — | 6 | —
Maisonneuve | 289 | 1 | 3,550 | — | 7,300 | 139,708 | 53 | 767 | 2 | 486 | 84
De Lorimier ward | 10 | — | 346 | — | 654 | 8,289 | 6 | 116 | 2 | 39 | 2
Duvernay ward | 1 | — | 36 | — | 94 | 13,003 | — | 40 | — | 15 | 5
Hochelaga ward | 40 | 1 | 268 | — | 445 | 18,604 | — | 35 | — | 47 | 1
Laurier ward | 121 | — | 1,546 | — | 3,073 | 25,447 | 20 | 102 | — | 179 | 31
Maisonneuve | 24 | — | 288 | — | 861 | 16,277 | 3 | 77 | — | 61 | 10
Rosemont ward | 2 | — | 52 | — | 152 | 988 | — | — | — | 16 | —
St. Denis ward | 63 | — | 522 | — | 1,266 | 34,627 | 12 | 227 | — | 40 | 4
St. Jean Baptiste ward | 21 | — | 335 | — | 587 | 15,749 | 11 | 104 | — | 60 | 31
Ste. Marie ward | 7 | — | 157 | — | 168 | 6,724 | 1 | 66 | — | 29 | —

FOOTNOTES:

1 The sketch by the Rev. J.A. Gordon written in 1906 has been used.

[293]

### CHAPTER XXVI

1760-1841

SCHOOL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL BEFORE THE CESSION

NEW MOVEMENT FOR BOYS—THE COLLEGE DE MONTREAL—THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION—THE FIRST ENGLISH SCHOOLMASTERS BEFORE 1790—A REPORT OF 1790 FOR THE SCHOOLS OF CANADA—THE DESIRE TO REAR UP A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION—THE JESUITS’ ESTATES—THE “CASE” AGAINST AMHERST’S CLAIM TO THE JESUITS’ ESTATES AND FOR THEIR DIVERGENCE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION—NEW ENGLISH MOVEMENT FOR A GENERAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION—THE ACT OF 1801—THE ROYAL INSTITUTION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING—NEVER A POPULAR SUCCESS—ITS REFORM IN 1818—A COUNTERPOISE—THE FABRIQUE ACT OF 1824—REVIEW OF SCHOOLS UNDER THE ROYAL INSTITUTION—SUBSIDIZED SCHOOLS—REVIEW OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS—LAY SCHOOLS—LORD DURHAM’S REPORT ON EDUCATION. NOTE: THE JESUITS’ ESTATES.

Under the English Rule the system of primary education carried on by the Sulpicians for boys and Marguerite Bourgeoys’ congregation for girls was continued as before the session. That for boys began when the Sulpician Souart, the first schoolmaster of Montreal, commenced his school teaching about 1669, after he had finished the first term as superior of the seminary.

The earliest new movement for boys after the English possession was made as follows:

In 1773 the stables and poultry house of the old Château de Vaudreuil became a school for little boys for elementary education, and from this date the château became known as the Collège de St. Raphael, the successor of the Pétit Seminaire established in 1767 by M. Curatteau in his presbytery at Longue Pointe.

In 1776 the Collège de St. Raphael was formerly inaugurated for the purpose of higher education, but it continued its elementary classes or petites écoles.

On October 11, 1790, in answer to a request of Lord Dorchester of the sixth of the same month, a catalogue of the professors of the College of Montreal for 1790 was sent with some remarks on the college and on the schools. The latter are as follows:[294] “The schools which the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Montreal keep are nearly as old as the establishment of the town. They teach only reading and writing in Latin and in French. The Seminary undertakes all the expense, furnishes the wood and the books, pays the masters’ board and lodges them. These schools are divided into ‘grandes’ and ‘petites.’ The petites écoles are for children who are only beginning to learn to read. The grandes écoles are for those who commence already to know how to read and who are learning to write. The parents who are able, pay five shillings a year for each scholar. The poor pay nothing at all.”

The first English schoolmaster in Montreal would seem to be a John Pullman, who came from New York in 1773 by the recommendation of the Rev. Dr. Ogilvie to try to establish a school in Montreal in consequence of an application to him from gentlemen of that city. He worked under a committee. This above information is told in the memorial of 1779, in which he applied for a license of Protestant schoolmaster similar to the position that Tanswell then possessed in Quebec. His recommendation was signed by the leading men of Montreal. But his scholars dwindling through competition, doubtless, his poverty forced him to apply, in 1782, for any small employment as a clerk and for a subscription to a work he had prepared, the short title of which was “Cash Clerks’ Assistant.” Finlay Fisher opened a school about 1778 which he said was well attended and flourishing. The Rev. Mr. John Stuart opened an academy for youth in Montreal in 1781. Mr. Stuart was born in the province of Virginia in 1736 or 1740, was ordained in England, returning in 1770 to Philadelphia, whence he went as a missionary to the Mohawk valley. On the outbreak of the American revolution he had been made a prisoner for his loyalty. He seems to have escaped and made his way to Montreal. He prepared his advertisement and sent it to Governor Haldimand, who offered to give him every encouragement and appropriated to the undertaking part of the bounty allowed by government, adding “Your advertisement will be published tomorrow, but I directed the words ‘principally intended for the children of Protestants’ to be left out as it is a distinction which could not fail to create jealousies at all times improper but more particularly so at present.” His Excellency desired that all classes should be received. Mr. Stuart in complying said that he had already admitted any persons that offered, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc.

It was difficult to get schoolmasters in the early days. Mr. Stuart’s assistant was a Mr. Christie. He was incapable of teaching even the lowest branches of arithmetic and language. Mr. Stuart on November 27, 1782, reported in all simplicity to Haldimand: “I could have dispensed with his ignorance of the English language and faulty accent, but when I found him unacquainted with the rules of common arithmetic and often obliged to apply to me (in presence of the pupils) for the solution of the most simple question, I could no longer doubt of his inefficiency.” A new assistant was engaged and shortly afterward Christie left the province. Finlay Fisher in 1783 in his memorial applied for Christie’s salary, £25 a year, to be added to his own; he did not receive it, however, till May 1, 1786, when it came due for the first time for the preceding six months. Mr. Stuart’s last salary at Montreal was for the six months between November 1, 1785, to April 30, 1786. He then went to Kingston on which his gaze had been fixed for some time. He became the first Anglican clergyman there. In 1789 he established a classical school there, the first school of the kind in Upper Canada.

An early report issued in England before 1790 by the “Society for the Propagation,” speaking of the early struggles, mentions that “there is not a single Protestant church in the whole province. * * * There are two schools, to each of[295] which a salary of £100 a year is allotted by the government, the one at Quebec and the other at Montreal. The schoolmaster’s name at Quebec is Tanswell. The Rev. Mr. Stuart had the school at Montreal for a short time (after his flight from Fort Hunter, where he was a missionary) until, about two years ago, the government thought proper to take half his salary away and divide it between a Mr. Fisher and Mr. Christie, both Presbyterians. * * * But besides the division of the salary there is neither a schoolhouse nor land appropriated nor trustees appointed, nor any regularities made respecting the application of the £100 salary. The inhabitants are opulent and generous and only want a proper person to place and establish a seminary. In that case the income cannot fail of being considerable. The prices for tuition have been for Latin, half a guinea, for English and arithmetic, $2 per month. There is not an English school in the place.”

STUDIES FROM THE CARTIER MONUMENT: Law

STUDIES FROM THE CARTIER MONUMENT: Education

In 1790, however, a memorandum was made of the ecclesiastical and educational aspects of the country which gives us an insight into the growing life of the English colony in Canada and Montreal, occasioned, no doubt, by the influx of the United Empire Loyalists migrating into the country:

PROTESTANT CLERGY

Episcopal or English Church
| Salaries.
M. de Lisle, Montreal | £ 200
Tunstall | 100
De Montmolten, Quebec | 200
Toosey | 200
Veyssiere, Three Rivers | 200
Doty, William Henry | 100
Stuart, Kingston | 100
Bryan, Cornwall | 50
Langhorn, near Kingston (missionary from ye society for propagating ye gospel with £50 and from government £100) | 150
Church of Scotland
Messrs. Henry and Spark, Quebec; Bethune near Oswegatchie | 50
| ———
| £1,350

PROTESTANT SCHOOLS

Quebec
Scholars. | Teachers. | Salary.
25 | Tanswell | £100
18 | Fraser
32 | Keith
53 | Jones
11 | Sargeant
41 | Burrows
—— |  |
180 |  | [296]
Montreal
42 | Fisher | £ 50
48 | Nelson
39 | Bowen
17 | Gunn
—— |  |
146 |  |
Three Rivers
11 | Brown
15 | Morris
—— |  |
26 |  |
William Henry
17 | Biset
Gaspe
| Hobson | £ 25

No returns yet made up of ye Protestant schools in ye counties of Gaspe, Lunenberg, Mechlenburg, Naysau and Hesse.

Although, therefore, the educational outlook was not very great 1 in 1790, yet already there was foreseen the necessity of an established system of public education in connection with the government. For this funds were badly needed.

In pursuing the history of the educational movement in which Montreal shares, notice must be now taken of the Jesuit estates, for upon the funds accruing from these, an early movement started to rear the means of an educational system in Canada. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1774 in Canada these estates had been promised to Lord Amherst as a recognition of his services. This met with consistent opposition, and a contra-movement arose to secure the estates as a means of rearing up a public educational system. A petition of November 19, 1787, was signed at Quebec by 195 inhabitants transmitting a “case” in which it was claimed that “as Canadians and citizens they had a right therein by title, and law, the College of Quebec having been founded for their education. It is their patrimony which they have cleared and cultivated. Even as subjects they have a right to public education which exists in every government.” The “case” insists that the Jesuits were only the rectors, professors and managers: that the Hundred Associates and others had founded the colleges for educational purposes. The petitioners demand that the troops then using the college as a barracks should be dislodged and pray the government “to restore the antient professors of the college or to name others and regulate the recompense due to their talents and attentions.” It is but just to note that the Jesuits never[297] ceded their claims to the complete possession of their estates, nor recognized a mere trusteeship.

A similar petition to that of 1787 was addressed by the inhabitants of Montreal in 1793, and again in 1800, praying that on reversion of the Jesuit estates the revenue should be diverted to the education of youth. Three Rivers similarly protested against the policy of the Amherst grant. At the first legislative assembly a recommendation was made for the divergence of the Jesuit funds to popular education. Thus Amherst’s patent was not signed. The death of Perè Casot, the last surviving Jesuit of the old régime, occurring in 1801, the governor claimed the estates for the crown, which hitherto had been administered by the Society. A majority in the house preferred that they should be devoted to educational purposes and demanded the titles. But it was not till 1831 that they were finally ceded, with the exception of the Jesuit College at Quebec which became converted into a barracks. Meanwhile the Anglican bishop of the diocese and other English leaders, especially the merchants, deploring the lack of educational facilities, agitated for a general school system, one of the arguments being the usefulness this would have of encouraging the English language through the province. At this time three classes of schools were in contemplation: parish schools (elementary), grammar schools and superior seminaries or universities, schools on the line of Westminster, Winchester and Eton. With regard to a university the committee of the executive council thought it premature to formulate any plan, but recommended that an appropriation should be made to cover any plan that might be adopted.

The future of education was reported on in answer to the following questions: “The establishing of schools and seminaries for the education of youth from those funds now unemployed as well in England as in this province and particularly a respectable college in this city with able professors and erecting free schools at convenient distances throughout this extensive province for the purpose of opening and enlarging the human mind, conciliating the affections of all His Majesty’s subjects and having a tendency to render this a happy and flourishing province.” Observation: “There remains for us to advert to a subject which we consider as the surest and best means of obtaining a cheerful and dutiful obedience to the laws and government from subjects in general, and that is by establishing throughout the province at proper distances public schools for the education of youth. We hardly know of a single school in any country part of the district for teaching boys and it is to the zeal of the few sisters of the congregation that we are indebted for all the little which is taught to girls throughout the country. The captains of militia who are frequently called upon to enforce law and order are so illiterate that not one in three can write or even read. The consequence is confusion and disorder and frequent suits and complaints between them and the militiamen.” They then suggest that for funds the estates of the Jesuits, which they understood likely to revert to the crown, could be conveniently applied for the purpose; that also, owing to the separation of the American states, there might be some unappropriated funds in England which could be applied for. The report reverts to the former petition of 1785 for a house of assembly, suggesting this as the only way to promote the welfare of the province as a British colony. In 1793, therefore, a further recommendation was made to the legislative assembly which presented an address to the governor urging upon the crown the[298] propriety of devoting the Jesuit estates for educational purposes. No answer having been given, another on the same subject was presented to the governor in 1800.

In reply to this the governor, in a speech to the legislature, intimated the intention of the government “to set apart a portion of the crown domain instead for the establishment of a competent number of free schools for the instruction of their children in the first rudiments of useful learning and in the English tongue; and also as occasion may require for foundations of a more enlarged and comprehensive nature.” In 1801, therefore, an act entitled “an act for the establishment of free schools and the advancement of learning in the province” was passed by the provincial legislature to give effect to these promises. It provided also for “the establishment of a Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning.” To this corporation was entrusted the entire management of all schools and institutions of royal foundation in the province as well as the administration of all estates and property appropriated to these schools.

This act remained practically a dead letter, since no grants were ever made. What rendered the scheme a failure was the additional reason of its unpopularity with the majority. Of the eighteen trustees of the Royal Institution, four only were Roman Catholics; and of the fourteen Protestants, three were prominent officials in Upper Canada. The teachers, too, were principally from Britain, unacquainted with the French language and generally ignorant of the habits of the people.

In 1818 in order to give practical effect to the act of 1801 all the government schools then receiving government aid were placed under the Royal Institution. The question of representative trusteeship was made more simple and more equitable, but the Protestant Lord Bishop of Quebec was named principal. This again kept the Catholics from participating, the movement being still looked upon as Protestant and Anglicizing. So that Lord Dalhousie wrote from Quebec on the 10th of June, 1821, to Lord Bathurst, asking that His Majesty would sanction the establishment of a Catholic institution precisely similar to that of the Protestants for the government of their schools. “The Catholic religion in this province,” he said, “is certainly the most sure defense yet against our neighbours and every fair encouragement should be given to it in promoting education and learning. One great objection complained of is the being subjected to the superintendence of the Royal Institution, of which the Protestant bishop is president. That objection is natural in a country where the Catholic religion prevails as to numbers and is guarded by ministers always watchful and perhaps jealous of the Protestant church.”

The Royal Institution was never popular because of its want of sympathy with the people whom it wished to benefit. It cannot be said to have been a success, owing to the peculiar denominational constitution of its charter and the apathy in its own council. Still it pointed the way to a general scheme of public education which afterwards bore fruit. Its greatest success is in the present day McGill University, whose official title is still the “Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning.”

Various attempts were made by the legislature to introduce a more popular system of management in the schools. In 1824, on the elaborate report of a special committee of the province which represented that in many parishes not more[299] than five or six of the inhabitants could write; that generally not above one-fourth of the entire population could read and that not above one-tenth of the entire population could write, a counterpoise measure to the royal institution was passed for the Catholics entitled the “Fabrique act” by which the Fabriques or corporations of the parish churches consisting of the curé and church wardens as school commissioners, could hold and acquire property, etc., to found and carry on elementary schools, one for every one hundred families. One of the great reasons for the failure of educational legislation down to 1836 was the want of permanency about it all. Another was the jobbery of politicians in a time of seething turmoil. Arthur Buller, commissioner, appointed by Lord Durham in 1838, reports clearly on this. “In short, the moment that they found that their educational provisions could be turned to political account, from that moment those provisions were formed with a view to promote party rather than education. This was their essential fault. This, it was, that pervaded and contaminated the whole system and paralyzed all good that was otherwise in it.” There were about one thousand, six hundred schools in Canada and these had to be closed.

It is now in place to review the state of education in Montreal under the Royal Institution. When finally funds were forthcoming they were supplied by an annual vote of the provincial parliament of £2,000, but under an authority from Lord Bathurst, dated January 24, 1817, a grant was made from the revenues of the Jesuit estate confined to the grammar schools of Quebec and Montreal. The latter received £200 a year with £52 a year for the rent of the schoolhouse. By the rules of the foundation twenty free scholars were to be admitted. At this date there were fifteen all told who paid for their education as day scholars. The terms for instruction in the higher education were £10 a year and £8 for the lower.

There were also two elementary schools at Montreal which received appropriations from the government, viz., the British and Canadian schools (£300) and the National free school (£200). With regard to the schools under the institution a memorandum of Sir John Kempt states that “by a return made in the year 1818 the number of schools in this province was stated to be thirty-seven attended by only 1,048 scholars and maintained at an expense to the public of £1,883 10 strg.”

In 1829 he also states the number of schools up to July 1st as seventy-eight and the number of scholars 3,772. Up to this date Catholics had no connection with the institution. In Lord Aylmer’s report of 1832 the schools under the royal institution of which the names are given as well as those of the teachers and their salaries, number seventy. The schools of Montreal given among the list of “society or private” institutions receiving occasional aid from public funds are given thus:

Place. | Establishment. | Name of Professor or Teacher. | Salary.
City of Montreal | Grammar School | A. Skakel | £200
City of Montreal | National School | W. Greene | 65
|  | Miss Meredith | 45
City of Montreal | British and Canadian School | Male Teacher | 90
|  | Female Teacher | 60[300]
City of Montreal | St. Jacques School |  |
| (French) | M. Archambault | 28-15
| (English) | Mr. Ryden | 28-15
| (Female) | I. Lauzon | 15-5
| (Evening) | M. Ducharme | 12-10
City of Montreal | Recollect School | Masters—Two | 63
|  | Mistresses—Two | 27
City of Montreal | Infants’ School | Two Teachers | 54
City of Montreal | Experimental School | J. Lancaster | 90

There were in addition many private Catholic and Protestant schools. We may note the origins of some of the most important public schools. The Royal Grammar school was founded in Montreal in 1816, with Mr. Alexander Skakel, M.A., who came out from England as head master. A writer in the Montreal Daily Herald of Saturday, March 15, 1913, writes:

“This may be said to have been the first ambitious attempt to put Protestant education in Montreal on a substantial and efficient footing. Mr. Skakel came out under, as he was wont to say, the pleasing illusion that the new world would offer him prospects denied him in the old. He was disillusionized, for the colony was not only young and raw, but the political and social conditions of the time were anything but congenial, while the emoluments were slender, and the life, generally, wholly different to that to which he had been accustomed. However, Mr. Skakel—whose portrait hangs in the High School—did not complain, but went straight on, developing the school which met, first of all, in the old Belmont Park building, and afterwards in the Fraser building at the corner of Dorchester Street and Union Avenue.”

Mr. Skakel was succeeded by the Rev. John Leeds and the Rev. George Simpson. The Royal grammar school was merged with the high school shortly after the organization of the latter in 1845. The Lancaster School took its name from Messrs. Lancaster and Bell, who came out from England, having been instrumental in establishing popular schools there, and they interested themselves in the formation of the British Canadian school. The early days of education were those of sacrifice for the teachers, ill paid, with inadequate teaching facilities, both in materials and buildings, overwork, and for the treasury which had to depend on voluntary gifts and collecting cards. Things are better now, but one wonders whether the teaching profession will ever come to its own.

The National School was founded in 1816 under the auspices of the Montreal district committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In 1839 the number of boys was 36 French and 120 English, and of girls 20 French and 84 English.

The British and Canadian School Society, which was opened in a building belonging formerly to the Montreal Hospital, was instituted on the 21st of September, 1822, to maintain on an extensive scale a school to promote the education of the labouring classes, and secondly, as a model school to train up teachers under Mr. Lancaster and a committee of gentlemen for future schools to follow the British system. It was meant to be undenominational. Its early success enabled it to build by funds from voluntary sources and from the provincial government[301] a more commodious schoolhouse on Lagauchetière Street, the foundation being laid on the 17th of October, 1826. It was designed to school 414 boys and 232 girls. In 1826 the number of attendance was:

| Boys | Girls
Roman Catholics | 97 | 38
Episcopal Church | 27 | 9
Presbyterian | 42 | 21
Methodists | 30 | 11
| —— | ——
| 196 | 79
Total, 275. |  |

This school lapsed in 1837, the year of the rebellion, which proved so fatal to education. There were 1,600 schools in the province, teaching 40,000 children, and these had to be closed. The Brothers of the Christian Schools made their entry into Montreal in 1837. Their important work, of which humble seeds were now laid, developed greatly under the Union, its story being therefore left to a later chapter.

A summary of the schools of 1839 is presented by Bosworth in “Hochelaga Depicta.” Besides the “New College” or “pétit seminaire,” there were “several respectable academies in the city, as the Royal Grammar School in Little St. James Street, conducted by A. Skakel, Esq.; the Rev. Dr. Black’s, adjoining St. Paul Church; Rev. J. Ramsay’s, Main Street, St. Lawrence suburbs; Messrs. Howden & Taggart’s, Craig Street; Mr. Workman’s, in Hospital Street; and Mr. Bruce’s, in McGill Street. There are also young ladies’ schools of high reputation, as Miss Easton’s, in Bonaventure Street; Miss Felton’s, in St. Gabriel Street; and Mrs. Fitzgerald’s, in Notre Dame Street. The total number of schools it would be impossible to assign. A few years since two gentlemen of the city made personal inquiry throughout the place with a view to determining the point. They found fifty-nine of different classes, but it is probable not only that some were overlooked, but that the number is greater now than it was then. There was also much private tuition in the families of the more wealthy inhabitants.”

The writer probably includes in the fifty-nine or more among the unnamed schools those of the Catholics, which were under the auspices of the Sulpicians, the teaching orders of the Congregational Nuns and the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and those conducted by lay people. A review of the schools for Catholics up to the Union may be now presented.

The early movement under the Sulpicians up to 1790 has already been stated. About 1796, as the city was beginning to expand, M. Roux, the superior of the seminary, opened a new school for children in the St. Lawrence district under the control of a layman. Later he established other schools at Bonsecours, St. Lawrence, St. Antoine, St. Mary (or the Faubourg de Quebec), and St. Joseph, all these schools with the exception of the seminary receiving children of both sexes. M. Quiblier, succeeding M. Roux, determined to erect separate schools or boys and girls, the latter to be under the direction of the Congregation Nuns. These, therefore, opened successively a great number of classes, three at the[302] Faubourg, St. Lawrence; six at that of Quebec (St. Mary’s), two of which were for the Irish; three classes at St. Antoine, and three at St. Joseph, and two classes at the Recollects for the Irish.

The Seminary provided the schools, their furniture and upkeep, and undertook to convey the nuns to and fro morning and evening. About fifteen hundred children were instructed and educated gratuitously in these schools. In addition the Congregation maintained in its own motherhouse, the pensionat, composed of six classes; the “great school,” with its three classes; and the “small school,” with two.2 What he had done for the education of the girls M. Quiblier would do for the boys, and it is due to him that he succeeded in bringing the Brothers of the Christian Schools to Montreal in 1837. A tribute paid by the Hon. Jacques Viger to M. Quiblier and the Sulpicians may be quoted from a Précis Historique which he composed. “Sur les petites écoles de la paroisse de Montréal pour les garçons.” “Should the time come,” he says, “when the Gentlemen of the Seminary might have no other right to public recognition than that of having constantly exercised their generous zeal for education undying blessings should be their desert; and if M. Quiblier had no other title of glory beyond that of having surpassed his predecessors in that respect that title would be fine enough. * * * Such are, among the other good works of the house of St. Sulpice, those which it has never ceased to lavish on the progress of education in a town of which it can, with good cause, be called the foundress and the mother.”

Mr. Huguet-Latour, in his “Annuaire de Ville Marie,” notes some of the schools of this period as follows. It is interesting as showing the part then being played by the laity:

“On May 1, 1813, a school was founded for young girls by Mrs. Richard O’Keefe.

“About 1819 a school was founded by a Mr. Ryan in the house of the ‘Recollets.’

“In 1825 a school for boys was established by Mgr. Lartigue, on October 1st, on the ground floor of his Episcopal residence at St. James Church, and another for girls, on January 3, 1827, under the direction of his secretary, afterwards Bishop Bourget, in a house hired for the purpose. In 1828 the sewing classes began in this school under the direction of the ‘Association Bienveillante des Dames de St. Jacques.’ These lasted till 1853. In 1831 these ladies, while still maintaining the supervision, hired a mistress to teach the school. On October 1st of the same year, Mgr. Lartigue opened a school for English boys, in the basement of the Sacristy of his cathedral.

“In 1830 a third class for boys was added. The first schoolhouse of St. James (75 by 40 feet, with three stories) was built in 1831 on land given by Mgr. Lartigue in 1831. Thither the various classes connected with St. James were transferred in 1831 and 1832. This school suffered, with the Cathedral, destruction in the great fire of July 8, 1852. The school, which commenced in 1825 with sixty children, had reached 400.

[303]

“On July 7, 1834, a school was founded at No. 31 Beaudry Street by Mr. Joseph Bourgoin.”

As a summary of the general outlook on Canadian education in the Province of Quebec 3 at the time of the rebellion we may use Lord Durham’s own summing up in his famous report in preparation for the Union. “The bulk of the population is composed of the hard-working yeomanry of the country district commonly called habitants. * * * It is impossible to exaggerate the want of education among them; no means of instruction have been provided for them and they are almost universally destitute of the qualifications even of reading and writing. * * * The common assertion that all classes of Canadians are equally ignorant is perfectly erroneous; for I know of no people among whom a larger provision exists for the higher kinds of elementary education or among whom such education is really extended to a larger proportion of the population. The piety and benevolence of the early possessors of the country founded in the seminaries that exist in the different parts of the province, institutions of which the funds have long been directed to the promotion of education. Seminaries and colleges have been by these bodies established in the cities and in other central points. The education given in these establishments greatly resembles the kind given in the English public schools, though it is more varied. It is entirely in the hands of the Catholic clergy. The number of pupils in this establishment was estimated altogether at 1,000 and they turn out as far as I could ascertain between two and three hundred young men thus educted.”

Thus at the time of the rebellion of 1837, at least in the towns such as Montreal, the outlook on education was not so depressing as it is generally painted.

NOTE

The long drawn out question of the Jesuits’ estates was settled in 1888. Its history may now be recapituated. After the suppresssion of the society in 1773, the government waited until the death, in 1801, of Father Casot, the last Canadian Jesuit to claim them. Amherst had been promised them, but the public sentiment was against this, and they were demanded for the cause of public education. The Jesuits meanwhile always maintained that there was an implicit contract on the part of the government to restore them. Up to 1888 the yearly revenues accruing had become very great. In 1800 these reached the sum of $7,800; in 1812 that of more than $9,000; in 1822, $6,000; in 1831, $15,000; in 1840, $27,000; in 1852, $45,000; during the other years more or less considerable sums. The total is about $960,000. If there is added to that the use of the lands of Champ de Mars, the courthouse and the city hall, and the land of the college at Quebec, it will be seen that the amount reached nearly two million dollars’ revenue. The value of the estates themselves resulting from the donations made by the kings of France and rich individuals was about four to five millions.[304] Evidently all this could not all be returned. It became a question of indemnity. In 1874 the Jesuits demanded such. Father Braun composed a memorial to Rome on the point, and Father Chazaux, then superior, addressed a request to the government in the name of the Holy See which had consented to the demand for the indemnity.

There was delay until May 12, 1887, when the Quebec government incorporated the Society of Jesus, and on July 12, 1888, passed the Jesuit estates bill, partially compensating the Society of Jesus for their loss. On March 3d of the following year the Commons sustained the act respecting the Jesuit estates by a vote of 188 to 13. On June 11th the Equal Rights party formed up to protest. On June 19th the Presbyterian Assembly denounced the act of incorporation of the Jesuits and the Jesuits estate act, and the Anglican Synod did the same this month. In July a general meeting in Queen’s Hall in Montreal also protested.

A petition was at this time presented to the Governor-General, Lord Stanley, requesting the disallowance of the act of March 3, 1888, and in answer, on August 2d, he replied that the adverse advice of his ministers, which he deemed sound, bound him to uphold it.

On November 5, 1889, the Hon. Honoré Mercier, the premier of the province of Quebec, paid to the Jesuits the sum of $400,000, of which $60,000 was turned over at once to the Protestant Board of School Commissioners for the province. The balance did not go solely to the Jesuits, for Rome decided that of this the claims for a share made by other Catholic-teaching bodies should be maintained, so that eventually the Society of Jesus received barely one-third of the indemnity. It is now clearly recognized that an elemental act of justice was at last completed.

FOOTNOTES:

1 See Haldimand’s remarks, Chapter X, Part 1.

2 “Mémoires particuliers pour servir a l’histoire de l’eglise de L’Amerique du Nord,” Tome 2 (vie de la Sœur Bourgeoys).

3 The census of 1911 revealed the interesting fact, that in view of some popular impressions erroneously entertained the greatest proportion of children attending school for over six months in the year was noted in Quebec. It was 76.47 per cent., and compares with 74.43 per cent. in Ontario, which comes next in order. In the Maritime Provinces the ratio was under 70 per cent.

[305]

### CHAPTER XXVII

1841-1914

THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AFTER THE UNION

THE RISE OF THE “SCHOOL COMMISSIONS OF MONTREAL”

EDUCATION AFTER THE REBELLION—THE EDUCATIONAL ACT OF 1846—THE PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS—NORMAL SCHOOLS—THE AMENDED SCHOOL ACT OF 1868-69—THE CHARTER—THE PROTESTANT HIGH SCHOOL—THE PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914—HISTORY OF SCHOOLS—LIST OF CATHOLIC COMMISSIONERS, 1869-1914—PRESENT SCHOOLS UNDER COMMISSION—INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC SCHOOL COMMISSIONS—THE ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH THE CENTRAL COMMISSION—“NUNS”—“BROTHERS”—“LAITY.”

NOTE: SECONDARY EDUCATION—TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL—VOCATIONAL.

The events of 1837 paralyzed education and the educational system became disorganized so that no attempt was made to reconstruct it till the question of union was settled. In 1841 the first parliament of United Canada passed an act embodying many of Buller’s suggestions, providing for the establishment and maintenance of public education. An ex-officio chief superintendent of education was appointed for the united province with working superintendents for its eastern and western sections. The executive educational officer, therefore, for lower Canada, was the Hon. Dr. J.B. Meilleur, an active educationalist and a former member of the legislature, who had been the principal author of the projected school act of 1836.

In 1843 the school act of 1841 was repealed as far as Upper Canada was concerned and in 1845 as far as it applied to Lower Canada. This was on account of the working experience gained by the two superintendents. In 1846 the office of the ex-officio chief superintendent was abolished and each of the eastern and western executive officers now administered the school law which was adopted by the act of 1846 to suit the needs of each section of the United Province. A very important principle—that of local taxation for the support of education—introduced with success in Upper Canada—was substituted for that of voluntary contributions as an experiment. This was repealed in 1849, owing to strong opposition, and local assessment was rendered permissive, not compulsory as before, and the system of voluntary contribution restored.

The year 1846 marks the origin of the modern Protestant and Catholic school[306] commissioners of the city of Montreal appointed by the provincial parliament (9 Victoria, Cap. 27).

THE PROTESTANT BOARD

The Protestant Board at its inception was not incorporated by act of parliament and had little recognized status. It had no funds to administer except a small grant from the city council. It had no school buildings to superintend. The early practice was to subsidize the existing schools. But the idea of the board grew. It received doles occasionally from the city council and it made headway. Its first school was the Ann Street School, established in a rented building, in 1850. It was afterward named the “William Lunn” after the first secretary-treasurer of the board, an ardent educationalist and one of the founders of the British and Canadian School.

The first meeting of the board of commissioners under the act of 1846 was held on December 10, 1846. Its commissioners up to 1868-69 were:

Rev. Charles Bancroft, chairman, 1846 to 1848; Rev. Caleb Strong, 1846 to ——; Rev. J.M. Cramp, 1846 to——; Mr. William Lunn, who acted as secretary-treasurer from 1846 to 1871; Mr. Andrew Watson, 1846 to——; Mr. John Dougall, 1846 to——; Reverend Dr. Falloon, chairman, February, 1848, to October, 1848; Reverend Dr. McGill, chairman, October, 1848 to 1856; Ven. Arch-deacon Gilson, 1854 to 1856, chairman, 1856 to 1861; Rev. William Snodgrass, chairman, 1861 to 1865; Mr. Kemp,—— to 1865; Rev. John Jenkins, D.D., chairman, 1865 to 1868; chairman, February, 1868, to February, 1869; Rev. D.H. MacVicar, D.D., LL. D., 1865 to February, 1869; Hon. James Ferrier, senator, 1865 to February, 1869; Mr. Hector Munro, 1865 to February, 1869.

THE CATHOLIC BOARD

The Catholic board, also appointed in 1846, had similar difficulties. The organization of the schools was small. The work done was sincere, but woefully limited. The schools were small and not modern in structure and character. The teachers were few and sadly handicapped in every way, for at that time the chief thought was how to struggle along in a material way. The cause of Catholic education was greatly helped at this period by the advent of the Christian Brothers in 1837, the Brothers of St. Joseph in 1841, and the religious bodies of women, including the Ladies of the Sacred Heart in 1842, the Sisters of Providence in 1844, the Ladies of St. Croix in 1847, and others, such as the Sisters of the Holy Name of Jesus, the Sisters of Charity, etc.

The Catholic school commissioners from 1846 to 1868 were:

Very Rev. A.F. Truteau, V.G., canon, 1846-1848; Rev. Francis A.U. de Charbonnel, P.S.S. (late bishop of Toronto), 1846-1848; Albert Furniss, 1846-1849; P.S. Letourneux, 1846-1849; Pierre Beaubien, physician, 1846-1849; J.U. Beaubry, advocate (later judge of supreme court), 1848-1862; Rev. A. Pinxsonnault (late bishop of London), 1848-1850, 1851-1853; Rev. F.R. Mercier, canon, 1848-1849; Rev. J.H. Prevost, P.S.S., pastor of Notre Dame, 1849-1864; A.M. Delisle, 1849-1852; W.C.F. Coffin, prothonotary, 1849-1851; André Ouimet, advocate, 1849-1851; Rev. E.C. Fabre (afterwards archbishop of Montreal),[307] 1850-1851, 1861-1865; G. d’Eschambault, physician, 1851-1856; P. Garnot, professor, 1857-1861; Very Rev. H. Moreau, V.G., canon, 1853-1861; J.F. Pelletier, advocate, 1853-1854; Louis Giard, physician, 1855-1857, 1858-1860, 1861-1868; C.S. Cherrier, advocate, 1857-1859; Gedeon Ouimet (afterward superintendent of public instruction), 1859-1861; H. Kavanagh, inspector of customs, 1860-1868; Edward Murphy, merchant (later senator), 1861-1865, 1869-1880; Alfred Larocque, 1862-1865; Rev. A. Giband, P.S.S., 1864-1866; Rev. P.L. Leblanc, canon, 1865-1876; Louis Belanger, advocate (later judge supreme court), 1865-1874; P.S. Murphy (later member of the council of public instruction), 1865-1884; Rev. V. Rousselot, P.S.S., pastor of Notre Dame, 1866-1886; E.H. Trudel, physician, 1868-1869; Francis Cassidy, advocate, 1868-1869.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOARDS

From 1846 to 1869 the school commissioners were appointed by the corporation of Montreal to hold office for two years. Since 1869 three are appointed by the provincial government and three by the corporation for three years.

In 1856 two bills, regarding higher and elementary education, became law on the report of Doctor Meilleur. They provided, among other things, for the distribution, through the superintendent of education and on his report, of the Lower Canada superior education fund among the various universities, colleges, academies, and model schools; for the establishment of three model schools instead of one; the appointment of a council of public instruction for Lower Canada; the publication of journals of education in English and French and the creation, as in Upper Canada, of a superannuated common school teachers’ fund.

In 1857 the long delayed establishment by government of normal schools at length took place. On the 2d of March the Jacques Cartier and the McGill Normal Schools 1 were inaugurated with fitting ceremonies at Montreal, to be followed in May by the Laval Normal School at Quebec. The Protestant Normal School at Montreal was established in the Belmont Street School until the Macdonald College Normal School was opened. Several private attempts to provide normal schools had been made, however, before this date. In 1854 a model school was opened on Bonaventure Street (St. James), maintained by the Colonial Church and School Society as one of a group of Protestant schools throughout the Dominion. This society (formerly the “Church Colonial Society” and the “Newfoundland School Society”), in connection with the Church of England, originated in London in 1823; it extended to Canada in 1838. In January, 1851, the two societies were united and became the “Colonial Church and School Society.” In May, 1861, it became the “Continental Church and School Society.” In 1863, 105 schools had been established, or at one time aided, by this society.

The school laws relating to the city of Montreal were amended by the act of 1868-69, and the present system firmly established by charters of incorporation being granted to both Protestant and Catholic boards to the effect that the Roman Catholic and Protestant boards of school commissioners of the city of Montreal have always been and now are bodies politic and corporate, and as such have[308] always enjoyed and now enjoy all the rights and privileges of corporation under the respective names of “the Roman Catholic board of school commissioners of the city of Montreal” and the “Protestant board of school commissioners of the city of Montreal,” as the case may be. The commissioners were to have a right to hold real estate to any amount. The annual revenue to be paid by the government was to be according to the relative proportion of the Roman Catholic and Protestant populations in the city. In addition there was to be a special city school tax collected by the city so that the corporation should pay for division among both boards, a tax assessable on real estate payable by the proprietors equal to a stated per cent on the dollar.2 The proprietors were placed under four panels, Roman Catholics, Protestants, neutral school tax from corporations or incorporated companies, or of those that have not declared in writing their desires to be inscribed on panels 1 or 2, and owners of real estate exempted from taxation. The neutral tax to be paid by corporations in proportion to the value of the property inscribed on panel 3 was to be divided between the Roman Catholic and Protestant boards according to the relative ratio of the Roman Catholic and Protestant population in the city, and the remainder in the relative ratio of the value of the property inscribed on panels 1 and 2 respectively. Jews 3 were empowered to inscribe on either of panels 1 or 2. Further source of revenue might come from additional amounts granted by the corporation of the city or from monthly school fees according to the nature of the schools, elementary, normal or academic, and from the issue of debentures, bonds, etc.

Since the passing of this act the progress in education has been very great, the number and dignity of the school buildings being marked.

Gradually most of the private schools came under the various commissions.

In 1870 the “old” Protestant high school came under the new board. Its history as the fostering ground of so many prominent citizens deserves special mention. The school opened September 25, 1843, with sixty-five pupils, in the Bigham building on St. Denis Street, near Notre Dame Street. It was founded[309] about 1843, and shortly after its organization the Royal Grammar School was merged into it. The next home was in the semi-ecclesiastical buildings on Belmont Street, the cornerstone of this erection having been laid by Lord Metcalfe Governor-General, on July 11, 1845, after the act of incorporation in the same year.4 Shortly before 1857 the high school was transferred to the premises now used by the Fraser Library and Institute. Its first principal was the Rev. George Foster Simpson. On his resignation Reverend Dr. Howe succeeded in 1848, and on his retirement in 1891 he was followed by the Rev. Dr. Elson S. Rexford, to be succeeded in 1904 by the present principal, Mr. Wellington Dixon.

“This school was in many respects,” said one who remembers it well, “a worthy example of this type. The masters whom I recall were the rector, Dr. H. Aspinwall Howe, brisk, alert, competent, self-possessed, showing many of the qualities of an English parsonage and of an Irish breeding; Mr. Rodger, stern, just, a Scotchman of serious type, an aquamarine set in steel, was highly regarded by his pupils for his unswerving uprightness; Mr. Gibson, tall, spare, peering, of classical proclivities; Mr. (later Doctor) Murray, a short, rotund Englishman, whose strong point was not discipline and whose pupils in their noisy acclamation wore with their heels a long, deep trench in front of their recitation form; Mr. Tronteau, instructor in French, who lacked that final something which commands the respect of British boys. Disciplinary trouble caused his retirement shortly afterward.” Other contemporaries and pupils of Doctor Murray remember him as a most lovable man, a lover of his kind, a deep scholar, a thinker with a brilliant pen and a high poetic and critical faculty. Another teacher closely connected with Doctor Howe was Dr. S.P. Robins, who became one of the foremost educationalists in Canada. The old high school, the scholarly gentlemen who taught this and its other memories are regarded with veneration by the Protestant grandfathers of Montreal of today who gathered there their love of culture and their upright principles under its successive roofs.

The next location of the high school was on Peel Street. It was handed over to the school commissioners in 1870.5

In 1890 it was destroyed by the act of foolish boy incendiaries. But a more commodious building was erected on the same site and continued its progressive work till 1914, when it was sold. In the meantime the new high school, a handsome building, being prepared on University Street, above Sherbrooke Street, was opened on September 8, 1914, to receive its new generation.

The past commissioners under the act of 1868-69 are as follows:

Rev. John Jenkins, D.D., chairman, February, 1869, to June, 1884; Rev. Canon Bancroft, D.D., LL.D., February, 1869, to June, 1877; Rev. D.H. MacVicar, D.D., LL.D., February, 1869, to June, 1876; June, 1878, to June, 1879; June,[310] 1884, to December, 1902; William Lunn, February, 1869, to July, 1883; Hon. James Ferrier, senator, February, 1869, to July, 1872; T.M. Thompson, city councillor, February, 1869, to April, 1872; Principal William J. Dawson, LL. D., F.R.S., F.G.S., April, 1872, to August, 1883; W. Frederick Kay, alderman, July, 1872, to July, 1875; G.W. Stephens, B.C.L., alderman, July, 1875, to June, 1884; Samuel E. Dawson, June, 1876, to June, 1878; Rev. J.F. Stevenson, LL. D., June, 1877, to June, 1887; Rev. Canon Norman, M.A., D.C.L., June, 1879, to February, 1888; Richard Holland, alderman, August, 1883, to June, 1891; J.H. Mooney, alderman, June, 1883, to June, 1889; J.C. Wilson, alderman, June, 1884, to June, 1887; Rev. A.G. Upham, June, 1887, to November, 1890; J.S. Archibald, D.C.L., Q. C, alderman, June, 1887, to June, 1890; E. Thompson, alderman, June, 1891, to June, 1894; D. Wilson, alderman, June, 1889, to June, 1895; R. Wilson-Smith, alderman and mayor, June, 1895, to June, 1898; R. Costigan, alderman, June, 1894, to June, 1900; James McBride, alderman, June, 1890, to June, 1902; Very Rev. Dean Evans, D.D., D.C.L., February, 1888, to June, 1906; H.A. Ekers, alderman and mayor, June, 1898, to June, 1906; Farquhar Robertson, alderman, June, 1900, to June, 1906; G.W. Stephens, M.P.P., June, 1906, to August, 1907; H.B. Yates, M.D., alderman, June, 1906, to June, 1910; Rev. W.I. Shaw, D.D., LL. D., D.C.L., November, 1890, to March, 1911; I.H. Stearns, alderman, June, 1902, to June, 1911; Rev. James Barclay, January, 1903, to June, 1914; R. Turner, alderman, June, 1906, to June, 1912; Rev. H. Symonds, D.D., LL. D., June, 1907, to June, 1912; James Robinson, alderman, June, 1910, to June, 1913; Rev. W.R. Young, D.D., May, 1911, to June, 1913; Joseph Ward, alderman, August, 1911, to June, 1914; Rev. J. Scrimger, August, 1912; W.S. Weldon, alderman, July 1, 1914.

SCHOOLS PAST AND PRESENT UNDER THE PROTESTANT BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL

High School of Montreal.—Founded in 1845 and transferred to the Board September 1, 1870. Moved to new building in Peel Street. Destroyed by fire, November 28, 1890. Rebuilt and officially opened, June 20, 1892. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909. New site purchased in 1911 on University Street. Building opened on September 8, 1914.

Preparatory High School.—Opened, September, 1870. Transferred to the High School of Montreal, September, 1891.

High School for Girls.—Opened in private dwellings, 131 and 133 Metcalfe Street, in September, 1875, and transferred to High School buildings in Peel Street, 1892. Cookery Room equipped in 1908. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909.

[311]

Commercial and Technical High School.—Opened, September, 1906.

Senior school. Opened in leased premises in Ontario Street, September 1877. Afterwards removed to Burnside Hall, and subsequently transferred to new premises in Metcalfe Street. Transferred to Commercial and Technical High School, September, 1906.

Aberdeen School.—Opened, September, 1896. Enlarged by twelve rooms, February, 1906. Assembly Hall converted into four class rooms, September, 1908. Ventilation remodeled, 1908. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909.

Sherbrooke Street School.—Opened, September 1, 1874. Closed and pupils transferred to Aberdeen School, September, 1896.

St. Lawrence Street School.—Opened in a rented building in 1871. Transferred to Sherbrooke Street School, September 1, 1874.

Alexandra School.—Site purchased and building erected in 1910. Opened in February, 1911.

Trinity School.—Opened in the basement of Trinity Church, St. Denis Street, September, 1909. Closed and pupils transferred to the Alexandra School, February, 1911.

Amherst Park School.—Transferred to the Board, July 1, 1913.

Belmont Street School.—Opened in September, 1907, in the McGill Normal School Buildings, leased from the Provincial Government. Lease renewed for a period of five years from July 1, 1911.

Baron de Hirsch Day School, St. Elizabeth Street.—Subsidized by the Board 18—to 1904. Moved to new building, 250 Bleury Street, and conducted under the management of the Board from September, 1904, to June, 1907. Agreement terminated June, 1907, and accommodation for pupils provided in the Belmont Street School in September, 1907.

Berthelet Street School.—37 Berthelet Street.—Opened in September, 1886. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909.

Ontario Street School.—Opened in leased premises in 1876. Closed and pupils transferred to Berthelet Street School.

St. George’s School.—Maintained by Colonial and Continental Church and School Society. (Subsidized, 1878.) Discontinued after June, 1886.

Bordeaux School.—Territory annexed to that of the Board, July 1, 1913. Dwelling house purchased and converted into a two-roomed school. School opened, September 2, 1913.

Britannia Street School.—Opened, October 1, 1887. Janitor’s apartments and the basement of the school building remodeled, 1909.

Mill Street School.—Opened in Government Immigration Building in Britannia Street, September, 1877. Transferred to Britannia Street School, October, 1887.

Côte des Neiges School.—Transferred to the Board, July 1, 1911

Delorimier School.—Transferred to the board, July 1, 1910. Site enlarged by purchase of adjoining lots, 1911.

[312]

Dufferin School.—Opened, March 5, 1894. Enlarged by addition of nine rooms, February, 1906. Assembly Hall converted into four class-rooms September, 1907. Fire Tower erected in 1908. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909. Lavatories remodeled, 1912.

British and Canadian School.—Established in 1822. Transferred to the Board in 1866. New storey added and interior rearranged September 15, 1873. Closed and pupils transferred to Dufferin School, March 4, 1894.

Dorchester Street School.—Opened at 381 Dorchester Street in September, 1874. Closed and pupils transferred to Dufferin School, March 4, 1894.

French Protestant School.—Opened, October, 1875, and shortly afterwards transferred to Dorchester Street School.

Earl Grey School.—School site purchased 1907. School opened September 1908. Enlarged by the addition of eight rooms September, 1910.

Boulevard School.—Transferred to the Board in 1906. School building closed and pupils transferred to the Earl Grey School, corner Comte and Amherst streets, September, 1908.

Edward VII School.—Site purchased, 1911. School erected, 1912. School opened for reception of pupils, November, 1912.

Fairmount School.—Transferred to the Board, July 1, 1910. Heating and ventilation remodeled and the building enlarged by the addition of twelve rooms, September, 1911.

Lansdowne School.—Opened, September, 1891. Enlarged by six rooms, February, 1906. Iron Fire Escapes erected in 1909.

Panet Street School.—Opened, 1860. Closed and pupils transferred to Lansdowne School, September, 1891.

Quebec Suburbs School.—Opened in a private house on Papineau Square in April, 1850. Destroyed by fire, July 8, 1852. School continued in Colborne Avenue. Closed and pupils transferred to the Panet Street School, 1860.

De Salaberry Street School.—Opened in 1870. Closed September, 1891. Pupils transferred to Lansdowne School, 1891.

Lorne School.—Opened, September, 1891. Assembly Hall converted into three class-rooms September, 1907. Entrances remodeled, and Fire Escapes built, 1908. Iron Fire Escapes erected 1909.

St. Gabriel School.—Transferred to the Board in 1878. Transferred to Lorne School, September, 1891.

Mount Royal School, formerly St. Urbian St or St. Jean Baptiste.—Renamed 1893-94. Enlarged in 1898. Enlarged by twelve rooms, February, 1906 Enlarged by two rooms, September, 1907. Ventilation remodeled in 1908. Assembly Hall converted into four class-rooms, 1909. Fire Escapes built,[313] 1909. Mission Hall adjoining purchased, January, 1911, and converted into a Kindergarten Class Room, February, 1911.

St. Jean Baptiste School. Transferred to the Board in 1886. Removed to new building in St. Urbain Street, April, 1889. Enlarged and renamed Mount Royal School, September, 1894.

Riverside School, formerly Point St. Charles School.—Renamed. Enlarged in 1894. Enlarged by addition of eight class rooms, September, 1908, and ventilation remodelled; entrances remodelled. Two Fire Towers built on school building, 1908. Two Iron Fire Escapes built, 1909.

Point St. Charles School on Favard Street.—Opened, January, 1876. Renamed Riverside.

Grace Church School.—Opened in the school room of Grace Church, September, 1872. Closed, January, 1876; re-opened, March, 1887. Closed, September, 1891.

St. Matthew’s School.—Opened in school room of St. Matthew’s Church, January, 1874. Closed, September, 1891.

Rosemount School.—Transferred to the Board, July 1st, 1911. Assembly Hall Converted into two class rooms, September, 1911. Boardroom converted into a class room, September, 1913.

Royal Arthur School.—Opened, February 11th, 1870, by H.R.H. Prince Arthur. Remodelled in 1888. Partially destroyed by fire, January 18th, 1909. New building erected on former site during 1909-10 and opened in September, 1910.

Sarah Maxwell Memorial School.—Erected on the site of the former Hochelaga School. Opened, April 6th, 1908. Enlarged by addition of four rooms, 1912.

Hochelaga School.—Transferred to the Board in April, 1884. Removed to new building in Prefontaine Street, November 17th, 1890. School burned, February 26th, 1907. Replaced by the Sarah Maxwell Memorial School, 1908.

Shaw Memorial Church School.—Opened in rented basement of Shaw Memorial Church, September, 1913.

Strathearn School.—Site purchased, and plans prepared, 1912. Building erected 1912-13 and opened for the reception of pupils, September 2nd, 1913.

Victoria School.—Corner Stone laid June 20th, 1887. School opened September 1st, 1888. Fire escapes built in 1909. Enlarged by addition of Gymnasium Sloyd and Cookery Rooms, in 1911.

William Dawson School.—Site purchased June, 1908. Building erected in 1910-11. Opened, April, 1911.

Berri Street School.—Transferred to the Board in 1905. New site purchased[314] in June, 1908. Building closed and pupils transferred to the William Dawson School, April, 1911.

William Lunn School.—Erected on the site of the former Ann Street School. Opened, October 6th, 1908.

Ann Street School.—Established 1850 in a rented building. Property purchased in 1853. Wing added to building in 1864. Transferred to new building in Ann Street in April, 1872. Heating and ventilation remodelled in 1890. Destroyed by fire, August 26th, 1907. Rebuilt in 1908 and renamed the William Lunn School. Pupils transferred to the new building, October 6th, 1908.

Youville School.—Transferred to the Board, July 1st, 1913.

A GROUP OF SCHOOLS UNDER THE PROTESTANT COMMISSIONERS

Royal Arthur—Erected 1910

Montreal high school

Edward VII—Erected 1912

Fairmount—Enlarged 1911

Alexandra—Erected 1910

Strathearn—Erected 1913

THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL COMMISSION

The board of the Catholic schools commissioners under the act of 1868-9 has been served by:

The Rev. V. Rousselot, P.S.S., 1868-1886; Rev. P.L. Leblanc, canon, 1868-1876; P.S. Murphy, 1868-1884; Louis Belanger, 1868-1874; Edward Murphy, 1868-1869; Narcisee Valois, alderman, 1869-1870; Severe Rivard, advocate, 1870-1878; J.A. Ouimet, advocate (later minister of public works), 1874-1879; Rev. E. Moreau, canon, 1876-1880; Jacques Grenier, alderman, 1878-1887; E.C. Monk, advocate, 1879-1883; Rev. P.C. Dufresne, canon, 1880-1881; L.O. Hetu, notary, 1880-1883; Very Rev. N.Z. Lorrain, V.G., 1881-1882; Very Rev. L.D.A. Maréchal, V.G., canon, 1883-1892; H.B. Rainville, alderman, 1883-1886; F.D. Monk, advocate, 1883-1891; Rev. A.L. Sentenne, P.S.S., pastor of Notre Dame, 1886-1894; R. Préfontaine, M.P., alderman, 1886-1903: A.S. Hamelin, ex-alderman, 1887-1893; J.H. Semple, merchant, 1887-1892; F.L. Beique, advocate, 1891-1893; Rev. A.P. Dubuc, 1892-1894; F.J. Hart, merchant, 1893-1894;6 C. Beausoleil, M.P., alderman, 1895-1902; W. Farrell, merchant, 1893-1901; M.T. Brennan, M.D., 1891-1896; L.E. Desjardins, M.D., 1894-1895; Rev. J. Quinlivan, P.S.S., 1894-1897; Rev. J.W. Leclaire, P.P., 1894-1902; Rev. P.M. Bruchesi, canon, 1894-1897, 1894-1900 (now archbishop of Montreal); C.S. de Lorimier, judge, Superior Court, 1895-1896; B. Connaughton, judge, Superior Court, 1896-1899; Mgr. Z. Racicot, P.A., vicar general (became auxiliary bishop of Montreal), 1897-1905; P.J. Martineau, advocate, 1897-1907; L.P. Demers, advocate, M.P., 1898-1904, 1899-1911 (now judge of Superior Court), 1899-1911; Daniel Gallery, alderman, 1900-1904; Rev. C. Larocque, P.P., 1901-1904; J.R. Savignac, 1901-1904; A.S. Hamelin, ex-alderman, 1902-1908; Martin Callaghan, P.P., 1902-1905; H. Laporte, alderman (afterward mayor), 1903-1906; N.A. Troie, P.S.S., P.P. Notre Dame, 1904-1906; C. Piché, K.C., M.P., 1904-1908: S.D. Vallières, alderman, 1904-1907; L. Abbé P. Perrier, March 23, 1905-December 15, 1905; G. Dauth, canon, December 15, 1905-1910; W. O’Meara, canon, P.P., 1905——; F.L.T. Adam, canon, P.P., 1906-1909; L. Payette, alderman (afterwards mayor), 1907-1910: [315]L.A. Lapointe, alderman, 1907——; E. Lafontaine, judge, Superior Court, 1907——; J.P. Décarie, M.D., 1908——; J.M. Demers, P.P., 1909-1910; Joseph McLaughlin, 1909-1910; Mgr. Emile Roy, V.G., P.A., 1910——; Anthime Corbeil, P.P., St. Joseph, 1910——; Napoleon Giroux, alderman, 1910——; L. A. Lavallée, K. C, mayor, 1911-1914; Emery Larivière, alderman, 1914——.

The following is the history of some of the earlier schools of the Commission:

The “Plateau” school in 1871 became the headquarters of the new board of Catholic school commissioners. Its situation on a plateau, between St. Catherine, St. Urbain and Ontario streets, gives it its popular name. Its official title is the Commercial Academy, which was founded in 1853 on Cote Street and which was transferred to the plateau in 1871. The Montcalm School dates back to 1860 when it was formerly known as the Académie Sainte Marie; this was on Craig Street, 157. It is the oldest institution under the board. The Champlain School formerly the Ecole St. Vincent, was built in 1870 and rebuilt in 1890 at 164 Fullum Street. Belmont School, 245 Guy Street, was founded in 1878. Its first principal was P.L. O’Donaghue. Olier School, 216 Roy Street (now 282), was formerly the St. Denis Academy under the direction of Mr. Primeau, and was founded in 1875. In 1878 it was moved to Roy Street. Sarsfield School was built in 1870, at 97 Grand Trunk Street. Plessis Street School, 383 Plessis Street (now 505), was founded in 1878 and was entrusted to the Brothers of the Christian Schools. St. Gabriel School, 350 Centre Street. St. Alphonsus, 120 Conway Street, was built in 1890.

The names and addresses of schools controlled by the Board at present are as follows:

Names of Schools. | Where Situated. | By Whom Directed.
Commercial Academy | Plateau Avenue | Lay teachers
Montcalm School | 408, de Montigny Street | Lay teachers
Champlain School | 224, Fullum Street | Lay teachers
Sarsfield School | 97, Grand Trunk Street | Lay teachers
Belmont School | 245, Guy Street | Lay teachers
Olier School | 282, Roy Street | Lay teachers
Edward Murphy School | 680, Craig East Street | Lay teachers
Salaberry School | 26, Robin Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
St. Joseph School | 141, St. Martin Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
St. Bridget’s School | 50, St. Rose Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
Plessis School | 505, Plessis Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
St. Ann’s School (Boys) | 127, Young Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
St. Patrick’s School (Boys) | 371, Lagauchetière W. St. | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
St. Charles’ School | 220, Island Street | Bros. of the Christian Shls.
Meilleur School | 695, Fullum Street | “Sacred Heart” Brothers
Chauveau School | 134, Laprairie Street | Presentation Brothers
St. Helen’s School (Boys) | 727, St. Paul Street | St. Gabriel Brothers
St. Peter’s School | 220, Panet Street | Marist Brothers
Italian School | 479, Dorchester E. St | Italians
N.D. des Anges School | 15, Mullins Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Catherine School | 1298, St. Catherine E. | Congr. Notre-Dame
Bourgeoys School | 490, Plessis Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
Visitation School | 703, Craig East Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Joseph’s School (Girls) | 739, Notre-Dame West | Congr. Notre-Dame[316]
St. Ann’s School (Girls) | 102, McCord Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Louis School | 101, Roy Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
N.-D. du Bon Conseil Schl | 714, Craig East Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
Jeanne LeBer School | 740, Wellington Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Agnès’ School | 357, St. Antoine Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Patrick’s Schl. (Girls) | 79, St-Alexander Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Stanislaus School | 321, Sanguinet Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Antoine School | 434, Lagauchetière W. | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Eusebius School | 711, Fullum Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Helen’s School (Girls) | 5, Chaboillez Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. Alphonsus School | 120, Conway Street | Congr. Notre-Dame
St. John the Evangelist | 495, Centre Street | Sisters of the Holy Cross
St. Bridget’s School | 111, Papineau Street | Sisters of the Holy Cross
St. Gabriel School | 478, Centre Street | Sisters of the Holy Cross
St. Alexis Orphanage | 247, St. Denis Street | Sisters of Providence
Jardin de l’Enfance | 110, Visitation Street | Sisters of Providence
St. Vincent-de-Paul | 247, St. Denis Street | Sisters of Providence
Institut. for the Blind | 95, St. Catherine W. St. | Grey Nuns (S. of Charity)
Bethlehem Asylum. | 1, Richmond Square | Grey Nuns (S. of Charity)
Marchand Academy | 356, Dorchester E. St | Lady lay teachers
Garneau School | 463, Visitation Street | Lady lay teachers
Mrs. Mackay Wolff’s Schl | 58, Ontario West Street | Lady lay teachers
Miss Viger’s School | 440, St. Hubert Street | Lady lay teachers
St. Joseph, Longue Pointe | 156, Charlemagne St | Lady lay teachers
Vinet Longue Pointe | 139, Lepailleur Street | Lady lay teachers
Ecole St. Croix (Boys) | In Edmard Ward | Lay teachers
Notre Dame du Perpétuel Secours (Girls) | In Edmard Ward | Congregation N.D.

The commission is at present building six new buildings and four of them will be completed during the present year.

It should be borne in mind that the above list does not represent the full number of Catholic schools in Montreal in 1914, in a population of over four hundred and sixty-six thousand, of which over two-thirds are Catholics. The above are only those schools controlled by the “Montreal Catholic school board” which is no longer an exact expression.

For it must be understood that while from a municipal point of view, the City of Montreal has grown by successive annexations which have considerably enlarged its territory and the number of its inhabitants, nevertheless the Catholic School Board has not enlarged its domain. Its jurisdiction is exercised only within the limits of the old city before annexations. The towns and villages lately annexed have preserved their school autonomy, so that what with the towns or villages annexed for municipal, but not for school purposes, and those not in any way annexed, there are altogether about thirty-two different school boards in what is considered the metropolis of Montreal.

There are now more pupils in the many schools of the territory outside the scope of the Central Commission than are under its regulation. This should be[317] carefully understood, else the above list would indeed look small for so large a Catholic city.

THE OLD “BLACK” NUNNERY

The northeast portion of the garden of the convent of the “Congregation de Notre Dame,” founded by Marguerite Bourgeoys in 1659. The present buildings are those of the third convent, the previous two having been burned. The projected extension of St. Lawrence Boulevard to the harbor necessitates the demolition of the convent and the adjoining church of Notre Dame de Pitie.

WOMEN TEACHING ORGANIZATIONS—THE “CONGREGATION”

The chief women organizations at present cooperating with the Catholic school commission have an interesting history. The early history of the pioneering work for education in Montreal by the Congregation Nuns has been told in the first volume. To resume in brief, on November 25, 1657, Marguerite Bourgeoys, with Madame Marguerite Pacaud, opened the first school proper, in Montreal in a stable (36 by 18 feet) given by M. de Maisonneuve, facing the Hôtel Diéu on St. Paul Street. In 1666 a boarding school for young girls was opened by her. In 1670, the stable being insufficient, a large house in stone was built. In 1683 the house was burnt down and two of her community, Géneviève Durosoy and Marguerite Soumillard perished. The Congregation immediately commenced, with only 40 sols, to build their house in the “haut ville,” on ground donated to them adjoining the Hôtel Diéu. This was the site on which the subsequent convent additions were built and which has recently, in 1912, been purchased by the city for the elongation of St. Lawrence Boulevard. In 1713 the northeast wing of the convent was commenced for a “pensionnat” which received a foundation of 13,000 livres from Jeanne Le Ber, the recluse of Notre Dame de Pitié church, erected since 1693 in the convent grounds. The revenue from this sum was to educate and board gratuitously seven young girls. In 1768, on April 11th, a second fire destroyed all the buildings of the convent. In 1823 the Sisters added to their establishment a three-story building. When the great movement for popular education was promoted in 1833 by M. Quiblier, superior of the Seminary, some of the Sisters left their convent to open extern free day schools, first, Externat Ste. Marie, opened September 21, 1833, on Craig and Visitation streets, and, second, Externat St. Laurent, 324 St. Catherine Street, to be followed, in successive years till today, by other “externats,” a course which has entitled them to much public recognition. In 1845 the nuns adjoined the annex to the pensionnat—a building 300 by 57 feet, erected on St. Jean Baptiste Street. In 1854 a second pensionnat was added, called “Villa Maria” by the purchase of Monklands, a residence southwest of Mountain, the original home of the “Monk” family, which became the official residence of the governor general. It was there that Lord Elgin retired after signing the rebellion losses bill. In 1860 the original pensionnat, dating from 1666, was removed from the old site to Mount St. Mary, to the building used as the St. Patrick’s Hospital for the Irish from 1852 to 1860, and before that as a Baptist college.

In 1880 the mother house and the novitiate were transferred to the western slope of Mount Royal, near Villa Maria. The handsome new building was burnt to the ground on June 8, 1893. The community returned to their old home on St. Jean Baptiste Street, which in the meantime had been used as the normal school entrusted to the nuns, since 1898, for the education of female bodies for the Province. But a new mother house was preparing; which they entered in July, 1908. It is an immense building, one of the largest in the world devoted to religious purposes. It is built in the Romanesque style. This building is the home of the college for the higher education of women in affiliation with Laval University.

[318]

The Normal School for girls to be trained for Catholic teachers for the Province of Quebec has been connected with their organization since its foundation, on September 14, 1898.

SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF JESUS AND MARY

The institution of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary is a Montreal foundation which has spread over Canada, Oregon, California, and many parts of the United States. It had for its foundress Mlles. Eulalie Durocher (afterwards, in religion, Mother Maria Rose), Melodie Dufresne and Henriette Céré, who began their work of teaching the young in October, 1843, in a modest house in Longueuil. In 1844 it was formed into a religious community and the Sisters took possession of their convent there. On December 8th the foundresses took their first religious vows and on August 15, 1846, their final vows. The work of teaching may be said to be definitely founded in 1845. It has steadily progressed. The Sisters have about 27,470 children who attended school under their charge in 1913. They have fifty-six establishments and direct twenty-five parochial schools in Canada alone.

Its principal schools are the Hochelaga Convent and the imposing convent at Outremont, on St. Catherine Road.

On the Eastern slope of Mount Royal, built on one of the choicest sites of Montreal, is the Outremont boarding-school. A magnificent panorama of the surrounding country may be seen from the upper steps of the Convent. The immense cutstone building, of modern architecture, is surrounded by verdant lawns and gravel walks, whereon the pupils may indulge in all the pastimes of convent life. The course of studies is the same as at Hochelaga, although the appointments may be more modern. A beautiful white chapel, with its marble altars, burnished brass communion-table and stained glass windows, is worthy of attention. A museum is located in the dome which overtops the building.

SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS

Another body cooperating with the Catholic School Commission, is that of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross, founded in 1841, at Mans, France, by Father Anthony Moreau and Mother Mary of the Seven Dolors, née Leocadie Gascoin. In May, 1847, at the formal request of Rev. J.B. Saint Germain, Pastor of St. Laurent, Bishop Bourget, on his return from Europe, brought three nuns from this recently organized institute to establish a branch in Canada. Its beginnings were very humble and, perhaps on account of its distance from the mother-house, it made little progress during the first thirty-five years of its existence. After this ordeal, it suddenly underwent a wonderful transformation and now numbers 623 members, 530 professed and 98 novices, and owns 40 prosperous houses situated in three provinces, wherein upwards of 14,000 children are educated. The Convent still occupies its original site, but has undergone so many improvements that it is now as fine and massive a structure as any of the more modern buildings. The boarding-school, attached to the mother-house and novitiate, Notre Dame Des Anges, offers every facility for the physical and intellectual development of youth. The course comprises a term[319] of nine years. There are 250 pupils under tuition. The house confers diplomas on such as graduate with honors. Its fine museum is noted for its rare collections and for their intelligent and scientific classification; its physical-culture class caters to the requirements of modern ideas; its vast library contains 4,500 volumes, the best works of French and English authors.

HIGHER EDUCATION FOR WOMEN: Royal Victoria College

HIGHER EDUCATION FOR WOMEN: Mother House of the Congregation De Notre Dame

St. Basil’s Boarding School was erected in 1895, and opened the following year under the supervision of the Sisters of the Holy Cross. More than 350 pupils take the full English and French course, and are eventually awarded the diploma of the house, or the academic, if they pass the examination of the Board of Catholic Examiners of the Province of Quebec.

SISTERS OF ST. ANNE

The Sisters of St. Anne is another teaching congregation assisting the Catholic School Commission. It was founded at Vaudreuil in 1850 by Miss Esther Lureau dit Blondin. The order now extends over four provinces of which two are in Canada, with 54 houses of which 21 are at the diocese of Montreal. The convent at Lachine, formerly the residence of Sir George Simpson, governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, is their chief establishment in Montreal; another is the large boarding-house at St. Henri.

OTHER CONGREGATIONS

Among the congregations not primarily teaching organizations, but charitable institutions with schools attached to the Board, the Sisters of Providence conducting the schools of the orphanage of St. Alexis founded in 1864, and schools of St. Vincent de Paul, and of the Jardin de L’Enfance founded in 1881. This congregation accepts a subsidy from the School Commission. It also teaches the School of the Deaf Mutes, but not under the Commission as in the other case.

The Grey Nuns also receive subsidies under the Commission for their instruction in the classes of l’Asyle Bethlehem on Richmond Square, founded by the Hon. C.S. Rodier and “Nazareth” Asylum on St. Catherine Street, founded in 1860, for the blind. The history of these organizations will be found in another section.

MEN’S TEACHING ORGANIZATIONS

The coming of the Brothers of the Christian Schools to Montreal in 1837 must be chronicled at some length since the modern Catholic primary educational system for the boys of the city has been so largely under their hands. The first project of the establishment in Canada of the “Christian” Brothers, as they are now popularly called, dates back as far as the year before the death of the founder of the institute, St. Jean Baptiste de la Salle, 1718, but negotiations were broken off. In 1733 Brothers Denis and Pacificus were sent to Montreal to study the situation, but with no results. Nearly a century later, in 1830, the superior of the seminary and vicar general of the diocese, Abbé Quiblier, made overtures to Brother Anacletus, who then governed the institute, for a settlement for the brothers to teach the boys whose education had never been so systematically[320] organized as that of the girls. Numbers being small, it was not till 1837, on November 7th, that three brothers, the first to visit America, arrived at the seminary, where they were entertained as guests for six months, till they were installed in their first novitiate on St. Francois Xavier Street, the gift of the Sulpicians, in a house adjoining the school. On December 23, 1837, they commenced their classes in the seminary building. Two classes were immediately filled, to be quickly succeeded by a third.

As the scholars grew M. Quiblier acquired for the brothers an old country house of one of the governors of Montreal in Coté Street, which formed a second novitiate and a temporary school. In 1840 there was added, parallel to the novitiate, a new school (St. Lawrence) built in stone and in 1841 there were in the two schools eight classes with 860 scholars who were visited by a Lord Sydenham. In 1842 the brothers began to wear the three cornered caps of their congregation, now so familiar on the streets in Montreal. Up to this they had not been permitted this privilege. The prejudice against the body of religious not priests wearing a religious habit will be remembered by those familiar with the history of the Charron Brothers before the English regime.

Further French classes were opened by them. In 1843 two special classes for the Irish children were begun in the old convent of the Récollets. In 1843, also, the Brothers were invited to Quebec and later to other places in Canada and in America. Again Montreal is seen as the distributing point of influence through education. A French-Canadian journal has said: “Ce grain de senevé, jeté sur les rives du St. Laurent a donné naissance à un arbre magnifique dort les rameaux bienfaisants ombrageat les principaux centres du Canada et des Etats Unis.” The numerous homes of education of this body and the lists of their educational output of school text-books deserve a more prolonged study than space permits here. The Brothers have done for the boys the work that the Congregation of Marguerite Bourgeoys has done for the girls. At present, around Montreal alone, these have over twenty communities presiding over colleges or schools.

Besides their many elementary schools, the Brothers of the Christian Schools have the large “Collège de Mont St. Louis” on Sherbrooke Street, which being divided into three courses, elementary, commercial and scientific, prepares its pupils for the polytechnical schools and the different university courses.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Of the male teaching religious organizations acting under the Commission there are the “Sacred Heart,” the “Marist,” the St. Gabriel, and the “Presentation” Brothers, and the Brothers of the Christian Schools.

—LAY TEACHERS

A third class of those cooperating with the board are the layteachers. The early teachers especially are deserving of every praise for their efforts to meet the call for education. We have already indicated the names of some of those who taught school before the Union, a partial list of others who worked for the most part independently of any support chiefly during the first School Act between 1846 and 1868 may be a fitting tribute. The dates subjoined give the[321] official opening of school, the name being the principal. (Cf. “Annuaire de Ville Marie” by Hugues-Latour):

May 1, 1843, Mlle. Portias; May 1, 1844, Mlle. Sophie Godaire; September 1, 1853, The Academie Commercial Catholique, founded by the Catholic Commissioners; August 1, 1856, Mrs. Mary Mullin, No. 13 St. Alexander Street; September 1, 1852, Mlle. Caroline Gibeau; October 4, 1852, Mlle. A. Lefebre; September 1, 1854, Mlle. Sophia Casson; September 1, 1857, School for Boys and Girls, under the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Clark, Mlle. Lacombe and Mr. Octave Clark; September 1, 1857, St. Ann’s Male School, McCord Street, founded by Mr. Andrew Keegan; October 11, 1858, Mlle. Richard; May 1, 1859, Montreal Select Model School, founded by Mr. W. Doran; June 11, 1859, Mme. Lafontaine; July, 1859, Mlles. Lesage; August 1, 1859, Mlle. Louise Larivière; August 15, 1859, St. Ann’s Female School, founded by Miss Marguerite Lawless; May 1, 1861, Mlle. Varin, for English and French; May 1, 1861, Académie St. Marie, founded by School of Christian Brothers; September 1, 1861, M. Charles Lafontaine; July 14, 1862, St. Patrick’s Model School, English and French (Girls), School Commissioners, Wellington Street; September 1, 1862, Mlle. A.M. Clark, English and French (Girls); September 1, 1862, Mlle. Corinne Boudreau, English and French (Girls); January 23, 1863, Académie St. Joseph, M. Joseph Mauffet, and evening school for men, M. and Madame Mauffet; May 16, 1863, Model School for Boys, French, School Commissioners; August 1, 1863, St. Patrick’s Model School, School Commissioners; August 1, 1863, St. Patrick’s Model School, School Commissioners; April 5, 1863, Mlles. Louise Lafricain and Jessie Lengley, English and French (Girls); May 1, 1863, Mlle. Josephine Cassant; April 4, 1863, Mrs. Jane Curran; July 1, 1863, Mlle. Aurélie Valade; September 1, 1863, Miss A.L. Cronin; September 1, 1863, Mlle. Louise Gingras; October 19, 1863, Mlle. Ida Labelle.

NOTE I

SECONDARY EDUCATION

In addition to the Elementary schools, there are many Catholic and Protestant schools and colleges which, in or around the city, provide for Secondary education mostly in preparation for a further University course. These are supplied by private citizens or corporate bodies; among them may be mentioned: Miss Edgar’s School, 507 Guy Street; Lower Canada College, Notre Dame de Grâce; the Catholic High School (Presentation Brothers), Durocher Street; Lyola College, Drummond Street; St. Marie’s College, Bleury Street; the Convent of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, St. Alexander Street and Sault au Récollet; St. Laurent’s College (Holy Cross Brothers); Mort St. Louis College (Christian Brothers), Sherbrooke Street; and the academies for advanced education in connection with the different teaching Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods.

There are also many business schools.

NOTE II

TECHNICAL, COMMERCIAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IN MONTREAL

The earliest attempt at technical education before the capitulation of 1760 will be found in Vol. I, Under The French Régime. The modern movement remains to be chronicled.

[322]

I

THE BOARD OF ARTS AND MANUFACTURES

In 1859 the Board of Arts and Manufactures of Lower Canada established a central school at Montreal.

In 1872, the Council of Arts and Manufactures made an attempt to put technical education on its feet. Hitherto the progress of industry had not been sufficiently perceived. The growth of manufactures following upon the National policy made the experiment more necessary. The early equipment was meager, the means small, and there were but few classes and few pupils. Still steady progress was made. In 1898 Mr. Thomas Gauthier became president and long steps in advance were made. There are now nearly three thousand pupils over the Province of Quebec, in Montreal, Quebec, St. Hyacinthe, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, St. Jean, Lachine, Valleyfield, Sorel, Fraserville, Charny, St. Romuald, and Chicoutimi.

In Montreal alone there are over one thousand five hundred and ten pupils in four schools, of which the Monument National is the most important.

COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL

Technical night schools are also provided at the Commercial and Technical High School, the successor of the Montreal Senior School. This latter school was organized by the Protestant Board of School Commissioners in September, 1877, to accommodate the classes of what was then known as the second senior grade of the public elementary schools. For a year the school met in a building on Ontario Street, between Bleury and Mance streets, and in 1878 was transferred to the old high school building at the corner of Dorchester and University streets, now the Fraser Institute, and in 1883 to the building on Burnside Place between Metcalfe and Peel streets.

In 1906 the course of study of the Montreal Senior School was revised, its name changed to the Commercial and Technical High School, and the school moved to its new building at 53 Sherbrooke Street West.

The former principals of the Montreal Senior School have been: F.S. Haight, M.A., 1877-1883; Alexander Pearson, 1883-1884; J. MacKercher, M.A., LL. D., 1884-1906.

Since becoming the Commercial and Technical High School they have been: J. MacKercher, M.A., LL. D., 1906-1914; E. Montgomery Campbell, B.A., 1914.

MONTREAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL

In 1911 the “Ecole Technique,” or the Montreal Technical School, maintained partly by the provincial and municipal governments by a contribution of $40,000, each, opened its courses in September. Its buildings, covering a space of 150,000 square feet, are on Sherbrooke Street, facing St. Famille Street. It is claimed with justice that it is equipped as well as any technical building of modern times. It is undenominational and it has also a French and an English side. There is in addition a further training school in the applied sciences, the[323] “Polytechnique,” founded in 1874, which, having become affiliated, 1887, with Laval University is described elsewhere.

HAUTES ETUDES COMMERCIALES

MONTREAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL

COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL

II

ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES COMMERCIALES

A further school of a university character, but not affiliated with Laval or McGill universities, is the “Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales.” It was established in 1910, being opened on October 4th of that year, in its imposing buildings on Place Viger under the protection of the government of the province by the Premier, Sir Lomer Gouin, the first stone having been placed in October, 1908. The building cost $100,000 and was erected by MM. Gauthier and Daoust.

The object was to give a university college course in commerce leading up to a doctorate in commercial science such as is given in Europe under the title of “Ecoles des Hautes Etudes Commerciales,” the English translation of which is a misnomer, as it leaves the impression of the college being a mere “business school.” It is distinctly a forward movement for Canada. The tuition extends over a period of three years and includes instruction in general commercial affairs, banking, stock exchange and insurance business, and in the third year industrial and maritime business. There are numerous laboratories in which the chemistry of fabrics and other forms of analyses are taught.

The first board of administration was composed of: Isaie Prefontaine, president; Honoré Mercier, M.P.P.; J. Contant; H. Gervais, M.P.; C.F. Smith; and A.J. de Bray, the latter being the principal. The first professorial staff consisted of A.J. de Bray; Honorable Justice Laurendeau (civil law); E. Montpetit (political economy); J. Contant, C. Martin and J. Quintal (commercial science); Rev. Pére Bellevance (French); Rev. M. Desrosiers (history); W.H. Atherton (English); A. Duval (mathematics); H. Laureys (geography); C. Lechien (chemistry).

III

VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Vocational training for the blind, deaf, dumb and maimed, and industrial training given to delinquents are both treated in the section devoted to charitable works.

[324]

FOOTNOTES:

1 The principal of Jacques Cartier Normal School was the Rev. Hospice Verreau and of McGill Normal, Dr. William Dawson.

2 The tax has by various amendments been increased until, at present, it is ½ cent on the dollar for Protestants and ⅖ cent for Catholics.

3 Secular education of Montreal Jewish children is provided for in the public schools. There was no provision specially made for their education in the earlier education acts, but they were admitted into the schools of either the Protestant or the Catholic panels without question, so long as they remained few in number. When, however, the Jewish children began to form a very large percentage of those attending the public schools difficulties arose, owing to the claim being made that the taxes were not sufficient to cover the expense entailed. The problem gave rise to considerable agitation, but eventually the difficulty was overcome by an act passed through the Quebec Legislature in 1903 by which the rights of Jewish children to education in public schools on exactly the same footing as the children of Catholic and Protestant fellow-citizens were recognized, and for educational purposes the Jewish taxpayers were joined to the taxpayers of the Protestant panel, and all schools under this panel opened to them. These rights were secured largely through the work of the Jewish Educational Rights Movement Committee, which included a large number of the leading Jewish citizens of Montreal and which intrusted the legislative work to Mr. S.W. Jacobs, K. C, and Mr. Maxwell Goldstein, K. C.

Education in the Hebrew language and literature, as well as religious education, is attended to by special schools organized by the Jews of Montreal. The most important body for the study of these branches is the Talmud Torah Association, which supports a very large and important school.

4 The Royal Grammer School was merged into the High School about this time. Its master, Mr. Skakel, died in 1848.

5 The first chairman of the High School under the newly created Board of Commissioners was Rev. John Jenkins. The secretary-treasurer was Mr. William Lunn. The commissioners were Rev. Canon Bancroft, Rev. Professor MacVicar, the Hon. James Ferrier, Mr. Alderman Thomson. Mr. W.C. Baynes was the secretary. The head-masters were Professor Howe, Mr. D. Rodgers, Mr. S.P. Robins; assistant masters, Mr. George Murray, Mr. J. Green, Prof. Darey, Mr. J. Andrew; assistants in the preparatory department, Miss A. Cairns, Miss Sicotte; infant class, Miss Dougall.

6 Since 1894 nine members have been acting on the commission.

[325]

### CHAPTER XXVIII

UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT

I. M’GILL UNIVERSITY

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION—JAMES M’GILL—CHARTER OBTAINED—THE “MONTREAL MEDICAL INSTITUTE” SAVES M’GILL—NEW LIFE IN 1829—THE RECTOR OF MONTREAL—THE MERCHANTS’ COMMITTEE—M’GILL IN 1852—THE HISTORY OF THE FACULTIES—BUILDINGS—DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1895—RECENT BENEFACTORS—MACDONALD COLLEGE—THE STRATHCONA ROYAL VICTORIA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN. NOTE: THE UNION THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT—THE JOINT BOARDS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL, ANGLICAN, PRESBYTERIAN AND WESLEYAN AFFILIATED COLLEGES.

II. LAVAL UNIVERSITY (MONTREAL DISTRICT)

THE STORY OF ITS COMPONENT PARTS—EVOLUTION FROM THE “ECOLES DE LATIN”—COLLEGE DE ST. RAPHAEL—ENGLISH STUDENTS—COLLEGE DECLAMATIONS—THE PETIT SEMINAIRE ON COLLEGE STREET—THE COLLEGE DE MONTREAL—THE SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, CLASSICS, LAW AND MEDICINE—THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION “JAM DUDUM”—DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS—AFFILIATED BODIES—THE FACULTIES AND SCHOOLS. NOTE: NAMES OF EARLY “ENGLISH” STUDENTS AT THE “COLLEGE.”

I

M’GILL UNIVERSITY

As already said, the most important success of the “Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning” was the McGill University, which still carries the official title. Its founder, Mr. James McGill, who was one of the apostles of higher education in Canada, was born on October 6, 1744, at Glasgow, Scotland. He came to Montreal before the American Revolution with his brother Andrew, and became connected with the North West Company. He married Madame Desrivières, the widow of a French-Canadian. As a citizen his name stands well, having represented the west ward in the assembly and having been appointed also a member of the legislative council. At the outbreak of the War of 1812, he was a militia colonel and then, an old man, was made brigadier general. By his[326] will of January 8, 1811, Mr. James McGill, not having any children, had bequeathed his landed estate, consisting of about forty-six acres, on Burnside and University streets, to the value then of £10,000,1 and a like sum of money, for a university, but although the college bearing his name was incorporated by a royal charter in the year 1821, the bequest could not be used, its validity being disputed by his relatives.

The object of the gift was to found an Anglican college in a future provincial university, the erection of which had already been promised by the British government. Indeed, the citizens were led to believe that such a university was to be established by George III and endowed with Crown lands.

The four trustees appointed under the will were directed to convey the property of the bequest to the “Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning.” The conditions upon which the property was to be transferred were that the Royal Institution would, within ten years after the testator’s decease, erect and establish on his estate on Burnside and University streets, a college for the purpose of education and the advancement of learning in this province and that the college, or one of the colleges in the university, if established, should be named and perpetually be known and distinguished by the appellation of “McGill College.” Owing to persistent opposition by the leaders of one section of the people to any system of governmental education and to the refusal by the legislature to make the grants of land and money which had been promised, the proposed establishment of a provincial university by the British government was abandoned.

In so far as the McGill College was concerned, however, the Royal Institution at once took action by applying for a royal charter. Such was granted in 1821 and the Royal Institution prepared to take possession of the estate. But owing to protracted litigation this was not surrendered to them till 1829, when the work of teaching was begun in the incipient arts course and the faculty of medicine. That of medicine, however, had been in existence five years previously as a teaching body under the name of the Montreal Medical Institution, with power to admit to practice but not to confer degrees.

Since this body afterwards became the medical faculty of McGill and saved the projected university from dying of inanition it is entitled to special recognition. Its origin is closely connected with the founding of the general hospital. When this great charity was accomplished the attending medical staff was composed of the most prominent and ablest men in the city, Drs. W. Robertson, W. Caldwell, A.F. Holmes, J. Stephenson and H.P. Loedel. On October 20, 1822, these men met together “for the purpose of taking into consideration the expediency of establishing a medical school in this city,” and it was resolved “that the considerations which seemed to warrant so desirable an object should be drawn out and laid before the next meeting of the Board, to be held on the 27th of the same month, and that Drs. Stephenson and Holmes be appointed a committee for the said purpose.” Thus was started the first Canadian medical school, which afterwards, as we shall see, became the medical faculty of McGill University. The school was called the “Montreal Medical Institution,” and received the approval[327] of Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-in-Chief of Lower Canada, and he appointed the members of the Institution a Board of Examiners for the district of Montreal. Formerly these examinations had been conducted by a board of army medical officers, appointed by the Governor.

The first course of lectures was given in 1824, in a small wooden house in Place d’Armes, the site of which is now occupied by the Bank of Montreal. Twenty-five students attended the first session, and for some years there was no increase in the number.

The following is the advertisement of the lectures:

Anatomy and Physiology, J. Stephenson, M.D.; Chemistry and Pharmacy, A.F. Holmes, M.D.; Practice of Physic, W. Caldwell, M.D.; Midwifery and Diseases of Women, W. Robertson, Esq.; Materia Medica, H.P. Loedel, Esq.;2 Surgery, J. Stephenson, M.D. In the course of the summer, 1825: Botany, A. F. Holmes.

The leading spirits of the school were Stephenson and Holmes, both Canadians, Stephenson by birth and Holmes by adoption, for he arrived in the country when only four years of age. They both received their preliminary education here and then went to Edinburgh, where they took their doctor’s degree. The Montreal Medical Institution, which afterwards became the Medical faculty of McGill University, was modelled on the lines of the Edinburgh University, and to this day the McGill Medical faculty bears the marks of its relationship to the Alma Mater of its founders.

For four years the Medical Institution continued its work, when, in 1828, to prevent the lapse of the McGill bequest to the residuary legatees, the Montreal Medical Institution became the Faculty of Medicine of McGill University in this wise.

Owing, as said, to litigation the Royal Institution could not get possession of Mr. McGill’s’ bequest until 1829. Also it was a condition of the gift that lectures should be given within a certain number of years or the bequest would lapse and the property revert to the Desrivières family. Only one year remained, and no arrangement having been made for the establishment of a faculty of arts, in fact, no money being available for that purpose, the Montreal Medical Institution was constituted a faculty of the University and this was chiefly accomplished by the exertions of Doctor Stephenson, to whom the University, in a large measure, owes the preservation of the bequest of the Hon. James McGill.

The governors of the Royal Institution held a meeting 29th January, 1829, with the members of the medical school, and the following minute occurs:

After public business was over, the governors of the Corporation held an interview with the members of the Medical Institution (Drs. Caldwell, Stephenson, Robertson, and Holmes), who had been requested to attend a meeting for that purpose. Owing to this interview it was resolved by the governors of the Corporation that the members of the Montreal Medical Institution be engrafted in the College as its Medical faculty, it being understood and agreed upon between the contracting parties that, until the powers of the charter would be altered, one of their number only should be university professor and the others lecturers. That[328] they should immediately enter upon the duties of their respective offices, all of which arrangements were agreed to. The first session of the new Medical Faculty of McGill College was held in 1829, with thirty-five students on the register. Thus the Medical saved McGill University.

The staff of the university in 1829 was: Divinity, Rev. J.G. Mountain, D.D. (Cambridge), principal; moral philosophy and learned languages, Rev. J.L. Mills, D.D. (Oxford); history and civil law, Rev. J. Strachan, D.D. (Aberdeen); mathematics and natural philosophy, Rev. J. Wilson, A.N. (Oxford). The staff of the Montreal Medical Institution, now become the Medical Faculty, in 1829 was: Lecturers, A.F. Holmes, M.D.; W. Caldwell, M.D.; J. Stephenson, M.D.; and W. Robertson, M.D.

After 1829 McGill College, rich in a charter, but poor in students and educational facilities, struggled on, unsupported by government amidst political rancour, financial embarrassment, and internal administrative difficulties, and almost extinct as a body with university pretensions with the exception of its medical and its art faculty, the latter being erected as such in 1843 under the Rev. Dr. John Bethune, so long Rector of Montreal, then acting as principal, till a number of citizens came to its support.

Doctor Bethune’s dual position of principal and Rector of Montreal was not a happy one, especially in 1845, when he was in front of a movement to affix to the University a distinctly Anglican denominational stamp. The appointment of the principal was consequently disallowed upon the advice of Mr. Gladstone. An extract from his letter to Earl Cathcart is of interest and shows how desperate were its straits to merit such a complicated utterance:

“Into the various and somewhat complicated charges which have been brought against Doctor Bethune, in his capacity as principal of the College, I do not find it necessary to enter; nor do I wish to state at the present moment any decided opinion as to the extent to which the present condition of the Institution is, owing to the character and position of its principal. My decisions are founded upon reasons which are not open to dispute: the first, the weight of the Bishop’s authority together with your own, independently of any reference to that of the Board of Visitors, which may be considered to be to some extent, at this moment in dispute; next, the fact that Doctor Bethune did not himself receive an university education, which I must hold to be, unless under circumstances of the rarest occurrence, an indispensable requisite of such a position as he occupies. To these I am disposed to add, although I express the opinion without having had the advantage of learning what may be the view of the Lord Bishop in this particular, that I cannot think it expedient that the offices of principal and professor of divinity in McGill College should be combined with that of Rector of Montreal. This circumstance is not much adverted to in the papers before me; but I am strongly impressed that the incongruity of this junction of important collegiate appointments with a no less important pastoral charge in the same person; either the former or the latter of which, especially considering the large population of the town of Montreal, I must, as at present advised, hold to be enough to occupy his individual attention.”

In 1851 its total income was only £540 per annum and even with the small staff employed, the expenditure was £742, consequently a large debt accumulated. A committee of Montreal merchants arose and relieved the stringency, an example[329] which has never failed to be followed with like success in succeeding crises of its growth.

McGILL UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS

Clockwise from left: Engineering Building, Medical Building, Art Building, Mining and Chemistry Building

In 1852 an amended and favourable charter was secured. Its new era of progress was assured in 1855 by the advent of Dr. William Dawson as the new principal, invited by the Hon. John Day, the president of the board of governors, and backed up by the personal solicitation of Sir Edward Head, the governor-general. He was a young man, having been born at Pictou, Nova Scotia, on October 13, 1820. His studies were commenced at Pictou College and continued at the University of Edinburgh. In 1850 he was appointed superintendent of education for Nova Scotia and became soon distinguished as a geologist and educationalist. On his appointment to McGill he found the little, feeble, struggling college with about eighty students, with two faculties, those of arts and medicine, and the nucleus of a faculty of law begun in 1853. The School of Medicine of this period sent out, however, such men as Duncan McCallum, George E. Fenwick, Robert Palmer Howard, William Wright, Sir James Grant, Robert Clark, and Sir William Hingston of a later period.

Dr. Dawson has described his first impressions, which were anything but agreeable, in the following words: “Materially, the University was represented by two blocks of unfinished and partly ruined buildings, standing amid a wilderness of excavators and masons’ rubbish; overgrown with weeds and bushes. The grounds were unfenced, and pastured at will by herds of cattle, which, not only cropped the grass, but browsed in the shrubs, leaving unhurt only one great elm, which still stands as the founder’s tree, and a few old oak and butternut trees, most of which have had to give place to our new buildings. The only access from the town was by a circuitous and ungraded car track, almost impassable at night. The buildings had been abandoned by the new board, and the classes of the Faculty of Arts were held in the upper story of a brick building in the town, the lowest part of which was occupied by the High School. I had been promised a residence, and this I found was to be a portion of one of the detached buildings aforesaid, the present eastern wing. It had been imperfectly furnished, was destitute of nearly every requisite of civilized life, and in front of it was a bank of rubbish and loose stone with a swamp below, while the interior was in an indescribable state of dust and disrepair. Still, the governors had done the best they could in the circumstances.”

In 1892, when Sir William Dawson retired, he left it a university of the world, with about one thousand students and almost eighty professors and lecturers. He added the faculties of applied science, which, though instituted in 1870, was regularly organized in 1878, comparative medicine and veterinary science. As far back as 1870 he began to plan for the higher education of women, founding the Ladies’ Educational Association and the Girls’ High School. In 1883 he opened the Donalda department in the faculty of arts, which after his resignation, developed into the Royal Victoria College. During his régime the university buildings began to appear on the campus, then a bare, almost treeless, weedy, partly swampy field, bearing but small likeness to the present noble campus with its imposing piles of buildings and its fine avenue of Canadian trees.

The course in law begun in connection with the faculty of arts was made a separate faculty in 1853. The course of applied science was organized in 1856 in connection with the faculty of arts. It did not become a special faculty till[330] 1893. In 1855 two detached stone erections, an arts building with a residence for the principal about sixty feet to the east, stood there alone. The medical building, in existence before the university was established in 1829, still stood downtown, its first location, the original home of the Montreal Medical Institute, being No. 22 St. James Street, within reasonable distance of the General Hospital on Dorchester Street, with which its staff were closely connected as its earliest physicians. Subsequently it moved to the corner of Craig Street and St. George and again to Coté Street. Shortly after 1855 the west wing of the present arts building was added by Mr. William Molson for the purposes of a library and convocation hall, and in the course of a few years both these wings (the Molson Hall on the west and the principal’s residence on the east) were joined to the center block. The west wing was used as a university museum and the east for the chemical and natural science rooms and laboratories. All four parts are now devoted to entirely different uses. The Molson Hall serves chiefly as an examination room for arts students (having long ago proved wholly inadequate for meetings of convocation), and when the Peter Redpath Library was erected in 1893 the library portion of it became available for class-rooms. Both wings, with a story added, now contain only the regular lecture rooms of the Faculty of Arts and the principal’s residence serves several purposes—for the offices of the administration, the Zoological department and the Faculty of Law.

It was not until 1872 that a medical building was provided on the University campus. This building was enlarged in 1885 and again in 1895—this time chiefly through the generosity of the late Mr. John H.R. Molson. Further enlargement was found to be necessary within two or three years afterward, and in 1895, through the bounty of Lord Strathcona, who remained during his life, the mainstay of the Medical Faculty financially, extensions and alterations were made, at a cost of at least one hundred thousand dollars. The Faculty were thus enabled to provide for the increasing demands upon them. The fire of 1907 destroyed the original building. The newer portion was, however, saved and the work of the departments of medical chemistry, physiology and histology are still being carried on therein. To complete the story of the Faculty it must be added that the fire was not after all the worst thing that could have happened, for it necessitated the erection of a new building. This has been placed at the corner of University Street and Pine Avenue (some distance north of the old site), on ground donated by Lord Strathcona, who also generously contributed over half a million dollars towards its erection and equipment. It is one of the finest and most up-to-date structures for the purpose of medical education on the continent.

In 1905 the medical faculty of Bishop’s College, Lennoxville, established in 1871 by Drs. Charles Smallwood, A.D. David, Sir W.H. Hingston, E.H. Trenholme and Francis W. Trenholme, was absorbed into that of McGill.

Beyond the eminent men already mentioned McGill Medical Faculty has had associated with it as professors men of wide European reputation, honoured by other universities. Among them have been Drs. Racey, Archibald Hall, O.T. Bruneau, S.E. Sewell, MacCallum, Fraser, Sutherland, Drake A. Hall, I. Crawford, William Fraser, W.E. Scott, William Wright, Robert MacDonnell, Robert Palmer Howard, George Ross, George E. Fenwick, T.A. Starkey, Sir William Osler, W. Gardner, Sir T.G. Roddick, G.P. Girdwood, A.D. Blackader, H.A. La Fleur, H.S. Berkett, George Armstrong, F.E. Fenley, C.S. Martin, [331]F.J. Shepherd, dean, and J.G. Adami, Strathcona professor of bacteriology, the holder of the Fothergill medal in 1914.

The third building on the campus, in what may be called the Greek style, was added in 1882—the Peter Redpath Museum. In 1889 a bequest of $57,137 by Thomas Workman enabled the Thomas Workman mechanical shops to be undertaken. In 1892 there followed the first Macdonald engineering building, with its annex, the Thomas Workman shops, the Macdonald physics building and the Peter Redpath library building for the university library which had already been organized in 1857.

The Faculty of Applied Science is perhaps the most striking example of growth in connection with the University. Organized first as a department of the Faculty of Arts in 1856, it developed rapidly, not however, “coming into its kingdom” until it was provided with a home of its own in 1893 by Sir William Macdonald, that most generous friend of scientific education in Canada. At that date there were 165 students in the Faculty, today there were 612 before the war of 1914 affected the attendance. The progress within the last few years under the able administration of Dean Adams has been especially marked, the number of students having increased since his appointment, six years ago, by 40 per cent.

As an expert in geology Dr. Frank D. Adams has an international reputation.

In 1895 Dr. William Peterson, who had recently resigned the post of principal of the University of Dundee, succeeded Sir William Dawson and has maintained the high intellectual and material ideals of his predecessor, while he has brought the university to be well esteemed among the universities of the world. The material progress of the university has continued. Six new buildings have been added to the above group, the Chemistry and Mining Building in 1898, the Conservatorium of Music in 1904, Strathcona Hall, the home of the McGill Y.M. C.A. (strictly speaking, however, not a University building) in 1905, the McGill Union in 1906, and the New Medical Building in 1911. In this list no account is taken of the imposing pile of buildings erected by Sir William Macdonald at Ste. Anne de Bellevue for the purposes of education in agriculture and domestic science and for the training of teachers. The original property there comprises 560 acres and the probable cost was two millions of dollars. Since then 228 acres were added in 1913 by the same benefactor. Nor is account taken of the addition to the campus of the Joseph property, the gift of Sir William Macdonald, at a cost of $142,500, nor of that other notable addition, forming indeed a new campus of about twenty-five acres in extent (the Molson and Law Properties), which Sir William conveyed to the University in 1911, having purchased it for this purpose for no less a sum than one million dollars. This magnificent donation insures the future of the University, providing as it does for the greatest possible expansion. It is even now being converted into a site for a gymnasium and a second campus.

To resume, in 1893 there were but five faculties; today, in reality, there are eight, a Faculty of Agriculture, a Department of Music, a Dental Department and a Graduate School having been established in the interval, whilst on the other hand, one—the Faculty of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science, established in 1889, as the result of the amalgamation of the Montreal Veterinary College, founded in 1866—has been discontinued since 1903, but it is likely to be resurrected in connection with the Faculty of Agriculture at Macdonald College[332] within a year or two. In 1893 the different Faculties were almost separate entities, bound to the University by a slender cord, indeed. The Faculty of Medicine was almost an independent institution, so was the Faculty of Veterinary Science and to a less degree also the Faculty of Law.

The faculty of agriculture mentioned, at St. Anne de Bellevue, dates from 1907. The department of music, as conducted in the conservatorium of music, was established in 1904. The Graduate school for advanced students was established in 1906. In 1907 a course in military science, a school of commerce, and several summer schools were added, and several extension courses have been added, notably in political economy, commercial law and accountancy.

The Donalda movement for higher education of women, which, as stated, was promoted by Sir William Dawson, was furthered by the chancellor, Lord Strathcona, who made it possible to establish, in 1884, courses leading to a degree, and to whose further generosity it was that the Royal Victoria College was opened in 1899, being founded and endowed by him at the cost of $1,000,000. His object was to establish an institution which should afford the opportunity of residence and college life to women students of McGill University, working in accordance with the system previously organized in a special course in arts, but under greatly improved conditions. By his recent death McGill University has lost a great patron.

There is no theological faculty as such, though four of the leading Protestant denominations, the Presbyterian and Congregationalists on the one hand, and the Episcopalians and Wesleyans on the other, are affiliated in the arts course. A further movement among these four bodies in cooperation within the last year or two has resulted in a Union Theological College.

McGill University has a great influence on the life of the city. Its professors keep in touch with civic affairs. In consequence the relations of town and gown are amicable. The merchants are proud of the city’s world-famous university and generally came forward to relieve it in its growing pains.

The following table of 1913 shows its growth:

M’GILL UNIVERSITY (FOUNDED 1821)

Chancellor—The Right Hon. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, G.C.M.G., LL. D.

Principal and Vice Chancellor—William Peterson, M.A., LL. D., C.M.G.

Number of students, 1,644.

Faculties. | No. of Students. | Matriculation. | Non-Matriculation.
Arts | 490 | 391 | 99
Applied Science | 558 | 521 | 37
Agriculture | 95 | 95 | —
Graduate School | 112 | 112 | —
Law | 64 | 64 | —
Medicine | 304 | 287 | 17
Music | 21 | 8 | 13

[333]

Number of Professors, 115; number of Lecturers, 74; number of Demonstrators, 60.

Total Revenue, $859,825.37, made up of: Government and Municipal Grants, $45,000.00; Income from Endowments, $348,962.67; Fees, $216,079.63; Other Sources, $249,783.37.

NOTE

THE JOINT BOARD OF THE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGES AFFILIATED WITH M’GILL UNIVERSITY

Four Theological Colleges are affiliated with McGill University, namely, the Congregational, the Diocesan, the Presbyterian and the Wesleyan. Ever since their foundation these Colleges have taken advantage of the classes in the University for training their students in the Arts subjects required of candidates for the Ministry, and the results have been so satisfactory as to encourage the idea of extending the sphere of cooperation.

Early in the year 1912 careful investigation was made by representatives of the four Colleges into the requirements of their several Theological Curricula, with a view to ascertaining what subjects, if any, could be taken in common classes. As the result of prolonged consideration and negotiations, it was unanimously agreed that a large portion of the work which had hitherto been done separately by each of the Colleges could be taken profitably in joint classes, without prejudice to the principles of the Communions represented and with increased efficiency in the work.

The authorities of the four Colleges accordingly offered for the Session 1912-1913 a series of Inter-Collegiate Lecture Courses, from which each College might select according to the requirements of its own curriculum. The cooperative plan, which was inaugurated in October, 1912, with lectures and addresses by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Boyd Carpenter, formerly Bishop of Ripon, and Dr. Robert E. Speer, of New York, has been abundantly justified by the results.

During the second session of 1913-1914 an effort was made to obtain funds with which to carry on the work of cooperation. This effort was met by a generous response on the part of those sympathetic with the scheme. More than five hundred thousand dollars has been subscribed. With part of this sum the Board of Governors purpose to erect a central building where all inter-collegiate lectures will be given and where a well-equipped library will be available to all students in Theology.

The advantages of affiliation with a great institution of Continental reputation such as McGill University are obvious. In the first place, a College is able to devote practically its whole income to strictly theological work, thus assuring the efficiency and thoroughness of the course. Secondly, the immense resources and the high educational standard of a University such as McGill afford theological students a liberal education that could hardly be looked for under other circumstances. In the third place, the broadening influence of life in so large a University world, and contact with men of such widely different views, aims, and pursuits are of inestimable advantage to every student, and to none more than to the student in theology. Affiliation also gives the Colleges representation on the Corporation[334] of McGill, and consequently a voice and influence in University affairs.

The following Act of Incorporation was also secured from the Provincial Legislature:

An Act to incorporate “The Joint Board of the Theological Colleges affiliated with McGill University.”

Whereas the voluntary association known as “The Joint Board of the Theological Colleges affiliated with McGill University” and “The Board of Cooperation of the Theological Colleges affiliated with McGill University” have, by their petition, represented as follows:

That the theological colleges affiliated with McGill University have found it advantageous to cooperate for the training of students for the Christian ministry, and have actually so cooperated for some time with success; that in consequence, considerable sums of money have been subscribed by friends of the movement for the purpose of furnishing means and equipment; that a temporary joint board of managers (to-wit the petitioners) representing each of the colleges concerned, has been in existence for some time, engaged in organizing the work of this cooperation; said joint board being composed as follows:

The Reverend Principal Hill, D.D., Rev. Hugh Pedley, D.D., Charles Gurd, Esq., Alexander M. Murphy, Esq., William D. Lighthall, Esq., K.C., Thomas B. Macaulay, Esq., all representing the Congregational College of Canada; the Reverend Principal Rexford, D.D., Rev. Allan P. Shatford, M.A., George E. Drummond, Esq., George G. Foster, Esq., K.C., Lieutenant-Colonel Carson, Lansing Lewis, Esq., D.C.L., all representing the Montreal Diocesan Theological College; the Reverend Principal Scrimger, D.D., Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, D.D., David Morrice, Esq., John W. Ross, Esq., William M. Birks, Esq., William Yuile, Esq., all representing the Presbyterian Theological College; the Reverend Principal Smyth, D.D., Rev. W.R. Young, D.D., George F. Johnson, Esq., Charles C. Holland, Esq., William Hanson, Esq., J.W. McConnell, Esq., all representing the Wesleyan Theological College; the said persons being also the Board of Governors of the said Voluntary Association; etc.

The Faculty for 1914-15 is as follows:

Rev. Principal E. Munson Hill, M.A., D.D., Professor of Homiletics and Practical Theology; Rev. Principal Elson I. Rexford, M.A., LL. D., D.C.L., John Duncan Professor of Dogmatic Theology; Rev. Principal John Scrimger, M.A., D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology; Rev. Principal James Smyth, B.A., LL. D., Webber-Franklin Professor of New Testament Language and Literature; Rev. G. Abbott-Smith, M.A., D.D., Archbishop Bond Professor of New Testament Literature; Rev. Charles Bieler, B.A., D.D., O.I.P., Professor of French Theological Subjects; Rev. E. Albert Cook, B.D., Ph. D., Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion; Rev. D.J. Fraser, M.A., D.D., LL. D., Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis; Rev. Alex R. Gordon, M.A., D. Litt., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis; Rev. Oswald W. Howard, B.A., D.D., Professor of Apologetics and Ecclesiastical History; Rev. P.L. Richardson, B.A., B.D., Douglas Professor of Systematic Theology; Rev. J. H, Robinson, M.A., B.D., Professor of Church History; Rev. Paul Villard, M.A., M.D., O.A., Professor of French Literature[335] and Apologetics; Rev. W.H. Warriner, M, A., D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis; Rev. R.E. Welsh, M.A., D.D., Professor of Apologetics and Church History.

Dean: Rev. Principal John Scrimger.

Secretary: Rev. Professor D.J. Fraser.

THE CONGREGATIONAL COLLEGE OF CANADA.

The Congressional College of Canada dates its history from a class of four students who studied under Rev. Adam Lillie, at Dundas, Ontario, in 1839. Mr. Lillie was educated in Glasgow University. He went to India under the London Missionary Society, but the climate did not permit him to stay. Returning to Scotland, he was persuaded by Doctor Wilkes to come to Canada and organized the Church in Brantford. He soon removed to Dundas and began the instruction of young men for the ministry at the urgency of Rev. John Roaf, on behalf of the Colonial Missionary Society. From the beginning until 1869, Adam Lillie was the presiding genius, with Doctor Wickson as his strong co-laborer. Thus, Congregational Christians were the first Protestants in Canada to make regular provision for education of the ministry.

In 1840, this gathering of students was moved to Toronto, and called “The Congregational Academy.” This was an historic name, coming from the time when “Dissenters,” in the seventeenth century in England, were under the ban and their ministers forbidden to come within five miles of any town, or to teach any public or private school. But many of these men were eminent scholars who braved the harsh law, and taught youth. When the times of toleration came these groups grew into “academies.”

In 1842, a similar institution was opened in Montreal through the pressure of Rev. Henry Wilkes, of Zion Church. Rev. J.J. Carruthers, of the universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, was brought out to conduct the Theological, Biblical, and Classical courses. This was done with the sanction and help of the Colonial Missionary Society. But funds fell short, and it was decided in 1845 to unite the Montreal and Toronto Congregational Institutions. This was done, and the name “Congregational Theological Institute” was chosen, and its control was changed from the Unions to the subscribers.

In 1848, a Congregational institution was opened in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, the result of a bequest of Mr. James Gorham, and was called Gorham College. But the building was burned in 1854, and the Maritime Churches were unable to maintain it more than three years. Its good-will and its library were given to the Toronto Institute. Another advantage accrued to the common cause by leading to the use of the name “College,” and making it possible to adopt the comprehensive title “Congregational College of British North America,” in 1860. And still greater was the fact that Prof. George Cornish, who had come from English colleges to teach in the Gorham College, became professor of Greek in McGill, and was ready to teach in this college if it should go to Montreal.

In Toronto the preparatory courses were taken with much difficulty in King’s College. This was established in 1842, and was under strong Anglican control perpetuating the old country attitude toward Free Churches. In 1849 this College became the University of Toronto, with a broader foundation. But no affiliation[336] was offered, and interest in the College was growing less with consequent decrease of funds.

Stronger supporters were coming forward in Montreal, affiliation could be secured with McGill, Professor Cornish would be a great help, and church life in Montreal was vigorous and united. “The movement for removal was prompted by western men and largely carried by them. Montreal did not propose or vote for it,” says Doctor Marling. After the final discussion by the corporation of subscribers in Brantford in 1864, the vote for removal was unanimous.

In 1864, the session opened in the rooms of Zion Church, on Beaver Hall Hill, and the first Act of Incorporation was secured from the Dominion Parliament. Then, from 1880 to 1884, the library and recitation rooms were in Emmanuel Church. On coming to Montreal the College was admitted to affiliation with McGill, the first of the Theological Colleges to enjoy that privilege.

A great loss was suffered in the death of Doctor Lillie in 1869. A memorial fund of $1,000 was raised, which was the nucleus of the Endowment Fund. Doctor Wilkes was chosen Principal and gave his great energy and business skill and his influence among the British churches to the College.

In 1884, certain friends, chiefly in Montreal, generously erected and presented to the College the building on McTavish Street, which it now occupies, together with the ground on which the Principal’s residence was afterward built. At that time an amendment to the Act of Incorporation changed the name to “The Congregational College of Canada.”

The Colonial Missionary Society of England was a large factor in beginning the work of the College, and has stood by it in all times of distress with generous financial aid. It will ever remain first on the roll of the benefactors. Mr. and Mrs. S.H.C. Miner have been the largest donors to the Endowment Fund and to current expenses. The Endowment Fund now stands at $110,000.

The Principals have been as follows:

Rev. Adam Lillie, D.D., 1839-69; Rev. Henry Wilkes, D.D., LL. D., 1870-83; Rev. John Frederick Stevenson, LL. B., D.D., 1883-86; Rev. William M. Barbour, D.D., 1887-97; Rev. Joseph Henry George, Ph. D., D.D., 1898-1901; Rev. Edward Munson Hill, M.A., D.D., 1901-.

The Professors and Lecturers have been:

Rev. J.J. Carruthers, D.D., 1842-45; Rev. Arthur Wickson, LL. D., 1850-62; Rev. Henry Wilkes, D.D., LL. D., 1841-86; Rev. George Cornish, M.A., LL. D., 1864-91; Rev. Charles Chapman, M.A., LL. D., 1871-76; Rev. Archibald Duff, Jr., M.A., 1875-76; Rev. K.M. Fenwick, 1872-84; Rev. J. F, Stevenson, LL. B., D.D., 1877-86; Rev. Edward Munson Hill, M.A., 1883; Rev. John Burton, B.D., 1883-88; Rev. S.N. Jackson, M.D., 1884-93; Rev. W.H. Warriner, M.A., D.D., 1886; Rev. E.C. Evans, D.D., 1898-1900; Rev. D.S. Hamilton, B.A., 1899-1901; Rev. Harlan Creelman, B.D., Ph. D., 1899-1908; Rev. Eugene W. Lyman, B.A., B.D., 1904-05; Rev. Herbert A. Youtz, B.D., Ph. D., 1905-08; Rev. E. Albert Cook, Ph. D., 1908-.

The office of Chairman of the Board was created in 1864, the incumbents of that office since that date having been:

Rev. Henry Wilkes, D.D., 1864-71; Rev. Charles Chapman, M.A., LL. D., 1871-76; Rev. J.F. Stevenson, LL. B., D.D., 1876-83; George Hague, Esq.,[337] 1883-91; Rev. George Cornish, M.A., LL. D., 1891-96; J. Redpath Dougall, M.A., 1896-1902, S. Henderson Miner, Esq., 1902-11; Charles Gurd, Esq., 1911-.

The following have filled the office of treasurer:

Rev. John Roaf, 1839-55; Mr. Patrick Freeland, 1855-64; Mr. T.M. Taylor, 1864-66; Mr. J.P. Clarke, 1866-73; Mr. R.C. Jamieson, 1873-88; Mr. C.R. Black, 1889-92; Mr. T. Moodie, 1892-.

The Secretaries have been:

Rev. T. Machin, 1841-45; Mr. R. Beekman, 1845-48; Rev. Edward Ebbs, 1848-50, Joint Secretary, 1854-5, 1857-58; Mr. Patrick Freeland, 1850-55; Rev. F.H. Marling, 1855-64; Rev. George Cornish, LL. D., 1864-91; Prof. W.H. Warriner, D.D., 1891-98; Rev. E. Munson Hill, M.A., 1899-1902; Mr. A. McA. Murphy, 1903-.

MONTREAL DIOCESAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

This College was founded in the year 1873, by the late Rt. Rev. Ashton Oxenden, D.D., then Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada. He makes the following reference to it in his autobiography:

“I, at length, felt justified in taking a step for the good of my own Diocese. I decided on establishing a Theological College in Montreal, for the training of our candidates for Holy Orders. With this view, I procured from England, the aid of a first-rate man, Mr. Lobley, a late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who undertook the office of Principal. He was a good and able man, and, in the face of many difficulties which he fearlessly surmounted, he started the College, which has now become a prominent and useful feature in the Diocese. On his subsequent promotion to the Principalship of Bishop’s College, Lennoxville, he was succeeded by Doctor Henderson, under whose steady and unflagging superintendence the College still flourishes.”—(Extract from “History of My Life,” 1891.)

The step was forced upon Bishop Oxenden by the rapid growth of the Church in the Diocese, and the impossibility of securing in any other way a satisfactory supply of clergy to meet the increasing needs of his Diocese.

The work of the College began in the Library of the Synod Hall, and was carried on there for eight years, when a more suitable building was provided by the munificence of the late A.F. Gault, who purchased the property, 896 Dorchester Street, now occupied by the Young Women’s Christian Association, at a cost of $23,000, and presented it to the College in trust.

There the work was continued under much more favorable conditions, as a permanent home was provided for both Principal and Students. Additional funds were raised which secured the appointment of a resident Tutor to assist the Principal, and provided remuneration for different clergy of the city who lectured regularly in the College. Among the first lecturers were the late Most Rev. W.B. Bond, Archbishop of Montreal; the late Rt. Rev. James Carmichael, D.D., Coadjutor Bishop of Montreal; the late Rt. Rev. E. Sullivan, D.D., formerly[338] Bishop of Algoma, and afterwards Rector of St. James Cathedral, Toronto; the late Rt. Rev. Maurice S. Baldwin, D.D., Bishop of Huron; Rt. Rev. J.P. Du Moulin, D.D., Bishop of Niagara.

While its internal growth was thus satisfactory, the position of the College as a Church institution was more clearly defined, and its relations with the educational world were extended. In 1879, an act of incorporation was obtained from the Legislature of Quebec, and in 1880, it was affiliated with the University of McGill College.

In 1891, by the Canon relating to Degrees in Divinity, the Diocesan Theological College, with the five other theological colleges of this ecclesiastical province, was duly recognized by the Provincial Synod of Canada, and entitled to representation on the Board of Examiners for degrees in Divinity.

In 1895, owing to the increasing influence and needs of the College, the late A.F. Gault announced his intention of presenting a more suitable building and of adding to the endowment of the College. The “Holland” property on University Street was purchased for that purpose, and a very handsome and commodious building erected. The building, which is in the collegiate gothic style, includes a semi-detached residence for the Principal, a chapel with a seating capacity for fifty students, a convocation hall capable of holding 500 persons, commodious lecture rooms, dining room, library, gymnasium and accommodation for about thirty-five resident students. The whole was also magnificently furnished by the same generous donor, and the sum of $50,000 was added to the endowment.

The buildings and additional endowment were formally handed over to the Bishop of the Diocese on the occasion of the opening of the College, on October 21, 1906, in the presence of His Grace the Primate of all Canada, and a number of other bishops, clergy, and visitors, and these were given in perpetuity without conditions of any kind in trust to the Bishop of Montreal and his successors.

While the College was originally founded for, and has always served to supply the needs of the Diocese, which has a first claim upon it, its name Diocesan is not to be interpreted in a strictly local sense. The aim of the College is to furnish a supply of capable men, primarily for the Diocese of Montreal, then for the wider field of the whole Dominion, and in some degree also for the boundless field beyond—the harvest field of the world.

The present principal, the Rev. Elson I. Rexford, M.A., LL. D., D.C.L., was appointed in 1903.

THE PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, MONTREAL

The Presbyterian College, Montreal, is an institution solely for the training of ministers. Its establishment was authorized by the Synod of the Canada Presbyterian Church in 1864, at the request of a number of ministers and prominent laymen in the city of Montreal, with a special view to supplying the pressing needs of the congregations and missions in the valleys of the Ottawa and Lower St. Lawrence, for which it was found difficult to secure a sufficiency of trained men. A charter of incorporation was obtained in 1865, but work was actually begun only in October, 1867, when classes were opened in the Lecture Hall of Erskine Church, under the instruction of the Rev. Wm. Gregg, of Toronto, and[339] of Rev. Wm. Aitken, of Smith’s Falls, as lecturers for the session. In 1868 the Rev. D.H. MacVicar was appointed sole professor of Divinity. On the addition of other members to the permanent staff, he was made Principal, and occupied this position until his death in 1902. The Rev. Dr. Robert Campbell exercised the function till the appointment of the present principal, the Rev. John Scrimger, appointed in 1904.

The first building for the use of the College was erected in 1873, on a site immediately adjoining the grounds of McGill University. This building soon became insufficient, and in 1882 it was greatly enlarged through the liberality of Mr. David Morrice, the Chairman of the Board of Management.

The College is controlled entirely by the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the General Assembly appointing its Board of Management and Senate each year, as well as filling all vacancies on the staff. For educational purposes it is affiliated to McGill University, and maintains the closest relations with that institution. The students receive practically all their literary training in the University classes.

THE WESLEYAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

This institution was founded in the year 1872, by the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canada, for the training of candidates for the Ministry, and began its educational work, September 29, 1873. In 1879, by direction of the General Conference of the Methodist Church of Canada, an act of Incorporation was obtained from the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, and the College was affiliated to McGill University. At the Union, in 1883, of the several Methodist bodies in Canada, constituting “The Methodist Church,” it was recognized as having the same relation which it previously held as one of the Connexional Educational Institutions of the Church. In 1887 the Charter was so amended by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec as to give to the Institution the power to confer degrees in Divinity.

The present buildings, which were erected in 1914, on the site formerly occupied in part by the old building were formally opened on Saturday, October 3, 1914, and are situated on University Street, near Mount Royal, at the eastern entrance to the University grounds and accommodate about one hundred students.

Rev. George Douglas, D.D., LL. D., the first Principal, held that position for twenty-one years, and the late Reverend Doctor Shaw was connected with the Institution, first as Professor and afterwards as Principal, from its foundation till 1910.

The present Principal, Rev. James Smyth, B.A., LL. D., of Belfast, Ireland, was appointed in 1911.

II

LAVAL UNIVERSITY

While the history of the University of McGill is largely that of a small germinal University gradually developing the potentialities of its charter, that of the University of Laval at Montreal is one of a gradual evolution from the preexisting embryonic schools of arts, philosophy, theology, law and medicine[340] which arose in due course, as the higher education of Catholics, principally of the French Canadian population, became gradually organized. In due course all these elements, when well advanced, were absorbed into the university proper when founded in 1876. Its story, therefore, involves the description of the component parts of its constitution, and the first dates of interest connected with the foundation of the predecessors are those of the present “Montreal College.”

The “Collège de Montreal,” which would seem to be the logical continuation of the écoles de Latin in existence up to the capitulation, and had supplemented the petits écoles started early in 1657, after the arrival of the Sulpicians, was founded about 1767 in the presbytery of the Curé of Longue Pointe by M.J. Baptiste Curatteau de Blaisérie, a Sulpician priest. He had a decided taste for education and the direction of youth. To provide the beginning of a classical education for pious citizens and for the needs of the future aspirants of the clergy he had added an annex to his presbytery, and rapidly a small boarding school arose which became known as the “Petit Séminaire” or “Collège.” He was assisted in his work by two ecclesiastical students, Mm. J.B. Dumouchel and J.B. Huet d’Alude.

The success attending this venture encouraged the citizens to establish a regular college at Montreal similar to that at Quebec. Accordingly the church wardens of Notre Dame came to the assistance of M. Curatteau to place him in charge of an establishment at the Château Vaudreuil, the palace of the late governor general, then for sale, buying it, and thus, in 1773, the College of St. Raphael was installed on October 1st. The college started with about fifty-two pensionnaires and a like number of externes. The prize list of 1774, proclaimed in Latin, reveals six classes, the highest of which was called the “Schola Humanitatis.”

The memory prize of this class was awarded to Franciscus Papineau and Petrus Amabilis de Bonne de Missede, the future Judge of Common Pleas (Ex aequo), while the first prize for French into Latin fell to F. Papineau and the second to Ludovicus Bonnet. In 1789 at the term composition proclaimed in January we find the highest class named Rhetoric, the first boy called the “Imperator” being Joannes Baptista Curot. Benjamin Dys Viger comes second as “Cæsar,” and Ambrosius Sanguinet as “Consul.” In Scholâ Tertia the Imperator is Jacobus Lartigue, the future first bishop of Montreal.

M. Curatteau died in Montreal on February 11, 1790, at the age of sixty years. His will of January 29, 1774, leaves all his property to the college and should it fail, his estate should be revertible, two-thirds to the General Hospital and a third to the Hôtel Dieu. He was succeeded as principal in 1790 by M.J.B. Marchand, a priest, with seven other professors, of whom five were ecclesiastics, one a layman and the seventh a priest. M. Ignace Leclerc, the professor of the philosophy class, started his course this year. The terms about this time were for the “pensionnaires” £14-11-8, and for the externes one guinea for entrance and nothing more. The catalogue of students for 1790 reveals there were about ninety scholars, the ages varying from twenty-one, in Philosophy (although one there is twenty-nine) to eight, in the lowest class, with one of six years of age. There do not appear many English names.3 In the last class, however, there are some beginning to enter, viz., Jean O’Sullivan (aged nine years) and Nicholas Hamilton (aged eight years). In the prize list of 1792 there is a “Patricius Smith” who receives[341] honourable mention for arithmetic. An English class for French students was begun in 1789. This dual instruction was then apparently developed in the colony. In later years it has somewhat lapsed.

LAVAL UNIVERSITY

MONTREAL COLLEGE

Three years after its inauguration the Collége de St. Raphaël in 1773 staged a tragedy in three acts, presented by its scholars. It was printed in 1776, “Chez Fleury Mesplet et Ch. Berger, Imprimeurs et Libraires” and was entitled “Jonathan et David, ou Le Triomphe de L’Amitié.” Declamations, little pieces, lyrical or tragical, formal compliments to the students or the professors used to take place at the end of the distribution of prizes or on the jour de fête of the principal.

M. Montgolfier wrote on August 25, 1778, to Bishop Briand acquainting him that “His Excellency, Sir Frederick Haldimand, had been present at the little tragedy of the Sacrifice of Abraham at the completion of the classes; at the end of the distribution of prizes he has given much praise to this establishment and, having learnt from me that this house has no fixed revenue he sent me next day a present of 100 guineas for the college and at the same time, 50 guineas for the Hospital General ‘for the work of the foundlings there.’”

In the great fire of 1803, the Collége of St. Raphaël was destroyed in June 6th. It was rebuilt in 1804, at the expense of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, on College Street, not far from the “little river” and was opened on October, 1804, under the name of the “Collège or the Petit Séminaire de Montréal.” The seminary remained on College Street till it was transferred to a portion of the fine establishment of the Grand Seminary which was built between 1854-1857 by the Seminary at the old Mountain Fort or the “Fort des Messieurs,” being opened the 18th of January, 1862. The old college was rented to the British government for a barracks for the soldiers who entered the city on December, 1861. The Collège de Montréal has remained on its present site ever since.

The school of theology was founded in 1825 by Mgr. Lartigue in his Episcopal residence at St. James church on St. Denis Street. In 1840 it was transferred, having about fifteen students, to the Collège de Montréal on College Street and took the name of the “Grand Séminaire.” In 1857 it was again transferred, to the present site at the old “Fort des Messieurs,” the new building being commenced on September 8, 1854, and blessed on September 8, 1857. The superiors of the Grand Séminaire since its foundation have been:

Pierre Louis Billaudèle, 1840-1846; Joseph Alexandre Baile, 1846-1866; Jean Baptiste Benoit Larue, 1866-1871; Jules Claude Delavigne, 1871-1872; Frederic Louis Colin, 1872-1881; Isaie Marie Charles Lecoq, 1881-1903; Ferdinand Louis Lelandais, 1903.

The Collège de Ste. Marie is the successor of the attempt made in 1694 to establish a classical college in Montreal. After the return of the Jesuits to Montreal on May 31, 1842, an early invitation came from the citizens to commence a college. On August 20, 1846, land was bought at a very favourable price from M. John Donegani, but before the work was in hand the typhus outbreak intervened. It was not till September 20, 1848, that the school was opened with thirteen pupils in two classes in a temporary frame building still standing at the corner of St. Alexander and Dorchester streets. In May, 1850, the building of the college was renewed and on July 31st the finished college was blessed by Bishop Bourget with the public chapel attached. The Gésu was not built till 1864. The classes to be given were the usual classical course to be followed by a philosophical course.

[342]

In 1889 Loyola College was founded as an offshoot of the Collège Ste. Marie, to conduct classical and philosophical courses in English. Its first home was at the southeast corner of St. Catherine and Bleury streets. Fire compelled these premises to be vacated and in 1898 it was transferred to 68 Drummond Street, hitherto known as Doctor Tucker’s School. In 1914 a large college at Notre Dame de Grace is being built to be the future home of the Loyola college.

The next educational venture was the foundation of the Ecole de Médicine et de Chirurgie, founded in 1843 and incorporated in March, 1845.

This was followed by the foundation of a school of law on May 1, 1851. It was named the Ecole de Droit and was conducted under the deanship of the M. Maximilien Bibaud, LL. D., doctor in civil and canon law, the classes being held at the Collège de Ste. Marie.

In 1876 the Seminary of Philosophy had become a separate body from the Grand Seminary of Theology, but into which the students graduated after three years of scholastic philosophy. The superiors of the Seminaire de Philosophie have been:

Isaie Marie Charles Lecoq, 1876-1880; Jules Claude Delavigne, 1880-1900; Louis Marie Lepoupon, 1900.

These elements as chronologically stated were then ready to be correlated into a university as a branch of the Laval University already established at Quebec since 1852. In 1876 in consequence of the petition of Mgr. Bourget, then bishop of Montreal, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda ordered its establishment at Montreal. It was recognized by the civil law of the province of Quebec in 1881.

In 1878 the schools of law and theology already described as existing were inaugurated, to be followed in 1879 by that of medicine also already organized. In 1887 the faculty of arts was added.

The Apostolic Constitution “Jam dudum” of Leo XIII, of February 2, 1889, obtained through M. Colin, the superior of the seminary of St. Sulpice, and Archbishop Fabre, gave the administrative body at Montreal its practical autonomy under a vice rector, while still requiring its degrees to be conferred through the council of the University of Laval at Quebec.

The inauguration of the university buildings on St. Denis Street took place on October 8, 1895.

The main building of the university, which was largely raised through the generosity of the Sulpicians, who have always patronized forward movements in education, may be described as follows:

The style of architecture of the building is a modern adaptation of the Renaissance. It has been devised for the use of two faculties for the present, with room for the general administration. The cellar contains, as is usual in such structures, all the necessary appliances, and in the most recent and approved styles, for steam-heating, electric and gas-lighting. The ground floor is occupied by lecture rooms, museums of anatomy and the library of the School of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science, and it has also large recreation and club rooms, a large and commodious reading room for students, and the janitor’s quarters. The first floor is devoted to the Law Faculty, the reception parlors, the rector’s apartments, and a suite of study rooms for the professors. There are on this floor two amphitheatres, with a capacity of two hundred to three hundred[343] seats respectively, for the use of the Law Faculty. The Peristyle, which is an imposing feature of the exterior, leads to this story. The second floor is entirely occupied by the Faculty of Medicine, and contains a general professor’s parlour, laboratories and lecture rooms, also a library, and quarters for the treasurer and secretary of the Faculty. The finest rooms are perhaps a large laboratory of histology, perfectly lighted, and provided with modern apparatus for the practical teaching of normal and morbid histology. The amphitheatre of the primary course, can accommodate 300 students. It can be put into direct connection with the laboratory of chemistry. The amphitheatre for the final course accommodates 400 students. The Promotion Hall (third story) has a seating capacity of nearly two thousand and has been much used of late for public lectures. It is profusely lighted by electricity, and the day light is also abundant. Its acoustic and visual qualities are perfect. The proscenium is so constructed that it can be used for concerts and other spectacular performances by the students. Six large rooms, averaging 35 × 50 feet, are reserved for museums and for collections of documents. The amphitheatre of anatomy, accommodating 300 students, is in the last story and in connection with the dissecting room, which is very spacious. The disposal of the rooms, stairways, elevator, lavatories, and, other necessary conveniences is very good, and there is not a single room in the whole building which is not well-lighted. The architecture of the interior is very simple, but quite effective, especially that of the Promotion Hall.

There are affiliated with it several colleges and schools: the Ecole Polytechnique, l’Ecole de Medicine, Comparee et de Science vétérinaire de Montreal, l’Ecole de Chirurgie Dentaire, l’Ecole de Pharmacie Laval, l’Institut Agricole d’Oka, l’Institut des Frères Maristes et l’Institut des Frères de l’Instruction Chrétienne, l’Institut des Frères de Sainte-Croix, the arts and philosophical courses at St. Marys, Loyola and other classical colleges and seminaries, as well as the College of Higher Education for Young Women, conducted in French and English at the Mother House of the Congregation on Sherbrooke Street.

The faculty of theology is constituted by the Grand Seminary which was established in 1840. Its courses last for three years and three months with a further six months for those preparing for the doctorate. A great number of the students who come from all quarters to this faculty, after having taken their courses at Montreal proceed to Rome to the now famous Canadian College, which is an offshoot of the Grand Seminaire of Montreal, being founded in 1888 through the labours of M. Colin, who was superior of the Sulpicians at Montreal from 1881 to 1902. In connection with this latter faculty may be mentioned the Seminary of Philosophy which has been a separate body since 1876.

While the medical faculty of McGill saved the fortunes of that university from extinction, it is to the credit of the pioneers of the medical faculty of the Montreal branch of Laval University that the university movement received its inception. Before its establishment a body of the medical men who had retired from their connection with the medical faculty of the University of Coburg agitated for the foundation of an independent university in the city. Among these were Dr. Rottot, Brosseau, La Marche and E. Persillier-Lachapelle, who acted as the secretary. On approaching the gentlemen of the seminary it was pointed out that it would be unwise and also against prearranged conditions to establish a rival university to that of Laval at Quebec, but that a branch was[344] possible. This solved the difficulty and the necessary steps were taken. The first medical faculty of Laval at Montreal, soon to be formed, was composed of Dr. Rottot as dean, with Drs. E. Persillier-Lachapelle, La Marche, Brosseau, Desrosiers, Berthelot, Fafard, Filiatrault, Duval, Foucher, Bienvenu and others.

Among the first members of the faculty of law was Mr. C.S. Cherrier, Hon. J.P.O. Chauveau, Sir Louis Jetté, Sir Alexander Lacoste, Judge Alphonse Ouimet and Sir H. Archambault.

The dean of the faculty of Science and Belles Lettres was the Abbé Colin.

The faculty of medicine is a continuation of the L’Ecole de Medicine et de Chirurgie de Montreal (the Alma Mater of our older Montreal physicians) founded in 1843 and incorporated in 1845, affiliated at first to the Victoria University of Coburg, in Ontario, and from which it received its degrees up to 1890. At this time the above medical school received a modified charter from the government of Quebec and was allied to the faculty of medicine of the University of Laval, with which it forms today one body.

The faculty of Medicine is installed with that of Law in the main building on St. Denis Street. There are large lecture halls and sectional libraries. The Faculty of Medicine has an addition, a dissecting hall and laboratories for chemistry, histology, bacteriology, therapeutical electricity, etc.

The faculty of arts has not yet reached its fullest development. As scientific and literary instruction which form the ordinary courses of this faculty in English universities is carried out by the classical colleges and petit seminaires, affiliated to Laval University, in which students may obtain the degrees of Bachelor of Letters, of science and of arts, it is unnecessary for the university itself to undertake full instruction of this nature.

Three courses are, however, given in the faculty. The first, that of French literature, founded in 1898 by the late M. l’Abbé Colin, superior of the seminary of St. Sulpice, in Montreal, is entrusted to a Fellow of the University of Paris. The second course is upon public ecclesiastical law and the third is upon aesthetics and the history of art. The other professors, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, of the faculty of arts, conduct the regular courses in the colleges affiliated with the university, in addition to which they occasionally give public lectures in the university itself. The library of the faculty contributes generously to the intellectual development of the students and the public in general. Large annual expenditures secure for it the best current publications. The higher education of women is encouraged by this faculty through the “Ecole d’Enseignement Supérieur pourlles Jeunes Filles” which has its courses in the handsome college on Sherbrooke Street in the Mother House of the Congregation of Notre Dame, founded by Marguerite Bourgeoys, the first teacher in Montreal. It was opened on October 8, 1908, under the presidency of the vice rector of Laval University. The following sections are taught in French and in English by university professors and the ladies of the Congregation: letters, science, arts, commerce and domestic economy. These lead up to a degree in the faculty of arts. Already this school for the higher education of women has shown very substantial results.

Another arm of the faculty of arts has been established in certain congregations of brothers where a university course has been organized modeled on the French system of modern secondary education. The Marist Brothers were the first congregation affiliated on December 15, 1909, being followed later by the Brothers[345] of Christian Instruction of Montreal and the Brothers of the Cross of Jesus of the diocese of Rimouski. In 1912, the same privilege was granted to the Brothers of Holy-Cross.

SCHOOLS AFFILIATED WITH LAVAL UNIVERSITY: School of Dentistry

SCHOOLS AFFILIATED WITH LAVAL UNIVERSITY: Agricultural School at Oka

SCHOOLS AFFILIATED WITH LAVAL UNIVERSITY: Polytechnic School

SCHOOLS AFFILIATED WITH LAVAL UNIVERSITY: School of Theology

The school of Dental Surgery, which is a continuation of the French section of the Dentistry College of the province of Quebec, founded in 1894, was affiliated to the university of Laval in February, 1904, and obtained its civil status from the legislature in May of the same year. This school, which is intended primarily for young French Canadians, was rendered necessary by the rapid progress which has been made latterly in dental surgery. It started relying solely on its own resources and upon the devotion of its professors. It has grown rapidly and its courses annually attract a certain number of students from Europe. Instruction covers a period of four years and leads to the degree of Doctor of Dental Surgery. The theoretical courses, clinics and demonstrations are given in the spacious buildings opened on St. Hubert Street in 1913. In it are also magnificent operating rooms with dental chairs and thoroughly equipped laboratories. The infirmary in the same building is open every day from 9 A.M. till noon, and in it those who cannot afford to pay the full fee are treated by competent practitioners at rates merely sufficient to reimburse the institution for the cost of material supplied.

The Laval School of Pharmacy, incorporated by a special act of the legislature of Quebec, adopted on March 9, 1906, was affiliated to the university in the same year, on May 11th. It aims to give instruction in and to promote all branches of pharmaceutical science. The school is entitled to grant university degrees. The courses are given in the university buildings and last from the beginning of October to the beginning of April. What corresponds in American universities to the faculty of applied science is conducted by the “Ecole Polytechnique” which was founded in 1874. A department of architecture was added in 1908. This school has been annexed to the faculty of arts since 1887. It has been generously subsidized by the provincial government and the principal railway companies. It prepares students for the several branches of civil and industrial engineering, such as public roads, railways, mechanical and mining engineering, bridge-building and metal construction. The Polytechnic is housed on St. Denis Street in large buildings suited to its special needs, in which an equipment admirably adapted to scientific training, both theoretical and practical, places it in the front rank of similar institutions.

The School of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science which was installed in 1913 in a handsome building on De Montigny Street has existed since 1886. Although affiliated with the university it is under the control and subject to the inspection of the minister of agriculture of the Quebec government, from which it receives a subsidy. The courses extend over three years and lead to a doctorate. It includes numerous clinics, which are held at the infirmary of the school. The school possesses fine lecture rooms, an interesting pathological museum, a laboratory of bacteriology, a laboratory of chemistry and other departments. The number of students who are almost all from the province of Quebec is as yet small, but it is increasing inasmuch as farmers are beginning to understand the value of the services which well trained veterinary surgeons can render them.

The science of agriculture is provided by the university through the Agricultural Institute at Oka, which was affiliated to Laval University on March 26, 1908.[346] It had, however, been in existence for several years, its regular activities dating from March 8, 1893, when it was opened by the Trappist Fathers of Notre Dame du Lac at the request, and with the liberal support, of the provincial government. Under the more modest name of the School of Agriculture it had been increasingly successful until, during the winter of 1907, it was completely reorganized, its equipment was modernized and improved and its courses of study extended. In addition to a preparatory course lasting for one year the Institute offers a three-years’ course leading to academic degrees. Special instruction, which includes several partial courses, has also been arranged for in favour of persons who are prevented from taking the full regular courses. The Institute is liberally provided with books, museums and laboratories. The grounds cover an area of 1,800 acres and are situated about thirty miles from Montreal on the Lake of the Two Mountains.

All the faculties and schools above mentioned enjoy great liberty of initiative and action in everything which concerns their regular internal regulations and their courses of study. The archibishop of Montreal in his quality as vice-chancellor, controls the appointment and removal of professors and exercises general supervision in matters of doctrine and discipline. He is ex-officio president of the administrative board, which holds the university properties and directs its finances. The suffragan bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Montreal, representatives and affiliated seminaries of the same province, representatives of faculties and of graduates, also have a seat in this body, which, as a general rule, acts through the board of governors, composed of eminent financiers and professional men. A vice rector, chosen by the bishops of the province of Montreal, represents the university’s council, the administrative board and the board of governors in matters of discipline and general administration. An executive committee, appointed by the latter board, assists him in regard to current financial questions.

The following statistics for 1912-1913 will give an idea of the activities of the Montreal Branch University of Laval:

| Professors. | Students.
Faculté de Théologie (Theology) | 12 |  | 251
Faculté de Droit (Law) | 17 |  | 157
Faculté de Médecine (Medicine) | 70 |  | 144
Faculté des Arts (Littér. Française) | 22 |  | 36
Ecole Polytechnique | 27 |  | 163
Ecole de Médecine Comparée et de Science Vétérinaire | 10 |  | 50
Ecole de Chirurgie Dentaire | 13 |  | 119
Ecole de Pharmacie Laval | 11 |  | 93
Institut Agricole d’Oka | 12 | * | 115
Ecole d’Enseignement Supérieur pour les Jeunes Filles (Higher Education for Women) | 53 | 247 | 496 | 1,624
| —— |  | —— |
Modern Secondary Teaching: |  |  |
Institut des Frères Maristes | 10 |  | 16[347]
Frères de l’Instruction Chrétienne | 10 |  | 43
Frères de Saint-Croix | 10 | 30 | 15 | 74
| —— |  | —— |
Affiliated Colleges: |  |  |
Séminaire de Sainte-Thérèse | 35 |  | 400
Séminaire Saint-Charles-Borromée | 38 |  | 428
Collège de L’Assomption | 36 |  | 370
Collège de Saint-Laurent | 52 |  | 525
Séminaire de Joliette | 39 |  | 402
Séminaire de Saint-Hyacinthe | 36 |  | 476
Collège Bourget | 31 |  | 371
Séminaire de Montréal | 29 |  | 350
Collège de Valleyfield | 35 |  | 302
Collège de Saint-Jean | 22 | 353 | 195 | 3,819
| —————— | ——————
|  | 630 |  | 5,517
* With the addition of 22 practical instructors.

NOTE

Looking through the prize lists of scholars from 1773 to 1803 the following names are found which will interest English readers, the spelling being retained as found, latinized or wrongly spelt: 1773, Aeneas McDonnell, Franciscus Mackaye; 1776, Aeneas MagDonelle, Jacobus MagDonelle, Franciscus Mackaye, Hugonus MagDonelle; 1775, Samuel Mackaye, John Mackay; 1779, Joannes Mackaye; 1780, Joannes Jones; 1783, Laurentius Sylvain;4 1790, Benjamin Kery; 1791, Petrus Christy, Nicholaus Hamilton; 1792, Patricius Smith, Nicholaus Hamilton; 1793, Bernardus Bender, Franciscus Bender, J. Baptista O’Sullivan; 1794, Franciscus Bender, Nicholaus Hamilton, Gulielmus Sheppard, Joannes Dease, Gulielmus Green, Carolus Davis, Paulus Green, Joannes Spearman; 1796, Gulielmus Sheppard, Gulielmus Fleming, Jacobus Taylor, Carolus Daly, J. Baptista Connolly, Gulielmus Selby, Joannes Pickle, Richardus Dillon; 1797, Joannes O’Sullivan, Gulielmus Fleming, Carolus Daly, Lazarus Hays, Jacobus Stephenson, Jacobus Milloy, Jacobus Fleming, Richardus Dillon; 1798, Hubertus Heney, Gulielmus Fleming, Gulielmus Connoly, Gulielmus Wallace, Jacobus Robinson, Joannes Turner, Jacobus Milloy,—— Macdonell, Joannes Pickle, Samuel Hughes, Joannes Reeves, Gulielmus Reeves, Gulielmus Dalton; 1799, Ignatius Macdonald, Gulielmus Fleming, Carolus Daly, Jacobus Milloy, Thomas Seers, Jacobus Macdonald, Gulielmus Hale, Joannes Turner, Gulielmus Reeves, Hugo Henry, Jacobus Fleming, Joannes Pickle, Joannes Gordon, Gulielmus Wallace, Joannes Burk; 1800, Ignatius Macdonald, Hugo Heney, Jacobus Milloy, Jacobus Fleming, Allan Macdonald, Franciscus Grant, Henricus Hybart, Gulielmus Seers, Ignatius Macdonald, Ludovicus Maccoy, Joannes Turner, Franciscus Liemont, Alexander McEnnis, Eduardus Cartwright, Richardus McEnnis, Fredericus[348] Lehn, Jacobus MacDonald; 1801, Ignatius MacDonald, Gulielmus Selby, Hugo Heney, Ludovicus Willcoks, Hugo Fraser, James Molloy, Guillelmus Seer, Alexander McEnnis, Joannes Gordon, Eustachius Maccoy, Richardus Ennis, Jacobus Muir, Joannes Reeves, Ludovicus Maccoy, Eduardus Sterns; 1802, Ignatius McDonel, Hugo Fraser, Nicholaus Power, Alexander McEnnis, Gulielmus Reeves, Guillelmus Murry, Georgius Gordon, Adrian Dow, Zephyrimus Kimbert, Guillelmus Clark, Samuel White, Flavianus Fison, Edwardus Kenderson, Josephus White, Arturius Kenderson, Joannes Wallace; 1803, Hugo Heney, Michael O’Sullivan, Nicholaus Power, Renatus Josephus Kimbert, Guillaume Hall, Richardus Macgennis, Guillelmus Reeves, Guillaume Murray, Henry Fison, Guillaume Clark, Adrien Dow, Jean Wallace, David Flynn, George Gordon, Edouard Henderson; 1804, Michael O’Sullivan, Ignatius McDonald, Renatus Kimber, Joannes McDonald, Guillaume Murry, Richard McGenis, Guillaume Reeves, Edouard Kenderson, Charles Smallwood, Robert Magenis, Guillaume Belcher, Jean Larkin; 1805, Renatus Joseph Kimber, Nicholaus Power, Howard Tillotson; 1806, Arthur Kenderson, Christin Deeze, Henri Conneloi, Edouard Kenderson.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Owing to the exigencies of pecuniary pressure, the greater part of this estate which extended to Sherbrooke Street was gradually parted with. Its valuation today would be indeed great.

2 Dr. Lyons, one of the staff of the hospital, on Mr. Loedel’s relievement a year or two later, received the appointment of lecturer. (F.J.S., 1897.)

3 See, however, the note at the end of the chapter for other names in subsequent years.

4 Probably Sullivan. Timothée Sylvain or de Sylvain, a doctor of Montreal, who served the Hôtel Dieu Hospital shortly before the fall of Montreal in 1760 was certainly a good Irishman, originally Sullivan.

[349]

### CHAPTER XXIX

GENERAL CULTURE

I. THE LIBRARY MOVEMENT

FRENCH:—L’OEUVRE DES BONS LIVRES, 1844—THE CABINET DE LECTURE PAROISSIAL, 1857.

ENGLISH:—“MONTREAL LIBRARY” AND MONTREAL NEWS ROOM, 1821—MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 1844—THE FRASER INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 1870—ITS EARLY LITIGATIONS—ITS PUBLIC OPENING IN 1885—OTHER LIBRARIES.

II. LITERARY AND LEARNED SOCIETIES

THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1827—THE MECHANICS INSTITUTE, 1828—LA SOCIETE HISTORIQUE, 1856—CONFERENCE DES INSTITUTEURS, 1857—THE “INSTITUT CANADIEN”—CERCLE LITTERAIRE DE VILLE MARIE, 1857—UNION CATHOLIQUE, 1858—(THE GUIBORD CASE)—THE ANTIQUARIAN AND NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION, 1862—THE “ECOLE LITTERAIRE” 1892—ST. JAMES LITERARY SOCIETY, 1898—THE “DICKENS’ FELLOWSHIP” 1909—OTHER LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS—THE “BURNS SOCIETY”—THE ALLIANCE FRANCAISE—THE CANADIAN CLUB, 1905.

III. ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS

FOREWORD:—INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC EXCLUSIVENESS.

ART:—EARLY ART IN CANADA—THE MODERN MOVEMENT—THE MONTREAL SOCIETY OF ARTISTS—THE ART ASSOCIATION OF MONTREAL—ITS HISTORY—ITS PAINTINGS—MONTREAL ART COLLECTIONS—THE ART SCHOOL—MONTREAL ARTISTS—THE WOMAN’S ART SOCIETY—THE CHATEAU DE RAMEZAY—THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS—THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA—OUTSTANDING ARTISTS.

THE DRAMA:—PLAYS IN 1804—THE FIRST THEATRE ROYAL BUILT IN 1825—THE SECOND OPENED IN 1850—OTHER THEATRES TO THE PRESENT—AMATEUR THEATRICAL ASSOCIATIONS—THE DRAMATIC LEAGUE.

MUSIC:—MODERN SOCIETIES—SOCIETE DE STE CECILE—SOCIETE DE MONTAGNARDS—AMATEUR MUSICAL LEAGUE—MENDELSSOHN CHOIR—MONTREAL PHILHARMONIC—INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.

NEWSPAPERS:—MONTREAL HISTORIES.

[350]

The analysis of a city is not complete without a record of its attempts through its educational, library, literary, artistic and intellectual associations and its publications of newspapers, journals, and books to realize its fuller life.

The educational attempts of Montreal, through the schools and universities, have been told, but those further movements, so necessary for all who would continue to learn through the above associations, remain to be narrated.

I. THE LIBRARY MOVEMENT

In 1773 the Sulpicians of Montréal opened the Collège de St. Raphael to teach the youth of the city, and its curriculum made a feature of Belles Lettres. From those graduating from this school sprang the societies and the great library associated with the name of the Seminary of St. Sulpice. There had been small libraries here and there but this first great French library was formed in July, 1844, by the two congregations or sodalities of men and women attached to Notre Dame parish, offering their libraries, one of 600 and the other of 700 volumes, to form the nucleus of a larger library. This was supplemented by 800 books from the Séminaire St. Sulpice and some good books from other sources, making a total of 2,200. The new library was called “L’Oeuvre des bons livres de Ville-Marie” and was conducted along the same lines as, and affiliated with, the famous library at Bordeaux, France, which had been started about twenty years before. This library was formally opened in September, 1845, by M. Bourget, bishop of Montreal, when 200 more volumes were added. The books were first housed in a building on Place d’Armes belonging to the seminary, then afterwards in a building on St. Sulpice Street loaned by the Hôtel Dieu Nuns and thence, in 1860, it was moved to a house at 197 Notre Dame Street, the building being that of the Cabinet de Lecture paroissial, then completed and finally to its present home recently erected as the Bibliotheque St. Sulpice at 340 Denis Street.

Early after the housing of the Cabinet de Lecture in 1860 a lecture bureau was incorporated in connection with the library and under the direction of the superior of the seminary. This bureau published the principal papers in a monthly journal.

The first mention of an English library was in 1796 when the “Montreal Library” was incorporated as a joint stock association of 120 shares at $50 per share. The library had no permanent home until 1821 when the upper part of the old Wesleyan Chapel on St. Sulpice Street was taken, where for the next sixteen years it served the English speaking population. In 1837 new quarters were found in the Natural History Society, then on Little St. James Street. In 1844 the Montreal Library was purchased by the Mercantile Library Association which had been established three years earlier by a number of merchants, the number of books of the amalgamated library at this date being about 4,000. For many years the Mercantile Association, at its headquarters at the corner of Bonaventure and St. Joseph streets, was the meeting place of the élite of the city. With new associations and clubs coming into existence the popularity of the Mercantile waned until the library was handed over to the Fraser Institute, incorporated in 1870 by the Hon. J.J.C. Abbott, F.W. Torrance, T. Workman, A. Molson and P. Redpath, which is the only public library, besides the small Civic Library, in Montreal, with its valuable Gagnon collection of Canadiana. Both libraries are very popular[351] and considering their limitations are doing useful work. In addition might be mentioned the other valuable libraries frequented by scholars and students, such as the Redpath Library, built and given by Mr. Peter Redpath in 1893 to McGill University, the library belonging to Laval University, the Ecole Normale, the Bibliotheque St. Sulpice, under the auspices of the Sulpicians, and the semi-public collections attached to the many churches, colleges, schools and institutions, literary and social, scattered throughout the city and suburban municipalities such as the model one at Westmount.

There are some public libraries in the adjoining municipalities, that at Westmount being a model one.

Thus Montreal is not so badly off in regard to the number of its books, even in comparison to its large population. But what is certainly wanted in some centralizing system by which they can be utilized through the cataloguing, interchange and circulation of the volumes. The city council is contemplating building a large central building to house many of the smaller libraries, which will again popularize the reading of good literature by the masses, which for some time has fallen into disuse. But the first step to be taken should be the harmonizing, if possible, of the existing library systems in the city through an intellectual central library organization bureau being formed. Such is more immediately needed then a central library building to house books.

The early history of the Fraser Library is one of litigation. Mr. Hugh Fraser, an unmarried man, but with several brothers and sisters, about six months before his death, in 1870, conceived the idea of an institute in the interests of literature, science and art,—“of a free public library, museum and gallery to be open to all honest and respectable persons whomsoever, of every rank in life without distinction and without fee or reward of any kind.”

His will, dated April 23, 1870, after making bequests to the amount of $20,000 to his relatives and settling an annuity of £5,000 on a brother for the life of himself and his wife, bequeathed the bulk of his property to establish in Montreal the “Fraser Institute.” He named as his trustees the Hon. J.J.C. Abbott and Judge Torrance and authorized these to procure an act of incorporation to carry out his ideas. On May 15, 1870, he died. The executors immediately took possession of the estate and commenced the administration.

But on June 15th the heirs commenced an action to set aside the bequest as contrary to the laws of mortmain—which finally was carried to the privy council in England, who rendered their decision on the validity of the bequest on November 26, 1874. Arrangements were then made to carry out the intentions of the donor, but in 1875 an attempt was made by a bill in the Quebec Legislature to be allowed to bring the action up again, on the ground that the privy council had erred in the interpretation of the law. This failing, a second attempt was made on January 5, 1876, on the ground that the testator of the will was non compos mentis at the time of execution. This also failed. Until 1883 further litigations embarrassing to the governors were carried on, when at last they were able to take some steps.

Meanwhile, in 1882, the property lately used as the high school was offered for sale by the school commissioners. This was a desirable opportunity for establishing the Fraser Institute by way of a free library and the Hon. J.J.C. Abbott bought the property for $30,000. Arrangements for taking over and shelving[352] two libraries of about 15,000 volumes, the Mercantile Library Association and the Institut Canadien, were made through Messrs. Frederick Mathews, Theodore Lyman and Joseph Doutre and there were added valuable engravings from France, the gift of Prince Jerome Bonaparte. It was hoped to include as part of the institute the museum of the Natural History Society. The Free Library, then a novelty in Canada, was opened to the public on October 5, 1885, when the Honorable Mr. Abbott, as trustee, explained the long delay, owing to the above mentioned litigations. Among the other speakers hailing the new movement were: the Honorable Mr. Justice Torrance, Mr. Thomas Workman, Sir William Dawson, Mr. Justice Jetté, Mr. Justice Mathieu, Mr. Hugh McLennan, Mr. Justice Mackay, Principal McVicar, Reverend Mr. Larose, a former director of the Institut Canadien, Professor Coussirat, Mr. Henry Lyman and Lieutenant-Colonel Lyman, as a member of the Mercantile Library. The mayor, M. Henri Beaugrand, himself a littérateur, fitly declared the library open to the public.

As a library the Fraser Institute has fulfilled a popular service. It has a very valuable collection of French books, in addition to the original nucleus of the French library, and has rare volumes of English, French, Latin, etc. It has also a very valuable collection of “Canadiana.” The library made great progress during the presidency of Mr. McLennan, which has continued during that of Mr. Joseph Rielle. Up to 1901 it had increased from 40,000 to 70,000 volumes. The first librarian was Mr. Boodle, and since 1901 Mr. P.B. de Crèvecoeur has served in that capacity.

The Fraser Free Library during its long and useful career has not yet realized the desire of the founder and the first governors to become also a “museum and gallery, to be open to all honest and respectable persons.” Certainly such is needed in the city now. The future of the institute if it follows out its original intention, is still before it, with the help of a generous public.

II. LITERARY AND LEARNED SOCIETIES

One of the earliest learned societies is the Natural History Society which was founded in 1827 and the difficulty of its founders in bringing it about is best shown in the following extract taken from the first annual report, 1828:

“It is now only twelve months since a few gentlemen, who casually, met together, proposed the establishment of this society. They were not unaware of the difficulties they would have to encounter. In all communities such as this where wealth is comparatively little, where no opulent endowments take off the necessity of attention to securing a livelihood, and where as a consequence, the attention is directed into other channels, very different from those of scientific research, not many can be expected to join in assisting this society by their personal exertions, however pleased they might be to see it arise.

[353]

“Anticipating therefore, but a small list of members, and where also that at different times associations have been founded for literary purposes, which have gradually been dissolved, the founders of this society saw the necessity of a bond of union, independent of this personal characteristic of the first members. As a visible sign of the existence and utility of the institution, and around which the members might at all times rally, with a view there to afford this bond, to prevent this tendency to devolution, the proposers of this Natural History Society resolved to found a museum, an institution which experience has proved to have great power in calling the attention to scientific pursuits and the wants of which was firstly felt by several members, who looked back upon the various causes which in their younger days retarded their own improvement. But the new collections of the productions of nature would leave the design of the society imperfect without the possession of books, that treat of such subjects. One without the other would leave the work half done, but both connected give the greatest facilities for instruction which can be afforded. In addition therefore to the possession of a museum, it was one of the first objects of the society to secure a library of books on science in general. On these principles and with these views the Natural History Society was founded.”

This body holds a bequest, though slight, for providing annually a lecture course for the public. It is known as the Somerville Foundation. This unique distinction is credited to the association, but it is also a sad commentary on the dearth of provision for the general education of the public.

The institution is still with us and after having fulfilled a valuable and no mean role in the past, may rise to the larger demands and opportunities that the larger city which, at present, still has no other museum of its kind, now offers to it to embark on a larger venture than of old.

One of the earliest and more important factors in the intellectual life of the city and in the creation of a real love for the best in the existence of the working man has been the Mechanic’s Institute which was founded in November, 1828, by a body of earnest men, who felt that the worker should have a chance to educate himself not only in science, but in art and literature. The first meetings were held in the house of the Reverend Mr. Esson, who with Judge Gugy, L.J. Papineau and John Molson formed the executive. In its early years, not much progress was made, but on its incorporation in 1845 new life was put into the work. Seven years afterwards land was secured on St. James Street for a permanent building which was opened in 1855. In 1862 the building was enlarged by the addition of a large hall to hold 800 people. For twenty-five years the institute was the principal hall for meetings until the city spread more north when it was divided into offices. Today its reading room and library are but very little used in comparison with the past.

In 1857 the Hon. P.J.O. Chauneau, LL. D., the provincial minister of public works, who took a keen interest in educational affairs, founded the “Conferences des Instituteurs de L’Ecole Normale Jacques-Cartier,” and in October of the same year a literary society, under the patronage of the Séminaire St. Sulpice was founded under the title of “Cercle Littéraire” by Joseph Royal.

La Société Historique de Montreal, was founded in 1857, but was not definitely organized until 1858, under the presidency of Commander Jacques Viger, being incorporated by an act of the Legislature in 1859. The headquarters[354] of this society had always been held in the Ecole Normale Jacques Cartier. This society has published important memoires relative to the history of Canada, and possesses valuable manuscripts which for want of funds it is unable at present to publish. It was on its initiative that in 1894 the monolith near Place Royale, formerly Pointe a Callières was erected to commemorate the precise spot of the landing of the first colonists in 1642. Its presidents have been as follows: Commander Jacques Viger, April 11, 1858; M. L’Abbe H.A. Verreau, January 14, 1859; M. Judge George Baby, May 18, 1904; M. Judge L.W. Sicotte, January 23, 1909; M. L’Abbe N. Dubois, May 6, 1912.

On May 3, 1858, the Institut Canadien-Francais came into existence, having as secretary L.O. David, now Senator David, historian and litterateur. The society which had its home on Little St. James Street was very active and many of its members occupied in after life responsible public positions. It began well with bright, eager students, but finally fell on evil days when owing to a tendency to liberalism it came under the ban of Bishop Bourget so that many of its members left and formed the Societé des Artisans Français-Canadiens and the Union Nationale. About the same time two others were formed, active literary bodies of today, the Cercle Littéraire de Ville Marie (1857) under the auspices of the Sulpicians, and the Union Catholique (1858) under the auspices of the Jesuits.

The Institut Canadien Library, which afterwards was held by the Club Canadien in trust, was finally transferred by arrangement to the Fraser Institute in 1885.

The suppression of the Institut Canadien is remembered by the Guibord case. M. Guibord, one of the condemned members, though not mentioned by name, after his death was refused burial in the Catholic cemetery, although he had owned a burial plot there. An action which finally was taken to the privy council by his widow was settled in her favour and the body was transferred from the Mount Royal Protestant Cemetery to that of Cote des Neiges. Fearing an émeute the police and military were present, but owing to the discretion of the mayor, Dr. William Hingston, nothing serious happened. A large boulder, unnamed, marks the spot of burial. Later the ground was deconsecrated and the wording of the law was changed so that burial in the Catholic cemetery may not take place, even with the prior possession of land, without the consent of the Catholic authorities.

The name of the Antiquarian and Numismatic Society is closely associated with the old Château de Ramezay, for it was through the initiative, beginning in 1894, of its members that the Château became, in 1897, its museum and consequently was saved from the hand of the vandal. The society was, however, first formed in 1862 by the juncture of two little groups, one French and one English, of numismatists who used to meet at the members’ homes to study the finds and histories of old coins and medals. Recognizing that the study of numismatics was largely connected with the broader subject of antiquities, it was decided to change the name of the society to the “Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Montreal.” In 1912 a new charter under the title of “The Antiquarian and Numismatic Society of Montreal” was granted. Some of the earliest members were A.J. Boucher, Stanley Bagg, James Ferrier, L.A. Huguet-Latour, James Rattray, Dr. Hector Pelletier, Daniel Rose, J.E. Guilbault, Lavens Mathewson, J.L. Bronsdon, and since the society has included amongst its members a number of[355] historical authorities of distinction, such as William Kingsford, William McLennan, Alfred Sandham, Dr. Samuel Dawson, Gerald Hart, Judge Baby, Sir James Lemoine, Henry Mott, Hon. P.J.O. Chauveau, M. l’Abbé Verreau, Judge L.W. Sicotte, Senator Edward Murphy, P.S. Murphy, I.B. Learmont, H.H. Lyman, Henry J. Tiffin, and M. l’Abbé N. Dubois; and such numismatic or antiquarian authorities as E.Z. Massicotte, P.O. Tremblay, R.W. McLachlan and W.D. Lighthall. The society, through its journal “The Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal,” which was first published in 1872 and which, notwithstanding several interruptions, has now reached its twenty-seventh volume, has gathered together and conserved for future generations invaluable records of Canadian history, while in its museum at the Château de Ramezay it has a collection of old portraits, antiquities, documents and books vying, according to Mr. J. Ross Robertson, with the richest of its kind on the continent of America. Amongst the contributors to its journal might be noted, in addition to those mentioned, such authorities as Henry Mott, Samuel Baylis, its present editor, Lapalice, Victor Morin, Thomas O’Leary, and others. Two very active members of the society have been De Léry Macdonald, whose extensive acquaintance with French-Canadian portraits and genealogy gave him the idea of the portrait gallery which is now part of the society’s collection, and Roswell Corse Lyman, who did so much in the saving of the Château. The present president, to whom is due the idea of the Château becoming the home of the museum, is Mr. W.D. Lighthall.

About 1892 a strong school of French litterateurs, still existing, sprang up with the Ecole Littéraire, which held its meetings in the Château de Ramezay. This produced a number of the best poets of the time, including Charles Gill, Jean Charbonneau, Doucet, A. Lozeau, Albert Ferland, Demers, Gonzalve Desaulniers and others. It published in 1900 the Soirées de Château de Ramezay, which was much praised in Europe and received special encomium from Ab der Halsen, a distinguished Alsatian critic.

Amongst the present English literary and debating societies, St. James’ Literary Society stands out because of the high standard of the papers and features given each session by the most able men in the city and Canada.

The society, which had its inception in the autumn of 1898, began with a gathering of twelve men, who met more or less casually for mutual intercourse and improvement in connection with St. James’ Church. As the society grew in numbers it was felt that a definite constitution should be drawn up and it became henceforth one of acknowledged force in the literary life of the city. Its motto Permitte lucem and its emblem the “Lamp of Literature” indicate its mission. The original name has been retained, but its membership is broadened for general acceptance. The addresses given during the season are kept on record for reference and perhaps for future publication.

Its presidents have been: Rev. C.G. Rollit, 1898-99-1900; J.H. Shaw, 1900-01; John Barrett, 1901-02; W.C. Wonham, 1902-03; F.W. Hibbard, K.C., 1903-04; J.S. Archibald, 1904-05; M. McD. Duff, 1905-06; Rev. H. Symonds, D.D., 1906-07; Maxwell Murdock, 1907-08; W.T. Castle, 1908-09; E.G. Place, 1909-10; J. Armitage Ewing, K. C, 1910-11; George Hale, M.D., 1911-12; H.A. Jones, 1912-13; James G. Gray, 1913-14; J.H. Shaw, 1914-15.

An interesting and flourishing literary society with a very large active membership[356] is the Dickens Fellowship, which was established in 1909 as a branch of the parent English society of the same name, its object being to study the works and the social lessons of Charles Dickens and to apply his teachings as far as possible.

Its presidents have been: J. Portcous Arnold, 1909-10; J.A. Huchinson, M.D., 1911; W.H. Atherton, Ph. D., 1912-13; W. Godbee Brown, 1914.

At intervals there have been societies for special literary purposes, such as Shakespeare, Browning and Burns societies. Of these one of the most prominent was the Burns Society, which was started about 1857 and only lapsed recently.

Societies along national lines have been formed of late years. The first established in Montreal is the Alliance Française, being a branch of L’Alliance Française established in France in 1883. This latter was approved by an act of the minister of the interior on January 14, 1884, and was recognized as an establishment of practical utility by a decree of the republic on October 23, 1886. The end which the Alliance proposes to itself is two-fold: (1) in the French colonies and protectorates to make the language known and loved by the conquered people, to use it for social and commercial purposes and to induce colonists to go from France to a country where French is spoken; (2) elsewhere to maintain relations, (a) with the French-speaking settlers or groups away among strangers by encouraging them to maintain the cult of their national tongue, and (b) with friends of the French language and literature whatever their nationality, race or creed, so as to draw closer the bonds of a literary and moral sympathy which unites France to other peoples and to second in the East, or in countries still uncivilized, French missionaries of every denomination, and French lay teachers for the foundation and maintenance of schools, teaching the French language. A propaganda is carried out for this purpose with the result that there has been formed more than four hundred and fifty committees in France and other lands.

Among other general literary and debating societies of men of today are the “Nomads,” and those in connection with the universities and colleges, the Y.M. C.A. and other organizations of a religious, fraternal or social character.

Literature is similarly carried on in women circles; the Montreal Women’s Club, founded in 1893, being the most representative.

The club or society broadest in its conception in the topics dealt with and in the cosmopolitan character of its speakers at its weekly lunch is the Canadian Club, which was originally organized in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, in 1892 with the object “To foster patriotism by encouraging the study of the Institutions, Arts, Literature, and Resources of Canada and by endeavouring to unite Canadians in such work for the welfare and progress of the Dominion.”

The Montreal branch, which was organized in 1905, has now a membership of about two thousand, comprising representatives of every race living in the city. Practically every person of note who has visited Montreal since its incorporation has addressed the club, including prominent men such as Jerome K. Jerome who delivered the first address in 1905, Booker T. Washington, the well known leader of the American negroes; W.T. Stead, the great English journalist; Rudyard Kipling, the poet, who gave an address on “Journalism and Literature”; Rt. Hon. James Bryce, the English historian, man of letters and statesman; Lord Milner, the great pro-consul; Lord Grey; Lord Balfour of Burleigh, chairman of the commission on Canadian-West Indian reciprocity; Lord Northcliffe, the principal[357] owner of the London Times and Daily Mail; Hon. C.J. Bonaparte, member of President Roosevelt’s cabinet and direct descendant of the great Napoleon; Sir Andrew Fraser, one of India’s public servants; Consul Nakamura of Japan; Commissioner Coombs of the Salvation Army; and the Hon. W.J. Bryan, American silver-tongued orator and secretary of state of the United States, etc.

The Canadian speakers have included Sir Robert Borden, prime minister; Sir George Foster; Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux; Dr. W.T. Grenfell, the missionary of the Labrador coast; Captain Bernier, the French-Canadian explorer; President Falconer of Toronto University; Armand Lavergne, a strong advocate of French-Canadian nationalism; the local speakers including Henri Bourassa, Doctor Macphail, the writer; Sir Alexander Lacoste; Doctor Colby; Principal Peterson of McGill University; Hon. J.I. Tarte of La Patrie; Hon. L.O. David; Prof. Stephen Leacock; and Judge Choquet, who spoke on the Juvenile Court in Montreal.

As the Canadian clubs were originally designed for men, the women of Montreal, in 1907, determined to organize a “Women’s Canadian Club.” This has proved successful, the subjects treated being specially applicable to the women and the idea had spread to thirteen other Canadian cities.

There is no doubt but that the idea of Canadian clubs has been wonderfully successful, for they have given the busy business men one day in each week to enjoy lunch at a reasonable price and then listen for twenty or thirty minutes to the best man who happened to be in the city at that moment or to have been specially invited for the purpose. It has brought its members into personal touch with the great leaders of thought and those who control the destinies of the British Empire, and because of its national character it has been a large factor in breaking down class and racial prejudices that have too often been a jarring note in the progress of Montreal.

III. ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS

A great influence in the intellectual and artistic life of the City of Montreal has been gradually brought about by the church amongst the French section, and amongst the English by little coteries of friends meeting first at private houses and as the circles became larger, in more public places. In this way the Cultural Associations of Montreal arose.

In a number of the societies, such as the Antiquarian and Numismatic Society, the two races have been brought together, but generally speaking each race has developed mentally and socially along its own lines, insufficiently co-mingling even on intellectual and artistic grounds.

But while there is no amalgamation of the two races there is great respect and harmony, mutual admiration, imitation and assimilation, unless this state is upset by self-interested demagogues, and it is in this tacit understanding that they have built up side by side many French and English libraries, and literary, artistic and musical societies, the influence of which has considerably raised the mental standard of Canada’s commercial metropolis. While, however, there is to be deplored a certain weakness through the want of concentration, yet it is somewhat productive of a healthy rivalry and a varied viewpoint. More fusion, however, would be mutually advantageous, to gain the fullest advantage from the juxtaposition of the heritors of two great racial civilizations in one city.

[358]

ART

Art in Montreal can be divided into four periods, each having its own influence, not only on the people of the time and on the private collections, but on the work of local artists, many of whom, until late years, were never able to study the great collections of Europe. The first period might be termed the church influence, for during the earliest part of the French régime the Jesuit records indicate the fact that a number of the earliest missionaries, men of learning and culture, did not neglect art or music in bringing their Indian neophytes under the spell of Christianity. Several of the Montreal Jesuits were no mean artists or musicians. The members of the earliest religious corporations also brought out works of art in furniture and altar ornaments. Thus in the Catholic churches of the provinces there are many fine pieces of decoration which were designed in Europe of the sixteenth century. Later when the French became more settled in New France, the officers, both military and civil, brought out their families, who in addition to bringing out the family paintings and decorations introduced the culture of old France. In addition art began to be taught in the earliest technical schools, one of which, the classes of the Fréres Charron of Montreal followed somewhat the example of the first technical school established by Bishop Laval outside Quebec. This might be termed the second period. The third began soon after the conquest, 1670, when, with the arrival of British officers and officials, British art was introduced, not in specimens alone, for it was found that amongst the officers of the engineers and artillery there were a number of good artists who soon mixed with the local art lovers. Thus they helped in forming in 1847 an art society under the name of the “Montreal Society of Artists” which gave a modest exhibition to initiate the “Montreal Gallery of Pictures.” The second exhibition was held in 1857 in the Bonaventure Hall under the auspices and direction of the Mercantile Library Association. The artists represented at this exhibition were Cooper, David Cox, Kneller, Guido, Jan, Steen, Reynolds, Raphael, Vinci, Rubens, Van Dyke, Titian, Lawrence and Watteau. This being from local collections shows something of the love of good pictures by the wealthy Montrealers of that day even if only copies of these masters were available.

The fourth period is now with us.

The Society of Artists in 1860 believing that the time had come for broadening its sphere of usefulness invited lovers of art as well as artists to join them and “The Art Association of Montreal” thus became formed. The act to incorporate this new venture was assented to on April 23, 1860, at the request of the Rt. Rev. Francis Fulford, Lord Bishop of Montreal, the Rev. William T. Leach, William H.A. Davies, Thomas D. King, Esquires, and others. Five years afterwards the association formed itself into an Art Union, and in the same year published a catalogue with articles on Oil Painting, Water Colours and Engraving, by F.T. Palgrave, reduced from the art catalogue of the great London Exhibition of 1862. The principal feature of the exhibition held in 1867 was a number of water colours by the Montreal Sketching Club, including two by Alfred Rimmer who afterwards made a reputation by his beautiful book illustrations of English country life. In the following year the Society of Canadian Artists held its first exhibition in the Gallery of the Art Association, then in a large room at the Mercantile Library Building. The seventh exhibition of the association in 1872 was[359] also held in the same building, while in 1878 the eighth was held in the Windsor Hotel. By the magnificent gift of Benaiah Gibb the Art Association was enabled to have its own building on Phillip’s Square. On the completion of the building in 1879 an exhibition was held to celebrate the opening. Mr. Gibb’s munificence gave a great impetus to art in Montreal both then and when he died in the following year, bequeathing his valuable collection, consisting of seventy-two pictures and four bronzes to the Art Association in trust for the citizens of Montreal. In the earlier part of the same year (1880) a loan collection of oil paintings had been held including two sketches by H.R.H. Princess Louise, wife of the governor general who had opened the art gallery. The J.W. Tempest bequest in 1892 of $80,000 has also been one of the God-sends to the association. He also left a very valuable collection of pictures containing some very fine work.

ART GALLERY

The first black and white exhibition was held in 1881, and included the work of Durer, Bartolozzi, S.W. Reynolds, Charles Turner and J.M. Turner. At this exhibition a paper was read by Mr. McLennan on “Engraving” which was illustrated by woodcuts and specimens of engraving on metal, and in the same year a collection was held of the works of Canadian artists.

Since that time all kinds of exhibitions have been held in the galleries of the Art Association, each one growing more popular as the public taste in art has increased. So much so that the association, finding the quarters on Phillip’s Square too small to meet the increased attendances, determined to sell the building which had been the home of art for so many years and, with the proceeds together with the result of a special campaign which netted over two hundred and sixty thousand dollars, to build an art gallery worthy of the great City of Montreal. Such is the present beautiful Art Gallery Building on Sherbrooke Street, opened by H.R.H., the Duke of Connaught on December 9, 1912. Its architects were Edward and William S. Maxwell of this city.

The late Mr. James Ross, besides contributing $125,000 during his life time, bequeathed $100,000 to the association and the late Mr. Learmont and his sister bequeathed between them their splendid collection of paintings and china. The president of the Art Association is Mr. H.V. Meredith, president of the Bank of Montreal, and the membership is around two thousand; the curator and secretary being Mr. J.B. Abbott, son of the late Sir John Abbott, prime minister of Canada.

The permanent collection of the new art gallery consists of 626 pieces, including oil paintings, watercolours, etchings, statuary, casts and bronzes, with the Learmont collection, the donation of rare china and pottery consisting of 170 pieces, and a number of pictures filling one of the rooms, among which are works by Turner, Swan, Gainsborough and Reynolds. Among the other artists represented in the gallery, are Bougeaureau, Constant, Corot, Diaz of Peña, Goya, Henner, Monticelli, Millet, Pasini, Raeburn, Soest, Tholen, Treyon, Van Goyen, Van de Velde, Van Dyck, Whistler and Wilkie. There are also copies after Sarto, Titian and Salvator Rosa; bronzes by Clesinger, Guillemin, Rodin and Tout Mackenzie, and statuary by Benzoni, Bosio, Hébert and Romanelli. The library of the association has, through the generosity of its members, become one of the most complete collections of reference books on art in Canada.

It has been said that Montreal has some of the finest private collections of masters on this continent and that if all were on exhibition under one roof, the artistic wealth of the community would be found to be very considerable.

[360]

Among the notable collections of private citizens, the possession of the following, among others, may be ascribed to the possession of: The late Lord Strathcona: works by Turner, Henner, Jules Bréton, etc.; Sir William Van Horne: Monticelli, Rousseau, Daubigny, Corot, Delacroix, Rubens, Turner, Cuyp, Ruysdal, Raeburn, as well as examples by the advanced modern painters of the French post impressionist school; Lady Drummond: Reynolds, Franz Hals, Rosetti, Turner, Ruysdal, Troyon, Daubigny, Duprès, Peter de Hooge, etc.; R. B. Angus: Gainsborough, Romney, Rembrandt, Dagnan-Bouveret, Swan, Reynolds, Monticelli, Ruysdal, Hoppner, Aumier; the late James Ross: Rembrandt, Corot, Troyon, Millet, Fortuny, Teniers, Turner, Cuyp, Joseph Israels, Romney, Franz Hals; E.B. Greenshields: Turner, Ryder, etc., and a number of the modern Dutch school including Joseph Israels, Jacob, William and Maris; Mauve, Weissenbruch, etc.

All the owners mentioned above, as well as many others with smaller collections, have been very generous subscribers to the art gallery, both in pictures and money.

A special branch of the association is the art school under the direction of Mr. William Brymner, president of the Royal Canadian Academy, who has associated with him Maurice Cullen, R.C.A., and Miss Alberta Cleland. In addition might be added the series of lectures that are given each season by specialists on the different branches of art. Outside the convents, the principal school of art attended by French pupils is the School of Arts and Manufactures which is held in the Monument National. This school was founded by the Abbé Chabert in 1860, who at one time had been a successful professor of arts at the Ottawa College. He made the school one of the best in Canada and many well known artists of today received their first instruction in this school.

Coming to the personnel of art, Montreal has in Louis Philippe Hébert one who takes a high place among Canadian sculptors. His work, many examples of which are on the public squares of the city, is equally a monument to his genius as to those whom he portrayed in bronze and stone. When the honour of C.M.G. was conferred upon him by King Edward in 1903 it was felt that the representative of Canadian art was well chosen. Another fine Canadian artist who has for many years made Montreal his home is Mr. Robert Harris, also a C.M.G., a former president of the R.C.A. Among other Montreal artists are Napoleon Bourassa, decorator and architect of the Church of Notre Dame de Lourdes and others; George William Hill, the designer and sculptor of the Cartier memorial and many other monuments.

Among other artistic associations is the Woman’s Art Society, which was founded in 1893 to encourage art amongst its members and to assist kindred societies. Thus it presented a scholarship to the Art Association for competition in the schools, and cooperates with the Canadian Handicrafts Guild, which was established in 1906 to encourage, retain, revive and develop handicrafts and home art industries throughout the Dominion. This guild with headquarters in Montreal, has as patrons T.R.H. the Duke and Duchess of Connaught with a large general committee and honorary council of men and women who give their time ungrudgingly in the interests of homely crafts which are in these days of materialism and utilitarism in danger of extinction.

The Château de Ramezay, as the home of the Antiquarian Society, has many[361] historical records of the art of the past, the chief features being in the Elgin room, where are many historical portraits and relics, including the bell of Louisburg and the “Montreal” Room, where a valuable series of historical maps and pictures of the city is preserved; while the council chamber, the salon, the parloir, the vaults, the kitchen, and the bakery are all reminiscent of the early days of the city.

There is also the valuable private collection of Mr. R. McCord at Templegrove, known as McCord’s National Museum. It is to be hoped that such collections will be gradually acquired for the public.

The Royal Academy of Arts, of which the director of the school attached to the Art Association is president, has an exhibition of paintings every four years in Montreal.

We may here mention the Royal Society of Canada, which has a literary and scientific, as well as an artistic, scope and which held its meetings in Montreal this year (1914), being largely associated with the city because of its first meeting in 1882 taking place here and the first executive being principally residents of Montreal. Its first president was the late Sir William Dawson of McGill, and the first vice president the Hon. Dr. P.J.O. Chauveau, LL. D., and amongst the charter members appear the names of N. Bourassa, Louis Frechette, LL. D., John L’Esperance, John Reade, J. Clark Murray, Sir A.B. Routhier and other Montrealers. This year’s president is Dr. Adams of McGill.

In reviewing this chapter one would say that the City of Montreal since it became the home of civilization has had great opportunities to enrich itself artistically and mentally, because of the environments of romance that surround it and the atmosphere of cultured men and women, who in each generation have breathed its air. The citizens are essentially lovers of everything that will raise the standard of intellectual living, but the temptation to the present generation to pursue more seriously material success, has detracted somewhat from the claims of literature and art as a valuable possession and a title to distinction. Art, literature and culture have too few patrons to endow struggling works which, if fostered, would be a lasting memorial and satisfaction to their donors and benefactors. Yet this failing is but temporary for with the passing away of the false opulence begotten of real estate booms and financial speculations, the people will come back to their real love, and art and literature with the love of the true, the good, and the beautiful in life, will take their proper place in the composite life of Montreal.

For the sake of recording the names of those who have left a reputation as artists at Montreal and Quebec the following notes may be preserved:

Père André Pierron, S.J., before 1673; Frère Luc, a Récollet; Père Pommier, about the same time; Pierre Leber; Jean Antoine Créque, born 1749, died 1780; * De Beaucourt, born about 1735; * Louis Dulogpré, worked in Montreal and Quebec from about 1790-1830; * William Van Moll Berczy, painted in Montreal from about 1800-1818;—— Audy, from about 1804-1830; Joseph Legare, born 1795, was working in 1826; * Antoine Plamandon, born about 1800, lived nearly through the century; * Cornelius Kreighoff, born 1814, died 1872; James Duncan, born 1806, died 1881; * William Sawyer, born 1820, died 1889; * Théophile Hamel, born 1814, died 1870; * Adolphe Vogt, born 1842, died 1870; * Allan Edson, born 1846, died 1888; * Wyatt Eaton, born 1849, died 1896; * O. [362]R. Jacobi, born 1812, died 1901;—— Hawksett; * William Raphael, died 1914; * John Pinhey, died about 1911; * Henry Sandham, born 1842, died 1910; * Henri Julien, born 1846, died 1908.

Of artists now living and in most cases exhibiting regularly in Montreal there are the following:

Napoleon Bourassa, born 1827; Robert Harris, born 1849; William Brymner, born 1855; Edmond Dyonnet; Auréle Suzor Cote, born 1870; Maurice Cullen, born 1866; James W. Morrice, born 1864; (Clarence) Gagnon; F. St. Charles; J.C. Franchere; Charles Gill; William Hope; John Hammond; Horne Russell; Laura Muntz; G. Delfosse. There are also many other artists in Montreal, but the above are certainly all names which are well known to art lovers here and have been for some time identified with the art we have of the city.

THE DRAMA

Amateur theatricals have been in vogue in Montreal for many years. Among the officers of the garrison under the French régime, doubtless and certainly among the young scholars taught by the “Congregation” and the Sulpicians, whose students of the College de Montréal performed early in the British Rule the play “David and Jonathan or The Triumph of Friendship.”

However the drama proper in Montreal dates especially from 1804, when a Mr. Ormsby, from the Theatre Royal, Edinborough, established a company of comedians to perform a play in five acts called “The Busy Body” and a farce entitled “The Sultan.” A building next to the old postoffice was fitted up and the charges were: boxes, 5s. and gallery, 2s. 6d. Circuses came and went, a notable one taking place in 1812. In the early ’40s there was still standing the Theatre Royal, built in 1825 and situated opposite Rasco’s Hotel on Bonsecours Street, then the great hotel of the city and it was in this house that Charles Dickens acted during his visit in 1842. The second Theatre Royal, in Coté Street was opened in 1850, and which after a long, splendid and eventful career, closed its doors ignominiously in 1913. One of its early lessees was J.W. Buckland, who engaged a good stock company, which gave such plays as “Peg Woffington,” “Rob Roy” and “The Cricket on the Hearth.” This theatre in its palmiest days enjoyed the patronage of the élite and military of the city and when any stars visited Montreal, such as Jenny Lind, Patti and Kean, the Theatre Royal was the scene of their triumphs.1

The present City Hall Annex on Gosford Street is built on the site of the old Dominion Theatre, which up to 1864 had been an Anglican church, then a vinegar factory, before being turned into what the proprietors claimed to be the largest and most up-to-date theatre in the city. But it did not have a very long life. One of the first plays to be given on its stage was the “Commune,” a sensational melodrama of the French Commune. Kate Quinton, who in her day had somewhat of a reputation, was the star of the play. After one year of melodrama the proprietors tried vaudeville, principally using local talent. It was at this theatre that Madame Albani, then Miss Emma Lejeunesse of Chambly, whose father was a music teacher, made one of her earliest appearances as a pianist.[363] In those early days the great singer did not know that she possessed the wonderful voice which has since entranced the world with its beauty. In 1871 the Dominion changed the character of its bill of fare again, this time to opera, under the name of Debar’s Opera House, though dramatic plays were given at times as a change. It was at this theatre that L. Guyon, in 1878, tried his prentice hand as a dramatist in the play “Le Secret de la Roche Noire.” The following year another play from his pen was produced “La Fleur de Lys.” The plays were staged by the local Cercle Dramatique Jacques Cartier. This society continued to produce plays until 1889 when the theatre, which had been its home was sold. Since that date many French Canadian dramatic societies, such as those at the Theâtre National Français and the Theâtre des Nouveautés, have come into being most of them being very successful, indeed it has been said by the critics that the standing of these amateur productions is often higher than that of visiting professional companies.

As the residential part of the city spread northwards the Queen’s Hall appeared on St. Catherine Street, between University and Victoria streets, being burnt down in 1874, about which time a new theatre was built called “The Academy of Music,” on Victoria Street, which in a short time took the place of the Theatre Royal as the fashionable place of amusement. On its stage many famous actors have appeared—Irving, Terry, Bancroft, Wyndham, Toole—etc. In time “His Majesty’s Theatre” became the leading English theatre and about the same time the “Français” was opened, first for the production of French plays and afterward for melodrama, as well as a number of small French theatres. The position of the English theatres in 1908 stood as follows: leading theatre, “His Majesty’s”; for musical comedy, “Academy of Music”; for melodrama, the “Français”; for burlesque, the “Royal” and the “Theatre Royal.” The “Princess” for general purposes followed immediately.

Until recently, with an occasional visit by an English company, most of the plays put on the Montreal boards were by companies from the United States, but during the last four years England’s best companies have visited Montreal, including Marie Tempest, Sir Beerbohm Tree, Sir Forbes Robertson, Sir Charles Wyndham, Horniman Players, Charles Harvey, etc. To-day there are catering to the English public, two first class theatres (“His Majesty’s” and “Princess”), one vaudeville (“Orpheum”), one burlesque (“Gaiety”), and 200 moving picture theatres, headed by the “Imperial,” which holds about 2,500 people.

There are a number of small French theatres, one or two running stock, but most of them are the home of amateur dramatic companies, and consequently circumscribed in doing really ambitious work, but as already stated, very creditable performances are to be seen at these theatres. Sarah Bernhardt, the great French actress, has played in Montreal several times and her art has always been equally acceptable to English and French, thus drawing full houses in the largest theatre available. Of late years the “Arena,” a skating rink, has been the scene of the greatest gatherings for concerts, horse shows and motor shows.

The Monument National has been the scene of many ambitious and successful French dramas and comedies. There also are given, from time to time, good dramas in Hebrew by competent artists and these plays, mostly of a serious nature, are much appreciated by the Jewish residents of Montreal.

Among the amateur dramatic societies there is La Section Littéraire et Dramatique[364] du Cercle Jeanne D’Arc, while many of the churches, colleges and schools have their own societies, the best known of which, that attached to Trinity Church, which under the well known Montreal actor, W.A. Tremayne, gives, during the season, a production of a very high order each month. The Dickens’ Fellowship also gives each season representations of the dramatized works of the great master.

The amateur drama has not fared ill in Montreal. It was in Montreal that the great Canadian actress, Margaret Anglin, received her education in a convent of this city; other artists educated here being Maxine Elliot, Gertrude Elliot, the wife of Sir Forbes Robertson; Miss Marie Tempest, and Madame Donalda, the Canadian singer.

As a sign of the interest being awakened in the drama in Montreal, it is pleasing to record the birth, during the last two years, of the Drama League for the purposes of promoting the true interests of the theatre and the cultivation of a right drama in the city.

MUSIC

Music naturally came into this country with the French, who are essentially musical, for the church encouraged this trait by affording many occasions for the best music. Good voices were easily procurable and every encouragement was also given to orchestral music, both in the churches and in the home. From this there spread out the desire for musical associations. Among modern societies that of the Société de Ste. Cécile was founded by A.J. Boucher on November 11, 1860, and there followed in 1861 the Société Musicale des Montaguards Canadiens founded by François Benoit. The English also did not neglect musical culture and about this time the “Amateur Musical League of Montreal” was founded by a Mr. Torrington who was organist of the St. James Methodist Church.

Perhaps the most noted musical organization which Montreal has ever possessed was the Mendelssohn Choir, a private society initiated in 1884 by the late Mr. Joseph Gould, who during its whole musical life of thirty years, acted as its sole business manager and conductor. The Choir was composed of picked voices, to the number, in its later years, of about one hundred and twenty-five. Its forte lay in its remarkable unaccompanied part-singing which was compared by competent judges with the best performances of Henry Leslie’s choir in London, in those days, perhaps the most famous body of its kind in the world.

The first Mendelssohn Choir concerts were given in Mr. Gould’s piano warerooms on St. James’ Street, admission being exclusively by invitation. After a few years, subscribing annual members were received, in addition to the active members. The concerts thus became, and thereafter continued to be, subscription concerts; and were given in the principal public halls, the Mechanics’ Hall, the Queen’s Hall, and others being successively used. Many of the most celebrated artists, both instrumentalists and vocalists, who have visited Montreal, were introduced to the public at Mendelssohn Choir concerts, although the chief attraction always continued to be the singing of the Choir itself, whose reputation gradually extended throughout Canada to the United States and even to Europe.

[365]

In 1894 Mr. Gould, owing chiefly to failing health, resigned his position as conductor and director, and the Choir, unwilling to sing under any other leader, voluntarily disbanded.

Two other contemporary musical societies at this period have also left a void in the city. The Handel and Hayden Society and the Philharmonic, the former being led by Professor Rayner, and the latter organization as notable as the Mendelssohn Choir, by Professor Couture. The rôle of the Philharmonic, however, was oratorio with orchestral accompaniment. The first steps for organization were taken in 1877 by three concerts given under the name of the Montreal Musical Festival held in the Victoria Skating Rink. The object was to produce in Montreal two of the grand musical productions with first class soloists, choir and orchestra, after the manner of the great English festivals.

The name of the “Montreal Philharmonic” appeared on December 17, 1877, on the first programme of the new combination, at the concert held in the Academy of Music, then new. Its first president and conductor was Dr. McLagan, who was followed in 1879 by Mr. F.E. Lucy-Barnes, and by Mr. Couture, who undertook his first concert on December 9, 1880, and who directed his large choirs, averaging two hundred and fifty voices, till the lapse of the Philharmonic in 1899. From its inception most of the great oratorios including the works of Wagner were excellently rendered, supplemented by the Boston Symphony Orchestra and others of a continental reputation. The soloists were the best available artists before the public on the continent, including Emma Thursby, Max Heinrich, Prehn, W. Ludwig, W.H. Regia, Emma Juch, Martens, Conrad Behrens, Emma Poole King, Frangcon Davies, Irene Devny, Etalka Gerster and others, the work of inviting these falling for the last eleven years on the secretary, Mr. Arthur H. Browning. The presidents of the association have been Messrs. Arthur W. Perkins, Hector McKenzie, Angus W. Hooper and Charles Cassels.

Since the cessation of these associations, which fell because of insufficient support and suitable concert halls, nothing has replaced them adequately. The most notable body of today is the “Chorale St. Louis de France,” attached to the church of that name. Other churches produce oratorios but without the same resources as the combinations of the past. Although in the more modern city the great European and American soloists are brought there is not the same degree of musical education for the people as in the more quiet and studious times of a quarter of a century ago.

Miller’s Band, attached to the British regiments stationed in Montreal, was a most popular musical institution for many years. It played often at the Viger Gardens and was instrumental in creating a taste for good music among the residents of the city. The band remained here until the military left in the fall of 1869, returning to England with the regiments. After it left, things were somewhat dull in Montreal until a number of the Grand Trunk employees organized a band made up of the musicians of the disbanded regiments who preferred to stay in Montreal rather than go back to England. The conductor was a man named Zeiglar. Early in the ’70s the Boston Symphony Orchestra began to come and small opera troupes of Italian singers about the same time who gave concerts in the Mechanics’ Hall. Christine Neilson was heard in the Victoria Skating Rink.

[366]

In 1871, a season of grand opera was given in Montreal by Sig. Enrico Corana, the company including the following stars: Madame Elena Corani, Madle, Caterani Lami, Sigs. Pietro Baccei, G. Reina, G. Pauliny, Nicolini and Nicolao. The operas included Donizetti’s Lucretia Borgia and Flotow’s Martha, but it was not until about four years ago that a full season was given in the city by the Montreal Grand Opera Company which, after running two seasons, was disbanded because of the great financial deficit. It was found that to make grand opera pay in Montreal a much larger theatre was required to hold a sufficiently big audience to pay for the elaborate production required today. Practically every modern musical genius of the world has visited Montreal and since orchestral music has taken hold of the public, both New York and Boston having sent their best organizations to the city.

The bands attached to the four local regiments and the St. Louis Cadets are well trained musicians who periodically, but not often, give concerts in the parks of the city. A number of private bands, both orchestral and military are also doing good work.

Educationally Montreal has made great advances in music during this last ten years. McGill University has added to its curriculum courses in instrumental and vocal music through its Conservatorium of Music, under the directorship of Doctor Perrin (late organist of Canterbury Cathedral, England) and gives degrees to its successful pupils, and both the Royal Academy of Music and the London College of Music have branches in the city.

But for a large city, where there is as much instrumental talent, there is a singular lack of orchestral entertainment for the public. The appetite for culture grows on what it feeds; the food being scanty the growth is small.

NEWSPAPERS—MONTREAL HISTORIES

The newspapers and periodicals of a city being among the chief means of popular education and also a running historical commentary of the times, a brief synopsis of the present situation may now be given:

At present there are the following newspapers:

ENGLISH

The Gazette, originally published by Fleury Mesplet in French on June 3, 1778, under the title of “Gazette der Commerce et Littéraire.”

(The Quebec Gazette appeared in French and English from June 21, 1764, to October 30, 1874.) The Gazette in Montreal quickly became English. Curiously enough there have been others of the same name. There was the Montreal Gazette, started on August 3, 1795, published by Edwards in both languages, till 1801. Another of the same name appeared in 1796, by Joseph Roy, but its existence was short.

The Montreal Herald was founded on October 19, 1811, and was printed by William Gray.

The Montreal Evening Star was founded as a daily in 1869 by (Sir) Hugh Graham. (The Weekly Star also appears.)

The Weekly Witness (the sequent of the Montreal Witness) was established as a weekly in 1846 and as a daily in 1860.

MONUMENT TO JACQUES CARTIER, DISCOVERER OF MONTREAL, ERECTED AT ST. HENRI, MONTREAL

[367]

The Weekly Standard appeared first September 23, 1905.

The Daily Mail, published by the Daily Mail Publishing Company, appeared on October 5, 1913.

The Evening News, published by the News Publishing Company at Montreal (M.E. Nichols and B.A. Macnab editors and managers), appeared on May 27, 1914.

Beck’s Weekly, published by Edward Beck, appeared March 21, 1914.

FRENCH

La Patrie was founded on February 24, 1879.

La Presse was founded by T. Berthiaume in 1884. (A paper of the same name appeared with one issue only in the previous year, on May 1st.)

Le Canada was founded in April, 1903.

Le Devoir, founded by Henri Bourassa, appeared first on January 11, 1910. There are also the following weeklies: Le Pays, Le Bullétin, Le Canard (illustrated), La Croix, L’Opinion, Le Prix Courant and Le Samedi.

There are other racial papers, the Jewish Chronicle in English and Der Adler (The Eagle) in Yiddish, and two Italian papers. Commercial Montreal has a daily newspaper under the name of the Journal of Commerce, an amalgamation of the Journal of Commerce, established in 1852, the Shareholder, established in 1856, and the following weeklies: The Financial Times; Trade Bulletin, 1882; Le Moniteur de Commerce, 1880.

There are also published in the city a number of educational, technical, religious and trade periodicals, and the following monthlies: the Canada West Indian Magazine, the Canadian Municipal Journal, La Revue Populaire, La Revue Canadienne, etc.

It would be a fascinating study to pursue the history of defunct newspapers, but, since up to 1904 Dr. Dionne made his abstract of the names and numbers of 800 newspapers, journals, etc., printed at one time or another in French in the Province of Quebec, and 681 in English, of both of which so many have appeared at Montreal, the treatment to be given would outrun this present purpose. The same is to be said of the history of publications of a general character which in 1906 amounted to 2,921 in English and 3,092 in French, registered and published in the Province of Quebec.

Montreal has taken a great part as the publication centre of the above. As, however, the treatment adopted has been the record of institutions rather than personal works, the appreciation of Montreal writers in French and English is here foregone. A note may be placed on our historians.

MONTREAL HISTORIES

The literature of Montreal begins with Jacques Cartier,2 who wrote a full description of his visit to Hochelaga in 1535 and described the people there. The[368] next writer was Samuel de Champlain in the beginning of the seventeenth century, who made his map of the island and described his trading post at Place Royale. After the foundation of Montreal in 1642 the Jesuits in their “Relations” have given us sidelights of its progress and after the coming of the Sulpicians in 1657 and Dollier de Casson, the soldier Sulpician, wrote the first “Histoire de Montreal.” Another contemporary Sulpician of Montreal, the Abbé de Belmont, wrote a history of Canada. The Jesuit Charlevoix, who wrote his history of Canada later, at the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century, penned much of his work at Montreal. Peter Kalm, the Swiss traveller, has left us a valuable picture of 1749. Later writers who have contributed to our knowledge of Montreal are Montcalm and De Levis, the soldiers who had their headquarters in this city and whose letters and journals contain much history leading to the fall of Montreal in 1760.

Under the English rule the French writers, who have contributed to our knowledge of the history of Montreal have been the following: The Montreal historian, Michel Bibaud, who in 1837 published the first volume of his “Histoire du Canada Sous la Domination Française.” Jacques Viger, the first Mayor of Montreal, began publishing his various archaeological and historical studies of the city about 1840. Between 1852 and 1865 the Abbé Fallon published the lives of Marguerite Bourgeoys, Jeanne Mance and Madame d’Youville, and his lengthy work of the “Histoire de La Colonie Française,” which only went as far as 1672 but contains valuable Montreal history. The same is to be said of the history of F.X. Garneau, who, however, is to be more closely connected with Quebec. The Montreal Societe Historique and the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society have each produced writers already named who have surveyed Montreal under the historical or archaeological aspect. The “Annuaire de Ville Marie,” by Huguet-Latour, is one of such contributions. A “Histoire Populaire de Montreal” was published by M. le Bloud Brumath in 1890.

With reference to English historians of Montreal outside the fugitive references in works by Heriot, Weld, Lambert and others, no important specific history of the city appeared until “Hochelaga Depicta” by Newton Bosworth in 1839, followed in 1870 by Alfred Sandham’s “Ville Marie, Past and Present,” which later was succeeded by the Rev. J. Bosworth’s Studies of Montreal, the History of Montreal (in 1875), that of the prisons (1886), and others later. In 1887 the Rev. Robert Campbell, D.D., published his History of St. Gabriel Street Church, which was a valuable contribution to the “Scotch” history of the city. “Lights and Shrines” and “Montreal after 250 Years,” appeared by W.D. Lighthall in 1892 to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the city. Terrill’s “Chronology of Montreal and Canada” appeared in 1893. Of late years there have also been several sketches and semi-advertising ventures of a historical nature. In addition there have been numerous gazeteers and studies, in French and English, of Montreal personages, the last to appear being that of the History and Times of George Etienne Cartier by John Boyd.

The occasion of the international war of 1914 affords a suitable opportunity for the publication of the present work, to fill in the gaps left by earlier works on Montreal.

FOOTNOTES:

1 One of the best known of Montreal dramatic writers was Charles Heavysege whose dramas of Saul, Count Felipo and Jeptha’s Daughter, published in the early ’60s, gave him an international reputation.

2 See the History of Montreal, Volume I Under the French Regime. (1535-1914.)

[369]

### CHAPTER XXX

NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE POPULATION

1834, THE YEAR OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST NATIONAL SOCIETIES.

ST. JEAN BAPTISTE ASSOCIATION—REORGANIZATION IN 1843—THE “MONUMENT NATIONAL”—EDUCATION AND SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS—THE FRENCH-CANADIAN SPIRIT—PRESIDENTS.

ST. GEORGE’S SOCIETY—A CELEBRATION IN 1821—OBJECT—EARLIEST OFFICERS—THE HISTORY OF ST. GEORGE’S HOME—PRESIDENTS.

ST. ANDREW’S SOCIETY—ORGANIZATION AND FIRST OFFICERS—JOINT PROCESSIONS OF NATIONAL SOCIETIES—EARLIEST CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES—THE HEALTH OF THE POPE—THE LORD ELGIN INCIDENT—THE CRIMEAN WAR—SUBSCRIPTION TO A PATRIOTIC FUND—THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HOME BEGINS—THE HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW’S HALL—CONDOLENCE ON DEATH OF D’ARCY MCGEE—PRESIDENTS.

ST. PATRICK’S SOCIETY—ORIGINALLY NON-DENOMINATIONAL—EARLY PRESIDENTS—THE REORGANIZATION IN 1856—FIRST OFFICERS—FIRST SOIREE—FIRST ANNIVERSARY DINNER—NATIONAL SOCIETIES PRESENT—THE TOASTS—IRISH COMPANIES IN CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION—IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION—T. D’ARCY M’GEE—EMIGRATION WORK—ST. PATRICK’S HALL—PRESIDENTS.

IRISH PROTESTANT BENEVOLENT SOCIETY—EARLY MEMBERS—WORKS—PRESIDENTS.

GERMAN SOCIETY—HISTORY AND PRESIDENTS.

WELSH SOCIETY—ORIGINALLY THE “WELSH UNION OF MONTREAL”—AFTERWARD—ITS OBJECT—PRESIDENTS.

NEWFOUNDLAND SOCIETY—ORIGIN—PRESIDENTS.

THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT—- THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.

OTHER NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CENSUS OF POPULATION FOR 1911.

The history of the diverse elements of the population may be best told through that of their representative national societies. About 1834 the peculiar political crisis through which the country was passing turned the thoughts of the racial leaders of the various component parts of the city towards self-preservation. Politically there were the two camps, the Anglo-Saxon Community and the Franco-Canadians. Already there was in existence for the Anglo-Canadian party the “Constitutional Association,” but this was not felt to be adequate without the additional strength of strictly national societies on patriotic lines. Hence the[370] St. George’s, St. Patrick’s, St. Andrew’s and the German Societies were formed almost simultaneously. Racially the motive of self-preservation was stimulated by the necessity of meeting the needs of the now increasing flow of immigrants from their respective fatherlands, who looked for some institution to give them a welcoming hand on reaching the city. The association of St. Jean Baptiste representing French Canadian interests had the same dual object, fraternity and benevolence, and the charters of all resemble one another very much in this last respect. Latterly other associations have been formed and cooperate in the welfare of the city. All of these associations representing the diverse sections of the community, are in harmony with one another and preserve the principles of “Concordia Salus.”

ST. JEAN BAPTISTE SOCIETY

The basis of the association of St. Jean Baptiste was laid by Ludger Duvernay on June 24, 1834, in the critical period when the seeds were being sown to fructify in the years of rebellion of 1837-38. The date named was the occasion of a banquet which was held in Mr. John McDonnell’s garden on St. Antoine Street, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Jacques Viger, then mayor of Montreal. The basis of a French Canadian National Society was then laid. The ends of the society were to unite all French Canadians for fraternal purposes, for union, and for the promotion of the national and industrial interests of all French Canadians and the members of the Association in particular. The annual subscriptions were to be employed in works of beneficence, assisting members affected by adversity or sickness, and burying those who died in poverty.

The sorrows of 1837 suspended the annual celebration of the national fête and, owing to the exile of M. Ludger Duvernay and several of the others who had been proscribed, the work of reorganization did not recommence until the former’s return in 1842. On June 9, 1843, the first general assembly met for reorganization in a hall in St. Ann’s market, under the chairmanship of the Hon. D.B. Viger, with George Etienne Cartier as secretary.

The city was divided into four sections for the operation of their works of beneficence. Each section was to have, subject to annual elections, three vice presidents, a treasurer, two secretaries and four teachers. In addition the association was to have the following officers elected annually: A president, four vice presidents, a treasurer, four secretaries, four teachers and a “commissaire ordinateur.” The minutes of this meeting of 1843 reveal the following elections:

1. Section de La Ville (embracing the limits of the city as then known).

President: The Hon. D.B. Viger.

Vice Presidents: Joseph Roy, E.R. Fabre, James McGill Desrivières, Jean Bruneau.

General Treasurer: Joseph Boulanger.

Secretaries: Joseph Belle, L.O. Lamoureux, M. Martel C. Roy.

Commissaire Ordonnateur: General manager, Ludger Duvernay.

2. Section St. Antoine (comprising St. Ann, St. Joseph and St. Antoine suburbs and the adjoining districts).

Vice Presidents: John Donegani, E.M. Leprohon, O. Frechette.

Treasurer: Damase Masson.

Secretary: Agapit Morin.

[371]

3. Section St. Laurent (comprising the St. Lawrence suburb and adjoining district).

Vice Presidents: Augustin Perrault, Joseph Vallée, Fleury St. Jean.

Treasurer: Meneclier de Monochon.

Secretaries: A. Gauthier, M. Pommainville.

4. Ste. Marie (comprising the St. Louis and Quebec suburbs and the adjoining districts).

Vice Presidents: L.M. Viger, Joseph Grenier, Pierre Damour.

Treasurer: Louis Boyer.

Secretaries: J.P.A. Poitras, C.A. Leblanc.

In addition a general committee was appointed for the association of the following: Joseph Bourret, C.S. Cherrier, B.H. LeMoyne, A.M. Deslisle, Jacques Viger, P. Beaubien, C.S. Rodier, G.E. Cartier, J.D. Bernard, John Jordan, P. Lacombe, François Perrin, O. Berthelet, J.G. Barthe, A. Laframboise, John McDonnell, Louis Comte, J.A. Berthelet, N. Dumas, J.A. Labadie, P. Jodoin, R. Trudeau, J.L. Beaudry, Hubert Lepage.

THE OLD BANK OF MONTREAL. AFTERWARDS THE BANQUE DU PEUPLE.

The above picture was taken in 1872 by W. Raphael and represents a St. Jean Baptiste procession. The “Flaxman” bas reliefs on the exterior are now inserted in the portion of the present General Post Office, which marks the old site of the above bank.

On the 24th of June of the following year, 1844, the feast of St. Jean Baptiste, the national fête, was celebrated in the manner now customary, a solemn high mass at Notre Dame Parish Church was followed by an imposing procession and succeeded by patriotic discourses on love of country and brotherhood. The association has continued with success to the present day.1

Some of the developments of the association may be recorded.

In 1873 Mr. L.O. David took the lead in inviting the French National Societies of Canada and the United States to join that of the St. Jean Baptiste Society at Montreal on the 24th of June of 1874 in a striking demonstration. This was realized. It was the occasion of many fruitful ideas for further development which were to bear fruit in time. Thus when there was question in 1884 of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary, Mr. L.O. David proposed the foundation of a national headquarters for French-Canadians. As a result land was bought for the purpose at the corner of Craig and Gosford streets, and the celebration of the 24th of June, 1884, included the laying of a foundation stone of the new building. Financial difficulties delayed further progress, but in 1886 Dr. E.P. Lachapelle, the president, took up the project anew. In the following year Mr. L.O. David, who was a member of the legislative assembly at Quebec, obtained a new charter and prevailed upon the Mercier government to give $10,000 for the construction of the building. Further money was raised by bazaars, concerts and by shares, till the money reached the round sum of $50,000. In 1890 the land on the present site of the “Monument National” was purchased on St. Lawrence Main Street. The foundations of the edifice were laid in the spring of 1901 and the work was completed in 1903. The name desired by its founders was the “Académie Nationale,” but popular desire centered on “Monument National” as the name which best expressed the demonstration of the sentiment of French-Canadian patriotism underlying the movement. Before completion, the cost of the building, apart from the purchase money for the site, rose to $200,000. The resources of the [372]financial committee and of the two treasurers of the association, MM. A.S. Hamelin and J.C. Beauchamp, were highly taxed for a long period. It will be seen that in the early conception of the functions of the association popular education held a foremost part, hence the constitutions provided for “Precépteurs.” The first move, therefore, was to establish the public free courses in instruction which are maintained today with such efficiency of development.

The following courses were first instituted: Mines and metallurgy; industrial mechanics; architecture and building; electricity; universal history; commerce; elocution; agriculture and colonization; and Grammaire Parlée. A dramatic section to promote a taste for the purity of French was early added and under the name of “Soirée de famille” represented most of the masterpieces of the French drama. These are now discontinued, the movement being taken up elsewhere, but the courses have been continually improved and modernized to meet the requirements of the hour. The association has pioneered many progressive educational movements.

At present it is concentrating its attention on the amelioration of the social conditions of the French-Canadian population. In 1912 it played a leading part in the organization of the very successful Child Welfare exhibition, the first of its kind in Canada. The seal of the association “Rendre le peuple meilleur” indicates its national scope. The chief philanthropic work of a national description, founded by the association about 1899, has been the “Caisse Nationale d’Economie,” by which, through the means of an annual subscription and slight monthly payments, a system of old-age pensions or funds to meet emergencies of disablement has been elaborated and has proved wonderfully successful under the management of Mr. Arthur Gagnon.

Outside the material and intellectual functions indicated, the aim of the association has always been the preservation of the French-Canadian spirit. An extract from a speech delivered on the occasion of a St. Jean Baptiste day celebration about 1901, by the Hon. Israël Tarte, then minister of public works, will indicate this: “This manifestation,” he said, “of our patriotism cannot surely cause umbrage to our fellow citizens of diverse national origin surrounding us. Moreover our enemies are becoming scarcer. Today the assimilation of races is out of the question. No one any longer dreams of it, for the assimilation would deprive the country of a stimulus of the first importance, an interesting characteristic. It would cause the healthy (bien entendu) rivalry to disappear between the two races in the domain of study, the arts, commerce, industry and all that appertains to the intellectual and material advancement of our beautiful country. I am a partisan of the union of hearts and minds for the development of our Canadian, fatherland. Whatever the language we speak, whatever the altar we kneel at in prayer and adoration to God, we ought all to practice the cult of country. The English represent the genius of commerce, the art of making a fortune, the distinctive characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon race. We, on this continent, represent some of the virtues which have distinguished the French race from all time, generosity, the love of belles lettres and of good taste and Gallic gaiety and enthusiasm which are the heritage of France and have been the inspiring cause of so many noble actions inscribed in the annals of history.” In conclusion he said:[373] “I know no country more beautiful than our own; I know no happier people in the world than the French-Canadians: remain such! Let us proclaim it on high, for our race is the equal of any at present existing under the sun. There is my last word.”

The original charter has been modified.

In 1903, on St. Jean Baptiste day, a national religious banner was adopted, recalling the memories of Carillon. It has a blue background, fleurdelisé, and bearing a large white cross with the emblem of the Sacred Heart in the middle of maple leaves. This was prepared by the Rev. E. Filiatrault and adopted by many of St. Jean Baptiste Association. It was a protest against those who, while desiring a flag to recall their French origin and their national sentiments, had used the tri-colored flag of modern France faute de mieux, although the ideas conveyed by it did not represent the ancient regime under which the French-Canadians had sprung. The fleur de lys of the past represents the sentiment of their descendants today, rather than does the modern tri-color.

The list of presidents contains many distinguished names.

1834 | Jacques Viger
1843-44 | Hon. D.B. Viger
1845 | Hon. M. Masson
1846-47 | Hon. A.M. Morin
1848-49 | Hon. M. Bourret
1850 | E.R. Fabre
1851-52 | Ludger Duvernay
1853 | C.S. Cherrier
1854-55 | Sir G.E. Cartier
1856-57 | J.B. Meilleur
1858 | Damase Masson
1859 | Dr. P. Beaubien
1860 | Hon. J.A. Quesnel
1861 | R. Trudeau
1862 | Hon. de Beaujeu
1863 | Olivier Berthelet
1864 | T. Bouthillier
1865-66 | Hon. P.J.O. Chauveau
1867-68 | C.E. Leblanc
1869-70 | Hon. G. Ouimet
1871 | C.S. Rodier
1872-73 | Hon. J. Coursol
1874 | Sir A.A. Dorion
1875 | Jacques Grenier
1876 | Louis Archambault
1877-78 | T.P. Rottot
1879 | Hon. J.B. Rolland
1880 | Hon. T.J.D. Loranger
1881 | N. Bourassa
1882 | Hon. L. Beaubien
1883 | Jérémie Perrault
1884 | Hon. T.J.D. Loranger
1885-86 | A. Ouimet
1887 | E.P. Lachapelle
1888-94 | L.O. David
1895-98 | Honorable Loranger
1899-1903 | Hon. F.L. Beique
1905 | H. Laporte
1907-10 | J.C. Beauchamp
1910 | Thomas Gauthier
1912 | Olivar Asselin

ST. GEORGE’S NATIONAL SOCIETY

St. George’s National Society became such in 1834. But previously Englishmen good and true had rallied together on St. George’s day years before. The following account of a celebration in 1821 will therefore be interesting:

“Monday last being the day consecrated to the titular Saint of old England, and, what bestows on it nearly as great a distinction, being that appointed for the celebration of our most gracious Sovereign’s Nativity, a royal salute was at one o’clock fired on the Champ de Mars by the troops in Garrison, and a holiday was observed at both the Banks. (Montreal Bank, and Bank of Canada.)

“In the evening, natives of the Mistress of the Ocean joined at the Neptune[374] Inn, when the evening was passed in social festivity in the expression of the loyal sentiments stamped in the bosom of every Briton, in toasts to the prosperity of the British Empire, and to the happiness of the illustrious family at its head.

“The dinner given at the Neptune Inn, kept by Geo. Casser, situate at the corner of St. Joseph Street, (now St. Sulpice) opposite the Montreal Steamboat landing place, was an excellent one provided for the occasion, to which the Sons of St. George, in large numbers, sat down precisely at 5 o’clock p. m.

“The utmost harmony and decorum prevailed throughout. A transparent painting ‘Combating the Dragon,’ done by Mr. Thomas Honey, was among the most conspicuous decorations of the room. In the course of the evening, when the circling glass had excited a high degree of hilarity, the gaiety of the moment was increased by a few well-selected songs accompanied by appropriate and patriotic toasts, among which the following few were given and received with enthusiasm:—The King, God bless him; Queen Caroline; The Duke of York and the Royal Family; England and the Day we celebrate; Our worthy Governor, the Earl of Dalhousie; Sir Peregrine Maitland and our Sister Province (Upper Canada); Lady Dalhousie and the Canadian Fair; may the Rose, Thistle and Shamrock ever entwine; the Duke of Wellington and the Army of Great Britain; Capt. Byner and our Navy; Trade and prosperity to the Canadas; Colonel De Salaberry and the surviving heroes of Chateauguay; Colonel Burer and the Garrison of Montreal; May the seeds of dissention never find growth in the soil of Great Britain; the immortal memory of Nelson (in silence); Colonel Morrison and the surviving heroes of Chrysler’s farm; Captain Broke and the surviving tars of the ‘Shannon’; the liberal heart that gives, and the tender heart that forgives; may the sins of our forefathers descend upon our foes; firmness in the Senate, valour in the field and fortitude on the waves; The Constitution of Great Britain—a pattern to the world.

“At a late hour the company separated, highly gratified with their entertainment.”

Although therefore Britishers had naturally, since the beginning of the English régime often combined, the St. George’s National Society as such was also born at a time when racial feeling ran high, and preceded the rebellion of 1837, being founded in 1834. Its first quarterly meeting was held on January 10, 1835, with a membership of forty-eight. On the cover of its first printed constitution and by-laws it is stated that the society was organized in the city of Montreal for the purpose of relieving brethren in distress, and in the introduction thereto feelings are expressed which indicate that the founders were indeed animated by the keenest sympathies and sincerest desires to aid unfortunate English people in the city at the time, expressing sentiments of intense patriotism. In an original introduction, dated December 19, 1834, it can be seen that its intention was to uphold in Canada a union of Britons to cherish in the descendants of Englishmen, Scotchmen and Irishmen born in the colony their veneration for everything British and their attachment for British laws and British rule and of holding out the hand of welcome and of brotherly love and charity to those numerous and frequently distressed countrymen whom the pressure of a superabundant population is annually forcing to emigrate to this distant land.

A pamphlet published in 1855 gives a list of the earliest officers at the foundation of St. George’s Society as follows: President, Hon. George Moffatt; first[375] vice president, George Gregory, Esq.; second vice president, John Molson, Jr., Esq.; treasurer, Frederick Griffin; secretary, Samuel Tubby; assistant secretary, Arthur C. Webster; first physician, Thomas Walter Jones, M.D.; stewards, James Holmes, Edward S. Maitland, Charles Penner, Teavill Appleton, Isaac Valentine, William Snaith; charitable committee, Benjamin Hall, George Weatherel, Henry Corse, John Platt, Turton Penn; committee of accounts, Albert Furness, Benjamin Smith, Joseph Shuter, Hon. G. Moffatt, S. Gerrard, George Gregory, A.H. Griffin, Joseph Shuter, John Molson, Jr., George Crew Davies, H.W. Jackson, Benjamin Hale, W. Badgely, J. Henry Lambe, Edward J.S. Maitland, John P. Ashton, William Bradbury, W. Hall, George Weatherit, H.G. Webster, Chilion Ford, William Sharp, Thomas W. Jones, M.D., Isaac Valentine, Albert Furness, John Platt, Samuel Tubby, Charles B. Radenhurst, F. Griffin, James Duncan Gibb, T. Appleton, William Stephens, Thomas Philips, Hon. John Molson, John Jones, Thomas B. Wragg, Charles Penney, John Carter, Turton Penn, M. Radiger, Benjamin Ansell, James Holmes, William Pring, John Millichap, Henry Dyer, R.H. Hamilton, William Snaith, Henry Corse, Benjamin Smith.

The records of the first twenty years were destroyed by fire. By 1856 it had a membership of 147 and in the year of incorporation, 1861, it was increased to 170. During the presidency of Mr. John Leeming, 1867-8-9, the home on St. Antoine Street was built at a cost of $14,000. The Society has steadily kept to its purpose as a national society and has treated the immigration question theoretically and practically during its long career having demonstrated beyond dispute that the society has lived up to its original principles. In 19—the Society purchased a new home on Lagauchetière and Cathedral streets to meet the increasing demands on its charitable usefulness. It has two days in the year especially observed, that of Christmas eve, when a distribution of good things for the poor takes place, and that of April 23d, the feast of St. George, when conviviality reigns at the annual banquet to which the official representative of the other National Societies is invited.

The following gentlemen have served as president for the Society since its formation:

1834-35-36-37 | The Hon. George Moffat
1838 | The Hon. John Molson
1839-40-41 | The Hon. George Moffat
1842-43 | The Hon. Wm. Badgley
1844-45 | Henry Griffin
1846-47 | Charles Penner
1848 | C.H. Cassels
1849-50 | W.F. Coffin
1851 | John Jones
1852-53 | John Dyde
1854-55 | T. W, Jones, M.D.
1856 | H.H. Whitney
1857 | Henry Bulmer
1858 | James Parkin
1859-60 | Robert Hart Hamilton
1861 | John Lewis
1862-63 | The Hon. George Moffat
1864-65-66 | J.J. Day, Q.C.
1867-68-69 | John Leeming
1870-71 | W.H. Clare
1872-73 | C.J. Brydges
1874-75 | Nathan Mercer
1876-77-78 | John Kerry
1879-80 | Edward Rawlings
1881-82 | T.H. Hodgson
1883-84-85 | The Hon. J.K. Ward
1886-87 | W.D. Stroud
1888-89 | J.H. Redfern
1890-91 | C.P. Sclater
1892-93 | F. Stancliffe[376]
1894-95 | F. Wolferstan Thomas
1896-97 | Joseph Richards
1898-99 | William Nivin
1900-01-02 | H.A. Hodgson
1903-04 | A.W. Grant
1905-06 | A.W. Abater
1907 | R.S. Clift
1908 | W.H. Trenholme
1909 | R. Meredith
1910 | James Mitchell
1911 | James Mitchell
1912 | Robert Beckerdike
1913 | F.W. Mitchell
1914 | C A. Jacques

ST. ANDREW’S SOCIETY

Scotchmen have ever been clannish. They early formed their Scotch church on St. Gabriel’s Street and were a distinct national factor in the community, as the lists of names of the North West Company will attest, but their National Association, St. Andrew’s Society, arose thus:

On Monday, December 1, 1834, upwards of one hundred leading Scotchmen met at the Albion Hotel in the rear of the theatre to celebrate St. Andrew’s day, the ecclesiastical feast having been celebrated on the Sabbath previously. During the dinner, in consequence of strong national feeling, it was resolved to form a national society for fraternity and benevolence. The stewards of this meeting met on January 17th and a sub-committee of Messrs. Adam Ferrie, William Ritchie, William Edmonstone, Archibald Hume, Robert Armour, Jr., and William Wilson, Jr., was appointed to draw up a constitution. That of St. Andrew’s Society of New York became the model. A general gathering of the Scotch of the town was then called to attend a meeting in the North West building on St. Gabriel Street on the 6th of February, 1835. The chair was taken by the Hon. Peter McGill and a constitution was adopted. On March 9th a meeting was held in Mr. John Fisher’s premises on St. Paul Street, when the following office bearers were elected to serve till November 30, 1835: President, Hon. Peter McGill; first vice president, Adam Ferrie; second vice president, John Boston; treasurer, Charles Tait; secretary, William Edmonstone; chairman committee of management, J. Redpath.

The members in the first year numbered nearly three hundred. One of the first public acts of the association was to accept the invitation of the German Society to march in procession with them, and St. George’s and St. Patrick’s societies, to the Protestant Episcopal church on August 3d, it being “their anniversary.”

At this time an arrangement was entered into by these four national societies for a general procession on each national festival day. At the anniversary meeting of November 30th, held in the morning, the Earl of Selkirk was, at his own request, proposed and elected a life member. The society, followed by the other national societies, then marched to St. Gabriel’s Church, where the sermon was preached by the Reverend Mr. Esson. In the evening the banquet took place at Rasco’s Hotel, when 150 members and guests dined together. The annual dinner and the public procession of November 30, 1837, were omitted, this being the year of the civil rebellion of which the first act took place on November 6th, in[377] the collision of “Fils de la Liberté” and the British residents of Montreal. The members of St. Andrew’s Society being all Loyalists, were immediately put under arms and performed military duty. At the magistrates’ request that the usual procession should be omitted in the disturbed portion of the country and in the excited state of the public mind, this was done, but it was hoped to hold the annual dinner. This was also found impossible, since on account of the regular military being withdrawn from the city, most of the members were on guard. About thirty, however, made arrangements for supper, at Orr’s Hotel, which took place.

Although another rebellion broke out on November 3, 1838, much less danger was anticipated, so the anniversary festival was observed, both with a procession and the annual dinner, but after the commencement of the rebellion of 1837 the custom of the national association of joining in each other’s anniversary processions was discontinued.

At the quarterly meeting of February, 1839, the Right Reverend Mr. McDonnell, Roman Catholic bishop of Kingston, was elected an honorary member.

In 1841, the first opportunity was offered of assisting destitute Scotchmen, outside the city. In September an application from Mr. Morris, president of the emigrant association of the district of St. Francis, applied for pecuniary aid for a body of 229 utterly destitute immigrants recently arrived from the island of Lewis (Scotland). A collection of £234 14s. 6d. was accordingly forwarded. The following year relief was granted to the Rev. John Taylor of Lachine to assist the Scotch immigrants who survived the very sad accident on Lake St. Louis when a small high pressure steamer, called the “Shamrock,” having burst her boiler shortly after leaving Lachine, sank almost immediately on account of the force of the steam which blew the bow completely out of the boat. Another opportunity for developing their charitable work was afforded in 1846 when, owing to the severity of this winter, a special collection was taken up to relieve the necessities of the poor. The Society identified itself with public movements thus:

On the 8th of August it took part on the Champ de Mars in the celebration of the opening of the Atlantic Railway, and in 1847 the Society joined the other national societies in a procession in honour of the entry of the Earl of Elgin into Montreal as governor-general on the 29th of January.

The relations of St. Andrew’s with others of diverse national origin have always been cordial.

On the 11th of February resolutions were passed to open a subscription for the destitute inhabitants of the Highlands of Scotland, while another read “that this meeting deeply sympathizes with the distress caused by famine in Ireland as well as that affecting their own native land, and are ready to admit that next to the claims of their own countrymen the poor of Ireland have the greatest right to consideration, yet in the belief that more money will be raised by two separate committees than by a united one, as proposed, they recommend that this junction be not entered into.”

At the annual banquet held at Donegana’s Hotel, among the guests were the Hon. A.N. Morin, president of St. Jean Baptiste’s Association, His Worship, the Mayor, the Hon. Messrs. Molson and Badgeley, both past presidents of St. George’s Society, thus showing that the racial hatchet was being buried.

The following record throws an interesting sidelight on the political state of the country and the keen interest which public events evoked: In 1849, at a[378] special meeting held April 28th, three days after the signing of the Rebellion Losses bill by Lord Elgin, under the presidency of Mr. Hugh Allan with seventy-one members present, Mr. Andrew McGill moved the following resolution which, having been seconded by Mr. Robert Esdaile, was put to the meeting from the chair and unanimously adopted:

“Resolved, That the Earl of Elgin, having so conducted himself as to insult and outrage the feelings of every British subject in Canada, and to disgrace the Scottish name, this society with the deepest regret considers him unworthy to continue longer its patron and that he be, therefore, from henceforth, removed from that office.”

John Boston, Esq., having entered the room and finding that the previous resolution had been carried, left the meeting. Mr. John Auld, seconded by Mr. George Macrae, moved the following resolution which was unanimously adopted:

“Resolved, That the name of the Earl of Elgin be erased from the list of honorary members of St. Andrew’s Society.”

Mr. E.P. Taylor, seconded by Mr. John Armour, submitted the following resolution, which was also unanimously adopted:

“Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to intimate the above resolutions to his Lordship.”

In preparation for the annual banquet of 1850 the office bearers resolved by a majority to omit from the list of toasts “the governor general.” In consequence as the presence of the band of the Twentieth Regiment had been previously sanctioned for the occasion, its commander, Lieut.-Col. Frederick Horn, countermanded the permission. At a subsequent meeting of office bearers it was resolved to place on the programme the toast of the governor general, though the services of the band were not required. This year the annual banquet was held at Corse’s Hotel on St. James Street, the governor general’s toast being received with groans, hisses, reversing of glasses and other marks of disapprobation. In 1851 a significant resolution proposed by Mr. Edmonstone and seconded by Mr. Alexander reads: “That those who had left the society from conscientious scruples and who might wish to join again be readmitted without entrance fee.” This was carried unanimously.

Not only politics but religious matters were serious matters at this period.

A more pleasing incident is the following:

At a special meeting called on November 15, 1852, to consider what part the society should take in the approaching funeral solemnities of the late Duke of Wellington, it was unanimously resolved:

“That the St. Andrew’s Society as a society do proceed, with their banners and badges, with their brethren of St. George’s Society to the Cathedral.”

In November, 1854, during the Crimean war, the Society raised a subscription for the widows and orphans of those “who may fall during the present war.” Out of sympathy the annual social gathering was omitted, the amount to be devoted to the patriotic fund. This reached the sum of £305 15s. 2d. (equal to £372 0s. 1d. currency).

The history of St. Andrew’s Home is now to be told.

On April 24, 1857, a committee reported that the experiment of maintaining a home for emigrants and other homeless Scots had been successfully tried for six months in Hermine Street, a house having been rented for the purpose. The[379] lease of a house was taken on St. George Street for seven years. This home was opened on June 11th, Mr. Norman Macdonald being appointed the first superintendent. In the same month, the new St. Andrew’s Home received seventy-six of the survivors of the steamer “Montreal,” burned at the water’s edge opposite Cape Rouge on the way from Quebec, out of whose 450 passengers 320 were Scotch. A subscription was raised by the committee of £1,182 5s. 11d. The disaster caused deepest sympathy and cooperation in Montreal’s ever charitable circles. It was one of the disasters of this terrible year of 1857. The social event of the year was omitted and the money devoted to the enlargement of the home.

Meanwhile other Scotch societies were growing up. On September 1, 1858, the mayor having requested the different national societies in the city to join a procession to commemorate the successful laying of the Atlantic telegraph cable, the Society marched to the Champ de Mars, accompanied by the Caledonians and Thistle societies, which had grown up of recent years. The “Burns” Society being then organized, it was agreed that the St. Andrew’s Society should cooperate with it in the celebration of Burns’ centenary.

The next events chronologically are:

In 1859 the Society assisted the people of the townships of Bruce and Kinloss, C.W., distressed by the failure of their crops. On August 25, 1860, the society joined in the procession in honour of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, on the occasion of his arrival in Montreal. A committee of ladies was appointed on November 16, 1861, to cooperate with the charitable committee in the management of St. Andrew’s Home. The Hon. Mrs. Rollo was appointed its president. On December 1, 1862, the thanks of the committee were given to Miss Edmonstone, of Scotland, for twenty-five years’ supply of heather on St. Andrew’s day. On September 22, 1863, the secretary was instructed to subscribe $25 to the funds of the House of Industry and Refuge, so as to secure for St. Andrew’s Society the privilege of electing a representative in this governorship. Mr. J.C. Becket was so chosen. A committee was held on January 18, 1864, to confer with the St. George’s and the Irish Protestant Benevolent Societies regarding a proposal to establish a United Protestant Immigration Home. In April, 1866, $2,000 having been subscribed for a St. Andrew’s Home on Dorchester Street, arrangements were made for completing the deed.

St. Andrew’s Society has wide sympathies, as the following will show:

In April, 1868, at a special general meeting, the following resolutions, moved by T.K. Ramsay, seconded by Andrew Wilson, were passed:

“That the members of St. Andrew’s Society of Montreal have learned with deep regret of the death of Hon. Thomas D’Arcy McGee by assassination.”

Moved by Mr. McKay, seconded by A. McGibbon:

[380]

“That the St. Andrew’s Society, feeling their deep obligation to the late T.D. McGee for his many acts of kindness, deem the present a suitable occasion to acknowledge the same, as well as their utter abhorrence of the dastardly deed by which the Dominion and the world have lost one of our most enlightened philanthropic and able statesmen, our national and benevolent societies a liberal contributor and a respected family its loving and affectionate head, desire to mingle their sympathy with the entire Dominion who mourn his death, and would offer the widow and bereaved family cordial and deep sympathy for their irreparable loss.”

Moved by Mr. McLennan, seconded by Mr. Burnett:

“That in order to show the appreciation of this society of Mr. McGee’s worth as a public man and a statesman, and their gratitude for the sympathy and assistance he extended to it on so many occasions, it was resolved that this society do attend his funeral in a body, wearing suitable mourning badges.”

In May, 1869, on the occasion of the departure from the city of the Seventy-eighth Highlanders, an address was presented to Lieutenant Colonel Mackenzie and his men. The St. Andrew’s Society and the Caledonia Society, the latter having since its formation about 1855 been closely connected with the National Society, sent addresses to England on the happy marriage of Princess Louise Caroline Alberta with the Marquis of Lorne. On the occasion of the destruction of St. Patrick’s Hall by fire a resolution was passed on November 7th, sympathizing with St. Patrick’s Society.

In February, 1873, funeral of Sir George Etienne Cartier was attended by the body as a National Society. On November 2, 1876, a resolution was passed “that the annual procession on St. Andrew’s day be discontinued.”

The history of “St. Andrew’s Ball” may now be told:

In 1878 the presence of the new governor general, the son of MacCallain More, His Excellency, the Marquis of Lorne, and his royal consort, Princess Louise, was the occasion of a brilliant ball on St. Andrew’s day in the Windsor Hotel. As the annual St. Andrew’s ball has become one of the great social events of the city we may chronicle that the first quadrille was formed as follows:

- His Excellency and Lady Macdonald,
- Lieutenant-Colonel Stevenson and H.R.H. the Princess,
- Captain Charter, A.D.C., and Lady Sophia MacNamara,
- Hon. T. Harbord, A.D.C., and Hon. Mrs. Moreton,
- Colonel McNeil and Miss Dow,
- Hon. M. Moreton and Miss Gordon,
- Mr. Hector Mackenzie and Mrs. Daglish,
- Mr. McCrae, Q.C., and Mrs. Hickson,
- Mr. J. Johnson and Mrs. Ewing,
- Hugh McKay and Mrs. Rose.

The Scotch reel was then danced by His Excellency and Miss Ogilvie and afterwards with Miss McGibbon, while the Princess danced the reel with Mr. Ewan McLennan, the president. The ladies who had the honor of dancing with His Excellency were: Lady Macdonald, Miss Ogilvie, Miss Allan, Miss Greenshields, Miss Campbell, Miss McFarlane, Miss Robertson and Miss McGibbon.

In 1881 the Society adopted a revised constitution. In 1883 an address was presented to His Excellency, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Governor-General, on his first visit to Montreal. The year 1887 saw the completion of the purchase of the Gould property on Mountain Street from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for $22,500, as the site of the new St. Andrew’s Home. The same year an address was presented for the Society to Queen Victoria on her Jubilee by the Reverend Dr. Barclay, who had the honour to be commanded to preach at Balmoral on June 12th. As Her Majesty was ill the petition was presented through the ordinary official channel. On September 28, 1893, an address of welcome[381] was presented to the governor general, Lord Aberdeen, and Lady Aberdeen on the occasion of their first visit to the city. St. Andrew’s day, 1895, saw a return after twelve years to the banquet instead of the annual ball. In 1896 McDonald Campbell, the chairman of the charitable committee, died, having been preceded in 1895 by the decease of his wife. For over a quarter of a century these two had faithfully managed the “Home.” The annual ball was revived in 1896.

The death of Queen Victoria in January, 1901, caused the loyal Scots of Montreal to send a resolution of sympathy to His Majesty, Edward VII. On the occasion of the official visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall to the city in the fall of the same year, the Society erected a grandstand and a triumphal arch in the Scottish baronial style. In June, 1902, an address was forwarded to King Edward on the occasion of his coronation. At the annual ball the governor general, Lord Minto, and the Countess of Minto were present.

During the last decade the Society has continued to carry on its various works and public functions so happily inaugurated as described.

The past presidents of St. Andrew’s Society have been:

1835-41 | Hon. Peter McGill
1841-43 | Sheriff John Boston
1844-45 | Hon. Peter McGill
1846 | Hon. William Morris
1847 | Hon. James Ferrier
1848-49 | Sir Hugh Allan
1850 | William Edmonstone
1851 | James Gilmour
1852-54 | Hon. John Rose (afterwards Sir John Rose, Bart.)
1855-56 | William Murray
1857-58 | Alexander Morris
1859-60 | John Greenshields
1861 | David Brown
1862-63 | Hon. James Ferrier
1864-65 | Hon. John Young
1866 | J.C. Becket
1867 | Walter Macfarlan
1868-69 | Andrew Robertson
1870 | Hon. A.W. Ogilvie, M.P.P.
1871-72 | Alexander McGibbon
1873-74 | Sir Alexander T. Galt
1875 | David Mackay
1876-77 | Ewan McLennan
1879 | Lieut.-Col. A.A. Stevenson
1879 | John C. Watson
1880 | Hugh Mackay
1881 | James Stewart
1882 | George Macrae, Q.C.
1883-84 | W.W. Ogilvie
1885-86 | Hugh McLennan
1887-88 | R.B. Angus
1889-90 | Sir Donald A. Smith (afterwards Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, G.C.M.G.)
1891-92 | Duncan McIntyre
1893-94 | Hon. Robert Mackay
1895-96 | Donald Macmaster, K.C. (M.P. England)
1897-98 | Hugh Paton
1899-1900 | James Stewart, M.P.
1901-02 | A.F. Riddell
1903 | Principal William Peterson, C.M.G.
1904-06 | W.M. Ramsay
1907-08 | Charles Cassils
1909-10 | Lieut.-Col. Robert Gardner
1911-12 | Sir Hugh Montagu Allan, C.V.O.
1913 | Farquhar Robertson (present president)

ST. PATRICK’S SOCIETY

St. Patrick’s Society was originally organized in 1834 as a society for benevolent and national purposes and included Irishmen of all religious denominations.[382] At the time of its formation Irishmen were beginning to be a force in the community and the mention of the names of J. Holmes, William Workman, and Sir Francis Hincks bears this out.

The records of the transactions of this period until 1856 and long after are not to be found, but other information of the year 1856 is ample and enables us to trace the separation of the joint association into two, the St. Patrick’s Society of today and the Irish Protestant Benevolent Association.

The events leading to the reorganization of St. Patrick’s Society are as follows:

On February 12, 1856, a special meeting of the Society was held at St. Patrick’s Hall to consider the propriety of dissolving the Society. This was to allow an amalgamation of the Catholic portion of the original St. Patrick’s Society with the Catholic Hibernian Association, thus forming a new St. Patrick’s Society and to allow the Protestant members of the original St. Patrick’s to form one of their own which, in fact, they did, now known as the Irish Protestant Benevolent Society. After a series of resolutions in which there was recognition paid to the fact that the St. Patrick’s Society of Montreal, since it foundation in 1834, had carried out its prime objects according to its constitution, and recognizing that there was a move to allow the formation of other societies which would “embrace elements” now divided and in which jealous feelings would be extinguished amidst conflicting opinions and opposing parties among the Irish inhabitants of this city, it was moved by Mr. James Flynn and seconded by John McCloskey, that consequently this society do now decide to dissolve unequivocally and unreservedly and that on the termination of the proceedings this Society do adjourn sine die. The motion so moved was carried; and an acknowledgement made of the services of W.P. Bartley, Esq., for his conduct as president during the last two years.

Showing how easy was transition from one side to the other, it was moved by James Donnelly and Francis Dolan, recommending “that the paying members of this Society be admitted into the new organization without initiation fees,” and the resolution further expressed a hope that from the dissolution of the present may spring the germ of life of another organization on such a basis that sectional and petty rivalries may be merged.

It is pleasing to note that ever since the separation of St. Patrick’s Society into the two component parts, St. Patrick’s Society and the Irish Benevolent Society, there has never been any rift.

The first officers after reorganization in 1856 were: Henry Howard, president; Hon. Marcus Doherty, first vice president; Thomas McGrath, second vice president; James E. Mullins, treasurer; James Daly, corresponding secretary; Thomas C. Collins, recording secretary; W. Wallace O’Brien, assistant recording secretary; John McDonald, chief marshal; Rev. J.J. Connolly, P.P., chaplain.

The early minutes of St. Patrick’s Society having been burnt in the fires of St. Patrick’s Hall in 1872 we find from other sources that the new St. Patrick’s Society held its first soirée at the latter end of 1856 with the National Benevolent Societies present; it was followed by dancing to an advanced hour. The president was then Doctor Howard.

A meeting was held, February 8, 1857, in the Bishop’s Chapel of the Catholic citizens with the Catholic societies present, when it was moved by Doctor Howard, president of St. Patrick’s Society, and seconded by Mr. John Kelly, to the effect[383] that “in order that the new cathedral may be a monument worthy of the size and wealth of this extensive diocese it should be built so as to meet not only the wants of the diocese, but those which may arise in the future from the rapid and constant increase of the population, both of the city and rural districts.”

On March 17, 1857, at John O’Meara’s Hotel, the first anniversary dinner was held. Presidents of numerous national societies and representatives of the city press were guests. The Hon. Mr. Marcus Doherty was in the chair. The following toasts were proposed: “The Day and All Who Honour It,” “The Pope,” “The Queen,” “The Emperor of France,” “The President of the United States,” “The Preacher of the Day,” “The Army and Navy, as Composed of Saxon and Celt,” “Irishmen at Home and Abroad,” “The Memory of Father Matthew,” “The Memory of O’Connell,” “The Mayor and Corporations,” “The National Association,” “The Press,” and finally “The Ladies.” Between the toast to the President of the United States and the Preacher of the Day the health of the Governor General was proposed and drunk by some of the party present, the “Orange” governor, Sir Edward Head, not being popular.

These were days of bitter animosities which a wiser generation has drowned.

On June 14, 1857, at the Corpus Christi procession, citizens, soldiers of Captains Devlin’s, Bartley’s, Bell’s and Latour’s Volunteer Montreal Rifles Companies, marched with St. Patrick’s Society and St. Jean Baptiste Society.

This was opposed by the Montreal Witness, but answered by the True Witness that it was the custom enjoyed by the French subjects and its legality had been formally recognized by the British government, which till a few years ago furnished in the persons of its soldiers a Guard of Honour for the procession. This is interesting in view of the recent attempt at disallowing the Sixty-fifth Regiment of Militia from continuing the time-honoured custom.

On December 1, 1857, a public meeting of Irish Catholics was held for the election of an Irish representative, being the first movement for such. Doctor Howard took the chair. Marcus Doherty, Esq., barrister, moved that the Irish, according to the last census, were entitled to name one of the three members allowed by law to represent this city in parliament. He was seconded by P. Ronayne. Barney Devlin, Esq., barrister, moved “as the unanimous sense of this meeting Thomas D’Arcy McGee, Esq., be requested to allow himself to be put in nomination as our candidate for Montreal in the approaching contest.” Seconded by Mr. Lanigan. Mr. McGee who had been brought to the city some time before for this purpose and had fulfilled the conditions of domicile was then brought into the room and introduced to the chairman as “our candidate.” Mr. McGee responded with wit and humour and sagacity and was most vociferously cheered. A resolution was moved by Mr. James Sadlier to form a committee to work the wards for the election, which was seconded by Mr. Henry Kavanagh. Mr. Henry Kavanagh was next called to the chair and a vote of thanks was moved to Doctor Howard for his able conduct therein. Seconded by Mr. McGee. The meeting then separated. “On reaching the street they made the welkin ring three times three cheers for ‘our candidate.’” Mr. McGee as told elsewhere was elected.

In later contests he was to be opposed by his proposer, Mr. Devlin, the lively remembrances of which still live.

The True Witness on June 12, 1857, announced an emigrant agency for St.[384] Patrick’s Society opened at 35 Common Street under Doctor McKeon. This work had interested the Society for many years. Hence it is also that it took great interest in the establishment of St. Bridget’s Home and St. Patrick’s Orphanage and other similar charities.

The meeting place of St. Patrick’s Society, according to an advertisement of September 18, 1857, was the new hall on Place d’Armes Hill. The next move was to a hall over Donnelly and O’Brien’s store at the corner of McGill and Recollet streets, with the entrance on Recollet (N). This meeting was on May 3, 1858.

The next meeting place was a room in Bonaventure Hall, built at the northwest corner of St. James Street and Victoria Square, facing the Square. When this building was remodeled under the name of St. James Hotel 2 the Society remained there.

The Coffee House at the northeast corner of Craig and St. Alexander streets was then the meeting place until the new St. Patrick’s Hall was erected at the corner of Craig and McGill streets, facing Victoria Square and bounded on the north by Fortification Lane. It was a large and handsome building. The foundation stone was laid on March 18, 1867, and in it was placed a plate 3 recording the event as follows:

The Revd. P. Dowd, chief pastor of St. Patrick’s Church, on the 18th of March, 1867, in the 30th year of the reign of her Most Gracious Majesty,

Queen Victoria.

The Rt. Hon. Charles Stanley Viscount Monck, Baron Monck of Balling Trimmon, Governor-General of British America, Lieutenant-General Sir J. Michel, Bart., K.C.B., Commander of the Forces. Administrator of the Government of Canada, Henry Starns, commissioner of Montreal.

DIRECTORS (Ab Initio)

Bernard Devlin, Hon. T.D. McGee, Hon. Thos. Ryan, W.H. Hingston, M.D., M.P. Ryan, Edward Murphy, J.W. McGovern, Luke Moore, C.J. Cusack, Neil Shannon, J.W. Hopkins, architect, Howley & Sheriden, builders, E.J. Gilbert, iron founder, etc.

“Then praise to the Highest, in the Height and in the Depth be Praised.”

This fine building met with disaster, its roof fell in shortly afterward and finally it was burned down on October 2, 1872, after which the affairs of St. Patrick’s Hall Association were wound up and left the stockholders with 55% of their shares. In 1863 it was incorporated, its charter in part running as follows:

[385]

“WHEREAS, Thomas McKenna, Edw. McKeown, Dennis Downey, Wm. P. McGuire, J.J. Curran, Patrick O’Meara, M. Cuddihy, Daniel Lyons, P. Jordan, John H. Duggan, F.B. McNamee, O.J. Devlin, A. Brogan, Richard McShane, P. Mullin, J.E. Mullin, B. Devlin, Wm. Mansfield, M. Doherty and others have by their petition to the legislature represented that the Society of which they are members, known as the ‘St. Patrick’s Society of Montreal,’ has for many years been organized for benevolent and other purposes, and

“WHEREAS, They have prayed by the said petition that for the better attainment of the object of the said Society it may be invested with corporate powers, and by reason of the good effected by the said Society it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition;

“THEREFORE Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative council and assembly of Canada, enact as follows:”

Since this time St. Patrick’s Society has carried on its good work, but it has never had a permanent building of its own. It has continued its interest in Irish charities, caring for orphans and immigrants. It has watched over the fortunes of Irishmen in civic, provincial and federal life and has always promoted Home Rule for Ireland. On April 24, 1893, St. Patrick’s Society telegraphed, through the Hon. Edward Blake, then a member of the English Parliament, congratulations to Mr. William Ewart Gladstone and himself on the second reading of the bill. Of recent years its activities in this line of similar promotion of their national cause have been great. Their annual dinner on St. Patrick’s day has seen the presence of some of the most distinguished Irish orators from Ireland and the American Continent.

The past presidents of the Society have been:

1856-57 | Henry Howard, M.D.
1858-59 | Hon. Marcus Doherty, J.S.C.
1860-61 | Hon. Edward Murphy
1862-63 | James A. Sadlier
1864 | Thos. McKenna
1865-66-67 | Bernard Devlin
1868 | J.E. Mullin
1869 | F.B. McNamee
1870 | Bernard Devlin
1871 | Francis Cassidy, Ex-Mayor
1872 | James Homley
1873 | Michael Donovan
1874-75-76-77 | Bernard Devlin
1878 | P.J. Coyle
1879-80-81-82-83 | F.B. McNamee
1884-85-86-87-88 | Hon. Denis Barry
1889-90 | Hon. Henry Cloran
1891-92 | Hon. J.J. Curran
1893-94 | Hon. James McShane
1895-96-97 | Hon. Jas. J. Guerin M.D.
1898-99 | E.J. Kennedy, M.D.
1900-01 | W.E. Doran
1902-03 | Hon. C.J. Doherty
1904 | F.E. Devlin, M.D.
1905-06 | Frank J. Curran, B.C.L.
1907-08 | W.P. Kearney
1909-10 | Henry Kavanagh, K.C.
1911-12 | J. C Walsh
1913-14 | Walter G. Kennedy

IRISH PROTESTANT BENEVOLENT SOCIETY

The Irish Protestant Benevolent Society of Montreal was formed in 1856, after having separated from the joint St. Patrick’s Society. In that year an act of incorporation[386] was granted, on March 18th, on the petition of a certain number of petitioners “and others of Irish birth or extraction, residents of Montreal (who) have maintained by voluntary contributions a certain charitable association whereof they are members, for the relief of distressed immigrants and others from Ireland or of Irish descent, under the name of the Irish Protestant Benevolent Society of Montreal.”

The incorporators’ names appended are James L. Mathewson, William A. Merry, W.H. Gault, Hugh Mathewson, George Horne, George Armstrong, William Rodden, Richard Holland, J.J. Arnton, Campbell Bryson, William Clendenning, George S. Scott, Robert Miller, William Middleton, James Parker, Richard Thomas, W.S. Davenport, Howard Ransom, John Shinnick, Thomas Workman, William McWalters, the Rev. John Cordner, the Rev. John Irwin, Dr. Robert L. Macdonell, Dr. John Reddy, Dr. William P. Howard, etc. The Society was instituted to advance the welfare of Irish Protestants in Canada, to afford advice, information and assistance to those immigrating hither, to promote their settlement within the province, to protect their widows and orphans and to afford pecuniary aid to those in need.

A great work has been the maintenance of the Irish Protestant Benevolent Home in Belmont Park. Its activities along Irish patriotic lines have also been similar to those of St. Patrick’s Society.

The presidents of the Society since its formation have been as follows:

1856 | *Benjamin Workman, M.D.
1857-59 | *Hugh Mathewson
1859-61 | *R.D. Collis
1861 | *M.H. Gault
1862 | *W.A. Merry
1863-65 | *J.L. Mathewson
1865-67 | *Thos. Workman
1867-69 | *William Workman
1869 | *John Lovell
1870 | *Geo. S. Scott
1871 | *Robert Miller
1872 | *Thomas Simpson
1873 | *Wm. Rodden
1874 | *Sir Francis Hincks, K.C.M., G.C.B.
1875 | William Clendenning
1876-78 | W.J. McMaster
1878-80 | *J.C. Sinton
1880-82 | *John J. Arnton
1882 | *James Moore
1883-85 | *J.C. Wilson
1885-87 | *Richard Thomas
1887-89 | *D.H. Henderson
1889-91 | *W.H. Arnton
1891 | *Richard White
1892-94 | *James Wilson
1894-96 | *Moses Parker
1896-98 | James H. McKeown
1898-00 | J. Hamilton Ferns
1900-02 | *Charles Byrd
1902-04 | MacDuff Lamb
1904-05 | William Henry
1906-07 | Thos. Gilday
1908-09 | J.W. Percival
1910-11 | Wm. Rodden
1912-13 | J.A. Mathewson
1914 | F. Gilday, M.D.
* Deceased. |

THE GERMAN SOCIETY

Of the other societies the German Society is the oldest, being contemporaneous in its birth with the former. A consultation of the lists of citizens at this[387] early period will show that the German community then had some very notable names among its members.

The German Society was started in April, 1835, for the purpose of assisting poor German immigrants, without regard to creed, in order to prevent them from being a charge to the community; it has also often assisted Austrian, Swiss, Russian and other immigrants of German descent. It is a purely benevolent association, being supported entirely by voluntary contributions.

Its presidents since 1835 have been:

1835-39 | Louis Gugy
1839-49 | Dr. Daniel Arnoldi
1849-55 | Heinrich Meyer
1855-58 | Ernst Idler
1859-60 | Gottlieb Reinhardt
1860-65 | Gerhard Lomer
1865-66 | Heinrich Drescher
1866-67, 70-73 | Emanuel Häusgen
1867-70 | Wilhelm Wagner
1873-77, 81-93 | Wilhelm C. Munderloh
1877-81 | Freidrich Geriken
1893 | Eugen von Rappard
1893 | *Edward Schultze
* Still in office. |

ST. DAVID’S WELSH SOCIETY

It was about the years 1884-5, that the first society to weld together the various members of the Welsh Colony of Montreal was established, and the moving spirit in this matter, was the late Mr. Jabez Jones, a native of Mold, Flintshire, North Wales, an energetic and enterprising organizer.

The society was called the “Welsh Union of Montreal.” Its first president was the late Mr. John Lewis, surveyor of customs, for the port of Montreal. He continued to fill the office until his death, and, with his distinguished and delightful personality and support, helped materially to make it a success.

The first vice-president, was the late Mr. Thomas Harries, who at the time was the senior commercial traveller in Canada, a man of strong convictions and noble character.

The nature of the Society in its early years was largely religious and most of its gatherings were held on Sundays. Its rooms were in the old Y.M.C.A. Building on Victoria Square. This edifice was considered one of the landmarks both for architectural beauty and position among the great buildings of the city in those days. The Society justified its existence in many ways, and proved a necessary and helpful anchorage, particularly in bringing together the sons and daughters of Wales, more especially at such times as the Patron’s Saint Day, an event of importance, and a day dear to the Welshman’s heart, all over the world, known as “St. David’s Day,” always held on the first day of March; the time of the “Congresses of Bards and Contests of Minstrels,” and the feast day of one of the guardians of the nation’s ideals and inspirer of its genius.

However, the element of decay entered into the vitals of the old Society and it ceased to exist for some time.

About twelve years ago, the present Welsh Society was founded, known as the “St. David’s Welsh Society.” It was incorporated in 1910 on a far broader basis than the old Society. Its aims are, the bringing together of men and women[388] of Welsh parentage or associated by marriage with Welsh people, to create an interest in the study of Welsh music, literature, folklore, poetry and all subjects of interest to the race and a culture of a true Canadian nationality among the descendants of this ancient and historic people.

The honorary president since its inception, with the exception of one year, is Mr. Lansing Lewis, D.C.L., a son of the president of the old Welsh Union, the exception being the year the late Mr. Samuel Carsley held the office.

The first president was Mr. Richard Roberts, L. Mus., the first vice president, Mr. James Kirkham (Iago Tegai), the latter, in consort with Mr. Evan Jones and Mr. Jos. Jenkins, B.A., being among the most important moving spirits in the organization of the Society.

The following gentlemen filled the position of president:

Mr. Evan Jones, Mr. Jos. Jenkins, B.A., B.C.L., Mr. M.E. Pritchard, Mr. W.G. Bithell, and the present holder of the position is Mr. Wm. Evans, merchant.

The Welsh people are renowned for their intense patriotism and loyalty, and by training and temperament make good citizens, invariably lending their influence and support to every effort to advance the interests of the cities and towns wherein they may chance to reside and it is estimated that there are in Montreal, at the present time, from one to two thousand Welsh people. Some of them are large employers of Canadian labor, and the majority of them are interested in the manifold forces at work of beautifying and making known the varied advantages, present and prospective of this regal and beautiful metropolis of the Dominion of Canada.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND SOCIETY

The youngest National Society formed on lines similar to the foregoing was founded in September, 1911.

Its presidents have been as follows:

1911-12 | F.M. Renouf
1913 | C.A. Peters, M.D.
1914 | W.A. Gaden

The object of the Society was to encourage Newfoundlanders who were migrating to other lands to settle in Canada under the British flag and to welcome them when in the city with information to enable them to succeed here.

A great opportunity offered itself to the members in 1914, when on the occasion of the great Newfoundland sealing disaster in March of that year, it organized a relief fund in the city and realized a sum of $13,000, which was forwarded to the Newfoundland Government.

THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT

The Jewish community, whose earliest settlers and prominent citizens will be noticed elsewhere, has not been regarded as possessing a national society as such, although the Baron de Hirsch Institute, now long founded, has been the[389] centre of charitable activities for Jewish immigrants. Of late years, however, there has arisen a movement which may have a place here.

Montreal is the head centre of the Zionist Movement in the Dominion, and the executive offices of the Federation of Zionist Societies of Canada are situated in this city. No Jewish body in this country counts as large a membership or is as thoroughly representative of the entire Jewish population of Canada as the Zionist Movement, for it has its branches in every city, town and village from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The first Zionist society was founded in Montreal in January, 1898. Among its founders were Clarence I. de Sola, Rev. A. Ashinsky, H. Bernstein, L. Aronson, Lazarus Cohen, Jacob Cohen, Leon Goldman, J.S. Leo, Rev. Meldola de Sola, Dr. D.A. Hart and Moses Shapiro. From small beginnings this movement, having for its object the re-establishment of the Hebrew nation in Palestine, spread with phenomenal rapidity, and within one year from its foundation so numerous had the branches become that they were formed into a federation under a central federal executive. This was in December, 1899. The enormous strides which the organization has made is shown in its ever-increasing revenue and membership from year to year. Its conventions have become one of the striking events of Jewish communal life in this country. At the eleventh convention, held in Toronto in December, 1910, the Canadian Zionist Federation started the undertaking of establishing a Jewish agricultural colony in Palestine with funds entirely contributed by members of the movement in Canada. This enterprise was carried through so successfully that at the thirteenth convention, held in Montreal in 1913, the president was able to announce that the establishment of the first colony had been completed and the work of establishing a second colony was begun. This convention was also rendered noteworthy by President de Sola’s plea for the restoration of the Jewish Sanhedrin in Palestine, a plea which attracted world-wide notice and received the approval of many of the leading Jews throughout the world. The present executive of the Zionist Federation counts among its officers some of the most capable and active workers in the Jewish community of Canada. To mention them all would entail the giving of a long list, but among the Montrealers, in addition to those already mentioned above, are A. Levin, who is treasurer; M. Markus, Rev. Nathan Gordon, Rev. H. Abramowitz, Joseph Fineberg, L. Heillig, Mrs. Clarence de Sola, Mrs. J.S. Leo, and H. Lang.

The first Jew known to have settled in Montreal was Lazarus David, who came to this city in 1759. He was connected with the army, but on the close of the war settled in Montreal and became an extensive owner of real estate. He was a man of public spirit who took a prominent part in civic affairs in those early days. He was born in Swansea, Wales, in 1734 and his name appears in a list of residents published in Montreal in 1763. He continued to play a prominent part, in what was then but a little town, until his death on the 22d of October, 1776, and the headstone which marks the place of his interment is still to be seen in the cemetery of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews on Mount Royal. Very shortly after the arrival of Lazarus David there also came to Montreal Uriah Judah and other members of the Judah family, Emanuel de Cordova, Hananiel Garcia, Isaac Miranda, Judah Elvada, Uriel Moresco, Abraham Franks, Simon Levy, Levy Solomons and Fernandez da Fonseca. They were joined by another band of settlers, among whom were included Abram Franks, David Salesby Franks, Isaac Miranda, Jacob de Maurera, Andrew Hays, Levy Solomons and Joseph Bindona. De Cordova, Garcia and Miranda held military offices. Nearly all of these men belonged to distinguished families of Jews who had come to America originally from Spain and Portugal and known among the Hebrews as Sephardin and were members of the first Jewish Synagogue.

[390]

Although the members of this congregation were in those days but small in number, they produced a remarkably large number of men who took a very prominent part in public affairs. At the time that Lazarus David was settling in Montreal there had arrived in Canada Commissary General Aaron Hart, who was on the staff of General Amherst’s invading army and who took an important part in the operations which led to the British Conquest. He was born in London in 1724 and had married a member of the Judah family, and after serving under Amherst he afterwards joined the troops under General Haldimand, stationed at Three Rivers, and when that city fell into the hands of the British he took up his residence there. After the war he was created seigneur of Bécancour for his services, and became the owner of six other seigneuries. Another man of prominence was David Salesby Franks. He and his father, Abraham Franks, first appear as residents of Quebec in 1767 and afterwards they settled in Montreal. David Salesby Franks was president of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue previous to 1775. He agitated for the establishment of a House of Assembly and the establishment of representative government in Canada. Business affairs, however, drew him to Philadelphia and New York and when the American Revolutionary War broke out he espoused the cause of the American colonists and became major of a regiment. In May, 1778, he became aide-de-camp to Major Benedict Arnold. When in 1780 the affair of West Point occurred and Arnold fled to escape punishment for his treason to the Revolutionary cause, Major Franks was arrested on suspicion and courtmartialed, but was honourably acquitted and was afterwards placed on the staff of George Washington, under whom he fought during the rest of the war. He played a prominent part in the negotiations for peace between the American colonists and Great Britain and was sent on a mission in this connection to Europe in 1781, and in 1784 he was again sent to Europe by the United States Congress with the triplicate copies for the ratification of the definite treaty of peace. He assisted Benjamin Franklin and Mr. Jay in these negotiations. He was afterwards appointed American consul at Marseilles and he was one of the commissioners of the American Government who negotiated a treaty of peace and commerce with Morocco in 1787. He was one of the marshals who inaugurated George Washington as first President of the United States. There were other members of the Franks family who remained in Montreal and who fought on the side of the British against the American colonists. A sister of David Salesby Franks married the Levy Solomons who is mentioned above and who was at that time president of the Montreal Jewish Congregation “Shearith Israel.” One of their daughters, Rachel Solomon, became the wife of Henry Joseph, who in his day was one of the most prominent Jews in Canada. Henry Joseph was born in England in the latter part of the eighteenth century. He was nephew of Commissary General Aaron Hart and came to Canada when but a youth and entered the army, being attached to the troops that formed the garrison of Fort William Henry at the mouth of the Richelieu River. He afterwards became interested in the Northwest Trading Company and eventually retired from the army to develop trade from Hudson’s Bay to Quebec and Montreal. His headquarters were for a long while at Berthier, but he perceived even in that early day that Montreal was destined to become a place of importance, and he removed his home to this city in his latter days. It is claimed that he was the actual founder of Canada’s merchant marine service, for he was the owner of a line of ships that were the first to be registered as Canadian vessels engaged exclusively in direct traffic between Canada and England. He rejoined the army when the War of 1812-14 broke out between England and the United States and fought for the British crown in many engagements. Associated with him as a Hudson’s Bay trader was Jacob Franks, a member of the family above mentioned, who had married a sister of Mrs. Henry Joseph and who was also noted as a very enterprising northwest and Hudson’s Bay trader. He was the founder of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Jacob Astor was originally employed by him there. Another very influential member of the early Jewish community in this city was David David, the eldest son of Lazarus David. He was born in Montreal in 1764 and took a prominent part in almost everything which affected the interests of Montreal in his day. Possessed of considerable wealth he employed his means in works of benevolence, and his generous assistance to the early philanthropic societies of Montreal is on record. He was either president or director of a number of institutions. It was due largely to his initiative that the Bank of Montreal was founded in 1817, and he was elected a director[391] on its first regular board on the 27th of February, 1818, and continued to hold this office until his death in 1824. He was also president of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in Montreal for many years.

In addition to members of the David and Joseph families already mentioned, who fought for the British flag in the War of 1812-14, the names of a number of other Hebrew citizens are to be found also participating on the British side in that struggle, and there was also a large number of Canadian Jews who fought on the loyalist side in the rebellion of 1837-38, notably Colonel David, Aaron Philip Hart, Jacob Henry Joseph and several members of the Hays family.

The exact legal status of the Jews in Canada was not made very clear at an early date by any definite enactments, and for long they labored under the disability of not having the right of sitting in Parliament. This question was brought to a definite test by the election in 1807 of Mr. Ezekiel Hart, second son of Commissariat General Hart, as member of the Legislative Assembly for Three Rivers. When he entered the House he was required to take the oath in the usual form “on the true faith of a Christian” and upon his declining to do this on account of his Jewish faith the majority of the members objected to his taking his seat and declared the seat vacant. Appealing again to his constituents he was once more elected by a heavy majority, but again the House refused to permit him to take his seat, and after a stormy session a bill was pushed through to its second reading to disqualify Jews from being eligible to sit as members of the House of Assembly. This aroused the indignation of Sir James Craig, who was then governor, and he angrily dissolved the House and prevented the bill from passing. After a long struggle an act was introduced and passed in 1831 by which Jews were accorded the fullest civil rights in Canada and were placed upon an equal footing with all other citizens of the land. Ezekiel Hart was deservedly popular and it is stated that the opposition which was shown to his taking his seat was due more to the political partisanship of his political opponents than to any real feeling of religious intolerance. It is worthy of note that Canada extended full political rights to the Jews more than a quarter of a century earlier than the mother country.

Of the later Hebrews may be mentioned Moses J. Hays, who was one of the most active men engaged in municipal affairs in Montreal in the early part of the nineteenth century, and to his energy the city was indebted for many civic improvements. It was he who established the first Montreal waterworks. He also reorganized Montreal’s police force, of which he was the chief commissioner, and he was the builder of the Hays House, the leading hotel of Montreal in its day, situated on what was then known as Dalhousie Square, but which has since been swept away to make room for the Place Viger entrance of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Abraham de Sola, the rabbi attached to the Shearith Israel Congregation, was recognized as in the first rank of Jewish leaders in the cabinet. He was elected in 1848 professor of Semitic literature and oriental languages of the McGill University.

During the period of Doctor De Sola’s administration the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Congregation of the Shearith Israel Synagogue, formed by the first Jew settlers in 1768, counted among its members a number of men who were very prominent in Montreal’s social, intellectual and commercial life. Amongst these was Dr. A.H. David, a grandson of Lazarus David, who, besides being a prominent physician, was dean of the medical faculty of Bishop’s College. Samuel Benjamin, Goodman Benjamin and William Benjamin were three brothers who were all very well known in Montreal between the ’40s and ’60s in the past century. Samuel Benjamin took a very prominent part in civic affairs and was for a long while member of the city council, being the first Israelite to attain that position in Montreal. Four sons of Henry Joseph, Jacob Henry, Abraham, Jesse and Gershom, were all prominent. Probably there was no citizen of Montreal better known in his day and associated with more of our public activities than Jesse Joseph. He was either president or director of over fifteen different companies or institutions.

Another member of the Congregation of Shearith Israel was Isidor Ascher, who earned a respectable reputation as a poet. He was the author of “Voices from the Hearth” which Longfellow so highly commended, and of a number of other works, both in verse and in prose. His father, G.I. Ascher, was long a patriarchial and familiar figure in Montreal life in the nineteenth century, for he reached the venerable age of ninety-six years. Alexander[392] Levy, Jacob Levy, Samuel Israel Rubenstein, Edward Cohen and Lewis A. Hart were well-known officers of the congregation in more recent years. The last mentioned was for some years lecturer on notarial practice at McGill University.

Dr. Abraham de Sola died in 1882, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Meldola de Sola.

The Jews have always shown an interest in both civic and national politics, and at the present moment there are two Jewish citizens who are members of the city council.

OTHER NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE PEOPLE

The foregoing do not exhaust the list of Societies for national and racial conservation. There are others such as the “Société Suisse de Montréal,” “The Scandinavian National Society,” “The Jersey (Channel Island) Society of Canada” and others. Suffice it to say that Montreal is now veritably cosmopolitan as the census of 1911 will demonstrate.

CENSUS OF MONTREAL

Origins of the People by Sub-districts of the City of Montreal for 1911

| British
| English |
|  | Irish |
|  |  | Scotch |
|  |  |  | Other |
|  |  |  |  | French
|  |  |  |  |  | German
|  |  |  |  |  |  | Austro-Hungarian
Districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Belgian
and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Bulgarian and Rumanian
Sub-districts |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Chinese
St. Raphaël de l’Ile Bizard | 36 | 1 | — | — | 549 | — | — | — | — | —
Summerlea t | 51 | 8 | 13 | — | 82 | — | — | — | — | —
Beaconsfield t | 129 | 16 | 16 | — | 206 | 1 | 2 | — | — | —
Dorval t | 220 | 101 | 139 | 1 | 479 | 8 | 1 | 1 | — | —
Lachine t | 2,316 | 364 | 554 | 163 | 6,593 | 35 | 21 | 7 | 13 | 15
Montreal W-O t | 302 | 121 | 212 | 4 | 44 | 11 | — | — | — | —
Notre-Dame de Grâces | 1,538 | 310 | 257 | — | 2,735 | 23 | 136 | 5 | 1 | —
Outremont t | 1,593 | 447 | 575 | 25 | 1,911 | 40 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 8
Pointe Claire t | 147 | 22 | 55 | 2 | 549 | 5 | — | — | — | 1
Ste. Anne de Bellevue t | 127 | 46 | 77 | 3 | 1,141 | — | — | 1 | — | 3
St. Laurent t | 29 | 10 | 36 | — | 1,759 | 1 | — | 10 | — | 3
Verdun t | 3,860 | 892 | 922 | 10 | 5,534 | 72 | — | 95 | — | 10
Ville Emard | 674 | 69 | 41 | 3 | 5,119 | 16 | — | 44 | — | 1
Youville | 197 | 60 | 74 | — | 1,962 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 8 | —
Cartierville v | 41 | 24 | 4 | — | 817 | 3 | — | — | — | —
Côte des Neiges | 351 | 129 | 104 | 1 | 1,797 | 9 | 1 | — | — | 2
Côte St. Luc v | 58 | — | — | — | 237 | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève v | 3 | — | — | — | 609 | — | — | — | — | —
St. Pierre aux Liens | 208 | 120 | 178 | 2 | 1,480 | 4 | 49 | — | 88 | 3
Senneville v | 48 | 12 | 23 | 1 | 326 | — | — | 6 | — | —[393]
Montreal-Ste. Anne | 4,846 | 6,549 | 1,311 | 51 | 6,539 | 136 | 155 | 8 | 6 | 47
Centre ward | 17 | 19 | 8 | — | 395 | — | — | — | — | 1
Ste. Anne ward | 4,773 | 6,466 | 1,288 | 48 | 6,082 | 134 | 155 | 8 | 6 | 39
West ward | 56 | 64 | 15 | 3 | 62 | 2 | — | — | — | 7
Montreal-St. Antoine | 13,355 | 8,996 | 6,974 | 166 | 14,230 | 696 | 37 | 75 | 6 | 236
St. Joseph ward | 3,184 | 3,042 | 1,128 | 13 | 8,636 | 178 | 7 | 26 | — | 34
St. Georges ward | 4,741 | 2,975 | 2,855 | 70 | 1,688 | 259 | 11 | 29 | 2 | 137
St. Andrews ward | 5,430 | 2,979 | 2,991 | 83 | 3,906 | 259 | 19 | 20 | 4 | 65
Montreal-St. Jacques | 1,246 | 915 | 414 | 2 | 38,384 | 117 | 10 | 163 | 11 | 87
East ward | 141 | 69 | 19 | — | 2,785 | 1 | — | 3 | — | 13
Lafontaine ward | 802 | 565 | 306 | — | 21,620 | 76 | 5 | 84 | 11 | 40
St. Jacques ward | 303 | 281 | 89 | 2 | 13,979 | 40 | 5 | 76 | — | 34
Montreal-St. Laurent | 6,751 | 4,996 | 2,791 | 77 | 18,307 | 400 | 240 | 141 | 61 | 460
St. Laurent ward | 4,507 | 3,792 | 2,353 | 74 | 4,785 | 279 | 145 | 31 | 53 | 334
St. Louis ward | 2,244 | 1,204 | 438 | 3 | 13,522 | 121 | 95 | 110 | 8 | 126
Montreal-St. Marie | 3,500 | 2,642 | 997 | 5 | 45,941 | 133 | 34 | 35 | 11 | 42
Papineau ward | 2,697 | 2,086 | 732 | 4 | 32,420 | 102 | 12 | 22 | 1 | 30
Ste. Marie ward | 803 | 556 | 265 | 1 | 13,521 | 31 | 22 | 13 | 10 | 12
Hochelaga | 15,837 | 6,217 | 6,729 | 108 | 43,032 | 524 | 63 | 20 | 7 | 148
Ste. Cunégonde ward | 1,519 | 581 | 390 | — | 8,285 | 18 | 10 | — | — | 25
St. Gabriel ward | 4,875 | 2,625 | 1,888 | 35 | 8,690 | 160 | 37 | 4 | — | 26
St. Henri ward | 3,463 | 804 | 640 | 1 | 24,734 | 95 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 28
Westmount c | 5,980 | 2,207 | 3,811 | 72 | 1,323 | 251 | 12 | 6 | — | 69
Jacques-Cartier | 14,001 | 3,303 | 3,606 | 216 | 40,920 | 289 | 236 | 215 | 118 | —
Côte St. Paul | 996 | 155 | 54 | — | 2,069 | 21 | — | 6 | — | —
Notre Dame des Neiges W | 71 | 221 | 7 | — | 593 | 2 | — | 6 | — | —
Présentation de la Ste. Vierge | 8 | 1 | 1 | — | 210 | — | — | — | — | —
Saints-Anges de Lachine | 195 | 82 | 83 | — | 415 | 15 | — | 8 | — | —
Ste. Anne du Bout de l’Ile | 151 | 25 | 51 | — | 557 | 3 | — | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève | 18 | 3 | 1 | — | 1,045 | 7 | — | — | — | —
St. Joachim de la Pointe Claire | 142 | 8 | 7 | — | 647 | — | — | — | — | —
St. Laurent | 492 | 56 | 122 | 1 | 1,455 | 2 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 4

[394]

CENSUS OF MONTREAL

Origins of the People by Sub-districts of the City of Montreal for 1911

| Dutch
|  | Greek
|  |  | Hindu
|  |  |  | Indian
|  |  |  |  | Italian
|  |  |  |  |  | Japanese
|  |  |  |  |  |  | Jewish
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Negro
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Polish
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Russian
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Scandinavian
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Swiss
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Unspecified
Montreal-St. Anne | 5 | 18 | — | 1 | 201 | 2 | 913 | 1 | 496 | 243 | 58 | 4 | 86
Montreal-St. Antoine | 61 | 114 | — | 7 | 1,116 | 2 | 1,288 | 189 | 84 | 62 | 156 | 53 | 735
Centre ward | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 17 | — | — | 1
Ste. Anne ward | 5 | 18 | — | 1 | 201 | 2 | 905 | 1 | 496 | 226 | 57 | 4 | 77
West ward | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | 1 | — | 8
St. Joseph ward | 19 | 54 | — | 1 | 688 | — | 504 | 133 | 53 | 13 | 38 | 2 | 126
St. Georges ward | 26 | 58 | — | 4 | 271 | 2 | 436 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 50 | 34 | 184
St. Andrews ward | 16 | 2 | — | 2 | 157 | — | 348 | 54 | 25 | 45 | 68 | 17 | 425
Montreal-St. Jacques | 7 | 45 | — | 3 | 1,115 | — | 549 | 2 | 25 | 63 | 37 | 24 | 838
East ward | 1 | 5 | — | — | 48 | — | 1 | — | — | 8 | 7 | 2 | 458
Montreal-St. Jacques |
Lafontaine ward | 5 | 8 | — | 2 | 857 | — | 408 | 2 | 5 | 40 | 7 | 13 | 170
St. Jacques ward | 1 | 32 | — | 1 | 210 | — | 140 | — | 20 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 210
Montreal-St. Laurent | 19 | 292 | — | 3 | 837 | — | 19,256 | 19 | 94 | 109 | 106 | 36 | 865
St. Laurent ward | 13 | 179 | — | 2 | 205 | — | 7,733 | 14 | 32 | 84 | 83 | 17 | 324
St. Louis ward | 6 | 113 | — | 1 | 632 | — | 11,523 | 5 | 62 | 25 | 23 | 19 | 541
Montreal Ste. Marie | 4 | 24 | — | 2 | 439 | — | 356 | 4 | 271 | 280 | 16 | 12 | 162
Papineau ward | — | 21 | — | — | 400 | — | 306 | — | 85 | 50 | 9 | 7 | 95
Ste. Marie ward | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 39 | — | 50 | 4 | 186 | 230 | 7 | 5 | 67
Hochelaga | 79 | 17 | — | 11 | 315 | — | 589 | 47 | 318 | 100 | 127 | 55 | 706
Ste. Cunégonde ward | 12 | 7 | — | 3 | 163 | — | 102 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 32
St. Gabriel ward | 23 | — | — | — | 8 | — | 56 | — | 237 | 63 | 48 | 13 | 173
St. Henri ward | 4 | 10 | — | 8 | 143 | — | 50 | 38 | 77 | 23 | 38 | 2 | 156
Westmount c. | 40 | — | — | — | 1 | — | 381 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 36 | 20 | 345[395]
Jacques-Cartier | — | — | — | — | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | 6 | — | 5
Côte St. Paul | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Notre Dame des Neiges W | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Présentation de la Ste. Vierge | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | — | — | — | —
Saints-Anges de Lachine | — | — | — | 2 | 9 | — | 13 | — | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | —
Ste. Anne du Bout de l’Ile | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8 | — | 10 | — | — | — | 8
Ste. Geneviève | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1
St. Joachim de la Pointe Claire | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1
St Laurent | 7 | — | 2 | 6 | — | 9 | 4 | 4 | 16 | 5 | — | — | 8
St. Raphaël de l’Ile Bizard | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Summerlea t | — | — | — | — | 2 | — | 3 | — | — | 2 | — | — | —
Beaconsfield t | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | — | — | — | 2 | — | 1
Dorval t | — | — | — | — | 15 | — | 11 | — | — | — | 8 | — | 21
Lachine t | 1 | 14 | — | 1 | 134 | — | 342 | 1 | 34 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 66
Montréal W-O t | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8
Notre-Dame de Grâces | — | — | — | 1 | 130 | — | 4 | — | 8 | 11 | 11 | — | 47
Outremont t | 3 | — | — | — | 63 | — | 41 | — | 1 | 8 | 7 | 16 | 72
Pointe Claire t | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4 | 2 | 6
Ste. Anne de Bellevue t | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | 8
St. Laurent t | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 12
Verdun t | 3 | 1 | — | — | 3 | — | 67 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 51 | 8 | 83
Ville Emard | 5 | 5 | — | — | 158 | — | — | — | 10 | 10 | 5 | — | 19
Youville | — | 2 | — | — | 56 | — | 2 | — | — | 1 | 5 | — | 5
Cartierville v | — | — | 1 | — | — | — | 10 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 4
Côte des Neiges | 2 | — | — | — | 9 | — | 23 | — | — | — | 2 | 2 | 12
Côte St. Luc v | — | — | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
Ste. Geneviève v | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —
St. Pierre aux Liens v | 1 | — | — | — | 3 | — | 5 | 2 | 33 | 15 | 3 | — | 7
Senneville v | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —

[396]

FOOTNOTES:

1 January 24, 1858, St. Jean Baptiste Festival was kept as a national fête in Toronto by French-Canadians

2 This hotel was finally burnt on March 17, 1873.

3 This plate with the documents contained in the box of the corner-stone, was taken out of the ruins of St. Patrick’s Hall by Mr. B. Tansey in 1872 and is now in his possession.

[397]

### CHAPTER XXXI

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

FIGHTING FIRE—DARKNESS—FLOODS—DROUGHT

1. FIRE FIGHTING—THE FIRE OF 1765—“THE CASE OF THE CANADIANS OF MONTREAL”—THE EXTENT OF THE FIRE—FIRE PRECAUTIONS SUGGESTED—OTHER HISTORICAL FORCES—THE MONTREAL FIRE FORCES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT.

2. THE LIGHTING OF MONTREAL—OIL LAMPS, 1815—GAS, 1836—ELECTRICITY—FIRST EXPERIMENTS IN THE STREETS, 1879—THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANIES—NOTES ON INTRODUCTION OF THE TELEGRAPH—FIRE ALARM—ELECTRIC RAILWAY.

3. FLOODS, EARLY AND MODERN, 1848, 1857, 1861, 1865, 1886—THE PRACTICAL CESSATION IN 1888.

4. THE CITY WATER SUPPLY—THE MONTREAL WATER WORKS—PRIVATE COMPANIES—THE MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS—THE PUMPING PLANTS—THE WATER FAMINE OF 1913.

FIGHTING FIRE

Hardly had the English rule started in Montreal when on Saturday, May 18, 1765, a great fire raged for three hours, nearly endangering the safety of the whole city. There is in the McGill University Library bound up with sermons and essays, the first being an essay concerning the human rational soul, a rare pamphlet bearing the title, “The case of the Canadians of Montreal, distressed by fire.” There is no date of publication or publisher’s name. It is marked “Second Edition” and a postscript in it shows that this second edition was printed after March 20, 1766; probably in London. The second page has the following sub-title:

“Motives
for a
Subscription
Towards the relief of the sufferers at
Montreal in Canada

“by a dreadful fire on the 18th of May, 1765, in which 108 houses
(containing 125 families, chiefly Canadians)
were destroyed; and the greater part of the inhabitants
exposed to all the miseries attending such misfortunes.
The whole loss in buildings, merchandise,
furniture and apparel
amounted to £87,580 8. 10d.
sterling; no part of which could be insured.”

[398]

Underneath there is a wood cut of Canada kneeling before Britannia pointing with her left hand to the burning blocks and appealing for relief. Underneath are the words: MONTREAL MAY MDCCLXV. By consulting the concluding pages of “The case for the Canadians” we see that the pamphlet is the appeal of a committee of trustees in London “who meet at the New York Coffee House every Thursday at 11 o’clock and will be glad to be favored with the assistance of any subscriber.” The treasurer was John Thornton, Esq., and there were twenty-three members, of whom Edward Green, secretary, concludes the list. There follows a list of firms of merchants and others in the city to the number of twenty who would take subscriptions.

The motives as eloquently expressed in the opening part of the appeal are firstly those of common humanity; secondly, the “Canadians are our fellow subjects.” “The consideration of distance ought to make no difference in the minds of a people whose EMPIRE is extended to so many places over the earth.” “There are other weighty considerations: much the greater part of these sufferers are strangers who, to use the language of liberty, the fortune of war has put under our protection; and those who have not seen them may form some idea of them by report. They are stout, comely and intrepid, of a vigilant, laborious, and obedient disposition. They have given proof of their discernment as well as of the necessity of their situation by the preference they have shown to British Sovereignty when they were at their liberty to have gone to Old France, and though military government, which took place, is seldom the most favourable to a commercial people, they had reason to be sensible of the advantageous change. There is now a form of Civil Oeconomy: if it is duly administered and not tinctured with military power it will be the most grateful to a brave and intelligent people. It is our wisdom and our duty to show them in every instance that we are as willing to be Their friends as They can be Ours, and let us endeavour to secure their fidelity to the crown of the realm by engaging their Hearts as well as their tongues. They profess allegiance to the King, let us engage them by every tye to render that allegiance inviolable.”

The details of the disaster are then given. The concluding words of the appeal, after an allusion to the “Most Awful Gratitude” to “Divine Providence” which has blessed His Majesty’s arms and given him “the possession of the country of which the city in question is in several respects the principal” are:[399] “In these several views we present the cause of the sufferers in Montreal. It is meant that no circumstance which religion, humanity or True Policy can suggest shall be omitted. Thus shall we conciliate their minds to the British Government and render the oeconomy of it in that quarter of the world so much the safer. In proportion to the encouragement afforded by the promotion of useful industry and labour it is to be presumed their attachment to their country will increase by such means we shall also show them that Our Protestantism inspirs the most essential part of Christianity: We shall show them that the British nation is not more to be dreaded for their valor and intrepidity than beloved, for the exercise of the social virtues; and these qualities, displayed on this occasion, will in their natural tendency promote that harmony on which the prosperity of the state depends. Thus shall we behold commerce and navigation, Fixed on the securest basis; benevolence cherished; the hearts of all the subjects of the British Empire united by a concordance of sentiment; a just discernment of what is right and fit for the common good; and a resolution to adhere to such right. And being thus bound by a sincere and mutual affection, even the most adverse events may in the issue contribute to give permanancy to the state and uninterrupted happiness to the King and his people.”

This committee by March 20, 1766, had collected £1,818 16s 8d, of which His Majesty contributed £500. The “case of the Canadians” is worth quoting further, since it gives a picture of the city at this period from an English point of view. “Montreal contains about seven thousand inhabitants. It is here that the French Canadians were most desirous of retreating when they had acquired a subsistence; the adjacent country where they had many seats and farms on the banks of the river being delightfully pleasant and the climate more agreeable than at Quebec.” It was computed that one-fourth of the city was consumed and about one-third part in value. The loss sustained by the “dreadful fire” was carefully attested by His Excellency, the Honourable James Murray. An abstract is given:

Value in Buildings (an exact survey being made by masons and carpenters) | £31,980 | 0 | 0
Value in Merchandise | 54,718 | 5 | 9
Value in Furniture and Apparel | 25,261 | 12 | 6
Value in Cash, plate and Bills | 4,814 | 0 | 3
| ——— | — | —
Their currency | £116,773 | 18 | 6
Equal to sterling | 87,580 | 8 | 10

“It is worthy of notice that these people were so tender of what they evidenced on oath that great numbers declared, some time after, that they found their loss considerably greater than the account they had sworn to.

| Families.
In St. François Street were burnt out | 54
In St. Paul Street were burnt out | 87
In the Market Place were burnt out | 26
In Hospital Street were burnt out | 1
In St. Louis Street were burnt out | 15
In St. Eloit Street were burnt out | 6
In St. Sacrement Street were burnt out | 6
In St. Nicholas Street were burnt out | 1
In St. Ann Street were burnt out | 1
In St. Ann Suburbs were burnt out | 10
Grey Sisters Hospital, Suburbs and houses nearest were burnt out | 8
In all 215 families, of whom much the greater part were Canadians newly become subjects.”

An extract from “A genuine letter written the 20th of May from the city two days after the fire” is quoted:[400] “The fire began in the garret of Mr. Levington (a person of reputation) occasioned by hot ashes carried thither to make soap. It broke out at the roof and in an instant the whole was in a flame which communicated to the neighboring houses on both sides of St. Francis Street. The confusion and distress of the inhabitants is not to be exprest. Many of them were in the country and those who were present had not any time to save any part of their merchandize or household goods. Others lost all, even to their books, papers, plate, money. This misfortune has fallen on the richest and most trading part of the city, where the buildings were the best and most filled with merchandize. But the far greater part of the sufferers have now only the cloths on their backs. Many who had the fortune to save the few goods out of their houses and lay them on rafts or by the riverside lost them again, either by the flames or theft. The fire was stopt by uncovering Mons. Landrieve’s house, one end of the hospital and two small houses between Mons. St. Germain’s and the corner opposite Mons. Reaume’s. The wind, which, when the fire began, was at N.N.W., turned suddenly to N.E. which, with these precautions and the united efforts of the soldiers and the inhabitants, saved the rest of the town. For, had it gone up that street which leads to the parish church or fired the hospital des Soeurs it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have saved any part of the town. There are 110 principal houses burnt.”

From footnotes we learn that though the houses destroyed were made of limestone they were either covered with shingles made of white cedar in the manner of tyle or with boards; and they had not at this time any fire engines. Last summer two of these useful machines were sent over to them. It must also be considered that the houses were inclosed within the fortifications and some so near that one of the city gates was burnt as well as the General Hospital without the gates. A postscript of 11th of February, 1766, adds: “It should be observed that the rooms of their houses at Montreal are floored with clay and stones laid on them in order to prevent fire; but as the French in Europe are much behind us in the mechanic arts which contribute to the safety and convenience of life they are still more so in their colonies; to which cause we may attribute these Canadians having been without fire engines on this occasion. This misfortune will be remedied hereafter and it may be hoped every other conveniency will be introduced among them and especially the conveyance of water to reservoirs which is much wanted there. This defect, indeed, is the more pardonable when it is considered that in so vast and opulent a city as London it is but the other day it was attended by very fatal consequences.” “It is hoped,” concludes the postscript, “every expedient that reason and experience can suggest will hereafter be brought into use now that they have such able instructors as ourselves.”

Then, various devices for roofing and covering the houses are suggested. “Iron plate coverings are certainly the best as practiced in Sweden and in Russia. Two layers of brown paper dipt in hot tar placed over the wooden roof and under layers of iron plates will probably answer better. Some of the persons now going to Canada intend to try if slate will not stand the frost.”

The practical genius of the English was to be devoted to Montreal and Canada. Thus during the early part of British rule, as in that of the recent French régime, Montreal being built so largely of wood, was in constant danger of fire. The English governors early saw this and some of Gage’s earliest acts were to fight this peril. Another fire in 1768 destroyed more than a hundred houses. In 1777 an act was promulgated by Governor Carleton providing for the appointment of an inspector to prevent accidents by fire in each of the towns of Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers. The inspectors were to see that the chimneys were swept once a[401] month and each tenant was obliged to take certain precautions against fire under penalty of a fine. Under the French régime regulations were issued that buckets of water should be kept in readiness and should be carried to the scene of fire when the signal was given. The carpenters were to carry their axes.

Early after the conquest “Fire Club No. 1” was formed by a body of fifteen merchants apparently for mutual self protection. Fires were still constant, some of them threatening the very existence of the city.

On the 6th of June, 1803, a destructive fire took place in Montreal. It broke out in the house of a man named Chevalier in St. Lawrence Main Street on the northeast side towards the upper end. As the wind was high and variable, the outhouses on both sides of the street soon took fire. At a quarter to four the roof of the jail was burning, soon followed by the English church on the northeast and the Roman Catholic chapel on the southwest side. These, to use the words of the reports by the magistrate were “instantaneously consumed.” It was with difficulty the courthouse was saved. Besides the jail and two church buildings the old church of the Jesuits, the Roman Catholic College (St. Raphael) and eleven houses were burnt in the lower part of the town. About 10 o’clock at night the fire was under control at the house adjoining that occupied by Mr. Justice Ogden. In the suburbs, where it originated, the fire was extinguished by sunset, after destroying thirteen houses besides outhouses, stables, etc.

Other fires followed during the summer of so alarming a character that it seemed evident they did not arise from accident, but from design, and a reward of £500 was offered for the apprehension of the offenders. With the exception of the first, which took place in June, these fires broke out during the first week in August and the magistrates offered a reward of £250, making with that offered by the governor £750 for the detection of the criminal. The succession of fires is thus reported. On Monday, August 1st, a little after 1 o’clock in the morning, fire broke out and consumed two houses; on Tuesday morning, at 6 o’clock, a stable was discovered to be on fire but was pulled down and the fire extinguished; on Wednesday several houses were burnt, one man killed and a number more or less seriously wounded; on Friday other fires broke out entirely destroying a number of houses, and it was with difficulty the lower part of the town was saved from a serious conflagration. Patrols were established and precautions taken to guard against the repetition of the fires.1

In 1824 a volunteer fire association of 100 was formed under M. Antoine Lepage, assisted by Doctor Berthelet, with its station near Notre Dame Church. In 1825 the Property Protection Fire Company was organized by Captain John Lukin. On the 7th of September, 1825, a fire broke out in an outhouse belonging to a cooper of the name of Dumaine, situated in the rear of a house forming the corner of St. Mary and Campeau streets. Over eighty dwellings and outhouses were consumed. Had it not been that there was no wind during the time and that the services of the Seventieth Regiment were at hand the fire might have been extremely disastrous to the town.

The new municipal fathers took early steps by a regulation of the 3d of June, 1841, to create a fire department. It was to consist of an inspector, superintendent, a chief engineer, a captain and a lieutenant for each company of firemen. When[402] the Oregon boundary dispute with the slogan of its agitators “Fifty-four forty or fight,” was creating anti-British feeling in 1846, the Montreal fire brigade was formed into a battalion of militia under the command of the mayor, the Honourable James Ferrier, Mr. John Fletcher, afterwards Lieutenant-Colonel Fletcher, being appointed adjutant. The battalion drilled, but without arms, in the market hall for several years, even after the excitement of the Oregon incident had died away. On the breaking out of the Crimean war, Captain Fletcher offered authoritatively the services of 100 men of the Montreal fire brigade as volunteers for the war and received the thanks of the secretary of war for their patriotism.

The voluntary system of firemen continued to the 30th of April, 1863, when the last companies, then ten, received their last payment. On the 1st of May, 1863, the system of the telegraph alarm was introduced as well as No. 1 fire station at the corner of Chenneville and Craig streets. The new firemen, to the number of thirty, with salaries varying from the equivalent of two hundred and forty dollars to three hundred and sixty-five dollars a year, were supplemented by a certain number of volunteers with an honorarium of about twenty dollars annually until 1867. Until 1868 the duties included the watering of the streets. Hand pumps were then in vogue, the steam pump not being used until 1871.

In 1863, therefore, the fire department was more fully organized and has developed to its present efficiency.

Under a by-law passed May 10, 1865, the fire department was reorganized in two sections; the “City Fire Police,” consisting of a chief engineer, an assistant engineer, a hosewasher and cleaner, eight guardians, eight assistant guardians, and eight drivers, with eight stations; and the “City Fire Company,” composed of such members of the former fire department as chose to offer their services, not to exceed thirty-six in number, with the right to enroll eighteen supernumerary members to supply the places of absentees. They were to be under the immediate command of a captain and two lieutenants. The fire department had to operate the fire engines, hose, hooks and ladders, axes, etc., and the city fire company was for the purpose of operating fire engines, working hose, placing ladders and any other duty required of them in aid to the fire police. The members enjoyed all the privileges and immunities of firemen; the thirty-six men had salaries of $20.00 a year, subject to draw-back for nonattendance and the Supernumerary members were entitled to pay only when supplying the place of absentee members. The captain was paid $50.00 a year and the lieutenants got $40.00 each. The members of the city fire police got salaries ranging from $800.00 a year for the chief engineer, down to $240.00 a year for the drivers.

The day’s work for the fire police was divided into four watches of six hours each and it was provided that “when not on watch or engaged in street-watering as is hereafter provided, the guardians and drivers may be absent for meals, and if married, for the purpose of attending to their families; but with the exception of the first, leave of absence shall first be obtained.”

In 1910 the fire brigade consisted of 1 chief, 1 deputy chief, 6 district chiefs, 29 captains, 38 lieutenants, 19 engineers, 100 first class firemen at $800 a year, 103 second class firemen at $725, 26 third class firemen at $675, and 100 fourth class firemen at $625, and 27 other members with various duties.

The apparatus was composed of 90 pieces, including 29 hose wagons, 2 Siamese wagons, 6 aerial ladder trucks, 16 hook and ladder trucks, 3 salvage wagons, 2[403] water towers, 2 chemical engines, 1 hose and chemical wagon, 6 coal wagons, 1 automobile and 9 buggies for officers. The brigade was called out 2,143 times.

MONTREAL’S AUTOMOBILE FIRE-FIGHTING APPARATUS

During the last two years automobiles for the various officers have increased in number. In the summer of 1912 an automobile fire hose apparatus was ordered for No. 20 station and two automobile tractors, one for the aerial ladder truck and the other for the 1200 steam fire engine. These proving successful, on the recommendation of the fire chief the Board of Commissioners ordered three more of the latter in December, 1913, and a large order was placed for more at the beginning of 1914, so that now twelve motor power apparatuses are employed with more to follow. The day of the horse seems to be doomed for the city fire stations as too slow.

The fire chiefs of Montreal since 1863 have been:

Alexander Bertram | 1863-1873
William Patton | 1873-1888
Zephyrin Benoit | 1888-1908
J. Tremblay | 1909-

FIGHTING DARKNESS

The lighting of Montreal dates from 1815. Up to this no public provision had been made. Darkness is the friend of vice, and burglaries were numerous. In November, 1815, through the exertions of Mr. Samuel Dawson and others, that portion of St. Paul Street west of the old market (now Place Royale) was handsomely lighted by twenty-two oil lamps fixed at a distance of fifty-four feet from each other, each costing when ready for use $7.00 each. The east side of St. Paul Street raised a subscription “not to be outshown by their neighbours!” Notre Dame shortly followed the “bright example set.” This activity led on the citizens to petition parliament to provide night watches and street lamps for the town. In April, 1818, an act was passed providing for this. The number of men appointed was twenty-four, their duties being to attend to the trimming and lighting of the lamps and to act as guardians of the city. They used to call out the hours of the night, such as “Past 12 o’clock and a starlit night” through the drowsy streets. Within the homes the humble candle was still used and each household had its implements to make these simple dips or rush lights. Afterwards ready-made candles from England were sold. When candles were first introduced they were thought miraculous, but there are still some living in Montreal who remember how, in their youth, before candles, grease or oil would be put in a spoon, and carried through the house at night to light the way from room to room. Lucifer matches of the modern type were a wonder. The flint was used with tinders half a century ago.

The first gas works were built in 1836 at the Cross, then about one mile from the city, and some shops were lighted on the 23d of November, 1837. The proprietors were incorporated by an act of the provincial legislature in April, 1836. Mr. Armstrong was the proprietor and Mr. E.A. Furness was the principal stockholder and manager. The city was dilatory in making use of their services.

The New City Gas Company was established in 1847. In 1848 it was able to announce to its patrons that it had reduced the charge per 1,000 cubic feet from[404] 25 shillings to 12 shillings, 6 pence. This is a far cry to the present rate. The New City Gas Company changed its name in 1879 to the Montreal Gas Company which was amalgamated in the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company in 1901.

The origin of the lighting of Montreal by electricity may be briefly told. In 1878 Mr. J.I. Craig, of Montreal, returning from the Paris exhibition, determined to work out some experiments in electric lighting following on demonstrations seen in Paris. Accordingly he built himself Gramme bipolars, four polar machines and a Gramme alternation to supply current for Gablacoff candles. In 1879 he was allowed to give a demonstration by fixing up lamps on Bonaventure Street (now St. James), between Seigneurs and Guy streets. Another exhibition was given facing the Champ de Mars, having its generators in the building of the “Le Monde” newspaper, and his lamps on that now occupied by the “Chambre de Commerce” on St. Gabriel Street. At the midnight mass on Christmas eve, 1879, at St. Joseph’s Church, Richmond Street, he gave an illustration of its services in interior illumination. In 1882 a company called the “Phoenix” was formed to promote the commercial utility of Mr. Craig’s inventions, which consisted of dynamos, arc lamps and storage batteries. In the same year the harbour commissioners purchased a Brush generator with arc lights and were thus the first to adopt the new light. In 1884 the firm of Thompson & Houston, which became the Royal Electric Company, secured the contract to light some of the streets, commencing with St. James. In 1885 the Phoenix Company going into liquidation, the estate was purchased by Mr. J.I. Craig, who put up several plants in the province of Quebec and between 1887 and 1890 secured the contracts for St. Henri, St. Cunégonde and Coté St. Antoine. The first alternating current in the city was installed in 1890 by the Royal Electric Company. In 1895 the Royal Electric was merged with the Montreal Gas Company and the St. Lawrence Electric Company which was exploiting a hydro-electric plant at Chambly. Later the Lachine Rapids Hydraulic & Land Company, the Provincial Light, Heat & Power Company, the Standard Light, Heat & Power Company, the Citizens Light, Heat & Power Company and the Temple Electric Company were also added. The whole combination is now known as the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company of today, which has its head offices at the Power Building on Craig Street.

Another body entitled the “Montreal Public Service Company,” a merger, which obtained its charter about 1912, controls the Canadian Light, Heat & Power, the Montreal Electric, the Saraguay and the Dominion Central Electric Company. The offices of this second corporation are in the Eastern Townships Building. Between these two companies Montreal is lighted in 1914.

We may add the following notes of the origin of our electric fire alarm, telephone service and other electric developments in Montreal:

The first telegraph wire connecting Quebec and Montreal was installed in 1847. But the first wire strung in the Dominion was put up in the same year by the Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara and St. Catherine’s Telegraph Company. The Montreal Telegraph Company was organized in 1846, and was incorporated by a special act of the legislature of Canada in 1847, and first opened between Quebec and Toronto. A message from Toronto to Montreal cost 3s. 9d., in Halifax currency, for ten words. The Montreal fire alarm telegraph, with which is connected the police telegraph and the telegraph in connection with the water department,[405] was built by Messrs. J.F. Kennard & Company, of Boston. The work was commenced on the 2d of September and completed on the 26th of December, 1862, at a cost of $20,000. This line went into operation on the 19th of January, 1863, and “entered on its duties by striking the hour of 12 noon,” as is announced in a handbook issued in 1863 by the London & Liverpool Fire & Light Insurance Company. Electricity was first used as a motive power in Canada in 1883, when a short piece of track was laid on the grounds of the Toronto Industrial Exhibition. The first practical road was laid in 1884. In 1885 the track was lengthened and the overhead wire and trolley arm used. The possibility of combating the snow was demonstrated successfully in 1891 by the Ottawa Electric Railway Company. Montreal followed in 1892, when the city passenger rails were electrified. Quebec followed in 1897.

THE POWER HOUSE

FIGHTING FLOODS

Floods in the early days of Maisonneuve had threatened the old stockade fort and till modern days the lower part of the city has constantly been inundated. On Thursday, the 14th of January, 1848, the waters of the St. Lawrence rose for three days and flooded, to a depth of from two to six feet, the lower part of the city, Griffintown and the emigrant sheds at Point St. Charles, where the sick from the fever were lying. In February, 1857, Griffintown was the scene of another and similar inundation. The lower part was like a series of canals and communication between the houses was by small boats. More important was the inundation of 1861 when the flood extended over one-fourth of the city. Griffintown was again submerged. The trains from the west and from Lachine were unable to enter the city and passengers had to find their way to the city by Sherbrooke Street. “The extent of the inundation,” says Sandham, “may be conceived from the fact that the river rose about twenty-four feet above its average level. The whole of St. Paul Street and up McGill Street to St. Maurice Street, and from thence to the limits of the city was entirely submerged and boats ascended McGill Street as far as St. Paul Street. To add to the suffering of the people the thermometer sank rapidly and a violent and bitter snowstorm set in on Tuesday, April 15th, and continued to rage with great fury all night.” Another flood in the lower town, second only to that of 1861, occurred in April, 1865. The damage done was not so great owing to the gradual rise of the waters, the inhabitants being able to remove their effects.

In the flood of April 17th, 18th and 19th, 1886, it inundated nearly one-half of what then constituted Montreal. The “Witness” of the above dates contained a long account of the flood.

According to this, the conditions became really serious on Sunday morning, April 18, while the people were at church. A big ice shove occurred in the river, and ice was soon piled up twenty or thirty feet high on St. Helen’s Island. * * * But there was yet no break in the Longueuil and Hochelaga ice, and the crushing, grumbling ice in the channel commenced to pack more thickly and to rear pyramids more profusely than before. At the last the mass stopped moving altogether.

When the water rushed backward, finding no sufficient outlet in the channel, Chaboillez Square, St. James Street West, Craig Street to Chenneville Street, and[406] then to Cote Street, all were soon covered, and those who had gone from the lower levels to uptown churches, or who had come down to churches on St. James Street, and elsewhere, found that they had to make a detour as far east as St. Urbain and St. Charles Borromee streets, in order to get past the flood. Higher it slowly came up, and was into St. Urbain Street. It was also a few inches deep in St. Germain Street. And the cellars were full almost from one end to the other of Craig Street.

At Victoria Square, several teamsters with express wagons commenced a ferry service which was of great value to themselves and the public, for they charged 5, and in some cases 10 cents, to carry one across “the raging Victoria Canal.”

The eastern limit of the flood was just beyond Bonsecours Market, and Vitre Street was the farthest north. At Bonsecours Market the dealers could not get into their cellars at all.

At Jacques Cartier Square, the water was nearly to the corner of St. Paul Street, and the lamp posts at the corner of Jacques Cartier Square stood about half out of the water. The water washed through the pillar letter box at the corner of Commissioners Street. St. Paul Street west from Custom House Square was flooded. It was partly up St. Nicholas and St. François Xavier, but had not reached St. Sacrament.

Turning down St. Peter, pedestrians were brought to a sudden halt just north of Lemoine Street. The wrecking in the warehouses along Lemoine Street was described as “disheartening and the destruction appalling.”

On McGill Street, the wide space permitted any amount of boating, and skiffs and rafts were plying in all directions. McGill, above Lemoine, was entirely under water.

“A walk to Victoria Square opened the vista of St. James Street West, which street, from St. Michael Lane West, was a sheet of water as far as the eye could reach, the cars on the sidings at the Bonaventure station standing in the flood.”

The City Passenger Railway had ceased to be able to get through to St. Alexander Street, and were almost cut off from proceeding up Bleury. Later on the Bleury Street route was also impassable, the water flowing up Craig to the foot of Place d’Armes Hill.

The fires of the Montreal Gas Company’s works on Ottawa Street were extinguished by water, and consequently the supply was cut off from the whole of the lower portion of the city. Fortunately the company had another plant at Hochelaga which was not flooded.

On the south shore fields of ice swept over the country, knocking down fences, barns, and portions of dwelling houses. Some of the inhabitants who had spent fifty or sixty years in St. Lambert said they had never seen the water reach the height it did this time. At Longueuil the fine old Catholic church had four feet of water in it and nearly the whole village was more or less under water.

The following is a record made at the time by the city surveyor of the highest level reached by the water at the lowest points on various streets.

| Feet. | Inches.
Mill Street | 10 | —
Common Street | 2 | 6
Commissioners Street | 6 | —[407]
Youville Street | 5 | —
St. Paul Street | 2 | —
St. Francois Xavier | 3 | 6
McGill Street | 4 | 6
Wellington Street | 5 | 7
Ottawa Street | 6 | —
Inspector Street | 6 | —
Chaboillez Square | 5 | —
Grand Trunk depot on Albert Street | 6 | 9
St. James Street | 6 | 8
Little St. Antoine | 4 | —
Wellington Bridge | 10 | —
Conde | 7 | —
Manufacturers | 4 | —
Centre | 8 | —
St. Patrick | 7 | —

In 1887, on April 2, the water rose 4 feet 7 inches above the revetment wall. In 1888 an embankment was made to prevent floods, since when there has not been much trouble.

THE FLOOD OF 1886

ICE SHOVES

THE WATER FAMINE

FIGHTING DROUGHT

Floods are bad but droughts are an evil, also, which a city has to forestall. How this has been done may be exemplified by the story of the city’s waterworks. As this has been recently told again by Mr. F. Clifford Smith, we shall largely follow his excellent resumé prepared for the City Council last year.

At the beginning of the present century, when Montreal was a town of about nine thousand inhabitants, who lived mainly within the old fortifications, or, in other words, within the area bounded by the sites of McGill Street, Fortification Lane, Berri Street and the St. Lawrence, the only means provided by the municipality for the supply of water consisted of public pumps at Place d’Armes, the Market Place (now Place Royale), Notre Dame Street near the Courthouse, St. Jean Baptiste near St. Paul Street, and a couple of other points. For the rest the citizens supplied themselves with water from private wells and cisterns, and by watering carts from the St. Lawrence, and the creeks, the principal of which was the Petite Rivière which ran where Craig Street now is. The pedding of water in big puncheons was a common and quaint custom of these early days. The water cart would be driven into the river and filled. The poor women washed their linen on the banks.

In 1800, after considerable talk about forming a waterworks, an act was passed incorporating Joseph Frobisher (one of the founders of the Northwest Trading Company and builder of Beaver Hall) and his associates 2 under the title of the Company of Proprietors of the Montreal Waterworks. The capital invested was £6,000 with power to increase to £48,000. An exclusive franchise was given for[408] fifty years. The system decided upon was that of gravitation. Water was obtained from a pond in the rear of the present Cote des Neiges village, and was brought to the city through wooden pipes laid around the southern slope of the mountain, via Monklands and Cote St. Antoine Road, to cisterns which were placed one on the corner of Guy and Dorchester streets, and the other on Notre Dame Street, just west of Dalhousie Square.

The company’s trouble soon began. The supply, which was from a well, was most precarious, while the frequent bursting of the wooden pipes finally resulted in the enterprise becoming a failure.

In 1816, the waterworks, and unexpired franchise of thirty-five years, were offered for sale; and in the year 1819 they were purchased by a new company under the management of Mr. Thomas Porteous for £5,000. This company abandoned the gravitation supply from the spring and instituted a steam pumping plant, the engines, of course, being very primitive. The supply was got from the St. Lawrence in the near vicinity of the city. Instead of wooden pipes, four-inch iron pipes were substituted, and wooden cisterns were then erected on Notre Dame Street east of Bonsecours Street. The cisterns were found to be very weak and were finally replaced with other wooden cisterns, but they were lined with lead. The capacity of the cisterns was 240,000 gallons. The pumping engine was placed on the west corner of Water and Friponne streets. The amount expended by Mr. Porteous was about forty thousand 3 pounds. The four-inch pipes put down soon proved insufficient; other troubles ensuing, this company also sold out. The plant was advertised for sale and was bought in by Mr. J. Haynes for $60,000. Mr. Haynes quickly floated a new company which replaced the small pipes in the streets by pipes of ten inches diameter and installed a more powerful engine. In 1843 two engines were at work with a pumping capacity of 93,000 gallons. By this time there were laid in the streets fourteen miles of pipes.

In 1843 also the first agitation was started for the city to own the waterworks. It was kept up till 1845, when the municipality made an offer of £50,000 for the plant, which was accepted.

HISTORY UNDER CIVIC CONTROL

In 1847, two years after the civic authorities of Montreal had taken over the primitive plant, the water committee made a report to the city council suggesting that a premium be offered for the best plan to force water from the St. Lawrence into a reservoir on the mountain. The idea was to get water power from the Lachine Canal. The suggestion was deemed impracticable and not acted upon.

In the year 1849 the city constructed a reservoir on what now is St. Louis Square. Its height was 130 feet above the St. Lawrence and its cost was £3,000. By the year 1850 the corporation had laid nineteen miles of iron pipe and six miles of lead pipes. The reservoir had a capacity of 3,000,000 gallons.

In the year 1852, the year of the great fire when much of the waterworks system had been destroyed, the services of Mr. Thomas C. Keefer were procured by the city to draft a plan whereby the city could get an entirely new water supply.[409] The plan he proposed was adopted and has practically been in operation up to the present, when it is being drastically changed. The system consisted in an open canal having the entrance about a mile and a half above the Lachine Rapids. The canal, or aqueduct, which was four and three-quarters miles long, ended at a building called the Wheel House. This building contained two vertical hydraulic wheels operating a set of six pumps having a capacity of 4,000,000 gallons a day. The water was raised through a main of twenty-four-inch diameter, and ended at a reservoir where the present McTavish reservoir stands. The construction of these works lasted until 1856 and cost $280,236.53. The elevation of the aqueduct was thirty-seven feet above the level of the harbour. The dimensions of the aqueduct were forty feet wide at the water surface and eight feet deep. The canal furnished more than sufficient power to develop 300 horsepower, and to raise 200 feet above the level of the water, in the harbor, 5,000,000 imperial gallons of water, being at the rate of forty imperial gallons per capita. The hydraulic motive power was utilized by two breast wheels working six pumps. The old works were, of course, abandoned, and the pumping engines and reservoir on Notre Dame Street, with their sites, were sold for the very modest sum of $23,320. The whole new system had been well devised and the supply of water, indeed, was sufficient for a population twice as large as it was then; but troubles soon cropped up. Owing to the blocking up of the ice in the aqueduct, the formation of frasil and the annoyance caused by the backing up of water in the Little St. Pierre River, the supply in winter frequently only averaged three million gallons. The channel of the Little River St. Pierre was deepened in 1857 and 1858, but not sufficiently to get rid of the back water in question. In the winter of 1863 a tailrace was cut to the river which greatly ameliorated conditions. In 1862 and 1863, owing to increased population and ice blocks at the entrance of the intake, again the supply of water became so uncertain that the ancient custom of supplying water in puncheons had to be resorted to. This state of things naturally caused a great deal of trouble and annoyance, to say nothing of the additional expense to the city. In 1866 the consumption had actually reached 5,000,000 gallons a day, with the result that the supply was once more quite inadequate. In this year the superintendent of the water department made a strong plea for the purchase of steam engines; he held it was the only way that the water famines, through which the city was passing, could be prevented. Had there been a sufficient head of water in the aqueduct to get enough power, the plea for steam would not have been made, owing to its very heavy cost.

It was in 1868 that the first steam engine was installed, and some relief was experienced.

Little by little other steam pumps were added, but so steady was the growth of population that there were constant fears of a shortage of water.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESERVOIRS

The pressure on the pipes having been constantly unsatisfactory, and owing to the city expanding towards the higher levels, the construction of the present reservoirs had been decided upon. The reservoir, called the McTavish reservoir, is of oblong shape with semi-circular ends, and so placed in the mountain slope that the surface of the rock is about level with the water surface on one side, and[410] with its bottom on the other. The natural rock was used as a wall on the upper side, but on the lower side the water is maintained by a masonry wall which is solidly banked. The reservoir was divided transversely into two equal parts by a masonry wall, and when first completed contained thirteen and a half million gallons. Later on extensive enlargements were made, until today its capacity is 37,000,000 gallons. Its elevation when full is 204 feet above the harbour. The entire cost of the reservoir is about one million dollars. Under the gatehouse, which stands on the reservoir wall, is a well or distributing chamber. Into the bottom of this well the main pipes from the pumps are led, and opposite to them is a separate passage to each division of the reservoir. The pipes and passages are all controlled by gates, and by their means the water is turned off and on each division or main pipe, as may be desired. The water from the pumps at the Wheel House does not go first to the reservoir and thence to the city; the reservoir merely takes the overflow water from the pumps at the Wheel House and stores it for further use. In other words, it is a safety supply which the city can depend upon in the event of sudden breakdown of pumps. But the big reservoir, even when full, could not supply the city now for two days.

What is termed the High Level reservoir is considerably farther up the mountain than the McTavish reservoir. It was found necessary to construct this in order to supply the district above Sherbrooke Street; as the McTavish reservoir was at such an altitude that it could not give the required pressure for the more elevated districts of the city. The High Level reservoir draws its supply from the McTavish reservoir. Its pumping station is at the McTavish, and it is equipped with one 5,000,000 and one 2,000,000 gallon pump. At the pumping station at the Wheel House there are six steam pumps. The High Level reservoir is 212 feet higher than the McTavish, or 413 feet above the harbour. Its capacity is one and three-quarter million of gallons. Like the McTavish it is built in the solid rock and is a most substantial structure.

PUMPING PLANT IN 1912

As it is now the city’s intent to do all of the pumping by hydro-electric power, it will be of interest to note, especially for the future, what is the steam pumping plant of today.

The plant situated at the low level pumping station, Point St. Charles, is here seen:

- Engine No. 1, erected in 1886, ten million gallons, high duty ,Worthington.
- Engine No. 2, erected in 1894, ten million gallons, high duty, Worthington.
- Engine No. 3, erected in 1895, eight million gallons, low duty, Worthington.
- Engine No. 4, erected in 1905, twelve million gallons, high duty, Worthington.
- Engine No. 5, erected in 1909, twelve million gallons, turbine with Bellis-Marcum engine.
- Engine No. 6, erected in 1912, twelve million gallons, turbine with Bellis-Marcum engine.

The plant at the High Level reservoir is as follows:

- McTavish St. engine No. 1, erected in 1889, three million gallons, Gilbert steam pump. [411]
- McTavish St. engine No. 2, erected in 1906, five million gallons, Electric turbine.
- Papineau St. engine No. 1, erected in 1911, six million gallons, Electric turbine.

ANCIENT AQUEDUCT

SHOPS OF ANCIENT AQUEDUCT

The story of the water supply would be inadequate without an account of the great drought that fell upon the city in the last weeks of 1913, caused by a break in the concrete conduit which occurred after dark on Christmas night. For 193 hours the city was without an adequate water supply. It was in great alarm lest a typhoid epidemic or fires should start. Luckily fires were few, but one on St. Louis Square occurred when the want of water caused a whole block to be burned down. The city authorities had water carried round in the water carts and distributed to the people, who besides this scanty service had to melt the snow, then abundant, for culinary purposes. The danger of typhoid was averted by careful attention of the people to the directions of the city health officers and other physicians. The event caused great excitement and much criticism. As a warning note of the dangers that may befall a modern city, the following adapted account, published at the time, is chronicled here.4

Montreal’s 193-hour water famine, it is hoped, has passed and gone, but that a city of its size should be so absolutely thrown out of gear by the bursting of a single water conduit was such a shock to the citizens, that they will want the facts of the case to go down to posterity engraved in tables of stone—or concrete.

Shortly after dark on the evening of December 25th, a break nearly sixty feet long appeared in the water supply conduit at a point directly behind the Protestant Hospital for the Insane, on La Salle road. It was claimed the cause of the breakage was the digging away of the earth surrounding the conduit on the one side, adjacent to the old aqueduct, and the piling of it up on the other side, in connection with the widening of the old channel.

It is stated that the pipe was thus caused to sag, crack and eventually under the water pressure to break.

The rush of water carried away most of the earth left between the conduit and the aqueduct, and it was into the latter, fortunately, that the water flowed. If there can be a fortunate side to the accident, it is that it occurred where it did, within a couple of rods of the shack used by the construction company, whose men were at work on the aqueduct, and where there was a telephone, which greatly facilitated the ordering of supplies and men.

By early morning on the 26th, a steel pipe, of six sections, and slightly smaller in diameter than the conduit, had been ordered, and Controller Godfrey had appeared on the scene, from which he was thereafter never absent for more than a few hours.

But before the pipe could be placed, all the earth on the top of, and to the north of the pipe had to be removed, and the remaining and unbroken sides of the conduit demolished. While this work was in progress, sections of the steel tube began to arrive and were bolted together, so as to be ready to be swung into position as soon as the place was cleared.

In the clearing operations, the engineers were also lucky, owing to the close proximity of one of the Cooke Company’s derrick steam shovels, which not only did the hard work of clearing the ground expeditiously, but later supplied hot water for mixing the cement, and steam to keep it warm while drying.

With Controller Godfrey either at work or bustling up the makers of the steel tube, and City Engineer George Janin, and Waterworks Engineer Lesage, continually at the scene of operations, by Monday, December 29th, the background was cleared and the steel pipe nearly completed.

By Tuesday, the latter had been swung into place, concrete had been run in to fill the joints and workmen had been lowered into the conduit, with buckets of blazing tar, to seal them inside.

On Wednesday, the 31st, at 4.45 A.M., the water was let into the conduit and the pumps[412] were started. They ran a few minutes when the engineers were compelled to close them down because there was not a sufficient depth of water in the conduit for them to operate successfully. It was then found that the water had blown out some of the filling of concrete, wood and tar, near the top of the steel tube, and that a large leak had been formed which would keep the city waterless over New Year’s Day.

Meanwhile various serious fires had occurred in the city, in spite of the extra precautions taken by the fire commissioners and the police, and Chief Tremblay of the fire department is reported to have demanded at the City Hall that he be given water, and to have stated that there was but enough water remaining in the reservoirs for one big fire.

At the same time a number of foolish rumours gained credence, such as that should the water not be forthcoming from the conduit at once, the dam which holds the River St. Lawrence out from the old aqueduct would be dynamited, and an even more destructive rumor that the said dam was about to burst at any minute. Had either of these eventualities occurred, as various engineers pointed out, the whole of Point St. Charles would have been flooded.

On Wednesday afternoon, about 4 o’clock, hot concrete was run into the joints at both ends of the steel tube, and it was announced that after allowing four hours for pouring and fifteen hours for drying, the water would be let into the conduit and all would be well.

Thursday, however, still saw the engineers waiting all day for the concrete to set, while a pipe from the derrick up on the embankment above discharged steam into a canvas outer covering to the joint, and through a man-hole in the tube into the interior of the conduit.

On Friday morning, the eighth day from the break, Controller Godfrey, City Engineers Janin and Lesage, Engineer Herlihy, of the Cooke Construction Company, and J.E. Jamieson, of grain elevator fame, who had also been called in by the city for consultation, made an inspection of the repairs, and were at first inclined to the belief that all was well, and, in fact, issued a statement that water should be in the city by noon or 1 o’clock.

But a close internal examination revealed the fact that the concrete was yet not dry, so in order to prevent the waste of more time waiting for it, it was decided to cover it with oakum and pitch, and then to erect a wooden bulkhead or flange around the end of the steel tube inside the conduit to prevent the water from getting at the concrete with any force. It was here that the advantage of the telephone so near the work was evidenced, for a very short time only elapsed between the ordering of the oakum and its delivery.

The process of covering the soft concrete with its protection and erecting the bulkhead occupied most of Friday, and it was with some degree of fear and trembling that the engineers in charge ordered the water turned on at the intake at 6.45 P.M. This was done very, very gently, and so prepared were those responsible for another breakdown that it was definitely stated that should it occur, the pipe would be opened and the water allowed to flow into the old aqueduct.

However, all went well, and the first water reached the pumping station at Point St. Charles at a few minutes past 8 P.M. Within half an hour the first pump was started up, and at 9.50 the pressure was reported to be seventy pounds. By 11 o’clock the water was up to the Milton Street level, and three-quarters of an hour after 6, seven of the pumps were hard at work, and pumping at the rate of 56,000,000 gallons a day. Before breakfast on Saturday morning the McTavish reservoir was full, and every house had its full complement of water.

During the period of stress, there is not a doubt everyone connected with the repair work, and, for that matter, all those engaged in supplying the water to householders from sleighs, worked to their utmost capacity, in spite of considerable external difficulties.

At present Montreal’s city waterworks are supplied by a very-much-criticised concrete conduit, with a 60-foot length of steel tube of a considerably smaller diameter let into it where the break occurred. But at the time of writing, at least, the city has got water.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The Précis in Doctor Brymner’s Archivist’s report for 1892 has been used above.

2 These were John Gray, Daniel Sutherland, Thomas Schieffelin and Stephen Sewell.

3 Writing in 1839, the author of “Hochelaga Depicta” says, “Montreal is better supplied with water than any other city on this continent with the exception of Philadelphia.”

4 Montreal Daily Star, January 5, 1914.

[413]

### CHAPTER XXXII

LAW AND ORDER

JAILS—POLICE SERVICES—COURTHOUSE—LAW OFFICERS

EARLY PUNISHMENTS—FIRST CASES OF THE MAGISTRATES—GEORGE THE “NAGRE”—“EXECUTION FOR MURDER”—OTHER CRIMES PUNISHED BY DEATH—SOLDIER DESERTIONS—A PUBLIC EXECUTION—THE JAILS—THE JAIL TAX TROUBLES—OBNOXIOUS TOASTS—THE NEW JAIL OF 1836—ITS POPULATIONS—THE NEW BORDEAUX PRISON—OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PRISONS—THE EARLY POLICING OF MONTREAL—THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE OF 1815—THE POLICE FORCE AFTER THE REBELLION OF 1837-1838—POLICE CHIEFS—MODERN LAW COURTS AND JUDGES—THE HISTORY OF THE BAR—THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF MONTREAL—THE RECORDERS—THE ARCHIVES.

SUPPLEMENT—THE JUDGES OF THE HIGHER COURTS FROM 1764 TO 1914—THE SHERIFFS OF MONTREAL—THE PROTHONOTARIES—THE COURTHOUSE SITES—THE BATONNIERS.

The early execution of the law in Montreal under British rule has been indicated in the chapters on the military government which lasted until 1764, when the magistrates or justices of the peace ruled the city till nearly up to the Union. Their first case was one of battery and assault.

At the May meeting of 1765 the first felony case was adjudicated. A man and his wife and a negro had been stealing. The sentence of “William and Elinor March and George, the Nagre” is thus recorded: “They are to go back to the place of their confinement, the said William to be stripped to the waist and Elinor March to have her back only stripped, and the said George the Nagre and each tyed to the carttail and beginning at the jail or prison between the hours of 8 and 9 o’clock in the forenoon on Friday next, are to proceed along around by the Intendant’s and then go to Market Place and round by St. Francis Street and through the Parade to place begun at, during which round they are to receive twenty-five stripes each on the naked back, besides twenty-five each on the naked back when at the market place.”

Next month “George, the Nagre,” was up again for stealing two pieces of silk ribbon, the justices being John Dumas, Daniel Robertson and Isaac Todd. He was sentenced again to be flogged with a cat of nine tails on his march around at the carttail six times with ten stripes each.

[414]

At the sitting of the court for August 2, 1765, a French woman named Margaret Tourangeau was “Set for an hour in the stocks for stealing a piece of camblet.”

“It is remarkable,” quotes Borthwick (History and Gazetteer, page 17), “that in the records of courts of sessions for years after the conquest of the country as natural there are very few French names before the magistrates for those crimes for which punishment by whipping, the stocks or the pillory or branding on the hand was meted out. This shows how thoroughly they obeyed their curés to respect the laws and be faithful to their allegiance.”

In the Court of King’s Bench, September, 1781, is recorded the first murderer to be hanged in the history of this Province since the cession, William Blunt.

Being placed in the stocks with a paper label on the breast and “burning in the hand” were common forms of punishment during this period.

The latter punishment was thus inflicted: The prisoner was brought from the gaol into the courtroom, and made firm by an iron hand at the back of the dock, the palm part of his own hand being opened tightly. The red hot iron, sometimes ending either in a crown or some other device, was held ready by the common hangman, and the punishment was inflicted in the center of the palm. The instrument being ready, the prisoner is informed that the moment it touches his flesh he can repeat as fast as he can these words in French, “Vive le Roi” three times, and at the end of the third repetition, the punishment would cease, or the words “God Save the King” if he were an English prisoner.

Even in this short time the hot iron has hissed into the flesh, and made such a mark that all the waters of the St. Lawrence could not efface it. (Cf. Borthwick’s Gazetteer.)

The Montreal prisons of the past, especially before 1840, saw many sad men who were condemned to death for crimes not so punished today, as a glance at some of the principal events recorded in the Court of King’s and Queen’s Bench from 1812 to 1838 will show.

Cases of executions for (1) stealing, larceny, shop lifting, burglary, 20; (2) horsestealing, 10; (3) rape, 3; (4) highway robbery, 1; (5) sacrilege, 1; (6) forgery, 1.

After 1821, although the records give the sentence of hanging for the above crimes, we find that although it is often executed, yet there is frequent mention of “pardoned by the king,” “respited,” “transported (so many) years in prison,” “pillory,” and “lashes.” One burglar sentenced to be hanged is respited and sent for five years to Quebec! It is strange to find cases of murder and manslaughter punished thus: “Murder, to be burned in the hand;” “drowning a man, six months in jail and to be burned in the hand in open court.” One of those executed in 1813 for stealing a cow was B. Clement, a boy of thirteen and a half years of age.

In 1818, March term, L. Bourguignon, convicted of grand larceny and condemned to be hanged, “prays for the benefit of the clergy,” which being granted by the court, he is sentenced to two-years’ House of Correction.

Desertion or attempt at desertion among the soldiers stationed in the Montreal district was not uncommon in 1838, after the first curl revolt of 1837. Transportation for a term of fourteen, twenty-one years, or “for the period of his natural life” was the sentence meted out to the “felon” who was marked with a D for deserter. A few records of deserting will suffice:

[415]

Fifteenth of May, 1838: Fourteen soldiers, deserters, under sentence of transportation, sent to Mr. Waud, Jailor, under charge of officer of Thirty-fourth Regiment.

Eleventh July: Three soldiers sentenced to fourteen, twenty-one, and twenty-one years’ transportation by G.A. Wetherall, commanding officer of the Second Battalion, “The Royal.” Three for a term of “natural life”—the Seventy-first Regiment.

Fifth of August: Five soldiers of the Seventy-first Regiment, fourteen years.

Third of September: Two of the Fifteenth Regiment, fourteen and seven years. Three of the Seventy-first Regiment, fourteen years and all marked D.

In May, 1839, no less than twenty-four soldiers were committed at one time for desertion, by order of the town major; five were discharged, the remainder were transported. These belonged to the Eighty-fifth and Thirty-second Regiments.

It is not our purpose to record the gruesome punishments further. There are, however, living with us those who have heard from their fathers the days in the ’20s when hangings were conducted in public in the yard of the old jail close to the Champ de Mars. The following description is from a lady eyewitness still living in 1914:

“You know, Mr. Robert Watson, a flour inspector, and a fine gentleman, was shot dead in his own house by a man whose name I cannot recall. That was, I think, in the twenties. The man was arrested, tried and found guilty on circumstantial evidence, which was principally the fact that his boots corresponded to the footmarks found in the snow leading to Mr. Watson’s residence. At the same time there was a French-Canadian tried and sentenced to death for forgery, and sheep stealing, which were then capital offenses. I determined to see the hangings. I know you will think me queer, but I had a desire to go. Hangings were then conducted in public. I remember the crowd in the jail yard as well as if it was yesterday—men and women and girls like myself. The authorities had allowed as many as the yard would hold, but there were hundreds outside who could see nearly as well.

“The Irishman asked for three cheers for the Irish, and said, ‘Take off your hats for the Irishman.’ The people did as he asked. The Frenchman said he had sold his body to the students, and that he was ready to die like a man. He asked the women to come up that he might pull their ears off, for when he began to steal his mother never corrected him, and therefore he was on the scaffold. Then I fainted, the first and only time in my life. I was sorry I went.”

JAILS

The jail 1 used in the latter part of French régime and the early portion of English rule was situated on the site formerly known as the Crystal Block (now represented by the second building northwest of St. Lawrence Street), on Notre Dame Street. On the occupation of the British, the Jesuits’ residence, on Notre[416] Dame Street, on the site facing what is now Jacques Cartier Square, was confiscated and in 1773 used as a jail as well as a courthouse. Not being designed for a jail, it is not surprising that the grand jury at the Court of King’s Bench held on the 2d of September, 1782, presented in their statement that the jail “is very insufficient for the purpose of a civil prison, is in a ruinous condition and is becoming a nuisance to the public and dangerous to the health and lives as well of the persons confined therein as others, his Majesty’s subjects. That it is insufficient for the purposes of a civil prison will appear on considering that there are but three small apartments into which are put prisoners of both sexes, and every denomination, whether for debt, breaches of the peace or the most flagrant crimes, and on the representation of the sheriff of the district to their honours, the judges of the court of common pleas, on the insufficiency of the prison, they have thought proper to order that executions should not issue against the persons of debtors who, by the laws of the Province, may become subject to imprisonment.”

In 1787 a committee of the legislative council was appointed by Lord Dorchester to investigate into the past administration of justice in the Province of Quebec. A committee of merchants of Montreal in a report to this commission, dated the 23d of June, 1787, stated in Article 8: “The want of a proper jail for the district has long been complained of, and at divers times has been represented by different grand juries, as well as at the courts of oyer and terminer and in the inferior courts of quarter sessions; but hitherto no remedy has been applied. The house which at present serves for a jail consists of four very small rooms in which are frequently confined promiscuously persons of different sexes and for very different degrees of crime. The unfortunate debtor cannot have a room to himself, nor can the malefactor, when preparing for the other world, be accommodated with a place of retirement to deprecate the wrath of the offended Deity. The insufficiency of the jail, in point of security, occasions a guard of soldiers to be kept in the lower part of it and even with that precaution many atrocious offenders have escaped, insomuch that the sheriff of the district has refused to confine debtors, unless the prosecutor offer to take upon himself the risk of an escape. The situation of this insufficient jail heightens the sufferings of the persons whom the law dooms to imprisonment, offends every passerby in the warm season and is a nuisance to the neighbourhood.”

The fire in 1803, which swept this portion of the city, partially destroyed the jail, and pending repairs a building was leased for a temporary jail. Still procrastination prevailed.

In 1804 the grand jury of Montreal made another presentment stating: “that the present gaol is only the ruins of the former one, which was burned, repaired and patched up in such a manner that the prisoners are sheltered from the inclemency of the weather, but by no means prevented from going out whenever they feel so inclined.” A report of the sheriff, Gray, shows that the same building had existed under the French rule, that it had then, as subsequently, suffered from fire and that although recently the sum of £615 had been expended on repairs it was still inadequate for the security of prisoners.

In 1805 an act was passed in the house of assembly by which commissioners were appointed to have a jail erected in Montreal and Quebec, the cost to be restricted to £9,000 currency in each case. It was high time. The act of 1805 was the result of these representations.

[417]

But a discussion arose at once concerning the ways and means of raising the funds. The bill as prepared embodied a proposal for the raising of funds through a tax on imports.2 The merchants opposed this as directed against commerce and urged a land tax which the landholders in turn combatted. Petitions were sent by the merchants against the bill and they asked to plead at the bar of the house. This was refused and the bill in its original form passed the upper house unanimously. The bill became law. The merchants trading from London also intervened in a memorial protesting against the import tax. Altogether there was a strenuous fight. The feelings at Montreal rose high.

The Montreal Gazette of the period reported a meeting at Dillon’s tavern, Mr. Isaac Todd, a principal merchant, took the chair at a dinner and among others certain toasts were proposed which were thought by some members of the legislature to reflect on them, scandalously and libellously, and Mr. Todd and the printer of the Gazette were declared by the session of 1806 to have been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the house. The sergeant-at-arms on attempting to make an arrest in Montreal found both of them absent, and the matter dropped. Some of the obnoxious toasts were as follows:

“Our representatives in the provincial parliament, who proposed a constitutional and proper mode of taxation for building gaols, and who opposed a tax on commerce for that purpose as contrary to the sound practice of the parent state;”

“May our representatives be actuated by a patriotic spirit for the good of the Province as dependent on the British Empire and be divested of local prejudices;”

“May the city of Montreal be enabled to support a new paper, though deprived of its natural and useful advantages, apparently for the benefit of an individual” (sic);

“May the commercial interest of this Province have its due influence on the administration of its government.” (Christie—“History of Canada,” p. 239.)

The next jail was finally built in 1808 adjoining the east side of the courthouse erected in 1800, but becoming too small a more suitable one was commenced in 1831 at the foot of St. Mary’s current on ground purchased from the heirs of Sir John Johnson. It was not taken possession of by the sheriff till 1836. It was not built on hygienic or practical lines and in 1852 the northeast wing had to be demolished. It soon became very much occupied by the rebels and political prisoners of 1837 and 1838.3

The former prison was occupied as a house of industry from 1836 to 1838, when it became the government barracks. In the summer of 1849 the old jail built like the courthouse on the site of the Jesuits’ estate was pulled down. The cornerstone was found with two plates, the first recording the laying of the foundation stone of the Jesuit residence in 1742 by M. Normand, superior of the[418] seminary, and the other recording that of the prison by Peter Panet, Isaac Ogden, “honorabiles judices,” and Joseph Frobisher, armiger.

In 1870, the prison, opened in 1836, was already being found too small and its overcrowded state had been frequently protested against by many grand juries. The theoretic capacity for this prison was 225 persons. It managed to hold 552 at one time. In 1876 the women prisoners were removed. It continued to be used for its original purpose till lately when the new prison at Bordeaux was opened in 1912, the last contingent being transferred from the old prison in August, 1913.

The following is a table of the population of the prisoners in the old prison:

1836 Men and women | 162
1846 Men and women | 1,275
1856 Men and women | 1,792
1866 Men and women | 4,410
1876 Men and women | 3,969
1886 Men only | 2,156
1896 Men only | 4,132
1906 Men only | 3,130
1908 Men only | 4,854
1909 Men only | 4,287
1910 Men only | 4,702
1911 Men only | 5,344

In November, 1912, the transmigration to Bordeaux began and the congestion was relieved. The site of the new prison comprises a superficies of twenty arpents, and the buildings are eminently well fitted for their purpose, hygienic and spacious, with none of the faults so bitterly deplored in the old jails.

The supplementary prisons, in 1914, are the women’s jail at Fullum Street, established about 1876, under the “Good Shepherd” community, which has sections for Catholics and Protestants (four non-Catholics), the detention house for juvenile delinquents, in connection with the Juvenile Court, erected by the Juvenile Delinquent act of 1910, established March 12, 1912, the reformatory school at De Montigny Street undertaken by Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, the boys’ farm reformatory at Shawbridge for Protestants, that for Catholic girls at the House of the “Good Shepherd” on Sherbrooke Street, and another for Protestants, commenced at St. Lambert’s about 1912. There is also for long terms of two years and over a large penitentiary under the Federal Government at St. Vincent de Paul.

THE POLICE FORCES

The policing or the control of law and order in general of Montreal dates back to the 27th of January, 1663, when Maisonneuve founded a voluntary association under the name of the “Police de la Sainte Famille de Jésus, Marie and Joseph,” which was divided into twenty companies of seven men each. In 1667 Maisonneuve organized a more formal police force under the direction of five important citizens who also acted as justices of the peace. In the early times it[419] was also customary to choose two or more citizens in each district of the town to act as constables.

THE OLD JAIL

PRISON AT BORDEAUX

In 1815 the legislature authorized the organization of a local police force. It was composed of twenty-five to thirty men who carried a long baton painted blue, a lantern at their girdle, and a bell to summon assistance. At night the watchmen called out the hour and other, cheerful news such as “All’s well—past 1 o’clock and a starlit night.” When lamps were introduced it was their business to light them. They had multifarious duties, such as looking after the health regulations, the removal of snow, the quelling of riots, especially at elections, when frequently the military had to be called out to assist them. Even then a policeman’s lot was not a happy one, being also very inadequately remunerated.

After the troubles of 1837-8 the special council of the legislature of Lower Canada passed an ordinance to authorize the governor to name an inspector or a superintendent of police for the city of Montreal. This superintendent was similar in power to a justice of the peace. He had, in addition, the charge of the composition and the control of the police force, subject to the provincial secretary. The force consisted of thirty constables, paid by the government. They were supplemented by a special force from the police appointed by the governor and paid by the harbour commissioners. That the new police was badly needed, a picture from “Hochelaga Depicta,” written in 1839, makes clear. “The passions drawn forth by the rebellion have disturbed the repose of many, and military habits and pursuits have not only diverted them from their regular course of action, but have introduced a martial and unsettled spirit which has operated unfavourably upon a large portion of the community. It is to be regretted that many of the regular troops are from time to time seen reeling in the streets, to the interruption of that good order which their services are so efficient in promoting; and that intemperance has increased among the volunteers since they received pay.” (“Hochelaga Depicta,” p. 212.)

The police force was organized in consequence of an ordinance issued during the administration of the Earl of Durham on the 28th of June, 1838. It consisted of 102 privates, four mounted patrols, six sergeants and six corporals under the command of four officers, viz., Capt. Alexander Comeau and Lieutenant Worth for Division A, and Capt. William Brown and Lieut. William Suter for Division B. The expenses were borne by the civil home government and amounted “to at least six thousand pounds per annum.” (Cf. “Hochelaga Depicta.” 181.)

After the rebellion in the early days of Queen Victoria’s reign the office of superintendent was abolished and a “Fire Society” was established by the special council, with power to create a body of officers of the peace. The name suggests that protection against fire was more important those days than against other evils. The force consisted then of 102 men, four mounted patrols, six sergeants, six corporals under the command of four officers. The government supported this expense, which amounted annually to about six thousand pounds. In 1851, after the burning of the parliament house and the Gavazzi riots, the powers of the Fire Society passed into operation under the municipal authorities. The constables were increased to 100. The chief of police was Mr. Hayes. The central station was in the basement of Bonsecours Market and another post was the corner of Craig and Bleury streets. The police had not an enviable reputation.[420] The pay was only 50 cents a day. Often recruits for the service were obtained from the prisoners. Drunkenness was charged to them so that a fine of 5 shillings was imposed on all who sold intoxicating liquors to any of the force.

In 1861 Guillaume Lamothe became chief of police and after some years’ agitation he succeeded in obtaining $1.00 a day pay for his men. Mr. Lamothe, alarmed at the growth of houses of prostitution at this period, suggested in his annual report of 1863 the license of a certain number so as to regulate the evil.4 The recorder, De Montigny, supported this, but on the protest of the religious authorities of the town the innovation was discountenanced.

In 1870 the military were removed from the garrison and the records show an improvement in the morality of the town.

Since 1850 the chiefs of police have been: H. Jérémie, 1850; Thomas McGrath, 1851; E.O. Ermatinger, 1854; J.N. Hayes, 1854; Guillaume Lamothe, 1861; P.W.L. Penton, 1865; H. Paradis, 1879; G.A. Hughes, 1888; D. Legault, 1901; O. Campeau (November), 1905.

THE COURTS AND COURTHOUSE

The establishment of the higher courts has been treated in the chapters dealing with the constitutional growth of the city. It remains to indicate the present system as in vogue. Lawsuits in purely civil matters involving less than one hundred dollars and in which no future rights are involved, are settled by one of the three judges of the circuit court or in a few cases of minor importance by one of the City Recorders. The city recordership is an office peculiar to the Province of Quebec. It is attached to the City Hall and deals with minor offenses enforcing a part of the criminal law, enforcing payment of city licenses and is a court of appeal for assessment charges, actions for wages and civil cases not exceeding one hundred dollars, and minor cases of non-support and the duties of a domestic relations court. All cases dealing with children under sixteen years of age have been relegated to the recently established juvenile court.

Cases of litigation involving $100 or over are decided by one of the judges of the superior court, from whose decision an appeal may be made either to the court of review, which is practically the first court of appeal (composed of three judges of the superior court, other than the judge rendering the first decision), or to the court of king’s bench, consisting of five judges. There are now six judges of king’s bench, sixteen of the superior court, and four of the circuit court for the district of Montreal, which comprises the island of Montreal and the counties of Laval, Soulanges, La Prairie, Chambly and Verchères. The court of king’s bench is composed of six judges, one of whom is the chief justice of the Province of Quebec and five of whom hear appeals in civil and criminal matters for the Province for two weeks every month in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, alternately. They also preside over the sittings of the criminal court for the cities of Montreal and Quebec. Of late years the salaries of the judges of the king’s bench for Montreal and Quebec are $8,000 for the chief justice and puisné judges at $7,000; those of the superior court, $8,000 for the chief justice and[421] $7,000 each for the puisné judges, with a rider restricting all judges to the exclusive practice of their profession as judges. This limitation causes retirements after a number of years for more remunerative posts. The bench is not a body corporate, while the bar is. The first legislation was in 1785 (25 George III, C. 4), regarding the appointment of advocates, attorneys, solicitors and notaries.

The first attempt of the bar of Montreal to acquire corporate existence goes back to 1828, when on March 27th the members of the bar, under the auspices of the court of king’s bench, then composed of Chief Justice Reid and of Justices A.F. Uniacke, George Pyke and L.C. Foucher, organized themselves into a library association, the first board of management being composed of Messrs. Stephen Sewell, Joseph Bedard, Frederick Griffin, and Alexander Buchanan.

The association had a social circle as a scientific side and partook of the nature of a club. The admission fee was $200 and the annual subscription was $5.00. It appears to have flourished.

The next legislative provision enacted regarding the bar was the enactment of 1836 (6 William IV, C. 10) regulating that those who had followed a regular higher course of letters and had served their clerkship in a law firm were fit to be admitted to practice at the bar. The bar association of Montreal was incorporated in 1840 and the bar of Lower Canada in 1849. The title of batonnier was given officially by act of 1849 to the president of the corporation. It comes from days as far back as 1342, when the president of the Sodality of Lawyers carried a bâton, the emblem of St. Nicholas, their patron.

The act to incorporate the bar of Lower Canada was the gradual dissolution of the Library Association so that about a quarter of a century ago the library began to be considered by comity the property of the bar. Since 1898 the Junior Bar Association has been formed for the purpose of mutual information, interest and friendly relations with similar bodies abroad. About 1907 the Montreal Bar Association was founded “for the purpose of promoting the interest of the bar and of facilitating professional labours and of fostering friendly relations among its members.”

THE COURTHOUSES

The courthouse used after the conquest was held in the Jesuit residence confiscated by the government. On the 3d of January, 1799, the sum of £5,000 was appropriated by the parliament for the erection of a new courthouse and at the same time the ground was granted by the government without any pecuniary indemnity. It was built in 1800 at the cost of $25,000 upon part of the site occupied partially before by the chapel and residence of the Jesuits. It contained many large halls and six fine vaults in which the notarial deeds and registers of births, marriages and deaths were stored. In 1803 at the east end of this courthouse there was built a prison which was partially demolished in 1849.

In 1844 the old courthouse was burnt. Until the present courthouse was built the courts were held partially in the prison adjoining the Château de Ramezay. The present courthouse was opened for business in 1856 on the site of the old courthouse and the prison. What was left of the latter was demolished in 1860 and a square was made between the garden of the government fronting the[422] Château de Ramezay and on this place between the Champ de Mars and Notre Dame Street there was placed a fountain with the statue of Neptune, since removed to Park Mance.

In the present courthouse there are kept the judiciary archives of the district of Montreal, which are certainly the richest of any district in the Dominion because nothing has been destroyed, so that all the notarial deeds and official papers from the times of Maisonneuve to our day are available. These archives occupy a space on the basement floor of the courthouse of nearly three hundred by one hundred and twenty-five feet and also nearly half of the ground floor. Under the French régime the archives were under the care of the governor and the seigneurs of the island. Afterwards they were at the old French courthouse at the corner of St. Francis Xavier and Notre Dame streets and they followed the subsequent fortunes of the courthouse transmigrations. When the courthouse was burnt in 1844 the only documents destroyed were a part of the criminal court record. No systematic indexing and classification of the documents were undertaken before Doctor Lemieux was named sheriff in 1910. As this office in Montreal embraces the administration and supervision of the courthouse and prison, it was to this sheriff’s zeal that in 1911, after many demands, he succeeded in having a staff named under Mr. E.Z. Massicotte as the first archivist to put the archives department on an efficient modern basis. This was done, comparing favourably with the best kept contemporary archives in America. This was attested to by the visitors of the Great American Bar Congress held in Montreal in 1913. While the archives in the courthouse represent the collection of all documents relating to the city anterior to the period of English rule and of all the judiciary courts of the Montreal district since, including the preservation of the births, marriages, deaths and notarial deeds, there has lately been established in the city hall a municipal bureau of Archives under Mr. Beaudry, which preserves all documents concerning the government of the city under the system of the Justices of the Peace and the modern municipal corporation of Montreal. The historians of the future will bless both these forward movements of recent years.

THE OLD COURTHOUSE

COURTHOUSE AT MONTREAL

SUPPLEMENT

JUDGES OF THE COURT OF KINGS BENCH, LOWER CANADA

Date. | Place. | Name.
Dec. 11, 1794 | Montreal | John Fraser
Dec. 15, 1794 | Montreal | Jean Antoine Panet
Dec. 16, 1794 | Montreal | James Walker
May 8, 1795 | Montreal | Pierre Louis Panet
June 22, 1796 | Montreal | Isaac Ogden
Feb. 1, 1800 | Montreal | Arthur Davidson
May 7, 1807 | Montreal | James Reid
Dec. 10, 1812 | Montreal | Louis Charles Foucher
May 1, 1820 | Montreal | George Pyke
Feb. 1, 1825 | Montreal | Norman Fitzgerald Uniacke
Dec. 6, 1828 | Montreal | George Pyke
Jan. 7, 1830 | Montreal | Jean Roch Rolland[423]
Dec. 8, 1830 | Montreal | George Pyke
Dec. 9, 1830 | Montreal | Norman Fitzgerald Uniacke
Dec. 11, 1830 | Montreal | Jean Roch Rolland
Aug. 23, 1834 | Montreal | Samuel Gale
Aug. 30, 1838 | Montreal | George Pyke
Aug. 30, 1838 | Montreal | Jean Roch Rolland
Dec. 20, 1838 | Montreal | George Pyke
Dec. 20, 1838 | Montreal | Jean Roch Rolland
Dec. 20, 1838 | Montreal | Samuel Gale
JUDGES OF COURT OF THE COMMON PLEAS, P.Q.
Date. | Place. | Name.
Dec. 11, 1764 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. Adam Mabane
Dec. 11, 1764 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. Francis Munier
Dec. 11, 1764 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. John Fraser
July 14, 1769 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. Hector Theophilus Cramahé
July 14, 1769 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. Adam Mabane
July 14, 1769 | Montreal and Quebec | Hon. John Fraser
July 23, 1776 | Montreal | Peter Livius
July 23, 1776 | Montreal | William Owen
Aug. 22, 1776 | Montreal | Edward Southouse
March 6, 1777 | Montreal | Peter Livius
March 6, 1777 | Montreal | William Owen
March 6, 1777 | Montreal | Gabriel Elzear Taschereau
May 29, 1777 | Montreal | Edward Southouse
May 29, 1777 | Montreal | Edward Southouse
Feb. 18, 1779 | Montreal | Hon. Adam Mabane
Feb. 18, 1779 | Montreal | Thos. Dunn
Aug. 30, 1779 | Montreal | Hon. John Fraser
Aug. 30, 1779 | Montreal | Hon. Hertel de Rouville
Aug. 30, 1779 | Montreal | Edward Southouse
Dec. 24, 1788 | Montreal | Adam Mabane
Dec. 24, 1788 | Montreal | Thomas Dunn
Dec. 24, 1788 | Montreal | Pierre Panet
Dec. 24, 1788 | Montreal | William Dummer Powell
Dec. 24, 1788 | Montreal | Simon Sanguinet
Jan.7, 1790 | Quebec and Montreal | Adam Mabane
Jan.7, 1790 | Quebec and Montreal | Thomas Dunn
Jan.7, 1790 | Quebec and Montreal | Peter Panet
Jan.7, 1790 | Quebec and Montreal | John Frazer
Jan.7, 1790 | Quebec and Montreal | Hertel de Rouville
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LOWER CANADA
Date. | Place. | Name.
Jan. 12, 1792 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | John Fraser
Jan. 12, 1792 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | Thomas Dunn[424]
Jan. 12, 1792 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | Hertel de Rouville
Jan. 12, 1792 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | Jenkin Williams
Jan. 12, 1793 | Montreal | Peter Panet
Aug. 30, 1793 | Montreal | Peter Panet
Jan. 28, 1794 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | John A. Panet
Feb. 8, 1794 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | P.A. DeBonne
Feb. 8, 1794 | Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers | James Walker
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, P.Q.
Date. | Place. | Name.
June 15, 1770 | Montreal | John Fraser
June 15, 1770 | Montreal | John Marteilhe
Feb. 1, 1771 | Montreal | John Marteilhe
Feb. 1, 1771 | Montreal | John Fraser
July 1, 1771 | Montreal | John Fraser
July 1, 1771 | Montreal | John Marteilhe
Jan. 13, 1772 | Montreal | John Marteilhe
Jan. 13, 1772 | Montreal | John Fraser
June 23, 1772 | Montreal | John Fraser
June 23, 1772 | Montreal | John Marteilhe
JUDGES OF THE PREROGATIVE COURT, P.Q.
Date. | Place. | Name.
Nov. 25, 1779 | Montreal | John Fraser
Nov. 25, 1779 | Montreal | Hertel de Rouville
Nov. 25, 1779 | Montreal | Edward Southouse
ASSISTANT JUDGE, LOWER CANADA
Date. | Place. | Name.
June 1, 1818 | District of Montreal | George Pyke
JUDGES CIRCUIT
Date. | Place. | Name.
April 22, 1844 | Montreal District | Hypolite Guy
April 24, 1844 | Montreal District | Charles Joseph Elzear Mondelet
April 27, 1844 | Montreal District | John Samuel McCord
April 29, 1844 | Montreal District | William Badgley
JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Date. | Place. | Name.
Jan. 26, 1877 | District of Montreal | Hon. Vinceslas P. Wilfrid Dorion
June 23, 1883 | District of Montreal | Hon. Michel Mathieu[425]
April 12, 1886 | District of Montreal | Hon. Charles Ignace Gill
June 10, 1887 | District of Montreal | Charles Peers Davidson
April 15, 1889 | District of Montreal | Charles Chamilly De Lorimier
June 5, 1889 | District of Montreal | Siméon Pagnuelo
Oct. 19, 1891 | District of Montreal | Charles Joseph Doherty
Nov. 22, 1893 | District of Montreal | John Sprott Archibald
Oct. 18, 1895 | District of Montreal | Hon. John Joseph Curran
Jan. 14, 1898 | District of Montreal | François Xavier Langelier
June 25, 1901 | District of Montreal | Norman William Trenholme
Sept. 25, 1901 | City of Montreal | Thomas Fortin
June 11, 1902 | District of Montreal | Henri-Césaire Saint Pierre
Mar. 11, 1903 | District of Montreal | Napoléon Charbonneau
May 5, 1904 | District of Montreal | John Dunlop
Aug. 31, 1906 | District of Montreal | Eugène Lafontaine
Aug. 31, 1906 | District of Montreal | Edmund Guerin
JUDGES OF CIRCUIT COURT
Date. | Place. | Name.
Nov. 16, 1893 | District of Montreal | Denis Barry
Nov. 16, 1893 | District of Montreal | Charles L. Champagne
June 8, 1895 | District of Montreal | John Daly Purcell
July 7, 1898 | District of Montreal | Achille Dorion
Jan. 18, 1908 | District of Montreal | Calixte Le Beuf
Nov. 29, 1913 | District of Montreal | Jean Baptiste Archambault
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, P.Q.
Date. | Place. | Name.
Oct. 27, 1894 | District of Montreal | Melbourne M. Tait
JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR QUEBEC
Date. | Place. | Name.
Jan. 11, 1910 | District of Montreal | Charles Archer
July 6, 1910 | Residing at Montreal | Robert Alfred Ernest Greenshields
July 6, 1910 | Residing at Montreal | Charles Laurendeau
Jan. 14, 1912 | Residing at Montreal | Simeon Beaudin
July 16, 1912 | Judicial District of Montreal | Campbell Lane
Dec. 7, 1912 | Judicial District of Montreal | Louis Edmond Panneton

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH (SUPERIOR COURT), LOWER CANADA
From 1841 to 1849 Inclusive
Judges.5 | From | To
Chief Justice.
Sir Jas. Stuart, Bart | Feb. 10, 1841 | Dec. 31, 1849
J.R. Vallière de St. Réal (M.) | June 1, 1842 | Feb. 17, 1847
J.R. Rolland, (M.) | Apr. 23, 1847 | Dec. 31, 1849[426]
Puisné Judges
Edward Bowen (Q.) | Feb. 10, 1841 | Dec. 31, 1849
Phi. Panet (Q.). | Feb. 10, 1841 | Dec. 31, 1849
Elz. Bédard (Q.) | Feb. 10, 1841 | Apr. 25, 1848
T.C. Aylwin (Q.) | Apr. 26, 1848 | Dec. 31, 1849
Geo. Pyke (M.) | Feb. 10, 1841 | June 28, 1842
J.R. Rolland (M.) | Feb. 10, 1841 | Apr. 22, 1847
Saml. Gale (M.) | Feb. 10, 1841 | Apr. 25, 1848
C.D. Day (M.) | June 29, 1842 | Dec. 31, 1849
Jas. Smith (M.) | Apr. 23, 1847 | Dec. 31, 1849
Elz. Bédard (M.) | Apr. 26, 1848 | Aug. 11, 1849
COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH (APPEAL AND CRIMINAL), LOWER CANADA
From 1850 to 1865 Inclusive
Judges | From | To
Chief Justice
Sir Jas. Stuart, Bart (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Died July 14, 1853
Sir L.H. LaFontaine, Bart (M.) | Aug. 13, 1853 | Died Feb. 26, 1864
Hon. J.F.J. Duval (Q.) | Mar. 5, 1864 | ————
Puisné Judges
Hon. J.R. Rolland (M.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Jan. 26, 1855
Hon. Phi. Panet (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Died Jan. 15, 1855
Hon. T.C. Aylwin (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | ————
Hon. J.F.J. Duval (Q.) | Jan. 27, 1855 | Mar. 4, 1864
Hon. R.E. Caron (Q.) | Jan. 27, 1855 | ————
Hon. W.C. Meredith (M.) | Mar. 12, 1859 | ————
Hon. W. Badgley, Asst. Judge (M.) | Sept. 12, 1863 | Dec. 31, 1864
Hon. L.T. Drummond, Puisné Judge (M.) | Mar. 5, 1864 | ————
Hon. C.J.E. Mondelet, Asst. Judge (M.) | Jan. 1, 1865 | ————
SUPERIOR COURT, LOWER CANADA
From 1850 to 1865 Inclusive
Judges. | From | To
Hon. Edw. Bowen, Chief Justice (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Died Apr. 11, 1866
Hon. D. Mondelet, Pusiné Judge (M.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Died in 1863
Hon. C.D. Day, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Sept. 30, 1862
Hon. Jas. Smith, Puisné Judge (?) | Jan. 1, 1850 | ————
Hon. Geo. Vanfelson, Puisné Judge (?) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Jan. 26, 1856
Hon. R.H. Gairdner, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1850 | Sept. 30, 1852
Hon. E. Bacquet, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1852 | Died in 1853
Hon. C.J.E. Mondelet, Puisné Judge (M.) | Jan. 1, 1852 | Dec. 31, 1864
Hon. J.F. Duval, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Jan. 1, 1852 | Jan. 26, 1855
Hon. W. C Meredith, Puisné Judge (M.) | Jan. 1, 1852 | Mar. 11, 1859
Hon. E. Short, Puisné Judge (?) | Nov. 12, 1852 | ————[427]
R.E. Caron, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Aug. 15, 1853 | Jan. 26, 1855
Hon. A.N. Marin, Puisné Judge (M.) | Jan. 27, 1855 | Died July 27, 1865
Hon. W. Badgley, Puisné Judge (M.) | Jan. 27, 1855 | Sept. 11, 1863
Hon. J. Chabot, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Sept. 20, 1856 | Died in 1860
Hon. Hyp. Guy, Puisné Judge (M.) | Nov. 25, 1857 | Apr. 16, 1860
Hon. J.S. McCord, Puisné Judge (M.) | Nov. 25, 1857 | Mar. —, 1865
Hon. W.K. McCord, Puisné Judge (M.) | Nov. 25, 1857 | ——, 1858
Hon. W. Power, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Nov. 25, 1857 | Died in 1860
Hon. J.C. Bruneau, Puisné Judge | Nov. 25, 1857 | Sept. 4, 1863
Hon. J.T. Taschereau, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Nov. 25, 1857 | ————
Hon. D. Roy, Puisné Judge | Nov. 25, 1857 | ————
Hon. P. Winter, Puisné Judge | Mar. 29, 1858 | ————
Hon. J.T. Taschereau, Asst. Judge (Q.) | Nov. 2, 1858 | May 2, 1859
Hon. J.T. Taschereau | June 6, 1860 | Aug. —, 1865
Hon. J.T. Taschereau, Puisné Judge (Q.) | Aug. , 1865 | ————
Hon. A. Stuart, Asst. Judge (Q.) | Feb. 10, 1859 | June 6, 1860
Hon. A. Stuart, Puisné Judge | June 6, 1860 | ————
Hon. J.A. Berthelot, Asst. Judge (M.) | Feb. 10, 1859 | Dec. 31, 1864
Hon. J.A. Berthelot, Puisné Judge | Jan. 1, 1865 | ————
Hon. J.G. Thompson, Puisné Judge (G.) | May 11, 1859 | ————
Hon. A. Lafontaine, Puisné Judge | May 11, 1859 | ————
Hon. S.C. Monk, Asst. Judge (M.) | June 4, 1859 | ————
Hon. A. Polette, Puisné Judge (T.-R.) | Apr. 21, 1860 | ————
Hon. F.O. Gauthier, Puisné Judge (?) | Nov. 14, 1860 | ————
Hon. T.J.J. Loranger, Puisné Judge (M.) | Feb. 28, 1863 | ————
Hon. L.V. Sicotte, Puisné Judge (M.?) | Sept. 5, 1863 | ————
Hon. C.J. Laberge, Puisné Judge (M.) | Sept. 18, 1863 | July 2, 1864
Hon. F.G. Johnson, Puisné Judge (M.) | June 1, 1865 | ————
Deputy Judges, Superior Court.
J.B. Parkin (M.?) | Dec. 22, 1854 | May 11, 1855
Chas. Panet (Q.) | May 16, 1855 | July 6, 1855
J.J.C. Abbott (M.) | May 19, 1855 | Aug. 25, 1855
Assistant Judges Under Seigniorial Act.
H. Driscoll (?) | Sept. 3, 1855 |
G.O. Stuart (Q.) | Sept. 3, 1855 |
F.O. Gauthier (?) | Sept. 3, 1855 |
J.T. Taschereau (Q.) | Sept. 3, 1855 |
J.B. Parkin (M.) | Sept. 3, 1855 |
S.C. Monk (M.) | Sept. 14, 1855 |
J.F. Pelletier (Q.) | Sept. 14, 1855 |
J.A. Berthelot (M.) | Sept. 14, 1855 | [428]
COURT OF VICE-ADMIRALTY (QUEBEC)
From 1841 to 1865
Hon. H. Black | Feb. 10, 1841 |
THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
From 1867 to 1895 Inclusive
Chief Justices of the Queen’s Bench.
Name. | From | To
Hon. Jean François Joseph Duval (Q.) | Mar. 4, 1864 | May 31, 1874
(Retired June 1, 1874; died May 6, 1881.) |  |
Hon. Sir Antoine Aimé Dorion, Kt. (M.) | June 1, 1874 | May 31, 1891
(Knighted, 1877; died May 31, 1891.) |  |
Hon. Sir Alexandre Lacoste, Kt. (M.) | Sept. 14, 1891 | ————
(Knighted June 15, 1892.) |  |
Puisné Judges of the Queen’s Bench.
Name. | From | To
Hon. Thomas Cushing Aylwin (Q.) | Dec. 24, 1849 | Aug. 24, 1868
(Retired Aug. 25, 1868; died Oct. 14, 1871.) |  |
Hon. Réné Edouard Caron (Q.) | Jan. 27, 1855 | Feb. 16, 1873

Mr. Justice Caron assumed the office of Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, February 17, 1873.

Mr. Justice Mondelet, who was a Puisné Judge of the Superior Court, acted as Assistant Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench for and during the time that Mr. Justice Caron continued to be a Commissioner for the codification of the laws of Lower Canada relative to civil matters and procedure.

Hon. Charles Joseph Elzéar Mondelet, |  |
Asst. Judge (M.) | May 30, 1859 | Dec. 31, 1869
Hon. Louis Thomas Drummond (M.) | Mar. 4, 1864 | Oct. 31, 1873
(Retired Nov. 1, 1873; died Nov. 24, 1882.) |  |
Hon. Wm. Badgley (M.) | Aug. 17, 1866 | Mar. 1, 1874
(Retired Mar. 2, 1874; died Dec. 24, 1888.) |  |
Hon. Samuel Cornwallis Monk (M.) | Aug. 27, 1868 | Sept. 19, 1888
(Retired Sept. 20, 1888; died Oct. 29, 1888.) |  |
Hon. Jean Thomas Taschereau (Q.) | Feb. 11, 1873 | Oct. 7, 1875
Appointed Puisné Judge of the Supreme |  |
Court of Canada. | Oct. 8, 1875 |
Hon. Thomas Kennedy Ramsay (M.) | Oct. 30, 1873 | Dec. 22, 1886
(Died Dec. 22, 1886.) |  |
Hon. John Sewell Sanborn (?) | Mar. 6, 1874 | July 17, 1877
(Died July 17, 1877.) |  | [429]
Hon. Ulric Joseph Tessier (Q.?) | Oct. 8, 1875 | Sept. 11, 1891
(Retired Sept. 12, 1891; died Apr. 7, 1892.) |  |
Hon. Alexander Cross (M.) | Aug. 30, 1877 | Oct. 3, 1892
(Retired Oct. 4, 1892; died Oct. 17, 1895.) |  |
Hon. Louis François Geo. Baby (M.) | Apr. 29, 1881 | ————
Hon. Levi Ruggles Church (M.) | Jan. 25, 1887 | Jan. 6, 1892
(Retired Jan. 7, 1892; died Aug. 30, 1892.) |  |
Hon, Joseph Guillaume Bossé (Q.) | Sept. 25, 1888 | ————
Hon. Jean Blanchet (Q.) | Sept. 19, 1891 | ————
Hon. Robert Newton Hall (M.) | Jan. 11, 1892 | ————
Hon. Jonathan S. Campbell Wurtele (M.) | Oct. 12, 1 892 | ————

THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

From 1867 to 1870, four Judges of the Superior Court had to reside in the city of Montreal (C.S.L.C., Chap. 78, 1860); 1870 to 1872, five Judges (33 Vict. Q., Chap. 10); 1872 to 1882, six Judges (35 Vict. Q., Chap. 6, and 36 Vict., Chap. 10); 1882 to 1883, seven Judges (43-44 Vict. Q., Chap. 5); 1883 to 1887, eight Judges (46 Vict. Q., Chap. 13); 1887 to 1895, eleven Judges, including the Judge to whom the district of Terrebonne is assigned (49-50 Vict. Q., Chap. 7, 50 Vict. Q., Chap. 11, and 52 Vict. Q., Chap. 27).

Judges. | From | To
Hon. James Smith | Dec. 24, 1849 | Aug. 24, 1868
(Retired Aug. 25, 1868; died Nov. 29, 1868.) |  |
Hon. Chas. Jos. Elzéar Mondelet | Dec. 24, 1849 | Dec. 31, 1876
He was Assistant Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench from May 30, 1859, to December 31, 1869, during the time Mr. Justice R.E. Caron continued to be a Commissioner for the codification of the laws of Lower Canada relative to civil matters and procedure; he died December 31, 1876.
Hon. Joseph Amable Berthelot | Nov. 30, 1860 | Aug. 31, 1876
(Retired Sept. 1, 1876.) |  |
Hon. Francis Godschall Johnson | July 18, 1865 | Dec. 9, 1889
He was Recorder of the Province of Manitoba from September 3, 1870, to June 1, 1872; appointed Chief Justice December 10, 1889.
Hon. Samuel Cornwallis Monk | Aug. 17, 1866 | Aug. 26, 1868
Appointed Puisné Judge, Court of Queens Bench August 27, 1868. |  |
Hon. Robert Mackay | Aug. 27, 1868 | Oct. 31, 1882
(Retired Nov. 1, 1882; died Feb. 23, 1888.) |  |
Hon. Fred Wm. Torrance | Aug. 27, 1868 | Jan. 2, 1887
(Died Jan. 2, 1887.) |  |
Hon. Jos. Ubalde Baudry, Asst. Judge during the absence of Mr. Justice Mackay | Dec. 5, 1868 | June 30, 1869
(Died Jan. 12, 1876.) |  |
Hon. Jos. Ubalde Baudry, Puisné Judge | Dec. 22, 1869 | Jan. 12, 1876
Hon. Henri Félix Rainville | Feb. 3, 1876 | Apr. 11, 1886
(Retired Apr. 12, 1886; died Feb. 7, 1891.)[430]
Hon. Auguste Cyrille Papineau | Sept. 1, 1876 | May 6, 1889
(Retired May 17, 1889.) |  |
Hon. Vinceslas P. Wilfrid Dorion | Jan. 26, 1877 | June 2, 1878
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Quebec; died June 2, 1878.) |  |
Hon. Louis Amable Jetté | Sept. 2, 1878 | ————
Hon. Louis Onésime Loranger | Aug. 5, 1882 | ————
Hon. Marcus Doherty | Nov. 2, 1882 | Oct. 14, 1891
(Transferred from Judicial District St. Francis; retired Oct. 15, 1891.) |  |
Hon. Mathieu | June 23, 1883 | ————
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Joliette.) |  |
Hon. Chas. Ignace Gill | Apr. 12, 1886 | ————
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Richelieu.) |  |
Hon. Chas. Peer Davidson | June 10, 1887 | ————
Hon. Henri Thomas Taschereau | Dec. 1, 1887 | ————
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Joliette and assigned the Judicial District of Terrebonne.) |  |
Hon. Jonathan Saxton Campbell Wurtele | Sept. 20, 1888 | Oct. 11, 1892
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Ottawa; appointed Puisné Judge, Court of Queen’s Bench, Oct. 12, 1892.)
Hon. Siméon Pagneulo | June 5, 1889 | ————
Hon. Melbourne McTaggart Tait | July 5, 1889 | ————
(Transferred from the Judicial District of Bedford; appointed to perform the duties of Chief Justice in the District of Montreal, Oct. 27, 1894.)
Hon. Charles Joseph Doherty | Oct. 19, 1891 | ————
Hon. John Sprott Archibald | Nov. 22, 1893 | ————
Hon. John Joseph Curran | Oct. 18, 1895 | ————

RECORDERS APPOINTED SINCE THE CREATION OF THE RECORDER’S COURT, IN 1841

Joseph Bourret | 1841
John P. Sexton | 1859
B.A.T. de Montigny | 1881
A.E. Poirier | 1899
R.S. Weir | 1899
F.X. Dupuis | 1907
Amédée Geoffrion | 1912

SHERIFFS OF MONTREAL

- John Turner, 23rd September, 1762.
- Edward Wm. Gray, May, 1776, 1770-1795.
- Frederick Wm. Ermatinger, 24th December, 1810, 1813-1820.
- Hon. L. Gugy, March 3, 1827.
- Hon. Roch de St. Ours, April 3, 1837-1839.
- Hon. Foussaint Pothier and Andrew Stuart, September 21, 1839 for five days.[431]
- John Boston and Hugh Edmund Barron, September 26, 1839-1841.
- John Boston, March 4, 1841-1842.
- John Boston and Wm. Foster Coffin, February 16, 1842-1851.
- John Boston, May 17, 1851-1862.
- A.M. Delisle, March 12, 1862-1863.
- F. Bouthillier, December 19, 1863-1872.
- C.A. Leblanc, November 28, 1872-1877.
- Hon. P.J. O’Chauveau, September 10, 1877-1890.
- Hon. J.R. Thibaudeau, May 9, 1890-June 6, 1909.
- Dr. Louis Joseph Lemieux, 1909.

PROTHONOTARIES

- 1780 John Burke and Charles Lepailleur.
- 1788-1792 John Burke, John Reid and C. Lepailleur.
- 1794 John Burke and John Reid.
- 1795 John Reid, John Burke and Sauveuse de Beaujeu.
- 1801-1813 Alexander Reid and Sauveuse de Beaujeu.
- 1814-1815 John Reid and Louis Levesque.
- 1816-1818 John Reid, L. Levesque and Samuel Wentworth Monk.
- 1831 S.W. Monk and W.C.H. Coffin, and
- Afterwards C.A. Papineau; W.C.H. Coffin, C.A. Papineau and Honey; Hubert, Papineau and Honey; Hubert, Honey and Gendron; Honey and Gendron; Honey, Longprés and Cherrier.
- 1866-1867 A.B. Longprés.
- 1890 Hon. Arthur Turcotte.
- 1895 (about) Hon. (now Justice) Monette.
- 1908 A. Girard.

THE BATONNIERS OF THE MONTREAL BAR

1849-1852 | Toussaint Pelletier.
1852-1853 | Sir Antoine Aimé Dorion.
1855-1856 | C.S. Cherrier, Q.C.
1856-1858 | Henry Stuart, Q.C.
1859-1860 | Strachan Bethune, K.C.
1861-1862 | Sir Antoine Aimé Dorion.
1862-1863 | Strachan Bethune, K.C.
1864-1866 | Hon. R. Laflamme, Q.C.
1873-1875 | Sir Antoine Aimé Dorion.
1875-1879 | W.H. Kerr, Q.C.
1879-1881 | Sir Alexander Lacoste, Q.C.
1881-1883 | W.W. Robertson, Q.C.
1887-1889 | Rouey Roy, Q.C.
1890-1892 | Hon. F.L. Beique, Q.C.
1894-1896 | Hon. J.G. Robidoux, Q.C.
1896-1898 | C.B. Carter, Q.C.
1898-1900 | Hon. J.A.C. Madore.[432]
1901-1902 | W.J. White, K.C.*
1902-1903 | S. Beaudin, K.C.
1903-1904 | D. McMaster, K.C.
1904-1905 | Gustave Lamothe, K.C.
1905-1906 | Eugene Lefleur, K.C.
1906-1907 | P.S. Mignault, K.C.
1907-1908 | F.G. Meredith, K.C.
1908-1909 | Honoré Gervais, K.C.
1909-1910 | R.C. Smith, K.C.
1910-1911 | F.J. Bisaillon, K.C.
1911-1912 | A.J. Brown, K.C.
1912-1913 | J.L. Archambault.
1913-1914 | F. de Sales Bastien, K.C.
* A one-year’s term of office was now resolved upon.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The first jail under the French régime was situated, according to documents found by Mr. Massicotte either on St. Paul Street near St. Sulpice, or at Point a Callieres, i. e., either at Maisonneuve’s château or in the original fort.

2 An auction duty of 2½% was levied, with a tax on tea, varying from twopence to sixpence a pound, likewise threepence a gallon on spirits and twopence on molasses and syrup.

3 In 1839, the date of the publication of Newton Bosworth’s “History of Montreal,” the author writes, “There is no chaplain attached to this gaol nor, we are sorry to learn, is there any provision made for the moral and religious instruction of the prisoners. Vice and immorality, we are informed, prevail to an alarming extent and call loudly for the benevolent services of all who feel it important to check the prevalence of these enormous evils and to reclaim the sinner from the error of his ways.” Vol. II—27

4 The same suggestion has been made on several occasions since, but always with the same result.

5 The provincial appointments from 1841 to 1864, and from 1867 to 1895 are given for Lower Canada. It has been found impossible to identify them all in time for the press. Those marked “M” have been identified, as Montreal, “Q” as Quebec and “?” as questioned.

[433]

### CHAPTER XXXIII

HOSPITALS

THE HOTEL DIEU: JEANNE MANCE—THE HOSPITALIERES OF LA FLECHE—THE HOTEL DIEU CHAPEL—ST. PATRICK’S HOSPITAL—THE MIGRATION TO PINE AVENUE—THE PRESENT MODERN HOSPITAL.

THE GENERAL HOSPITAL: “THE LADIES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY”—THE HOUSE OF RECOVERY—THE MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL—ITS BENEFACTORS AND ITS ADDITIONS—THE EARLY TRAINING OF NURSES—THE ANNEX OF 1913.

THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL: THE LAVAL MEDICAL FACULTY—THE OLD DONEGANI HOTEL—THE LADY PATRONESSES—MODERN DEVELOPMENT.

THE WESTERN HOSPITAL: THE BISHOPS COLLEGE MEDICAL FACULTY—THE WOMEN’S HOSPITAL.

THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL: IN MEMORY OF QUEEN VICTORIA—ITS DESCRIPTION—ITS INCORPORATION—ITS EQUIPMENT.

THE HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL: FIRST ORGANIZED WORK—INCORPORATION—THE FIRST HOSPITAL—THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS—THE PHILLIPS TRAINING SCHOOL FOR NURSES.

THE HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE: EARLY TREATMENT OF INSANE—THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOSPITALS ST. JEAN DE DIEU AT LONGUE POINTE AND THE PROTESTANT ASYLUM AT VERDUN.

CIVIC HOSPITALS: THE SMALLPOX HOSPITAL—“CONTAGIOUS” HOSPITALS—HOSPITAL ST. PAUL—ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL.

TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARIES: THE ROYAL EDWARD INSTITUTE—PIONEER TUBERCULOSIS CLINIC IN CANADA—PUBLIC HEALTH EXHIBITIONS—THE INSTITUTE BRUCHESI: ITS DEVELOPMENT—THE GRACE DART HOME—CIVIC AID.

CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS: THE CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL—STE. JUSTINE.

OTHER HOSPITAL ADJUNCT ASSOCIATIONS.

NOTE: MEDICAL BOARDS: PRIVATE, PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL.

Montreal is blessed in its charities and philanthropies. Those for the sick have an interesting history, which may be told best in chronological order:

THE HOTEL DIEU

The early history of the first hospital in Montreal has been told in the first volume. To recapitulate its history to the beginning of the English régime. It started on the first day of the foundation of Montreal, May 17, 1642, when Jeanne[434] Mance arrived with the express purpose of founding a hospital, being helped thereto by funds provided by Madame de Bullion. Her first home adjoined to the château, shortly built in the fort inclosure, and that little home, the Hôtel Dieu, built of logs, in 1644, at what is the North East corner of St. Paul Street, became the first of the infirmaries directed by her alone for seventeen years. The Hôtel Dieu was not, however, completely founded until the arrival, in October, 1659, of the three Hospitalier Sisters of St. Joseph from La Flèche in Anjou, sent to her by M. Jerome de la Dauversière. These were Judith Moreau de Brésoles, Catherine Macé and Marie Maillet. This body had been established by de la Dauversière and Mlle. de la Ferré in 1642 for Montreal, and now when the hour had arrived its representatives were received in the first Hôtel Dieu, the wooden building twenty-five feet square, which lasted fifty years on St. Paul Street. In 1666 Louis XIV confirmed the establishment of the Hôtel Dieu by letters patent. In 1695 the Hôtel Dieu was razed to the ground by fire and the remains of Jeanne Mance consumed, but the hospital was rebuilt on the same site. Fires again in 1721 and 1734 attacked it. Still it rose from its ruins. In 1760, owing to the scarcity of barracks, Amherst’s troops took possession of the west chapel, which had been commenced in 1656 and had served till 1678 as the only place of worship for citizens and sick alike. It was dismantled and turned into a stable. Years afterward the sister procureur of the Hôtel Dieu, came across the account of the bill for the unpaid damages and sent it to Queen Victoria who promptly sent a check for the amount due. In 1852 the Hôtel Dieu established, in the college built originally by the Baptists and bought for $16,020.00, the branch hospital of St. Patrick’s on Guy Street, for the principal purpose of providing the Irish and English Catholic population with English-speaking physicians and sisters.

The first physicians were Doctor David, Doctor Howard and Dr. (Sir William) W.H. Hingston. The work was discontinued about 1860, when preparations were being made to open the present Hôtel Dieu on Pine Avenue, and the building was opened on September 8, 1860, by the Congregation Nuns as a convent school under the name of the “Pensionnat du Mont St. Marie.”

On account of the disasters from fires the statistics of the Hôtel Dieu for the first century of its work are incomplete, but from 1760 to 1860 the exact number of cases of invalids admitted is 82,121. By 1909, when the 250th anniversary of the arrival of the three Hospitaliers was celebrated, the number had mounted to 119,352. In 1861 the Hôtel Dieu made its first great change, when it was transported from the corner of St. Paul and St. Sulpice Street to its present location, Mont St. Famille on Pine Avenue. When it is remembered that the nuns are an inclosed order and never leave their cloister or their grounds, to leave the old Hôtel Dieu on St. Paul Street was like tearing themselves from their home to journey to a far-off land. Their consolation was to take with them the remains of their sisters, buried there during the preceding 200 years. The stones of the old chapel on St. Joseph (afterwards St. Sulpice Street) and St. Paul Street, were taken to erect a little chapel dedicated to St. Joseph in the new convent grounds. Since 1845 eight independent off-shoots of the Hôtel Dieu have risen to carry on the work started in 1659, viz., at Kingston, Tracadie, Chatham, Madawaska, Campbellton, Arthabaska, Windsor and Winooski. From the house of Kingston the Hôtel Dieus of Cornwall and Chicago have sprung.

Since the transition from St. Paul Street the Hôtel Dieu has become more and[435] more of the nature of a public hospital, fully equipped and of the modern type. From 1857 to 1874 the Hospital provided a home for old people of both sexes to the number of thirty-seven to forty a year. This was then left to other religious bodies established for the purpose.

ANCIENT HOTEL-DIEU UP TO 1821 (ST. PAUL ST.)

HOTEL-DIEU IN 1861

The care of young orphans was not relinquished till 1890. Ninety to one hundred of these have been cared for annually. Outside their patients the nuns now only continue the maintenance of seventeen scholars who act as sanctuary boys in the services of the chapel. Their functions are entirely occupied now with the care of their sick. The next hospital in chronological order would be the “Hôpital Général” originally founded by the Charron Nères and reformed in 1747 by Madame d’Youville. But as this institution, still existing, is rather an asylum for the aged as well as an institution for foundlings with the baby hospital work in connection, it will be treated elsewhere.

THE GENERAL HOSPITAL

The General Hospital, the first general hospital under British rule, has, for many years, been perhaps the most popular of Montreal’s numerous charities. It owed its inception to the inspiration of Montreal ladies.

In the first annual report, it is stated that the increase of population and the great influx of emigrants from the United Kingdom, rendered the Hôtel Dieu inadequate for the care of the indigent sick, and further it was desirable to accommodate patients suffering from contagious diseases.

Its history is as follows:

About 1815 a band of ladies combined under the name of the “Ladies Benevolent Society” to meet the cases of destitute immigrants occurring. By 1818 a fund of £1,200 was raised. A small house, thenceforth called the “House of Recovery,” was hired. This with its four rooms was attended by Doctor Blackwood, a young retired army surgeon, with the assistance of others. Very soon a large house was secured on Craig Street, fitted up with three wards and made capable of receiving twenty-four patients. The movement now became popular. A public meeting was called. The idea of a “General Hospital” took hold. The medical department was first under the control of four professional men in connection with the “Montréal Medical Institution,” which afterwards became the first medical faculty of McGill University.

On May 1, 1819, the patients were removed from the “House of Recovery” to the new building, which now assumed the name of the Montreal General Hospital. About this time a site used as a nursery, on Dorchester Street, was up for sale. This lot then “in the suburbs, was chosen for its proximity to the town, and the salubrity of the situation.” In view of erecting a hospital thereon it was purchased on the joint credit of the Hon. J. Richardson, the Honorable Mr. McGillivray and Mr. S. Gerrard. A contract was signed for the new hospital early in January, 1821. The Hon. J. Richardson, Rev. J. (Dean) Bethune, Doctor Robertson, John Molson, D. Ross, John Fry and A. Skakel, Esqs., were appointed a committee to superintend the work.

The corner-stone of the building was laid with Masonic ceremonies on the 6th of June, 1821, and the building was opened for the reception of patients on the 1st of May, 1822, the cost of the erection being £4,556 currency. This building,[436] which is now represented by the entrance hall and rooms above, was designed to accommodate seventy-two patients.

The subsequent history consists chiefly in the addition of block after block of buildings to the original small stone central edifice, each addition being named after a generous donor or honoured citizen.

On the death of the Hon. John Richardson, the first president, it was resolved to perpetuate his name and connection with the Hospital by the addition of a wing to be named after him. A generous response was made by the public, and in 1832 the building attached to the east end of the original structure was opened for the reception of patients.

In 1848 the widow of Chief Justice Reid signified her intention of adding a wing corresponding with the first, to be named after her deceased husband.

Special provision was made for the treatment of children by the erection of the Morland wing, in rear of the Reid wing. This building was added in memory of Mr. Thomas Morland, an active member of the Committee of Management, and was opened in 1874. It contained rooms afterwards utilized for outdoor patients, private wards, and accommodation for servants, which was subsequently transformed to a female ward.

In accordance with the views of the founders of the Hospital, accommodation was long provided for patients suffering from infectious fevers. Cases of smallpox, typhus, scarlatina, diphtheria and measles, were for years accommodated in the central building or its wings. During the great epidemic of typhus or as it was better known, ship fever, brought to the country chiefly by Irish immigrants, the Hospital capacity was taxed to its utmost, and temporary sheds had to be erected for the accommodation of the sufferers. In the years 1831-32, 1832-33 and 1847-48, 5,631 patients were admitted of whom 3,458 suffered from fever. Doctor Howard, in his report, states that over half the fever patients were cases of typhus.

Smallpox again, which in former years was very prevalent in Montreal, was treated in special wards of the Hospital. Owing to the disease spreading to other patients a brick building afterwards used as a kitchen and laundry, was constructed in the rear of the Richardson wing. Half the cost of this structure was generously donated by Mr. Wm. Molson; the building was used for infectious cases up to 1894. At that time, after many applications and much pressure from the governors, the city undertook to subscribe $6,000 annually to the Hospital to defray the expense of providing for infectious disease. Two houses were utilized for a year in the neighbourhood, and the department was then moved to the Civic Hospital, on Moreau Street. Half this building is controlled by the General Hospital and is supported financially by the city.

Two surgical pavilions and a large operating theatre were opened for use in December, 1892. Mr. George Stephen, afterwards Lord Mount Stephen, one of the generous donors of the Royal Victoria Hospital, contributed $50,000 in memory of the late Dr. G.W. Campbell, formerly dean of McGill Medical Faculty, and a bequest from Mr. David Greenshields of $40,000 was also utilised in adding these wings. From that time accommodation for surgical cases has been excellent. The old part of the Hospital was, however, in a very unsatisfactory state. The wards were small and the building antiquated. Lack of funds only had long prevented a radical change being made in this block. The[437] president, Mr. F. Wolferstan Thomas, set himself the task of collecting funds to renovate this part of the building and to render it in keeping with the surgical side. As the outcome of his untiring work in aid of the Hospital $100,000 was collected. The interior of the old building was pulled down and it was skillfully remodelled, under the direction of Mr. A.T. Taylor, for the accommodation of medical, gynæcological and ophthalmic patients, the old operating room being retained as a medical lecture, and gynæcological operating theatre.

It was evidently the intention of the founders of the Hospital to provide for proper nursing so far as was possible, before the advent of Florence Nightingale. We read in the first annual report, among other rules, that the nurse, on admission of a patient, “shall immediately wash his or her face and hands, neck and arms, feet and legs, with tepid water; she shall give him or her (if he or she have none) an hospital shirt and night-cap.” Again they are instructed to keep themselves clean and decently clothed, and to be diligent in complying with the orders of the medical officers, surgeon and matron. Surely we have here inculcated two important duties of the modern nurse, cleanliness and obedience.

In 1890 the present successful school of nurses was established and in 1897 the Jubilee Nursing Home on the hospital grounds was being erected, while in 1913 a large annex was added to meet the growing demands of the population on the charity of the Hospital.

THE NOTRE DAME HOSPITAL

This institution is situated n Notre Dame Street, near the eastern Canadian Pacific Railway station, in a populous commercial and manufacturing centre, and in close proximity to the harbour.

It was founded in 1880. The branch of the Laval Medical Faculty, established in Montreal in 1877, had no hospital, its professors and students being excluded from the Hôtel Dieu, on account of the difficulties that had arisen between the Faculty and the Montreal School of Medicine and Surgery, the latter holding the Hôtel Dieu. Knowing that a hospital was greatly needed in the commercial and manufacturing part of the city, and would afford abundant clinical material, the professors undertook to found Notre Dame Hospital.

Dr. E. Persillier-Lachapelle, taking the lead, obtained the co-operation of the Rev. Victor Rousselot, of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, who assumed half the financial responsibility of the enterprise, the professors taking the other half.

The co-operation of the Sisters of Charity (Grey Nuns) was next obtained to care for the sick and see to the internal economy of the Hospital.

The old Donegani Hotel was rented, and the contracts for repairing, renovating and furnishing the building granted; and on the 1st of July, 1880, the Hospital, with fifty beds, was inaugurated. In 1881 it was incorporated, the corporation being under the direction of a Medical Board, a Board of Governors and a Board of Management. Later on the Hospital became possessor of the Donegana Hotel and the adjoining estates on each side, and gradually completed the important repairs and renovations requisite to adapt those buildings to the needs of the institution.

Its presidents were successively: Hon. L.J. Forget, Hon. J.R. Thibaudeau, Mr. C.P. Hébert, and Hon. L.O. Loranger.

[438]

The first superntendent and adviser of the Hospital was Dr. E.P. Lachapelle, who filled the position for many years, being succeeded by Dr. L. de Lothbinière Harwood.

The citizens of Montreal and the public generally have always contributed liberally to the maintenance of the institution. The ladies of Montreal, fully interested in the good work to be done, founded an association—The Lady Patronesses of Notre Dame Hospital—to co-operate more effectively with the directors.

The Hospital to-day contains 150 beds, the greater number of which are devoted to the poor and unfortunate sick of all races and creeds.

Besides the wards there is an outdoor department, comprising dispensaries for general medicine, surgery, eye, nose, throat and ear diseases, diseases of women, diseases of the skin, diseases of children and nervous diseases.

In the Hospital proper, there are men’s and women’s wards for surgery, medicine, ophthalmology and gynæcology. There is a pathological laboratory in the hospital as well as an electrical and radiological one. An ambulance service does active work, succouring the sick and injured, and providing the Hospital with abundant clinical cases. The whole of this varied and practical clinical material is classified and utilized by the Faculty for the graded and thorough instruction of its students. The medical service is directed by a bureau of thirty-two physicians. The Grey Nuns are in charge of the hospital nursing department. The hospital has now an annex being constructed on Sherbrooke Street, facing Park Lafontaine. By its side is the hospital of St. Paul for contagious diseases.

WESTERN HOSPITAL

This hospital was first projected in 1871, the year in which the Medical Faculty 1 of Bishops College was established. For some time previously the want of a hospital in the West End had been felt and spoken of, but further than this no action was taken. When Bishops Medical Faculty was in its inception, it was feared they might not get full facilities for their students in the existing hospitals. Circumstances which occurred seemed to indicate that this would be realized. As a result a friend of Bishops College, Major Mills, offered to give $12,000 to build a western hospital. This donation was put in writing by Doctor Wilkins, then in Bishops, and signed by Major Mills, and an active canvass commenced. In a short time $30,000 was subscribed, the charter for incorporation was assented to on January 20, 1874, the present site purchased, and on the 29th June, 1876, the foundation stone of the first building was laid with appropriate ceremony. It is not required to notice the vicissitudes, which the building met with, beyond stating that for several years it remained unfinished. When at last completed, the Western Hospital Corporation was not in position to commence hospital work. It was leased, in 1884, by the Women’s Hospital, the charter of which was owned by the Medical Faculty of Bishops and opened for hospital work, there being two departments—a Gynæcological and a Maternity. A most successful work was done by this hospital when, in 1895, the marked growth of the city westward seemed to indicate that the time had arrived for putting the building to its original purpose, that of a general hospital. The lease with the Women’s Hospital was therefore cancelled by mutual consent, and[439] in the fall of 1895, the Western Hospital, as a general hospital, began its active work. The ground owned by the Hospital Corporation is nearly three acres in extent, and is bounded by four streets, one being an avenue of over one hundred feet wide. This avenue leads directly to many of the large manufactories in the West End, and they furnish the Hospital with a large amount of its surgical work.

In 1907 the charter was altered and the new building was erected, the old one becoming the nurse’s home. The late Mr. Peter Lyale was the president at the time, having been in that office from 1906 to his death in 1912. He was succeeded by Mr. D. Lorne McGibbon.

THE ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

The Royal Victoria Hospital received its name in commemoration of the jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887, in memory of which it was founded in that year.

On the 2d of December, 1893, His Excellency the Governor General assisted at the inauguration of the new hospital, which was devoted, by Lord Mount Stephen and Sir Donald Smith, K.C.M.G., etc., to the cure of the sick, of whatever race or creed, to the training of nurses, and to the furtherance of science. The building is erected within a lot of eighteen acres, purchased by the founders for $90,000, to which another five acres, held under long lease from the city, make a convenient addition. It stands on part of the Mountain Park and faces on Pine Avenue and University Street.

The style of architecture is Scottish baronial, to which the limestone of Montreal is well suited. The facade of the administration block is after the style of F’yvie Castle, in Aberdeenshire. Over the main arch of the doorway are the monograms of Lord Mount Stephen and Sir Donald Smith. On the western gable of the central block appear the coat of arms of Lord Mount Stephen with his motto “Lippen,” an old Scotch word, meaning to attend. Sir Donald’s coat of arms is on the eastern gable, and bears the motto “Perseverance.” Both of these mottoes are admirable motives to inspire service in the cause of the sick. The building, begun in 1891, has employed 600 workmen and cost nearly eight hundred thousand dollars. To construction, furnishing and maintenance, the founders have devoted nearly one million five hundred thousand dollars. Designed by H. Saxon Snell, an English architect of eminence, whose specialty is hospitals, the structure combines, with peculiarities of its own, the best characteristics of Mr. Snell’s previous efforts.

The act of incorporation, passed in 1890, provides for fifteen governors, of whom seven shall be the mayor of Montreal, president of the Board of Trade, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, president of the Bank of Montreal, the chief officer of the Grand Trunk Railway resident at Montreal, and the principal and dean of the faculty of McGill College.

The other governors, expressly named in the act, were Sir Donald Smith (afterwards Lord Strathcona), Lord Mount Stephen, Alexander G. Patterson, W.J. Buchanan, Andrew Robertson and Thomas Davidson, Esquires.

The act provided for branch convalescent hospitals at Banff, N.W. Territories, and at Caledonia Springs.

[440]

Associates are constituted by paying $1,000 and $20, or more annually, or $5,000 in all.

In an address read by R.B. Angus, chairman of the board, to His Excellency, the Governor General was informed that he was ex-officio a visitor of the institution, and would always be welcome.

Replying, His Excellency declared that, out of consideration for Sir Donald Smith, whom he had with difficulty induced to attend, he would substitute, for praise of the founders, congratulations of all concerned upon the happy conclusion of this magnificent act of practical philanthropy and of Christian benevolence.

He announced that R.B. Angus, Esq., successor of the late Sir John Abbott as chairman of the board, had promised $25,000 towards the support of the institution, and hoped that the example would be followed in sums large and small.

Wishing the founders long life, to witness the happiness which they have prepared, the Governor General called for and lead three cheers for the founders and three for Her Majesty.

The Hospital consists of three really separate buildings, connected together by stone bridges. Viewed from the front on Pine Avenue, the hospital appears to form three sides of a square, but it is in reality H-shaped. The central part is the administration block, while the two wings contain the wards and accessory rooms, the theatres and chemical laboratory, etc.

Regardless of expense, the best surgical inventions and appliances have been collected from the chief seats of medical science on two continents. Not only are the physicians, surgeons and nurses elegantly housed, but even the servants are to be envied their comfortable quarters. A training school for nurses is attached to the hospital.

A fine bust of Her Majesty, in prominent position, reminds visitors that the inception of this admirable institution celebrates, in the name, and with the approval, of Her Majesty, the fiftieth anniversary of her coming to the throne.

THE HOMŒOPATHIC HOSPITAL

The first records of Homœopathy in this city are contained in a pamphlet by Dr. John Wanless, published in 1864, giving the substance of a series of letters which had appeared in attempted refutation of Homœopathy, and the doctor’s replies thereto as they were printed in the Montreal “Transcript” of the time.

In his pamphlet the author mentions Doctor Rosenstein as one of our first Homœopaths, and relates in detail the treatment which that practitioner received while trying to conduct an experimental case in the Montreal General Hospital. Dr. Arthur Fisher was a contemporary.

On the 28th of June, 1863, Messrs. Thomas McGinn, F.E. Grafton, James Baylis, James A. Mathewson, James Muir, E.L. Ransom, D.A. Ansell, Fleck, and McCready, met in the Mechanics’ Hall and made the first attempt to organize Homœopathy in Montreal.

A dispensary was established, which from unexplained causes was discontinued after two years of apparent prosperity.

New names of adherents appear from time to time, among them Hon. James Ferrier, G.A. Holland, Hon. L.S. Huntingdon, George Washington Stephens,[441] James Stewart, John S. McLachlan, Charles Alexander, D. Drysdale, E. Lusher and Henry Lyman.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL

MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL

On March 18, 1865, Messrs. James A. Mathewson, James Baylis, George A. Holland, James Muir, Thomas McGinn, John Wanless, M.D., and Francis E. Grafton, obtained from the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada a charter incorporating themselves and their successors under the name and title of “The Montreal Homœopathic Association,” with power to establish in Montreal a Dispensary and a Hospital, to establish a College and appoint professors to teach the principles and practice of medicine according to the doctrines of Homœopathy, and to grant licenses to practice medicine according to these doctrines within the Province of Lower Canada. This charter was further amended, and the powers amplified by the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, September 14, 1865, and the Quebec Legislature on March 30, 1883. Owing to a limited clientéle and paucity of resources, little was done for many years beyond the pro forma requirements of the charter, and the very important powers granted thereunder lay dormant, though carefully nursed and guarded by the old stalwarts of those pioneer days. In 1893 the Association took a new lease of life, and from that day on the story of Homœopathy has been one of brilliant achievement and ever-widening influence. The Association has recently established a public free dispensary at the corner of St. Antoine and Inspector streets, and its hoped-for career of usefulness will be watched with interest.

In March, 1893, a petition to the Governors of the newly inaugurated Royal Victoria Hospital, asking for a Homœopathic ward, was circulated, and within two months thirteen feet of names of prominent citizens favouring Homœopathy were obtained.

On May 18, 1893, a deputation consisting of Doctor Wanless, Reverend Dr. Barbour, Reverend Dr. Ross, Dr. H.M. Patton, Messrs. Samuel Bell, James Baylis, John Torrance, James A. Gillespie, James Ferrier, F.E. Grafton, Charles Alexander and E.G. O’Connor met the Governors of the Royal Victoria Hospital in the board room of the Bank of Montreal, and presented the petition. It was courteously received, and compliance therewith promised, if possible. On January 5, 1894, a formal reply was received, stating that the petition could not be granted. On November 13, 1893, a similar request to the Montreal General Hospital was also refused.

In 1893 negotiations for special accommodation in existing hospitals having failed, and the demand for Homœopathic Hospital facilities having become urgent, the board decided to take the important step permitted in its charter, and to acquire a hospital under its own control.

The property, No. 44 McGill College Avenue, consisting of a four-story brick building and 3,300 square feet of land, was purchased for $8,000, and in July, 1894, the deeds were signed for the Association by Mr. Charles Alexander, president, and Dr. H.M. Patton, the secretary. During the summer of 1894 the repairs committee, with energy and excellent taste, transformed the old residence into one of the most attractive and complete of small hospitals.

On October 2, 1894, the Hospital was formally opened, the Lord Bishop of Montreal and other representative clergymen conducting an imposing inaugural ceremony in the presence of a large number of prominent citizens; thus was[442] launched into benevolent activity the first Homœopathic Hospital in the Province of Quebec, under the following management:

The first hospital officials, 1894, were: President, Samuel Bell; vice president, Mr. Charles Morton; treasurer, Joseph Gould; secretary, Dr. W.G. Nichol.

The committee of management was composed of Lady Van Horne, Mrs. Hector Mackenzie, Mrs. W.B. Lindsay, Mrs. Henry Thomas, Mrs. T. (Dr.) Nichol, Mrs. Roswell Fisher, Miss Ames, Dr. John Wanless, Dr. H.M. Patton, James Baylis; Miss M.E. Baylis, secretary of committee.

The medical superintendent was Dr. H.M. Patton and the lady superintendent, Miss Thompson.

The consulting staff consisted of Dr. Arthur Fisher, Dr. George Logan, Doctor McLaren, and Dr. George Gale, while the attending physicians were Doctors Wanless, W.G. Nichol, Griffith, and T. Scott Nichol.

The attending surgeon was Dr. H.M. Patton.

The first year’s work showed 158 patients occupying its beds, 135 of whom were public, and twenty-three private patients. The death rate for the year is given as 2.5.

A new wing was soon required, while the maternity annex and nurses’ home was next added by the Woman’s Auxiliary.

Once more the devoted ladies of the Woman’s Auxiliary nobly responded to the growing demands of pressing hospital needs, which included provision for laundry work under their own supervision, better accommodation for their admirable little band of pupil nurses, and the inauguration of a much-needed maternity for ladies desiring private hospital accommodation. The adjoining house, No. 46 McGill College Avenue, was leased from Mr. W.L. Maltby on a long term, Miss Annie Moodie becoming personally responsible for the rent. The basement was fitted up as a laundry. The first floor given over to the nurses as a dormitory, with sitting-room and locker accommodation. The bath-room was remodelled and refitted, and four dainty, private wards equipped and furnished for maternity patients. The whole Annex was handed over complete to the Hospital management, practically free of debt, on August 6, 1899.

The year 1900 is noteworthy from the fact of the Woman’s Auxiliary relinquishing all share and responsibility for Hospital management, which hitherto had been jointly controlled by the committee and the auxiliary. The Committee of Management was recast and consolidated, and large responsibility put upon the chairman, Mr. S.M. Baylis being the incumbent of the office at that time.

In 1904, after careful deliberation, the Homœopathic Association, under whose charter of 1865 and amending acts the Hospital had been instituted and maintained, formally authorized the application for a special charter, and agreed to transfer all real property, equipment, securities and effects hitherto held under its title, and acquired for the use and benefit of the Hospital, to the new corporation, on consideration of the latter assuming all annuity and other obligations attaching thereto. In May, 1904, the Quebec Legislature passed an act incorporating “The Homœopathic Hospital of Montreal,” the following gentlemen and their successors being constituted a body politic under that name and title: James A. Mathewson, Francis E. Grafton, Charles Alexander, Samuel Bell, John T. Hagar, Louis Barbeau, Roswell C. Fisher, Edward G. O’Connor, Samuel M.[443] Baylis, Thomas J. Dawson, Edward M. Morgan, M.D., Hugh M. Patton, M.D., Arthur D. Patton, M.D., Alexander R. Griffith, M.D., Arthur Fisher, M.D., John W. Hughes and George Durnford.

INSANE ASYLUM AT LONGUE POINT

HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL

WESTERN HOSPITAL

PROTESTANT INSANE ASYLUM AT VERDUN

The Jubilee Endowment was inaugurated in 1897, in commemoration of the jubilee of beloved Queen Victoria, by the donation of $10,000 by the late Alexander Clerk, and since augmented by bequests from the late James Baylis, and other sources, to the capital sum of $10,871.61.

The Phillips’ Training School for Nurses was founded contemporaneously with the establishment of the Hospital, and so named in honour of the first benefactress, Mrs. Georgina D. Phillips; the school has done good work in training and launching in professional careers so many graduates.

The College of Homœopathic Physicians and Surgeons of Montreal is operated under the charter granted to the Homœopathic Association in the Act of 1865, and amending acts. Since the relinquishment to the new incorporation of its hospital work, the College is now the main care of the Association. Applicants for its valued license must be graduates of an approved Medical College, and must pass the critical examination of its licensing board in the special field of Homœopathic therapeutics.

HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE

St. Jean de Dieu, Longue Pointe

The care of the insane was first entrusted as a special department in this city to the Grey Nuns in 1793. The work was relinquished by them in 1844.

The modern work is now undertaken for the Montreal district and the Province of Quebec by the Sisters of Providence at Longue Pointe and the Protestant Insane Asylum at Verdun. The history of each is interesting.

The care of the insane was undertaken by the Providence Nuns on the proposition of the Quebec government to them in 1873. In 1889, Mother Theresa of Jesus visited the principal insane asylums of Europe and America. She declared that the method of dividing the asylum into annexed pavilions should be adopted in the classification of various cerebral diseases, which was accordingly done. At present, two rows of pavilions cover five acres of land. Nine acres will be required to complete the Asylum and the other detached dwellings which have been erected on the 500-acre farm. On the first storey is an electric tramway which operates over its 3,000-foot corridor, and is for the use of the personnel of the Asylum. A railroad, 15,000 feet long, owned by the Community, is used for transportation of goods, coal, wood, lumber, etc., from the quays on the St. Lawrence to the main building. The institution was visited by a disastrous fire in 1890. Nevertheless, the Asylum prospered, and today it compares favorably with similar asylums, either in America or Europe. Twelve thousand seven hundred and eighty patients have been admitted from the day it was formally opened. The medical staff is composed of three house and three visiting physicians, three inspectors, appointed by the Government, and a medical superintendent.

VERDUN

The movement for a separate Protestant Insane Asylum originated with Mr. Alfred Perry in 1880, who called a public meeting for the purpose of promoting[444] it. It was not upheld that year but, having called a second meeting on February 21, 1881, a resolution proposed by Mr. Henry Lyman and seconded by the Reverend Dr. Sullivan was carried unanimously after considerable discussion: “That it is expedient and extremely requisite that steps should now be taken looking to the establishment of a Protestant Insane Asylum in the Province of Quebec.”

On June 30, 1881, there was passed a bill entitled “An Act to Incorporate the Protestant Hospital for the Insane.” Mr. Morrice generously defrayed all expenses connected with the securing of this charter.

The Rt. Rev. William B. Bond, LL. D., Lord Bishop of the Diocese of Montreal; John Jenkins, D.D., LL. D.; Gavin Lang; George Douglas, LL. D.; George H. Wells; Henry Wilkes, D.D.; A.H. Munro; W.S. Barnes; William A. Hall, M.D.; Sir Hugh Allan; Andrew Allan; George Macrae, Q.C.; Charles Alexander; Henry Lyman; M.H. Gault, M.P.; Thomas White, M.P.; Peter Redpath; Adam Darling; Hugh McLellan; James Coristine; S.H. May; T. James Claxton; James Johnston; Alex McGibbon; Alfred Perry; Leo H. Davidson, and such other persons, donors or subscribers, as might be or become associated with them and their successors, by this act were constituted a body corporate to found a Protestant institution for the care, maintenance and cure of the insane of the several Protestant denominations in the Province of Quebec.

In accordance with the provision of the act, and pursuant to a notice published in the “Herald” and “Gazette,” as required by law, a meeting of those interested was held in the Y.M.C.A. rooms, on December 20, 1881, Mr. Morrice presiding. At the request of the chairman, Doctor Davidson explained the act of incorporation, and advised that a board of twenty-four governors should be elected by subscribers of $10 each, who thus constituted themselves members of the corporation, this step being necessary to preserve the charter. The majority of those present having paid the required sum, a vote was taken by ballot, and the following gentlemen elected to the Board of Governors: Mr. D. Morrice; Mr. M.H. Gault, M.P.; Rev. Gavin Lang; Dr. F.W. Campbell; Dr. J.C. Cameron; Mr. Charles Alexander; Mr. Henry Lyman; Reverend Dr. Sullivan; Dr. William Osler; Mr. Alfred Perry; Mr. L.H. Davidson; Rev. William Hall; Mr. T.J. Claxton; Mr. Thomas White, M.P.; Rev. A.B. Mackay; His Lordship Bishop Bond; Rev. G.H. Wells; Mr. Warden King; Canon Baldwin; Mr. George Macrae, Q. C; Mr. Peter Redpath; Mr. Adam Darling; Mr. Hugh McLennan; and Mr. A.A. Ayer.

It was not till 1887 that a site was determined upon for the projected asylum. Subscriptions, however, had been obtained which amounted at the end of 1887 to a total of $68,139.82, which includes a gift from the Provincial Government of $7,812.29.

At a meeting of governors held April 14, 1887, it was finally resolved to purchase a portion of the Hadley farm, which had been selected by the site committee in the spring of 1886, for the sum of $18,000. Situated in the Municipality of Verdun (whence the name Verdun Hospital by which the institution is often designated) just at the foot of the Lachine Rapids, the location chosen was an admirable and extremely picturesque one. The mountain rising behind crowned with green woods, its lower slopes dotted with villas, the mighty St. Lawrence, with its timbered islands, stretching in front; and the dancing rapids, with their[445] musical roar, in such close proximity, made a prospect of scenic beauty difficult to surpass.

By the spring of 1890, the administration building and west wing were completed, the first patient being received on July 15, 1890, and before the end of the year there had been 139 admissions. The first medical superintendent was Dr. T.J.W. Burgess, who has held the post ever since.

A new wing was added in 1894. On January 24, 1895, the institution was honoured by a visit from their Excellencies, the Governor General Lord Aberdeen and the Countess of Aberdeen.

By 1896 the “Annex” for imbecile and violent patients was begun in the spring and completed in the autumn. The summer of 1897 saw its opening and the erection of an infirmary. On September 11th, the asylum was visited by the psychological section of the British Medical Association that gathered in Montreal on the occasion of the first meeting of the society outside the British Isles.

In 1898 the pathological laboratory, donated by Mr. G.B. Burland, was installed under the direction of Dr. Andrew McPhail. The “East” house in contradistinction to the Annex or “West” house was completed and opened. This summer the asylum was visited by the Medico-Psychological Association, the oldest of American Medical societies then holding its fifty-eighth annual meeting in Montreal.

In 1907 the Hadley farm of sixty acres adjoining the hospital was purchased and donated at the cost of $42,000 by a Canadian gentleman, Dr. James Douglas, of New York. In the same year the addition of a power house and other lighting and water supply improvements cost the establishment about one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.

In 1909 a new annex, known as the North West House, was opened on September 16th. The capacity of the buildings in 1910 was for a population of 680. The institution at the end of its twenty-first year had 366 cases, of which nearly forty per cent have been discharged as cured. The asylum which has acted for the Protestants of the Province has certainly a good record to show.

THE CIVIC HOSPITALS

After the great epidemic of smallpox in 1885, when the sick were isolated or treated in temporary buildings, erected on the old exhibition grounds, the City Council on January 13, 1886, named a commission to choose a site for the erection of a civic smallpox hospital. In consequence of which, on May 25, 1886, the city bought the Robert property situated in the Hochelaga Ward, north of Moreau Street. This hospital was demolished and reconstructed in 1912. It is administered by the hygiene department of the City Hall for smallpox cases.

The steps leading to their erection follow:

Until 1904 there had been only the Civic Hospital on Moreau Street for contagious diseases—a totally inadequate provision in a large city. In 1901, on January 23d, the city council received an offer by Sister Filiatrault, superior general of the Grey Nuns, offering to contribute $50,000 for a contagious disease hospital for Catholics on the condition that the city should contribute a like amount with an annual subvertion of $10,000. A week later the Montreal General[446] Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital made a similar offer for the general population.

This being accepted, the Catholic hospital, St. Paul’s, at 656 Maisonneuve Street, was in operation by 1904 under the direction of the Notre Dame Hospital, but the Alexandra Hospital, owing to several hitches, was not opened till July 9, 1906, its incorporation being granted in 1903 to James Crathern, Richard B. Angus and Charles F. Smith.

The hospital is erected at the foot of Charron Street and the river bounds it on the south and east.

In 1906 Sir William Macdonald purchased and presented to the hospital the triangular piece of land between it and the river to the east, at a cost of $7,141.35. In 1908 the late Sir R.G. Reid built and equipped a very necessary observatory pavilion at the cost of $12,568.82. A nurses’ home is at present being erected to the west of the administration building, of fireproof construction, at a cost of about $56,000, including equipment, which will bring the total expense of the hospital building up to $360,000. The patients admitted from January 1, 1913, to December 31, 1913, numbered 1,036.

The Hôpital St. Paul, a section of Notre Dame Hospital, receives Catholic and the Alexandra Hospital, Protestant patients. The city pays each one of these institutions annually $35,000 for thirty-five beds a day, and $1.00 a day in addition for each patient above the contracted number.

TUBERCULOSIS DISPENSARIES

The Royal Edward Institute

In this city it is not quite twelve years ago since the first organized effort against the ravages of the “white plague” was initiated by the formation of the Montreal League for the Prevention of Tuberculosis. At a meeting held in the Art Gallery on November 29th, 1902, under the auspices of the Governor General, Lord Minto, resolutions were passed calling for combined effort on the part of the government, the city authorities, and public-spirited citizens to relieve the miseries associated with this infection and to check its spread. A committee was appointed at that time, but not until June, 1903, was work actually commenced in a small room in Bleury Street.

The establishment of a sanatorium in the near neighbourhood for the treatment of incipient cases, and of a hospital for the treatment of the more advanced and hopeless cases, was at first proposed; but after consideration it was felt that the expense of maintaining institutions sufficiently large to cope with the requirements of the city would involve an expense far beyond what the community could be reasonably expected at that time to contribute, so a beginning of work was made by the establishment of a dispensary, November 1, 1904, and the employment of what has been termed the dispensary method for reaching the tuberculous poor. It is a method which has been gradually developed in Edinburgh under the guidance of Dr. R.W. Phillip, and in France by Calmette, and which has been adopted with much success in Philadelphia. The method emphasizes the importance of disseminating a practical knowledge regarding the spread, development, and course of the disease among the poor, and is based upon two facts; first, that it is not necessary for patients in the early stages of[447] tuberculosis to leave their homes to be healed, and, second, that patients can be educated so to comport themselves as to be of little danger to those around them. Montreal is one of the first pioneers in purely tuberculosis clinical institutions, the first established by Doctor Phillip in Edinburgh in 1887, being followed in 1903 by Calmette in Lille, and by New York and Montreal in 1904. Making use of this plan it has been the aim of the executive board not only to attend to the wants of such cases as may apply to the dispensary, but to co-operate with the medical profession throughout the city, both in hospital and private practice. All physicians are invited to report to a central station cases of tuberculosis occurring in their practice which cannot be fully treated by them. These cases are tabulated and arranged according to the district in which they live; each patient is visited at his home by an inspector or nurse; full instructions, both written and verbal, are given regarding the mode of life to be followed to secure the greatest advantage to the patient and the greatest security to those around him.

An interesting exhibition dealing with all phases of the crusade was organized in October, 1908, and was visited by over 50,000 persons, including the older children attending the public schools. Addresses were given by eminent speakers and an attempt was made to reach all clasess of our citizens and interest them in the measures necessary to ensure health, and check the spread of this infection. This movement in public education has led the way to subsequent health exhibitions in the city, notably the Child Welfare Exhibition of 1912.

Later an appeal was made to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the conditions in this province favouring the spread of tuberculosis and to ascertain the best methods of checking it.

With the growing work of the League, the urgent need of more room to meet the necessities of its dispensary work, and the desirability of a large central station, where a resident staff of nurses could be continually in attendance, was forced upon the executive. At this juncture, a philanthropic citizen, the late Lieut.-Col. Jeffrey H. Burland, came forward with his very generous offer of $50,000 from his sisters and himself as a contribution in memory of their father and mother, to be applied towards the purchase and equipment of a suitable building, on the condition that the general public would contribute an equal amount to serve as an endowment sufficient to cover the annual expenses connected with the maintenance of its efficiency. This condition has unfortunately not yet been fulfilled; as only $36,000 has been subscribed, nevertheless, Colonel Burland impressed with the urgency of the League’s need acquired in May, 1909, the very central and commodious detached building, No. 47 Belmont Park. This with much judgment and care he had altered and enlarged to suit the possible requirements of the dispensary work for many years to come, and to serve as the headquarters of the League’s work in Montreal. No dispensary building like this one with its bright sun parlours and large roof garden exists anywhere; and it is hoped that its advantages may not only prove to have much practical benefit for the consumptive patient, but also have an educational value for the general public.

The whole equipment has been very carefully studied and all the arrangements made with the view of securing the greatest efficiency at the minimum of running expense.

[448]

By gracious permission of King Edward VII the organization became known as the Royal Edward Institute.

Its work is one that Montreal has become proud of.

THE BRUCHESI INSTITUTE

The Bruchesi Institute is the tuberculosis hospital and dispensary under French-speaking direction for patients of all races and religions. It started humbly when at the request of Dr. Eugène Grenier, granted on October 10th, 1910, the Sisters of Providence Asylum, 369 St. Catherine Street, put aside a couple of rooms for an anti-tuberculosis clinic. Dr. P.E. Bousquet undertook the treatment of the superior respiratory tract, Dr. B.E. Bourgeois that of surgical tuberculosis, and Doctor Grenier, assisted by Drs. J.A. Jarry and Louis Verchelden, that of pulmonary tuberculosis.

The first board of administration was completed on March 9, 1911, as follows: honorary president, the Rt. Rev. Paul Bruchesi, Archbishop of Montreal; president, J. Auguste Richard; vice president, Abbé Tranchemontagne; treasurer, U.H. Dandurand; secretary, Dr. Eugène Grenier; directors, Canon Adam, T. Bastien and Dr. E. Dubé, who greatly promoted its formation. The same names appear in the act of incorporation of the Bruchesi Institute, November 10, 1911. A medical board was also formed at the period, Dr. E. Dubé being elected president, Dr. Eugène Grenier, secretary, the latter being succeeded by Dr. Gustave Archambault.

The dispensary opened on February 27, 1911. On July 24, 1912, this was moved to 340 St. Hubert Street, where the Sisters of Providence placed at its disposition many large rooms. In these new quarters the institute has eleven beds for private tuberculosis persons; 316 have been received and treated in these private rooms from August 18, 1912, to October 31, 1914.

Educational courses for public instruction through lectures and a press campaign, and a post-graduate course for physicians were in operation by July 15, 1913, the opening lectures of the post-graduate course of 1914 being given by Prof. S.A. Knopp, of New York. Thirteen physicians have already followed these special courses on “early diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis.”

With the aid of the Sisters of Providence the Bruchesi Institute opened in 1911 a preventorium at Beloeil, but the lack of financial support on the part of Montreal and the province caused the institute to discontinue this branch of its work, after one year. The Bruchesi Institute receives from the Sisters of Providence the use of the building it occupies, including heating and cleaning, the services of six sister-nurses, etc. It also receives the services of thirty-two attending physicians, from the City of Montreal $3,000, and from the Province of Quebec $3,000, and material financial aid from the public. The institute is affiliated to “The Canadian Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis.”

THE GRACE DART HOME

A supplementary aid for tuberculosis patients is supplied by the Grace Dart Home, which was started about eight years ago as a private institution by Mr. Henry J. Dart in memory of his daughter, Grace Dart. Friends became interested[449] and a provincial charter of incorporation was obtained. About two years ago the former house of Sir Francis Hincks on St. Antoine Street was purchased and extensions made so that between thirty and forty patients are provided for.

CIVIC ASSISTANCE TO THE ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS MOVEMENT

The city has come to the relief of the tuberculosis movement. Its assistance of recent years is as follows:

Amount paid for the maintenance of tuberculous patients in 1913, $6,276.45. In 1912 the amount was $6,147.55.

The amount voted in 1913 for the treatment of cases of tuberculosis amounted to $14,300.00, and the same was apportioned as follows:

Hospital for incurables, $7,500.00; Royal Edward Institute, $3,300.00; Grace Dart Home, $500.00; Bruchesi Institute, $3,000.00. In 1912 it was $13,300.00 and in 1911, $11,300.00.

Supplementing the hospitals are the dispensaries connected with the convents and the milk stations. One of the oldest now existing is the Montreal Dispensary, established in 1853, the Dispensaire of the Sisters of Providence being opened on June 1, 1863.

THE CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Of recent years the special hospital treatment of children has been marked. The greatest development in infant care is to be dated to the rise of the Children’s Memorial Hospital on Pine Avenue. Not only is this institution to be credited with efficiency in its general treatment of infants, but it especially deserves the credit of being the pioneer in Canada of special clinical treatment and the special vocational education for crippled and deformed children in the school latterly erected on its grounds and completed in September, 1914. This will be treated later.

The first meeting of the committee for the founding of the Children’s Memorial Hospital, of Montreal, was held on November 25, 1902. Nearly a year went by, however, before the committee deemed it advisable, or even practical, to make tangible advancement in this great undertaking.

November, 1903, marks a memorable epoch in the history of the child cripples throughout Canada, for it was then—nearly a year after their first meeting—that the committee procured temporary quarters in the private dwelling, 500 Guy Street, where they practically launched their noble enterprise, thus bringing into being one of Canada’s greatest and long-felt needs, an institution especially adapted for the treatment of deformities of children and of the many diseases accruing from these deformities.

To those temporary quarters children were brought from the East and West, from the North and South of the Dominion to receive surgical and medical treatment. In that small building, though the accommodations were woefully limited, many and remarkable cures have been effected.

The Children’s Memorial Hospital of today was opened April 6, 1909, its beautiful location and handsome and well equipped buildings making it a credit to the city and to the Dominion.

[450]

From an institution, pitifully hampered at its beginning and during the first five years of its existence, has evolved one resplendent in its environments of sunshine and mountain air; of foliage, flowers and birds. It occupies one of the most delightful sites in or around the beautiful city of Montreal. Situated on the upper slope of Cedar Avenue with the greater height of Mount Royal for its background, the blue waters of the grand St. Lawrence stretching before it, the busy city almost encircling it, the Children’s Memorial Hospital of Montreal stands, not merely an ornament to our city, but a benefit to or land. Its wards, sun-parlors, operating rooms, out-door department, nurses’ apartments, dining room, kitchens, corridors, passages—all bear evidence of the great work carried on in the institution.

It is a general hospital for all children’s diseases, with the exception of those that are contagious, with wards for boys, girls and infants, and there is surgical and medical treatment. The officers from the inception have been: Sir Melbourne Tait, president; Sir H. Graham, first vice president; Mr. G.H. Smithers, second vice president and honorary treasurer; Dr. A. McKenzie Forbes, third vice president and honorary secretary; Dr. H.B. Cushing, fourth vice president and recording secretary; and Mr. George J. Foster, honorary solicitor.

THE HOPITAL STE. JUSTINE

The Hôpital Ste. Justine, which is a corresponding institution to the last named, was established as a hospital and dispensary for children in November, 1907, at No. 740 St. Denis Street, in a house loaned at a nominal price by Mr. Damien Rolland. The next spring it was removed to 820 Delorimier Avenue. Meantime, as the work was of great importance, steps were taken to rear a worthy building which saw its first stone solemnly blessed on St. Denis Street in April, 1914. The building was opened in May, 1914, and towards the end of June the patients were transferred from Delorimier Avenue. The formal blessing of the Hospital by Archbishop Bruchesi took place in November.

The hospital is well equipped with departments for general medicine, surgery, diseases of the eye and skin diseases. For the last three years the religious sisters, “Les Filles de la Sagesse,” have directed the internal arrangements and the nursing department. In connection with the hospital there is a school of nurses for children’s diseases and the hospital is the only body in the Dominion empowered to grant diplomas for such. Arrangements are being made to connect the hospital with the University of Laval as the children’s clinic.

The board of directors is composed of a committee of ladies and medical men, the names of those applying for the charter being: Mesdames Raoul Dandurand, Lady Lacoste, J.R. Thibaudeau, F.L. Beique, A.A. Thibaudeau, F. D. Monk, D. Rolland, L. Beaubien, F.X. Choquet, Jules Hamel, A. Berthiaume, F. Bruneau, J.A. Leblanc, Gérin Normand, R. Masson, Henri Gerin-Lajoie, L. de G. Beaubien, Mademoiselles Euphrosine Rolland, May Boyer, Blanche Lareau and Thais Lacoste, and the following doctors: Joseph G. Dubé, Zephyrin Lachapelle, R.G. Hervieux, Louis Joseph Gatelien Cleroux, Telesphore Parizeau, Seraphin Boucher, Joseph Charles Bourgoin, Benjamin Georges Bourgeois, Zephir Rheaume, Irma Levasseur, Edouard Etienne Laurent and Raoul Masson.

[451]

OTHER HOSPITAL ADJUNCT ASSOCIATIONS

Among the other supplemental hospitals in the city are: The Samaritan Hospital for Women, the Montreal Foundling and Baby Hospital, the foundling department of the Grey Nuns, the Montreal Maternity Hospital, the Hôpital de la Miséricorde, the Women’s Hospital, the St. Margaret’s Home, the various dispensaries, the Association for Affording First Aid, the Pure Milk Depots or gouttes de lait, the Créches, etc.

Nursing work in the homes of the people is carried on mostly by the Victorian order of Nurses and the Soeurs de l’Esperance.

Several of these will be treated in the section on General Humanitarian work, or in other places.

THE MONTREAL DISPENSARY

The Montreal Dispensary deserves special notice as it dates its foundation to 1853. Its work has been progressively useful.

During the past twelve months the total number of applications for advice and treatment made to the medical staff of the dispensary by the sick poor of the city was 23,240.

These were classified as to their religions as follows: Roman Catholics, 10,808; Protestants, 10,329; other creeds (mostly Jews), 2,103.

This total may be again subdivided under the different departments in which these patients were treated, viz.: General department (medical), 7,250; general department (surgical), 1,170; department for diseases of eye, 1,768; department for diseases of women, 1,404; department for diseases of ear, nose and throat, 1,521; department for diseases of the skin, 1,989; department for diseases of children, 7,334; department for diseases of tuberculosis, 804.

A careful consideration of the above figures will impress one with the fact that an institution which supplies free advice and treatment to such numbers of poor people must of necessity be doing a good work.

THE MONTREAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL

The Montreal Maternity Hospital was established in 1843, with forty-three patients, the first physician being Dr. Michael McCulloch and its first directress Mrs. W. Lunn. It was incorporated in 1853. In 1913 its patients numbered 1,293. The hospital provides a training school in obstetrics for McGill University medical course and for nurses for the English hospitals. Among the directresses succeeding have been: 1844-55, Mrs. W. Lunn; 1855-66, Mrs. D. Ross; 1866-75, Mrs. J. Molson; 1875-82, Mrs. R. MacDonnell; 1882-85, Mrs. McCulloch; 1885-87, Mrs. W. Gardner; 1887-88, Mrs. MacDonnell; 1888-89-91-93, Mrs. W. Gardner; 1893-95, Mrs. W.R. Miller; 1895-96, Mrs. Labatt; 1896-97, Mrs. R. MacDonnell; 1897-98, Mrs. W.R. Miller; 1908-1913, Mrs. R.W. Reford; 1914, Mrs. J.L. Cains.

INCURABLES

There is also a Home for Incurables at Notre Dame de Gràce. In 1898 several young ladies of the city inaugurated the work. Their efforts elicited[452] universal admiration, receiving especially the assistance of Archbishop Bruchesi. In 1904 the former Monastery of the Precious Blood was fitted up in the Hospital by its new possessors, the Sisters of Providence. From the date of establishment over two thousand persons have been cared for.

ST. MARGARET’S HOME

Another subsidiary hospital adjunct is the St. Margaret’s Home for Incurables, under an Anglican sisterhood, which was incorporated in 1890, although its foundation occurred several years previous to that date. The head home is at Grinstead, England, and its American headquarters are at Boston, Massachusetts. The work of the home was originally of a charitable nature and it has continued such in part to the present time, caring for about twelve free patients continuously. However, it has taken on more of the nature of an hospital for chronic incurables, and as such deserves mention in this department.

The pressing need for a convalescent home for Montrealers has been met to some extent for about forty years by the Convalescent Home at Murray Bay, situated at the Lower St. Lawrence. It may, however, be ranked as a city charity for it is directed and supported by Montrealers, its present president being Mr. Sergeant P. Stearns, and the admission of patients being regulated by the Charity Organization Society of Montreal. Last year, 1913, the home received 121 cases, 13 from Quebec, 2 from Murray Bay and the remainder from Montreal.

CONVALESCENT HOMES

The latest addition to the hospital service of the city is the care of convalescents overflowing from the busy hospital wards. This has been found an important need and has only been met spasmodically till the present year, when the Loyola Convalescent Home to receive patients of all denominations was formally opened on April 25th, at 26 Overdale Avenue, under the auspices of the “Ladies of Loyola Club.”

NOTE

MEDICAL BODIES

THE MONTREAL MEDICO-CHIRURGICAL SOCIETY

On Saturday, September 23, 1843, nineteen medical men met at the house of Dr. James Crawford, on Little St. James Street, and resolved to found a society “for the purpose of communicating together on subjects connected with their profession.” The founders were:

A.F. Holmes, O.F. Bruneau, J.B.C. Trestler, Archibald Hall, Henry Mount, William McNider, J.G. Bibaud, James Crawford, George W. Campbell, C.S. Sewell, William Sutherland, Francis Badgley, Arthur Fisher, David D. Logan, William Fraser, C.A. Campbell, M. McCulloch, F.C.T. Arnoldi, Peter Munro.

[453]

The name chosen for the society was “The Medico-Chirurgical Society of Montreal,” and at a meeting held the following week, a code of by-laws was adopted providing for the holding of fortnightly meetings from the first of October until the first of May, and for monthly meetings during the rest of the year.

The officers consisted of a secretary-treasurer—Dr. Francis Badgley for the first year—and a committee of management of three, elected annually. The members, in the order in which their names appeared on the roll, presided at the meetings and the president for the evening was also expected to provide the principal part of the programme.

In July, 1845, the constitution was altered to provide for a president, two vice presidents, secretary-treasurer, and a committee of management of three, and in August, Dr. A.F. Holmes was elected the first president. During the autumn of the same year an attempt was made to form an association of all the licensed practitioners of the provinces of Canada, and delegates from Toronto, Niagara, Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal, met in Montreal, but failed to come to any agreement.

A tariff of professional charges was adopted by the society in February, 1846. All patients were divided into two classes and the twenty-four hours were divided into three portions. Day visits, 7 A.M. to 8 P.M.; evening visits, 8 P.M. to 10 P.M.; night visits, 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.

In March, 1852, the meetings ceased to be held, but from what cause is not now evidenced by the minutes.

Thirteen years later an attempt was made to carry on the society, and a meeting of thirty French and English medical men organized themselves into a society bearing the old name. Dr. G.W. Campbell, dean of the faculty of medicine of McGill University, was elected president. Two vice presidents, one French and one English, were appointed, and two secretaries, who kept the minutes, French and English, on opposite pages of the minute book, a system which evidently did not prove successful, the society lasting less than two years on this basis. Dr. W. H. Hingston was president during the second year.

Four years later, on November 5, 1870, the old society was again reorganized with twenty-five members; Dr. G.W. Campbell was again chosen president and Dr. T.G. Roddick secretary-treasurer, a position which he held for five years. Meetings were held every alternate Saturday in the Natural History Society’s rooms.

From the date of the second reorganization the society has grown rapidly and has now become established on a firm footing financially, and exercises an ever increasing influence on all matters, pertaining to medical science. The fiftieth anniversary of its foundation was celebrated by a banquet at the Windsor Hotel, on November 23, 1893. The meetings of this society are at present held at 112 Mansfield Street.

LA SOCIETE MEDICALE DE MONTREAL

The present association for the French-speaking medical men in the city is represented by “La Société Médicale de Montréal” and was established in 1900 under this name by the adoption of its statutes on June 19th. It had existed, however, since 1875 as the “Comité d’Etude.” Its meetings are held at Laval[454] University and there are 200 members at present who meet twice a month. Its principal officers have been Doctors Hervieux, Demers, Benoit, Dubé, Boucher, Marien, Foucher, A. Lesage, Boulet, Parizeau, P. Mercier and J. Décarie. Its present president is Dr. A.D. Aubry and the secretary, G. Wilfred Derome.

THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
(QUEBEC)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons is the corporate name of all the registered practitioners of the province, each one of whom is styled a member.

Its headquarters are at Montreal and its affairs are conducted by a board of governors, forty-one in number, elected for four years; thirteen from the district of Quebec, sixteen from the district of Montreal, six from the district of Three Rivers, and six from the district of St. Francis.

Of these forty-five, six are to be collegiate members: two from Laval University, at Quebec, two from Laval University, at Montreal, and two from McGill University.

This board of governors of the college is known as the Provincial Medical Board, and meets twice a year to perform its functions.

This board has the power to regulate the study of medicine, by making rules regarding the preliminary qualifications, duration of study, and curriculum.

It appoints every third year four persons actually engaged in education in the province as matriculation examiners, and persons desiring the license must qualify before these examiners before entering upon their professional studies.

By an amendment passed in 1890, holders of a degree of B.A., B.S.C., or B.L., conferred by any Canadian or British university, are exempt from passing the preliminary examination.

As regards the professional requirements for the license, holders of a degree in medicine from Laval University, McGill University, and the Montreal School of Medicine, are entitled to the license by virtue of such degrees, without examination. The same privilege is granted to registered practitioners of Great Britain, under the Imperial Medical Act of 1886. Other than the graduates so mentioned, all candidates for the license, must pass an examination before the board.

The Provincial Medical Board also has power to fix the tariff of fees for professional services, and such tariff must have the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council, and be published in the Official Gazette six months before it becomes law.

No person may practise the profession of medicine in the province who is not a member of the college, and he is liable to fine, and even imprisonment, for repeated offence. If guilty of felony, his name is removed from the register, and cannot again be registered.

THE BOARD OF HEALTH OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

The Board of Health of the Province of Quebec has its seat in the City of Montreal. The board was appointed in August, 1887, under the authority of an act passed by the Legislature in 1886, the year following the very severe epidemic of small-pox in Montreal.

[455]

Under the authority of the Quebec Public Health Act, the board has made and enforces through all the municipalities of the province by-laws relating to the prevention and limitation of infectious diseases, the improvement of sanitation, the removal of nuisances, the wholesomeness of food, the sanitary conditions of habitations and factories, etc. Since 1894, no system of waterworks and no sewerage system can be established without the board having approved the plans thereof and this is also the case for projected cemeteries. In 1893, the Legislature enacted the law of statistics by which the data contained in the registers of the civil status are made available to the board and this was the origin of its division of vital statistics. In 1893, the board established a bacteriological and chemical laboratory where rural municipalities can have their analyses made free of cost, as well as physicians the bacteriological diagnosis. In 1909, the board organized a special division of sanitary-engineering for the efficient betterment of the sanitation of water supplies and sewerage systems. In 1910, the board requested the Government to assent to the division of the province in ten sanitary districts under “whole time” inspectors who possessed a diploma in public health. The delay in securing these sanitarians was the cause that this district service could only be organized in the year 1912.

The board has jurisdiction over the whole 1,164 municipalities the province contains. It has power to require the organization of a local board of health in every municipality. Municipal councils are bound to execute all by-laws enacted by the provincial board and whenever the latter find them too lax, it may directly itself execute the by-laws at the expense of the municipalities in fault.

The board is composed at present (1914) of ten members, one of whom is made president. The other officers are: the executive secretary, the chief inspector of health, the recorder of vital statistics, the bacteriologist, the chemist, the sanitary engineer and seven district inspectors. The president is Dr. E. Persillier-Lachapelle, and the secretary, Dr. E. Elzear Pelletier.

THE CITY BOARD OF HEALTH

The Bureau of Health of Montreal came into effect through a by-law passed in the city council on the 10th of May, 1865. Subsequently, ten years later, this by-law was replaced by another, No. 105, passed in 1876, under which the board now operates.

The board has jurisdiction over all matters of public health and is composed of the following sub-departments: contagious diseases; medical inspection of schools: sanitary inspection; food inspection; inspection of milk and dairy farms; statistics; municipal laboratories; the municipal medical service. The sanitary inspection department covers the general sanitation of the dwellings, outhouses, lanes, etc.

The first health officer was Dr. Larocque, who served for about twenty years, and was succeeded by Dr. Louis Laberge, who filled the office for nearly thirty years. The present officer is Dr. S. Boucher, who was appointed December 1, 1913.

The by-law governing the bureau calls for a board to consist of the mayor, nine aldermen of the city and nine citizens outside of the city council. This, however, has not been carried into effect. The board now consists of nine members,[456] including the mayor and the health officer. The board is appointed by the city council each year, in March, and the present board consists of Mayor Martin, Alderman Letourneau, M.D., chairman; Alderman Dubeau, Alderman Denis, M.D., Alderman Dubois, M.D., Alderman O’Connell, Alderman Blumenthal, Alderman Turcot, and the medical health officer, Dr. S. Boucher.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The medical faculty of Bishop’s College has been abandoned since 1905.

[457]

### CHAPTER XXXIV

SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENTS

I

CARE OF THE AGED, FOUNDLINGS AND INFANTS

GREY NUNS—PROTESTANT ORPHAN ASYLUM—SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE—THE CHOLERA EPIDEMIC OF 1832—L’ASILE DE MONTREAL—MONTREAL LADIES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY—THE SHIP FEVER OF 1847—ST. PATRICK’S ORPHANAGE—HERVEY INSTITUTE—PROTESTANT INFANTS’ HOME—PROTESTANT INDUSTRIAL ROOMS—MONTREAL DAY NURSERY—L’ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE—OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

A city’s life is not fully told unless the record of its charitable, philanthropic and sociological progress is at least indicated. That of Montreal will be found to be full, inspiring and satisfactory. The following record is a study of movements and origins rather. It is not a directory. Nor is it in any way meant to be a comparative appreciation of the work done by the various societies or institutions mentioned. Its scope is historical. Innumerable obstacles stand in the way of the preparation of such a chapter as that now offered, but it should nevertheless be attempted if only to gather together as many as possible of the early links of the many excellent social works of the city and to bind them to those larger ones which have been forged by the present day busy workers who in their active present are working busily and wholeheartedly for the growing needs of the hour and have not, through one cause or another, the historical means of surveying the early humble beginnings of works with which they or others have linked their names and their self-sacrificing endeavours.

The first pioneer social movements of Montreal under British rule were those embracing the care of the aged and that of foundlings and abandoned children. These were found together under one roof but in different departments in the Hôpital Général of the “Grey Nuns” or the “Sisters of Charity” according to their official title. At the time of the capitulation the above, with the Hôtel Dieu, founded on May 17, 1642, since the early days of the colony, sufficed for the charitable needs of the small community; for although the “Congregation” established in 1657 by Marguerite Bourgeoys, had cared for many orphans and thus in some sense might be said to have been the forerunner of the modern orphanages of the city and had shared in other social experiments, its work must be considered to have become specifically educational. Again although the Hôtel Dieu also still[458] maintained, as it did until recent years, a number of aged persons and orphans, its special function had been mostly exercised as a hospital for the sick. Its history having been already told, that of the Grey Nunnery is now in place as the peculiar pioneering institution for the aged, orphans and general charity under British rule.

THE GREY NUNS

On taking possession of the Hôpital Général from the Charron Frères, in 1747, Madame d’Youville and her companions devoted themselves to works of charity of every kind, receiving into the institution all classes of unfortunates without distinction of age or sex, never refusing any. During several years the Sisters cared for fallen women and had rooms for twelve. In 1756 a ward was opened to receive English soldiers, sick and wounded, who had been taken prisoners at Oswego under Shirley and Pepperel and others during the “Seven Years’ War” before the capitulation of Montreal. On September 7, 1760, the hospital being mistaken by the English as an outwork of defence, was about to be reduced by the cannon when a soldier ran to the general and on his knees implored him to save the hospital where he and his companions had been tended in the “Salle des Anglais.” The result was that the officers went in and were hospitably received by Madame d’Youville with biscuits and wine.

After the capitulation the hospital, as well as those of other communities in the town, suffered by the depreciation of paper money, receiving a very small percentage of its worth from the French government, thereby losing more than a hundred thousand francs.

The work of caring for abandoned children began on November 16, 1754, but was not developed till shortly after the conquest in 1760, when Madame d’Youville one day found the body of a little child frozen in the ice with the dagger still in its throat and its little hands raised as in supplication for justice. This incident with others caused her to develop this work which was then first undertaken systematically on this continent. Funds, however, were wanting. Under the old régime certain moneys had been appropriated for “enfants trouvés,” foundlings. The new military government, approached by Madame d’Youville and the Rev. M. Montgolfier, the brother of the inventor of the balloon, and the superior of the Seminary, could only procure a sum of 288 francs. On September 13, 1771, Madame d’Youville approached the sympathetic Governor Carleton, but with no good results. Yet, in spite of the extreme poverty of the sisterhood the work continued, supported by their needlework. Another contributing cause for their poverty was the loss of their hospital in the great fire of May 18, 1765, which devastated the lower part of the town. This was more disastrous to them than the fire of 1745, for it reduced their home to ashes. The children and the aged poor were about to be transferred to the barns of the farm belonging to the Grey Nuns at Point St. Charles when M. Montgolfier came with an invitation from the nuns of the Hôtel Dieu offering their hospitality. As, however, the number was too considerable, the nuns of the “Congregation” shared the problem of housing them. Not losing heart, Madame d’Youville dared, on the 9th of June following, to begin rebuilding, relying on the sum of 6,000 francs contributed by the Montreal faithful and the Indians of the settlements of Caughnawaga and the Lake of Two Mountains.

THE GREY NUNNERY OF TODAY

THE OLD “GREY” NUNNERY

As it looked from McGill Street in the late ’60s before the new building was erected on Dorchester Street. This site was that of the original General Hospital, founded by M. Charron in 1692, and transferred to Madame D’Youville in 1747. A portion of these buildings still remains in 1912, being employed as warehouses. The new Custom House is to be built on this spot.

[459]

But the Seminary came to her aid with a loan of 15,000 francs. By order of M. Montgolfier the workmen laboured constantly, even on Sundays, so that by September 23d the part for the aged men was ready. The Sisters entered their convent on December 5th and the poor women on Christmas Day. The rest of the buildings were not finished till 1767, the church being blessed on August 30th. Though housed, money was very scarce; yet Madame d’Youville had dared even nineteen days after the fire of 1765 to complete a contract already arranged since August 25, 1764, for the acquistion of the seigneury of Chateauguay, originally accorded in 1673 by Frontenac to M. Lemoyne of Longueuil, and then belonging to the family of Robutel de Lanouë. The development of this farm, which scarcely gave any revenue, was the object of the zealous solicitude of Madame d’Youville and now is the sanitarium and country house of the Grey Nuns for their different foundations. The property of Point St. Charles was afterward built upon for a country house for the children and the aged poor. It was burnt down in 1842 but re-erected in the following year. The death of this “mulier fortis” occurred at 8:30 P.M. on December 23, 1771, at the age of seventy years after a life full of fatigues, privations and sacrifices. The work undertaken by her devoted followers has spread from Montreal far and wide. On October 7, 1871, the Mother House was removed from its oldtime position “down town” to the block bounded by Guy Street, St. Catherine Street, Fort Street and Dorchester Street. The old buildings were converted by merchants into warehouses, part of which are still standing. The new custom house, being erected in 1914, marks the site of the southwest corner of their estate.

The following resumé of the work of the Grey Nuns is interesting:

In 1801, at the request of the government officials, the insane were admitted and a special annex built. Previous to this, the sisters had already received twenty-three such patients and until this work was discontinued in 1839, the number received was 114.

In 1823, the community undertook the care of Irish orphan girls.

In 1846, at the request of the priests of the Seminary, a “dispensary” for the poor was opened and a system of house to house visitation was established.

In 1847, the sisters nursed the poor Irish immigrants stricken with typhus fever.

In the same year a temporary “home” was opened for the women left without resources after this terrible plague epidemic.

In 1849, at the request of the mayor of Montreal, the sisters undertook the nursing of the cholera victims in the “sheds” constructed for the typhus patients.

In 1851, St. Patrick’s Orphan Asylum was opened and the Grey Nuns took charge.

In 1858, the first “kindergarten” conducted by the Grey Nuns in Montreal was founded on Bonaventure Street by the Rev. Father Rousselot, a Sulpician. It was known as Salle d’ Asile St. Joseph, but was ultimately closed, because its proximity to the railroad made it dangerous for the small children who came there to school.

In 1861, the Nazareth Asylum for the Blind on St. Catherine Street was opened.

In 1885, during an epidemic of small pox, forty Grey Nuns devoted themselves to the care of the victims in their homes and in the hospitals.

Since the days of their foundress, the Sisters each year have provided for a certain number of poor students who board in the establishment.

In the Mother House, on Guy Street, at present, the Grey Nuns care for foundlings, orphan boys and girls, poor and aged men and women, besides having an industrial school for young girls.

THE FOUNDLINGS

The number of foundlings received annually is between four hundred and fifty and five hundred. Since the founding, 37,168 infants have been admitted.

[460]

The number of children averages between one hundred and one hundred and twenty. There are at present in the nursery 126. The children who survive, when not kept in the nursery, are either placed out to board or adopted by good families. In 1911, fifty-five were adopted.

When about three years of age, the little children leave the nursery and are placed with the orphans. These foundlings come from all directions and belong to all nationalities.

A course of lectures has been opened at the nursery for the training of children’s maids.

THE ORPHANS

There are in the Grey Nunnery 300 orphans, of which 170 are boys from three years to twelve years of age, and 130 girls from three years to eighteen or twenty years of age.

Since 1748, when the first orphan girl was received, there have been admitted 5,788 orphans, 2,875 boys and 2,913 girls.

From 1823 to 1873, these children were almost exclusively of Irish origin. Since the latter date, the majority are from Montreal, though some few are from the suburbs. Almost all are French-Canadians, there being a few English speaking children and some Indians. The greater number are received gratuitiously, very few being able to pay their board.

At the age of twelve, the boys who are not claimed by relatives, are placed at the orphanages of Montfort or of St. Arsène, or adopted by respectable families.

The girls on leaving the orphanage enter the industrial school, where they are taught domestic economy.

Those who have relatives wishing to claim them can leave. The others are adopted by good families or placed out to earn their living.

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL

The industrial school was opened in 1908. Since then 297 pupils have been received, 270 of these being Canadians, 19 English and 8 Indians. There are at present 60 pupils in this department.

These young girls are employed in the different departments and work rooms of the house.

In the sewing room they are taught sewing and mending as well as knitting, embroidery, etc. In the kitchen, laundry, book bindery, printing office and pharmacy, they are trained to become useful members of society.

Several hours are also spent each day in the schoolroom.

THE AGED AND INFIRM

There are 195 aged poor and infirm at present at the Mother House, 95 men and 100 women.

Since the founding of the institution in 1747, 6,250 aged poor and infirm have been received, of whom 2,952 were men and 3,298 women.

These comprise cripples of all kinds, and persons afflicted with epilepsy or cancer. The number of the latter cases has considerably diminished since the opening of the Hospital for Incurables in Montreal.

Until 1910 the only grant from the provincial or municipal authorities was $105.00, but the provincial government now grants for the different works of charity an annual appropriation of $2,905.00, in which is included the $105.00 for the nursery, the expenses of which amount to $25,000.00 annually.

In 1910 and in 1911, the City of Montreal allowed $1,000.00 to the institution. In 1912, this allowance was increased to $1,200.00. The balance of $98,550.00, which is the amount of the annual expense for the support of the 660 inmates, must be provided by the community. The average cost per capita is 41 cents a day.

Although there is no dispensary at the Grey Nunnery for outside poor, these are continually assisted in many ways. Thus in 1911, 1,200 meals were given, and 300 persons were assisted materially.

[461]

Besides the Mother House, the Grey Nuns have in Montreal:

Three hospitals with training-schools: Notre Dame Hospital, St. Paul’s Hospital, and the Ophthalmic Institute.

Four kindergartens: Nazareth, Bethlehem, St. Henry’s, and Ste. Cunegonde’s.

Five orphanages: St. Patrick’s, St. Henry’s, Ste. Cunegonde’s, Bethlehem, and St. Louis’.

One institution for the education of blind pupils.

Two homes for working girls: “Youville” and “Killarney.”

Three homes for the aged poor: St. Bridget’s, Ste. Cunégonde’s, and St. Anthony’s.

One industrial school: St. Joseph’s.

In Canada, outside the City of Montreal they have:

One school at Côte-des-Neiges, one at Chateauguay, and one at St. Benoit, with a home for infirm and aged women.

Four homes: in Varennes, Beauharnois, Chambly and Longueuil, for aged and infirm women and orphans. A few lady boarders are received in these homes to help support the works of charity. The sisters visit the sick.

One hospital at St. John’s, with a home for old men and women; also, a kindergarten.

In Western Canada, the Grey Nuns direct twenty-five establishments, and in the United States, fourteen.

THE PROTESTANT ORPHAN ASYLUM

The next movement for orphan children was on the part of the English ladies who formed before 1822 a Female Benevolent Society. This was followed by the “Protestant Orphan Asylum,” the connecting link being provided as follows by the following extract from the original minutes.1

“Upon the dissolution of the Female Benevolent Society in February, 1822, the officers and members of that institution consigned their orphan proteges and their flourishing little school to the care and maintenance of the Protestant churches of the city. The rector of the English Episcopal and the ministers of two Presbyterian churches accepted the charge.”

Founded therefore in 1822, without endowment the Protestant Orphan Asylum trusted entirely to the generosity of interested friends. The clergy of the city undertook to preach charity sermons for its benefit, and a substantial sum was thus raised. The constitution of the new charity was framed by the Rev. John Bethune, D.D., Dean of Montreal, and the Rev. Henry Esson, D.D., Pastor of St. Gabriel’s Presbyterian Church.

The first building occupied as an asylum (in 1833) was situated in St. Louis Street. The expenditure in this year was £211 10s 4d. In 1838 removal was made to more commodious premises in St. Antoine Street, the expenditure that year being £248 4s 5d.

In 1848 the annual reports were first published, and in the spring of the same year the foundations of a new home were laid, on land generously donated by Judge Smith on St. Catherine Street where Holland’s store now stands. This was sufficiently finished to permit the taking possession thereof June 4, 1849. The present building at 93 Côte des Neiges Road, was completed and occupied 1895.

It is interesting to compare the small beginnings of the earlier years with present conditions. For instance, in 1833, as previously stated, there was no endowment, and the expenditure for the year was £211 10s 4d, about $846. In 1911 the market[462] value of its endowment fund amounted to $178,962, yielding a revenue of $9,143.50, and this with the annual subscriptions provided for the year, $10,109.80.

In the annual report for the year 1859 attention is called to the remarkable sanitary fact that out of upwards of six hundred children received into the home since its foundation, only forty-seven had died, notwithstanding the epidemic of cholera and typhus fever, at different times prevalent. And it may be added that this record has been maintained, and even surpassed, in the years that have followed.

THE MONTREAL LADIES’ BENEVOLENT SOCIETY

On the occasion of the epidemic of cholera in 1832 there arose a corresponding effort among the English Protestant ladies. The Montreal Ladies’ Benevolent Society was then founded “for the purpose of affording relief and support to destitute women and children” and the work which its founders inaugurated eighty-two years ago has been carried on ever since. The Society was incorporated in 1841.

The list of its presidents previous to 1849 was destroyed by fire. Since 1849 the following ladies have served it as president:

- 1849—Mrs. Renaud.
- 1850—Mrs. Davidson.
- 1853—Mrs. Tulford.
- 1855—Mrs. Geddes.
- 1873—Mrs. Mackenzie.
- 1875—Mrs. Molson.
- 1876—Mrs. Vanneck.
- 1877—Mrs. Wheeler.
- 1882—Lady Galt.
- 1883—Mrs. Cramp.
- 1889—Mrs. Edwyn Evans.
- 1890—Mrs. Cramp.
- 1896—Mrs. John G. Savage.
- 1907—Mrs. Lachlan Gibb.
- 1910—Mrs. Alister Mitchell.
- Honorary President—Countess Grey.

Many names prominent in social and philanthropic work in Montreal during that period are to be found on the roll of its past and present committees.

The original building still stands with the added wings on Ontario, formerly Berthelet, Street.

There are seven old women and ninety-eight children in the home—fifty-two boys and forty-six girls between the ages of six and fourteen years. Every effort is made to start these children suitably in life. But unfortunately, when they reach a wage-earning age, they are frequently taken away by their parents or nearest relatives, who up to this period have, more often than not, ignored their existence—whereas if the children were only left long enough in the home, they could receive special and individual instruction and better positions could be found for them.

Fifty-five destitute children and children of delinquent parents have for many years been sent in through the city for whom the city pays $7 per month for girls and $8 per month for boys. The cost of each child averages $13.75 per month.

THE SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE

The succeeding movement in the charity for the aged, orphans and the poor was that started in 1828 by another Montreal lady, Madame Gamelin, who founded[463] the “Sisters of Providence,” a religious congregation, in 1843, the Asile de la Providence having been incorporated on September 11, 1841, and being erected canonically in 1844.

By 1905 the congregation had spread over eighteen dioceses and had seventy-seven houses. In 1913 it had ninety-seven houses. Its foundress, Marie Emmeline Eugene Tavernier, was born on February 19, 1800. On June 4, 1823, she was married to Jean Baptiste Gamelin, a man of fifty, described in the marrage register as a “burgher,” the appellation then given to a proprietor living on his income. Three children were born of the union. Two died three months after birth. In 1827 Mr. Gamelin died and the following year the third child also. The widow’s heart now turned to the aged and poor. On March 4, 1828, she opened a modest refuge on the ground floor of a small parochial school, directed by the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, situated on the corner of St. Lawrence and St. Catherine streets. The first beneficiary was a widow named St. Onge, 102 years old. The refuge was shortly removed to two houses rented on St. Philippe Street with her charges, which soon reached the number of thirty, not always over-grateful.

About this time Madame Gamelin formed a society of lady auxiliaries, Mesdames François Tavernier, E.R. Fabre, Maurice Nolan, Augustine Tullock, R. St. Jean, Paul Joseph LaCroix, Joseph Gauvin, Simon Dalorme and Julien Tavernier. This society, founded on December 13, 1827, and organized on December 18th of the same year, still exists as the “Society of the Ladies of Charity.” Each of these agreed to pay a monthly board for one poor woman. During the cholera outbreak of 1832-1834 Madame Gamelin did not spare herself in visiting the sick. The “yellow” house was secured for the growing needs of the refuge by M. Olivier Berthelet, whose name is linked with Montreal’s charities. It was a modest frame building, two stories in height, standing on St. Catherine and Hubert streets. During the political troubles of 1837-38 there commenced the work, still pursued by her followers, of visiting the Montreal jails. Writing in his “Patriots of 1837-38” Mr. L.O. David, afterwards city clerk of Montreal, and a senator, said: “There are two names in particular deserving of special mention and which the prisoners have never forgotten, Madame Gamelin, who later became the foundress of the Providence, and Madame Gauvin, mother of Doctor Gauvin, who himself took part in the events of 1837.” In 1841 Madame Gamelin’s asylum obtained civil incorporation through a measure, introduced by the Hon. D. Viger and the Hon. J. Quesnel, under the name of “Corporation for Aged and Infirm Women of Montreal.”

In 1841 the work was so well founded that to secure its permanency as a constituted diocesan charity the ladies associated with it, under the beautiful name of the Ladies of Providence, determined to give it over to the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, then lately visited in Paris by Bishop Bourget. A new building was forthwith determined on to receive them, and for the funds for this, the first bazaar recorded in Montreal was organized, in Rasco’s Hotel on St. Paul Street, on May 15, 16, 1842, and netted 500 louis. The directresses were Mesdames Gamelin, Gauvin, St. Jean, Fabre, Levesque, Boyer, Moreau and Lafontaine. Other sums were raised and the corner stone of the house opposite the “yellow” house was blessed on May 10, 1842. About the middle of June, 1842, Bishop Bourget gave Madame Gamelin and the Ladies of Providence a rule[464] modelled upon that which St. Vincent de Paul had drawn up for a society of ladies in Paris who had consecrated themselves to the work. The Daughters of St. Vincent de Paul did not come, after all, and Bishop Bourget determined to create a diocesan order of the Sisters of Charity of Providence. On March 25, 1843, the first clothing took place of the first six postulants in the “yellow” house, who were to obey Madame Gamelin as their superior. As yet she was not herself a religious, but on July 8th, on one of the postulant’s returning to the world, Madame Gamelin determined to take her place and she was accepted by the Bishop as one of the new order of the Sisters of Providence, one of whose early works was to carry on the work of the care of the aged and infirm already begun by Madame Gamelin in 1827. In 1860 her institute established an asylum for “abandoned” children, French Canadian and Irish, which was opened on September 25th.

The work for the insane at Longue Pointe, begun in 1849, is told elsewhere.

L’ASILE DE MONTREAL

Meanwhile the year of the cholera, 1832, had seen the birth, on July 18, of the “L’Asile de Mountréal pour les orphelins Catholiques Romains” or “Les Orphelins des Récollets,” so called because these orphans were first cared for in the convent of the Récollets. The asylum received its incorporation in September, 1841. The work was promoted by a Sulpician, the Rev. P. Phelan, and a widow, Madame Gabriel Cotté, who became its foundress and received her helpers from among the “Ladies of Charity.” Among the Ladies of Charity under whose auspices the new work was placed and still continues, were those of the best society of Montreal. The first president was Madame Marie Charles Joseph LeMoyne, Baroness de Longueuil, the wife of Captain David Alexander Grant, of the Ninety-fourth Regiment, who died on February 25, 1841. The vice presidents were Madame de Lothbinidère and Madame de Beaujeu. On the death of the Baroness de Longueuil she was succeeded as president by Madame Berthelet, Madame D.B. Viger, Madame C.S. Cherrier and Madame T. Bouthillier. Under the board of directors the asylum was conducted successively by Madame Chalifoux and Madamoiselle Morin. The present president is Madame J.O. Gravel and the vice president is Madame Rosaire Thibaudeau, niece of the esteemed foundress, Madame Cotté.

The institution has remained under lay control, although since 1889 the Grey Nuns have been invited to undertake the internal management. Madame Cotté was its first treasurer, being succeeded by her daughter, Madame Quesnel, who supported the work till her death. The foundress, Madame Cotté, endowed the work with a gift of land, that named “Pres de Ville,” on Lagauchetière Street, and with a legacy in money. Her heirs exchanged the original land for that on St. Catherine Street on which the institution stands today, a part of which was built by the legacies in money left by Madame Cotté and Madame Quesnel.

In 1913 the orphanage and grounds were sold and a spacious property bought for the new orphanage site at Notre Dame de Grâces. The new buildings have been commenced but have been interrupted by the European war of 1914.

The dire year of 1847, that of typhus fever, saw great activity among all these French and English institutions for charitable works. As the incoming immigrants were mostly Catholics the activities of the Catholic institutions of the[465] period may naturally be recalled. The “Providence Sisters,” lately erected as a religious congregation, were called by Bishop Bourget to second the Grey Nuns, the Nuns of the Congregation and the Nuns of the Hôtel Dieu at the fever-stricken sheds at Point St. Charles. The work of caring for the 600 or more orphans of the emigrants was confided to the Sisters of Providence in the two provisory hospitals. The religious of the Good Shepherd, who had been called to Montreal in 1844, finally took charge of the girls, and Madame Gamelin’s “Providence” Sisters took the boys to Mrs. Nolan’s house on St. Catherine Street. Bishop Bourget’s pastoral letter of 1848 describing the transference of the children through the street states: “The spectacle of hundreds of children famishing with hunger, covered with rags and in danger of succumbing to the attacks of that terrible disease which had deprived them of their parents was so poignant that it can never be forgotten.” Twenty-seven of the “Providence” Sisters were stricken with the plague and three died, and similar disaster befell other charitable “Congregations” or lay associations of all sections.

On the 1st of October the orphans were removed from their temporary home in Mrs. Nolan’s house to the former convent of the Good Shepherd, situated on Beaudry Street, then Black Horse Street, the new Hospice of St. Jerome Emilianus. From the 11th of July Mother Gamelin had received 650 orphans. Of that number 332 died and 188 were placed out or adopted. In the month of March, 1848, 130 remained in addition to 99 who stayed in the sheds at Point St. Charles. An appeal at this time was made by Bishop Bourget and colleges, convents and lay people responded in adopting the children. Sixty remained with the Sisters of Providence and were distributed among the different houses or apprenticed to trades. “In adopting these poor children,” says the same pastoral, “they will become our companions in faith, good priests, fervent religious, excellent citizens,” as, indeed, they did.

THE ST. PATRICK’S ORPHANAGE

This leads up naturally to the history of the Irish Catholic charities, and of the St. Patrick’s Orphanage, in particular.

Before 1800 few Irish reached the city, yet they came early in the nineteenth century, so that by 1823 the number of orphan children of Irish parentage was such that M. Roux, the superior of the Sulpicians, arranged with the Grey Nuns 2 to receive the first five of forty children in the “Salle des petites orphelines Irlandaises” which was opened February 14, 1823. Until 1886 the Sulpicians unostentatiously supported no less than 848 little Irish orphans.

In the fall of the year of “Black ’47” the Rev. M. Pinsonneault rented a house on Colborne Street of fifteen apartments, in which he lodged fifty families of those who, though destitute, had escaped the terrible ship fever. This was known as the “House.” Mrs. Brown, a good Catholic Irishwoman, undertook to teach[466] the children and M. Pinsonneault founded a band of ladies for the purposes of organizing bazaars for the support of the struggling institution which was even vilified in the press. The “Ladies of Charity” were organized in 1849 as a permanent body to assume the upkeep of the work and to collect subscriptions.

Meanwhile during the visitation of 1847 it was rendered necessary for 650 little Irish orphans to be taken from the pest sheds of Point St. Charles and taken care of, as is told elsewhere, by the religious daughters of Mother Gamelin, the foundress of the Sisters of Providence.

On June 20, 1848, Father Dowd had arrived and, being appointed in September almoner of the poor, he became superior of the House. He quickly determined that a new asylum was needed. This was secured in a small house on Craig Street, opposite the Champ de Mars, generously loaned by M. Augustin Perreault, who added numerous other benevolent gifts and services. In October, 1849, the asylum was opened and Mrs. Brown was joined by Mrs. McMahon, better known as Mrs. “Mack.” A fire on June 9, 1850, nearly threatened the existence of the new house.

About 1850 a parishioner of St. Patrick’s church, M. Bartholomew O’Brien, bequeathed a sum of £1,000 for an orphan asylum. Father Dowd formed a building committee of Messrs. Charles T. Palgrave, Francis McDonnell, Charles Curran, P. O’Meara, P. Lawlor, J. McGovern, Patrick Brennan, Thomas O’Brien, Patrick Lynch and Mathew Ryan. The latter acted as secretary till February, 1850, when he was succeeded by Mr. Thomas Bell. A lot of ground, 100 feet by 10 in front on Dorchester Street, with 120 feet of rear, was given, in trust for the building of an Irish orphan asylum by the Fabrique of the parish of Montreal.

On November 21, 1851, the unfinished house was entered by the orphans, two or three planks laid against the principal entrance being the only door. The formal blessing of the building by the bishop took place on February 2, 1852. In this same year the treasurer, Mr. T.C. Palgrave, received a grant of £500 from the provincial parliament. The act of incorporation received the royal assent on May 30, 1855. In 1859 Father Dowd resigned his directorship, leaving a balance to the poor of $157.39. He was succeeded by the Rev. Michael O’Brien, who afterwards became the first superior of St. Ann’s church. In 1861 Mr. Edward Murphy, afterwards senator, joined the board of trustees, becoming secretary in the place of Mr. Bell.

His Excellency, Viscount Monck, governor-general, visited the orphan asylum on July 3, 1862, when an address was read by Mr. Thomas Ryan, afterwards senator. On the death of Mr. Bell, in 1864, Mr. John Fitzpatrick became a trustee. Dying in the same year, he made the orphanage his residuary legatee.

Through the efforts of the indefatigable Father O’Brien there was acquired the property on Lagauchetière Street, where the St. Bridget’s Refuge was afterwards built, the act of the transference by the corporation of the asylum to the refuge by resolution being dated June 24, 1866. In 1859 it was proposed to build St. Bridget’s church for the Irish in the Quebec suburbs and money was collected, but, as the bishop could not be prevailed upon to permit its creation, at a meeting of subscribers held on March 9, 1867, it was resolved unanimously on the motion of Mr. B. Devlin, and seconded by Mr. M.P. Ryan, that the money collected (about $8,000) by Fathers O’Brien and O’Farrell (afterwards bishop[467] of Trenton) be appropriated as follows: “one-half to the Montreal St. Patrick’s Orphan Asylum and the other half to the Rev. Father O’Farrell and his successors for Irish Catholic charities in the St. Ann’s suburbs, the whole to be invested by them in stock in the new St. Patrick’s Hall, now in course of erection.”

The history of the ill-starred St. Patrick’s Hall, a magnificent structure, a credit to the Irish people of the city, tells of two disasters, in the last of which it perished by fire. The association determined to wind up its affairs, which resulted in the stockholders receiving 55% for their investment, the asylum being, therefore, a considerable loser.

On the death of the Rev. Michael O’Brien in 1870 Father Dowd was again appointed director by the bishop. In 1877 there was terminated a long dispute which was settled in the ecclesiastical court, resulting in the non-divergence of the funds, originally collected for St. Bridget’s church and given with the consent of the subscribers, half to the orphan asylum and half to the Fabrique of St. Marys, who claimed the original gift for the St. Bridget’s church, when permission to build this had been at last granted by the bishop in 1873. The case for the asylum in civil law was entrusted by the trustees to Mr. J.J. Curran, Q.C., M.P., afterwards the Hon. Justice Curran, his view in favour of the asylum being endorsed by Mr. Lacoste, Q.C., afterwards Sir Alexander Lacoste, chief justice, K.B.

In January, 1873, Lord Dufferin, the distinguished Irish governor general, visited the asylum. On January 30, 1874, Sister Forbes, who since 1853 had succeeded Sister Reed as superioress of the asylum, celebrated her “golden wedding” as a nun. Mother Forbes died three years later, on March 28, 1877, after her twenty-third year in the superiority of the asylum, to the great grief of the Irish population.

The last of the original trustees died on May 26, 1889, the Hon. Thomas Ryan, senator for the Victoria division of the province. On the 26th of December, 1889, the following gentlemen were trustees, Edward Murphy, J.S. Mullin, W.H. Hingston, Owen McGarvey, James O’Brien, John B. Murphy, Patrick Kennedy, Hon. Judge Doherty, James McCready, J.J. Curran, Q.C., M.P. In December, 1891, Father Dowd died. He was held in greatest respect by all denominations in the city. The flag on the city hall was placed at half mast and the funeral was a public demonstration. He was succeeded by Father Quinlivan, who had assisted him for some time before his death. In 1892 the Hon. Senator Murphy died. His name deserves to be remembered among the great philanthropists of the city. His memory is perpetuated in the “Edward Murphy School” and the Edward Murphy medal given by the Catholic School Commissioners. In 1902 the trustees of the orphanage were Hon. Sir William Hingston, Hon. Marcus Doherty, Hon. J.J. Curran, J.S.C., Mr. Michael Burke, Mr. Patrick Mullin, Hon. James O’Brien, Mr. J.C. Collins, Mr. C.A. McDonnell and Mr. P. McCrory.

In 1909 the orphanage, being declared unsafe, was removed to the new asylum built under the direction of Mr. W.E. Doran, architect, of gray stone, fireproof and three stories in height, on St. Catherine Road, Outremont. The estate is a valuable farm of forty-five acres, with its own orchards and vegetable gardens. Its internal direction is still under the Grey Nuns. Its trustees at the time of the change were the Rev. Gerald McShane, pastor of St. Patrick’s church, the Hon. C.J. Doherty, Messrs. M. Burke, P. Mullin, C.F. Smith, C.A. McDonnell,[468] P. McCrory, J.A. Macdonald, M.D., who has also given his services free for thirty years, and Donald Hingston, M.D. At present Messrs. A.J. Trihey, H.J. McKeon, T.W. McNulty, W.J. Rafferty, have joined the board since the deaths of Messrs. M. Burke, C.F. Smith, C.A. McDonnell and P. Mullin.

The names of Dr. H. Schmidt, Dr. Henry Howard, Dr. J.A. Macdonald, Dr. Thomas J. Curran, should be remembered in connection with the medical care of the orphans.

The great burden of sustaining the funds of the institution fell during many years on the “Ladies of Charity.” The first annual bazaar was held in 1849 under their auspices. The first president was Mrs. Charles Wilson, the wife of the Hon. Charles Wilson, mayor of the city. In 1850 she was succeeded by Madame Vallières de St. Réal, the wife of the well known judge. This Irish lady remained president till 1861. Mrs. O’Meara succeeded but died in 1862, when Madame Vallières was recalled till 1866, when she was made honorary life president. Mrs. M.P. Ryan became president till 1882, when with Mrs. Campion she became honorary life president. Mrs. Brennan took office in 1882, and Mrs. Edward Murphy in 1883, remaining till 1900. In 1900 the following ladies were installed in office: Mrs. M.P. Ryan, Mrs. Campion and Mrs. E. Murphy, honorary life presidents; Mrs. E.C. Monk, president; Mrs. E.C. Amos, vice president; Mrs. D. Boud, second vice president; Mrs. Loye, third vice president; Mrs. Whitney, secretary. Of late years this organization has not been called upon for the same active services for the orphanage, but their members individually have been foremost in other growing English-speaking Catholic charities.

THE HERVEY INSTITUTE

Among non-Catholic charitable works called forth at the time of the ship fever was the Hervey Institute, founded in 1847.

Its first home was on St. Antoine Street; two small houses followed. Then the Home found itself at 215 Mountain Street, in 1875. The new Home, opened by their Excellencies, Earl and Countess Grey, on December 16, 1908, is situated at the corner of Windsor and Claremont avenues, Westmount.

Like most similar organizations the Hervey Institute rose from humble beginnings, little idea being in the minds of the group of ladies who began the work of the magnitude of the scale of future undertakings. It now has accommodation for eighty-five persons.

Miss Hervey, for whom the Home is named, was born in 1807 and came to this city from Scotland in 1846. The following year she started the home in a small way, calling it an industrial home. She was led to do this by the extreme need for such among the poor—for at that time there was little organized relief among the Protestants other than that given by the churches—and the mother left with her small children to support, owing to the death of the father, was in a sad plight. Miss Hervey and her associates gathered these children together, taught them to sew and also the elementary subjects of education as well as the performance of domestic duties.

Among well known names connected with the Home in those days were Mrs. John Stirling, Mrs. John Redpath, Mrs. Neil MacIntosh, Mrs. John McDougall, Mrs. Hannibal Whitney, Mrs. John Lovell—the last mentioned still showing an[469] active interest in the Home—Mrs. (Doctor) Scott, another member of the original committee, worked unceasingly to accomplish a piece of work desired by Miss Hervey, that of a separate Home for the tiny children and young babies, as it was found impossible to continue the reception of children of all ages. Thus the Protestant Infants’ Home was established, as an offshoot in 1870, by this same untiring worker, Miss Hervey.

The following ladies have been the presidents of the institution:

1847-75 | Miss Hervey
1875-78 | Mrs. H.L. Routh
1878-81 | Mrs. J. Ross
1881-82 | Mrs. James Tasker
1882-86 | Mrs. J.H. Moody
1886-92 | Mrs. Alex Murray
1892-96 | Mrs. Langlois
1896-1904 | Mrs. G. Summer
1904 | Mrs. J. Henderson

The Home was incorporated in 1875 when Mrs. J. Routh was president, other signers of the charter were: Mrs. Holmes and Mrs. M.L. Clarke, the last mentioned being at present on the committee of management. The original intention of caring for, teaching, and training in domestic duties half orphan girls, has been carried on, but more than that, the special provision made for boys in the comparatively new Home on Windsor Avenue, Westmount, shows the result of many anxious thoughts directed to the problem of the growing boy without a home. Boys as well as girls are now trained for their work in the world; boys are kept until fourteen years of age, girls until sixteen.

In receiving girls and boys into the Home, the idea is to keep family life as nearly normal as possible, so the mother or father may place their children in the same home knowing they are at school and may play together.

Half-orphan children, between the ages of five and fourteen, are received, qualified teachers are in attendance, one children’s trained nurse and other nurses and over all a superintendent.

The parent pays whatever possible; all other cost of maintenance is met by the voluntary subscriptions.

A development of late years has been the purchase of a summer home at Morin Heights in the Laurentian Mountains, in healthy and beautiful surroundings. It is owing to this annex, to which the children have been sent for two months for nine years, that the directors owe the wonderful record of no annual drug account over $25.00. This for a home of seventy-five children is a record, as is the fact there have been but four deaths in the sixty-eight years in which the Home has been in operation.

Since the inception in 1847 many hundreds have passed through the Home and have made successes. The girls have become efficient nurses and teachers and the boys successful business men, while two of the more recent inmates are doing their duty by their King and Country in the Canadian overseas contingent.

THE PROTESTANT INFANTS’ HOME

As mentioned, it was through the energy of Miss Hervey and Miss Scott that the Protestant Infants’ Home was established on April 30, 1870, the by-laws being adopted on that date and the constitution in May following. The first[470] home of Miss Hervey’s Institute was on St. Antoine Street. It was destined to receive unmarried mothers, together with their babies from the Maternity Hospital as well as destitute children and even those paid for. The age for children admitted is between fourteen days and five years.

Among the first directors were Mesdames Henry Baylis, J.M. Gibson, G. Ferrier, F. Henshaw, B. Christie, T. Campbell, J. Alexander, I. Harper, G. Brown, C. Hart, G. Aitken, Aikman, W.H. Clare, Godfrey G. Shaw, C. Pelton, Scott, Wilk, and C. Brown.

The home was transferred from St. Antoine Street to different places and is now located on Queen Mary’s Road.

THE MONTREAL DAY NURSERY

This was followed on the English side by the Montreal Day Nursery, located at 50 Belmont Park, which was started in 1888 and incorporated in 1900.

The object of the Day Nursery is to take care of the children of women who, for various reasons, are obliged to work by the day to support their families. The Nursery is open every week day from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Children from three weeks to twelve years of age are admitted by the day. They are fed, kept clean, medically treated, and, when necessary, clothed. The younger children are under the supervision of a resident governess, the older ones are sent to the Belmont Street and St. Patrick’s schools. The Nursery is non-sectarian, there are no restrictions as to creed, nationality or colour, and it is supported by voluntary contributions.

When the Nursery was first opened about ten children were taken care of daily. The increase in numbers has been steady until now there are from ninety-five to one hundred and ten cared for, divided as follows: Infants, twenty; runabouts, between two and four, forty; and about fifty between the ages of four and twelve. A charge of ten cents is exacted for one child, and five cents more for each additional child from the same family.

The Montreal Foundling and Baby Hospital was started in 1891 and has admirably carried out its title.

L’ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE

A modern form of charity for the old and sick and for children was founded on October 30, 1903, by MM. L.H. Lesvesque, Joseph Hoostetter, A. Rivet, Ludger Gravel, G. L’Archevesque, Leo Fournier, Charlemagne Rodier, Dr. E. H. Desjardins, under the name of L’Assistance Publique, situated on 338-340 Lagauchetière Street. Its incorporation is dated January 28, 1907. Its object is the protection, housing, boarding and clothing, temporarily as long as the board shall see fit, of children, women, old people, the sick and other afflicted persons (with the exception of those suffering from incurable or contagious diseases). It aims at finding employment, or placing those in their charge into suitable charitable institutions. The work is restricted to citizens of Montreal, of all nationalities. The work has progressed so that it became necessary to build a large wing, which was inaugurated on February 5, 1911. It has four dormitories, an infirmary and three refectories. Over one hundred and five aged and poor[471] persons dwell permanently in the hospital. The institution does not lodge casuals, this work being abandoned on the erection of the Meurling Institute in 1913, but it serves dinners to needy unemployed. The society is administrated by lay people, of whom the present officers are: MM. Joseph Lamoureux, president; A.A. Labresque, vice president; Trefflé Bastien, treasurer; and A. Godin, secretary. The internal management of the home for ten years has been in the hands of Mlle. Morache.

NOTE

The foregoing are types of the leading philanthropic institutions concerned in the movement for the care of the aged, orphans and children. There are others of great importance. The following list indicates most of the other activities under the above head:

Homes for the Aged:

- Hospice Auclair (Sisters of Providence), Rachel and Sanguinet streets.
- Hospice Bourget (Sisters of Providence), 2200 Ontario Street.
- Hospice Gamelin (Sisters of Providence), 1281 St. Catherine, East Street.
- Hospice du Sacré Cœur (Sisters of Providence), 401 Pie IX Avenue.
- Sisters of Providence, 109 St. Dominique Street.
- Hospice St. Antoine (Grey Nuns), 76 St. Paul Street.
- Little Sisters of the Poor, Seigneur Street.
- Providence Asylum, 369 St. Catherine Street.
- St. Anthony’s Villa (Lay), 865 Dorchester Street.
- St. Bridget’s Home (Grey Nuns), 297 Lagauchetière Street.
- St. Cunegonde Home (Grey Nuns), corner Atwater Avenue and Albert Street.

Orphanages:

- Bethlehem Asylum (Grey Nuns), St. Antoine Street.
- Orphélinat Catholique (Grey Nuns).
- Grey Nunnery, 25 St. Mathew Street.
- Huberdeau (In the Laurentians) (Filles de la Sagesse).
- Maison Ste. Genevieve (Sisters of Providence), Dorion and Gauthier streets.
- Montfort (For Boys) (Fathers and Brothers of the Company of Mary).
- Orphélinat St. Arsene (Brothers of St. Gabriel).
- St. Alexis Orphanage (Sisters of Providence), 247 St. Denis Street.
- St. Cunégonde Asylum (Grey Nuns), St. Cunégonde.
- St. Henri Asylum (Grey Nuns), St. Henri ward.
- Hospice Auclair (Sisters of Providence).
- Hospice Bourget (Sisters of Providence).
- Hospice du Sacré Cœur (Sisters of Providence).
- St. Patrick’s Asylum (Lay Trustees and Grey Nuns).
- St. Vincent de Paul Orphanage (Grey Nuns), 110 Visitation Street.
- Filles de la Sagesse, 620 Notre Dame Street.

Infants:

- The Sœurs de Miséricorde (Maison St. Janvier), Sault au Récollet.[472]

Day Nurseries and Créches:

- Bethlehem Asylum (Grey Nuns), 1 Richmond Square.
- Hospice St. Antoine (Grey Nuns), 76 St. Paul Street.
- Jardin L’Enfance (Grey Nuns), 110 Visitation Street.
- Nazareth (Grey Nuns), Mance and St. Catherine streets.
- Sisters of Providence, Mother House, 1271 St. Catherine Street.
- St. Cunegonde Home (Grey Nuns), Atwater Avenue.
- St. Henri Asylum (Grey Nuns), 63 College Street, St. Henri.
- French Protestant Home—-Orphans and Children.

II

RELIEF MOVEMENTS

THE PROTESTANT HOME OF INDUSTRY—ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY—THE OLD BREWERY MISSION—THE SALVATION ARMY SOCIAL WORK—THE CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY—THE MEURLING MUNICIPAL REFUGE—OTHER RELIEF AGENCIES.

THE PROTESTANT HOME OF INDUSTRY

The beginning of the nineteenth century marked a decided growth in the English population and there can now be seen its efforts to organize its relief work. The present chapter will also indicate the progress of the movement towards organized charity.

In 1818, an act was passed forming a corporation of the “Wardens of the House of Industry at Montreal.” This was in order to carry out the wish of a John Conrad Marsteller, who in 1808 had left two stone houses and other buildings on St. Mary Street for the erection of a House of Industry, but the amount not being sufficient, there was delay till the act of 1818 created the “wardens” or overseers and visitors of the poor. No regular steps seem to have been taken for the appointment of these wardens till April 2, 1827, when a commission, signed by the Governor General, Earl Dalhousie, appointed as wardens of the House of Industry, François Desrivières, Saveuse de Beaujeu, Samuel Gerard, Jean Bouthillier, Horatio Gates, Rèné Kimber, Henry McKenzie and James Kimber.

In 1863 an act of incorporation was granted for a “Protestant House of Industry.” A building site was secured at the corner of Dorchester and Bleury streets, for which the proprietor, Mr. John Donegani, was paid £3,750. Upon this property a large brick building was erected, three stories in height with a high basement. It became the center of sociological activity. “During the year 1865,” says Mr. Sandham, the historian, “the missionaries of the different religious societies formed themselves into a City Missionary Relief Society and were liberally aided by the citizens in carrying on their work. The following year it was thought advisable that all assistance should flow out through one channel and accordingly a United Board of Outdoor Relief was formed in connection with the institution.” This institution is still in operation in the city.

[473]

ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY

St. Vincent de Paul Society, to which no work of charity is foreign, started poor visiting and relief in Montreal in 1848. The parent body was originally formed in Paris in May, 1833, by eight students under the direction of M. Bailly, the general council being established at Paris in 1840, and the particular council of Montreal being founded on March 18, 1848. The city is now divided into the central, northern, eastern and western particular councils with local parish conferences to each. In December, 1914, these were more than fifty-four.

THE OLD BREWERY MISSION

An English exponent of a further phase of the relief movement is the Old Brewery Mission, which was established in 1890 under the following circumstances:

About the middle of the winter of 1890 there were many suffering from cold and hunger through lack of work. A suggestion came that much good might be done could a soup-kitchen be opened to furnish cheap and nourishing food to the needy. A suitable place was found in an old house on Dalhousie Street. There were two rooms. The back one was used as a kitchen—the one in front as a reading-room. It was furnished with benches and tables on which were magazines. A grate-fire made the place homelike and cheerful. Young ladies voluntarily served the soup. As the place began to get crowded, it was thought best to have short addresses delivered to the men. The work was so satisfactory and evidently so badly needed that when the old house was torn down in the spring, larger quarters were found in an old brewery (hence the present name) on College Street. After this the work so grew that a missionary was engaged and regular evangelistic services were held. But there was so many disadvantages about this place, and the locality was found so unsuitable, that another site was chosen—a shop on St. James Street, near Inspector Street. About this time the movement was started to put up the present building, where for fourteen years the work has flourished.

THE SALVATION ARMY SOCIAL WORK

In 1884 the Salvation Army came to Montreal and its method of organized charity work has been one of gain to the city.

Early in its life the rescue work for men was instituted, as has been recorded. That for women and girls was also early inaugurated and this latter has since remained one of the important branches of the Army’s activities. Today the Young Women’s lodge receives young women and girls who are employed, furnishing pleasant rooms and good board at a nominal rate and at the same time a safe and congenial home.

In addition to this work the Army opened up, on the 1st of February, 1899, at 398 St. Antoine Street, a Working Women’s Home, where floor scrubbers, window cleaners, etc., are furnished room and board within their means and also employment when needed. During the last year 11,494 beds were occupied in this department and positions were found for 3,860 women.

[474]

With the erection of the Metropole, about 1903, the training college was removed to Toronto and this building became the home for the Social Corps for men. Board and lodgings are furnished at a small price to those able to pay and employment is found for those in need thereof.

The Industrial Home for men is located on Chatham Street, and here, if employment is not found for applicants within a week, they are put to work for the Army until permanent employment is secured. At this place there is a store, with departments for furniture repairing, shoe repairing, tailoring and paper sorting. The men are put to work at repairing furniture and shoes which are secured by the workers of the Army from all over the city, and these repaired articles are sold at the store at very low prices, the sale taking place about noon of each day. There, poor people, who are reluctant to ask for charity, are allowed to pay a very small price for furniture, clothes, shoes, etc., and thereby retain their independence. The material sold is fashioned from donations taken from all over the city and waste matter generally. In this way the aim of the Army is accomplished, to bring the waste matter of the city and the “down-and-outs” together, thus utilizing the one and saving the other with absolutely no cost to the city. The Industrial Home, through this means and through the sale of waste paper, which, when sorted, they are able to dispose of to the very best advantage and command the best price, is practically self-supporting, and the men are not only given board and lodging while waiting to find permanent employment, but also are paid a sum of money for their services, which they are advised to save up as a reserve capital upon which to start in their new line of work when secured.

The Army has recently purchased a lot at 520 Outremont Avenue, upon which it is planned to build a large building for hospital purposes.

THE CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY

The advent of the most modern form of organized charity work in Montreal dates from 1894, for in that year the Charity Organization Society really came into being, though it did not come officially into the name until 1900. The incorporators of the Society were George Hague, Lady Drummond, Charles F. Smith, Emanuel P. Lachapelle, Harry Bovey, Louis J. Forget, Herbert B. Ames, Frank J. Hart, Mrs. Margaret Thibeaudeau, Sir William Hingston, Lady Margaret Hingston, Joseph B. Learmont, Mrs. Charlotte Learmont, John C. Reid, Frederick L. Beique, John Cox, Mrs. Caroline O. Cox, R. Wilson Smith, J. Damien Rolland, Robert Craig, Miss Helen Reid, Jeffrey H. Burland, Trefflé Berthiaume, Daniel F. Hamilton and Alphonse Turcotte.

Its work began in the former year when the Local Council of Women took up the question of organized charity relief work. It collected and studied trunks full of information about it, mastered its principles and details, went about explaining it, drew up a constitution and was ready. Then, in conjunction with a number of influential men, it called a public meeting in the old Board of Trade hall, in December, 1899. Lady Minto came from Ottawa to be present. The hall was packed, and there and then, with much enthusiasm, the resolution was taken and the Charity Organization Society shortly opened its doors at 98 Bleury Street. There it remained for some twelve years, till last May it opened its new[475] office at 70 Mance Street. Its first secretary, Mr. Francis McLean, guided it with wisdom and discretion through those first critical years. Then came the late Mr. Richard Lane, who won for it wide recognition and sympathy, through his unusual gifts and personality. At his death he was succeeded, about 1911, by Mr. Rufus Smith.

The work as developed by this association, in league with others of the same world-wide reputation for scientific efficiency in relief management, is an important factor in civic sociology. The society is very fortunate in having among its directors many of the original incorporators, who are all connected with divers other charities in this city, so that this central board has far-reaching influence as a bureau of exchange in the solution of relief problems.

THE MEURLING MUNICIPAL REFUGE

The latest relief movement in Montreal is the Meurling Municipal Refuge, installed by the municipality. Its establishment was brought about through a windfall in the form of a donation by a former Montreal citizen, Mr. Gustave Meurling, who died recently in France.

On the 19th of May, 1913, the contract was awarded for the erection of the Meurling Municipal Refuge to Mr. Théodore Lessard for the price of $116,000. The total cost of the Refuge amounted to $180,000. The city received from the Gustave Meurling estate, after deducting all expenses, $72,429.19, so that the city’s share amounts to $107,770.81.

The building, although it is simple and without luxury, is quite solid and safe. It is entirely fire-proof. In order to reduce to a minimum the cost of maintenance, the inside facing of all the outside walls and of all the divisions other than those which are glazed has been made of pressed brick. The foundation walls are of stone concrete. The floors, which are all of concrete finished with cement, have a slight slope, which permits of their being thoroughly washed. A steam and hot water heating system runs through the whole of the building. The tank is provided with a heater for summer. Improved appliances (among others three fumigators of the most modern type) have been installed in the laundry.

The walls have been constructed sufficiently thick to support the additional stones which may hereafter be erected. The Meurling Municipal Refuge is now, in 1914, in full operation.

The following table shows the number of destitute persons who have been harboured gratuitously in the police stations and night refuges since 1901:

1901 | 55,125
1902 | 50,207
1903 | 46,685
1904 | 61,400
1905 | 65,184
1906 | 62,228
1907 | 59,713
1908 | 78,548
1909 | 59,097
1910 | 58,726[476]
1911 | 76,334
1912 | 82,731
1913 | 90,076
or 7,345 more than in 1912. |

As will be seen by these figures, the establishment of a municipal refuge could no longer be delayed. The Meurling institution is undoubtedly of great service to the homeless poor.

Among other relief bodies are:

Refuge de Nuit (Ouimet); Refuge Français, 71 Viger Avenue; Refuge of the “Union Nationale Française,” founded October 20, 1886, by M. Victor Ollivon.

III

SICK VISITATION AND NURSING BODIES

GREY NUNS—SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE—OTHER BODIES—THE VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

GREY NUNS

The visitation of the sick in their homes has always been one of the forms of charity in this city. As a more pronounced movement the Grey Nuns took up domiciliary visits on October 23, 1848. Among the works of the Grey Nuns for 1863 Jacques Viger, in his “Servantes de Dieu in Canada,” has the following:

Number of the poor helped in their homes | 1,418
Number of house visits | 4,943
Number of night attendances among the sick | 300

SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE

The Sisters of Providence who were engaged in the same work according to the Annuaire de Ville Marie of Huguet-Latour, in 1863, were thus active:

Number of poor and sick visited in 1863 | 13,243
Night attendances | 622
Assisted at death | 136-758

Thus the work was carried on by the early religious communities and their work is now supplemented by other new congregations, notably by the Sœurs del ’Esperance, on Sherbrooke Street, who make this work a specialty, and by the Tertiaries (lay) of St. François, and others. The work has also been carried on by groups of ladies connected with the Protestant churches and as well by nursing bodies organized of late years.

With regard to the modern organized nursing system, reference has been made to the training of nurses for hospital work. There are schools attached to each of the great hospitals. There are now, however, several bodies who are[477] trained to work in the homes of the people, such as the Canadian Order of Nurses, Phillip’s School for Nurses and the Victorian Order of Nurses. The latter movement being the latest development and one that has reached Dominion prominence, deserves especial historical recognition.

THE VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

The Victorian Order of Nurses was inaugurated in 1897 as the Memorial of Queen Victoria’s Jubilee in Canada. The suggestion that this should be the Canadian Memorial came from the National Council of Women of Canada, of which Her Excellency, the Countess of Aberdeen, was then the presidential head. In 1896 the urgent need of medical aid and trained nursing in the northwest territories and outlying districts of Canada had been brought home to the council through its affiliated societies in the Canadian west. A scheme was thought out and laid before the prime minister and other members of the government and at a public meeting at Ottawa in 1897 a resolution in its favour was moved by the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, seconded by the Hon. Clifford Sifton, minister of the interior, and carried unanimously.

After consultation with some of the leading doctors, public meetings were held in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, and representative committees were formed in these and other cities for the promotion of the scheme. On the advice of the friends of the movement in Montreal it was decided that only fully trained hospital nurses, holding a diploma from a recognized hospital school, after training in maternity and district work, should be admitted into the order. Very strict rules were made forbidding the nurses to go to cases where no doctor was in attendance, placing the nurse in all cases under the control of the doctor and limiting the nurse’s attendance on the patient to visits of short duration, thus safeguarding the interests of the ordinary professional nurse.

It was agreed to administer the order through a central board and local boards of management who would supervise the nurses’ work and be responsible for their salaries, board and lodging. It was hoped that enough money would be collected for the permanent endowment of the order for work in all parts of Canada, but, owing mainly to the strong opposition of the large majority of medical men who misunderstood the objects of the order and pronounced against it, public opinion was adversely affected and only a tithe of the money required was collected and that mainly for local purposes. So many new facts, however, had been brought to light emphasizing the great need for such a nursing order throughout Canada that it was decided to make a start with the money in hand and four training centres, namely, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax, were established under district superintendents with a New Brunswick lady, Miss Charlotte Macleod, of the Waltham Training School, as chief lady superintendent.

Meantime a constitution and by-laws had been drawn up and an application made to Her Majesty for a royal charter for the new order, which was duly granted in 1898. By the end of the following year there were eighteen Victorian Order districts throughout the country with thirty nurses. Today in Montreal alone we have ten districts, with seventy-one Victorian Order nurses, while in Canada generally there are two hundred and thirty-two. Cottage hospitals have been started all through the country districts and in addition to these there are[478] small centres with two nurses who attend patients scattered over a wide area and also receive emergency cases at the homes.

As the aim and object of the order became better understood the opposition on the part of the doctors and nurses changed into cordial sympathy and co-operation and the Victorian Order have now no better friends than the medical and nursing professions. So happily inaugurated with Lady Aberdeen as its first president, the order has always enjoyed the warm support of the successive governors general of Canada and their consorts. Lady Minto’s exertions secured the money for the Cottage Hospital fund, Lady Grey raised the necessary funds for the country nursing centres, and it was owing to the interest and energy of H.R.H., the Duchess of Connaught, that a large sum of money was collected last year for the central fund. The Victorian Order has been fortunate in attracting to its service devoted women to whose singleness of purpose no less than to their highly trained intelligence must be ascribed its marvellous growth and success.

IV

MOVEMENTS FOR THE “UNFORTUNATES”

FALLEN WOMEN—LA MISERICORDE—THE SHELTERING HOME—GIRL DELINQUENTS—THE “GOOD SHEPHERD”—THE GIRLS’ COTTAGE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL—BOY DELINQUENTS—ECOLE DE REFORME—SHAWBRIDGE BOYS’ FARM—THE JUVENILE COURT—THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY—THE MONTREAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN—CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. NOTE: COURT COMMITTALS.

The care of fallen women was early tentatively engaged in by Madame d’Youville before British rule. Doubtless this was also desultorily undertaken at a later period by her companions and other religious communities of women, but it was not specifically and regularly undertaken as a special work until Madame Jetté founded her work which is perpetuated in the Hôpital de la Miséricorde.

THE HOPITAL DE LA MISERICORDE

The Hôpital La Miséricorde owes its origin to Mgr. Ignace Bourget, to whom so many of the Catholic works of charity and education of the city owe their inspiration and encouragement during his thirty-six years in the episcopate, from 1840 to 1876. His name is written in indelible characters in this city. In the year 1845, after having long thought of means of founding some establishment for fallen girls he called to his aid a pious widow, Madame Jetté, who had been engaged in much private charity in helping unfortunate girls, and invited her to found a community to perpetuate the good already commenced by her. The first home, opened with one “penitent,” was called the Hospice Ste. Pélagie, a garret reached by a ladder above a dilapidated wooden building on St. Simon Street, in the tenement now numbered 208 St. George Street. Her family thought her demented and said that she was disgracing them, and there were not wanting the criticisms and sarcasm of the cynics. Madame Jetté was joined on July 20th by[479] another devoted widow, Madame Raymond, who had worked towards the founding of the Good Shepherd Institution in Montreal. A more comfortable building was shortly secured on Wolfe Street (now numbered 207 and 209). More penitents were able to be received.

By 1846 there were five workers and in July, 1846, Bishop Bourget gave a “rule” to the Congregation de Sainte Pélagie. On April 26, 1847, they moved into another house at the corner of St. Catherine and St. André Street, today a common restaurant. On January 16, 1848, the little group of women was erected into a canonical body under the title of “Sœurs de Miséricorde” (Sisters of Mercy). Madame Jetté, the foundress, became Sister de la Nativité and Madame Galipeau, Sister St. Jeanne Chantal, was appointed superior. In 1848 the number of penitents reached eighty-seven and in 1851 it increased to ninety-seven. During the first six years the institution saved the lives of 390 new born infants. In 1851 the community moved to the corner of Campeau and Lagauchetière streets, the site where the present mother house now stands. New buildings were ready in October, 1854. By 1862 further ground had been purchased to extend to St. Hubert Street. On April 5, 1864, the foundress, Mother de la Nativité, died.

But the work progressed. At the end of 1872 there were fifty-six professed sister, ten novices, 323 penitents were received and there were 230 births in the hospital. In 1876 the west wing was completed. On April 26, 1887, the present maternity hospital, fronting St. Hubert Street, was dedicated. Up to 1889 the children born in the hospital had been transferred to the Grey Nuns. These Sisters now found themselves in this year unable to accept the children and the infant asylum in the rear of the Mother House was consequently built and entered into about 1898. At present the children born in the hospital are kept there until three months old, when they are sent to the country crèche at Sault au Récollet. At this establishment they are taken care of until six years of age, when they are placed, if possible, with responsible parties.

THE SHELTERING HOME

The next important development for fallen women was the founding of the Sheltering Home by Protestants.

Late in the ’50s, perhaps about 1858, work was instituted in Montreal by some of the officers of the regiments stationed here and by prominent men of the city, for fallen girls, mostly maternity cases, one of the leaders of this movement being T.M. Taylor. This home was called the “Magdalene” and continued for a number of years, disbanding, however, after the regiments left Montreal. On the 2d of March, 1868, the home on Seigneurs Street, a direct outgrowth of the previous disbanded Magdalene, was established for the reception of destitute and fallen girls. Major General Russell and Captain Malan were among the principal promoters and Mrs. T.M. Taylor and T.J. Claxton were trustees. This was called the “Female Home Society.” Mr. and Mrs. Taylor had general charge of the work, the former being president.

In 1878 Miss Barber, who had been closely connected with the work, was asked by the matron of the jail to visit a woman who, in company with her husband, had been imprisoned for theft. Miss Barber tried to find a home or[480] place of employment for the woman, but was not successful, and finally she took her to the “Female Home” which, though crowded at the time, made a place for her. This incident brought to Miss Barber’s notice the need of a shelter for released prisoners, and at once she began a department of work in connection with the Home to cover that need. In May, 1885, owing to lack of funds, the board of trustees believed it necessary to close the Home, but Miss Barber, knowing the value of the work being done, begged for its continuance, stating that if they would give her the house and one year in which to continue it, she would take full charge and raise the funds to carry on the work for that length of time. This was permitted, and during the year 1885 she was responsible for the money.

At the end of that time when a meeting was held and her report given, she stated that the Home was too far from the centre of the city, where most of her work lay, and she asked the board to sell the property on Seigneurs Street and with the money thus acquired purchase another nearer the centre of the city. In 1885 Mrs. Frost became secretary of the Society, with Miss Barber continuing as its manager. The old property was sold for $9,000 and after all outstanding debts were paid, there was given over about $800 to Miss Barber and invested $8,000, the interest from which was to be used in carrying on the work. Two adjoining houses, in order to classify the inmates, were taken on Dorchester Street. The advisory board, chosen by Miss Barber, consisted of Mrs. M.H. Gault, Mrs. A.F. Gault, Mrs. S. Finley, Mrs. Aiken, Mrs. H. Botterell and Mrs. E. Frost, secretary-treasurer. By 1891 it was proved that the Home was in a good locality for the furtherance of its work, but as the street was to be widened about that time, the buildings were to be sold and it was again necessary to search for a home. The present location on St. Urbain Street was found and as the house was for rent Miss Barber called the old original trustees together and, making her report, placed the matter before them. It was decided to turn over the $8,000 invested to Miss Barber, with which she purchased the permanent home on St. Urbain Street. The house was remodelled and work has been carried on ever since.

The classes of inmates who are assisted are as follows:

1. Discharged prisoners and those whom the Recorder wishes to be placed in a home rather than imprisoned.

2. Inebriates, many of whom apply for shelter while others are placed by friends.

3. Girls from the streets and houses of infamy.

4. Maternity cases, many of whom are more sinned against than sinning.

5. What is called the “floating” class—patients discharged from hospitals before strong enough to work; the weak in body and mind; incompetent, idle girls, who, not vicious, would, however, if allowed, sink to the abandoned class.

The Sheltering Home was incorporated on the 29th of September, 1898, the incorporators being Mrs. Sarah Hibbard, Mrs. Enoch Frost, Mrs. John Murray Smith, Mrs. Ebenezer E. Shelton, Mrs. Matthew Hamilton Gault, Mrs. Robert Ward Shepherd, Mrs. George B. Burland, Mrs. James Day, Mrs. Joseph Savage, John Dillon, Herbert B. Ames, Seth P. Leet, Walter Drake, Samuel Finley, Hugh McLennan, Albert A. Ayer, Charles Alexander and George Hague.

[481]

GIRL DELINQUENTS

The work for girl delinquents was taken up by the Good Shepherd Nuns in 1870.

The Community of the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd in Montreal is an offshoot of the original body founded in Caen, Normandy, in 1641, by Jean Eudes, founder of the Eudistes Fathers. June 11, 1844, marks the arrival of the four first sisters in Montreal from Angers, Mesdames Marie Fisson, Eliza Chaffaux, Alice Ward and Andrews. Their first home was on Brock Street in the Quebec suburbs. On July 25th they took possession of a fine stone convent of four stories built on ground given by Madame D. B. Viger. Their work was: (1) receive women penitents, (2) Magdalens from the first class, who, however, may never join the order itself, and (3) the education of young girls. The work of the Magdalens began in 1864 and that of the preservation of the “penitents” began in 1847.

The work of the reformation of young Catholic girl delinquents was inaugurated on May 3, 1870, with twenty subjects. These now are sent by the court or placed by their parents under a useful training in industrial works. In 1893 the industrial school was transferred to Laval des Rapids, near Montreal. In addition to the above work these Sisters have the direction of the female jail on Fullum Street.

THE GIRLS’ COTTAGE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL

A recent effort by Montreal ladies to supply the need for the special treatment of young girl delinquents between the ages of twelve and sixteen, otherwise than in the Female Jail, hitherto their only harbour, was crystalized in the opening, in September, 1911, of a Girls’ “Cottage” Industrial School at Outremont, which, however, was shortly removed to Front Street, St. Lambert’s, in healthy and pleasant surroundings. It was incorporated by government in 1913. The work is carried on in connection with the juvenile court, but it is also open to friendless and destitute girls, being supported by voluntary subscriptions, and some government assistance. It has been placed under government inspection. Very useful lessons have been the outcome of this experiment. It has been shown that most of those “committed” by the law are the victims of the moron type of mental defectiveness and retarded intelligence and that others are the victims of a carelessly trained childhood and vicious environment. It has been found that the best method to rehabilitate these cases is by building up their health and by concentrating at present the educational part of their training upon domestic lines, to make them good housewives and able to support themselves hereafter. The “Cottage” system with its possibilities of homelike and industrial training is claimed to effect better cures than the cold and formal methods of the usual government reformatory. The presidents of the school have been: 1911, Mrs. F.H. Waycott; 1912, Mrs. J. Macnaughton; 1913-14, Miss Beatrice Hickson.

BOY DELINQUENTS

Modern reformatory work for boys began in Montreal in 1865. In 1858 a reformatory school for juvenile criminals was established at Isle aux Noix, near[482] the frontier and at the head of the Richelieu river. Being an old military post it was again deemed necessary to occupy it and the reformatory was removed to St. Vincent de Paul, near Montreal, in 1861. In 1863 there were about fifty inmates in the institution.

The name of M. Berthelet and the Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul now became connected with this work. The latter Congregation was founded in Belgium, in 1807, by Rev. P. Priest, a Canon of the Diocese of Ghent, shortly after the French revolution, to care for the sick and poor, the aged and orphans left destitute through the expulsion of the religious orders.

Canada heard of their eminent services abroad. At the time, there was in Montreal a gentleman, named Berthelet, and relief of the poor seemed to be the goal of his ambition. In fact, M. Berthelet’s happiness consisted in relieving their wants. He, too, heard of the Brothers’ good work, and he begged Bishop Bourget to invite them out to Canada. They accepted the kind invitation and accepted the charge of a home for old people and neglected children of the city, at the Asile St. Antoine provided by M. Berthelet on Labelle Street. Four Brothers of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul arrived on February 22, 1865, but moved to a larger home on Dorchester Street, opposite the Convent of La Miséricorde, on May 10, 1865. From there they moved to the new home built by M. Berthelet on Mignonne Street, now De Montigny, taking possession of it on February 19, 1868. The same work was continued but with doubtful success, till it found its present vocation as an industrial school, in 1873.

In 1870, the Government of the Province of Quebec had founded a reformatory for youthful delinquents and incorrigible children. Recognizing that happier results would be obtained, if it was under the supervision of a religious body, familiar with the work, the Government made overtures to the superior of the Brothers, but it was only in 1872 that matters were definitely arranged to the satisfaction of both parties. The Brothers have been in charge ever since. The reformatory is a blessing in disguise for many a family and for the community at large. Hundreds of its inmates are today honorable and law-abiding citizens with trades in their possession or equipped for a livelihood. They would have always been so had their parents or guardians done their duty by them and given them the example of an industrious, sober, honest and Christ-like life.

The four Brothers have now grown to 150. In addition, since 1874 they have founded off shoots of their Community in Canada and the United States.

SHAWBRIDGE BOYS’ FARM

Reformation work for non-Catholic boys is conducted at Shawbridge in the Laurentian Mountains.

As told elsewhere the “Boys’ Farm and Training School” at Shawbridge owes its first active steps to the farm committee of 1906 of the “Corporation of the Boys’ Home,” and its immediate inception to the board of nine directors of the “Boys’ Farm and Training School,” chosen out of the board of fifteen governors of the “Boys’ Home” in accordance with the reconstituted amendments granted in March, 1909, to the original charter, these amendments having been prepared by Mr. J.S. Buchan, K.C., to provide for the twin corporations of the Boys’ Home and the Boys’ Farm, the latter, however, being a distinct but subsidiary[483] corporation. The first board of directors of the Boys’ Farm were J.R. Dougall, Rev. Dr. Eagan Hill, J.C. Holden, S.M. Baylis, C.S.J. Phillips, J.S. Buchan, K.C., F. Hague, F.S. Todd and G.W. Stephens. This board elected as their officers the following: President, J.S. Buchan, K.C.; vice president, S.M. Baylis; honorary secretary, F. Hague; honorary treasurer, C.S.J. Phillips. Mr. J.R. Dougall shortly became president on the resignation of Mr. Buchan. The reformatory is conducted on the cottage system, the prison atmosphere being carefully eliminated, so that it is rather a country farm home school than anything else, although the pupils are those committed thither by the courts of justice. Everything at the farm makes for health, virtue and hope, and is a good demonstration of the modern view of juvenile reformation.

THE JUVENILE COURT AND THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF MONTREAL

The Juvenile Court, which of recent years has been established to treat younger delinquents than those already mentioned, was largely the effort of the promotion of the Children’s Aid Society of Montreal.

This association developed out of a movement inaugurated by the Montreal Women’s Club, which, in 1905, formed a committee having as its object the establishment of reforms in the methods then in use in dealing with the children of the city who had offended against the law. The members of the club had become convinced from personal observation during the course of their charitable work that, not only was juvenile crime increasing to an alarming extent in Montreal, but also that the existing legal machinery was very badly adapted to cope with the situation. The “Juvenile Court” committee, therefore, began by collecting information regarding the methods in use in children’s courts and the probation system in various cities of the American continent and Europe, and interviewed many public men in Montreal in the interests of reform. Of these the first to offer definite encouragement and assurance of personal support was Judge F.X. Choquet, who, in an interview with some members of the committee on the 28th February, 1907, expressed his opinion that complete reformation of the law respecting juvenile offenders was urgently needed, and that a juvenile court with a special magistrate and officials was over-due in Montreal, in order that children’s cases might be promptly and efficiently dealt with, the circumstances and family history of the cases being investigated before sentence should be pronounced. It was recommended to the committee as their first step that a petition should be framed and sent to the Minister of Justice asking for a new law regulating the treatment of children’s cases before the courts.

Another public official to whom credit must be accorded for encouragement given in the initial stages of this reform is Governor Vallée of the Montreal jail, who stated as the result of personal experience that the greatest wrong was being done to the youth of the city by the system then in vogue; that he was familiar with the juvenile court methods, and heartily in favour of their introduction in Montreal.

A petition was prepared and was subsequently sent to the different branches of the Legislature bearing the signatures of over five thousand citizens. Public interest was increased in the movement by an address given by Mr. W.L. Scott, president of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, before the Montreal Women’s[484] Club, in the autumn of 1907, on juvenile courts and probation officers, and as a result of this address the club undertook to defray the cost of supporting a probation officer, for a time, provided the magistrates would sanction the innovation. Approval and promise of co-operation having been obtained from Judge Choquet, Mr. Recorder Weir, and Mr. Recorder Dupuis, a French lady, Mlle. Maria Clément, was engaged to fill the position.

It was now thought that the growth and prospects of the movement warranted the formation of a Children’s Aid Society, and the first meeting of ladies and gentlemen to form the executive board of such an association was assembled at the residence of Senator and Mme. Beïque on Sherbrooke Street, February 1, 1908, with Judge Eugène Lafontaine in the chair. Although the probation officer had only been at work during a few weeks it was stated at this meeting that her services had already proved of much value. Judge Choquet explained the purposes and need of the proposed society, whose officers were elected as follows: President, Judge F.X. Choquet; vice presidents, Mme. Beïque, Mme. Choquet, Judge Lafontaine, Miss Ferguson, president of the Montreal Women’s Club, Reverend Dr. Symonds, Mrs. Waycott, Mr. J.M. Wilson; secretaries, Mrs. Weller, Dr. St. Jacques; treasurer, Mr. F. Beïque.

By kind permission of the Protestant Board of School Commissioners, the meetings of the council of the Children’s Aid Society were subsequently held in the board room of the Protestant High School on Peel Street.

The members of the juvenile court committee of the Women’s Club were incorporated with the council of the new society, and subsequently, until the official organization of the juvenile court, held meetings twice a month with the probation officer at the home of Mme. Beïque in order to assist with the probation work.

In June, 1908, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed by the Dominion Parliament, and at the meeting of the Children’s Aid Society in September of that year a letter was read from Mr. W.L. Scott, one of the original framers of the bill, in which he stated that, “the success of the Juvenile Delinquents Bill has been due in great measure to your Society, and particularly to your having secured the interest of Senator Beïque and Mr. Bickerdike.”

The Society next exerted its effort towards having the act proclaimed by the Provincial Parliament as a preliminary to its being put into force in the province. To this end a public meeting was arranged, which was addressed by the Chief Justice, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, and by Mr. J.J. Kelso, the originator of the juvenile court system in Toronto.

During the following year the Society continued to co-operate with the probation work, and endeavoured to effect regulation of newspaper selling on the streets by small children and girls, and to secure suppression of the deleterious features of the moving picture shows, which were just beginning to overrun the city.

In 1910, the Juvenile Delinquents’ Act was formally proclaimed by the provincial authorities, and arrangements as to division of expenses, etc., having been adjusted between the province and the municipality, a house at No. 209 Champ de Mars Street, was acquired and fitted up by the city for use as a detention home, the formal opening taking place on the 22d March, 1912.

In accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act two Juvenile[485] Court committees were appointed from the membership of the Children’s Aid Society, consisting of the following persons:

For the Catholic Juvenile Court Committee:—Madame Beïque, Lady Hingston, Mesdames Crevier, Moreau, Ethier, Miss Quigley, Miss Murphy, Mlle. Marie Mignault, Rev. Canon Gauthier.

For the Protestant Juvenile Court Committee:—Rev. F.R. Griffin, Reverend Doctor Symonds, Messrs. Owen Dawson, K.J. Hollingshead, Lyon Cohen, Maxwell Goldstein, Mesdames F.H. Waycott, H.W. Weller, W.S. Maxwell.

The society sent in a unanimous request to the provincial authorities for the appointment of Judge F.X. Choquet as judge of the Juvenile Court, for Mr. O.C. Dawson as clerk, and for the retention of acting probation officers, Mlle. Clément, and Mrs. Henderson, in a permanent capacity, and all of these appointments were made, as asked for.

In 1912 the Children’s Aid Society cooperated with the executive of the Child Welfare Exhibit by taking charge of the subsection of that exhibit dealing with delinquent and dependent children.

MONTREAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

An association which has done very effective work since 1882 among the sufferers at the hands of the delinquent classes is the Montreal Society for the Protection of Women and Children. Its work is largely preventative and has succeeded in the protection of women and children from every kind of wrong, abuse and cruelty, arising from nonsupport, wife beating, desertion, assaults, child cruelty and miscellaneous causes. The society has steadily pursued the aim of reform regarding prison labour wages in favour of those who suffer from the incarceration of the delinquent husband, the breadwinner.

THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

The following movement may be chronicled sufficiently appropriately here among the charities for unfortunates:

The Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was incorporated in 1868, its charter being granted at the request of Thomas Workman, M.P., H.J. Joseph, Henry Bulmer, T.J. Claxton, E.A. Prentice, H.L. Boulter, J.J.C. Abbott, James Ferrier, Jr., R. Mowat, A.M. Foster, T. Mackenzie, George Stephens, James Hutton, G.W. Weaver, Jesse Joseph and others.

In 1898 a woman’s auxiliary was formed with Mrs. W.R. Miller as its first president.

The above association was the first in Canada. It is the head office of the Province of Quebec, having several branches in other towns. For the first twenty years progress was slow, but in 1913, as many as six thousand cases came to the association.

COURT COMMITTALS

The statistics for the year 1913 regarding the children committed to industrial schools by the City of Montreal is as follows:

[486]

Number of applications | 1,227
These applications were accepted or refused as follows: |
Committals accepted | 330
Committals refused | 216
Recommittals accepted | 397
Recommittals refused | 53
Committals accepted by the Government | 4
Recommittals accepted by the Government | 5
Applications discontinued | 100
Applications for release | 126
Children in industrial schools* on the 31st of December, 1912: |
At the expense of the city | 747
Half at the expense of the Government | 68
| ——
Total | 815
Committed during the year 1913:— |
At the expense of the city | 330
Half at the expense of the Government | 4
Recommitted during the year 1913:— |
At the expense of the city | 397
Half at the expense of the Government | 5
| ——
Total | 736
| ——
Grand total | 1,551
Released, discharged, etc., during the year 1913:— |
At the expense of the city | 732
Half at the expense of the Government | 13
| ——
Total | 745
In industrial schools on the 31st December, 1913:— |
At the expense of the city | 752
Half at the expense of the government | 54
| ——
Total | 806
* It is now desired to change the charter so that Reformatory schools should be renamed Industrial schools and former Industrial schools be renamed Trades and Labour schools.

Of the 806 Montreal children confined in the industrial schools on the 31st of December, 1913, 463 were Catholic boys committed to the Montfort Orphanage, 422 at the expense of the city and 41 at the joint expense of the city and Government, 290 were Catholic girls confided to the care of the Good Shepherd Nuns, 277 at the expense of the city and 13 at the joint expense of the city and Government, and 53 were Protestant children (33 boys and 20 girls) placed in the Ladies’ Benevolent Institution, Berthelet Street, Montreal.

Number of boys | 496
Number of girls | 310

[487]

The expenditure in connection with the maintenance of uncared for juveniles amounted to $69,450.15 in 1913, or an increase of $2,582.49 as compared with 1912.

V

VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE HANDICAPPED

DEAF MUTES: BOYS (CLERICS OF ST. VIATEUR)—GIRLS (SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE)—THE MACKAY INSTITUTE FOR PROTESTANT DEAF MUTES AND BLIND—THE INSTITUT DES AVEUGLES—MONTREAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND—SCHOOL FOR CRIPPLES (CHILDREN’S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL).

In a separate chapter we have treated of education only in the old sense of the term, vocational training as such also being treated in the notice on the technical schools of the city. The origins of that for physically handicapped children, the deaf, the blind and the crippled, have now to be recorded. There is as yet no provision for the mentally handicapped in the city or province though the subject is being at present promoted. This section is, therefore, placed here rather than in the educational chapter since the institutions it deals with are as yet conducted on sociological and volunteer lines rather than as an established part of the recognized educational systems of the city.

There are at present in Canada seven institutions for deaf mutes.

1. The Catholic Institution of “Sourds Muets,” deaf mutes, boys, founded in 1848 and now conducted under the direction of the Clerics of St. Viateur at 1941 St. Dominique Street, Montreal. 2. The Catholic Institution of “Sourdes Muettes,” girl deaf mutes, founded in 1851 under the direction of the Sisters of Providence, 595 St. Denis Street, Montreal. 3. The Mackay Institute, for girls and boys, founded in 1870. 4. The Institution at Halifax, Nova Scotia, founded in 1857. 5. That at Belleville, founded in 1858. 6. Winnipeg, in 1888. 7. St. John, New Brunswick, in 1903.

THE CATHOLIC INSTITUTE FOR DEAF-MUTE BOYS

Montreal, therefore, might claim at present the lead in this great educational work. Quebec, however, opened a school for deaf mutes in 1831 under Mr. Macdonald, a lawyer who had studied at Hartford, Connecticut, under the direction of M. Laurent Clerc, a pupil of the Abbé Sicard, who had learnt under the famous Abbé de l’Epée. In 1817 Laurent Clerc came to Hartford to found under M.H. Gallaudet, the first institution for deaf mutes on the American continent. The school established by Macdonald was unfortunately closed in 1836, owing to the withdrawal of subsidy by government. The Abbé Prince, afterwards bishop of St. Hyacinthe, endeavoured to support a school under the direction of the young Caron, a pupil of Macdonald, but through want of funds it closed in 1840. Later the Abbé Lagorce, of St. Charles on the Richelieu, attempted to teach the deaf mutes of his parish by pictures. In 1848 he was invited by Bishop Bourget to establish a school for deaf mutes at Hochelaga, in the hospice of St. Jérome-Emilien (the old house of the Good Shepherd) on Brock Street in the Quebec suburbs. He was assisted by a young man named Reeves, a deaf mute and a[488] pupil of Caron. The school was afterwards transferred to a house on Dufresne Street, given by M. Dufresne. In May, 1850, it was transferred to a building on Coteau St. Louis (Mile End) on a piece of land given by Dr. P. Beaubien. It was closed temporarily in May, 1851, on account of a visit made by the Abbé Lagorce to France for the purpose of study. He returned to Canada in October, 1852, and was installed at Joliette. In 1853 he returned to the house at Coteau St. Louis. There he remained till January, 1856, when he relinquished his work in favour of Brother J.M. Young, a cleric of St. Viateur. The latter, himself a deaf mute, had been invited by Bishop Bourget on his return from Rome in 1854, when he found M. Young a professor at the Forestier Institute in Lyons. M. Young entered the novitiate of the Clercs de St. Viateur at Vourles on the 15th of October, 1854, and after pronouncing his vows on October 21, 1855, embarked for Montreal, arriving in December. In view of his advent the classes had not recommenced in September but were again opened January 7, 1856. After the vacation of 1856, the establishment was removed to Chambly but, not succeeding, it was definitely reinstated in Coteau St. Louis after the vacation of 1857. Meanwhile, in 1856 Brother Young was joined by Father Bélanger. To him are due the many important developments, such as the opening in 1865 of the first workshops for printing, binding and shoemaking. In 1878 he added two stores to the principal house and in 1881 joined the workshops to it by a viaduct. In 1870, after a year’s study in Europe, he introduced teaching by words and again in 1880 the purely oral method. In 1883 he was forced to take a rest till 1895, but in 1900, he definitely retired, being succeeded by the Rev. Father Cadieux, of the Clerics of St. Viateur. The establishment gives a complete education to the pupils in its vast halls and workshops, where, besides printing, binding and shoemaking, other trades are taught, such as tailoring, sadlering, joinery, wheelwright’s work, painting, blacksmithing, etc. English Catholic children are also admitted.

THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL FOR DEAF-MUTE GIRLS

The next school, for girl deaf mutes, was established in 1851 at the time when that for boys was in a precarious condition. Its home was first at Longue Pointe and it was opened, under the auspices of Mother Gamelin, the foundress of the Sisters of Providence, by Sister Marie de Bonsecours (Albina Gadbois) on February 19th, with two pupils. The work for the unfortunate children was not then understood in Canada, being even thought useless. In 1852 there were four pupils, in 1857, thirty-two. The school which had then become too small was transferred to the hospice St. Joseph in Montreal. In 1864, the institution was definitely established upon its present site on St. Denis Street. Its first buildings have been gradually enlarged. The first teachers studied for a year at Joliette under the Abbé Lagorce. In 1853 they went to New York to study under the celebrated Isaac Peet, director of the Institute for Deaf Mutes in New York. Two years later they returned thither for further instruction. In 1870 they went to Europe to familiarize themselves in the oral method, but it was not till 1879 that the intuitive pure oral method, replacing signs and imitation, was applied in its entirety. In this they were greatly assisted by the Abbé Trepanier, honorary canon of the Cathedral of Montreal, who was for eighteen years attached to the[489] institution of the deaf mutes on St. Denis Street. In 1912 the establishment numbered 260 girl pupils and fifty-four religious.

THE MACKAY INSTITUTION FOR PROTESTANT DEAF-MUTES AND THE BLIND

Prior to the establishment of the institution known as the Mackay Institution for Protestant Deaf Mutes and the Blind, there was no school among the Protestant community for the unfortunates who might be either blind or deaf. During the year 1868 the subject was being agitated and on the 7th of January, 1869, a public meeting of those interested in this work was held and the following prominent citizens formed themselves into a society to establish an institution for Protestant deaf mutes and the blind in the Province of Quebec, then better known as Lower Canada:

Mr. Charles Alexander, Thomas Cramp, Frederick Mackenzie, Thomas Workman, John Dougall of the Montreal Witness, William Lunn, G. Moffatt, J.A. Mathewson, J.H.R. Molson, Hon. J.J.C. Abbott, Edward Carter, Q.C., P.D. Browne, John Leeming, W.H. Benyon, J.F. Barnard, S.J. Lyman; and the following ladies:

Mesdames Andrew Allan, R. Redpath, J.W. Dawson, Major, Bond, Cramp, Fleet, Moffatt, Brydges, Brown and Workman.

The following officers were elected: Mr. Charles Alexander, president; Thomas Cramp, vice president; Frederick Mackenzie, secretary-treasurer; Thomas Widd, principal; Mrs. Widd, matron.

On the 19th of January, 1869, another meeting was held at which it was announced that the sum of nearly $6,000 had been subscribed, and more promised. The members worked vigorously to raise sufficient funds.

The work of the honorable secretary-treasurer was no sinecure. He sent out hundreds of circulars to ministers in all parts of the province to obtain the names, age, sex and circumstances of all Protestant deaf mutes in the province. On the 26th of January, 250 circulars to Protestant ministers had brought only 23 replies, reporting 5 deaf mutes and 5 blind.

On the 10th of March, 112 replies had been received, reporting 38 deaf mutes, 8 of school age, and 34 blind, of whom only 5 were of school age. On April 30th, 210 replies had been received, reporting 57 deaf mutes, 35 males and 22 females; eligible for school, 8 males and 5 females.

On the 4th of May, another meeting of the committee was held and it was decided that Mr. Widd should look out for a suitable house and grounds to open school for September. A house and ample grounds were found in Côte St. Antoine at an annual rental of $400 with an option to purchase in five years for $8,000. The house contained accommodation for about twenty pupils but very scant provision for teachers.

The doors were opened on the 15th of September, 1870, and 11 pupils admitted, 9 boys and 2 girls. Six paid full fees of $90 for the scholastic year and 5 were free. The number in attendance was later increased to 16; 13 boys and 3 girls, one of the latter being deaf, dumb and blind.

The institution had a hard struggle for existence for many years, especially about 1876, which was a year of great financial depression; but with the help of kind friends it was kept open and attracted the attention of the late Mr. Joseph[490] Mackay, who finally bought a piece of ground in Notre Dame de Grâce and erected thereon a handsome building capable of accommodating about eighty pupils and their teachers, and the name was then changed to the “Mackay Institution for Protestant Deaf Mutes and the Blind.”

Mr. Widd retired from the principalship about 1882 and was succeeded by Miss Harriet E. McGann as superintendent, who later married a most talented teacher, Mr. John I. Ashcroft, and after his death carried the superintendentship alone to the present date.

There are now about seventy pupils of whom eleven are in the blind class. The subjects taught the blind are the ordinary English branches, music, typewriting, raffia work, knitting, plain sewing, chair caning and piano tuning. For the deaf the Masterson method is used in the kindergarten classes, dressmaking and domestic economy, besides the ordinary public school course. In the industrial department the boys acquire a good knowledge of carpentry, wood carving, cabinet making, shoemaking and chair caning.

THE INSTITUT DES AVEUGLES

The “Institut des Aveugles,” or the Institute for the Blind, at “Nazareth,” St. Catherine Street, the first established in Canada, was founded in Montreal in 1860 by the Rev. V.B. Rousselot, a Sulpician, who sacrificed his private fortune for the work of his predeliction. The course given aims at providing a classical and religious education and follows the practical methods adopted in Paris at the Institution National for the young blind. Music is especially cultivated. In 1892 the Grey Sisters, who have charge of the institution, added an Institut Opthalmique. Eye diseases are also treated at the Hôtel Dieu and Notre Dame Hospital.

THE MONTREAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND

The latest development is now being enterprised by the non-Catholics under the foregoing name.

In response to a circular letter sent out by a blind citizen, Mr. P.E. Layton, inviting personal friends and others to meet at his residence on Tuesday evening, April 21, 1908, about fifteen blind men and their friends responded. The meeting having been arranged by Mr. Layton, it was unanimously agreed that he should take the chair. In a few well-considered words the chairman set forth what he considered to be a pressing need in our community, the establishment of an association to promote the interests of the English-speaking blind in the Province of Quebec. He was of the opinion that an up-to-date school for the blind was an urgent necessity and that in connection with this, workshops for blind adults should be established so that the non-seeing might by instruction and training become self-supporting. In the discussion which followed it was unanimously decided that such an association should be formed, having the aforesaid objects as its ultimate aim. The officers of the society were then elected as follows: Dr. A. Fisher, honorary president; Mr. C.W. Lindsay, president; Mr. W. Stewart, vice president; Mr. P.E. Layton, treasurer; and Mr. S. Fraser, secretary. The above officers, with the addition of Messrs. H. Baker and T. Stewart, formed an executive committee of management. At a subsequent meeting Messrs. A. Ross[491] and I. Mullhollin were added to this committee. By the end of the first year $12,608.48 had been realized from subscriptions.

MONTREAL SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND

MONTREAL DEAF AND DUMB INSTITUTE

NAZARETH ASYLUM FOR THE BLIND

MACKAY INSTITUTION FOR THE PROTESTANT DEAF-MUTES AND THE BLIND

A library of books in the raised type has been established. A workshop for the training of blind adults in broom-making was opened on December 1, 1908.

On June 4, 1910, an act to incorporate “The Montreal Association for the Blind” was passed by the provincial legislature. The principal incorporators were Sir Edward Clouston, Baronet; Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, K.C.V.O.; Sir Melbourne Tait; Sir William Macdonald; Sir Hugh Graham; W.M. Aitken; George Smithers; Charles W. Lindsay; Philip E. Layton; H.F. Armstrong; E.B. Busteed, K.C.; Septimus Fraser, and other persons.

During the next four years Mr. and Mrs. Layton were actively engaged as treasurer and secretary of the society in collecting funds for the erection of a school for the English-speaking blind and a sum sufficient for the purpose was raised. A piece of land 8½ acres in extent was purchased at Sherbrooke Street, at the corner of Notre Dame de Grâce, in 1910, and in 1912 the school was built and opened for the admission of pupils in October of that year. It was almost entirely furnished by donations of friends. The official opening by the Premier of the Province, Sir Lomer Gouin, took place in October, 1913. Thirty-two pupils have been enrolled since that date. Funds have been raised during the present year, 1914, for the erection on the school grounds of an industrial home for the adult blind, and the building is now in progress and will be ready for occupation on March 1, 1915. This building will accommodate about twenty-five to thirty adults. Various trades will be taught and the boarding accommodations will be a great boon to the sightless workmen.

THE SCHOOL FOR CRIPPLES
(Children’s Memorial Hospital)

The Montreal movement for a school for cripples is of especial sociological interest as a further instance of the trend of modern educational impulse.

Less than a year after the founding of the Children’s Memorial Hospital, in 1904, the members of the committee of that institution realized the dire ignorance of most of the little patients who were brought to the hospital for treatment, some having never attended school, others having attended school during but short and broken periods of their young lives.

A school was shortly organized in connection with the hospital for the young patients in the temporary quarters, 500 Guy Street. The scholars studied reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar and geography; in one or two instances shorthand, typewriting and music have been commenced. Some of these pupils could sew, knit, crochet embroidery and make bead chains.

The aim of the committee of the Children’s Memorial Hospital after the removal of the patients in 1909 to the new hospital has been to have a separate school building on its grounds on Cedar Avenue, which school would be not only the school for the resident patients but also the school to which the crippled and deformed children of Montreal and the surrounding vicinities would be brought every morning in special conveyances, and there receive instruction which would fit them to become independent and useful citizens as they grew to manhood and womanhood. The children would receive their mid-day lunch at the school and later in the afternoon be conveyed to their respective homes.

[492]

The first step taken was in approaching the Protestant School Commissioners, who gave permission for a collection to be taken by children in their schools for the School for Cripples.

The second step was that of forming a committee and having collecting cards printed. After the gracious permission was accorded by the Protestant School Board of Montreal, and that of Westmount, upwards of twenty thousand of these collecting cards were distributed to the scholars attending the schools under the control of these respective boards. The school inspectors of the Province of Quebec rendered valuable assistance, also supplying lists with the names of the schools and the teachers under their inspectorates. These schools were supplied with collecting cards also, together with a number of private schools and academies in Montreal and the surrounding districts. As a result of the efforts of the school children of the province and the kind supervision of the principals and teachers, a very large sum was collected.

The committee for the organization of the School for Cripples held its first meeting in February, 1910. At the last meeting which was held in May, a deputation, composed of the following members of the committee: Mr. C.J. Binmore, Mr. W.D. Lighthall, His Honor Mr. Recorder Weir, D.C.L., Doctor Rexford,—was appointed to attend a meeting of the committee of the Children’s Memorial Hospital, which was held the week after. At this meeting the following report, read by Mr. C.J. Binmore, recommended that provision should be made for three distinct divisions of children.

1. The inmates of the hospital who are able to go from the wards to the class-rooms.

2. The pupils who may be brought daily to the school from their homes.

3. The children resident in the hospital who are either temporarily or permanently unable to leave their cots.

The school has at last, in September, 1914, been completed in the grounds of the Children’s Memorial Hospital at the foot of the hill adjoining Cedar Avenue, and is ready for formal opening. It will have two departments, one for the hospital crippled children and the other for the same unfortunate class from the city. It will be taught on the same efficient lines as those employed in the city schools. But special vocational training will be added to equip the handicapped children for the battle of life.

The board of management, separate from that of the hospital, is as follows: President, McKenzie Forbes, M.D.; vice president, Rev. Herbert Symonds, D.D.; Mr. C.J. Binmore, treasurer; Miss Sarah Tyndale, and Mr. W.D. Lighthall, K.C., honorary solicitor.

VI

IMMIGRATION WORK

EARLY ACTIVITIES—YEAR OF CHOLERA—DOMINION AGENCY—THE WOMEN’S NATIONAL IMMIGRATION SOCIETY—CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION HOME.

Writing in 1839 Mr. Newton Bosworth, in “Hochelaga Depicta,” says that[493] “the citizens of Montreal are distinguished by one feature which is highly honourable to them, standing out as it does in pleasing and strong relief—and that is a habit of active benevolence. Perhaps there is no place where in proportion to the number and wealth of the inhabitants more has been done to relieve the wretched and support the weak by deeds of real charity than in this city—and this not by thoughtless and indiscriminate profusion, but in the exercise of cautious and painstaking administration.” As an illustration of this fact he quotes, “On the authority of Nathaniel Gould, Esq., London, a warm and steady friend to Canada, that the Montreal Emigrant Society during the past year (1832) forwarded to their destination, or otherwise relieved, 10,744 of these poor creatures at an expense of £2,126 11s 4d. Too much praise cannot be bestowed on the exertions of those pure philanthropists, who during a season of much distress and danger gave up their time, money and health to so worthy a purpose.” The last quoted writer is speaking of the year of the cholera epidemic of 1832.

THE DOMINION IMMIGRATION AGENCY

But immigration from the institutional point of view may be dated at about 1834, when the national societies, as recorded elsewhere, arose to safeguard the interests of their own country people coming to the city. These societies either had houses such as the St. Andrew’s Home or St. George’s Home to receive them, or they did it by providing them lodging and care otherwise.

The Dominion Government has long had its immigration agency in the city. Its home is now at 150 St. Antoine Street, where the new building with its detention hospital was publicly opened on May 1, 1914. Its previous locations were 306 St. Antoine Street, the late one, the former residence of a former mayor, C.S. Rodier; then 219 Cathedral Street; before that 183 Common Street; 517 St. James Street; then at a point opposite the Grand Trunk Station (St. Bonaventure) and at Point St. Charles, etc. The present agent, Mr. John Hoolahan, was appointed in 1893 and he was preceded by Mr. Daly, father and son.

THE WOMEN’S NATIONAL IMMIGRATION SOCIETY

An important philanthropic movement was started in 1882 under the title of the Women’s Protective Society, which was changed some years later to its present name, “The Women’s National Immigration Society.” Its first president was Mrs. Gillespie, who was succeeded at her death in 1913 by Mrs. H. Vincent Meridith. As Montreal is a port of importance, the sociological value of the movement is apparent.

As Montreal is a port of importance the sociological value of this movement is apparent.

The home of the society situated at 87 Osborne Street is recognized as a government receiving home for the Dominion of Canada, where all newly arrived women immigrants are given twenty-four hours free board and lodging. It has no business connection with any employment agency in Great Britain or Canada.

The object of the society is the receiving and protecting of newly arrived immigrant women irrespective of creed or nationality. Should they remain in Montreal they can board in the home at a low charge and assistance is given to them in every way possible to obtain employment. If they are going further[494] afield help is given them in preparing for their journey and they are seen safely onto the trains.

From the foundation of the society in 1882 to December, 1913, 11,366 newly arrived immigrants have been registered on the books. In the first two years of the society’s existence those registered totaled 459, as compared with the figures for the last two years, 1,697. A comparison of these figures will show how greatly the work has increased.

An outstanding feature of the work is the receiving and assisting of large parties of immigrants brought out under the auspices of the “British Women’s Emigration Society” of London, England. These parties traveling under the care of experienced matrons have been coming to the home for the past twenty-four years and have grown rapidly of late years both in frequency of arrival and numbers. At the present time they usually consist of from forty to fifty persons, though on one day of August, 1912, a party of over ninety was received and catered for at the home, while waiting for trains for different points in the country.

Individual passengers are met by request at the steamers and trains and assisted with their arrangements for their further journeys. These form a very large class annually and as they usually prefer to go forward with as little delay as possible they are generally taken direct to the stations and are thus not included in the above totals which only cover those newly arrived immigrants registered at the home.

THE CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION HOME

A similar work to that of the last named association is now being performed by the Catholic Immigration Home at 450 Lagauchetière Street.

On April 10, 1913, their property was purchased, but numerous alterations had to be made to make it suitable for immigration work.

The Home has become very popular with the young women, strangers in a strange land, who look upon it as their home where they are well looked after by a competent matron.

On Saturday, June 28, 1913, the Home was officially opened for the reception of the immigrants. Among those present were the following: His Grace the Archbishop of Montreal; Hon. J.J. Guerin, John Hoolihan, dominion immigration agent; E. Marquette, provincial immigration agent; Denis Tansey, M.L. A.; Mr. E. Dufault, deputy minister of colonization, Quebec Government; J.B. Lambkin, dominion agent for the suppression of white slavery; W.G. Kennedy, president of St. Patrick’s Society; J.L.D. Mason, M.D.

Representatives of the Home meet the incoming steamers and trains, and assist the immigrants, both male and female, arriving in the city. The young women are protected at the Home, and saved from the evil of white slavery while employment is secured for them. It is managed by a board of life governors with a chaplain, the Rev. F.J. Singleton of St. Patrick’s Church. It has a matron and staff for the internal government.

Among other immigration activities may be mentioned the National Societies, Union Nationale Francaise de Montreal, St. Anthony’s Villa.

[495]

VII

HUMANITARIAN MOVEMENTS FOR BOYS

THE BOYS’ HOME—THE PATRONAGE DE ST. JOSEPH—THE BOY SCOUTS—PARKS AND PLAY GROUNDS ASSOCIATION.

THE BOYS’ HOME.

Among the striking developments of humanitarian efforts for boys there are several which stand out conspicuously.

The Boys’ Home of Montreal is a logical and lineal descendant of the “Infant School Association,” which established a schoolhouse on Barre Street in 1868 in connection with Zion Congregational Church, Mr. Charles Alexander, James Baylis, J. Dougall, Fred Perry and others being associated with the work.

On the Protestant School Commissioners taking up infant teaching, as the charter of the above association permitted other charitable work, by a resolution of May 5, 1870, in the Mechanics Hall, it was utilized for the promotion of work for waifs and strays, and in 1871 the association changed its name to the Boys’ Home of Montreal and established itself in the building erected by Mr. Charles Alexander, on Mountain Street, known as the Shaftesbury Hall, after the model of the Lord Shaftesbury homes in England. The work commenced on February 1, 1871, with twelve boys, to whom were added six others next day. They were street boys of all religions and each boy paid ten cents for supper, bed and breakfast. These were a rough lot and it caused Mr. John Ritchie, the first superintendent, some trouble to handle them. Still the work progressed. Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Dick took charge of the boys about 1882 and have continued in this work till today. The growth of this home from such humble beginnings is best told by its buildings. In 1886 the present centre building, costing $13,000, was built; in 1893 the north building for educational purposes; and in 1904 the new Alexander wing, costing $30,000, including gymnasium, swimming bath, etc., replaced the old Shaftesbury Hall. The work has overflowed so that the home was instrumental in fathering the Shawbridge Boys’ Farm. This had long been projected through the efforts of Mr. Alexander, the president, who had desired to accomplish some betterment of the miserable conditions, officially acknowledged, attaching to the care and reform of the Protestant juvenile delinquent in the Sherbrooke reformatory, which was nothing more than a part of the Sherbrooke jail. As early as 1902 the matter was brought before the board by Mr. J. R. Dick. In 1906 it was again urged that the Boys’ Home board was the right corporation to bring about the reform so long required, through the establishment of an industrial farm, which eventually opened its doors to the fourteen boys from Sherbrooke Reformatory on March 31, 1909, the contract with the government having been concluded on March 8, 1909. The first immediate step, however, was taken in 1906 by the corporation of the Boys’ Home through its farm committee under Mr. J.S. Buchan, with Messrs. S.M. Bayliss, Frederick Hague and C.S.J. Phillipps. In 1907 the Goodfellow Farm of 300 acres and cattle was purchased at Shawbridge, forty miles from the city on the Nominique Division of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has a station also on the Canadian[496] Northern Quebec Railway, the farm being conveniently situated about a mile from the city. Its grounds were laid out under the direction of Professor Nobbs and Mr. F. Todd, with Mr. Cecil Burgess as the building architect. A simple inauguration was held in December, when the work was commenced. Mr. G.W. Mathews, late of the Kibble Institute, Paisley, Scotland, arrived in March, 1908, to take the position of superintendent on May 1st, when the farm came into the possession of the corporation. The formal opening of the Boys’ Farm took place on October 26, 1908. Its subsequent history belongs to the section on “Reformation.” The Boys’ Home, which still retains its original character, has merited the good will of the citizens. Since 1868 it has had only two presidents, Mr. Charles Alexander, who died on November 6, 1905, and Mr. J.E. Dougall, his successor.

PATRONAGE DE ST. JOSEPH

Although there are numberless forms of charity among the French-speaking population it was not till 1892 that young orphan boys of the apprentice class were specially catered for, when, on September 8th, the Patronage de St. Joseph was opened for such at the southeast corner of Dorchester Street and St. Charles Borromeo. The idea was conceived by the conference St. Laurent of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, under the direction of its president, M. Sénécal, and its chaplain, the Rev. M. Hébert. Shortly after six months the location was removed by an offer of land from the Seminary of St. Sulpice to the corner of Lagauchetière and St. George streets. The new dwelling was even still too small for the growing number of apprentices and through the generous assistance of M. Froidevaux great enlargements were added within four months to the first building. Two years later, in 1895, a third building was commenced, but was not utilized till May, 1897, by the act of the Rev. M. Colin, superior of the Seminary, who has made it possible by furnishing the necessary funds.

The work has given asylum since its twenty-two years of existence to more than fifteen hundred young boys learning their trades, either in the Brothers’ workshops or in the town, returning to the Patronage at night. At present ninety apprentices are housed and only inadequate means prevents more from being served.

Other activities for boys beyond these two representative institutions are connected with the churches and social works of the city with numerous clubs for mental, moral and physical uplift.

THE BOY SCOUTS

The scout movement, founded in England by Lieut.-Gen. Sir Robert S.S. Baden-Powell, for building boys into strong, virile manhood, is really organized clubdom for boys, bringing to them physical, moral and intellectual training. It was intended at first by the founder to be used by existing boys’ organizations, such as the Y.M.C.A., Boys’ Brigade, School and Cadet Corps, but it grew beyond those bounds.

The first permanent work in connection with the Boy Scout organization in Montreal was undertaken by Mr. Nigel Young during the winter and summer of[497] 1910. On September 2, 1910, Lieut.-Gen. Sir R.S.S. Baden-Powell, the Chief Scout and founder of the movement, visited Montreal and addressed a meeting of the citizens in the arena with the mayor, Doctor Guerin, in the chair. On the following day he reviewed the troop of the city and addressed the scoutmasters. The Chief Scout was accompanied by Lieutenant-Colonel Burland, who had the previous day been appointed commissioner for the Province of Quebec.

In July, 1912, eleven scouts and three scoutmasters were present at the rally and review held by His Majesty at Windsor during the coronation events. The whole Canadian contingent, numbering in all 136, was commanded by Lieut.-Col. Minden Cole, chairman of the Montreal council.

In the autumn of 1911 Mr. David Evans was appointed assistant commissioner and secretary for the province, since which time two others have held that office, Mr. Russell Patterson, in 1912-13, and Mr. Lordly, in 1914.

During the winter of 1911, through the efforts of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Whitehead, honorary treasurer of the Montreal Scout Council, a tract of land 300 acres in extent, with two fine lakes, was purchased in the Laurentian Mountains for a permanent camping ground for the scouts of the province. This has been improved and a new up-to-date men’s hall has been erected. A full equipment of tents, boats, etc., was supplied to accommodate 175 scouts at one time.

In September, 1914, Lieut.-Col. J. Burland resigned the commissionership of the province and his place has been taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Starke, appointed by H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught, chief scout for Canada.

At the present time there are in Montreal 12 local associations, 54 scout troops, 53 scoutmasters, 49 assistant scoutmasters, 1,423 scouts, 23 king scouts, and 3 silver cross scouts.

PARKS AND PLAY GROUNDS ASSOCIATION

A most important factor in the life of a city is the provision of open spaces and breathing places for the working classes, and especially for the children. In the winter of 1895-6 a few ladies founded the Parks’ Protective Association. Its first executive committee was: Mrs. N. Peterson, president; Mrs. Hugh Graham, Mrs. N.V. Meredith, Mrs. Frank Redpath, Mrs. John Cox, Mrs. Charles Hope, Mrs. F. Walton, Mrs. Kenneth Macpherson, Mrs. Charles Whitehead and Miss Edith Watt, honorary secretary. In April, 1900, its scope was enlarged by a larger association being formed, with men admitted to committee work, to carry on its work under the title of the “Parks and Playgrounds Association.” A special object of the new association is to promote public playgrounds for the children and urge the city authorities to do this. The association was incorporated in 1904. Its presidents have been: Sir William Hingston, Sir George Drummond and Sir Alexander Lacoste. It has fostered a growing sentiment in favour of public playgrounds and in 1913 it had seven of these under proper supervision. Admirable modern playing apparatus has been installed during the last two years. The movement has public favour and the association’s slogan of 1912 for “$1,000,000 for playgrounds” as the extent of a grant desired from the city hall, has had the result of urging the city to purchase a great quantity of land for definite further playground expansion. The city has now also undertaken the care and management of its own public playground property and the association[498] at present confines itself to its own playgrounds at Hibernia Road, and two others. Its record is very creditable as a voluntary public service.

VIII

HEBREW SOCIAL WORKS

BARON DE HIRSCH INSTITUTE—LADIES’ BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATIONS—OTHER SOCIETIES.

The social work of the Hebrew as such may be treated separately as an indication of social endeavour on racial lines.

The philanthropic institutions of the Hebrews of Montreal have become numerous. The most important one is the “Baron de Hirsch Institute,” which was founded in 1863 under the name of “The Young Men’s Hebrew Benevolent Society.” When afterwards the late Baron de Hirsch sent them large sums as a fund for assisting in the onerous work which had fallen on this society through the large influx of Jews from Eastern Europe in the ’80s they changed the name to “Baron de Hirsch Institute and Hebrew Benevolent Society.” Among its founders were Lawrence L. Levy, who was its first president, Isidor Ascher, Tucker David, Charles Levy, Lawrence Cohen, M. Gutman, Moise Schwob and S.E. Moss. Among its presidents have been Jacob L. Samuel, Lyon Silverman, Jacob G. Ascher, Lewis A. Hart, N. Friedman, Harris Vineberg, David A. Ansell, Mortimer Davis, Lyon Cohen and Samuel W. Jacobs, K.C. Mr. Ansell held office for fourteen years. It was during his administration that the large building on Bleury Street, now occupied by the institute was acquired. He was a very active worker in the cause of education and his name will always be especially identified with that branch of the work of the Baron de Hirsch Institute. He also was Consul General for Mexico. Each of the above-mentioned presidents in turn did yeoman service for the advancement of the institute, which has grown in importance from year to year.

The Ladies’ Hebrew Benevolent Society, founded in 1877, is the oldest and most important of the Hebrew women’s charity organizations. The Hebrew Free Loan Society, which was founded some years ago, largely through the efforts of Z. Fineberg, does splendid work in making loans to those requiring aid who refuse to take charity and who pay back the loans thus made as their condition improves. The Herzl Free Dispensary, the Hebrew Sheltering Home, the Hebrew Sick Benefit Association, the Hebrew Young Ladies’ Sewing Society all do noble work in their separate branches, and there are a large number of other equally meritorious Hebrew organizations doing work in every field of philanthropy.

IX

COOPERATIVE MOVEMENTS

WOMEN’S WORK—THE MONTREAL WOMEN’S CLUB—THE LOCAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN—LA FEDERATION NATIONALE—THE MONTREAL SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION—THE CITY IMPROVEMENT LEAGUE—THE CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION—THE CHILD WELFARE EXHIBITION—ITS LESSONS—THE MILK STATION MOVEMENT.

Up to 1892 charitable and social work was conducted busily and self-sacrificingly, but often without sufficient inter-relation between the workers of the various[499] institutions and bodies and churches. Accordingly the movements for cooperation which now began mark the beginning of a most fruitful epoch. The first signs of the new period were manifested by the foundation of the Montreal Women’s Club in 1892 and that of the local Council of Women in 1893, to be followed by La Fédération Nationale in 1907.

Lengthy notices are given of the women’s movements, for historically the period we are now in is peculiarly theirs. It is also indirectly a summing up of the very large part played by the women of Montreal in the charitable and humanitarian work of this city, as this chapter amply testifies.

THE MONTREAL WOMEN’S CLUB

The Montreal Women’s Club was founded by Mrs. Robert Reid, December 7, 1892—the object of the club being to promote agreeable and useful relations between women of artistic, literary, scientific and philanthropic tastes. The legal incorporation of this club was secured on April 4, 1893. The weekly programme, at first used as a means of personal culture, soon became an important factor in the life of its members, revealing to them abuses to be abolished or reforms to be instituted. To-day, like so many modern clubs of women originally of a literary origin, this club also is trying to assist in solving some of the many complex problems which affect childhood and womanhood, as regards industrial, educational, economic, civic and home conditions. The necessities soon arose for specialized efforts, hence the formation of the many standing committees, the success of whose work has brought credit to the club and much benefit to Montreal, through reforms promoted or actually initiated through the committees attached to departments bearing on “Home and Education,” “Social Science” and “Art and Literature.”

The first Social Science Committee, Medical Inspection of Schools (1902), laboured for four years, educating public opinion, and influencing other organizations whose consent was necessary before a system of medical inspection could be established.

The Hygiene Committee provides educative reports and recommendations along civic and natural lines of hygienic conditions.

The Moral and Social Reform Committee (1909) has given educative reports on the moral problem. This committee has been acquiring information, distributing literature, and through the publicity of the press seeking to make the public realize conditions as they are to-day in Montreal, caused by the influx of foreigners, overcrowding of tenements, poor wages, and lack of compulsory education.

The Forestry Committee (1908)—now Conservation—shows that the club has a national outlook.

The Juvenile Court Committee (1904) began its work by directing the movement in Montreal to assist in securing the passage of the Dominion Act, which established children’s courts (passed June, 1908). With the financial support of the club, this committee was the nucleus of the Children’s Aid Society of Montreal, formed in February, 1908. Subsequently when the Provincial Legislature adopted the Dominion Act, the City of Montreal agreed to its provisions, and then purchased and furnished the necessary detention home.

[500]

The Child Labour Committee (1906) took a very important part in the Child Welfare Exhibit of 1912.

The Civics Committee (1906) secured the placing of “anti-spitting” notices on street corners, and during 1912-1913 worked to secure the abolishment of the smoke nuisance, as well as for the suppression of noises caused by milk and coal carts, and by defective car wheels.

The efforts of The Industrial Committee (1906) were principally directed to the continuance of the work of the Mary Laura Ferguson Girls’ Club.

The establishment in the city of a Consumers’ League has been promoted through this committee.

It also organizes lectures on its main subjects of intellectual and artistic culture. On the social side it has committees of courtesy, library and hospitality. In general it cooperates with all civic movements to make Montreal a better place in which to live.

The gifts to philanthropic work included grants to the relief funds of the Royal Edward Institute and the Victorian Order of Nurses.

The club is affiliated with the Local Council of Women, the Civic Improvement League and the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, and is represented by delegates to the Parks and Playgrounds Association, and to the Child Welfare Moving Pictures Committee.

The club, this year attained its majority and celebrated the auspicious occasion by the usual Charter Day luncheon, entertaining as guests, the distinguished women of the National Council, in convention here. The felicitations and congratulations received, prove that the work, worth and earnest endeavours of the club have richly justified its existence.

The presidents of the club have been:

Mrs. Robert Reid | 1892-02
Miss Eglaugh | 1902-03
Mrs. F.H. Waycott | 1903-06
Miss Mary Ferguson | 1906-09
Mrs. Alfred Ross Grafton | 1909-11
Mrs. Ninian C. Smillie | 1911-13
Madame Héliodore Fortier | 1913—

THE MONTREAL LOCAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN

The Local Council of Women was organized as a component part of the National Council of Women, which was founded by Lady Aberdeen, the wife of the Governor-General of the time. As the aims of the Montreal Local Council of Women are modelled on those of the National Council, the following preamble to the constitution of the latter will illustrate the spirit of the local phase of the same movement:

“We, Women of Canada, sincerely believing that the best good of our homes and nation will be advanced by our own greater unity of thought, sympathy and purpose, and that an organized movement of women will best conserve the highest good of the Family and the State, do hereby band ourselves together to further the application of the Golden Rule to society, custom and law.”

The general policy is thus stated:

[501]

“This Council is organized in the interest of no one propaganda, and has no power over the organizations which constitute it, beyond that of suggestion and sympathy; therefore, no Society voting to enter this Council shall render itself liable to be interfered with in respect to its complete organic unity, independence or methods of work, or be committed to any principle or method of any other Society, or to any act or utterance of the Council itself, beyond compliance with the terms of this Constitution.”

In 1893 the Local Council of Women of Montreal was founded on a similar basis in relation to the many separate associations, which, in its turn it should hope to draw together.

It is therefore an organization which aims to secure the united action, of both men and women and all existing organizations of women, into closer relations through organized effort. Each society entering the Local Council preserves its own independence in aim or method, and is not committed to any principle or method of any other society in the council, the object of which is to serve as a medium of communication and a means of prosecuting any work of common interest.

Believing, therefore, that the more intimate knowledge of one another’s work would result in larger mutual sympathy and greater unity of thought, and therefore in more effective action, the various women’s associations interested in philanthropy, religion, education, literature, art and social reform thus formed a local council, its date of organization being November 30, 1893. Thirty societies united at first, the majority of which still adhere. There are now fifty societies affiliated with the local council. The first president was Lady Drummond, who is still active in the work of the body. The first board consisted of the following officers, in addition to the president: Madame Thibaudeau, vice president; ex-officio vice president, president of all affiliated societies; Miss Fairley, late principal of Trafalgar Institute, corresponding secretary; Mrs. Clarke Murray, recording secretary; Mrs. Carus Wilson, associate secretary; and Mrs. Wurtele, treasurer. Subsequent presidents have been Mrs. John Cox (deceased), Mrs. Bovey, Miss Carrie M. Derick and Dr. Ritchie England, now presiding.

Among those who served either on the presidential board or as officers for many years after the establishment of the local council were: Mrs. H.C. Scott, who was early elected secretary and served for several years; Mrs. William MacNaughton, Mrs. Robert Reed, Mrs. Learmont, Mrs. John Cox, Mrs. Frank Redpath, Mme. Gérin-LaJoie, Mme. Beïgue, Mme. Dandurand, Mrs. Warwick Chipman and Mrs. John Savage. Mrs. William MacNaughton, Mrs. Plumptre, Mrs. Walton and Miss Helen Reed served as chairman of the presidential board when this body conducted affairs instead of a president. The following names have also appeared on the roll of officers during the early years, for long or short terms: Lady Hingston, Mrs. A.D. Durnford, Mrs. E. McNutt, Mrs. F. McLennan, Mrs. E. Hanson, Mrs. Gillespie, Mrs. John McDougall, Miss Galt, Mrs. Hugh Allan, Mrs. Wolferston Thomas, Mrs. J.F. Stevenson, Mrs. DeSola and Mrs. Leo.

The present officers are: Dr. Ritchie England, president; Mrs. Warwick Chipman, Mrs. N.C. Smillie and Mrs. J. Henderson, vice presidents; Mrs. Walter Lyman, corresponding secretary; Miss Eleanor Tatley, recording secretary; and Mrs. A.K. Fiske, treasurer.

Individual local members represent the local council of Montreal in the National Assembly on committees such as laws for the better protection of women[502] and children, the custodial care of feeble-minded women, work for dependent classes, finance, immigration, press, vacation schools and supervised play grounds, the equal moral standard and the prevention of traffic in women, on peace and arbitration, on public health, on education, covering problems of childhood.

It may be mentioned that the National Council was federated to the International Council in 1897. The value of this threefold relation established by so many women’s societies of Montreal makes their work likely to be very universally useful, for many questions suggested first at international or national meetings have been taken up locally and vice versa.

The publication of the many phases of the work that the Local Council of Women and the affiliated societies have enterprised in the civic life of Montreal, especially in the last twenty-one years, would fill many pages, but as there is no doubt that in the story of Montreal the action of women in every sphere of civic activity has done much for the uplift of the people, credit and notice must be given to this very important outlook on Montreal’s growth. Some of the particular activities of the council, therefore, may be recorded.

Its patriotic efforts have been of a two-fold nature, racial and imperial. Work for peace and arbitration was begun in 1894, and has continued as part of the work of the National Council. During the Boer War it gave aid to the volunteers and their families, and during the present war of 1914 it has worked in connection with the Canadian Patriotic Fund, the Canadian Women’s Fund, the Red Cross Society and work for unemployed.

It has worked to obtain reports, and has recommended local action, in regard to hygiene, education, labour, laws affecting women and children, the equal moral standard and prevention of traffic in women.

Since 1894 the council has promoted progressive reform in nursing facilities leading up to the establishment of the Victorian Order of Nurses. It has engaged actively in the crusade against infantile mortality and that which led to the Pure Milk League, out of which grew the movement for milk stations, which finally received subsidies from the city. It engaged in the preliminary anti-tuberculosis movements which finally ended in the establishment of the Royal Edward Institute in 1909, and subsequent institutions.

The local council has dealt in all matters which affect civic life, even in municipal government. It has entered into various departments of civic government, such as public baths, clean streets, eradication of the smoke nuisance, inspection of schools, the civic hospital for contagious diseases, etc.

One of the first committees established to obtain the appointment of women on the school boards was that of the council, but this plan never reached fruition. Many investigations and petitions were made by the council regarding training of teachers, the further extension of domestic science and manual training, school hours, home lessons, etc., and reports on these subjects were carefully made out and submitted. The Home Reading Union was established by the council and for some years was carried on as a part of this body.

The Aberdeen Association, to supply literature to people living far from larger centres, had its inception through the council, which has worked efficiently for the promotion of art, music and literature. It was instrumental in introducing band concerts in the public squares, has succeeded in obtaining public days[503] at the Art Gallery, and has cooperated with the Natural History Society in matters of hygienic education.

The local council has done much to encourage Canadian handicrafts, having started through the attempt to help the Doukhabours. This work then passed from the council’s committee to the Women’s Art Society, and is now carried on by the Canadian Handicraft Guild, established for this purpose.

In 1896 a committee of the local council began to hold lectures on sex hygiene and advocated the suppression of impure literature, which work they still continue very effectively.

The Social Study Club, established between 1898 and 1902, which led up to the formation of the University Settlement, owes its existence to the Local Council, and as early as 1894 the latter body was considering the question of industrial education. Investigations into industrial conditions were made and reports presented to the Royal Commission. Laws affecting women and children, and labour conditions, have been promoted so that women factory inspectors and the amended shop act were obtained, and many other ameliorations for the women workers.

It has made careful study of the questions relating to special treatment of mentally defective children and the segregation of feeble-minded women of child-bearing age, while the matter of segregation of male defectives has also been considered.

The education of mentally defective children in the province has been studied and recommendations given to the provincial government, while another important matter which it has endeavoured to promote is compulsory education. Great interest has been taken in the recreational and social side of education, notably in the supervision of play grounds. At a meeting held under the auspices of the local council an outgrowth was the resolution to form a larger movement which developed from the already existing Parks Protective Association into a Parks and Playgrounds Association, as the new organization became in name, having the addition of women on its board.

Among other social reforms the council has secured the registration of births since 1899. Various jail and reformatory ameliorations, such as police matrons and assistance for discharged prisoners, have been accomplished, and the movement promoted which, through the efforts of the Montreal Women’s Club, led to the formation of the Children’s Aid Society, the chief result of which has been the establishment of the Juvenile Court. The preliminary agitation which ended in the formation of the Charity Organization Society was conducted by the local council, seven members of its executive becoming members of the first board of directors of the Charity Organization Society.

The cause of temperance has received careful attention from the council, in conjunction with the Fédération Nationale, so that 70,000 signatures were signed in favour of an amendment to the license law, the suggestion being adopted by Government.

Notably, since 1910, the local council with the Fédération Nationale and other women’s societies have cooperated with the Citizens’ Association and other bodies working for municipal reform. A large proportion of the 8,000 women voters of the city registered at the polls, showing the success of the new movement, which has been continued to 1914.

[504]

In 1912 the Child Welfare Exhibition found the local council from the first one of the coordinate cooperating societies organizing and carrying out the exhibition. In this the women’s societies of Montreal, French and English, took charge of the sections relating to their special aptitudes and previous experience. The council were represented on the executive and beyond special work in the exhibition, undertook the charge of the “Explainers” committee in English and Yiddish.

In aid of the combined women’s charities of Montreal the Local Council has cooperated with the Fédération Nationale in holding two successful tag days.

The council has also taken interest in the subject of immigration and suggested useful ameliorations.

The latest movement has been the promotion of the movement which led to the formation of the Montreal Suffrage Exhibition early in the same year.

The first concrete formation of the movement for women suffrage through the peaceful means of an educational campaign, took place on April 24, 1913, when at a meeting in the Stevenson Hall the officers for the Montreal Suffrage Association were elected as follows: President, Prof. Carrie M. Derick; vice presidents, Dean Walton, Mrs. C.B. Gordon, Reverend Dr. Symonds; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Oliver Smith; recording secretary, Mrs. John Scott; treasurer, Mrs. George Lyman; convenors of committees—legislative, Mr. C.M. Holt, K.C.; press, Mrs. F. Minden Cole; literature, Mrs. H.W. Weller; with an executive of Mrs. Walter Lyman, Miss Cartwright, Mrs. Alister Mitchell, Doctor Guthrie, Mrs. Macnaughton, Reverend Mr. Dickie, Mrs. Fenwick Williams, Mrs. Hayter Reed and Mrs. Rufus Smith.

Among the first to respond to the war call in the last days of August, 1914, was the Local Council of Women, which summoned its workers of the affiliated societies from their vacation homes to form together for the organization of the relief committees taken up in connection with the general patriotic fund of the Dominion.

LA FEDERATION NATIONALE

A second council of French-speaking women has since adopted similar methods for combined action in social work.

La Fédération Nationale St. Jean Baptiste is the name which a section of the ladies already connected with the St. Jean Baptiste Association took in 1907 with the idea of federating a number of existent women associations among the French-Canadians which arose in the winter of 1906-7 to meet various social problems peculiarly affecting women. While leaving to each association its own autonomy, a central board of delegates from each organization was formed with its central office in the Monument National. The association obtained a special charter in 1912 (3 George V) with a special seal “Vers La Justice par la Charité.” It still works, however, in union with the Men’s Association of St. Jean Baptiste. This union has been productive of great value for the life of the French-Canadian women in Montreal. It has made them study the principal obstacles to social, moral and intellectual progress in the various classes and callings in woman’s sphere.

The works undertaken by committees from the associations federated, such[505] as those of the office employèes, shop workers, telephone operators, factory workers, the teachers and others, are divided into three classes, charitable, economical and educational. The charitable works are those which had the relief and aid of the neighbor as their goal, and thus their committees are engaged on church, hospital and social betterment bodies. The economical are those which develop the women’s interest in bettering their material conditions, while the educational are those which aim at the uplift and development of the individual. The movement is sanely progressive. It has effected many reforms in social conditions; it has attacked the evil of alcoholism and it has opposed movements destructive of the home life; while it has fostered all it builds up its well-being. In the great Child Welfare Exhibition of Montreal in 1912 it played a conspicuous part. Imitating other modern women’s movements it has held its congresses at regular intervals and it has gathered around the movement a body of writers and social experts well able to be of great value to the development of French-Canadian womanhood. The transactions of its congresses are printed, as well as those of its various committees in the annual reports of the works of the federated association.

It has an official organ called “La Bonne Parole,” issued monthly, which began in February, 1913. Among its chief writers is Madame Gérin Lajoie, its editor, and one of the most vigorous organizers of the fédération acting as its first secretary, with Madame Beïque as its first president. Madame Gérin Lajoie is now its president. The administration of the association is conducted by an executive committee with an inner “bureau de direction.” The executive includes the delegates of the various associations who elect the board of directors who control the organization. The following list of officers published in the report of 1911 may be reproduced as showing the constitution and personnel of this modern woman’s movement:

Déléguées des œuvres fédérées:

- Dames patronnesses de l’Hôpital Notre-Dame: Mme Fitzpatrick, Mme D. Rolland.
- Dames patronnesses des Sourdes Muettes: Mme Globensky, Mme O. Rolland.
- Dames patronnesses de la Crêche de la Miséricorde: Mme J.L. Archambault, Mme Hénault.
- Dames patronnesses de Nazareth: Mme Vaillancourt, Mme L.D. Mignault.
- Dames patronnesses de l’Hôpital Ste-Justine: Mme L. de G. Beaubien, Mlle Rolland.
- Dames de charité de l’Hospice St.-Vincent de Paul: Mlle Renauld, Mme Giroux.
- Dames de l’Assistance Publique: Mme Tessier, Mme Lamoureux.
- Le Foyer: Mlle Bonneville, Mlle Frappier.
- Association des Institutrices: Mlle Bibaud, Mlle Bélanger.
- Patronage d’Youville: Mlle Auclair, Mlle Vaillancourt.
- Section française, société Aberdeen: Mme Terroux, Mlle Desjardins.
- Association des Employées de manufacture: Mlle Robert, Mlle Vauthier.
- Ass. des Employées de magasins: Mlle Marin, Mlle Simoneau.
- Ass. des Employées de Bureau: Mlle Joubert, Mlle Godbout.
- Ass. des Employées de téléphone: Mlle Longtin, Mlle Meunier.
- Cercle des demoiselles de St. Pierre: Mlle L. Bélanger, Mlle N. Paquette.[506]
- Les écoles ménagères: Mme Mackay, Mlle Anctil.
- Association Artistique: Mlle Idola St-Jean, Mme Baril.
- Cercle Notre-Dame: Mlle M. Gérin-Lajoie, Mlle LeMoyne.
- Cour de l’Immaculée Conception: Mme H. Papineau, Mme Lacombe.
- Les Aides Ménagères: Mlle Leblanc, Mme Brossard.

THE CITY IMPROVEMENT LEAGUE

We have recorded movements of concentrated efforts through the cooperation of women associations; the year 1909 saw similar efforts mostly by men, viz., the organization of the City Improvement League and the Citizens’ Association. Both arose through dissatisfaction among the citizens with the municipal government, the former endeavouring to assist in promoting better hygienic, æsthetic and civic progress.

The City Improvement League of Montreal was founded on March 9, 1909, at a meeting held in the medico-chirurgical rooms. It grew directly out of the success of the anti-tuberculosis crusade held in the city shortly before, and its object, in the words of its original constitution, was “to unite the efforts of all who are trying to improve and to cultivate the spirit of right citizenship in order to make Montreal clean, healthful and beautiful.”

The league was designed to effect this, by becoming a central clearing house and bureau of intercommunication for existing city betterment societies, or for individual citizens anxious to assist the city, so that by economizing energy, time, money, by federation, by surveying the whole field of municipal activities, by the prevention of overlapping and by filling up of gaps and by judicious dovetailing of effort, a central and solid unifying organization might be found to put the force of all the societies behind any particular one or individual cause, and thus to make the strongest possible appeal when needed to the authorities and to public opinion.

The league was formally inaugurated at the Board of Trade assembly rooms on April 12th, being presided over by His Excellency the Governor-General.

The audience and the speakers were widely representative of cosmopolitan city life. All present hailed the new movement as likely to be of permanent value in uplifting the city which had long been suffering from a lowness of civic probity in high places, consequent upon a supine apathy and neglect of civic pride in the people generally, so that many scandals flourished openly unchallenged and unchecked.

The league seemed to provide the antidote for the hour by an appeal for the increased cultivation of an enlightened civic consciousness of responsibility in the citizens, and met with an immediate and warm welcome, notably in the press.

The league has since promoted and carried out useful reforms. Its especial successes have been the establishment of the Metropolitan Parks Commission, and the initiation and the call of the Child Welfare Exhibition, which came from the league, which, on January 27, 1910, discussed the matter, at the suggestion of Mrs. J.B. Learmont, and by resolution encouraged the secretary to proceed to New York to visit the first Child Welfare Exhibition then being held there, and to report concerning the possibility of some adaptable form for the conditions in Montreal. On February 17th, on a favorable demonstration of its feasibility, the secretary was thereupon empowered to call a meeting of the betterment associations for the city. On May 24th a meeting of delegates of sixty societies approved[507] the holding of a Child Welfare Exhibition in the course of 1912. A joint meeting was held on April 25th of English and French-speaking organizations, called in the rooms of the St. Jean Baptiste Association, when Dr. J.G. Adami, Mr. Olivar Asselin and Dr. W.H. Atherton were appointed to draw up a scheme to suit the English and French communities of Montreal. This was placed before the latter on May 16th in the Monument Nationale. The scheme was adopted and the patrons, honorary presidents and vice presidents and the active executive board were elected.

Finally the Child Welfare Exhibition was carried out in October, 1912, by the special cooperation of coordinate associations of women, notably those of the Local Council of Women, La Fédération Nationale and the many associations affiliated with each of these.

The League has led the van in the city planning and better housing movements for the working classes and as an offshoot the Greater Montreal City Planning and Housing Association arose in 1912 to further promote these desired reforms. It initiated the City Cleaning Day adopted by the municipality in 1911 and 1912 and with the Montreal Publicity Association organized the larger “Clean-up Week” of 1913. The league has cooperated with many business, national, civic and women’s societies for municipal reform and general city progress, and has largely helped to develop the sense of combined citizenship in common causes throughout the various sections of the cosmopolitan city of today, and to foster a common civic pride. The league has had a wide outlook and has worked for a league of city improvement associations of Canada. At the International City Planning Congress, held in Toronto in 1914, it advocated the establishment of a Dominion town planning and housing bureau, which has already been partially established. Among its officers have been, since 1909: President, J. G, Adami, M.D., D. Sc.; vice presidents, Mrs. J.B. Learmont, Madame Archer, Madame Beïque, Prof. Leigh R. Gregor, Hon. J.J. Guerin, M.D., Messrs. U.H. Dandurand, J.V. Desaulniers, Farquhar Robertson; honorary secretaries, Prof. J.A. Dale, M.A., Messrs. Olivar Asselin, A. Lesage, M.D., J.U. Emard, K.C., C.H. Gould; honorary treasurers, Farquhar Robertson, J.F. Boulais, N.P., and the executive secretary, W.H. Atherton, Ph. D.

THE CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION

The “Citizens’ Association,” which was organized in 1909 by the best and most representative citizens of Montreal, was a sequent of the various other associations then either existent, moribund or actually dead, among business men in the past whose aims were to seek charter reform for better municipal government. It arose out of the dissatisfactory state of municipal politics at this date.

Its lines are along those of civic vigilance and it aims at the suppression of attempts at corruption or malversation at the city hall by watching the conduct of those responsible and by seeing to it that future candidates coming up for municipal election should be honest and respected citizens. Its earliest work was the promotion of the amended charter which established the Board of Control system and of securing a “clean slate” at the election of 1910, as already told. It has also promoted reforms for the better regulation of public utilities and for better city management and administrative progress. It has endeavoured to act as a clearing house for other associations having a civic political tendency. In 1913, it sought to promote a simplification of the ward system and at the[508] beginning of 1914 to secure a good representative slate in the municipal elections, but without the dramatic success of 1910. The career of such an organization is necessarily chequered, but good men stand by organized effort for the public good. While its activities should primarily be placed in the constitutional or municipal sections of this history, yet as sociological progress depends so much on good municipal government, it deserves record here as an adjunct of the bodies enumerated.

One gratifying aspect of the movements of late years has been the growth of the spirit of civic cooperation through the central representative associations of a now complex city life.

CHILD WELFARE EXHIBITION

References have been made to the great Child Welfare Exhibition of 1912. This took place in the Drill Hall on Craig Street, opposite the Champ de Mars, on October 8th and lasted for a fortnight. It was the work of all the social workers acting for their institutions of every class—national or religious—in the city. The movement arose out of a desire to combat, by a dramatic object lesson, the evils of infantile mortality, then becoming to be realized more and more in an ever-growing and congested city. But the welfare of the older child or the young person under tutelage was also illustrated by charts and lectures and living demonstrations of what was being done along progressive educational lines at home as well as abroad. It was practically an exhibition of modern social endeavour centering around the home of the children, in their city environment. While it was modelled on a similar exhibition in New York in 1910, it had a peculiar Montreal aspect, as it was conducted largely on local lines and embraced the phases of local endeavour. It had lessons, however, for the Dominion, in bringing to the attention the need of regard for human conservation as well as that of our forest and animal resources. The municipal, provincial and federal governments by gifts of $5,000 each, assisted local subscribers in the organization of the exhibition so that it was able to be thrown open to the public for a fortnight free of charge, with the result that as a public educative movement it surpassed anything previously attempted, at least, in Canada. Thousands of parents crowded the immense hall and annexes daily, as well as large numbers of civic officials, teachers, medical and professional men, clergymen and religious men and women in their habits. It has been the most notable public exhibition in the history of the city and was marked by the spirit of universal cooperation in a degree very gratifying to the promoters.

The exhibition paved the way to the immediate success of many forward movements already existing, notably those for better library and playground accommodations for the city, and the establishment of milk stations or gouttes de lait. As this latter was among the primary by-products of the main thesis of the exhibition which sought to lessen the dangers of infantile life, productive of infantile mortality, this may be now specially noticed. In 1913, from May 11th to the 13th, there was held the first convention of the French “Gouttes de lait,” which outlined hygienic ameliorations through organized educational campaigns that will be of great future value to the virility of our people. Similar movements were initiated or continued among the English-speaking sections.

To mark its approbation of the movement the municipal authorities largely came to the rescue by subsidizing the efforts of the social organizations of the city.

[509]

MILK STATION MOVEMENT

The following table of results obtained at each (subsidized) milk depot in 1913 may fitly sum up this notice:

Milk Depots | Infants | Deaths | Average death rate | Consultations | Outdoor visits
M.L.C. of Women | 466 | 10 | 2% | 3,222 | 3,045
St. Peter Parish | 230 | 11 | 5% | 252 |
St. Joseph Parish | 204 | 11 | 5% | 2,041 | 245
Mothers’ Clinic | 161 | 4 | 3% | 13,320 |
St. Arsène Parish | 153 | 18 | 12% | 1,440 | 160
St Cunégonde Parish | 150 | 5 | 3% | 480 | 340
St. Justine Hospital | 147 | 8 | 5% | 5,816 |
St. Henry St. Zotique Parishes | 146 | 12 | 8% | 285 | 60
St. Enfant-Jésus Parish | 123 | 8 | 6½% | 539 | 20
St. Brigide Parish | 112 | 12 | 10% | 481 | 631
St. Edouard Parish | 109 | 4 | 4% | 608 | 5
Iverley Settlement | 102 | 9 | 9% | 462 | 462
St. Clothilde Parish | 85 | 8 | 9% | 166 | 297
St. Jean-Baptiste Parish | 80 | 8 | 10% | 452 |
Mtl. Babies Hospital | 72 | 0 |  | 124 |
University Settlement | 71 | 2 | 3% | 720 | 770
Hochelaga Parish | 66 | 7 | 10% | 130 | 20
Babies Dispensary (Emard Ward) | 61 | 12 | 20% | 185 | 30
St.-Jean Berchmans Parish | 60 | 3 | 5% | 174 |
St. Helen Parish | 53 | 1 | 2% | 659 | 218
Chalmer’s House Settlement | 33 | 0 |  | 78 | 110
St. James Parish | 25 | 2 | 4% | 75 | 15
Bonsecours Paris | 20 | 1 | 5% | 80 |
| —— | — | —— | ——— | ——
23 Milk Depots | 2,729 | 156 | 6% | 31,789 | 5,966

| Pints of milk distributed | Pds of ice distributed | Receipts | Expenditure | Subsidy |
M.L.C. of Women | 78,048 | 24,210 | $5,165.81 | $5,149.56 | $900.00 |
St. Peter Parish | 2,776 |  | 290.00 | 289.15 | 350.00A
St. Joseph Parish | 1,477 | 2,000 | 966.07 | 888.28 | 900.00A
Mothers’ Clinic | 10,749 |  | 3,928.31 | 3,909.55 | 500.00 |
St. Arsène Parish | 1,666 |  | 515.00 | 604.00 | 400.00 |
St Cunégonde Parish | 1,000 |  | 632.00 | 638.00 | 600.00 |
St. Justine Hospital | 10,986 |  | 1,699.12 | 1,659.42 | 1,000.00 |
St. Henry St. Zotique Parishes | 1,326 |  | 566.33 | 508.99 | 600.00 |
St. Enfant-Jésus Parish | 3,953 |  | 996.77 | 874.09 | 700.00 |
St. Brigide Parish | 4,388 |  | 700.00 | 692.39 | 700.00 |
St. Edouard Parish | 913 |  | 530.00 | 523.87 | 500.00 |
Iverly Settlement | 4,500 |  | 362.17 | 362.47 | 300.00 |
St. Clothilde Parish |  |  | 500.00 | 495.47 | 300.00 |
St. Jean-Baptiste Parish | 3,174 |  | 847.03 | 766.72 | 700.00 |
Mtl. Babies Hospital | 1,042 | 100 | 200.00 | 200.00 | 200.00 |
University Settlement | 8,110 |  | 1,206.89 | 955.17 | 450.00 |
Hochelaga Parish |  |  | 300.00 | 278.84 | 400.00A
Babies Dispensary (Emard Ward) | 4,500 | 1,500 | 400.00 | 400.00 | 400.00 |
St.-Jean Berchmans Parish | 3,111 |  | 567.86 | 621.16 | 400.00 |
St. Helen Parish | 908 |  | 467.11 | 413.22 | 400.00 |
Chalmer’s House Settlement | 9,126 | 200 | 300.00 | 255.50 | 300.00A
St. James Parish | 1,506 |  | 410.00 | 387.56 | 400.00 |
Bonsecours Parish | 1,433 |  | 165.00 | 127.80 | 100.00 |
| ——— | ——— | ——— | ——— | ——— |
23 Milk Depots | 154,692 | 28,010 | $21,715.77 | $21,001.21 | $11,700.00B
AA sum of $524.38 voted was returned in part as follows: St Joseph Parish, $60.00; St. Peter Parish, $60.00; Hochelaga Parish, $100.00; Chalmer’s House, $100.00; Convention of French Gouttes de lait, $64.38.
BIn addition the French Gouttes de lait Convention received $1,000.00.

[510]

X

MOVEMENTS FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS

THE MONTREAL SAILORS’ INSTITUTE—THE CATHOLIC SAILORS’ CLUB—THE SOLDIERS’ WIVES’ LEAGUE—THE DAUGHTERS OF THE EMPIRE—THE “LAST POST” IMPERIAL NAVAL AND MILITARY CONTINGENCY FUND.

MONTREAL SAILORS’ INSTITUTE

Montreal is well equipped in its seamen’s charities, having two institutions which supplement one another harmoniously in helping the seamen.

Philanthropic work among the sailors coming to Montreal can be traced back to the year 1836-7. “Rev. Father” Osgoode, a representative of the American Seamen’s Friends’ Society, who had associated with him, among others, Mr. J.A. Mathewson and Mr. J.T. Dutton, started the work in a little building called “The Bethel,” situated at the entrance to the canal at the foot of McGill Street.

Father Osgoode dying in 1850, the work was continued by the Rev. Samuel Massey and the Y.M.C.A., until in 1862 the Montreal Sailors’ Institute was organized with Mr. Hugh Allan as president. Among the founders were Messrs. J.P. Clarke, P.S. Ross, Charles Alexander, John Ritchie and others. Rooms were engaged on McGill Street and Mr. David Linton was installed as superintendent. These rooms served the purposes of the institute only for a few years when larger premises were secured on St. Paul Street, where the institute was housed until 1875.

In 1869 the Montreal Sailors’ Institute was incorporated by special act of the Quebec Legislature, with the following officers: President, Mr. Andrew Allan; vice presidents, Messrs. George Moffatt and John McLennan; treasurer, Mr. John Rankin; secretary, Mr. P.S. Ross; and a board of management of twenty gentlemen, prominent in shipping circles.

The rooms on McGill Street having been outgrown, in 1875 the two upper flats of Boyer’s Block, corner of Commissioners Street and Custom House Square, were rented and Mr. John Ritchie engaged as manager.

Upon the death of Mr. Ritchie in 1888, Mr. J. Ritchie Bell was appointed manager. The need of a building suitably situated and specially adapted for the purposes of the work had been constantly kept in mind from the beginning and many attempts had been made to secure such. In 1897 this was accomplished. The institute purchased the “Montreal House” an hotel which had been famous in the early days. This was rebuilt and in May, 1898, the institute moved into its own home. Continued growth of the shipping of the port made it necessary to enlarge the premises. This was done in 1907 when the adjoining property was purchased and the accommodation doubled, so that today the Sailors’ Institute has a building in which to carry on its work, conveniently situated on the water front, with an equipment which compares favourably with that of most of the great seaports of the world.

THE CATHOLIC SAILORS’ CLUB

The second activity for seamen is that carried on by the Catholic Sailors’ Club at 51 Common Street, a large building at the corner of St. Peter and Common[511] streets. Its first home was in a humble garret at 300 St. Paul Street, close to the wharf. Its inception in 1893 was due to a Men’s Catholic Truth Society, formed by the Rev. E.J. Devine, S.J., in 1892. These, notably a Mr. J.J. Walsh, Mr. J.A. Feeley and Mr. H.C. Codd, approached Lady Hingston and Miss A.T. Sadlier and a joint association of ladies and gentlemen resulted for work for Catholic seamen. Lady Hingston became from the first the president of the ladies’ committee. In 1897 the Catholic Truth Society board had retired and the annual report gives the following officers for the club: President, Lady Hingston; vice president, Mrs. F.B. McNamee; second vice president, Mr. J.P.B. Casgrain; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. S.R. Thomson. In 1896, the present building was purchased and the mortgage paid in 1913. In 1900, the club was incorporated and two boards were again instituted, the ladies board, continuing with Lady Hingston as president till today, and Mr. F.B. McNamee as president of the general board.

The presidents have been as follows:

1900 | Mr. F.B. McNamee
1901 | Mr. Patrick Wright
1902 | Mr. F.B. McNamee
1907 | Mr. Felix Casey
1909 | Mr. Charles F. Smith
1911 | Commander J.T. Walsh, R.N.R.

In 1908, Mr. W.H. Atherton, Ph. D., entered into the life of the club as its first manager. The chaplains of the club have been distinguished Jesuits, among whom the present one, the Rev. E.J. Devine, has served three terms of varying lengths.

The club has had among its advisory board many prominent Catholic citizens and of the board of life governors, besides those mentioned, there are several who have been with the club from the inception, including the honorary treasurer, Mr. Bernard McNally; the honorary secretary, Mr. Arthur Phelan; Dr. F.J. Hackett, vice president, and the following ladies actively interested in the internal management: Lady Hingston, Mrs. Robert Archer, Mrs. J.B. Casgrain, Mrs. J. Cochrane, Miss K. Coleman, Mrs. P.S. Doyle, Mrs. Charles F. Smith, Mrs. F.B. McNamee, Miss L. O’Connell, Mrs. W.J. Tabb, Mrs. S.R. Thomson, and Mrs. J.T. Walsh.

THE SOLDIERS’ WIVES’ LEAGUE

On the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, Lady Hutton founded the first branch of the Soldiers’ Wives’ League in Montreal, assisted by a small group of Montreal women. So urgent was the need of such an organization that it rapidly spread throughout all the military districts in Canada.

The aim of the league as defined in the constitution is “to bring the wives and relatives of all soldiers, whether of officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the staff, permanent corps and active militia of Canada, into closer touch and sympathy with one another so that whether in sickness or in health they may be able mutually to aid and assist one another and their families in times of difficulty, trouble or distress.”

It will readily be seen that at the present time there is pressing need for the active work of the league. The military authorities at Ottawa have always recognized[512] the standing of the Soldiers’ Wives’ League. At the time of the Boer War the funds raised for the soldiers’ families were distributed in Montreal through the league by voluntary workers to the satisfaction of all concerned. At the military conference in Ottawa two years ago, the Montreal league was invited to send representatives.

In 1914, the league is repeating its useful services.

The present officers of the league are: Honorary president, Mrs. Denison; president, Mrs. Busteed; recording secretary, Mrs. Woodburn; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Minden Cole; treasurer, Mme. Ostell. Executives: Mrs. J.G. Ross, Mrs. Gibsone, Mrs. Fages, Mrs. Stewart, Mrs. Anderson, Mme. LeDuc, Mrs. Molson Crawford, Mrs. Gunn, Mrs. Carson, Mrs. Cooper, Mrs. Sadler, Mrs. Bridges, Mrs. Lacey Johnson, Mrs. Creelman, Mme. Labelle, Mme. des Trois Maisons, and Mrs. Kippen.

There is also a Westmount branch of the League.

THE DAUGHTERS OF THE EMPIRE

The Daughters of the Empire and the Children of the Empire, a junior branch, was formed in Montreal February 10, 1900, by Mrs. Clark Murray, with the motto “Pro regina et patria.” Its object was to stimulate and give expression to the sentiment of patriotism which bound the women of the Empire around the throne and person of their gracious and beloved sovereign. It was also to provide an efficient organization by which prompt and united action might be taken by the women of the Empire when such action was deemed necessary. It was promoted vigorously in Australia, South Africa, India, England and Scotland, and is now all over Canada as a great activity of chapter work. The movement is very warm in Canada. Toronto has become the head office. A journal entitled “Echoes” chronicles the doings of the chapters. There is a municipal chapter for each large town and a provincial chapter in the capital of each province, and individual chapters adopt patriotic names chosen from events in the history of the Empire. Imperial education in the schools, stimulated by prizes given for essays on imperial subjects, is one form of carrying out the object of this association. The occasion of the present war is just one of those special emergencies foreseen for the activity of the chapters of the Daughters of the Empire and they are busily engaged in all the charitable works required in connection with the patriotic movement for the welfare of the soldiers and their families.

THE “LAST POST” IMPERIAL NAVAL AND MILITARY CONTINGENCY FUND

In 1909, an association, sadly unique in the British Empire, was founded in Montreal under the name of the “Last Post” Imperial Naval and Military Contingency Fund under the viceregal patronage of Earl Grey. Its main object is to give honorable burial to any soldier or sailor who has served under the colours in the regular or auxiliary forces and has fallen into destitution in the Province of Quebec. It is also empowered to extend its operations to other parts. It is a voluntary association unsupported as yet by an Imperial grant or patriotic fund. When the association was formed, it received letters of commendation from[513] the chief military authorities of the Empire, who were deeply in sympathy with the patriotic movement, which is an obvious need as a tribute of gratitude to the Empire’s defenders and at the same time they expressed surprise that it has been overlooked in the economy of the Imperial services. The first trustees of the fund were: Brig.-Gen. L. Buchan, C.V.O., C.M.G.; Commander J.T. Walsh, R.N.R., and the Rev. Canon Almond, who was also the first chairman. The first treasurer was Mr. Lucien C. Vallée and Mr. Arthur H.D. Hair, its secretary, was the original promoter. Among its vice presidents have been Col. C.E. Paterson and W.H. Atherton. Since its inception men who possessed medals gained in most of the campaigns of modern times have been interred with military honours in the Protestant and Catholic cemeteries of the city, through the auspices of the Fund.

XI

TEMPERANCE MOVEMENTS

SOCIETY FOR “PROMOTION OF TEMPERANCE”—THE YOUNG MEN’S TEMPERANCE SOCIETY—MONTREAL TEMPERANCE SOCIETY—ST. PATRICK’S TOTAL ABSTINENCE SOCIETY—THE SOCIETE DE TEMPERANCE DU DIOCESE DE MONTREAL—OTHER SOCIETIES.

The author of “Hochelaga Depicta,” writing in 1839, describes the temperance movement of his date, as follows:

“The increasing prevalence of drunkenness, and the awful consequences thence arising, have induced a general desire among the sober and virtuous part of the community to stay the progress of so fearful an evil. Temperance societies have been formed, with this express view, both in Europe and America, and have been productive of the happiest effects. Thousands of drunkards have been reclaimed from their destructive habits.”

A society for the “Promotion of Temperance” was formed in this city on the 9th of June, 1828, at the suggestion of the Rev. J.S. Christmas; the declaration was against the use of distilled spirits only.

The Young Men’s Temperance Society was formed on the 29th November, 1831. The two were afterwards united.

On the 27th of February, 1834, an executive committee was appointed by a convention then held, which continued to act till the formation of the Montreal Society for the Promotion of Temperance on the 22d of October, 1835.

This society had the two pledges of abstinence from ardent spirits, and total abstinence from all intoxicating liquors. On the 1st of September, 1837, the society was remodelled on the total abstinence principle alone under the name of the Montreal Temperance Society.

St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society was established on the 23d of February, 1840, by the Rev. Patrick Phelan and organized on the 12th of February, 1854, by the Rev. J.F. Connolly.

The Société de Temperance du Diocése de Montreal was established in the city on January 5, 1841, by His Grace, the Bishop of Nancy, and canonically erected by Mgr. Ignatius Bourget on January 25, 1842, when the patronal name[514] of St. Jean Baptiste was given it. This society was established in various sectional branches.

Other movements have followed and Montreal has profited by them. Among the present societies working in the city today are: Missionaries of Temperance, La Ligue, Anti-Alcoolique de Montreal, the Temperance Committee of La Fédération Nationale St. Jean Baptiste, the Dominion Alliance (Montreal branch), Catholic Total Abstinence Union (Canadian), St. Ann’s Total Abstinence and Benevolent Society, St. Ann’s Juvenile Temperance Society, St. Gabriel’s, St Patrick’s, organized in 1854, St. Aloysius Society, Société de Temperance de l’Eglise de St. Pierre and the society organized by the Franciscan Fathers, etc.

The city has houses for inebriates as follows:

House of Good Shepherd, 64 Sherbrooke Street (women), and St. Benoit Joseph Asylum (men).

XII

THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITION OF WORKERS

EARLY ASSOCIATIONS OF WORKERS—PROTESTANT INDUSTRIAL ROOMS—THE LABOUR MOVEMENT—THE Y.M.C.A.—THE Y.W.C.A.—LE FOYER—THE CATHOLIC GIRLS’ CLUB, ETC.

EARLY ASSOCIATIONS FOR WORKERS

This chapter will record those movements which have tended to safeguard the varied economical and educational interests of the working classes. By consulting Mr. Huguet-Latour’s “Annuaire de Ville Marie” records of early bodies of a mutual benefit association character among French-Canadians will be found as follows:

In 1848, the Société St. Blandine was founded for domestic servant girls.

Then came the era of mutual benefit associations for working people, viz.: “Union St. Joseph,” founded March 22, 1852, by Louis Leclaire, and incorporated July 11, 1856.

Société de St. François Xavier, founded in 1853, by Rev. E. Picard, a Sulpician, and incorporated May 13, 1863.

Société Bienveillante de Notre Dame de Sécours, founded July 1, 1853, and incorporated May 30, 1855.

Société Canadienne des Carpentiers et Menuisiers, founded December 6, 1853, by Antoine Mayer, George Rivet and Edouard F. Duncan. Incorporated July 24, 1858.

Association St. Antoine, founded May 2, 1856, by Rev. E. Picard, a Sulpician, and incorporated April 10, 1861.

Union St. Pierre, founded April 19, 1859.

Union St. Jean Baptiste, founded May 18, 1861, by P. Cerat, A. Normandin, F.X. Caron and Charles Bourque. Incorporated May 5, 1863.

Union St. Louis (Coteau St. Louis), founded March 24, 1862, by Ignace Boucher and Dominique Dupré (fils).

St. Patrick’s Benevolent Society, founded on September 7, 1862, by Mr. Thomas Brennan, and incorporated on May 5, 1863.

[515]

Association de Bienveillance de Bouchers Canadiens-Francais, founded June 2, 1863.

Union St. Jacques, founded March 1, 1863.

Caisse de la Section St. Joseph de la Société de Tempérance, founded September 6, 1863.

The following provident movements for inculcating prevision and thrift may be recorded as follows:

Caisse d’Economie des Instituteurs, December 22, 1856.

Caisse d’Epargnes des Petites Servants de Pauvres (a lay association), founded February 6, 1859, by Rev. E. Picard.

Caisse d’Economie de la Congrégation St. Michel, founded March 6, 1859.

Of late years there has been founded in the Province of Quebec the Caisse Populaire, of which the Children’s Savings Banks in the Immaculate Conception and the Infant Jesus parishes, and that of the general caisse in the Immaculate Conception and St. Eusebe parishes are examples.

The numerous modern institutions of mutual assurance, public employment agencies and the helping associations for servants and workers which have arisen of late years need not be treated historically.

THE PROTESTANT INDUSTRIAL ROOMS

One of the best principles in all social amelioration in the condition of workers is to help the poor to help themselves. As an instance of this the history of the movement of the Protestant Industrial Rooms of Montreal, which is now more than half a century old, is rightly in place here. Sixty years ago Miss Hervey, who founded the Hervey Institute, did a wise and kind act when she opened a “Repository” for giving out to deserving females the surplus work of families, so creating the “Protestant Industrial Rooms” of Montreal, which has grown up observing the same fundamental principles. The first start was made in 1862 in the rooms of the Hervey Institute, then on Lagauchetière Street, and shortly a transfer was made to St. Antoine Street, then one of the principal streets. In 1864 the Home of Industry and Refuge was built on Dorchester Street and the governors invited the ladies to take up quarters there. Until 1900 the kind offer was accepted. The work of providing sewing work to be done at home by poor but respectable women is now carried on at 57 Metcalfe Street.

THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

French-Canadians began to learn the use of trade unions before 1836, when they had commenced to migrate to New England countries. In this year the first union was founded in Quebec, known as the Association Typographique de Quebec. About the same time there was founded at Montreal, the Shoemakers’ Union which was followed, in 1844, by the Stone Cutters’ Association. Little by little the work of organization developed and became so general that, at the time the movement of the Knights of Labour arose, numerous lodges in the cities of Montreal and Quebec were formed. But, in 1886, the order of the Knights of Labour were taken to task by the majority of the clergy with the result that all the lodges were broken up within a short time.

[516]

On the ruins of the Knights of Labour there arose the International Union of Cigar Makers, which concentrated for a certain time all the strength of the international labour movement and was the first one to inaugurate the celebration of Labour Day in Montreal.

Then it was the turn of the Typographical Union, No. 145, made up exclusively of French-speaking members, and the Montreal Typographical Union, No. 176, followed by the Carpenters’ Union, which has developed to such an extent that, today in Montreal, it has seven locals and about three thousand members. Local No. 134 of this union is made up exclusively of French-speaking workmen and comprises about two thousand three hundred members. An impetus had been given, and the international labour movement is still powerful. Today there are 194 international unions in the Province of Quebec with a membership of over forty thousand members, of which 109 locals, comprising over thirty thousand members, are in Montreal. The proportion of French-speaking members belonging to these unions is:

Building trades, 75 per cent; boot and shoe industry, 90 per cent; cigar and printing trades, 90 per cent; metallurgy, machinists, etc., 25 per cent; railway employees, 50 per cent; musicians and others, 80 per cent.

As an example of what can be accomplished by political action combined with trade unionism, it may be pointed out to the credit of the workingmen of the City of Montreal, that it is the only city throughout the whole Dominion which found a way of electing one of its own labour members to the House of Parliament, Mr. Alphonse Verville, who was returned in 1906 by a strong majority, being reelected twice since by a still larger majority.

In the City of Montreal, another worker, Joseph Ainey, was elected as city commissioner by a majority of 8,000 votes over and above that of the second commissioner elected in the City of Montreal.

It is well to place a record here of the average annual salary of various classes of wage-earners in Montreal at present:

Bricklayers | $800.00
Carpenters | 700.00
Plumbers | 750.00
Plasterer | 750.00
Stone Cutters | 800.00
Granite Cutters | 800.00
Painters | 700.00
Electricians | 700.00
Structural Iron Workers | 600.00
Building Laborers | 500.00
Brass Workers | 750.00
Moulders | 750.00
Machinists | 750.00
Blacksmiths | 750.00
Typos | 900.00
Pressmen | 800.00
Bookbinders | 750.00
Stereotypers | 650.00[517]
Cigarmakers | 750.00
Shoemakers | 650.00
Musicians | 800.00
Butchers | 650.00
Barbers | 600.00
Tailors | 600.00
Weavers | 600.00
Laundry Workers | 500.00

A central executive entitled “The Trades and Labour Council” has done very effective work in harmonizing difficulties and in promoting useful legislation for the working classes.

THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

3 The development of the modern moral and intellectual assistance for the worker may now be instanced. The work of the Y.M.C.A., now so largely developed on the American continent, owes its origin to Montreal. Its history is briefly thus. It was in the Baptist Church on St. Helen’s Street, in the ’50s, that the beginnings of the association took form. The official date given on a tablet placed on the Gault Building on St. Helen Street places the date as November, 1851.

Among those present were Messrs. F.E. Grafton, T. James Claxton, W.H. Milne, F.H. Marling, and John Holland. Mr. Marling, who was a student in the Congregational College, was chairman of the meeting. A canvass was made of the churches and encouragement obtained for the project. One of the planks in the constitution was that the association would never admit any intermeddling with those matters of faith and polity on which the Protestant church may differ.

There was a general committee appointed and this body rented the Odd Fellows’ Hall on St. James Street. In 1851, the Rev. Donald Fraser, the pastor of Coté Street Presbyterian Church, delivered the inaugural lecture.

The young association had much difficulty to realize growth, but a city missionary was appointed to give his whole time to the work of obtaining support, and of familiarizing the churches and the people generally with the objects of the work.

Mr. John Holland, one of the original members, moved to Toronto in 1853, and was instrumental in forming the first association in that city.

There was a confederation of all the associations on this continent in 1855, and to this the local association gave its adhesion. All the European associations met this same year at Paris, and reached what was known as the “Paris basis,” to which the local association also gave its adhesion.

In 1856 the Confederated Association met in Montreal, and adopted the basis of union. Montreal was, therefore, not only the birthplace of the organization on the continent, but at the meeting in the city the basis of union was adopted, which has since bound all the associations on this continent together.

[518]

The Montreal association moved to 205 Notre Dame Street, where its membership reached 205. Some of the names of the then members have an interest for the present generation of Montrealers. Men like Charles Alexander, James Baylis, George S. Bransh, T. James Claxton, J.P. Cleghorn, George Childs, W. Cooper, David Bentley, Robert Gardner, F.E. Grafton, E.K. Greene, Alexander Harte, W.R. Hibbard, Robert Irwin, F.W. Kay, Joseph Learmount, S.H. Burnett, Thomas Leeming, John Louson, Theodore Lyman, A. McGibbon, Samuel Massey, G. May, John Murphy, William Muir, A.A. Stevenson, Robert Dow, Henry Drummond, Kenneth Campbell, Henry Morton, J. Tees, J. Holland, P.L. Ross, H.A. Nelson, Alfred Savage, John Torrance, Joseph Rielle, John Dougall, John Lewis, R.C. Jamieson, and many others.

In 1857 the slavery question in the United States became acute, and was felt its influence here. It was the slavery question which was the cause of the Montreal association withdrawing from the confederation. A resolution was passed declaring that slave holders were ineligible for membership. The international convention was to be held in Richmond. The Montreal association was asked to vote on the question. It resolved that as southern associations which rejected men of color, were connected with the confederation, the Montreal association resigned its connection with the same. This slavery question created much feeling at the time. Many outside associations followed the Montreal example.

In 1858 the association removed to 90 McGill Street. It was in this year that the late Sir William Dawson connected himself with the work, remaining with it till his death. It was the habit, long before the erection of the present Sailors’ Institute, to visit all the ships coming into port and talk to the sailors who were given suitable literature.

The fortunes of the association were at a low ebb in 1862, and, in fact, there was talk of disbanding. A meeting for that purpose was called; but the result was a determination to prosecute the work with more energy than ever. Rooms were secured over the Bank of Upper Canada, then on St. James Street. The association began to flourish. A fire broke out in the building, and in 1863 a new suite of rooms was secured adjoining the postoffice. Each year onward showed from this point increased success.

The city was properly classified; the bands of workers increased. Mr. Alfred Sandham was secured as general secretary, and remained in the position till 1876, when he was succeeded by Mr. Budge.

In 1867 the association removed to the Bible House at the corner of Craig and Alexander streets. In this year, the twelfth international convention was held in the city. This convention represented 106 associations and 597 delegates. Major-General Russell, commander of the British forces, and Sir Henry Havelock were among the speakers on the important occasion. Occurring at the close of the Civil War, the meetings were remarkable for the interest and fervour, for the slaves had been freed, at fearful cost, and it was a sight to see the delegation of colored men who were, for the first time, received as accredited delegates.

The idea of the association was to have its own building, and great efforts were made in this connection. It was in 1870 that steps were taken to secure the property at the corner of Craig and Radegonde streets. The cornerstone was laid in 1872 by Mr. J.T. Claxton. Revs. G.C. Wells, Doctor Burns and Doctor[519] Wilkes, were among the speakers. Comfortably installed in their new building, the work progressed. It had been in seven different buildings since its inception. It now owned its own premises. Mr. Budge began his work in 1874 as general secretary. The total membership was in this year 1,360.

It was the late Mr. Moody who decided upon the present site of the association. The work had become too large for the accommodation on Victoria Square. The population had greatly increased. The membership felt this increase. Enlarged interests had been cared for; and the training and education of boys had been undertaken. Mr. Moody had been in the city and held a most successful series of meetings in what was known as the old Crystal Rink on the corner of Metcalfe and Dorchester streets facing Dominion Square. There was doubt as to the location of the new association building. He was asked for his opinion. “Why not build it on the site of the Crystal Rink?” he said. His counsel prevailed, and in 1888 the deed was signed, which transferred the site of the present building to the association.

Here the work grew marvellously. It has branched out in many important directions. It has supported men in India; it has sent out men to South Africa during the Boer war; it has added to its membership and activities and its recent triumph, when it raised over $200,000 for the further extension of the work in the new and enlarged building, is within recent memory.

The new home on Drummond Street was entered on August 1, 1912, and was formally opened in September.

From the little Baptist Church on St. Helen Street to the palatial home of the association is a long step, but it is an answer to the demand for this sort of service on behalf of the young in our city.

THE MONTREAL YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

The Montreal Young Women’s Christian Association was organized and incorporated in 1874 under the presidency of Mrs. P.D. Brown, its central idea being that of helpfulness—physical, moral, and spiritual—for industrial women.

Its first purpose was to provide a boarding home which should be in no sense a charity, where young business women and students might find a safe home free from the numerous temptations which beset the young woman in the city. This part of the work has only been limited by the size of the building; today about eighty-five young women are housed in the association building, and fifty in an annex which was opened in 1908. Early in 1914 another building, to accommodate fifty more, was opened.

Its second purpose was to provide an employment bureau where suitable work was found for the stranger.

Some of the activities of the association may now be mentioned.

In 1880, the necessity for a diet kitchen was felt, and in the basement of the American Presbyterian Church, under the wing of the Young Women’s Christian Association, one was opened. Here the ladies themselves prepared suitable articles for diet for invalids, the food dispensed only to applicants provided with a card from clergy or the medical profession. In a few years this work became so necessary that it separated from the Young Women’s Christian Association and carried on its good work alone.

[520]

The Montreal Day Nursery, or crèche, was begun by the Young Women’s Christian Association in 1888, but like the Montreal Diet Dispensary it outgrew its sponsors and branched out for itself, and has long been one of the most popular of Montreal’s charities.

The Helping Hand sewing school was opened in 1875, its object being to teach the children of the poor to sew.

In 1894, the first school for cookery in Montreal was opened by the Young Women’s Christian Association, its object being to teach the poorer classes habits of thrift and economy. This continued for many years, or until the normal and technical schools took up the work.

Thus the Young Women’s Christian Association has been the pioneer in many of the flourishing charitable and philanthropic works of Montreal.

Educational classes have been a large factor in Young Women’s Christian Association work, classes being held nightly in dressmaking, millinery, shorthand, first aid to injured, French, bookkeeping, and elementary subjects.

The first Montreal Young Women’s Christian Association work began at 47 Metcalfe Street. Three moves were made as the work developed, until in 1897 the present building was bought, but even then the opportunity for progressive movement has been hampered by the limited space. Plans for a larger and more modern building are under consideration.

In addition there is the Fairmount Branch Y.W.C.A. and those branches at 323 Mackey Street and 25 St. Famille Street.

LE FOYER

An important work for French business girls on the same lines as the Young Women’s Christian Association is conducted by “Le Foyer,” which was established in March, 1903, under the direction of the Curé of St. Jacques, on St. Denis Street—M. Henri Gauthier. The first house of the society was at 207 Champ de Mars and its first directress was Mlle. Marie Imbleau. As the work progressed a branch house was instituted at 14 Osborne Street, the first directress of which was Miss Gabrielle Taschereau. Later a second branch house was opened at 55 St. Denis Street under the direction of Mlle. Leona Bonneville. In addition there is a country house at Ste. Adèle, which receives during the summer months thirty-five boarders a week. The organization has a central office at 60 Notre Dame Street and its government is under a committee of lay people of whom Mlle. Emma Beaudoin is the present president. Each of the three houses has its own secretary. There are 800 meals served daily in the three houses, with about five hundred at the chief house on Champ de Mars, while there are 125 regular boarders besides transients. The pension is $2.50 a week. The activities include the Bureau d’emplacement in which situations are arranged for, and the Bureau d’enseignement, which provides for culture and education through lectures, classes, etc. There are also social, musical, domestic science and other clubs in connection with this varied work.

THE CATHOLIC GIRLS’ CLUB

A work which is conducted on somewhat similar lines to the Young Women’s Christian Association is the Catholic Girls’ Club.

[521]

On March 20, 1911, Lady Hingston called together a number of ladies from the various English-speaking parishes and invited their cooperation in forming a Catholic Girls’ Club. The idea was enthusiastically received, a committee was promptly formed and, with Lady Hingston as president, the scheme was fairly launched. A house, 63 Victoria Street, was rented for a year and thanks to an efficient committee, was furnished and ready for occupation in an incredibly short space of time.

Early in June the rooms were formally opened by His Grace, Archbishop Bruchesi, under the name of the “Catholic Girls’ Club,” while the opening for the members took place on June 6th.

A large and successful bazaar, under the convenership of Mrs. Cornwallis Monk, was held in October, 1911, the proceeds of which enabled the committee to arrange for the purchase of the present handsome club house, 311 Mackay Street, and to make the first necessary payments.

Among other agencies for business girls may be mentioned “Ave Marie,” La Providence, Maison St. Nom de Marie, Patronage d’Youville and the business organizations under affiliation with La Fédération St. Jean Baptiste. There are many also among the non-Catholic population, the branches of the Young Women’s Christian Association, and the like.

XIII

RECENT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

NEIGHBOURLY CHARITIES—THE KING’S DAUGHTERS—THE UNIVERSITY AND IVERLEY SETTLEMENTS—THE SETTLEMENT IDEA—SOCIAL STUDY ORGANIZATIONS—THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

“Neighbourly” charities in Montreal flourish in many a corner too numerous to individualize. Of late both in the French, or English and foreign sections of the city, Free Air and Summer Vacation committees, and others such as the “Holiday” Home, the various crèches and relief associations and churches, do their utmost to give rest and holidays to poor mothers and children. Other bodies assist in sewing and making garments for them such as the “Needlework Guild,” and the sewing circles of the various church clubs. Then there are associations with a wide scope which are ready to take up the social work most needed for the hour, such as the Victorian Sunshine Society, which originated at Westmount, and many others.

THE KING’S DAUGHTERS

One of the latter societies is the “King’s Daughters,” an international association founded in 1886 and established in Montreal in 1888 by the Ready Circle in connection with the American Presbyterian Church. This work is now carried on by the crèche on Côte des Neiges Road opposite the old entrance to the Mountain Park. The primary aim of the King’s Daughters is to deepen the spiritual life and to engage in social works. The crèche is one form of such and since its establishment in 1908, first at Outremont then at Côte des Neiges and[522] now at the above place it receives poor families with their children during three months of summer for daily rest, fresh air and relaxation, even paying their transportation thither.

THE UNIVERSITY SETTLEMENT

The “settlement” or “neighbourhood” movement which culminated in the formation of the University Settlement House at 159 Dorchester Street West in May, 1910, when two of the organizing committee, Mrs. W.P. Hodges and Mrs. D. McIntosh set to work cleaning up the little tenement and founded the nucleus of a settlement round the classes of the McGill Neighbourhood Club, may be traced to an earlier move originating with social workers in connection with McGill University. The following synopsis will show in brief the progress accomplished from 1889 to 1913:

1889—The Mu Iota Society was formed by the women graduates of McGill University.

1890—Its name changed to Alumnæ Society.

May, 1891—Girls’ Club and lunch room was opened by the Alumnæ Society at 47 Jurors Street.

May, 1894—Girls’ Club was moved to 84 Bleury Street. Evening classes, etc., were held. First Christmas tree and entertainment for 100 children of the neighbourhood.

May, 1895—Dwelling over shop was rented, giving sitting room and bedrooms for working staff and four club members.

1895-96—Library opened. Addresses on settlements were given.

May, 1896—Adjoining shop rented.

1899-1900—Further addresses on settlement work, one by Dr. Graham Taylor, of Chicago Commons.

1902—Moved to east side of Bleury Street. Shop and dwelling rented.

1903—King’s Club for boys and girls was formed in fall.

May 1, 1905—Girls’ Club closed.

1905-07—King’s Club continued—Bi-weekly use of rooms in Dufferin School was made possible by courtesy of the Protestant Board of School Commissioners.

Christmas, 1906—First Christmas dinner held in rooms of Montreal Protestant House of Industry and Refuge. Eighty-two boys and girls of King’s Club were present.

1907-8—Rooms taken for the King’s Club at 308 Lagauchetière Street West.

October, 1908—Workers’ Committee formed into “The McGill University Neighbourhood Club” as part of the Alumnæ Society.

January, 1909—McGill Y.M.C.A. formally joins in the work of Neighbourhood Club.

Fall, 1909-Spring, 1910—The use of the Belmont School granted by the Protestant Board of School Commissioners.

January, 1910—Settlement Committee formed by the Alumnæ and McGill University Neighbourhood Club.

February 8, 1910—Lecture by Miss Sadie American on “Settlements,” given under the auspices of the Montreal Local Council of Women in the interests of the Neighbourhood Club. Boy Scouts organized.

[523]

May, 1910—The University Settlement of Montreal formed and recognized by the corporation of the University. House rented, 159 and 161 Dorchester Street West. The use of Dufferin School gymnasium again granted by the Protestant Board of School Commissioners. The first president was Prof. J.A. Dale of McGill University.

October, 1910—Annex of rooms at 189 Dorchester Street West, made necessary. Becomes headquarters for Scouts, library, and kindergarten.

December, 1910—First salaried headworker engaged.

January, 1911—Use of two rooms in St. John’s Parish House, Ontario Street West, given by Rev. Arthur French. Becomes headquarters of Boy Scouts. No. 189 Dorchester Street West retained for library and kindergarten.

October, 1911—Factory flat rented on Dufferin Square. Second salaried worker engaged (kindergarten).

April 3, 1912—Incorporation.

April, 1912—Property purchased on Dorchester Street West, near Dufferin Square.

August 12, 1912—Summer camp with one tent at St. Rose, Quebec.

February 13, 1913—New building opened by H.R.H. Duke of Connaught in a handsomely remodeled bottling factory at 179 Dorchester Street West.

THE IVERLEY SETTLEMENT

The Iverley Settlement followed in September, 1911, through the instrumentality of Mrs. Ivan Wotherspoon and her friends, the organizing committee meeting on June 4th preceding.

A house was taken on September 13th with the approval of Judge Archer and Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., who from the first have evinced their entire sympathy with the work, and active preparations were made for its development. From the moment the Iverley was ready, children and their parents flocked in, thus showing the value even of the settlement idea as a powerful modern force for social betterment. Other settlements of a more parochial or church affiliation have since adopted the movement.

The settlement idea has been productive of imitation or a readjustment of other forms of charitable endeavours so long employed in connection with the many churches, religious and other institutions of the city.

SOCIAL STUDY

The social movements just recorded also have succeeded in bringing social students together. Cooperation between the English and French associations began about 1910 to be more frequent in social enterprises. Intercommunication by lectures and round table conferences, the interchange of literature and intercourse with expert sociologists from England, the United States and the continent, have had a very broadening effect on our sociological life. A school of social study and publication started up in the French educational circles about 1912 under the title of L’école Sociale Populaire, the English Catholics having previously, about 1911, started a Social Study Guild. In connection with the leading social organizations, a Social Study Club was also founded about 1912 for discussion among experts[524] of problems of sociology. All these forces having influence in high civic circles, Montreal received at this period a stimulus in social reform which has been distinctly a phase of our present civic life.

XIV

MUNICIPAL CHARITIES

The action of the city as such has been partially noticed also in other social works. Its Department of Assistance Municipal, organized about 1904, dispenses the city’s charities regarding the reformatories and industrial schools; the insane, of whom in 1913 it supported 242 at St. Jean de Dieu and 98 at Verdun insane asylums; the incurables, of whom 43 were kept in 1913 at Notre Dame de Grace Hospital for Incurables and the Grey Nuns; tuberculosis patients, for whom in 1913 the sum of $14,300 was apportioned as follows:

Hôpital des Incurables | $7,500.00
Royal Edward Institute | 3,300.00
Grace Dart Home | 500.00
Bruchesi Institute | 3,000.00

The department deports from the city for causes of misbehaviour, illness or insanity. In 1913 448 cases were deported to England, Ireland, Scotland, Jamaica, Judea, Egypt, Russia, United States, Austria, Guadeloupe, France, Italy, Normay, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Greece and Belgium.

Two hundred destitute persons were repatriated in 1913, or fifty-eight more than in 1912.

Relief is given to homeless poor and unemployed, which was larger in 1913 owing to the economic crisis prevailing over Canada and to the fact that in the fall many immigrants flocked from the harvest fields in the West to the city, and also because there was an extraordinary influx of foreigners whose cheap labour caused the discharge of others of British origin. The number of cases dealt with in 1913 by the city apart from the ordinary regular volunteer charities, was 648 (or 105 per cent more than in 1912).

These 648 cases reported to the city department and handled by the Charity Organization Society for it, were dealt with as follows: 181 were temporarily relieved, 79 repatriated, 43 committed to the “Assistance Publique,” 10 committed to various institutions, 9 committed to the Hôtel-Dieu, 6 given with employment, 6 deported, 5 confined in the Notre-Dame Hospital, 5 referred to the Society for the Protection of Women and Children, 5 given legal advice, 5 referred to the Municipal Labor Bureau, 4 committed to the Hospital for Incurables, 4 referred to the Baron de Hirsch Institute, 4 placed in the Royal Victoria Hospital, 3 referred to the “Union Nationale Française,” 3 placed in the Protestant House of Industry, 3 placed in the General Hospital, 2 referred to the Old Brewery Mission, 2 placed in the Institution of the Grey Nuns, 2 placed in the St. Bridget’s Home, 2 referred to the Salvation Army, 2 referred to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, 1 was placed in the Bruchesi Institute, 1 placed in the Maternity, 1 referred to the Montreal Ladies’ Benevolent Society, 1 placed in the St. Henry[525] Asylum, 1 placed in the Youville Patronage, 1 placed in the Nazareth Asylum, 1 placed in the Sheltering Home, 1 placed in the St. Benoit Asylum, 1 placed in the St. Paul Hospital, 1 referred to the Belgian Society, 165 were refused relief and 88 did not report.

The city in 1913 made grants to the charitable institutions and public bodies of Montreal to the amount of $105,996.00. The city, however, remits a great amount of the assessment of charitable institutions.

The value of the properties belonging to charitable institutions and exempted from taxation, in 1913, was $23,131,660.00.

The assessment of 1 per cent therefore represents $231,316.60.

The City of Montreal paid, in 1913, for the relief of destitute persons a sum of $497,712.35, as follows:

Remittance of assessments | $231,316.60
Grants | 105,996.00
Maintenance of insane | 83,249.60
Maintenance of children in industrial schools | 69,450.15
Miscellaneous | 7,700.00
| ——————
Total | $497,712.35
Or $53,809.94 more than in 1912. |
In 1912 | $443,902.41
In 1911 | 356,758.00

[526]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Quoted from “Hochelaga Depicta.”

2 The Sulpicians and the Grey Nuns early commenced their connection with Irish orphans. In 1758, M. de Lavalinière, a Sulpician, succeeded by his entreaties and promises in rescuing an Irish child of the name of O’Flaherty from the hands of fierce Indians. She was but a few months old and was already tied to the stake to be burned alive with her mother when the generous liberator came to the rescue. Madame d’Youville voluntarily consented to take charge of her, and the child became a Grey Nun.

3 Cf. the reminiscences of a leading citizen given in the Montreal Star of January 2, 1912. The work itself is so well known that the writer has thought it necessary to indicate only its general history.

[527]

### CHAPTER XXXV

COMMERCIAL HISTORY BEFORE THE UNION

MONTREAL’S EARLY BUSINESS FIRMS—A PROPHECY AT BEGINNING OF NINETEENTH CENTURY—CULTIVATION OF HEMP—ST. PAUL STREET—SLAVES IN MONTREAL—DOCTORS AND DRUGS IN 1815—WHOLESALE FIRMS IN 1816—FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE OF TRADE—NOTRE DAME STREET—M’GILL STREET—FRENCH CANADIAN BUSINESSES—SHIP CARGOES—THE SHOP FRONTS IN 1839.

The early struggle of Montreal to assume the mastery of the commercial supremacy has been indicated by its continuance of the great fur trading industry which became amalgamated in the North West Company, and by the establishment of its general merchant class. After the American war of 1775, business began to flourish. One of the earliest of the firms of this period was the tailor business founded by Benaiah Gibb, whose son, also Benaiah, became a benefactor to the Art Association of Montreal. Benaiah Gibb, who came in 1774, at the age of twenty years, succeeded to a Mr. McFarlain. In 1782 there came Mr. John Molson, who started a brewery in the east end, and in 1809 pioneered the steamship lines of Canada. About 1800 was established the retail drug firm of (George) Wadsworth & (Lewis) Lyman. This became a wholesale business, also, in 1829, and today the Lyman Drug Company is the direct lineal descendant. The great Montreal Ogilvie flour milling business was begun in 1801 by Mr. Ogilvie at Jacques Cartier near Quebec. Shortly afterwards, perceiving that Montreal was to rise superior in the commercial world, he erected a mill on the Lachine Rapids. The Glenora Mills on the Lachine Canal were erected in 1852 by his grandsons, A.W., John and W.W. Ogilvie. The Ogilvie mills have since spread over the Dominion.

There were far-seeing men, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. A few years after its opening a visiting traveler had the following prophetic view of Montreal as the emporium of the northern world:

“The City is that subdivision which is enclosed by the ancient fortifications, the ramparts, fosse and glacis of which are suffered to go to decay. Its form is that of a trapezium, or quadrilateral figure whose sides are unequal. It is situated on an incline plane, gently descending towards the eastern branch of the St. Lawrence River, in whose ample bosom the Island itself, with all its villages, gentlemen’s seats, and cultivated farms, reposes. The following was the population about this time:

[528]

| Houses. | Males. | Females.
City of Montreal | 485 | 1,541 | 1,642
St. Lawrence suburbs | 514 | 1,292 | 1,488
St. Antoine do. | 144 | 348 | 346
Recollet do. | 187 | 552 | 620
Quebec do. | 256 | 783 | 784
Grey Nunnery do. | 1 | 38 | 94

“The return of men able to bear arms give an aggregate of 3,392; but as little or no attention is given to their exercises and discipline, even that number is contemptible in the estimation of a military man, who in war justly considers an undisciplined mob as an encumbrance rather than help. Should Montreal ever be attacked it can only be defended by British troops. Without these the inhabitants would not be likely to irritate a powerful assailant by ineffectual resistance. As a military position, the place would not be worth a contest, as it would remain no longer in the hands of the garrison than they would keep possession of the high level ground that commands the city. But its local advantages for commercial purposes and manufactures are so great and various that it will inevitably become the Emporium of the Northern World.

“At the head of ship navigation, on the waters of the majestic St. Lawrence, like the heart in the human body, it will be the grand reservoir into which all the streams connected with that immense river must pour their contents. The inhabitants bordering on these waters on the lakes in the northern part of Vermont and western part of New York must necessarily make it the depot for whatever articles of export their labours may produce, and take in return whatever merchandise they consume.

“Those countries, particularly New York and Vermont, are populating so fast that the commerce of Montreal must increase rapidly unless the mechants’ inattention to their own interests should neglect to import goods in such quantity and variety as will render it unnecessary for the country traders to have recourse to the markets of New York and Boston. At present the commerce of Montreal is principally confined to the fur trade, and collateral relations, under the direction of a company of wealthy, independent, enterprising merchants, whose immense capital and judicious arrangements have set at defiance every kind of competition. But the other mercantile departments remain unoccupied, and men of industry and property might, with a well grounded prospect of success, establish houses for conducting those branches of commerce which are less expensive, troublesome and hazardous than the fur trade.”

In 1802 an act (George III, 1802, Cap. V) provided for the application of £1,200 currency to enable the inhabitants to “enter on the culture of hemp with facility and advantage.” The hemp was to be used for cordage for the Royal Navy. Committees were formed at Quebec and Montreal. The following advertisement appeared in the official gazette in English and French:[529] “Notice is hereby given to persons inclined to raise hemp that seed will be delivered gratis at Quebec and Montreal to such persons as will engage to sow the same, not exceeding two and one-half bushels to one person, and that nine pence per pound will be paid for clean hemp of the growth of Lower Canada equal to samples of Russian clean hemp to be seen at Quebec and Montreal, and delivered on or before the 30th of September, 1803, and 12 shillings and 6 pence per bushel for good ripe hemp seed delivered on or before the 1st of January, 1803.” Premiums were offered to societies and in 1804 Mr. Isaac Winslow Clarke, chairman of the Montreal committee, received the gold medal from the Society of Arts for hemp grown in Lower Canada. Great interest was sustained for a time, but it was found useless to compete with Russia. Sir Joseph Banks, the president of the Royal Society, in reply to a reference from the Board of Trade, concluded that the exportation of hemp from Russia could not be stopped, that no matter at how low a price the British or colonial producer offered it, Russian hemp would still be lower.

Meanwhile the principal retail businesses, the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick makers, and the rest, were growing in importance in their shops on St. Paul Street over which they and their families lived. The historian, Heriot, says of these in 1805: “The habitations of the principal merchants are neat and commodious and their storehouses are spacious and secured against loss from fire, being covered with sheet iron or tin.” Speaking of the markets he also says: “The markets of Montreal are more abundantly supplied than those of Quebec, and articles are sold at more reasonable prices, especially in winter, when the inhabitants of the United States who reside on the borders of Canada bring for sale a part of the produce of their farms. Quantities of fish are likewise conveyed thither in sleighs from Boston.”

At this time there were 142 slaves in the Montreal district, although their importation had been forbidden in Canada since 1793, and their perpetuation in Lower Canada was disfavoured by the bill of 1799, in which year there was a petition of Montreal citizens to secure master’s rights over them. In the first issue of the Montreal Gazette of June 3, 1778, the following advertisement appeared: “Ran away on the 14th inst., a slave belonging to the widow Dufy Desaulniers, aged about thirty-five years, dressed in striped calico of the ordinary cut, of tolerable stoutness. Whoever will bring her back will receive a reward of $6.00 and will be repaid any costs that may be proved to have been incurred in finding her.”

In 1807 with the growing trade an act was passed for a new market house in Montreal. The year 1808 marks the advent of a second brewery firm, that of Dow & Dunn, with D. & D. on their bottles of beer and whiskey. The first brewery was at La Prairie and the liquor was shipped across the river. The business was started by Mr. Dow who shortly took Mr. J. Dunn into partnership. Its lineage is Dow, Dunn, White, Harris, Scott, Hooper, and it is now merged, about 1911, into the National Breweries Company, into which the Molson firm never entered.

In 1809 Mr. John Frothingham founded the firm now known as Frothingham & Workman. The factory was at Côte St. Paul and was the pioneer business to introduce the ax and tool industry generally into Canada. An interesting relic retained by the firm is an invoice for shelf hardware imported from England in the spring of 1815 and contains this note at the bottom: “The premium on insurance has risen since the reappearance of Bonaparte and the above is the best terms we could obtain.” The reappearance was due to Napoleon’s escape from Elba. In 1850 William Workman was admitted to the firm. He was the well known alderman, mayor, member of parliament—a good citizen. In 1809 the[530] prospects of trade were heightened by Molson’s introduction of steamships in Canada. A third brewery was started in 1811 by Mr. Thomas A. Dawes. It was located at Lachine, probably for two reasons, the water supply and the opportunity to supply the northwestern expeditions into the fur lands directed by Sir George Simpson, the governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, whose headquarters were at Lachine. The Dawes firm also lately became merged in the National Breweries Company.

A faded ledger of 1815, begun by Joseph Beckett & Company on St. Paul Street, marks the foundation of a Montreal drug firm almost a century old which, through Beckett & Company, Carter & McDonald, John Carter & Company, John Birks & Company, John Carter & Company, Carter, Kerry & Company, Kerry Brothers & Company, Weston & Company, leads to the National Drug Company. The ledger above mentioned is historically interesting, as it reveals some of the names of the leaders of social life in the early days of the nineteenth century. A study of it reveals the following facts:

First of all there are the Earl and Countess of Selkirk—regular customers of the firm, buying powders and pomades and perfume, attar of roses, and the like, as becomes extreme delicacy, high position and a super-refinement, not forgotten in a raw community.

We have Colonels and Captains and Lieutenants, who were in abundant evidence in the life of the city at the time; medical men; esquires by the score—all in account with Mr. Beckett for prescriptions and toilet articles, and delicate perfumes and aromatic waters and powders and lip salve and pomades to give the skin a satin appearance, and other mysteries of the feminine toilet—for the account is a family one, in each case.

We have General Proctor, Captain Thomas, Captain Barnes, Captain Despard, Colonel Dechambault, Major Courtenay, Captain Castle, the Hon. Judge Monk, the Hon. William McGillivray, the Hon. Judge Sewell, Major McGregor, Captain Weeks—but, really the military march through the pages, as thick as “autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa.” As for the medical men, their name is legion—Doctors Andrews, Arnoldi, Bender, Badgely, Brown, Dillon, Davis, Cazieu (Chateauguay), Emerson, Ferris, Forsyth, Grassett, Irving, Kennedy, Kimber, Lee, Morris, McLeod, McGale, Osborne, Nelson, Sleigh, Seilby, Stansfield—and many more. Evidently the people did not suffer for lack of medical advice a century ago in Montreal.

The doctors are down, of course, for the ingredients with which they compounded their own prescriptions, which was the general practice of the time.

We see that Mr. William Gray, founder of The Herald, had an account with Mr. Beckett, while John Kyte, Esq., is indebted in the sum of £6 8s for a new green coat, and £1 5s for a new waistcoat. This might seem incongruous, as drugs and dry goods do not mix too well; but in another page we notice that a member of General Proctor’s household has had a tooth extracted in the establishment—thus testifying to the eclectic nature of the business in that early day, when the departmental store had yet to be evolved.

The Hudson’s Bay Company has an account. The Orkney family got their perfumes and toilet articles from the firm. The Orkney family had a large property facing on St. Catherine Street before the latter was homologated—property which extended below Beaver Hall Hill. Many will remember the family mansion,[531] standing in off the street, near Phillips Square—a big, old-fashioned residence in the colonial style, with ample grounds.

These itemized accounts touch life in an intimate and confidential way. That this ledger should have been preserved all these years in such good condition, each page telling its own story of status and pride and mode of living—is remarkable. It is also interesting to note the copies of letters which Mr. Beckett transferred to the pages of the ledger from time to time—letters of business, but showing a perfection of chirography which would be the despair of the slap-dash writer of the present day—delicate, spiderylike copperplate, with delectable involutions, hinting leisure, and the aesthetic sense. By comparison, the horror of the typewriter is intolerable. The ledger is regarded as an heirloom to be carefully preserved by the National Drug Company, whose offices are now on St. Gabriel Street, though the original firm of Dr. Beckett a century ago, was on St. Paul Street.

Business was growing in 1815 and St. Paul Street was flourishing. In November of that year, through the exertions of Mr. Samuel Dawson, part of St. Paul Street was lighted by twenty-two lamps, costing $7.00 each. Business commenced to pick up after this.

In 1816 the principal wholesale firms doing business in Montreal were: McGillivray, Thain & Co., otherwise called the “Northwest Company;” Forsythe, Richardson & Co., who were agents of the East India Company; Maitlands, Garden & Auldjo; Gerrard, Gillespie, Moffatt & Co., then agents of the Phoenix Fire Insurance Company, of London; H. Gates & Co.; Allison, Turner & Co.; Desrivières, Blackwood & Co.; Blackwood, La Rogue & Co.; Robinson, Masson & Co.; Hector Russell & Co., also retailing fancy dress goods—the great retail dry goods house of that time; Miller, Parlane & Co., James Miller left the firm in 1819 and engaged exclusively in shipbuilding, and was one of the founders of the Allan line of steamships; James McDougall & Co., merchants and brokers; Hart, Logan & Co.; George Platt & Co., hardware; J. and J.M. Frothingham, hardware; J.T. Barrett, hardware; Jacob DeWitt, hardware; Lewis Lyman, druggist, founder of the house of Lyman’s Sons & Co.; Day, Gelston & Co., druggists, Mr. Day being the father of the late Judge Day; Wadsworth & Nichols, druggists; Thomas Torrance and John Torrance, both wholesale and retail grocers; Bowman & Smith, grocers; Zabdiel Thayer, crockery; Toussaint Peltier, grain merchant; Felix Souligny, do.; McNider, Aird & White, auctioneers; M.C. Culliver & Co., do.; and Bridge & Penn, ditto.

Most of these firms did what was then considered a very large business and many of the men composing them were reputed to be wealthy. The possession of $25,000 in those days made a rich man, and $100,000 a very wealthy man.

The business needs required a bank and the Montreal Bank was started in 1817 without a charter. This was secured in 1822. Its story is told elsewhere.

In 1820 John D. Ward built the Eagle foundry on Queen Street and with his brothers, Lebbeus and Samuel, provided engines for many steamboats on the St. Lawrence. The successor of the firm was George Brush. In 1821 Sherman & Co. formed a sculptory business. Its successors were Hyatt & Co., James Mavor and Robert Reid.

The first meeting of the committee of trade on April 23, 1822, indicates another[532] link in the chain of progress of mercantile solidarity. This was to become the parent of the present Board of Trade.

The earliest boot and shoe factory was established on St. Paul Street in 1824 by Alexander Bell, the founder of the J.T. Bell Company of today. Among the first important industries of Montreal also must be mentioned the hemp factory, established in 1825 and owned by Mr. J.A. Converse. The Mussen grocery firm opened in the spring of 1827 with a store in Mrs. Ousteroute’s building on the south side of St. Paul Street facing Vaudreuil Lane. In 1837 his third location at the corner of Notre Dame and St. Gabriel streets marks a historic move and one thought daring. Hitherto trade had centered on St. Paul and Commissioners streets, between Custom House Square and Bonsecours Street, while Notre Dame, Little and Great St. James, Craig and intersecting streets were the residential part of the city. His example was successful and Notre Dame Street then became the principal retail street of the time. Birks’ famous chemist’s store was opened by Dr. F. Fraser in 1828, to be succeeded by R.W. Rexford and by Mr. R. Birks in 1846. His famous store was first near the old Albion Hotel from which the stage coaches started, and afterwards at the corner of Recollet and McGill streets, and has only recently been demolished to make room for the McGill building. In 1829 the wholesale dry goods importing firm of J.G. McKenzie & Co. was founded, though a legitimate successor of one of the business ventures of Horatio Gates, a merchant of great renown, and one of the incorporators of the Bank of Montreal. This year also saw the birth of Morton Phillips & Co., a firm of stationers.

With the date of 1829 we may associate a note on the Montreal lines of stages which were conducted as follows: “between Montreal and Prescott, every week day except Saturday, proprietors H. Dickerson & Company, St. Paul Street; between Quebec and Montreal, every week day except Saturday, proprietors H. Dickerson & Company, of St. Paul Street, and John Cody, Quebec; between Montreal and Bytown (Ottawa), twice a week, Tuesday and Friday morning, proprietor E. Cushing, Haymarket, Montreal; between Montreal and Albany, twice a week, proprietor, E. Cushing; between Montreal and Albany, thrice a week, proprietor, John Esinhart & Company (St. John).”

The railway era started in 1831, when the charter for the first railway in Canada between La Prairie and St. John was granted. All this was to mean great extension to Montreal business. To the date of 1833 is to be attributed the original foundation of Kenneth, Campbell & Co., wholesale druggists, through D. Michael McCulloch, Alexander Urquhart, Dr. William McDonald, John Birks (for Carter, Kerry & Co.), and Johnson & Beers, passing to Kenneth Campbell in 1850.

At this time the grocery business of Hudon Hebert, established on St. Paul Street near Jacques Cartier Square since 1839, and that of Chaput, Fils, on Youville Place in 1842, mark early French-Canadian enterprise.

McGill Street before the ’40s was considered in the country, when Samuel Mathewson started his present grocery business there. For a long time the street as it grew up was a frowsy affair, till the Grand Trunk offices set the way to higher ideals. The street has begun its transformation period during the last four years. Mathewson & Co. was established by Samuel Mathewson on May 1,[533] 1834, on St. Paul Street. In 1840 he moved to McGill Street and was thought to be moving into the country.

It has been found difficult to trace the history of the chief French-Canadian firms. The advent of the Banque du Peuple originally established in 1835 as a private bank under the title of Viger, DeWitt & Cie, shows that this portion of the population was becoming financially stronger. In 1843 the Banque du Peuple as such was started. The petitioners for incorporation were Messrs. Louis Viger, Jacob DeWitt, John Donegani, Pierre Beaubien, Augustin Tulloch, Hosea Baillou Smith, Ronald Trudeau and Pierre Jodoin, Esquires, of Montreal; Alexis Sauvageau, Esquire, of La Prairie; Timothée Franchère, Esquire, of St. Mathias; Joseph Frederick Allard, Esquire, of Chambly; and Alexis Montmarquet, Esquire, of Carillon. It will be noted that we have not treated of the banks and insurance businesses which are so closely connected with the commercial growth of the city. These are treated separately in another place.

The state of commerce about this time will appear from the following scale of vessels and their tonnage, which arrived at Montreal:

Date. | No. of Vessels. | Tonnage.
1832 | 117 | 27,713
1833 | 137 | 30,864
1834 | 89 | 20,105
1835 | 108 | 22,729
1836 | 93 | 22,133
1837 | 91 | 22,668
1838 | 63 | 15,750

Of these vessels and their cargoes, by far the greater part were from England and Scotland. A few came every year from Halifax and other British ports in North America and sometimes cargoes of grain, etc., from other ports in Europe.

The state of the store fronts of this period immediately preceding the Union will afford a picture of the commercial streets of the city.

In 1839 Mr. H. Greig wrote in his History of Montreal: “Both in Quebec and Montreal the windows in many of the old stores and shops are small, not larger than those of ordinary dwelling houses, very little calculated for display and not giving indications of the extensive depositories of goods that may be found within.

“A very great number of the recent shops are elegantly, and some of them splendidly, fitted up. Perhaps there is in scarcely any part of the commercial world, either in Europe or America, a more superb or exquisitely finished room, for its size, than the shop of Mr. McDonald, at the corner of Place d’Armes and Notre Dame Street.”

If Mr. Greig were only privileged to take a walk along St. Catherine Street now!

[534]

[535]

### CHAPTER XXXVI

COMMERCIAL HISTORY SINCE THE UNION

THE RISE OF MODERN MANUFACTURES AND INDUSTRIES

MONTREAL CENTER OF CANADIAN TRADE—LORD ELGIN’S OPINION OF THE CANADA CORN ACT—TRADE DEPRESSION BEGINNING IN 1847—SUGAR AND FLOUR INDUSTRIES—THE PANIC OF 1860—A PROSPEROUS DECADE—ANOTHER DEPRESSION—THE NATIONAL POLICY—PROSPERITY AGAIN IN THE EIGHTIES—ST. CATHERINE STREET—THE RISE OF FURTHER INDUSTRIES—THE RISE OF THE COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATIONS—THE COMMITTEE OF TRADE—ITS ACTIVITIES—THE BOARD OF TRADE—ITS ACTIVITIES IN CANAL, PORT, RAILWAY, CANADIAN AND EMPIRE EXPANSION—ITS INTEREST IN CIVIC GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL CIVIC BETTERMENT—ITS BUILDING—ITS SOCIAL FUNCTIONS—THE “CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE”—ITS ORIGIN—THE OTHER MERCHANTS’ ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CITY—A TRIBUTE TO THE MERCHANTS OF MONTREAL. NOTES: PRESIDENTS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—CENSUS (1912) OF MONTREAL MANUFACTURES.

Trade at the time of the Union centered at Montreal. Quebec had been left behind. The Canada corn act brought in by Lord Stanley, the colonial secretary in Robert Peel’s cabinet, while it cheapened corn in England stimulated business in Canada, for the act lowered the duty on Canadian wheat and flour to one shilling in the quarter upon the condition that Canada should impose a duty of three shillings upon United States wheat. Montreal became the center of its distribution. This success was dashed to disappointment by Peel’s bill of 1846, described by Lord Elgin in writing to a friend shortly after, as drawing “the whole of the produce down the New York channels of communication, destroying the revenue which Canada expected to derive from canal duties and ruining at once mill owners, forwarders and merchants. The consequence is that private property is unsalable in Canada; not a shilling can be raised on the credit of the province.” To crown the disasters in 1847 there was the ship fever in the city. In 1848 the depression was continued, followed next year by the riots over the rebellion losses bill, so that many were ready in the same year for the annexation to the United States as a desperate remedy.

The year 1850 was not commercially satisfactory, but remains bright in the annals of trade on account of a most successful fair opened in Bonsecours Hall, October 17th, and attended by from 20,000 to 30,000 people. This fair was held in order to prepare for the great International Exhibition in London in the following year, and resulted in 200 packages being sent forward, by which the attention of Great Britain was called to Canada in a most practical manner. The war[536] between Great Britain and Russia in 1854, while improving the demand for cereals, injuriously affected commerce in Montreal through stringent European money markets, etc., while American tourists, upon whom the retail trader then as now relied for no small portion of his summer trade, were deterred from visiting the city through the prevalence of cholera. This, coupled with the unusually late arrival of the spring importations, resulted in leaving large stocks on hand.

In 1854 the Canada Sugar Refinery business was established by Mr. John Redpath. The late Sir George Drummond was early connected with it as general manager.

An improvement in business characterized the following year, while the city was thronged in March with visitors to a fair held in anticipation of the Paris Exhibition, and which was very successful. In the same year Montreal was visited by Admiral Betveze to arrange for closer trade relations between Canada and France. The reciprocity treaty also of 1855, followed by the American Civil war, led to increased activity of trade in Montreal, her citizens, as well as those of other Canadian cities, supplying many of the needs of the army of 1,000,000 taken from pen and plough in those days of trial.

In 1858 a torchlight procession of about twenty thousand souls (including spectators), a general illumination and a military parade, expressed the jubilation of Montreal over the successful laying of the first Atlantic cable. The procession, composed of tradesmen and handicraftsmen, was a mile long and marched six abreast.

In 1859 the Victoria Tubular bridge was opened, but just before its completion in 1860, commercial panic struck the country, with disastrous effects.

The greatest disasters were those in the United States, where every bank but one suspended payment; but the calamity was sympathetically reflected in the Dominion.

The Bank of Montreal remained firm, thanks to Mr. Davidson, the cashier, who carried the Montreal merchants through that black time. It may be said that Mr. Davidson founded a school of banking.

Manufacturing made great progress in the ’60s, owing to the Civil war in the United States taking millions of men from the ordinary activities of the country to the battlefields, thus stimulating Canadians to manufacture sufficient to supply the resultant demand.

In the decade from 1860 to 1870, the investment in Montreal industries leaped from $800,000 to $11,000,000. Just about then, however, a period of depression set in, due to a variety of causes.

Chief among these were the inevitable slackening in Canadian outputs due to production being resumed in the United States, and the general stress caused by the financial losses incurred through wars both on this continent and in Europe. During this period the manufacturers of Montreal suffered possibly more than any other body; for the great population and easier developed natural resources of the United States, with other contributing factors, enabled nearly all lines of goods to be produced there at a lower cost; and with his goods barred from the States by high tariffs and his home market thrown open to American factories, the Montreal manufacturer suffered from his nearness to the American border, suffered, perhaps, more acutely than other Canadians. With the inauguration of the National Policy in 1879 conditions changed materially, and the beginning[537] of 1880 found business booming again. Meanwhile St. James Street had become the chief business street. Morgan’s Colonial House was at the northeast corner abutting Victoria Square. When the head of the firm took an idea to open on St. Catherine Street, as yet an unimportant business thoroughfare, in the present location, it was a dangerous move according to the wiseacres, but instantly justified, being followed by other great departmental stores, such as Murphy’s, Hamilton’s and the rest. Substantial and steady progress was made in the ensuing twenty years, the products of the various factories doubling in value in each decade. Then came the remarkable development of the city, beginning about 1898, and in the ten years from 1900 to 1910 the production increased from about eighty-five million dollars to two hundred millions.

The origin of some further of our chief industries may now be recorded.

The cotton industry originated in the old Hudon Mill at Hochelaga, which was started in 1874. When founded there were employed at this mill some three hundred hands, and the buildings and plant were quite small. As the mill stands today, the ground covered is about four times that originally built upon and the number of men employed is upwards of eleven hundred.

The four other cotton mills of Montreal, all of which are under the ownership or control of the Dominion Textile Company, provide employment for between five thousand and six thousand persons in this city and must therefore be accounted amongst its very greatest industries. Some idea of the magnitude of the industry may be formed from the fact that the capitalization amounts to $13,500,000, including bonds. It may be noted in passing that the Dominion Textile Company, the chief offices of which are in this city, controls many other mills, some of them at considerable distances from Montreal.

Prior to 1883 there were no metal bridges manufactured in Montreal or vicinity and practically no structural steel work for buildings.

Since 1883, bridge and structural steel manufacture has developed greatly in Montreal. And there are now three large concerns engaged in this line of business: the Dominion Bridge Company, Limited, the National Bridge Company, Limited, and the Phoenix Bridge and Iron Works.

It is estimated that the combined output of these companies for 1912 was between seventy-five thousand and eighty thousand tons of bridge and building work, having a value of about four million and a half dollars.

It is also estimated that the number of hands employed in the shops and offices of these companies is about eighteen hundred, with a pay roll of about a million and a quarter dollars.

NATURAL ADVANTAGES

Of the great variety of natural advantages for manufacturing possessed by Montreal, it would be difficult to say which is the most important. With cheap transportation, it can assemble raw material and ship finished product with far greater facility than any other city on the American continent. Other cities have possibly equally good railway facilities, others have lake transportation; and other manufacturing cities, but not many, are ocean ports. No other city on the continent, however, combines all three advantages.

Coupled with these, Montreal has an important and rapidly expanding tributary[538] territory in the Dominion, for products of its factories find their way all over Canada; it has a large class of skilled labor to draw on; and it commands cheaper power. Every requisite for successful manufacturing is found here. The cheapness with which power can be secured is a very important factor and with the development of important hydro-electric properties in the immediate vicinity industrial power costs are likely to be materially reduced in the near future. With both ocean and lake navigation at its disposal, Montreal taps both the Nova Scotia and the American coalfields and thus has unlimited supplies of fuel to draw on, which can be delivered here at a very low cost. Some of the largest ocean-going bulk cargo carriers in the world are running between the St. Lawrence ports and the Sydneys, freighting coal here at the lowest figures achieved anywhere for ocean transportation.

As far back as 1859 Sir William Dawson, the principal of McGill University, referred to Montreal’s position for commerce in words as apropos today as they were then:

“In its situation at the confluence of the two greatest rivers, the St. Lawrence and Ottawa; opposite the great natural highway of the Hudson and Champlain valley; at the point where the St. Lawrence ceases to be navigable for ocean ships, and where the great river, for the last time in its course to the sea, affords a gigantic water power; at the meeting point of the two races that divide Canada, and in the center of a fertile plain nearly as large as all England: in these we recognize a guarantee for the future greatness of Montreal, not based on the frail tenure of human legislation, but in the unchanging decrees of the Eternal, as stamped on the world he has made. We know from the study of these indications that were Canada to be again a wilderness, and were a second Cartier to explore it he might wander over all the great regions of Canada and the West, and, returning to our mountain ridge, call it again Mount Royal, and say that to this point the wealth and trade of Canada must turn.”

At this time of writing the industries have grown so numerous that the chronological method of relating their rise is impossible. We shall present a brief indicaton of their number and scope besides adding in tabulated form various statistical facts which will sum up the variety of the industries engaging attention in Montreal in 1912. Probably the most important industry of the city is the manufacture of clothing, both custom and factory. Nearly ten per cent of the factory workers of the city are engaged in this trade and they furnish two-thirds of the annual Canadian production.

But apart from this industry, manufacuring in Montreal covers a very wide range, embracing the chief Canadian car and engine manufactories, structural works, cotton factories, sugar refineries, rubber manufactories, rolling mills, cement works, and leather manufactories. In extent and value of output it easily heads the list of Canadian cities, having double the output of its two nearest competitors, Toronto and Hamilton. The extent to which manufacturing is carried on is strikingly shown by the per capita valuation of its product, which is $360 annually.

Tobacco is a principal single industry, while boots and shoes come next in importance. As to textiles, cotton takes the first place. Among food products, slaughtering and meat packing rank with flour, the largest flour mill in the[539] British Empire being situated in Montreal. Of the miscellaneous industries, electric light and power and electrical apparatus and supplies are the chief.

Immediately outside of Montreal is a large business in iron and steel products. Among the largest are the Dominion Bridge Company’s works at Lachine and the Montreal Locomotive Works and the Structural Steel Company’s works at Longue Pointe. Again, in Montreal are to be found the great car and repair shops of the two chief railways: the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway System.

The city is also the center of several industries, which though not actually situated in Montreal, are yet managed from it. The pulp industry is an example, yet there is not actually a single pulp mill in Montreal.

In the president’s address to the Canadian Manufacturers Association in September, 1912, it was pointed out that in the ten-year period Canadian exports showed an increase of $110,000,000, while manufactured articles showed an increase of $683,000,000. Probably no other country in the world can show such a satisfactory record as this. And when it is considered that more than one-sixth of all the manufactures in the Dominion come from Montreal, the part which the city has taken in this great industrial evolution will be appreciated.

Montreal is most favourably situated with regard to obtaining cheap power. Canada is essentially a land of rivers and lakes, and her water-power is undoubtedly her greatest asset. In 1911 the total electrical energy developed from Canada’s water-power was 1,016,521 horse-power, of which the province of Quebec developed 300,153 horse-power. At twenty-two tons of coal per horse-power per annum, this is the equivalent of about six and one-half million tons of coal. Eighty per cent of the power used in the province of Quebec is water-power.

The wood pulp and paper industry have contributed very largely to the development of this kind of industry, but other industries have taken advantage of it, such as lumber mills, textile mills and rubber factories.

The following companies supply power in Montreal:

1. The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, act as distributing agents in the City of Montreal for the Shawinigan Water and Power Company, whose plant is situated at Shawinigan Falls, on the St. Maurice River, eighty-four miles from Montreal. There is a fall of 135 feet, and 107,000 horse-power has been developed. The electricity is transmitted to Montreal and the Eastern Townships; a large portion supplying the asbestos mines with power. Thirty thousand horse-power is used in Shawinigan itself for the production of aluminum and carbide.

The company also obtains power from Chambly on the Richelieu River, and from the Lachine Rapids and the Soulange Canal.

2. The Montreal Public Service Corporation act as distributing agents in the City of Montreal for the Canadian Light and Power Company, which has a plant at St. Timothée, where 30,000 horse-power has been developed. Electrical and other power is also obtained from the Lachine Canal, where there is a total fall of thirty-five feet, to the extent of 4,642 horse-power. This is used for flour mills, rolling mills, and many others.

There are, in addition, one or two other power plants in process of development.

[540]

The manufactures carried on in Montreal are very varied, but of these we cannot speak in detail.1

OFFICIAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

Before closing this chapter showing the rise of many of the individual conmercial enterprises of our merchants we must refer to them again in a collective fashion. We have already indicated their combined effort in securing advanced governmental and municipal action. This has been carried on by the great official bodies or associations of commercial men organized during the last few decades of the commercial expansion of the city. The first of such organizations to arise was the Committee of Trade.

COMMITTEE OF TRADE

(1822)

Early in the last century, the merchants of Montreal realized that a country’s trade and progress are to be measured by its transportation facilities, and that until these are secured, there can be little advance. Accordingly, when on July 19, 1821, the first sod of the Lachine Canal was turned by one of their number, the Hon. John Richardson, a vista of a future inland waterway system and consequent commercial progress was unfolded. Individual action had prevailed so far, but now the value of union among the merchants was seized upon. A few months later, on April 11, 1822, the Hon. John Richardson presided at a preliminary meeting held in the Exchange on St. Joseph Street (St. Sulpice) of merchants and others interested in commerce, which gave birth to the “Committee of Trade.”

At this meeting a resolution was adopted stating “that the ruinous consequences now apprehended from the growing embarrassments of Canadian commerce can no longer be averted or even delayed by the solitary exertions of individuals or by the occasional hasty and inadequate deliberations of public meetings, and that the present alarming crisis demands the establishment of a standing committee of merchants to be authorized by their constituents to watch over the general interests of the trade of the country.”

The subscription of the members of this organization was placed at three guineas per annum, and the original subscribers numbered fifty-four, who elected the following thirteen gentlemen as the first committee of trade: Horatio Gates, George Auldjo, George Moffatt, Henry McKenzie, Campbell Sweeney, John Forsyth, Peter McGill, F.A. Larocque, John Fleming, Samuel Gerrard, Thomas Blackwood, Charles L. Ogden, James Leslie. This committee began its operations in a very humble way, for at its second meeting Mr. Auldjo was authorized to finish the proposed agreement with Mr. A.L. Macnider for a room for the accommodation of the committee, including fuel and attendance at the rate of thirty pounds per annum. The population of Montreal at this time was 18,767, increasing to 27,997 by 1831.

[541]

From the records we possess of this Committee of Trade, it is clear that Montreal recognized early its vocation as the commercial metropolis of Canada, for its rules “authorized and required the Committee to make to His Majesty and the Legislature of the United Kingdom, and others in authority, such representations on Trade matters as might be deemed advisable in the defence of such suits as involved the General Trade of the country.”

The securing of the construction of the Lachine Canal warranted this assumption of authority by the merchants of Montreal, who were not unopposed in Upper Canada through mistaken motives of jealousy. The Committee of Trade foreseeing that Montreal was to become the commercial port of Canada, set to work at once to encourage large vessels to come to the St. Lawrence. In 1825, it made strong efforts to induce the Government to deepen the channel in Lake St. Peter so that “vessels of nearly 250 tons burthen, might reach Montreal fully laden during the whole season.” It is a far cry from such vessels to the magnificent steamers which now perform the service between Great Britain and Montreal, some of which are nearly fifteen thousand tons.

Steadily the Committee of Trade began to prepare for the future destiny of the port. One of its number, the Hon. James Leslie, presented in Parliament a petition praying for aid to deepen the channel to sixteen feet. In spite of the cholera outbreaks of 1832 and 1834 and the rebellion of 1837 and 1838, the Committee of Trade went on, until 1839, effecting further improvements.

THE MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE

(1842)

In April, 1840, when the Union was in the air, at a meeting under the chairmanship of the Hon. Peter McGill, the more active members of this committee took steps to reorganize as a Board of Trade, an act of incorporation being procured in 1841, but as in those days all important bills were “reserved,” it was not till March 2, 1842, that the Royal assent was signed by proclamation and the present Board of Trade came into existence, the number of original members being 106. On April 1st of that year the first meeting of the newly incorporated board was held, at which Mr. J.T. Brondgeest was elected chairman; Mr. Thomas Cringan, vice president; and Mr. J.W. Dunscomb, treasurer.

The board under its new name, pursued the same policy as hitherto. Realizing the value of Montreal’s water position, that all trade had to follow the waterways and that all the waters of the West flowed past Montreal, the merchant members of the board secured the fastest ships to Montreal and early controlled the import trade. The Lachine Canal had been opened in 1825 and in the first decade of the new board they had the satisfaction of seeing the whole magnificent St. Lawrence system of inland water communication fully opened up through the foresight and initial push of Montreal merchants.

In 1853 the first ocean steamer, the Genova, arrived, the new channel having been deepened to fifteen feet two inches and later to sixteen feet six inches. But in 1854 and 1855 this prosperity experienced a check, for during those years no ocean vessel reached Montreal; its rival, New York, with its navigation open all the year, had greater attractions for shipping. Trade became alarmingly bad, but[542] the Montreal merchants were not supine, they rose to the occasion and determined to deepen the channel to twenty feet, and (in 1856) the Allan Brothers came to the rescue, establishing the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company, which commenced a fortnightly service with four steamers. Since then the shipping trade has prospered continuously. The Board of Trade has continuously urged and secured improvements along the St. Lawrence route, the channel depth having been gradually increased to thirty feet and a further increase to thirty-five feet has been promised by the Dominion Government.

A few other activities of the board, which are synonymous with those of the representative merchants of the city, may be here mentioned in connection with the port. The office of port warden was established through the board and its work of overseeing the loading of vessels sailing from this port has entirely prevented the sad loss of life and property which at one time so frequently resulted from the faulty loading of cargo. The question of harbour improvement and development has always received the earnest attention of the board and the council’s representations to the Government in 1906, urging that instead of eleven commissioners there should be three, were instrumental in securing such reduction. The result of the work of the smaller board has exceeded all expectations. The Board of Trade for many years agitated for the relief of the Harbour Commissioners from the cost of the channel through Lake St. Peter on the ground that it was a national work for the national waterway, and this agitation resulted successfully, for in 1888 the Dominion Government assumed the debt, which action relieved the Harbour Commissioners from the burdensome charge for interest on such expense. Similarly the board has succeeded in its efforts to induce the Dominion Government to free the canals from tolls. But while so much improvement has been obtained, there is at present one most urgent need, viz.: the establishment on the St. Lawrence of the dry dock now constructed in which the largest vessels trading on our river can be repaired in case of emergency.

Montreal has yet to become a free port. The Board of Trade hopes that its ceaseless representations to the Government on this matter will ultimately be successful.

It would be interesting similarly to trace the efforts of members of the Board of Trade and other Montreal merchants towards the provision of the great railways emanating from our city as their center. Space limit will only allow us to indicate, that when shortly before the canal system was perfected it began to be seen that the waterways would not be sufficient to accommodate the ever growing trade of Canada, Montreal men faced the railway transportation problem and greatly contributed to its present success. In this they were largely helped by the Grand Trunk Railway which, originally backed by English money, made splendid sacrifices for Canada. The Grand Trunk Railway has not always received its just need of appreciation, but it is now a great national institution stretching its arms across the Dominion and receiving its just reward. The enterprise of Montreal merchants, is, however, mostly to be discerned in that wonderful system of railroads, with its headquarters in Montreal—the Canadian Pacific Railway, which, conceived by Canadian brains, was started by Montreal men and carried out by Canadian executive force and capital. Men of wonderful courage, skill and judgment, prominent members of the Montreal Board of Trade, concluded a contract with the Government in 1880 to complete the whole road by May 1, 1891. On[543] the 28th of June, 1886, the first through train to the Pacific Coast left Montreal for the Pacific terminus, Vancouver. On the first board of directors (1880) of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company we find the names of Mr. George Stephen (now Lord Mount Stephen), president; Mr. Donald A. Smith (Lord Strathcona), vice president; Messrs. R.B. Angus, Duncan McIntyre, and C.B. Rose; leading members of the Board of Trade.

With regard to the water transportation of the Dominion the Georgian Bay Canal prospect has been for some years the object of the Board of Trade and on March 14, 1912, a large deputation of boards of trade and municipal councils urged upon the Dominion Government an immediate commencement of work upon the Georgian Bay Canal.

The Premier promised his earnest consideration of the great question involved but said that the Government must have time for a full investigation.

In the spring of 1914 an immense delegation organized by the Chambre de Commerce of Montréal also approached the Government to the same effect.

All praise to the merchants of the Board of Trade, who by their undaunted push, character and political foresight have written their names in the history of the development of Canada, and have bound the Mother Country, through Montreal, by bands of steel and water to the extreme ends of the Dominion. Their influence extends even further, for it is a matter of record that the congresses of the chambers of commerce of the Empire are the result of a suggestion made by the Council of the Board. The last congress was held in September, 1909, in Sydney, Australia, where the board was represented by Mr. H.B. Ames, M.P., and its secretary, Mr. George Hadrill. Nothing but good for Empire trade can come of such conventions.

Again the Board of Trade looks far and wide. Apart from its present trade working relations between South Africa and Mexico it is looking for a larger and most interesting exchange of business, for a year ago an Imperial Royal Commission sat in the board’s rooms taking evidence regarding the trade between Canada and the West Indies.

By its internal constitution, as we have noticed, the Board of Trade is ever on the alert watching Dominion, Provincial and Civic legislation.

In the municipal life of the city it has urged improvements in the fire service, the water supply, the lighting service and the betterment of streets and interested itself in various other spheres of municipal government reform, among them the securing of the great modern amendment of the city charter which has necessitated the reduction of the number of aldermen to one for each ward, and the creation of a board of five commissioners for the disbursement of money, the awarding of contracts and the purchase of material.

It would be tedious to enumerate further the home activities of the Board of Trade, but this feature should not be omitted, viz.: that its work has made this city a manufacturing center of ever increasing possibilities. Montreal, as a manufacturing center, is hardly sufficiently advertised; Montreal should be made known not only as a gateway for export and import transportation, but also as the busy center of headquarters of numerous and constantly growing industries of its own. It is a distributing source of cheap power, light and heat. All that goes towards the making of a great and successful commercial metropolis has been planned by the merchants of modern Montreal, whose predecessors began humbly[544] in 1822, and ever conscious of the future destiny of their city, were always led by visions of its future greatness as the commercial metropolis of Canada.

It has made representations to the Dominion and Provincial governments on the subject of industrial and technical education for the workers and has taken a lofty and ideal stand in more recent philanthropical and civic betterment schemes.

The Board since 1893 has occupied quarters in its own building, though the first building was destroyed by fire on the 23d of January, 1901. The present building which was entered into in May, 1903, while built on the same site and on a similar plan to the first, is of fireproof construction and, like the former building, faces on four streets. The board occupies the greater portion of the fourth floor, its premises consisting of a handsome exchange hall, branch association room, reading room, secretary’s office, council chamber and committee room. It has a membership of 1,400 and there are daily gatherings of various of its affiliated commercial associations.

In addition to being the center of the commercial life of Montreal, the building has been the locale of several important social functions, the most notable being its inauguration of the evening of 17th August, 1903, by the Rt. Hon. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, G.C.M.G., which was attended by the members of the board and the delegates to the Fifth Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire (which was held in Montreal that year) and the president of the congress, the Rt. Hon. Lord Brassey, K.C.B.; the reception of Their Excellencies the Rt. Hon. Earl Grey, G.C.M.G., and the Countess Grey on the evening of the 24th of January, 1905, to welcome them on their arrival in this country, which, attended by over twelve hundred guests, was pronounced one of the most brilliant social functions in the history of the city.

CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE

(1887)

The next great commercial association was the “Chambre de Commerce,” of French business men. Up to 1886 the Board of Trade had been alone, though with individual French citizens, as at present, among its members, but in this year Mr. J.X. Perrault, not without opposition even among his compatriots, took the initiative of forming a second board to group together French-speaking citizens. An act of incorporation was applied for from the government at Ottawa and was granted on January 1, 1887. On February 2, 1887, the first reunion of French business representatives took place under the chairmanship of Mr. Jacques Grenier, the mayor of the city, and then president of “La Banque du Peuple,” in the offices of G.W. Parent, at the corner of St. Lambert and St. James streets. Its few hundreds of members have now surpassed a thousand. Its activities are similar to those of the Board of Trade with which there is mutual cooperation in points of common, civic, provincial and federal import. It has taken a great interest in the future commercial education of the merchant by promoting the “Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales” recently erected.

MONTREAL STOCK EXCHANGE BUILDING

MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE BUILDING

[545]

CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE FRANCAISE DE MONTREAL

There is also at present the “Chambre de Commerce Française de Montreal” for the promotion of trade by merchants of France settled here. It was originally proposed at a meeting in Montreal of French traders on May 27, 1886, by M.G. Dubail, the Consul General of France, and on June 26th of that year the projected constitution was received for approval. Since then its purpose of intercommunication and trade relations with France have been sustained under its presidents.

OTHER BODIES

There is also a Federation of the Chambers of Commerce of the Province of Quebec with its offices in this city and among the many mercantile bodies now promoting the trade and industries of Montreal may be mentioned the Montreal branch of the “Canadian Manufacturers’ Association,” the “Montreal Stock Exchange,” the “Montreal Mining Exchange,” the “Canadian Mining Institute,” the “Builders’ Exchange,” the “Corn Exchange Association,” the “Montreal Business Men’s League,” the “Association Immobiliére of Montreal,” the “Milk Shippers’ Association,” the “Wholesale Grocers’ Guild,” the “Wholesale Dry Goods Association,” the “Metal and Hardware Association,” the “Wholesale Hardware League,” the “Montreal Lumber Association,” the “Montreal Produce Merchants’ Association,” the “Retail Merchants’ Association of Canada,” with its office of the Provincial Board for the Province of Quebec at Montreal, the Province of Quebec Association of Architects, the “Licensed Victuallers’ Association,” the “Federation of Licensed Wine and Spirit Dealers of the Province of Quebec,” the “Dominion Association of Chartered Accounts,” the “Canadian Bankers’ Association,” with numerous other trade organizations, all cooperating and making for the commercial growth of Montreal and Canada.2 To all these may be applied in their degree the words of tribute spoken at the Board of Trade building in 1908 by the Governor General Earl Grey:

“I am glad to be able to stand here as the representative of the King and to signify by my acceptance of your hospitality His Majesty’s appreciation of the benefits you, the Montreal Board of Trade, have conferred by your energy, by your spirited enterprise, and by your imperial aspirations, not only on the Province of Quebec and the Dominion, but upon the population of the United Kingdom of the whole British Empire. * * * Thanks to the brains, energy and public spirit with which your board have met the requirements of a trade which is being borne in ever increasing volume to your doors, over the continuous bands of steel and mighty waterways which you have harnessed to your city, the doors of the great treasure house of the West, containing illimitable riches, have been unlocked for the benefit of impoverished mankind.

[546]

“I am aware that the proud consciousness of your past achievements has not made you indifferent to future improvements and that you are still busily engaged in honourable emulation of your predecessors, in promoting plans which will increase the Commercial strength and prosperity of Montreal and further advance the general welfare of the Dominion.”

CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEE OF TRADE, MONTREAL

From Its Inception in 1822 to 1841 When It Was Changed into the Montreal Board of Trade

1822-25 | Thomas Blackwood
1825-33 | George Auldjo
1833-34 | James Miller
1834-35 | T.M. Smith
1835-36 | George Auldjo
1836-37 | J. Quesnel
1837-38 | A. Cuvillier
1838-39 | Adam Ferrie
1839-41 | A. Cuvillier

PRESIDENTS OF MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE

1842-43 | J.T. Brondgeest
1844-45-46 | Hon. George Moffatt
1847 | Thomas Gringan
1848 | Hon. Peter McGill
1849-50 | Thomas Ryan
1851-52-53-54 | Hugh Allan
1855 | Hon. John Young
1856-57-58 | E.H. Holton
1859 | Thomas Kay
1860 | Hon. John Young
1861 | Edwin Atwater
1862 | Hon. E.H. Holton
1863 | Thomas Gramp
1864-65 | Peter Redpath
1866 | John McLennan
1867-68 | Thomas Rimmer
1869 | J.H. Winn
1870-71 | Hon. John Young
1872-73 | Hugh McLennan
1874-75 | William Darling
1876-77 | Andrew Robertson
1878-79 | Henry Lyman
1880-81-82-83 | T.W. Henshaw
1884-85 | John Kerry
1886-87-88 | Hon. Geo. A. Drummond
1889-90 | James P. Cleghorn
1891 | Robert Archer
1892 | G.B. Greenshields
1893-94 | W.W. Ogilvie
1895 | James A. Cantlie
1896 | Robert Bickerdike
1897 | John McKergow
1898 | James Crathorn
1899 | Charles F. Smith
1900 | Robert Mackay
1901 | Henry Miles
1902 | Alexander McFee
1903 | Arthur J. Hodgson
1904 | George E. Drummond
1905 | William I. Gear
1906 | F.H. Mathewson
1907 | George Caverhill
1908 | T.J. Drummond
1909 | F. Robertson
1910 | George E. Cains
1911 | Jeffrey H. Burland
1912 | Robert W. Reford
1913 | Huntley R. Drummond
1914 | Robert J. Dale

[547]

SECRETARIES

1842-49 | Fred’k A. Wilson
1849-50 | Charles Lindsay
1851-54 | Alex. Clerk
1854-63 | John Dinning
1863-86 | Wm. J. Patterson
1886 | George Hadrill

NOTE

PRESIDENTS OF LA CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE

1887

D. Parizeau, Ex-M.P.P.
l’ex-Maire J. Laporte
Joseph Contant
Damase Masson
L.E. Geoffrion
H.A.A. Brault
C.H. Catelli
Isaie Préfontaine
O.S. Perrault
Frédéric C. Larivière
Armand Chaput
le Lieut.-Col. A.E. Labelle
A. Fortier

PRESIDENTS OF LA CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE FRANCAISE

1886-90 | M. Schwob
1890-92 | C.H. Chouillon
1892 | A. Girard
1892-95 | E. Galibert
1895-97 | G. Herdt
1897-1900 | E. Galibert
1900-04 | H. Jonas
1904 | J. Helbronner
1904-08 | C.H. Chouillon
1908-09 | M. Chevalier
1910-11 | A.F. Revol
1912-14 | J. Obalski

[548]

THE CENSUS RETURNS OF 1912 ON MONTREAL’S MANUFACTURES

The Industries of Montreal City (Not Greater Montreal); the Capital Invested, Output, Hands Employed and Wages and Salaries Paid.

| Establish |  | Employees on salaries.
No. | Name or kind of industry. | ments. | Capital. | No. | Amt.
| CITY OF MONTREAL Totals | 1,093 | $135,044,782 | 6,863 | $7,258,810
1. | Aerated and mineral waters | 15 | 1,017,900 | 73 | 85,819
2. | Axes and tools | 6 | 351,550 | 19 | 21,790
3. | Awnings, tents and sails | 5 | 57,510 | 21 | 15,827
4. | Bags, cotton | 4 | 1,106,000 | 33 | 35,740
5. | Baking powder and flavoring extracts | 7 | 174,585 | 26 | 24,224
6. | Blacking | 5 | 95,582 | 14 | 15,016
7. | Blacksmithing | 5 | 94,000 | 5 | 6,576
8. | Boilers and engines | 8 | 2,909,729 | 143 | 131,987
9. | Boots and shoes | 39 | 10,386,852 | 346 | 380,461
10. | Boot and shoe supplies | 5 | 363,536 | 24 | 26,762
11. | Boxes and bags (paper) | 10 | 963,100 | 67 | 77,481
12. | Boxes (wooden) | 3 | 376,500 | 10 | 10,012
13. | Brass castings | 6 | 901,238 | 30 | 61,288
14. | Bread, biscuit and confentionery | 48 | 2,326,662 | 161 | 132,158
15. | Brooms and brushes | 5 | 29,200 | 18 | 13,114
16. | Buttons | 3 | 61,600 | 5 | 3,076
17. | Car repairs | 3 | — | 25 | 20,340
18. | Carriages and wagons | 33 | 1,351,078 | 67 | 70,096
19. | Cars and car works | 4 | 3,867,000 | 166 | 142,850
20. | Clothing (men’s custom) | 64 | 1,244,917 | 139 | 156,131
21. | Clothing (men’s factory) | 84 | 4,525,551 | 447 | 591,969
22. | Clothing (women’s custom) | 48 | 843,548 | 123 | 93,254
23. | Clothing (women’s factory) | 22 | 737,225 | 182 | 178,112
24. | Cocoa and chocolate | 3 | 269,000 | 23 | 16,515
25. | Coffees and spices | 6 | 563,150 | 34 | 33,488
26. | Cooperage | 3 | 114,346 | 7 | 15,840
27. | Cottons | 6 | 9,502,973 | 74 | 98,219
28. | Drugs | 7 | 614,558 | 48 | 39,158
29. | Dyeing and cleaning | 12 | 479,609 | 51 | 45,418
30. | Electrical apparatus and supplies | 13 | 4,828,667 | 157 | 199,274
31. | Electric light and power | 3 | 3,753,392 | 16 | 21,356
32. | Elevators | 3 | 266,353 | 31 | 32,610
33. | Flour and grist mill products | 3 | 3,424,500 | 61 | 128,900
34. | Foundry and machine shop products | 43 | 3,804,137 | 305 | 325,776
35. | Fruit and vegetable canning | 3 | 75,500 | 8 | 11,500
36. | Furnishing goods (men’s) | 9 | 1,597,500 | 162 | 157,930
37. | Furniture and upholstered goods | 15 | 828,700 | 57 | 53,079
38. | Furs (dressed) | 3 | 134,000 | 13 | 15,220
39. | Glass (stained, cut and ornamental) | 4 | 109,500 | 6 | 6,250
40. | Gloves and mittens | 3 | 485,588 | 40 | 30,052
41. | Hairwork | 3 | 59,500 | 2 | 3,380
42. | Harness and saddlery | 8 | 1,527,153 | 104 | 124,800
43. | Hats, caps and furs | 59 | 3,468,671 | 231 | 222,406
44. | Hosiery and knit goods | 5 | 1,072,093 | 35 | 28,096
45. | Housebuilding | 15 | 504,070 | 30 | 30,398
46. | Interior decorations | 9 | 185,768 | 16 | 12,585
47. | Iron and steel products | 8 | 4,092,900 | 197 | 187,929
48. | Jewelry and repairs | 14 | 1,644,387 | 141 | 105,405
49. | Leather goods | 9 | 1,000,287 | 83 | 59,508
50. | Leather (tanned, curled and finished) | 4 | 770,163 | 23 | 41,250
51. | Liquors (malt) | 7 | 2,939,223 | 46 | 68,552
52. | Lime | 3 | 134,100 | 12 | 14,980
53. | Log products | 3 | 877,000 | 17 | 24,906
54. | Lumber products | 34 | 3,460,328 | 137 | 164,971
55. | Mattresses and spring beds | 7 | 159,000 | 30 | 33,808
56. | Mirrors and plate glass | 5 | 335,000 | 48 | 42,201
57. | Monuments and tombstones | 7 | 257,800 | 12 | 15,991
58. | Musical instruments | 4 | 220,500 | 26 | 34,750
59. | Oils | 4 | 423,200 | 19 | 22,194
60. | Optical goods | 3 | 34,150 | 24 | 20,707
61. | Paints and varnishes | 7 | 3,829,538 | 155 | 175,576
62. | Patent medicines | 6 | 89,803 | 14 | 10,903
63. | Picture frames | 4 | 101,500 | 19 | 12,980
64. | Plumbing and tinsmithing | 26 | 3,796,433 | 209 | 203,363
65. | Printers’ supplies | 3 | 34,207 | 7 | 8,640
66. | Printing and bookbinding | 64 | 2,414,200 | 255 | 252,650
67. | Printing and publishing | 15 | 5,323,991 | 473 | 419,905
68. | Roofing and roofing materials | 6 | 499,500 | 44 | 55,254
69. | Rubber clothing | 8 | 383,750 | 30 | 30,498
70. | Signs | 5 | 76,700 | 21 | 22,300
71. | Silversmithing | 4 | 30,500 | 6 | 4,916
72. | Slaughtering and meat packing | 12 | 2,414,000 | 116 | 115,348
73. | Soap | 4 | 360,000 | 23 | 31,300
74. | Stationary goods | 4 | 166,668 | 24 | 25,282
75. | Stone (cut) | 3 | 386,074 | 6 | 6,864
76. | Tobacco (chewing, smoking and snuff) | 5 | 2,874,489 | 22 | 41,346
77. | Tobacco (cigars and cigarettes) | 30 | 10,068,784 | 322 | 425,327
78. | All other industries * | 105 | 14,442,976 | 629 | 632,579

|  | Employees on wages. | Cost of raw | Value of
No. | Name or kind of industry. | No. | Amt. | material. | products.
| CITY OF MONTREAL Totals | 60,390 | $26,779,657 | $88,862,420 | $164,698,761
1. | Aerated and mineral waters | 325 | 165,140 | 150,260 | 575,330
2. | Axes and tools | 118 | 67,974 | 155,649 | 301,059
3. | Awnings, tents and sails | 67 | 28,153 | 85,587 | 167,553
4. | Bags, cotton | 250 | 105,000 | 1,632,000 | 2,982,000
5. | Baking powder and flavoring extracts | 55 | 27,398 | 97,248 | 449,425
6. | Blacking | 28 | 8,084 | 97,472 | 162,494
7. | Blacksmithing | 34 | 16,536 | 21,500 | 77,000
8. | Boilers and engines | 1,184 | 831,997 | 1,389,527 | 3,267,873
9. | Boots and shoes | 5,291 | 2,228,701 | 6,377,823 | 11,462,566
10. | Boot and shoe supplies | 253 | 112,838 | 134,933 | 303,177
11. | Boxes and bags (paper) | 792 | 250,226 | 457,934 | 1,087,119
12. | Boxes (wooden) | 167 | 70,654 | 120,000 | 250,000
13. | Brass castings | 245 | 113,303 | 822,766 | 1,329,006
14. | Bread, biscuit and confentionery | 1,095 | 457,435 | 1,808,552 | 3,270,525
15. | Brooms and brushes | 40 | 13,882 | 25,880 | 66,500
16. | Buttons | 76 | 17,600 | 13,000 | 49,000
17. | Car repairs | 433 | 217,997 | 223,464 | 465,985
18. | Carriages and wagons | 649 | 340,286 | 719,317 | 1,594,787
19. | Cars and car works | 3,348 | 1,649,889 | 4,064,832 | 7,710,430
20. | Clothing (men’s custom) | 1,562 | 706,087 | 1,428,123 | 3,226,234
21. | Clothing (men’s factory) | 5,378 | 2,442,810 | 6,306,479 | 11,358,192
22. | Clothing (women’s custom) | 967 | 425,908 | 994,836 | 2,176,924
23. | Clothing (women’s factory) | 1,976 | 609,821 | 1,232,304 | 1,857,493
24. | Cocoa and chocolate | 190 | 53,856 | 300,000 | 443,480
25. | Coffees and spices | 85 | 45,241 | 501,826 | 748,599
26. | Cooperage | 50 | 16,907 | 41,800 | 84,992
27. | Cottons | 3,435 | 1,292,493 | 4,531,282 | 6,480,698[549]
28. | Drugs | 116 | 51,274 | 291,130 | 627,488
29. | Dyeing and cleaning | 630 | 268,314 | 213,750 | 883,103
30. | Electrical apparatus and supplies | 1,929 | 898,951 | 3,026,228 | 6,841,124
31. | Electric light and power | 94 | 54,558 | —— | 396,850
32. | Elevators | 97 | 52,990 | 58,797 | 315,170
33. | Flour and grist mill products | 255 | 10,900 | 4,791,000 | 5,686,000
34. | Foundry and machine shop products | 1,919 | 1,002,673 | 2,269,868 | 4,735,357
35. | Fruit and vegetable canning | 44 | 13,900 | 85,000 | 123,500
36. | Furnishing goods (men’s) | 1,823 | 467,144 | 1,007,831 | 2,820,816
37. | Furniture and upholstered goods | 725 | 383,144 | 409,671 | 1,358,310
38. | Furs (dressed) | 183 | 73,612 | 854,700 | 1,255,000
39. | Glass (stained, cut and ornamental) | 49 | 23,184 | 15,900 | 386,000
40. | Gloves and mittens | 327 | 112,431 | 358,234 | 707,449
41. | Hairwork | 43 | 28,400 | 30,200 | 107,000
42. | Harness and saddlery | 429 | 207,340 | 688,600 | 1,173,750
43. | Hats, caps and furs | 1,268 | 500,155 | 2,598,029 | 4,388,918
44. | Hosiery and knit goods | 586 | 192,137 | 553,298 | 1,016,901
45. | Housebuilding | 462 | 251,932 | 390,566 | 1,053,583
46. | Interior decorations | 148 | 75,720 | 128,555 | 294,342
47. | Iron and steel products | 1,224 | 794,416 | 1,908,666 | 3,880,597
48. | Jewelry and repairs | 574 | 312,244 | 477,348 | 1,184,351
49. | Leather goods | 228 | 101,038 | 817,710 | 1,112,035
50. | Leather (tanned, curled and finished) | 276 | 126,914 | 735,795 | 1,300,141
51. | Liquors (malt) | 410 | 238,326 | 638,615 | 1,627,311
52. | Lime | 57 | 28,000 | 8,600 | 149,000
53. | Log products | 84 | 41,429 | 478,000 | 630,400
54. | Lumber products | 1,618 | 877,271 | 2,272,876 | 4,904,573
55. | Mattresses and spring beds | 274 | 129,327 | 307,509 | 572,475
56. | Mirrors and plate glass | 123 | 54,022 | 173,132 | 342,830
57. | Monuments and tombstones | 114 | 65,998 | 74,182 | 237,032
58. | Musical instruments | 159 | 92,100 | 112,167 | 283,400[550]
59. | Oils | 60 | 25,019 | 744,068 | 864,674
60. | Optical goods | 55 | 19,882 | 45,271 | 121,771
61. | Paints and varnishes | 516 | 299,019 | 2,822,706 | 4,722,477
62. | Patent medicines | 38 | 17,705 | 23,074 | 136,803
63. | Picture frames | 61 | 33,106 | 28,975 | 104,000
64. | Plumbing and tinsmithing | 1,952 | 691,537 | 1,416,917 | 2,767,034
65. | Printers’ supplies | 21 | 9,328 | 10,000 | 23,500
66. | Printing and bookbinding | 1,484 | 703,392 | 740,770 | 2,367,655
67. | Printing and publishing | 1,144 | 631,994 | 742,956 | 2,595,180
68. | Roofing and roofing materials | 307 | 161,167 | 526,695 | 886,450
69. | Rubber clothing | 291 | 136,885 | 384,100 | 869,744
70. | Signs | 76 | 41,000 | 36,400 | 140,797
71. | Silversmithing | 28 | 17,036 | 9,200 | 51,128
72. | Slaughtering and meat packing | 650 | 310,638 | 5,059,000 | 6,123,125
73. | Soap | 99 | 34,660 | 269,878 | 495,862
74. | Stationary goods | 191 | 56,522 | 84,159 | 235,980
75. | Stone (cut) | 270 | 100,760 | 25,060 | 324,418
76. | Tobacco (chewing, smoking and snuff) | 787 | 255,999 | 2,596,356 | 3,564,736
77. | Tobacco (cigars and cigarettes) | 3,108 | 1,107,464 | 4,809,173 | 10,292,144
78. | All other industries * | 4,812 | 2,280,479 | 8,995,320 | 15,677,928

* All other industries comprises:—2 wire, 1 cutlery and edge tools, 1 oxygen gas, 1 time recorder, 1 window fixtures, 1 coffins and caskets, 2 glass, 2 vinegar and pickles, 1 wall paper, 1 paste flour, 1 pins, 1 washing blue, 1 sausage casings, 1 bells, 1 shoddy, 1 glue, 1 boats and canoes, 1 cement (Portland), 1 fertilizers, 1 paper, 1 batting, 2 brick, tile and pottery, 1 cordage, rope and twine, 1 malt, 1 plaster, 1 foods (prepared), 2 railway supplies, 1 refrigerators, 1 safes and vaults, 1 saw, 1 typewriters, 1 cement blocks and tiles, 1 lasts and pegs, 2 stone (artificial), 1 vaseline, 1 sewing machines, 2 silk and silk goods, 1 spray motors, 2 stamps and stencils, 1 sugar (refined), 2 umbrellas, 2 vacuum cleaners, 2 washing compounds, 1 woodworking and turning, 1 costumier and hairdresser, 1 cotton and wool waste, 1 paper (blue print), 1 stove polish, 1 automobile repairs, 1 bicycles, 2 gas (lighting and heating), 1 inks, 2 photographic materials, 2 stereotyping and electro-typing, 1 artificial limbs, 2 asbestos, 1 babbitt metal, 1 bridges (iron and steel), 1 butter and cheese, 2 corks, 1 fringes, cords and tassels, 1 gas machines, 1 miscellaneous, 2 plumbers’ supplies, 1 typewriter’s supplies, 1 dyes and colors, 1 typefounding, 1 fancy goods, 1 laces and braids, 1 scales, 1 church ornaments, 1 macaroni, 2 prepared flour, 2 statuary, 1 boxes (cigar), 1 corsets and supplies, 2 dies and moulds, 1 jewelry cases, 1 metallic roofing and flooring, 2 patterns, 1 showcases, 1 textile (dyeing and finishing), 1 window blinds and shades, 1 pipe and boiler covering.

[551]

THE MANUFACTURES OF GREATER MONTREAL

| Capital. | Wages. | Production.
| 1910. | 1900. | 1910. | 1900. | 1910. | 1900.
Montreal | $132,475,802 | $57,148,661 | $34,270,835 | $17,810,356 | $166,296,972 | $71,099,750
Laprairie | 112,000 | — | 31,940 | — | 17,500 | —
Longueuil | 75,000 | — | 55,300 | — | 145,750 | —
Maisonneuve | 7,919,080 | 4,147,533 | 4,856,496 | 912,789 | 20,813,774 | 6,008,780
Lachine | 7,496,612 | 3,913,846 | 1,301,545 | 565,432 | 6,295,716 | 2,909,847
Outremont | 187,993 | — | 51,780 | — | 190,506 | —
St. Henri | — | 4,303,362 | — | 1,154,383 | — | 4,139,391
St. Lambert | 191,638 | — | 58,496 | — | 185,119 | —
St. Louis | — | 101,053 | — | 52,988 | — | 200,140
Verdun | 426,051 | — | 102,547 | — | 229,299 | —
Westmount | 1,441,288 | 48,947 | 374,562 | 26,394 | 1,541,802 | 102,500
| —————— | —————— | —————— | —————— | —————— | ——————
Total | $150,325,464 | $69,663,402 | $41,103,501 | $20,522,342 | $195,716,438 | $84,460,408

[552]

FOOTNOTES:

1 See the supplemental chart at the end of this chapter.

2 It is worthy of record that within the past few years there has been also on the part of these great organizations great interest and active concurrence shown in the civic betterment and good government schemes as well as in general humanitarian movements for the common good.

[553]

### CHAPTER XXXVII

FINANCE

MONTREAL BANKING AND INSURANCE BODIES

I. BANKING: HAMILTON’S PLAN FOLLOWED BY THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1791—1792, THE ATTEMPTED CANADA BANKING COMPANY AT MONTREAL—DELAY THROUGH AMERICAN WAR OF 1812—1815, RENEWED AGITATION FOR A BANK CHARTER FOR MONTREAL—1817, THE FIRST BANK OF MONTREAL WITHOUT A CHARTER—ITS FIRST OFFICERS—OTHER BANKS FOLLOW—THE QUEBEC BANK—THE RIVAL “BANK OF CANADA”—THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA—MOLSONS BANK—THE MERCHANTS BANK—BANQUE JACQUES CARTIER, PREDECESSOR TO BANQUE PROVINCIALE—THE ROYAL BANK—THE BANQUE D’HOCHELAGA—THE MONTREAL CITY AND DISTRICT BANK—BANKS WITH HEAD OFFICES ELSEWHERE—MONTREAL BANK CLEARINGS WITH CANADIAN AND NORTH AMERICAN CITIES.

II. INSURANCE: THE PIONEER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA—THE “PHOENIX”—THE “AETNA”—IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES—THE GREAT FIRE OF 1854—LATER COMPANIES. A. LIFE INSURANCE: THE PIONEER COMPANIES—THE SCOTTISH AMICABLE AND SCOTTISH PROVIDENT COMPANIES. B. MISCELLANEOUS INSURANCE.

I. BANKING

THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BANKS OF MONTREAL 1

As Montreal has been for many years the financial center of the country, a considerable part of Canada’s banking history is contained in the story of the formation and growth of the city’s representative banks.

It is well known that there was no joint stock bank existent in British North America one hundred years ago.

The first attempt was not made in Canada until 1792 when, after the conclusion of the Revolutionary war, Montreal’s commercial importance was increased through the settlement of the United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada.

Until the Loyalists came, there were only a few scattered military posts in Upper Canada. The new settlers began to clear the land and grow crops. Then, as now, the greater part of the produce exported by the provinces was sent to[554] England; and the greater part of the imports came from the American colonies. The imports came by the Lake Champlain routes. So Montreal handled the inceased exports and imports caused by the settling of the Western province.

In connection with this trade, and with the other business of the city, banking operations were required. These were transacted by the English merchants. They took money on deposit, made advances, and issued due bills which served as currency.

All the writers dealing with this period of Montreal’s history lay much stress on the troubles caused by the lack of circulating medium. It should be remembered that the habitants in Lower Canada had suffered great losses from the issues of paper money during the French régime. Their experience with this paper money caused them to hoard gold and silver and to distrust paper promises to pay. Their attitude towards the first bank notes is said to have had a considerable influence in making the banks hold strong reserves against issues of notes. The currency of the country then consisted largely of French, Spanish and Portuguese gold coins.

In his “Early History of Canadian Banking,” Professor Shortt has shown that banking in Canada represented the development of ideas emanating from Alexander Hamilton, the great American statesman. In 1791 the first Bank of the United States was formed, on a plan constructed by Hamilton. This bank performed very valuable services for the young Republic; and it contributed most importantly to the development of industry and trade. But it was a private concern; and in its work of caring for the business of the country, it committed the crime of earning satisfactory profits for its proprietors. Even in that early day “the people” exhibited a strong propensity for putting out of business any public corporation which had the temerity to earn good profits in serving them. In the case of the Bank of the United States, its end was probably hastened by the fact that the greater part of its capital stock had been purchased by investors in England. At any rate, in 1811, after twenty years of operation, its affairs were liquidated.

In 1792, the year after the Bank of the United States was formed, an attempt was made to launch the “Canada Banking Company,” which was to receive deposits, issue notes, discount bills and keep cash accounts with customers. Professor Shortt says the idea of the bank is supposed to have been originated and worked up by Montreal merchants. The official notice in the Quebec Gazette is signed by Phyn, Ellice & Inglis, a London firm, and by Todd, McGill & Company, and Forsyth, Richardson & Company—Montreal merchants, who were customers of the London firm. The Canada Banking Company was to have its head office in Montreal and branches at Quebec and other places. The two Montreal firms here referred to had a large share of the trade with the Upper Canada settlers.

This scheme fell through. Mr. James Stevenson says in his work that the promoters succeeded in forming a private bank of deposit; and in Sir Edmund Walker’s book it is stated that the company did issue notes, but they doubtless had a very limited use.

Upon the failure of this project, the Montreal merchants proceeded to develop and extend the business of private banking carried on by them in connection with wholesale trade. They gave credit for supplies, issued due bills, accepted orders drawn by one party on another, etc.

[555]

In 1808, while the first Bank of the United States was still in active business, steps were taken to organize the “Canada Bank.” A bill was introduced in the Legislature providing for a capital of £250,000 currency ($1,000,000), the shares being of the denomination of £25 currency ($100). This bank was promoted by a combination of citizens of Montreal and Quebec. It was to have twenty-four directors, twelve from Montreal and twelve from Quebec. Although the Legislature rejected this bill, it was printed at the time of introduction. Professor Shortt states that he had the opportunity of examining it and comparing it with the charter of the Bank of the United States.

“Allowing,” he says, “for the necessary changes required to adapt the American charter to Canadian conditions, the bill reproduces in a very literal manner every essential feature of the American Act.” The bank provided for in the bill was naturally on a smaller scale than that of the United States. Then he gives in parallel columns the full number of articles, sixteen in each case, applying to the Canadian bank and the American bank. On perusing them it is quite easy to see that the idea or plan was taken bodily from the United States and changed only so much as to make it applicable to Canada’s position.

This new banking scheme formed the subject of much discussion, in the Legislature and outside of it, for several years. The big merchants of Montreal and Quebec had not abandoned their plan, and were no doubt working for its accomplishment when in 1812 war broke out between the United States and Great Britain. The war served to put an end for the time to the projects for a new bank. The various writers dealing with this stage of Canada’s history appear to agree in their statements that the maintenance of considerable bodies of British troops in Canada served to make business prosperous for the producers and merchants. The troops consumed large quantities of produce, which was purchased by the Home Government at famine prices. Consequently, exports of produce tended to decline. One authority says that about the only exports passing down the St. Lawrence at this time were bills of exchange.

During the war the currency troubles were largely removed, too, through the issue of the army bills. These bills were issued at first in denominations of $25 and upwards bearing interest and in the denomination of $4 not bearing interest. Afterwards bills of the denominations of one, two, three, five, eight, ten, twelve, sixteen and twenty dollars were added to the non-interest bearing issues. The large interest-bearing bills could be converted into small bills not bearing interest; and the small bills could be converted into large bills subject to interest. The rate of interest was 4 pence per £100 per day. Bills were redeemed at the option of the commander in cash or bills on London at thirty days’ sight at the current rate of exchange.

While these army bills were in circulation there was plenty of currency available for carrying on the country’s business. The total outstanding on March 27th, 1815, was £1,249,996. After the close of the war, the issues were rapidly redeemed. A year later, in April, the outstandings had been reduced to £197,974. At the end of 1820, all bills had been retired. Their cancellation brought back the currency troubles in an aggravated form; and the merchants and citizens redoubled their efforts to secure authorization of a bank which would transact, deposit exchange, and discount business, and issue notes to serve as circulating medium.

[556]

Even before the army bills were withdrawn and cancelled, the agitation for a bank was renewed. Early in 1815 a motion was introduced in the Lower Canada Legislature to resolve the House into a committee of the whole to consider the establishment of a bank. This came to nothing. At the next session sundry Montreal merchants petitioned for incorporation as a bank. The dissolution of the House on 28th February, 1816, put an end to the bill which was framed to give effect to this plan. It was put in again when the new House assembled; but before it could be passed the House was prorogued. Then, to quote Professor Shortt, “The merchants of Montreal, who had been chiefly interested in the attempts to get a bank charter, feeling, no doubt, that the sympathy of the business community was with them, and that it would be a pity to lose another year with no more certainty of success, * * * decided to start the bank without a charter. Accordingly, on May 19, 1817, the articles of association of the Montreal Bank were adopted, and the corporation proceeded to organize.”

The founders of the bank had their articles of association published in The Montreal Herald, May 22, 1817. Our authority states that he was not able to discover any copy of The Herald for that date. But he found that the Quebec Gazette, exactly one week later, on May 29th, copied from The Herald an editorial item commenting on the new enterprise thus:

“In the first page of this paper the articles of the Montreal Bank Association are laid before the public. Such an establishment has always been a favorite with this journal, and we cannot but congratulate the community on the prospect of a wonderful change for the better in the agricultural and mercantile pursuits of this province. The articles of this most laudable association, so far as we are enabled to judge from practical experience in our younger years, and from much reading, are drawn up with great judgment and wisdom, and seem extremely well calculated for our local position. We forbear making any remarks on the subject for the present, further than that we wish the establishment the utmost success in all its bearings.”

These original articles of the Montreal Bank, according to evidence collected by Professor Shortt, were without doubt adapted from the proposed charter for the Canada Bank, drawn up in 1808; and as we have already seen, the articles of the Canada Bank were almost literally copied from the charter of the first Bank of the United States. Just a few months before the Montreal Bank articles were signed—in January, 1817—the second Bank of the United States was organized. If more evidence is required to demonstrate that our banking system was originally founded on the United States model as then existing, it is supplied in the statement that one of the officers of the newly created Montreal Bank was sent to New York to study the methods of the American institution, and that one of the first officers of the Montreal Bank was an American experienced in United States banking.

The names of the first officers are given as follows: President, John Gray; cashier, Robert Griffin; accountant, H. Dupuy; first teller, Mr. Stone.

The directors, appointed the first year after organization, were: John Gray, George Garden, John Forsyth, Horatio Gates, James Leslie, George Moffat, F. W. Ermatinger, David David, Austin Cuvillier, John McTavish, George Platt, Hiram Nichols, and Charles Bancroft.

The Montreal bank directors and officials continued to press for incorporation.[557] They did not, however, finally secure it until May 18, 1822, when the Royal assent was given to the bill passed by the Legislature for the purpose.

The following resumé of its history may be given:

The Bank of Montreal opened for business on Monday, 3rd November, 1817, in premises in a building belonging to the Armour estate, situated on St. Paul Street, between St. Nicholas and St. Francois Xavier streets, with a paid-up capital of $350,000.

In the year 1819 the capital was increased to $650,000, and in the following year to $750,000. In 1829 the capital was $850,000; in 1841, $2,000,000; in 1845, $3,000,000; in 1855, $4,000,000; in 1860, $6,000,000; in 1873, $12,000,000; in 1903, $14,000,000; in 1905, $14,400,000; in 1912, $16,000,000.

In the first full year (1819) of the bank’s operation, a dividend was paid at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, and since then (with the exception of the years 1827 and 1828, when the bank did not pay any dividend), the annual dividends have ranged from six per cent to sixteen per cent (or say, a dividend of 12 per cent, with a bonus of 4 per cent), according to the earnings. But of late years 10 per cent per annum has been the rate paid, with a bonus of 1 per cent in April, 1912.

After 8 per cent had been paid as dividend in 1819, a balance of $4,168 remained on hand, and was laid aside as a rest. From that date of small beginnings the rest has steadily grown. In 1825 it was $30,780, going down to $12,064 in the following year, and then up again to $107,084 two years later; in 1830 it stood at $31,360. Five years later it stood at $80,660, reaching $197,828 in 1837; in 1840 it showed $89,480; in 1850, $120,192; in 1860, $740,000; in 1870, $3,000,000; in 1880, $5,000,000; in 1883, $5,750,000; in 1884, $6,000,000; in 1900, $7,000,000; in 1908 $12,000,000; and now it stands at $16,000,000, and there are additional undivided profits amounting to $696,463.27.

In 1903 the Bank of Montreal purchased the assets and business of the Exchange Bank of Yarmouth. In 1905 it acquired the People’s Bank of Halifax, in the same way, and in 1907 the People’s Bank of New Brunswick at Fredericton was also acquired in this way by the Bank of Montreal.

In 1906 the Ontario Bank having intimated that it was in difficulties and would have to suspend, the Bank of Montreal assumed all its liabilities, and it was subsequently liquidated without loss.

In 1863 the Bank of Montreal was appointed Banker in Canada for the Canadian Government, and on 1st January, 1893, Mr. E.S. Clouston being general manager at the time, the bank became their financial agent in Great Britain, also.

On 4th December, 1911, Sir Edward Clouston resigned the position of general manager and was succeeded by Mr. H.V. Meredith.

Other banks followed the establishment of the Montreal Bank.

Next year, 1818, a company of Quebec merchants organized the Quebec Bank. On March 17th the articles were ratified and on the 18th the books were opened for subscriptions to the stock. On September 16, 1822, the Royal assent was given to the bill incorporating this second bank. Less than two months after the Quebec Bank’s articles were signed a company of “speculative Americans attracted to Canada by the prosperity of the war period,” entered into articles of association under the name of Bank of Canada. This bank was formed in Montreal to compete with the Montreal Bank. It started with a capital of £300,000 as against[558] the Montreal Bank’s capital of £250,000 and the Quebec Bank’s capital of £150,000. Royal assent was given to its bill of incorporation on September 16, 1822, the same day as the Quebec Bank’s bill was signed.

The charters of these two banks followed the lines of the charter of the Montreal Bank. The Bank of Canada passed out of existence in a few years.

These were the first three chartered banks to be started in British North America. Upper Canada was not far behind in the matter of organizing a bank. The Bank of Upper Canada got its charter in 1821. In 1820, the Bank of New Brunswick was incorporated; in 1825 the Halifax Banking Company started as a private bank; in 1832 the Bank of Nova Scotia was chartered. Soon several other banks were started in Upper and Lower Canada and in the Maritime Provinces.2

In 1837 the banks experienced very stormy weather. There was a great panic in the United States followed by general suspension of specie payments. Also business in Canada was completely disorganized by the rebellion. In May, 1837, the Lower Canada banks suspended specie payments. In the Upper Province the banks continued to meet their liabilities in specie until March of the next year. Specie payments were resumed in the United States and in Lower Canada in June, 1838; but in November another outbreak in the Lower Province necessitated a second suspension. Finally, payments were resumed in Lower Canada in June, 1839, and in Upper Canada four months later. That represents the last occasion on which the Canadian banks have suspended specie payments. For seventy-three years they have stood up, in fair weather and foul, meeting all demands in specie or its equivalent. The American banks have suspended generally on four or five occasions since 1837.

Of the banks now having head offices in Montreal the Bank of British North America is the next to appear on the scene. This institution was formed in 1836 by “British capitalists interested in the prosperity and commerce of the North American colonies,” to quote from “The Canadian Banking System,” by R.M. Breckenridge. The nominal capital was £1,000,000 sterling; and £690,000 of the capital paid up and utilized in the business of the bank in America. The connections of the British Bank were in both Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. The bank was obliged to procure legislation from each province or colony. This legislation or authorization was secured in 1837 and 1838.

Doctor Breckenridge mentions that the Nova Scotia Act recites that the bank had introduced into that province the system of cash credits and of allowing interest on deposits, usually known as the Scotch system of banking. As it was difficult to operate the bank under authority of so many different provincial statutes, the directors secured a Royal Charter in 1840. In granting it, the British Government stipulated that the capital of £1,000,000 should be fully paid up and that no notes under one pound currency should be issued. This charter also limited the liability of the stockholders to the amount of their subscriptions. The Bank of British North America thus had a wider territorial scope than any of the other banks in Canada. It gradually increased its power and influence; and in 1867, when the Commercial Bank was about to fail, we find that the Bank of Montreal[559] and the British were regarded as the two big, strong banks of the metropolis, able to bolster up the crippled institution if they found it advisable to put forth their strength.

SPECIMENS OF MONTREAL’S BANKS

Bank of Toronto

Canadian Bank of Commerce

Bank of Montreal

Bank of British North America

Molson’s Bank

Eastern Townships Bank

La Banque Nationale

The next bank appearing on the list with head office in Montreal is the Molsons. This charter was granted in 1855. The original capital was £250,000, authorized, of which £50,000 were to be paid in before the bank should begin business; and the whole amount was to be paid up in five years. The author of “The Canadian Banking System” says the Molsons, the Zimmerman Bank, the Niagara District, and the Eastern Townships came into the field “when the tide of sudden and remarkable prosperity which followed the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 was beginning.”

The Molsons was one of the few banks to take advantage of the famous “Act to establish Freedom of Banking,” passed in 1850 by the Legislature of the Province of Canada. Banks taking advantage of this act were required to deposit with the receiver general provincial securities for not less than £25,000 currency, par value, as security for the redemption of their notes. The receiver general would then deliver to the bank an amount of registered notes equal to the amount of debenture lodged. The notes were marked “Secured by provincial securities deposited with the Receiver General.” This represented an attempt to introduce to this country the system of bond secured currency which had then been taken up in the United States. The Canadian Government’s action in this matter was prompted in part by the desire to improve the market for its issues of debentures. At that time the Government resorted to various devices for converting the resources of the banks to its own uses.

The Bank of British North America also took advantage of the provisions of the Free Banking Act as regards note issue. It is understood that the British did so in order to obtain the right to issue small notes.

The charter of the Merchants Bank of Canada was obtained in 1861; and it began on 9th May, 1864, with a capital of $100,000, Hugh Allan being the founder and first president. This bank operated as a local Montreal institution for the first four years, and in 1868 it expanded into an important branch bank through acquiring the estate of the Commercial Bank, which failed in 1867, the failure following closely after the closing of the Bank of Upper Canada. The bank thereby acquired a valuable connection in Ontario and placed itself in position to develop with the growth of that great province.

It is interesting to note that between 1867 and 1873 there was strong competition in the matter of increasing paid-up capital among the larger banks. The Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Bank of Commerce (which had recently been organized in Toronto) and the Merchants were particularly active in calling up new stock.

The bank return for 30th June, 1867, at Confederation, showed twenty-eight banks in existence with total assets of $80,772,834. And at the end of June, 1873, there were thirty-three banks, with assets of $168,519,746.

Among the existing at present Montreal institutions the Banque Provinciale ranks next to the Merchants in point of age, taking into account the fact that it is the successor to Banque Jacques Cartier. The Jacques Cartier was chartered in 1861, the same year as the Merchants.

Then comes the Royal Bank—its head office in Montreal—qualifying it for[560] recognition as a Montreal institution. The great business now controlled by the Royal Bank of Canada had its beginning in Halifax in 1864. According to the “Historical Sketch” of this bank, by J. Castell Hopkins, a co-partnership institution called the Merchants Bank was established that year with J.W. Merkel as president and George Maclean as cashier. In 1869 it was transformed into a joint stock institution, and received a charter under the name Merchants Bank of Halifax. The capital was $300,000, the reserve fund $20,000, and total assets $729,163. In 1887 the bank opened a branch in Montreal, Mr. Edson L. Pease as manager. Since then the bank’s business in this city has rapidly increased. In 1901 the bank’s name was changed to Royal Bank of Canada, as the business had assumed nation-wide proportions. And on March 2, 1907, the head office was transferred from Halifax to Montreal. Mr. Pease had assumed the general management in 1900, and the establishment of the general manager’s office in Montreal dates from that year.

La Banque d’Hochelaga was organized by French-Canadian capitalists, and received its charter in 1873.

The story of Montreal’s banking institutions would be incomplete without a reference to the Montreal City and District Savings Bank. Although it does not belong to the list of chartered banks, the City and District, in the sixty-eight years of its existence, has taken a prominent and very useful part in the financial life of the metropolitan city. It now has fourteen branches in Greater Montreal; and its total resources are well above the thirty million dollar mark.

Also it should be remembered that various other banks, having head offices in other cities, have taken a very important part in the work of developing Montreal on the financial side. This is shown by the record of branch offices operated in the city. According to Houston’s Bank Directory for December, 1914, the banks with head offices in Montreal, and other banks, had branch offices in the city as follows:

BANKS WITH HEAD OFFICES IN MONTREAL

| Offices.
Banque d’Hochelaga (1874) | 28
Bank of Montreal (1817) | 17
Royal Bank of Canada (1869) | 21
Molsons Bank (1855) | 10
Montreal City and District (1846) | 15
La Banque Provinciale (1900) | 12
Merchants Bank of Canada (1864) | 8
Bank of British North America (1836) | 3
| —
Total | 114

BANKS WITH HEAD OFFICES ELSEWHERE

| Offices.
Standard (1873) | 1
Bank of Toronto (1855) | 8[561]
Canadian Bank of Commerce | 7
Dominion Bank | 4
Quebec Bank (1818) | 5
Bank of Ottawa | 2
Imperial Bank of Canada | 2
Union Bank of Canada (1865) | 5
Banque Nationale (1860) | 1
Bank of Nova Scotia | 3
Sterling Bank of Canada | 1
Home Bank | 6
| —
Total | 45

The Bank of New Brunswick, established in 1820, the oldest of the list, existed until 1913 when it was merged with the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Canadian Bank of Commerce is the most important, the total of its resources having risen to an equality with the resources of the Bank of Montreal, and the number of its branches being considerably greater than the number of Bank of Montreal branches. The Commerce was incorporated originally as the Bank of Canada in 1858. From the beginning of Canadian banking, until a comparatively recent period, the Bank of Montreal occupied a dominating position in regard to the other banks. At Confederation the Bank of Montreal had roundly one-fourth of the total capital of the banks, and more than one-fourth of the total assets.

GROWTH THROUGH ABSORPTION

Largely by means of amalgamations, the Commerce and the Royal have improved their positions relative to the Bank of Montreal. The growth of these two banks has been phenomenal. Thus, taking the Commerce, the total assets in 1870 were $7,844,681; in 1880 they were $21,435,711; in 1890, $22,596,520; in 1900, $42,822,799; and in 1912 (September 30th), $242,172,114. Since the beginning of the twentieth century the resources have increased nearly six fold. In that period it has absorbed the Bank of British Columbia, the Halifax Banking Company, the Merchants Bank of Prince Edward Island, and the Eastern Townships Bank.

The Royal Bank’s phenomenal growth also dates from the end of the nineteenth century. As late as 1898 its total assets were but $12,681,664; in 1910 they were $92,510,346; and in 1912 (September 30th), they amount to $172,908,661. In the list of banks absorbed by the Royal are Banco de Oriente, Santiago, Cuba; Banco del Comercio, Havana, Union Bank of Halifax, and Traders Bank of Canada.

The Bank of Montreal, too, has absorbed several other banks; but it can be said that it has not augmented its resources in that manner to such an extent as its rivals have. In recent years its absorptions began with the taking over of the Exchange Bank of Yarmouth in 1903. Afterwards the People’s Bank of Halifax and the People’s Bank of New Brunswick were absorbed on successive occasions. And, of course, the Bank of Montreal acquired a considerable portion of the[562] Ontario Bank’s business through its action in assuming the liabilities of that institution.

In order to show the recent progress of the Canadian banking institutions now in existence, the following table is given, comparing them in respect of total assets as at September 30, 1912,3 and December 31, 1890. The banks are given in order according to amount of paid-up capital as at the end of 1890:

Bank. | December 31, 1890. | September 30, 1912.
Montreal | $ 47,978,000 | $ 240,503,000
Commerce | 23,061,000 | 242,172,000
Merchants | 21,664,000 | 83,805,000
British | 14,285,000 | 67,528,000
Quebec | 9,030,000 | 21,343,000
Toronto | 12,188,000 | 57,643,000
Molsons | 12,186,000 | 52,958,000
Imperial | 10,055,000 | 78,110,000
Dominion | 12,407,000 | 73,607,000
Nova Scotia | 8,911,000 | 66,982,000
Ottawa | 5,534,000 | 50,310,000
Hamilton | 6,719,000 | 47,695,000
Nationale | 3,997,000 | 24,158,000
Union | 6,419,000 | 66,985,000
AMerchants (Halifax) | 5,849,000 | 172,908,000
Standard | 6,052,000 | 39,758,000
Hochelaga | 2,975,000 | 29,475,000
New Brunswick | 3,070,000 | 12,676,000
BJacques Cartier | 2,841,000 | 12,115,000
| —————— | ———————
| $215,221,000 | $1,440,731,000
ANow Royal Bank of Canada. BNow Banque of Provinciale.

This table shows at a glance the wonderful progress made by the banking institutions of the country. Although Montreal can claim only about one-third of these institutions as her own, in the sense that they have head office in Montreal, yet it is the case that the financial development of the city has been promoted by the growth of practically all of the banks.

Probably there is no other country in the world able to show such a record of advancement. In the case of eighteen banks with resources in 1890 of $215,221,000, the increase has amounted to $1,225,000,000, or nearly six hundred per cent, in less than twenty-two years. Counting in the new banks it can be said that the resources at present are seven times the resources possessed in 1890 by the eighteen banks appearing in the first list.

[563]

BANK CLEARINGS

The statistics of bank clearings at the principal centers also serve to illustrate the financial growth of Montreal and of Canada. In 1892 there were clearing houses in operation at four cities—Montreal, Toronto, Halifax and Hamilton. The total of exchanges for each city in the year ending August, 1893, was: Montreal, $602,180,723; Toronto (exclusive of the Bank of Toronto), $326,009,971; Halifax, $59,835,278; and Hamilton, $38,871,401. The grand total was therefore $1,026,897,373. Montreal thus had about sixty per cent of the total.

The following table shows how the clearing system of the city and of the country has developed:

| Year Ending
Clearings. | May, 1902. | December, 1911.
Montreal | $ 982,455,000 | $2,370,487,000
Toronto | 710,860,000 | 1,852,397,000
Winnipeg | 155,506,000 | 1,170,763,000
Vancouver | 49,675,000 | 543,484,000
Calgary |  | 218,681,000
Ottawa |  | 213,932,000
Victoria | 29,071,000 | 134,929,000
Quebec |  | 133,319,000
Hamilton | 43,388,000 | 125,251,000
Edmonton |  | 121,447,000
Halifax | 91,545,000 | 88,194,000
St. John | 40,734,000 | 77,328,000
Regina |  | 73,032,000
London |  | 71,534,000
Saskatoon |  | 56,757,000
Brandon |  | 29,430,000
Lethbridge |  | 28,818,000
Brantford |  | 27,806,000
| ——————— | ———————
| $2,103,234,000 | $7,337,615,000

In 1902 Montreal’s average daily clearing was about $3,270,000; and in 1911 it was $7,900,000.

The outstanding feature of this exhibit is the progress of the great cities of the West. In ratio of increase the Western cities far surpass the Eastern cities. Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton are rushing to the front. Of course, the growth of the clearings of these secondary centers serves to swell the clearings at Montreal and Toronto. Ultimate settlement of differences or balances at the smaller places is made by putting through drafts on the greater centers.

Montreal stands well up in the list of North American cities in the matter of bank clearings, her position being from seventh to ninth. But, when the clearings of a Canadian city are compared with the clearings of a United States city, it should be remembered that the existence of the branch system in Canada has a[564] tendency, in some respects, to make our figures appear less. For example, the cheques and items drawn on or payable at the Bank of Montreal, Montreal, which the other branches of the Bank of Montreal receive each day, do not figure in the daily clearings. Each institution clears within itself every day a very large aggregate of transactions.

The banks of Canada originating from Montreal now have an international reputation. The greatest financial institutions and the most famous financiers of Europe and America regard our leading banks as worthy of their respect. Our banks have established their branches in the United States, Mexico, the West Indies, Newfoundland, and in England and France; and they do useful work in all those countries.

II. INSURANCE

A. FIRE

The Phœnix Fire Company, established in Montreal in 1804, was not only the first insurance company in Canada, but it was the first insurance corporation to leave England in search of business. It was founded by a company of merchants to insure their sugar warehouses, and being an innovation, most business houses in England up till then having been composed of partnerships, it was severely frowned upon by the “experts.” Seeing that many British firms were desirous of insuring their Canadian property it decided to establish its office here the better to be able to handle such policies. It soon found that there was a good field for its activities outside of English owned buildings and its Canadian office was a flourishing adjunct by the time 1811 was reached. It was destined to have the field all to itself until 1818, either because it had firmly entrenched itself during this time or because Montreal and Canada in those days offered a very unattractive sphere from an insurance point of view. The Phœnix in those early days won for itself a splendid reputation and grew to be recognized in the light of a bounteous institution by the people of Eastern Canada, and today it successfully holds its own against its younger rivals in the city, while in the country districts, where tradition probably counts for more, it is a household word and people insure with it for the not inadequate reason that their fathers and grandfathers did. The Phœnix Company not only introduced fire insurance to the rank and file among our Canadian people, but it encouraged the formation of fire fighting forces, itself donating engines, the city of Montreal being a recipient of one of these machines, which put it in possession of probably the first piece of fire fighting apparatus it ever owned.

In 1818 the Phœnix monopoly in Canada was challenged at Quebec by the Quebec Fire Insurance Company, which was established in that year in the Ancient Capital, its formation being the first practical effort on the part of Canadians to get a share of the lucrative business which must have been obtainable at that time for a corporation operating “on the ground floor” as it were. The second insurance office to be established in Montreal itself was the result of the enterprise of the Ætna Fire Insurance Company, a concern which had been constituted in Hartford, Connecticut, that birthplace of so many great fire and life institutions, in 1819.

[565]

These three companies seem to have practically parcelled up the business of Eastern Canada among themselves until the ’50s, their only rivals being several local mutual associations, brought into existence probably by Montrealers anxious to secure some of the wealth that was pouring into the coffers of the Phœnix, Quebec, and Ætna, but which were doomed shortly to meet a disastrous fate. In Upper Canada the British America, a Canadian enterprise, and a branch of the Hartford, had begun operations, the former in 1833 and the latter in 1836.

The epochal decades of the ’50s and ’60s saw a tremendous impetus given to the fire insurance business in Montreal, seven great companies commencing careers which have continued with uninterrupted success till the present day. In 1851 the Royal, the famous English Company, established itself here, as did the Liverpool and London and Globe, another great British corporation, while the Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the City of Montreal was inaugurated in 1859. This last-named concern changed its title to the Montreal Canada Insurance Company in 1904 and took out a Dominion license, having operated under its Lower Canada charter until that date.

In 1854 came a tremendous test for all the companies doing business here—the big fire which practically wiped out the whole of the east end of the city. The mutual fire associations, which had been eking out a more or less haphazard existence, were unable to meet the claims made upon them as a result of this fire and consequently died ingloriously, much to the advantage of the Phœnix and the Ætna, which settled every claim promptly, and liberally. The Royal, and the Liverpool and London and Globe were also called upon to pay a share of the losses of this great conflagration, which they did at once, though of course, their liability was very small compared to that of the older established companies.

The growth of Montreal’s trade and the increase of her population during the next decade are reflected in the eagerness with which British houses, which had hitherto done their Canadian business from home, decided to operate from this end. In 1862 the North British and Mercantile Company and the London Assurance opened head offices for Canada here, to be followed in 1863 by the Commercial Union, in 1867 by the Northern Assurance, and in 1868 by the Guardian.

The coterie of fire insurance companies then in existence seems to have been capable of absorbing all the new business that could be written quite easily because for fourteen years no other concern thought it advisable to enter the Canadian field. It was in 1882 that the next office was to be inaugurated, that of the Scottish Union and National, the Caledonian opening up here in 1883, while in 1886 another Canadian enterprise, the Manitoba Assurance, was founded here, its policies being guaranteed by the Liverpool and London and Globe.

After this the colony of insurance headquarters here was swollen at regular and short intervals as will be seen from the following list of newcomers between 1886 and 1911 (the nationality of the companies being given in parentheses):

Atlas (British), 1887; Insurance Company of America (United States), 1889; Phœnix of Hartford (United States), 1890; Queen (United States), 1891; Alliance (British), 1892; Law Union and Rock (British), 1899; Ottawa Assurance (Canadian), 1899; Home (United States), 1902; German American (United States), 1904; St. Paul Fire and Marine (United States), 1907; Yorkshire[566] (British), 1907; Provincial (British), 1910; Royal Exchange (British), 1910; Continental Life (United States), 1910; Underwriters at American Lloyds (United States), 1910; and Union of Paris (French), 1911. Since 1912 three or four small fire companies have retired, but to offset this, others, to the number of six or eight, have entered the field.

A statistical table prepared in 1912 to show Montreal’s predominant position in fire insurance underwriting in the Dominion and its long lead on Toronto, which is the second city in Canada in this connection, follows:

| Gross Premiums. | Losses. | Income. | Expenses.
Montreal Companies | $14,335,000 | $6,000,000 | $14,657,000 | $11,594,000
All Canada | 26,867,000 | 3,912,000 | 9,333,000 | 6,596,000
Toronto Companies | 7,767,000 | 10,936,000 | 26,699,000 | 21,833,000

| Ins. in force. | Assets. | Cap. paid-up.
Montreal Companies | $1,360,720,000 | $20,213,000 | $53,363,000
Toronto Companies | 717,000,000 | 5,985,000 | 15,140,000
All Canada | 2,279,688,000 | 38,000,000 | 72,427,000

B. LIFE

The development of the life insurance business of Canada began in 1846 by the establishment in Montreal of offices by the Scottish Amicable and Scottish Provident Companies. After doing a fine business these two corporations relinquished their right to do new business in the year 1878. In the meantime, in 1847, the Standard Life Assurance Company, a Scottish institution, had entered the Canadian field, operating from a head office in this city, the Royal and Liverpool and London and Globe inaugurating life departments at the same time as they began to write fire insurance from their Montreal office in 1851. In 1857 the ranks of life companies here were augmented by the appearance on the scene of the Life Association of Scotland, though this concern has written no new business since 1878.

The period between 1860 and 1911 is punctuated at intervals with the advent of new life corporations in Canada, Montreal being selected as headquarters for most of them. In 1862 came the North British and Mercantile, and a year later the Commercial Union and London and Lancashire Life.

Eighteen sixty-five may be considered as a banner year for purely Canadian life insurance underwriting, for the Sun Life, that splendid monument to the genius of a number of Montreal men, was founded in this year. The same year witnessed the arrival of the Hartford Company of Connecticut in this city, this concern being followed the next year by the Ætna and Phœnix Mutual Life companies, and in 1868 by the Connecticut, these three last-named corporations also having their headquarters in Hartford. The Phœnix Mutual and Connecticut relinquished their licenses as far as new business was concerned in 1878.

The Equitable, having its head office in New York City, and the Union Mutual of Portland, Maine, also broke ice here in 1868, the North Western Mutual of Milwaukee coming in 1871 and deciding to do more new business in 1878. In[567] 1887 the Germania of New York State, and the New York Life were attracted to Canada and to Montreal.

After this there was a lull in the formation of new businesses until 1907, when the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Canada was constituted, this company afterwards changing its title and selecting that of the Security Life. In 1908 the Prudential Life of the United States began to cater for Canadian business from headquarters here and in branches elsewhere.

The Phœnix, the doyen of fire insurance companies in Canada, decided to branch out into life, and launched a department to deal with this phase of underwriting in 1910. In this year the Travellers, a strong Canadian enterprise, was formed. Several others not mentioned also intervened.

Since the above there has been no retirements in life insurance, but four or five new companies have been added.

The following table indicates that Montreal holds the lead in life insurance activity in the Dominion in the same way that it does in the sister sphere of fire:

| Gross Premiums. | Paid Losses. | Total Income. | Expenses.
Montreal Companies | $15,858,000 | $6,793,000 | $21,789,000 | $13,240,000
Toronto Companies | 14,435,000 | 4,900,000 | 18,414,000 | 7,791,000
All Canada | 40,608,000 | 19,194,128 | 53,911,619 | 40,607,303

| Ins. in force. | Assets. | Cap. paid-up.
Montreal Companies | $344,573,798 | $116,027,692 | $18,551,510
Toronto Companies | 292,366,595 | 76,829,479 | 4,308,024
All Canada | 950,220,771 | 265,214,984 | 26,540,323

MISCELLANEOUS INSURANCE

To the Guarantee Company of North America, a Montreal concern, founded by local men and backed by Montreal capital, goes the palm for being the pioneer among guarantee institution in Canada. This company, whose standing is second to none in the world, was brought into being in 1851.

In 1911 the contribution of Montreal to the insurance activity of the Dominion was as follows:

- Fire, 30 companies.
- Life, 26 companies.
- Miscellaneous, 16 companies.

For the sake of comparison, the figures for the same divisions of insurance activity in Toronto, which comes second to Montreal in Canadian business, are given. They follow:

- Fire, 17 companies.
- Life, 17 companies.
- Miscellaneous, 21 companies.

[568]

In the whole of the Dominion the totals for these sections in 1911 were as follows:

- Fire, 62 companies.
- Life, 49 companies.
- Miscellaneous, 51 companies.

Six Montreal and three Toronto life companies no longer take new business.

As against the one small branch office of the Phœnix in 1804, in 1911 Montreal could boast of possessing 141 offices devoted exclusively to the handling of insurance in one form or another, and eighty-three agents. No reliable and exact estimate of the actual number of people who are employed here by insurance firms and companies is obtainable, but it is safe to put it up in the thousands.

In fire insurance Montreal has been made the headquarters of many of those great British corporations who occupy an impregnable position in the world in fire underwriting, a number of American companies also handling their Canadian connection from this point. Several enterprises with a Canadian backing also operate from here, while every fire insurance concern in the Dominion of any importance is represented in Montreal by agents of influence or by special managers and staffs.

Canada has very largely assumed control of its own life insurance business, and Montreal financiers have always been to the front in developing this phase of underwriting. Those British and American corporations which have selected this city as a starting point for their Canadian ventures are among the most powerful in the world, and have materially assisted in placing Montreal in the first place among Canadian cities in the business done in life insurance.

Montreal can also show that it has always lead in that section of insurance enterprise covered by the term “miscellaneous” and which includes the writing of policies on automobiles, accidents, employer’s liability, plate glass, steam boilers, burglary, sickness, inland transit, sprinkler leakage, titles, live stock, hail, weather and tornado, etc.

To-day the bulked insurance business of Montreal institutions is probably the greatest of any one city in the world by reason of the fact that most of those influential enterprises which are split up and divided among a number of cities in Great Britain and the United States have concentrated their head offices for Canada in this city.

It is safe to say that next to the great banking and railway business done by local institutions more money is handled by the insurance companies than by any other group of enterprises.

FOOTNOTES:

1 An article by H.M.P. Eckhardt has been mainly used in this chapter.—Ed.

2 One of these, the Banque du Peuple, established on July 11, 1835, has since lapsed.

3 The statistics in the accompanying pages do not go, for the most part beyond 1912. They will suffice for comparative purposes. The rates of losses or gains will be found to be comparatively the same till 1914.

[569]

### CHAPTER XXXVIII

TRANSPORTATION

I

SHIPPING—EARLY AND MODERN

BY RIVER AND STREAM

MONTREAL HEAD OF NAVIGATION—LAKE ST. PETER—JACQUES CARTIER’S DIFFICULTIES—THE GRADUAL DEEPENING OF THE CHANNEL—THE LACHINE CANAL IN 1700—ITS FURTHER HISTORY—MONTREAL THE HEAD OF THE CANAL SYSTEM OF CANADA.

From a very early age of improvement in the art of navigation it must have become evident that water carriage was that which presented the cheapest and most easy mode of transporting merchandise from place to place. Accordingly, with some exceptions, such as occur to all rules, we find that great cities have always arisen either upon convenient ports of the sea, or upon large navigable rivers and inland waters.

Such being the case, it is no wonder that the spot on which Montreal now stands was early chosen for the foundation of a commercial city.

It is true that the commerce of Canada in the early days was not such as to employ many hands.

Peltry was for a long period the only traffic to which importance was attached, and the cargoes of a few canoes, rich though they were in value, required little labour for their transfer to the hold of the European merchantman, and the market was managed by a very few agents of the great houses in France.

While furs were the only exports, the bateau was suited to the trade in both directions; but when agricultural exports commenced, grain was first sent down before 1800 on the rafts and in scows or “arks” which were broken up and sold as lumber in Montreal. Merchandise was at that time carted to Lachine, whence the bateaux and Durham boats took their departure (in “brigades” of five or more boats that their united crews might help one another at the rapids) and sailed through Lake St. Louis.

Still, such as the trade was, Montreal presented a most favorable site for carrying it on. Never was a place for shipment and transhipment more plainly indicated by natural laws.

For hence, more or less, navigable water courses spread out like a fan over hundreds of thousands of miles in the interior, and permitted the canoe of the[570] Indian trader to penetrate in all directions, while on the other hand, a broad and safe river led to the great ocean.

When the labours of the voyageur and native hunter gave way before the steady toil of the agricultural settler, the advantages which had first prompted the selection of Montreal were by no means diminished. The articles of export had changed, but those by which they were followed could only reach Europe by water and could be sent only thence by the same means.

The St. Lawrence, however, with all its acknowledged capacity, was not without its drawbacks. Foremost was the long winter which sealed its waters during six months of the year, and next were the dangers of navigation of nearly nine hundred miles to the sea. The first could not be overcome, but the enterprise of the people has, to a great extent, done away with the other.

In years gone by, when, for instance, Jacques Cartier visited the town then upon the site of Montreal, he was compelled by the shallowness of the river to abandon his larger vessel and approach the town by means of his pinnace.

In the year 1805 the Trinity House was established by act of Parliament, with important powers relative to the navigation of the St. Lawrence.

The principal difficulty met with was at Lake St. Peter, over which (prior to 1851) only vessels of 250 tons could pass and come up to the wharves of Montreal. As early as 1831, the attention of the Legislature was directed to the matter. For ten years it was discussed and in 1841 the Board of Works was authorized by act to commence operations. At that time there were only eleven feet at low water on the lake.

Up to 1846, some $400,000 had been expended without important results. In June, 1851, the Harbour Commissioners, under the impulse of Hon. John Young, began dredging, and in November of the same year it was deemed a wonderful advance when the City of Manchester passed down the river, drawing fourteen feet. In 1853 the depth was increased to sixteen feet two inches, and the breadth of the channel to 150 feet. Every year saw improvements made and by 1869 vessels drawing twenty feet could make the passage in safety, while today the channel will permit navigation by vessels drawing thirty feet.

This deepening of the channel accompanied and caused a vast expansion of the shipping of the city, made more important by the establishment of steam navigation. The commerce of Montreal in the future will always be in direct proportion to the future depth of the channel.

LACHINE CANAL

Before the construction of canals the great inland waters were of but little value to commerce, the only means of reaching them being by the bark canoe or bateau of the voyageur.

Many still living recollect how Sir George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, made his annual canoe journeys from Montreal to the Red River country. Having “sung at St. Ann’s their parting hymn,” the flotilla of canoes ascended the Ottawa, breasted the rapids, and after many weary days, by river, lake and portage, reached Lake Huron and the Sault Ste. Marie, thence along the north shore of Lake Superior to Fort William and the Grand Portage and by Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods to Fort Garry.

[571]

With the self-possession of an emperor he was borne through the wilderness, and is said to have made the canoe journey to the Red River forty times.

For his distinguished management of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s affairs and for his services to the trade of Canada, Governor Simpson was knighted. He died in 1860, a man who would have been of mark anywhere.

The Lachine Canal, therefore, is to be closely connected with the history of transportation, seeing that it was the initial stage of the journey from Montreal, northward.

The credit of being the pioneer of the first Lachine Canal is to be given to the Sulpician Dollier de Casson who, in 1700, undertook to deepen the Little St. Pierre River and to make it navigable for canoes through Lake St. Pierre between Montreal and Lachine and thence to open a cut from the lake to a point on the St. Lawrence above the worst part of the rapids.

The engineer was Gédéon de Catalogne between whom and Dollier de Casson a notorial contract was made for the excavation of canal twenty-four arpents (about one mile) in length, twelve feet wide at the surface of the ground and of varying width at the bottom, according to the depth of the cutting.

The water flowing through the canal was to be at least eighteen inches deep at the lowest water in the St. Lawrence.

The work was begun in 1700. It was apparently never fully completed, though it is very likely that the imperfect channel could be used by canoes, for Upper Canada, during the period of high water.

About the year 1780 certain short cuttings with locks available for canoes and bateaux were made at few points on the St. Lawrence where the rapids were wholly impassable.

As early as the 1795-6 session of the Provincial Parliament, a bill was introduced for the construction of a canal and a turnpike to Lachine by the Hon. John Richardson.

In 1804 was completed a channel three feet in depth along the shore line of the Lachine Rapids, connecting with short canals at the Cascades, Split Rock, and Coteau du Lac, which were provided with locks eighty-eight feet long and sixteen feet wide, admitting of the passage of “Durham boats.”

In 1805 the first attempt was made to improve the Lachine rapids. The sum of $4,000 was voted to be expended in removing any obstacles to navigation.

It is scarcely necessary to add that the attempt proved futile. It had, however, the advantage of making perfectly plain that the only means of overcoming these rapids was by the construction of the Lachine canal.

The necessity of such a work, owing to increased intercourse with Upper Canada, was obtaining more general recognition; but some few years were to elapse before definite steps were taken to carry the project into effect.

The proceedings of 1805 are worthy of record, as the first practical attempt at any improvement of the navigation at this spot.

The history of the modern Lachine Canal begins in 1815 when an appropriation of £25,000 was voted for its construction, but no steps were taken until 1819 when a joint stock company was formed with a capital of $600,000. Surveys were made and the design perfected by 1821 when the government took it up as a provincial undertaking.

[572]

The work was commenced July 17, 1821, and was completed in 1825 at a cost of $438,404. The first sod was turned by the Hon. John Richardson.

It had seven locks, each 100 feet long, 20 feet wide and with 4½ feet of water on the sills, but it was inadequate for the wants of the trade as may be gathered from the following notice from the Quebec Gazette of the 3d November, 1831:

“Public notice is hereby given that the undersigned, and others, will apply to the Legislature of this Province as its ensuing session for the privilege to form a Joint Stock Company for the purpose of making a Canal, Locks, and Basins, in such places as they may find necessary for a useful navigation from the Lake of the Two Mountains to the waters of Lachine, and from thence to the foot of the current St. Mary, with a branch to the port of Montreal should they think fit, of dimensions not less than will admit the passage of such vessels as can pass through the locks of the Rideau Canal, and to acquire lands for basins and water privileges as may be wanted by the said Company for the Navigation and the use of the waters thereof.

- Horatio Gates
- Dr. Arnoldi
- Thomas Phillips
- Andrew White
- Peter McGill
- Joseph Masson
- Jules Quesnel
- J. Bouthillier
- Frs. Ant. La Rocque
- Jos. Logan

Montreal, 1 October, 1831.”

The enlargement was not, however, undertaken until 1843.

In 1843-49 it became a “Ship Canal” with five locks, each 200 feet long, 45 feet wide, and nine feet of water, costing $2,149,128.

The enlargement, commenced in 1875, cost $6,500,000 and by this the locks were increased to 270 feet in length and 14 feet depth of water throughout the canal.

The Lachine Canal movement also included that for overcoming the rapids of the Cedars, the Cascades and the Coteau. These were completed in 1871. Since Montreal gave the impulse a canal system has been instituted, so that from Belle Isle at the mouth of the St. Lawrence via Montreal there is a water communication by navigable rivers and great lakes to Port Arthur at the head of Lake Superior, a distance of 2,200 miles, Duluth 2,343, and Chicago 2,272. The number of locks passed from Montreal to Port Arthur is forty-nine.

[573]

II

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONTREAL SHIPPING

A—SAILING VESSELS

BIRCH BARK CANOE—BATEAU—DURHAM BOAT—SHIPBUILDING IN MONTREAL.

B—STEAM VESSELS

JOHN MOLSON’S ACCOMMODATION, 1809—PASSENGER FARES BETWEEN MONTREAL AND QUEBEC—PASSAGE DESCRIBED—THE TORRANCES—INLAND NAVIGATION—THE RICHELIEU AND ONTARIO COMPANY—THE FIRST UPPER DECK STEAMER TO SHOOT THE LACHINE RAPIDS.

C—ATLANTIC LINERS

THE ROYAL WILLIAM FIRST OCEAN STEAMER AND PIONEER OF THE OCEAN LINERS—ITS CONNECTION WITH MONTREAL—MAIL SERVICE TO MONTREAL—THE GENOVA—ARRIVAL IN MONTREAL IN 1853—DINNER TO CAPTAIN PATON—THE CRIMEAN WAR—THE MONTREAL OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY—THE FIRST CANADIAN ATLANTIC SHIP COMPANY—THE ALLAN LINE—EARLY BOATS—MAIL CARRIERS—1861 DISASTERS—SUBSEQUENT SUCCESS—THE PRESENT MONTREAL ALLAN SERVICE—THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY STEAMSHIP LINES—OTHER LINES—THE SHIPPING AND THE WAR OF 1914—THE GREAT ARMADA.

The early navigation apart from the few small sailing vessels that would come up from Quebec was confined in great part to the birch bark canoe, than which nothing yet has been found more successful for primitive transportation. These were supplanted later by the bateau. In 1679 La Salle, whom Montreal may claim as one of its earliest citizens, launched the Griffin above Niagara Falls in which he sailed to Lake Michigan, but previous to 1790 little else but the bateau or open boat was constructed. The bateau which supplemented the birch bark canoe was a large, flat-bottomed skiff, sharp at both ends, about forty feet long and six to eight feet wide in the middle, and capable of carrying about five tons. It was provided with masts and lug sails, with about fifteen feet hoist, an anchor, four oars and six setting-poles shod with iron and a crew of four men and a pilot. With forty barrels of flour on board it drew only twenty inches of water. This was a very safe and adaptable vessel.

The Durham boat, an improvement on the bateau, was introduced by the Americans after the War of 1812. They were flat-bottomed barges with keel and center board and with rounded bows, eighty to ninety feet long and nine to ten feet beam, with a capacity of about ten times that of a bateau down stream, but in consequence of the rapids and want of back freight they brought up on an average only about eight tons.

[574]

A—SAILING VESSELS

The first ships built in Montreal were those constructed by Mr. David Munn, who commenced his operations about the year 1806.

Two or three years later he entered into partnership with Mr. Robert Hunter; the vessels they built were generally from 200 to 350 tons burthen; one, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, was 600 tons.

J. Storrow & Co. built two vessels in 1808 and 1809.

James Dunlop, in the three following years, built several of 330 to 350 tons burthen each.

James E. Campbell, M’Kenzie and Bethune, and James Millar & Co. also built a number of vessels generally of about this same tonnage.

There were built in the Province in 1825, 61 vessels; in 1826, 59 vessels; in 1827, 35 vessels; in 1828, 30 vessels, and in 1831, only 9 vessels.

The Canada Ship Building Company from London began to build in 1828, but finished only two vessels.

In 1829 Shay and Merritt took possession of the yard and that year built the steamboat British America, 170 feet long, 30-foot beam, for John Torrance & Co. as a trader between Montreal and Quebec; in 1830 the steamer John Bull, 182 feet long, 32-foot beam, for John Molson & Co. as a trader between Montreal and Quebec; the same year the steamboat St. George, 160 feet long, 26-foot beam, for John Torrance & Co.; in 1831 the steamboat Canada, 175 feet long, 26-foot beam; also the steamboat Eagle for Mr. James Greenfield, 140 feet long, 24-foot beam, and the steamer Canadian Patriot, 130 feet long, 24-foot beam, for a joint stock company.

In 1833 they built the steamboat Britannia, 130 feet long, 24-foot beam, for John Torrance & Co.; in the same year the Varennes, 140 feet long, 23-foot beam, for Rasco & Co.; also the steamer Montreal, 96 feet long, 18-foot beam, for James Wait.

In 1834 was built the ship Toronto of 345 tons for Captain Collinson, running between this port and London; also the Brilliant and Thalia, each 472 tons, for James Millar & Co., sent home for the Baltic trade.

In 1835 the ship Dougles, 348 tons, was built for Captain Douglas and in 1836 the bark Glasgow, 347 tons, and the bark Thistle, 260 tons, were built for Millar, Edmonstone & Co., and sent home for West India trade.

In 1837, the bark John Knox, 347 tons, and in 1838, the ship Gypsey, 572 tons, for the same company.

The same year—1838—the bark Colburne, 340 tons, and the brig Wetherall, 252 tons, were built for Captain Collinson.

The situation of these shipbuilding yards was very favourable, as the timber was hauled in at once from the St. Lawrence. The length of the yard was 200 feet and all conveniences then known were at hand for facilitating and completing the work in the most perfect manner.

B—STEAM VESSELS

To a citizen of Montreal belongs the honour of launching the second steam vessel which navigated the waters of America, and the first on the river St. Lawrence.

[575]

In 1809 Hon. John Molson launched the Accommodation, a steam vessel of eighty-five feet length.

When eighteen years of age he had come to Montreal in 1782 and there he built the brewery. It was from the river bank at the back of his brewery that he launched his first vessel broadside into the river. The early history of steam navigation should always remember Molson’s name.

The inventor of the application of steam to a marine engine was William Symington who first constructed, in 1788, a vessel on Lake Delawater, Dumfrieshire. In 1801-2 he completed a tow-boat on the Forth and Clyde canal called the Lady Charlotte of Dundas.

Robert Fulton obtained drawings of the machinery and constructed his Clermont, the machinery being made by Boulton & Watts of Birmingham, England. The Clermont navigated the Hudson River in 1807.

John Molson now began to equip his Accommodation, fitting it with engines, also by Boulton & Watts, and launching it in November, 1809. Though it caused him a loss of £3,000 he persevered and his venture was followed by the Swiftsure in 1811; Lady Sherbrooke, the Car of Commerce, and other vessels. These steamboats were a powerful factor during the War of 1812 in forwarding troops and supplies up the St. Lawrence to Montreal. Mr. Molson died in 1836 in his seventy-third year.

The first trip, November 3, 1809, of the Accommodation was thus described by a contemporary writer:

“The Accommodation shot out into the current and after a voyage of some sixty-six hours, of which some thirty hours were spent at anchor in Lake St. Peter, reached Quebec. As might have been expected, this vessel created a great deal of excitement, and the Quebec Mercury chronicles its arrival thus: ‘On Saturday morning at 8 o’clock, arrived here from Montreal the steamboat Accommodation with ten passengers. This is the first vessel of the kind that ever appeared in this harbour.

“‘She is continually crowded with visitants. She left Montreal Wednesday at 2 o’clock, so that her passage was sixty-six hours, thirty of which she was at anchor.

“‘She arrived at Three Rivers in twenty-four hours.

“‘She has at present berths for twenty passengers, which next year will be considerably augmented.

“‘No wind or tide can stop her.

“‘She has seventy-five feet keel and eighty-five feet deck. The price for a passage up is nine dollars and eight down, the vessel supplying provisions.

“‘The real advantage attending a vessel so constructed is that a passage may be calculated on to a degree of certainty in point of time, which cannot be the case with any vessel propelled by sail only.

“‘The steamboat receives her impulse from an open double spoked, perpendicular wheel on each side, without any circular band or rim.

“‘To the end of each double spoke is fixed a square board that enters the water, and a rotary motion of the wheel acts like a paddle.

“‘The wheels are kept in motion by steam operating within the vessel.

“‘A mast is to be fixed on her for the purpose of using a sail when the wind is favourable, which will occasionally accelerate her headway.’”

The first steamboat advertisement we quote from the Canadian Courant:

[576]

“THE STEAM BOAT

will leave Montreal tomorrow at 9 o’clock precisely for Quebec. Those wanting to take a passage will make choice of their Birth (sic) and pay their Passage money before 8 o’clock tomorrow morning, that a proper supply of fresh Provision may be provided.

FARES TO QUEBEC

For Passenger | £2— | 10s—0d
Child under 11 | £1— | 5s— 0d
Servant with birth | £1— | 13s—4d
Servant without birth | £1— | 5s— 0d

N.B.—60 lbs. weight will be allowed for each full Passenger, and so in proportion. Way Passengers are to pay 1s per league and if a meal occurs in the going, not less fifteen leagues, will be gratis, if less will be charged Two Shillings and Six-pence each meal.

Montreal, 4th June, 1810.”

The Accommodation was the first steamer on the river between Montreal and Quebec. She made her first trip from Montreal November 3, 1809. The Swiftsure followed in 1811, the Car of Commerce, the Caledonia and others came later, but these early steamers landed their passengers and freight at Molson’s wharf at the foot of the current, and these which first ascended the current did so with the aid of oxen or horses.

The Hercules (a tow-boat) was the first vessel with steam power and without other aid to ascend St. Mary’s current, with the ship Margaret in ballast in tow, during the season of navigation in 1824.

The well known writer M. de Gaspé, says of traveling between Montreal and Quebec at this period, 1818:

“This reminds me of a first voyage from Quebec to Montreal by steamer. It was in October of 1818, at 11 o’clock in the evening, when the Caledonia, in which I had taken passage, left the Queen’s wharf.

“Between 7 and 8 o’clock on the following morning my companion, the late Robert Christie, opened the windows of his stateroom and called out, ‘We are going famously.’

“We were really progressing well, for we were opposite Pointe Aux-Trembles: aided by a strong wind we had made seven leagues in nine hours.

“We arrived at the foot of the current below Montreal on the third day, congratulating ourselves on the rapidity of steamer trips, nor did we feel humiliated in the absence of favourable winds, which did not last more than twenty-four hours, to have recourse to the united strength of forty-two oxen to assist us in ascending the current.

“I acknowledge that the Caledonia deserved to be ranked as a first class steamer of that time, and it was with regret that we bade adieu to it, after the pleasant time we had on board.”

Among the names of those who were chiefly connected with the introduction and development of steam navigation in the Province of Quebec may be mentioned, besides the Hon. John Molson, the father of the steamboat enterprise in[577] Canada, those of Messrs. John and David Torrance, who, in 1826, placed the steamboat Hercules on the Montreal-Quebec route, and who were also the first in Canada to branch out into direct trade with the East Indies and China; and George Bush, in 1834 manager of the Ottawa and Rideau Forwarding Company, and after 1840 the sole proprietor of the Eagle Foundry in Montreal.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE STEAMSHIP

Early steam vessel with auxiliary sails

The Allan liner “Alsatian”

Old style sailing vessel

Montreal harbor in 1872

INLAND NAVIGATION

The Canada Steam Ship Lines, Ltd., succeeding the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, had its inception in 1845 when the Richelieu, a small boat of 125 tons, commanded by M. Sincennes who formed the Company, was put on its route between Montreal and Chambly for the transportation of freight and passengers.

As this venture proved a success, the Jacques Cartier was built three years later and ran between Montreal and Berthier.

In 1855 the Company added two greatly improved boats, the Victoria and Napoleon, 350 tons each, to ply between Montreal and Quebec. As a result of the keen competition thus produced the Torrance Company, which had, prior to this, controlled the entire traffic of the route, in 1858 sold their boat, the Quebec, for $30,000 to the Richelieu Company, which by this time had a capital of upwards of $125,000. During 1860-61 two additional boats, the Columbia and the Europa, were added and the capital of the Company considerably added to.

During 1862 the Company was increased by the fusion of Terrebonne, and l’Assomption and Lake St. Peter Lines with the Richelieu Company.

In 1861 the Montreal, costing $12,000, was placed on the line; in 1863 the Francois Yamaska was added, and in 1864 the Quebec was constructed at a cost of $172,000.

In 1875 the company line was further enlarged by the taking over of the line of boats running from Montreal to Toronto and Hamilton.

This amalgamation took the name of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company and had a capital of $1,500,000 and eight steamboats. Four more were soon added, the Athenian and Abyssinian in 1876, the Cultivateur in 1880, and the St. Francis in 1883.

From 1876 to 1882 the late Sir Hugh Allan was president of the company, succeeded by L.A. Senecal, who died in 1887.

In 1895 Louis J. Forget became president of the company.

June 21, 1898, the company launched at Toronto, The Toronto, a handsome new steel steamer, costing about $250,000. In 1913 the Richelieu and Ontario became the Canada Steamship Lines Company, which amalgamation controls most of the freight and passenger boats operating in Canadian waters between the Gulf and the Great Lakes, except the Sincennes, McNaughton Line, which controls the towing in the district of Montreal, the Montreal Transportation Company, the Hall Forwarding Company and several smaller inland lines.

The Steamer Ontario, Captain Hilliard, was the first upper-deck steamer to descend Lachine Rapids, August 19, 1840. Her name was afterward changed to the Lord Sydenham.

It is not recorded that more than one steamer ever succeeded in ascending the rapids of the St. Lawrence River. In November, 1838, the little Dolphin,[578] after four weeks of incessant toil, was towed up the Long Sault rapids with the aid of twenty oxen, besides horses, capstans and men, added to the working of her engine—the first and probably the last steamer that will ever accomplish the feat.

C—ATLANTIC LINERS

Montreal can claim some share in the success of the first ship that ever crossed the Atlantic under steam. The Royal William was built in the yards of Campbell and Black in Quebec in 1830-1, the designer being Mr. John Gondie.

The ship was launched in the spring of 1831 and towed to Montreal to receive her machinery, and on being fitted out for sea her first voyage was to Halifax, thence to Boston, being the first British steamer to arrive at that port.

Her dimensions were: Length, 176 feet; hold, 17 feet, 9 inches; breadth outside, 44 feet; breadth between paddle boxes, 28 feet. She had three masts, schooner rigged; builders’ measurement, 1,370 tons; with accommodations for sixty passengers. She left Quebec for London on August 5, 1833, via Picton, Nova Scotia. Thence her voyage was twenty-five days.

Ten days after her arrival she was chartered by the Portuguese Government to enter the service of Dom Pedro. In 1834 she was sold to the Spanish Government and was converted into a war steamer under the name of the Ysabel Segunda and was employed against Don Carlos.

She was undoubtedly the pioneer of the great Atlantic liners.

The connection of Montreal and the Atlantic Service is now to be told.

The origin of the Montreal steamboat mail service is indicated from an article by Thomas C. Keeffer, civil engineer, 1863. “On the 13th of August, 1852, a contract was entered into between the Commissions of Works of Canada and Messrs. McKean, McLarty & Company, a Liverpool firm, for a term of seven years, by which a line of screw steamers of not less than 1,200 tons, carpenter’s measurements, 300 horsepower and capable of carrying 1,000 tons of cargo, besides coal, for twenty-two days, were to commence running between Liverpool, Quebec and Montreal in the spring of 1853, one every fortnight during the season of navigation, and to Portland once a month; the outward passage not to exceed fourteen days and the homeward passage thirteen days. The maximum rate of freight to be charged was 60 shillings per ton. Fourteen trips were to be made from Liverpool to the St. Lawrence and back, for which at least five steamers were to be provided; and five trips to Portland and back, for which three steamers were required. The vessels were all to be ready and to commence their fortnightly service on or before the 1st of May, 1854, and a sufficient number to be ready and to commence the monthly trips in the spring of 1853. The price to be paid by the province was for fourteen fortnightly trips to the St. Lawrence, £1,238—1—11 sterling. The Grand Trunk Railway was to pay £388—6—8 sterling for each monthly trip to Portland. In October, 1852, Messrs. McKean, McLarty & Company formed a provisional company under the title of the Liverpool & North American Screw Steamship Company, and petitioned the Board of Trade for a Royal Charter with limited liabilities. In this they were vigorously and successfully opposed by the Cunard Steamship Company (already magnificently subsidized by the British government) and generally by ship[579] owners not protected by a limited liability, and were compelled to attempt the formation of their company under a Canadian charter.

“Under this contract the Genova, a small steamer of 700 tons and 160 horsepower, was sent out in 1853, the first trans-Atlantic steamer which entered the St. Lawrence proper.”

It reached Montreal carrying the royal mail on Friday, May 13, 1853, amidst great rejoicing. She was an iron boat from Liverpool, commanded by Captain Paton.

On the evening of her arrival a dinner was given in the Donegani Hotel, the following being the text of the address presented to Capt. Walter Paton, who with Mayor Wilson and the others sat at the banquet:

“Captain Paton, Sir.—Your arrival in the Port of Montreal in charge of the Genova, the pioneer steamer of the Ocean Line, is an event of too much importance to Canada to be allowed to pass without notice.

“To mark the sense which the City Council entertains of this very gratifying token of our Country’s advance, I have been instructed to welcome you with heartfelt congratulations, and to offer you the hospitalities of the City.

“It is now happily beginning to be understood that the highways which nature has provided for access to the interior Countries, are usually the shortest and most practicable, and a single glance at the Map of North America, should convince the most skeptical that the St. Lawrence, with its chain of lakes, is the true channel for the commerce of the Great West. To divert into other outlets the products of the vast granaries which skirt our waters for thousands of miles, has employed the talents, energies and resources of our great rival and neighbour, and not without success.

“The time, however, is fast approaching when the tide of trade and travel will take its proper and destined course. Canada begins to feel its strength and to value its advantages. Its pupillage has not been altogether misspent. Arrived at the maturity which demands self-reliance it is ready to take its place, as a full grown worker, and little doubt need be entertained of the vigour which it is prepared to bring to the task. What the future of Canada will be, the largest minds have not adequately conceived. A knowledge of its unbounded resources, the tithe of which has not been developed—an appreciation of its salubrious climate, and the essentially liberal character of its institutions offer guarantees to the emigrant for the successful pursuit of competency and happiness which no other country can exceed.

“The disturbance of our waters by your gallant vessel is one of those strong pulsations which indicate the high health of Canada. And the time cannot be very distant when this pulse will beat—not once in the month, but with greatly increased power and frequency. Nevertheless, Dear Sir, The Genova and Captain Paton will ever be associated in the history of a note-worthy era; and when the first Steamer of the ocean line is referred to, these names will stir up the most pleasurable reminiscences. Again, then, we hail your advent among us; and we may express the hope that your connexion with this enterprize will be sufficiently prolonged to place you in competition with other rivalries in the same honourable strife.”

[580]

The Genova was followed by the Lady Eglinton, 600 tons and 160 horsepower, and the Sarah Sands, 1,200 tons and 150 horsepower. But these boats only made five trips in 1853. The average voyage was fourteen to twenty-two days, home twelve to eighteen days; and 80 shillings freight instead of 60 shillings was charged. In consequence of this total failure on the part of the contractors the government of Canada annulled the contract.

The Crimean war of 1854 now broke out and no doubt the vessels were needed for military transport purposes, so that no new contract was made with the firm. This was the great opportunity which was seized upon by the Allan Company, so that on September 28, 1855, a new contract was entered into with Hugh Allan, of Montreal, to commence in April, 1856, and to give the same time and number of trips as before, but with vessels not less than 350 horsepower. The subsidy was £24,000 sterling per annum, and a penalty of £1,000 for every trip lost was provided for, the deduction of a pro rata amount of the subsidy. The contract was terminable by the contractors at the end of any year by giving six months previous notice. Although the line was not remunerative in its first season, 1856, the contract was fulfilled in the most satisfactory manner, the outward passage being under thirteen days and the home work a little over eleven days. The Montreal Ocean Steamship Company was, therefore, the first “Canadian Atlantic steamship company.”

But it must not be imagined that this was a brand new firm. It had been long connected with the Montreal shipping ventures. The Allan line dates back to 1822. In that year Capt. Alexander Allan sailed to the St. Lawrence from Glasgow in the brig Jean—not one-fiftieth of the tonnage of the liners of today, but the first of the fleet, withal. Captain Alexander was succeeded by his five sons, Captain Bryce commanding some of the earlier ships.

Hugh Allan arrived as a boy in Montreal, sailing from Greenock in Scotland with his father on the brig Favorite. We can imagine the scene of landing from the state of the development of the port at that time. Hugh went into business as a bookkeeper to William Kent & Company, but in 1831 he entered the office of Messrs. William Edmonstone & Company, ship agents and ship builders. Andrew, his brother, joined him later and they both married sisters, daughters of R. John Smith, a wealthy importer. These two brothers represented the Allan line in Montreal, while Glasgow and Liverpool were served by the three other sons. Meanwhile the Allan fleet, especially since 1834, had been growing with such ships as the clippers Glennifer, Abeona, the Corinthian, and their first steamship Sardinian, of which Captain Dutton, a religious-minded but capable seaman, known as “Holy Joe,” was the commander, afterwards becoming the commodore of the fleet.

THE ALLAN LINE ROYAL MAIL STEAMERS

The firm now owned a fleet of fast sailing vessels of about three hundred and fifty tons register—full-rigged ships which, with ice-blocks round their bows, pushed their way through the ice, so that sometimes they would arrive in port on the 15th of April. In 1853 Mr. Hugh Allan, who was a man of great tenacity of purpose, and at the same time of remarkable foresight, saw that the time had come for the building of iron ships for the St. Lawrence trade. Besides, there was the[581] consideration that they would run to Portland in the winter time, and connect with Montreal by rail. He enlisted the support of several wealthy men, including Mr. William Dow and Mr. Robert Anderson, of Montreal, and formed the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company. The Canadian and Indian were the first two boats built by the company.

The boats cost about two hundred and fifty thousand dollars each and had a speed of eleven knots.

They were wonders at the time and made a great impression, as the people had not been accustomed to see iron ships. Thus it happened that when about this time the Crimean war broke out, and the government was at its wit’s end to provide transports, the Allans went into the business, and while the war lasted made large profits.

The Canadian Government now made a contract with Mr. Hugh Allan for carrying the mails, paying an annual subsidy of $120,000 per annum. The Anglo-Saxon, a new boat, ran from Quebec to Liverpool in nine days on one occasion. This was thought to be wonderful, as the people had been accustomed to a voyage of forty days on the old sailing vessels. At that time the ships got 30 cents per bushel for carrying grain. Contrast this with the 2 cents of today, or the carrying of grain for nothing, as is done by New York shipping at certain periods of the year, in order to get ballast on an outgoing trip.

The requirements of the service in 1858 demanded more accommodation, and the Allan brothers determined on a weekly service.

Larger and faster boats were introduced. The government paid subsidies to the new service totalling $416,000 per annum. Year by year the Allans launched new boats, always bigger and faster, though speed was never the chief consideration with the company.

In 1861 they had a fleet of over twenty vessels; but a sinister fortune befell the company in the first ten years of its existence. Eight ships were lost in as many years.

In 1857 the Canadian, in 1859 the Indian, in 1860 the Hungarian and the second Canadian, and the North Briton in 1861, and later the Anglo-Saxon, the Norwegian and the Bohemian—all became total wrecks. The river was badly lighted. The tides did not run true. The pilots were incompetent. The compass deviated, owing to some strange local attraction due, it was said, to mineral deposits in the gulf. Anyway, disaster followed disaster, and, as was said at the time, any other man than Mr. Allan would have given up in despair. But that gentleman had something of the firmness of his native granite in his composition, and he never wavered. Difficulties in time were overcome; the Allans began to prosper and from this on their boats were singularly free from accidents.

To show, however, how little even the most perspicacious can see in advance of their time, it may be stated that at the banquet which the citizens tendered Mr. Hugh Allan in 1850, he said that ships of 1,700 tons were the most suitable for the Montreal trade. He lived to see his boats grow to 5,500 tons.

The line prospered; the number of boats was constantly increased to meet the need; the Northwest was opened up; and the Allan boats brought in many thousands of immigrants. In addition the company branched out to South America.

The building of the Parisian in 1881 was supposed to be about the last word[582] in shipbuilding. She was far in advance of anything to be seen on the route. Today she is, by comparison with the leviathans of the route, almost as antique as the old Favorite was when steamships came in.

In 1887, the Canadian Government decided to subsidize a line of fast steamships. They asked for twenty knots an hour and that the vessels should call at a French port. The Allans held that the first demand was impracticable, owing to the fact that high speed would be dangerous because of the fogs in the gulf; while, as to the second, it was deemed to be out of the question. The Government played with a tender from another firm, Anderson, Anderson & Co., of London, which, however, did not make good; and the fast Atlantic service, in spite of much discussion and tentative efforts on the part of the Government and the shipping people, has never come to anything to this day. The C.P.R. offered to build a fast service; but the terms were deemed by the government to be too onerous.

The line increased, however, in ships, in business done, in reputation, both from our own and the American ports.

Mr. Hugh Allan was knighted in 1870. In 1877 he determined to associate his name with the C.P.R. enterprise. He, in fact, formed the first syndicate to build it. The fall of the Macdonald Government defeated his plan.

He succumbed to an attack of gout in 1882, at the age of seventy-two years. His remains were brought out to Canada in one of his own ships, and laid to rest in Mount Royal Cemetery.

Alexander Allan died at Glasgow in 1892, leaving a fortune of three million dollars. Andrew, so well remembered by Montrealers for his public spirit, his identification with good works, his “canny” Scotch caution, compatible, at the same time, with an enterprise and boldness in the conduct of his business, died in Montreal in the ’90s.

The business today is carried on by Mr. Hugh A. Allan, chairman, resident in London, and Mr. Andrew A. Allan, vice chairman, resident in Montreal.

The firm has broadened out in many important ways. It was the first to introduce turbines on the St. Lawrence, and it is still augmenting the fleet.

Of the Allan fleet, the steamers on the Montreal-Quebec-Liverpool service making the port of Montreal are: Tunisian, 10,576.38 tons; Victorian, 10,629.09 tons; and Virginian, 10,569.62 tons.

The steamers on the Montreal and Glasgow line are: Corsican, 11,436 tons; Grampian, 10,900 tons; Scandinavian and Hesperian, 12,100 and 10,900 tons, respectively.

Those in the Montreal and London service are: Ionian, 8,267.61 tons; Sicilian, 6,229.49 tons; Scotian, 10,490 tons; Corinthian, 6,229.49 tons; and Tunisian, 10,576.38 tons.

Those in the Montreal and Havre service are: Ionian, 8,267.61 tons; Scotian, Corinthian, Sicilian, 6,229.49 tons; and Tunisian, 10,576.38 tons.

The year 1914 also saw the introduction to the Liverpool service of the Allan Line the new steamers Alsatian and Calgarian, quadruple screw turbine steamers, ships of 18,000 tons, 21 knots speed, the largest, fastest and most luxuriously equipped steamers on the St. Lawrence route.

Among the great mercantile fleets of the world no house flag is better known[583] than the red pennant and tri-color of the Allan Line and none represents to the ocean voyager a greater degree of safety and comfort.

To the Allan Liner Corsican, Capt. John Hall, belongs the honour of being the first ocean liner to make the port of Montreal in 1914, arriving here at 12:30 p. m., Wednesday, April 29th.

Following the time honoured custom Captain Hall was presented by the Harbour Commissioners with a gold headed cane and a silk hat.

OTHER FLEETS

Another great fleet connected closely with Montreal is that of the Canadian Pacific Railway steamship service. The history of the inception and development of the railway is told elsewhere.

The history of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as steamship owners, dates back for more than a quarter of a century, for it was early in 1883 that the company contracted on the Clyde for the construction of three steel screw steamships for service on the Great Lakes. In 1887 a trans-Pacific service was established, and in 1889 a car ferry service was put into commission between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan. In 1896 the C.P.R. bought the Kootenay Navigation Company, and in 1903 was established the British Columbia Coast service. In 1903 also the Atlantic service was established, and all these services have been extended until as it may be said it is possible to take a trip completely around the world on a C.P.R. ticket and never leave a C.P.R. boat or train.

It has also a trans-Pacific and a Mediterranean fleet. The Canadian Pacific railway steamship service also operates three freight boats between Montreal and Avonmouth Dock in summer and from Halifax in winter. In 1906 the Empress of Ireland, which met disaster in May, 1914, and the Empress of Britain were put on the Quebec route.

The Elder Dempster line established the South African line in 1902 and in 1905 established the service to Cuba and Mexico.

The White Star Dominion established a weekly service in 1909 between Liverpool, Quebec and Montreal and the great liners, the Laurentic and Megantic, appeared at Montreal in the early summer of that year.

Meanwhile the Thomson & Donaldson lines had long been connected with the port under the agency of the Reford Company, so long connected with commercial and shipping interests of the port. The Furness Withy Company, which has its agency here, also have been trading for some time between Montreal and Manchester, and the east coast of England.

Another fleet closely connected with Montreal is the Royal Line, owned and operated by the Canadian Northern Railway Company since 1912, between Montreal and Bristol.

For various reasons the Royal Line did not wish to run to Liverpool, which was already overcrowded with Canadian shipping. So they ran to Avonmouth dock instead, and opened up an entirely new artery of traffic to the Canadian ports. Before the inauguration of the Royal Line, no passenger ships of importance ran to Bristol, and naturally the securing of the Royal Line service was made an occasion of much rejoicing.

The Royal George and the Royal Edward began their trips in 1912. These[584] are the only Canadian registered ocean liners. The other fleets entering the Port are connected with agencies elsewhere and only enter into the history of the Port inasmuch as they contribute largely to its success as a mercantile center.

These include the White Star-Dominion, Canada, the Cunard, the Monson and Donaldson lines, which the Reford Company so long connected with the commercial circles of the city, the Furness-Withby lines to Manchester, the Elder-Dempster Dominion lines.

Today ten big ocean steamship lines now run passenger vessels to the port of Montreal, and many smaller lines of coastwise and tramp traffic swarm the port during the shipping season which opens in May and closes in November.

During the season of 1912 the Allan Line alone carried 87,159 passengers into and out of Montreal, while the C.P.R., White Star, Donaldson, Thompson, Cunard, Royal, Elder-Dempster, Canada, Canadian Northern Railway and Dominion Line boats carried passengers in proportion.

During the same season the Custom House in the port collected $15,508,124.53 in duties on foreign made goods imported here. These figures take no account of exported goods, goods made in Canada, or the tremendous grain business which is done each fall, and to a lesser degree throughout the season. In 1912 125,000 tons of coal were brought into the port of Montreal from the mines at Glace Bay alone, and 736 ocean-going vessels entered the port during the season, showing a total tonnage of 2,403,924 tons, and in wharfage dues, $461,396.43.

During the last two years the Port of Montreal has seen the advent of the Cunard Line, originally founded by Mr. S. Cunard of Halifax, who had the first contract with the British government for a fortnightly mail service in 1850 from Halifax to Liverpool and Boston.

[585]

### CHAPTER XXXIX

TRANSPORTATION

I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL—HERIOT’S DESCRIPTION IN 1815—T.S. BROWN IN 1818—THE ISLAND WHARF—THE CREEK—THE PRIMITIVE WHARVES—THE “POINTS”—THE RIVER FRONT—THE SPRING FLEET—FIREWOOD RAFTS—TOW BOATS—THE EVERETTA—AN ACCOUNT OF 1819—BOUCHETTE’S PLAN OF 1824—THE FIRST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, “THE TRINITY BOARD”—FIRST REPORT—LATEST REPORT—EARLY ENGINEERS—REVIEW OF HARBOUR IN 1872—A TRANSFORMATION FROM 1818—GRAIN ELEVATORS—NUMBER OF VESSELS—MARKET AND WOOD BOATS—THE BONSECOURS MARKET—1875 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT NOW CARRIED OUT—FLOATING DOCK—DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT HARBOUR—ITS FACILITIES FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT—THE DESIRE TO LENGTHEN THE SHIPPING SEASON.

II

HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS—THE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS FROM 1830 TO THE PRESENT TIME.

III

CUSTOMS—SHIPPING FEDERATION—THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY—IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL

Heriot in his travels, thus describes the harbour front about the year 1815: “A natural wharf, very near to the town is formed by the depth of the stream and the sudden declivity of the bank. At the breaking up of the river, the buildings of the town, which are situated nearest the bank, are sometimes subject to damage by the accumulating of ice, impelled by the rapidity of the current.”

A description of three years later is to be found in a rare pamphlet entitled,

THE HARBOUR OF MONTREAL IN 1818 AND IN 1872

By T.S. Brown

I came to Montreal on the 28th day of May, 1818, in a Bateau from La Prairie—no steamer had made the trip at the time—and landed on a sloping,[586] rough beach, exactly where the pier next below the Custom House runs out to the Island wharf and St. Lambert Ferry. What is now the Island wharf was then a rocky Island separated from the main land by a Channel about one hundred feet wide.

On my left was a small brook called the “Creek,” being the discharge of a wide open ditch that ran from the Champ de Mars, through Craig Street, round to Inspector Street and then down Commissioners Street to a stone bridge, crossing at the bottom of St. Francis Xavier Street. From this till near the river it ran between the wall of a rough stone building, on the site of the present Custom House, and another wall that supported Commissioners Street.

Above the brook a low narrow wooden wharf ran to Port Street, Common Street being supported by a wooden revetment, with gaps for sloping roadway to the river.

All beyond Port Street was the natural Bank, the same as in the front of country villages, except a small wharf opposite the north end of Youville Street, at which point, then called Pointe à Blondeau, there was a cottage, with garden in front, running down to the water.

Here, too, was a shipyard and the east wall of the Grey Nunnery. Further on, all was vacant, except some buildings at the corner of Grey Nun Street, and beyond here open fields, running up to Point St. Charles, with three windmills, the graves of three soldiers, shot for desertion, and the Nuns buildings at Point St. Charles, since used for offices, while Victoria bridge was in course of construction.

The Lachine Canal had not been commenced, and distances appeared so much farther than now, that the river front was divided into “Pointe à Callière,” “Pointe à Blondeau,” “Windmill Point,” and “Point St. Charles.”

Directly before me was a sloping beach running up to an opening or street between low houses, forming the east side.

On the square, now occupied by the old Custom House, and then by the “old Market,” so much frequented by Country people, that they blockaded the approaches, and had sometimes to be driven away by constables to the “new market,” then built on Jacques Cartier Square.

On my right the natural beach continued down to Hochelaga, or “the Cross” as it was then called. A wooden revetment held up Commissioner Street and St. Sulpice Street and thence downward there was nothing but the natural bank, on which weeds grew profusely. There may have been something more opposite the Barracks.

The buildings fronting on the river were mostly old, low and dilapidated. A good part of the space was occupied by walls and mean outbuildings of the houses fronting on St. Paul Street. The new buildings were the three-story brick stores just above St. Diziers Lane, and a three-story store just below.

The “spring fleet” mostly in port (a part may have arrived a few days later), consisted of, I think, half a dozen brigs of from one hundred and eighty to two hundred and fifty tons burthen, moored to the muddy beach; below them were some “Durham boats,” which we should now call small barges, navigators to Upper Canada, carrying a very large fore and aft sail and top sail. Wind then had to do what is now done by steam. Below these, opposite the present Jacques Cartier Square, were moored many rafts—mostly of firewood.

THE HARBOR OF MONTREAL

General view of sheds

Grain Elevator No. 2. First entire concrete elevator in the world. Capacity 2,622,000 bushels

King Edward Pier. Vessels loading and unloading grain

Duke of Connaught Pier and Floating Dry Dock. Capacity 25,000 tons

[587]

There were no steamboats, except those running to Quebec, clumsy things, with bluff bows, built on the model of sailing vessels, rigged with bowsprit, high mast and square sail; the deck flush, and cabins all below.

Their steam power was so small that they could not get fifty miles from Quebec unless they left with the tide; and oxen were frequently used in assisting them up the current, below the city. All the structure on the deck of the largest, called the “Car of Commerce,” was a square house over the stairway, which may still be seen, converted into a summer house, with gallery surrounding, at St. Catherines, that all may notice on the right side of the road, when riding round the mountain.

There were no tow boats then. Vessels from sea had to make their way to Montreal by wind which often took a month or more, the worst being the last mile where I have seen oxen used on a tow line, as otherwise the light winds would be insufficient to enable them to overcome the force of the strong current.

The “ship” of the period was the Everetta from London, which arrived some days after, and summer goods were advertised about the middle of June, there being no way of getting Spring and Summer “fashions” earlier, so that our ladies were always one year behind the age.

I have in my possession a bill of lading of goods by this ship, dated 25th of March, 1800. She brought the supplies to the “Northwest Company,” which then carried on the great Indian Trade, from Montreal, by canoes, up to Lake Superior, and onwards.

The Ship remained moored at the foot of St. Sulpice Street all summer, till the canoes returned with the year’s catch of furs, and carried them to England.

A traveller quoted by Mr. Sandham in “Ville Marie” as visiting the city in 1819 thus describes the activity of the water side:

“We crossed the river in a canoe hollowed out of a single log, and on landing we climbed a steep and slippery bank, and found ourselves in one of the principal streets of the city.”

“In the morning” continues the account “we witnessed a scene of considerable activity, caused by the carts and horses which are driven into the river as far as possible to obtain wood, etc, from the boats, and as they go out so far, the body of the cart is sometimes out of water and the larger sticks are drawn out with a rope.”

It would be hard to imagine a more hopeless outlook than existed in the Harbour of Montreal, as indicated on Bouchette’s plan of 1824. The first Lachine Canal was only completed in 1825, having a depth over the sills of 4½ feet, and is not shown on that plan.

Two stone windmills marked the progress of industrial development to the westward of what is now McGill Street. They were situated on top of the open beach.

The Grand Trunk Railway Company’s elevator now stands on the site of the water front of 1824.

A small wharf 200 feet long existed, providing a depth of water of 9 feet, in the position of the flood wall opposite the present Harbour Commissioners’ office.

Another irregular wharf known as Berthelette’s Wharf existed between the Harbour Commissioners’ office and the Custom House.

[588]

From the Little River, now the Custom House, downward, the beach was unimproved except by the construction of sloping roadways down to the water.

Shallow water, even points of exposed rocks, existed two-thirds of the distance across to St. Helen’s Island, in the early days before the Moffatt’s Island Wharf was built.

The size and type of the vessels trading to Montreal may be imagined from the fact that Lake St. Peter limited the draft to 11 feet, and even that depth was not available at any of the wharves in the Harbour.

The shipping trade of a whole season, eighty years ago, could have been carried in one or two of the modern ships which now frequent the port.

Sloping roadways down to the water where the river was so low as to permit of rocks showing above the current, a long stretch of beach where the children of those days romped and played, and the poorer women washed the linen using the big stones as washing boards, a long unbroken line of trees and shrubberies past Maisonneuve, where now the Harbour Commissioners’ powerful locomotives transport merchandise from vessels of 15,000 tons register to the various railway terminals, these were the features of the Port of Montreal long before Confederation had ever been dreamed of. In those days inland navigation commenced at Lachine. Goods for Upper Canada were carted to Lachine and from there taken up the Haldimand Canals in bateaux about thirty-five feet long and 5½ feet beam, built of the type of a modern raft boat with pointed bow and stern.

From 1824 to 1892 the development of the port progressed but slowly. Still, in the early days the development of the harbour was a very live question and it was on the 8th of May, 1830, that George Moffatt, Jules Quesnel and Capt. Robert S. Piper, R.E., were appointed commissioners under the Great Seal of the Province of Lower Canada and signed by His Excellency the Governor at the Castle of St. Louis; for the purpose of carrying into effect an Act of the Provincial Legislature, 10 and 11, Geo. IV., Cap. 28: “An Act to provide for the Improvement and Enlargement of the Harbour of Montreal.”

The first works undertaken were for the construction of wharves, ramps, slips for Durham boats, a revetment wall and a bridge to Oyster Island, which was to be the principal wharf.

In their first annual report the commissioners, who were called the Corporation of the Trinity Board of Montreal until 1855 when an act was passed changing the name to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and increasing the number of commissioners from three to five, stated that they confidently anticipated that the wharves undertaken, when completed, would be superior to any works of the kind in the Province, and would enable the City of Montreal to be advantageously contrasted with any other in North America for beauty, solidity and convenience of approach by water, and the present Harbour of Montreal rather justifies the modest boast of the commissioners of eighty years ago.

Writing in 1839, before the improvements had been made in the harbour by the commissioners, Mr. Newton Bosworth in “Hochelaga Depicta” quotes a New York traveller, who, on landing from a bateau which brought him from La Prairie, thus afterwards expressed himself:

[589]

“The approach to Montreal conveyed no prepossessing idea of the enterprise of its municipality; ships, brigs and steamboats lay on the margin of the river at the foot of the hill, no long line of wharves, built of the substantial free stone of which there is an abundance in the very harbour affording security to vessels and profit to owners; the commercial haven looked as ragged and as muddy as the shores of Nieu Nederlandt when the Guede Vrow first made her appearance off the battery.”

“Now,” remarks Mr. Bosworth in 1839, commenting on this “if he were to repeat his visit he would be constrained to make a different report, and find himself able to step ashore without more trouble than in walking across a room.”

The appropriation for the first three years amounted to $4,000, while at present the Harbour Commissioners have undertaken a series of improvements which are soon to be completed at an approximate cost of $6,000,000.

During the past ten years no less than thirty-eight million dollars has been expended to improve the local harbour and ship channel, nearly one-half of which immense sum has gone towards the establishment of harbour and terminal improvements.

Millions of dollars have been spent on lighthouses, light ships, submarine bell stations, whistling buoys, the dredging of the main ship channel from 27½ to 30 feet at low water, its widening and straightening have been carried out at a cost of $14,000,000, the reorganization of the pilotage system has cost $140,000, the establishment of fifteen land telephone stations between Quebec and Montreal has involved the expenditure of $150,000, while hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent for other important projects.

Since 1830 some of the best Engineers in Canada, the United States and Great Britain, have from time to time been called upon to investigate and submit plans for improvements.

Messrs. Gzowsky, Keefer, Forsythe, Trautwine, Legge, Nish, and Slippell all submitted plans up to 1873.

A picture of the results of the improvements during the intervening period is to be found in Mr. T.S. Brown’s retrospect, already quoted.

“I visited it (the harbour)” says the same writer, “at the end of fifty-four years, on the 28th of May, 1872. And what did I see?1

“A canal of the largest dimensions coming in at Windmill Point, and the old fields converted into basins, filled with steamers, schooners and barges, one side fringed by manufactories, and the other by lofty warehouses, and platforms filled with merchandise.

“From ‘Pointe à Blondeau,’ or Grey Nun Street, to the Barracks, there is a high stone revetment wall, supporting Commissioners Street, with Ramps at convenient distances, leading to a broad platform or wharf running down to below the barracks and Dalhousie Square, along which is a track for Railway Cars, and from which project many piers, one connecting with the Island before mentioned, and others lower down, extending further out.

“This platform or line wharf, and the piers, are covered and filled with merchandise, of all discriptions, in bars, bundles, casks, cases, boxes and bales, a part being covered with temporary sheds.

“The quantity and weight is so immense that one wonders where it comes[590] from, and where it goes to, but the immense mass extending along Harbour and Canal for a mile, is but a small portion of what is passing into or through the port, for while countless carts and cars, are daily removing from one side, steamers and ships fill up every space by discharging on the other, with steam power and regiments of laborers. The taking in of the cargo is going on at the same time and elevators alongside the ships are taking from propellors alongside from the west and far west thousands of bushels of grain. Instead of the half a dozen brigs of 1818, with an aggregate tonnage of twelve to fifteen hundred tons discharging slowly with skids on a rough beach, there lays one steamer that will measure more than the whole put together.

“In all there is in port, stretched along the wharves and piers from Grey Nun Street to below the Barracks, 21 Ocean Steamers, 22,612 tons; 20 Ships, 17,710 tons; 22 Barques, 12,409 tons; 3 Brigs, 760 tons; 4 Brigantines and Schooners, 278 tons, in all 70 Vessels with an aggregate tonnage of 53,769 tons.

“The shore (I have often seen it bare), below the foot of St. Sulpice Street has been dredged and wharfed to accommodate ships drawing twenty feet of water. A Quebec Steamer, not stumpy, low and flush deck, but long, built on a skiff model, with two stories of staterooms raised above the deck, is at a pier at the bottom of Jacques Cartier Square, stretching out beyond the limits of the old firewood rafts, brought down by farmers from Chateaguay and neighbouring regions, to be sold in June, when they were impatient to get home, for $2.00 a cord.

“Directly below is a fleet of ‘Market Boats,’ really elegant steamers, of modern build, that navigate to all ports down to ‘Three Rivers.’

“Mixed with these are a fleet of ‘Wood Barges,’ rigged on the principle of a ‘Chinese Junk’ (which some of them resemble on a small scale), with a very high mast, and very long square-sail yards.

“These bring up firewood, hay, grain, lumber, etc., from below, a trade little dreamed of in old times.

“Further down are piles of boards, planks, and other lumber, and ships being loaded with it for the South Atlantic, or perhaps Pacific, and work is in progress for continuing the wharves to Hochelaga where I have seen many ships launched.

“Where stood the ‘Mansion House’ (in 1818 our great hotel), a former residence of Sir John Johnson, and dwelling houses with small gardens, there is now the Bonsecour Market. The old walls and sheds, along the ‘front’ to ‘Pointe à Calliêre,’ are replaced by tall warehouses. An elegant Custom House on the Pointe replaces an old potash store. Other warehouses are built on the old ship yard, and the Grey Nuns having removed to their new establishment on Guy Street, their buildings are disappearing, St. Peter Street being continued to the harbour by cutting directly through their old church.

“Such was the aspect of the harbour of Montreal in 1818, and such it is today (1872) and I sincerely hope this article may be preserved to be republished half a century hence, accompanied by a description of the harbour as it then was.”

To continue the story of the developments of the harbour for the greater part of fifty years. In 1875 Mr. Robert Bruce Bell, Major General Newton and Mr. Sanford Fleming drew up a report and plan for the improvement of the Habour. Mr. John Kennedy, for so many years Chief Engineer of the Harbour[591] Commissioners, has not only designed but carried out many of the improvements now existing.

Ten years ago there was no Alexandra Basin or wharf to speak of, there was no level harbour front, no permanent sheds, over a dozen of which have only been finished within the past four years.

Magnificent concrete wharves with corrugated iron sheds built on solid concrete foundations have been built opposite the plants of some of Montreal’s largest industries.

The Harbour Commissioners’ tracks pass behind the sheds affording direct communication all over the harbour, while excellent wharfage facilities permit of the circulation of any amount of traffic.

The greatest addition to the port in recent years, however, and urged by the Montreal Board of Trade since 1887, has been the huge floating dock, the “Duke of Connaught,” which was successfully towed across the Atlantic in the fall of 1912. It was dedicated by H.R.H., the Governor General on 18th of November, 1912.

H.R.H. the Governor General in replying to the Commissioners’ address well said that “by the arrival and installation of this great floating dock, the great reproach against the St. Lawrence trade route has been removed, and the largest vessels can now run up to Montreal, secure in the consciousness of entering a port which is in possession of a competent modern equipment for repair and examination.”

The dock is capable 2 of accommodating vessels of Olympic size or larger[592] and necessitates the employment of a staff of 500 men, the majority of them skilled workmen. The dock can accommodate thirty vessels at present operating on the St. Lawrence route which are too wide of beam to be taken into any existing dock between here and Halifax, 1,000 miles away.

A ship building plant which is to be operated in connection with the dock is to give employment to about two thousand men.

The type of Port of Montreal is a combination of a protected tidal basin, riverside quays and pier jetties.

There is no rise and fall of tide, but the river level fluctuates to an extent of about 12 feet from high water in the spring to low water in the autumn.

During the winter, due to ice shoves, the water occasionally rises to an extreme of 28 feet above the low water level. An artificial embarkment, parallel to the shore, about one and one-third miles long, protects the whole of the upper part of the harbour, including the entrance to the Lachine Canal, from not only the currents of the river but from ice shoves. This constitutes the protected tidal basin in which the water rises and falls with the river level.

It has not been necessary to purchase any land above the high water mark on the beach, as all piers and wharves have been made artificially by building out into the shallow water and the berths formed by dredging.

From the entrance to the protected basin for about two and one-half miles downstream, to Hochelaga, the river channel is too much contracted to permit of the construction of piers or jetties, and this part of the harbour is developed as riverside quays, sufficient width for harbour purposes being obtained by building the quay-walls in deep water and filling in the area behind to give a width from 100 to 250 feet. Below Hochelaga, where the river section is larger, piers have been built out into the river, inclined so as to give an easy angle of approach from the ship channel.

The success of the port is due primarily to its early development, before any of the water front had been alienated from the crown, and to its geographical, physical and trade situation.

No rights or franchises stand in the way of further extensions, and the sentiment of the country is in favour of a continuance of the policy of retaining the whole harbour area in the public interests.

The facility of approach both by ocean vessels, inland vessels and railways to a convenient point of transfer makes Montreal almost unique, there being nothing in the way of close connection for traffic from all points, and almost in the heart of a large and growing city.

Montreal Harbour is also the terminus of the St. Lawrence Canal System, which affords navigation between Montreal and Lake Erie, a distance of 300 miles, for vessels of 14 feet draft and a carrying capacity of 2,500 tons. From Lake Erie to this head of Lake Superior vessels are able to navigate with a draft of 20 feet and a carrying capacity of 10,000 tons. The inland navigation centering in Montreal therefore commences either by the all lake route of 1,600 miles and vessels of 14 feet draft, or by the lake-and-rail routes, using the 10,000 ton boats to Georgian Bay ports or Port Colborne, and connecting with Montreal either by short-haul rail route or the St. Lawrence canals.

The following figures give the total trade in the Harbour from 1901 to 1914:

[593]

| Sea-going Vessels Arrived in Port. | Inland Vessels.
| Number | Total Tonnage | Number | Total Tonnage
1912 | 736 | 2,403,924 | 12,586 | 4,649,767
1900 | 726 | 1,393,886 | 8,310 | 1,659,616

Total Trade

1911 | $201,066,256
1901 | $121,292,349
1914 | $251,873,912

About two-thirds of the grain comes to Montreal in steamers carrying 2,500 tons on the 14 foot draft. These vessels cannot afford to wait, but must be unloaded at once if they are to be attracted to Montreal. The rest of the grain coming from the Georgian Bay ports by rail must also be unloaded quickly, as during the grain rush there is a constant railway car shortage. The storage and rapid handling of grain has thus become, in the last few years, a new factor in the problem of harbour economy. There are three modern grain elevators at present in the harbour and none of the older type. Of the modern elevators, one belongs to the Grand Trunk Railway. It had a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels, but has been enlarged to a capacity of 2,100,000. The others belong to the Harbour Commissioners. No. 1 in 1915 will be capable of storing 4,000,000 bushels; while No. 2, recently erected opposite Bonsecours Market, has a capacity of 2,600,000, and can handle 1,000,000 bushels a day. It is entirely built of reinforced concrete, and is the largest of this kind in the world.

It is easy to see that Montreal Harbour, being the farthest inland ocean port of the Northern Continent and also the terminus of the inland Canadian canal and railway routes, is an important factor in the grain carrying trade of the Northern part of the Continent.

In 1914 about two million dollars have been expended by the Harbour Commission in dredging, renovating piers and wharves, building new sheds and wharves, and other work incidental to the five-year program of development undertaken by them at a total cost of $15,000,000. All this work has been under the direction of Mr. W.G. Ross, chairman, Mr. Farquhar Robertson, and Colonel A.E. Labelle, commissioners.

The great desire is now to lengthen the shipping season. Professor Barnes, of McGill University, has made the study of ice his specialty and he is at present carrying on experiments for the Canadian government. He is of the opinion that winter navigation is a possibility. At present the government has, on the St. Lawrence, two ice-breakers, which extend the time of navigation by a few days. The ice difficulty arises where the river widens into a lake, as at Lake St. Peter. Ice forms on the sides of the lake and is blown into the current. When the banks again converge, this ice jams, soon forming a solid ice-bridge. The ice-shoves which occur in the spring are caused in the same way. The solution of the problem is to have ice-breakers always suitably situated to break these bridges as soon as they form.

[594]

II

HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS

The following is a list of the Boards of Harbour Commissioners that have executed the duties of the Trust from 1830 up to the present time showing the interest represented by each member:—

* Indicates the President of the Board.

- (c) Indicates the representative of the Corn Exchange.
- (t) Indicates the representative of the Montreal Board of Trade.
- (m) Indicates the representative of the City of Montreal.
- (s) Indicates the representative of the Shipping interest.
- (c de c) Indicates the representative of the Chambre de Commerce.

The members not indicated as representatives of the Corn Exchange, Board of Trade, City of Montreal, Chambre de Commerce or Shipping interest have been appointed by the Government of their time. From 1907 the members have been exclusively appointed by the Government.

- 1830 to 1836.
- Hon. George Moffatt.*
- Jules Quesnel, Esq.
- Capt. Robert S. Piper.

- 1836 to 1839.
- P.L. Letourneux, Esq.
- Thomas Cringan, Esq.
- Turton Penn, Esq.*

- 1839 to 1840.
- Turton Penn, Esq.*
- Thomas Cringan, Esq.
- William Lunn, Esq.

- 1840 to 1850.
- J.G. Mackenzie, Esq.*
- John Try, Esq.
- C.S. Rodier, Esq.

- 1850 to 1855.
- John Try, Esq.*
- Hon. John Young,* from 1853.
- Louis Marchand, Esq.

- 1855 to 1856.
- Hon. John Young.*
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.
- Sir George E. Cartier.
- Doctor Nelson. (m)
- Hon. H. Starnes. (t)

- 1856 to 1858.
- Hon. John Young.*
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.* Chairman pro tem.
- Sir George E. Cartier.
- Hon. H. Starnes. (m)
- Hon. L.H. Holton. (t)

- 1858 to 1859.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Sir George E. Cartier.
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.
- Hon. L.H. Holton. (t)
- J.A. Berthelot, Esq. (m)

- 1859 to 1860.
- C.S. Rodier, Esq. (m)
- Hon. John Young.
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.*
- Thomas Kay, Esq. (t)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.

- 1860 to 1861.
- C.S. Rodier, Esq. (m)
- Hon. John Young.
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.*
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.
- Thomas Cramp, Esq. (t)

- 1861 to 1862.
- C.S. Rodier, Esq. (m)
- Hon. John Young,* Chairman pro tem in 1862.
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.*
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.
- E. Atwater, Esq. (t)

- 1862 to 1863.
- Hon. John Young.
- H.H. Whitney, Esq.*
- Hon. L.H. Holton. (t)[595]
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)

- 1863 to 1864.
- Hon. John Young.*
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.
- Thomas Cramp, Esq. (t)
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)
- Henry Lyman, Esq. (t)

- 1864 to 1865.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)
- John Pratt, Esq.
- P. Redpath, Esq. (t)

- 1865 to 1866.
- Hon. John Young. *
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)
- John Pratt, Esq.
- J.H. Winn, Esq. (t)

- 1866 to 1867.
- Hon. H. Starnes. (m)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.*
- J. McLennan, Esq. (t)
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.

- 1867 to 1869.
- Hon. H. Starnes. (m)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.*
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.
- Thomas Rimmer, Esq. (t)

- 1869 to 1870.
- Hon. H. Starnes. (m)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.*
- J.H. Winn, Esq. (t)
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.

- 1870 to 1871.
- Hon. John Young. (t)
- Hon. H. Starnes. (m)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.

- 1871 to 1872.
- Hon. John Young. (t)
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.*
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.
- C.J. Coursol, Esq. (m)

- 1872 to 1873.
- A.M. Delisle, Esq.*
- George Stephen, Esq.
- William Workman, Esq.
- C.J. Coursol, Esq. (m)
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)

- 1873 to 1874.
- Hon. John Young.*
- A.M. Delisle.
- William Workman, Esq.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Doctor Bernard, (m)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- M.P. Ryan, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- W.W. Ogilvie, Esq. (c)

- 1874 to 1875.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.
- John Pratt, Esq.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Doctor Bernard. (m)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- W.W. Ogilvie, Esq. (c)
- Peter Donovan, Esq.
- Adolphe Roy, Esq.

- 1875 to 1876.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.
- John Pratt, Esq.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Doctor Bernard. (m)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Peter Donovan, Esq.
- Adolphe Roy, Esq.
- Charles H, Gould, Esq. (c)

- 1876 to 1877.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Peter Donovan, Esq.
- Adolphe Roy, Esq.
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Dr. W.H. Hingston. (m)
- Hon. J.R. Thibaudeau.[596]

- 1877 to 1878.
- Hon. John Young.*
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.* pro tem 1877.
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Peter Donovan, Esq.
- Adolphe Roy, Esq.
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Hon. J.R. Thibaudeau.

- 1878 to 1879.
- Thomas Cramp, Esq.*
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry (m)
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Peter Donovan, Esq.
- Adolphe Roy, Esq.
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Hon. J.R. Thibaudeau.
- Edward Mackay, Esq.

- 1879 to 1881.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- S. Rivard, Esq. (m)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- J.B. Rolland, Esq.
- Edward Murphy, Esq.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq., *Chairman pro tem.

- 1881 to 1885.
- Hon. J.L. Beaudry. (m)
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- J.B. Rolland, Esq.
- Edward Murphy, Esq.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.

- 1885 to 1887.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan. Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- J.B. Rolland, Esq.
- Edward Murphy, Esq.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.
- Honoré Beaugrand, Esq. (m)

- 1887 to 1888.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- Hon. J.B. Rolland.
- Edward Murphy, Esq.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.
- Hon. J.J.C. Abbott, Q.C., M.P. (m)

- 1888 to 1889.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Chas. H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- Edward Murphy, Esq.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.
- Hon. J.J.C. Abbott, Q.C., M.P. (m)
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq.

- 1889 to 1890.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq, (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Chas. H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Andrew Robertson, Esq.*
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq.
- Jacques Grenier, Esq. (m)

- 1890 to 1891.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq, (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq.
- Jacques Grenier, Esq. (m)
- Richard White, Esq.

- 1891 to 1893.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)[597]
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- Richard White, Esq.
- James McShane, Esq. (m)

- 1893 to 1894.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Charles H. Gould, Esq. (c)
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq.
- Richard White, Esq.
- Hon. Alphonse Desjardins. (m)
- L.E. Morin, Esq. (c de c)

- 1894 to 1895.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq, (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq.
- Richard White, Esq.
- L.E. Morin, Esq. (c de c)
- W.W. Ogilvie, Esq.
- N.A. Hurteau, Esq.
- John Torrance, Esq. (c)

- 1895 to 1896.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Victor Hudon, Esq.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- Hon. Edward Murphy.
- Henry Bulmer, Esq.*
- J.O. Villeneuve, Esq. (m)
- Richard White, Esq.
- L.E. Morin, Esq. (c de c)
- W.W. Ogilvie, Esq.
- N.A. Hurteau, Esq.
- John Torrance, Esq.
- H. Laporte, Esq.
- Frank J. Hart, Esq.

- 1896 to 1897.
- Hugh McLennan, Esq. (t)
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- L.E. Morin, Esq. (c de c)
- John Torrance, Esq. (c)
- R. Wilson Smith, Esq. (m)
- Robert Mackay, Esq.*
- Jonathan Hodgson, Esq.
- Robert Bickerdike, Esq.
- Alphonse Racine, Esq.
- Eustache H. Lemay, Esq.
- William Farrell, Esq.

- 1897 to 1898.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- John Torrance, Esq. (c)
- R. Wilson Smith, Esq. (m)
- Robert Mackay, Esq.*
- Jonathan Hodgson, Esq.
- Robert Bickerdike, M.L.A.
- Alphonse Racine, Esq.
- Eustache H. Lemay, Esq.
- William Farrell, Esq.
- David G. Thomson, Esq. (t)
- Joseph Contant, Esq. (c de c)

- 1898 to 1899.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- John Torrance, Esq. (c)
- Robert Mackay, Esq.*
- Jonathan Hodgson, Esq.
- Robert Bickerdike. M.L.A.
- Alphonse Racine, Esq.
- Eustache H. Lemay, Esq.
- William Farrell, Esq.
- David G. Thomson, Esq. (t)
- Joseph Contant. Esq. (c de c)
- Raymond Préfontaine, Q.C., M.P. (m)

- 1899 to 1901.
- Andrew Allan, Esq. (s)
- John Torrance, Esq. (c)
- Hon. Robert Mackay.*
- Jonathan Hodgson, Esq.
- Robert Bickerdike. M.L.A.
- Alphonse Racine, Esq.
- Eustache H. Lemay, Esq.
- William Farrell, Esq.
- Joseph Contant, Esq. (c de c)
- Raymond Préfontaine, K.C., M.P. (m)
- James Crathern, Esq. (t)

- 1901 to 1906.
- R. Mackay, Esq.*
- R. Bickerdike, Esq.
- J. Hodgson (resigned).
- A. Racine.
- E.H. Lemay.
- J. Crathern. (t)[598]
- L.E. Geoffrion. (c de c)
- H.A.A. Brault.
- A. McFee. (c)
- W.E. Doran.
- H. Laporte. (m)
- H.A. Ekers. (m)
- J. Cochrane. (m)
- R. Reford. (s) resigned.
- Andrew A. Allen.
- E. Goff Penny.

- 1907 to 1912
- G.W. Stephens.*
- L.E. Geoffrion.
- C C. Ballantyne.

- 1913
- W.G. Ross.*
- F. Robertson.
- A.E. Labelle.

List of Secretaries of the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, from its establishment in 1830 up to the present time (1914).

- Frederick Griffin, May, 1830, to May, 1831.
- Nicholas Charles Radiger, May, 1831, to April, 1837.
- W. Badgley, April, 1837, to January, 1838.
- Francis Badgley, January, 1838, to July, 1841.
- John F. Badgley, July, 1841, to February, 1852.
- John Glass, February, 1852, to October, 1855.
- Alexander Clerk, October, 1855, to May, 1863.
- H.H. Whitney, May, 1863, to January, 1877.
- H.D. Whitney, January, 1877, to June, 1887.
- Alexander Robertson, July, 1887, to December, 1898.
- David Seath, December, 1898, to present time (1914).
- Michael Fennell, Assistant Secretary (1909-1914).

List of Engineers and Superintendents in charge of the deepening of the Ship Channel between Montreal and Quebec, or otherwise prominently connected with the execution of the work up to 1914.

- Capt. Henry W. Bayfield, R.N., in charge of the Admiralty Survey of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, made several special reports in connection with the deepening of Lake St. Peter.
- Capt. Robert S. Piper, Royal Engineer, Consulting Engineer, 1830.
- John Cliff, C E., Superintendent of Works and Draughtsman, 1830 to 1845.
- C.M. Tate, C.E., Superintendent of Works and Draughtsman, 1845 to 1848.
- David Thompson, Esq., C.E., made survey and estimate for deepening channel in 1841.
- Charles Atherton, Esq., Civil Engineer in charge of the surveys and investigations made in Lake St. Peter, in 1842-3.
- F.P. Rubidge, Esq., Civil Engineer in charge of surveys, investigations, etc., in Lake St. Peter, in 1847.
- C.S. Gzowski, Esq., C.E., Engineer of the Harbour Works and Consulting Engineer to the Ship Channel Improvements, 1851 to 1853.
- T.C. Keefer, Esq., C.E., Engineer of the Harbour Works and Consulting Engineer to the Ship Channel Improvements, 1853 to 1855.
- Robert Forsyth, Esq., C.E., Engineer of the Harbour Works and Consulting Engineer to the Ship Channel Improvements, 1855 to 1864.[599]
- A.G. Nish, Esq., C.E., Engineer of the Harbour Works and Consulting Engineer to the Ship Channel Improvements, 1864 to 1875.
- John Kennedy, Esq., C.E., M.I.C.E., Chief Engineer of the Harbour Works and the Ship Channel Improvements, 1875 to 1907.
- Captain Vaughan, Superintendent of Dredging, 1844 to 1846.
- Captain Bell, Superintendent of Dredging, 1851 to 1856.
- Robert Forsyth, Esq., C.E., Superintendent of Dredging, November, 1856, to April, 1857.
- Capt C.L. Armstrong, Superintendent of Dredging, 1857 to 1867, and in 1874-5.
- Capt. Thomas McKenzie, Superintendent of Dredging, 1876 to 1883.
- James Howden, Esq., Superintendent of Dredging, 1883 to 1888.
- Frederick W. Cowie, M.J.C.E., Chief Engineer, 1907.

III

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS—EXCISE DUTIES

THE PRESENT CUSTOM HOUSE—A MEMORIAL OF 1790 FOR A CUSTOM HOUSE INDEPENDENT OF QUEBEC—THAT OF 1799 RECANTING THE FORMER MEMORIAL—THE MONTREAL COMMITTEE OF TRADE OF 1831—STEAM VESSELS CHANGE CONDITIONS—FIRST CUSTOM HOUSE PROPER AT MONTREAL—THE COLLECTORS’ NAMES—THE SHIPPING FEDERATION—STATISTICS—EXPORTS AND IMPORTS SINCE 1842—TRADE OF PORT OF MONTREAL—CUSTOMS DUTIES SINCE CONFEDERATION—EXCISE DEPARTMENT OF MONTREAL.

The business of the Customs was conducted before 1840 in a building on Capitol Street. In 1836 the building now used by the Inland Revenue on Place Royale was commenced and opened for the customs office in 1845. It is of the Tuscan order and was designed by Mr. Ostell.

In 1790 in the fall the merchants of Montreal presented a memorial desiring the establishment of a custom house separate from that of Quebec on two grounds: (1) the necessity of having the goods landed at Quebec; (2) the want of authority in the surveyor of the ports to grant certificates for the exportation of pot and pearl ashes. This was strenuously objected to by the naval officers, on the ground that were the prayer answered the passage between Quebec and Montreal would be taken advantage of by the country merchants, shop keepers, publicans, etc., to carry on an illicit trade “to the injury of the revenue and the fur traders.” The complaints in the memorial state that the landing at Quebec of cargoes for Montreal[600] “must be attended with very heavy expense for agents, wharfage and labourers, besides the waste that will happen on cargoes of liquor by landing. What is of still greater consequence, is the loss of time which may arise, it being well known that the delay of a few hours waiting for a clearance upwards has occasioned vessels to be many weeks in performing a voyage of sixty leagues.” This is, of course, an allusion to the sailing vessels then solely used. These inconveniences were removed and the application was not repeated. A further memorial, dated from Montreal the 21st of October, 1799, represents that certain modifications are all that are required and that “a separate and independent custom house may introduce intricacies, difficulties, delays and expense beyond what at present exists and can be foreseen and if so render the means of redress extremely tedious, not to say impracticable.” The names attached to the memorial are Isaac Todd, Forsyth, Richardson & Company, Auldjo, Maitland & Co.; Leith, Jameson & Company; John Gray; Samuel David; James and Andrew McGill; David David; McTavish, Frobisher & Company; J. Laing; Parker, Gerard & Ogilvie; Richard Dobie.

The introduction of steam vessels made new regulations necessary. In 1831 vessels coming to Montreal continued to report at Quebec. In consequence of remonstrances the superintendent of customs residing at Montreal was authorized by a provisional act to collect the provincial revenues there, but this was only a partial relief, as the crown duties had still to be settled for at Quebec, to the great loss of merchants, shippers and consignees. The Committee of Trade of Montreal represented in their memorial of 1831 that the navigation of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal was rendered speedy and certain by the employment of steam towboats, but the necessity of entering the vessels at the Quebec custom house caused a delay of one day and sometimes two days in unloading. The burdens laid upon the shipping coming to Montreal, the memorial states to have been exceptional for that city, no other instance being known of a merchant being compelled to pay duties on his importations at a distance of 180 miles from the port of discharge, the expense and inconvenience thence arising being equivalent to an extra tax. The memorial reveals the difference of the two ports today. It states that the vessels resorting to Montreal bore a small proportion to those entering Quebec, but the memorials already anticipated that by improvements in the river, vessels from sea would land at Montreal the whole of the goods for its own district, Upper Canada and the adjoining frontier of the United States.

The first Custom House building situated at Place Royale was begun in 1836 and finished in 1838. Montreal, accordingly obtained its own completed Custom House in 1838. In 1870 the Government purchased from the Royal Insurance Company the present Custom House building at 1 Common Street. A newly erected Custom House is now (1914) in course of completion on Youville Square.

The Collectors of Customs at the Port of Montreal have been:

Wm. Hall, from 1838 to 1849: Tancrède Bouthillier, from July, 1850, to November, 1863; Benj. Holmes, from December, 1863, to May, 1865; John Lewis, acting, from May, 1865, to September, 1866; A.M. Delisle, from September, 1866, to October, 1873; W.B. Simpson, from November, 1873, to June, 1882; M.P. Ryan, from July, 1882, to January, 1893; W.J. O’Hara, acting, from January, 1893, to December, 1895; R.S. White, from January, 1896.

Montreal became a port of entry in 1842.

THE MONTREAL PILOTAGE AUTHORITY

In the early part of the eighteenth century an official knowing the navigation of the St. Lawrence boarded the king’s ships and brought them to Quebec, and[601] in 1731 the first official pilot was appointed, and sent each season thereafter to Isle Verte, to await ships arrivals. This appears to have been the beginning of the St. Lawrence Pilotage.

After the British occupation, and during the term of General Murray’s governorship, in 1762, an order was issued requiring a number of pilots to be stationed early in each season at Bic, and to remain until the middle of October, also a further number at Isle aux Coudres. No person was to act as a pilot, unless he had passed a satisfactory examination, and had a certificate signed by the governor.

In 1805 there was passed an act entitled “An Act for the better regulation of pilots and shipping in the Port of Quebec, and in the harbours of Quebec and Montreal and for improving the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, and for establishing a fund for decayed pilots, their wives and children.”

This was the beginning of the Trinity House of Quebec and its jurisdiction then included the harbour of Montreal. Further acts were passed in 1807, 1811, 1812, 1822 and 1834, amending and extending the provisions of the preceding acts. By an act passed in 1832, a separate Trinity House was constituted for Montreal. This arrangement continued until the passing of the act in 1873, which made the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal the authority. They continued to be the authority till the passing of the Act of 1903, when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries became the authority, which he still continues to be.

THE SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA

Montreal is the headquarters of the Shipping Federation of Canada. In 1903 in order to amalgamate those interested in the shipping business of Canada a charter of incorporation (3 Edward, VII Chap.), was granted to “Hugh Andrew Allan, representing the firm of H. & A. Allan; John Russell Binning, representing Furness, Withy & Company, Limited; James Thom, representing the Hamburg-American Packet Company; William I. Gear, representing the Robert Reford Company, Limited; Frank A. Routh, representing the firm of F.A. Routh & Company; David W. Campbell, representing the Elder-Dempster Company, Limited; James Gordon Brock, representing J.G. Brock & Company; Charles McLean; McLean, Kennedy & Company; and John Torrence, representing the Dominion Line of Steamships; and the Leyland Line of Steamships respectively, and such others as hereafter become members of the association.”

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Statistics of Imports and Exports since Montreal was made a Port of Entry in 1842:

In its fiftieth annual report the Montreal Board of Trade in 1892 presented tables of statistics showing as nearly as possible the development of trade in Montreal since 1842, when this city was made a port of entry.

The accompanying figures portraying conditions every ten years, were taken from that report and give an excellent summary.

Prior to 1850 the government did not publish blue book information of trade conditions, and the statistics referring to trade before that time were obtained[602] from various sources. What early figures were obtained are accurate so far as could be determined, but there are unavoidable gaps where information could not be secured.

EXCISE DEPARTMENT

Previous to the confederation of the provinces, the excise duties, the canal tolls and the harbor dues were collected under the management of the Customs Department. The revenues from the other public works were collected either by the Department of Public Works or by the Crown Lands Department and the issue of bill stamps was managed by a Board of Stamps and Excise.

By the act constituting the Department of Inland Revenue, it was enacted that the Department should have the control and management

1. Of the collections of all duties of excise.
2. Of the collections of all stamp duties and the preparation and issue of stamps and stamped paper, except postage stamps.
3. Of Internal taxes.
4. Of Standard weights and measures.
5. Of the administration of the laws affecting the culling and measuring of timber and the collection of slidage and boomage dues.
6. The collection of bridges and ferry tolls and rents.

These conditions have at different dates been changed until now.

The Inland Revenue consists of Excise, Weights and Measures, Gas and Electric Light, and Food Inspections.

Excise is the branch which supervises and collects the duties from distilleries, malthouses, breweries, tobacco factories, cigar factories, bonding warehouses, compounders, bonded factories for the manufacture in bond of vinegar, acetic acid, perfumes, pharmaceutical preparations, soaps, fulminates, malt cereals, etc.

The Inland Revenue is divided into two services: the Inside and the Outside.

The Inside comprises all officials in the Department at Ottawa.

The Outside comprises all the rest of the staff, the officials who actually assess and collect the revenues and duties.

The Excise, Montreal, is officered by sixty-two men—forty-six of whom are permanently appointed, the rest, sixteen, are temporary employees.

There are licensed, in Montreal: One distillery, four malthouses, sixteen breweries, forty-one cigar factories, one acetic acid factory, five perfumes, six pharmaceutical preparations, fourteen bonded warehouses, twenty-one chemical stills and one wood alcohol manufacturer.

The Weights and Measures Inspection are responsible for the verification of all weights and measures used in trade.

Gas Inspection has charge of the inspection of all meters used by consumers of gas and the illuminating power and purity of gas.

Food Inspection deals with the purity of alimentary substances.

As a collecting office, the Inland Revenue, Montreal, is second only to the Customs, and collects nearly one-half of all the excise revenue of Canada.

The officers named by the British Government and who remained in office at Confederation were R. Bellemare, Inspector; P. Durnford, Collector, assisted by a staff of fourteen officers.

The first excise office was situated on St. James Street, on part of the site now occupied by “La Presse Building”; in 1871, it was moved to the present location, at No. 412 St. Paul Street, (the site of the first public square in Montreal).

The steady increase in collections of the Inland Revenue duties is one of the best indications of the growth of Montreal.

[603]

TABLE OF THE TRADE OF THE PORT OF MONTREAL FROM 1882 TO 1912

| Sea-going |  | Value of | Value of
| Vessels arrived | Total | Merchandise | Merchandise
Years | in Port | Tonnage | Exported | Imported
1913-14 | — | — | $99,238,107 | $152,635,805
1912 | 736 | 2,403,924 | 87,679,422 | 148,977,605
1911 | 762 | 2,338,252 | 71,254,446 | 129,811,810
1910 | 747 | 2,234,722 | 71,642,648 | 114,473,845
1909 | 670 | 1,911,413 | 76,642,485 | 96,787,938
1908 | 739 | 1,958,604 | 80,583,171 | 79,851,814
1907 | 740 | 1,924,475 | 85,494,534 | 106,391,891
1906 | 820 | 1,973,223 | 89,616,459 | 89,376,259
1905 | 833 | 1,940,056 | 73,786,548 | 80,345,420
1904 | 796 | 1,853,853 | 57,947,045 | 76,056,830
1903 | 802 | 1,890,904 | 70,939,510 | 78,527,078
1902 | 758 | 1,541,272 | 59,755,673 | 70,737,832
1901 | 742 | 1,453,048 | 56,220,759 | 65,632,086
1900 | 726 | 1,393,886 | 62,496,431 | 64,071,590
1899 | 801 | 1,517,611 | 64,040,982 | 65,018,544
1898 | 868 | 1,584,072 | 62,729,180 | 61,117,703
1897 | 796 | 1,379,002 | 55,156,956 | 47,036,196
1896 | 709 | 1,216,468 | 49,160,364 | 45,900,270
1895 | 640 | 1,069,386 | 40,348,197 | 41,996,686
1894 | 734 | 1,096,909 | 40,401,392 | 42,514,582
1893 | 804 | 1,151,777 | 47,700,433 | 53,796,227
1892 | 735 | 1,036,707 | 45,638,275 | 47,670,361
1891 | 725 | 938,657 | 39,344,783 | 48,418,569
1890 | 746 | 930,332 | 32,027,176 | 45,159,124
1889 | 695 | 823,165 | 32,638,270 | 47,415,620
1888 | 655 | 782,473 | 24,049,638 | 39,856,283
1887 | 767 | 870,773 | 29,391,858 | 43,391,715
1886 | 703 | 859,699 | 27,925,916 | 42,086,266
1885 | 629 | 683,854 | 25,209,813 | 37,042,660
1884 | 626 | 649,374 | 27,458,775 | 41,859,299
1883 | 660 | 664,263 | 27,122,891 | 44,073,915
1882 | 648 | 554,692 | 26,503,001 | 50,527,497
The foregoing table does not include inland vessels, the figures of which for the season of 1912 were 12,586 vessels with a tonnage of 4,649,767.

CUSTOMS DUTIES COLLECTED AT PORT OF MONTREAL SINCE CONFEDERATION

1867-68 | $4,009,675.56
1868-69 | 3,608,254.75
1869-70 | 4,128,051.89
1870-71 | 5,140,132.03
1871-72 | 5,358,701.13
1872-73 | 5,011,154.89
1873-74 | 5,633,705.88
1874-75 | 5,862,047.05
1875-76 | 4,292,057.10
1876-77 | 3,865,410.50
1877-78 | 3,814,864.77
1878-79 | 4,026,975.75
1879-80 | 5,232,802.19
1880-81 | 7,077,793.32
1881-82 | 8,100,341.40
1882-83 | 8,181,935.78
1883-84 | 7,041,306.18
1884-85 | 6,856,186.99
1885-86 | 7,353,009.24
1886-87 | 8,874,147.75
1887-88 | 8,548,737.15
1888-89 | 9,265,405.73
1889-90 | 8,776,875.22
1890-91 | 9,065,486.99
1891-92 | 6,627,526.11
1892-93 | 7,078,707.12[604]
1893-94 | 6,653,299.34
1894-95 | 5,983,342.25
1895-96 | 6,779,879.74
1896-97 | 6,765,771.85
1897-98 | 7,207,005.29
1898-99 | 8,662,764.98
1899-1900 | 9,136,377.52
1900-01 | 9,018,659.84
1901-02 | 10,041,662.04
1902-03 | 11,803,298.00
1903-04 | 12,437,927.95
1904-05 | 11,591,656.70
1905-06 | 13,275,623.17
1906-07 | 11,433,595.61
1907-08 | 16,480,921.60
1908-09 | 12,935,098.62
1909-10 | 16,325,229.78
1910-11 | 18,327,198.73
1911-12 | 19,951,815.23
1912-13 | 25,655,340.42
1913-14 | 24,732,198.57

The variations in the amount of duties collected are due (1) to the growth of imports and (2) to changes in tariff rates.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

| 1842. | 1850.
Imports | $8,075,840 | $6,905,400
Exports | 1,714,644 | 1,744,772
Ocean vessels— |  |
Number | 137 | 222
Tonnage | 41,319 | 46,867
Exports— |  |
Butter (lb.) | 595,840
Cheese (boxes) | 44
Breadstuffs (bushels), flour reduced to terms of wheat | 1,091,435
Inland vessels—-
Number | 3,726
Tonnage | 391,520
| 1860.
Imports | $15,334,010
Exports | 6,020,715
Ocean vessels—number | 259
Ocean vessels—tonnage | 121,559
Inland vessels—number | 4,558
Inland vessels—tonnage | 348,652
Exports—Butter (lb.) | 2,598,262
Exports—Cheese (boxes) | 301
Exports—Breadstuffs (bushels) | 4,563,206
Imports—Teas (lb.) | 1,577,179
Imports—Raw sugar (lb.) | 18,862,536
| 1870.
Imports | $25,680,814
Exports | 19,100,413
Ocean vessels—number | 680[605]
Ocean vessels—tonnage | 316,846
Inland vessels—number | 6,345
Inland vessels—tonnage | 819,476
Exports—Butter (lb.) | 8,127,360
Exports—Cheese (boxes) | 99,576
Exports—Breadstuffs (bushels) | 13,691,310
Exports—Lumber (value) | 528,793
Imports—Teas (lb.) | 6,269,071
Imports—Raw sugar (lb.) | 51,857,741
| 1880.
Imports | $37,073,068
Exports | 30,224,673
Ocean vessels—number | 710
Ocean vessels—-tonnage | 628,271
Inland vessels—number | 6,489
Inland vessels—tonnage | 1,044,380
Exports—Butter (lb.) | 20,547,840
Exports—Cheese (boxes) | 514,964
Exports—Breadstuffs (bushels) | 26,091,130
Exports—Cattle | 35,070
Exports—Sheep | 64,592
Exports—Lumber (value) | 673,481
Exports—Phosphates (tons) | 8,667
Imports—Teas (lb.) | 4,339,182
Imports—Raw sugar (lb.) | 82,551,474
| 1890.
Imports | $45,934,406
Exports | 31,660,216
Ocean vessels—number | 746
Ocean vessels—tonnage | 930,332
Inland vessels—number | 5,162
Inland vessels—tonnage | 966,959
Exports—Butter (lb.) | 3,243,920
Exports—Cheese (boxes) | 1,379,684
Exports—Breadstuffs (bushels) | 13,550,974
Exports—Cattle | 123,136
Exports—Sheep | 43,135
Exports—Lumber (value) | 3,039,963
Exports—Phosphates (tons) | 23,488
Imports—Teas (lb.) | 7,020,076
Imports—Raw sugar (lb.) | 136,874,550

[606]

PORT OF MONTREAL

Combined Statement Showing the Number and Tonnage of all Vessels that Arrived in Port During Ten Years—1901 to 1913:

| Trans-Atlantic | Maritime Provinces | Inland | Grand Total
Year | Vessels | Tonnage | Vessels | Tonnage | Vessels | Tonnage | Vessels | Tonnage
1901 | 449 | 1,016,918 | 293 | 436,130 | 8,450 | 1,683,186 | 9,192 | 3,136,334
1902 | 436 | 1,072,538 | 322 | 468,734 | 9,395 | 1,885,150 | 10,153 | 3,426,522
1903 | 484 | 1,418,156 | 318 | 472,748 | 15,358 | 2,415,791 | 16,140 | 4,306,695
1904 | 417 | 1,270,640 | 379 | 586,057 | 10,063 | 2,354,975 | 10,859 | 4,211,672
1905 | 442 | 1,354,829 | 391 | 585,227 | 11,112 | 2,785,551 | 11,945 | 4,725,607
1906 | 439 | 1,380,835 | 381 | 592,388 | 12,557 | 3,095,174 | 13,377 | 5,068,395
1907 | 381 | 1,339,014 | 361 | 586,972 | 14,420 | 3,620,950 | 15,161 | 5,546,936
1908 | 364 | 1,315,688 | 375 | 642,916 | 12,434 | 3,589,124 | 13,173 | 5,548,028
1909 | 371 | 1,436,963 | 299 | 474,450 | 10,991 | 3,146,494 | 11,661 | 5,057,907
1910 | 411 | 1,658,414 | 336 | 574,808 | 13,636 | 4,327,799 | 14,383 | 6,561,021
1911 | 401 | 1,695,613 | 361 | 642,639 | 11,670 | 4,275,019 | 12,432 | 6,613,271
1912 | 409 | 1,775,487 | 327 | 628,437 | 12,586 | 4,649,767 | 13,322 | 7,053,691
1913 | 477 | 2,020,333 | 343 | 670,202 | 13,426 | 5,703,467 | 14,246 | 8,394,002

Statement Showing Classification of Vessels that Arrived in Port for Ten Years, from the Lower St. Lawrence and Martime Provinces.

| Steamships | Barques | Schooners | Grand Total
Year | No. | Tonnage | No. | Tonnage | No. | Tonnage | Nos. | Tonnage
1901 | 282 | 434,140 | 1 | 999 | 10 | 991 | 293 | 436,130
1902 | 311 | 406,671 | —— | —— | 11 | 1,063 | 322 | 468,734
1903 | 303 | 468,100 | —— | —— | 15 | 4,648 | 318 | 472,748
1904 | 366 | 582,819 | —— | —— | 13 | 3,238 | 379 | 586,057
1905 | 364 | 580,485 | —— | —— | 26 | 4,116 | 391 | 585,127
1906 | 367 | 588,980 | —— | —— | 14 | 3,408 | 381 | 592,388
1907 | 343 | 579,930 | —— | —— | 18 | 7,042 | 361 | 586,972
1908 | 350 | 640,244 | —— | —— | 25 | 2,672 | 375 | 642,916
1909 | 273 | 470,936 | —— | —— | 26 | 3,514 | 299 | 474,450
1910 | 346 | 572,022 | —— | —— | 30 | 2,786 | 336 | 574,808
1911 | 330 | 639,752 | —— | —— | 31 | 2,887 | 361 | 642,639
1912 | 292 | 625,099 | —— | —— | 35 | 3,388 | 327 | 628,457
1913 | 299 | 666,053 | —— | —— | 44 | 4,149 | 343 | 670,202

FOOTNOTES:

1 “Canadian Antiquarian,” 1873, Vol. II, pp. 16-21.

2 The Dock, one of the largest yet built, is capable of docking the largest existing vessel in the British Navy. It is of the double-sided self-docking type, on the principle known as the “bolted sectional.” It consists of a pontoon or lifting portion of the dock, and two parallel side walls, built on to and forming part of the same, and the whole length is divided into three complete and separate sections, which, when bolted together, form the complete dock. These sections are so arranged that when the dock is separated into its three parts, any two of them can dock the remaining third between them. For this purpose each section is fitted with its own independent pumping machinery, so that it can also act as an independent unit.

The general dimensions of the dock are as follows:—

| Ft. | In.
Length over platforms | 600 | 0
Length over pontoons | 550 | 6
Width over all | 135 | 0
Depth of pontoon at center | 17 | 0
Length of side walls | 470 | 6
Height of side walls above pontoon deck | 42 | 0
Width of side walls at base | 17 | 6
Width of side walls at top | 12 | 6
Clear width between roller fenders | 100 | 0
Draught of vessel | 27 | 6
Lifting capacity | 25,000 tons

The construction of the dock is such as to make it suitable for lifting a modern British battleship, the pontoon deck being specially stiffened to allow it to support a large portion of the weight of the vessel on side or bilge, as well as central, keels.

In the season of 1914, 27 vessels were repaired.

In addition a ship building yard has been built in 1914 with five or six miles of railroad connecting with the C.P.R., C.N.R., and G.T.R. lines. At present a gigantic million dollar ice breaker, the second in the world, is being built by this firm for the Dominion government to be launched in 1915. In addition a bucket dredge costing $835,000 has been ordered by the Government for delivery in June, 1916.

[607]

### CHAPTER XL

TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL

IV

MONTREAL AND THE RAILWAYS OF CANADA

MONTREAL THE CENTRE OF RAILWAY COMMUNICATION—THE FIRST RAILWAY—THE SNAKE RAIL AND THE “KITTEN”—“THE CHAMPLAIN AND THE ST. LAWRENCE”—THE SECOND RAILWAY, THE ATLANTIC AND ST. LAWRENCE—THE AMALGAMATION INTO THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.

1. ITS HISTORY—ITS PRESIDENTS—AN INTERESTING REPORT AT CONFEDERATION—NEW FREIGHT YARDS—CHAS. M. HAYS AND THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY—THE BUILDING OF THE VICTORIA BRIDGES BY THE GRAND TRUNK RAILROAD.

2. THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY—ITS FINANCIERS—TWIN TO CONFEDERATION—OPPOSITION TO PROMOTERS—EARLY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES—NO BIG FORTUNES MADE—ROLLING STOCK—A REAL EMPIRE BUILDER—HELPING NEW INDUSTRIES—HUGE LAND HOLDINGS—IRRIGATION OF BARREN LANDS.

3. OTHER SYSTEMS—THE “INTERCOLONIAL”—THE CANADIAN NORTHERN AND ITS MOUNTAIN TUNNEL.

Night and day from January 1st to December 31st, year in and year out, the heavily loaded passenger and freight trains pass into and out of the railway terminals of Montreal, bearing to their various destinations millions of human beings and thousands of tons of freight.

Altogether eight important railways have entrance to Montreal at the time of writing, while yet another transcontinental line, the Canadian Northern, is planning a new and imposing terminal in connection with the tunnelling of Mount Royal, which is the most important engineering undertaking in Montreal projected since the construction of the Victoria tubular bridge. At the present time the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern, the New York Central, the Rutland, the Delaware & Hudson, and the Central Vermont railroads are all running trains directly into Montreal. The railway freight yards are crowded with cars bearing the initials of practically every road of any importance on the continent.

This huge business in carrying, of such vital importance to the city of Montreal, yet so little appreciated, because of our familiarity with it, is less than a century old, for the success of the locomotive was not admitted until the opening of the[608] Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1830. On the news of this the first railway in Canada, the Champlain & St. Lawrence, was chartered in 1831 to run from La Prairie to St. Johns, P.Q., and opened for traffic with horses in 1836 and first worked by the locomotives in 1837. Its length was only sixteen miles.

The rails were of wood with flat bars of iron spiked on them, and from the tendency of this class of rail to curl or bend upwards as the wheels passed over it, it became known as the snake rail. The first locomotive used on the line was sent from Europe, accompanied by an engineer, who for some unexplained reason had it caged up and secreted from the public eye.

The trial trip was made by moonlight in the presence of a few interested parties and it is not described as a success. Several attempts were made to get the “Kitten,” for such was the nick-name applied to this pioneer locomotive, to run to St. Johns, but in vain: the engine proved refractory and horses were substituted for it.

It is related that a practical engineer being called in from “the States,” the engine which was thought to be hopelessly unmanageable, was pronounced in good order, requiring only plenty of wood and water. This opinion proved correct, for after a little practice the extraordinary rate of speed of twenty miles per hour was obtained. It was a “strap” rail until 1847 when the heavy T-iron was laid.

The Champlain & St. Lawrence Railway, thus inaugurated the railway era of Canada in the year 1832, and the line continued to be operated as a separate and distinct organization for just forty years. In 1872 it was made a part of the Grand Trunk Railway, and it is operated as a part of the Grand Trunk organization at the present time.

The Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad followed the Champlain & St. Lawrence. Although not a Canadian railroad, this line had a tremendous influence on the development of the country, since it gave the Canadian people access for the first time to an all-the-year-round port. Halifax and St. John were yet mere villages without any rail communication with the industrial heart of the country, separated from it by that vast stretch of then undeveloped and almost unexplored country which we now recognize as lower Quebec and upper New Brunswick. The Atlantic & St. Lawrence line gave access to the port of Portland, running from that city through a thriving agricultural country to Norton Mills, Vermont, just on the Canadian border. Norton Mills and La Prairie, now merely villages without any special importance, were at this period in Canada’s growth railway terminals of consequence.

The Atlantic & St. Lawrence road was built with a purpose. It was chartered in 1845, and long before it was completed, in 1852, to be exact, the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada was granted a charter by the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which, with subsequent additions, provided for the construction of the present Grand Trunk line between Riviere du Loup, Quebec, and Sarnia, Ontario.

The Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad was completed about 1860, and was at once leased for a period of 999 years to the Grand Trunk Railway. This gave the Canadian people unbroken stretches of railroad from Portland, Maine, and from Riviere du Loup to Montreal, and on this foundation the present huge transportation business of this city has been erected. The people of Canada recognized[609] the importance of this development by grants of cash and mail subsidies to the line.

In point of age, therefore, the Grand Trunk Railway claims priority over all the Canadian railways now existing, and the road may be said to be the pioneer railway of Canada.

THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY

The first meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was held in the City of Quebec on Monday, July 11, 1853. The Hon. John Ross was appointed president of the road; Benjamin Holmes was made vice president, while Sir C.P. Roney became managing director and secretary-treasurer.

The following is a list of the presidents and general managers of the road, with their dates of service:

Presidents. | Dates of Service.
Hon. Jno. Ross | 1852-1862
Sir Edward Watkin, Bart | 1862-1869
Richard Potter | 1869-1876
Sir Henry W. Tyler | 1876-1895
Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson | 1895-1910
Chas. M. Hays | 1910-1912
E.J. Chamberlin | 1912-
General Managers. | Dates of Service.
Sir C.P. Roney (Man. Dir.) | 1853-
T.E. Blackwell (Man. Dir.) | 1853-1862
C.J. Brydges (Man. Dir.) | 1862-1874
Sir Joseph Hickson | 1874-1890
L.J. Seargeant | 1891-1896
Chas. M. Hays | 1896-1901
Geo. B. Reeve | 1901-
Chas. M. Hays (Vice Pres. and Gen. Mgr.) | 1902-1912

(Since January 1, 1910, Mr. Alfred W. Smithers has been Chairman of the Board of Directors in London, England—a new departure in the organization.)

In order to gain insight into the conditions under which the railway was operating, Sir Henry Tyler, who later became president of the road, paid an official visit to the Dominion in 1867 under instructions from the Board of Directors. Sir Henry’s report gives some interesting information about the road as it then existed.

He found that the Grand Trunk at that time comprised a total length of 1,377 miles. In addition to the water routes hereinbefore mentioned, the chief competitor in Canada of the company was the Great Western Railway Company, extending from Niagara Falls to Sarnia, Ontario, and to Detroit, Michigan. As a result of this competition Sir Henry reported (1867) that the rates for freight service averaged 0.92 of a cent per ton per mile—flour being carried between Montreal[610] and Toronto as low as a cent per ton per mile. The average rate on the Grand Trunk System for the year 1910 was 0.69 of a cent per ton per mile.

The average number of freight cars to a train was then reported as 15.5; the average net load of each train as 150 tons.

The records for 1910 show an average of 26.6 freight cars per train and the average weight of “revenue” freight carried, per train, was 299 net tons.

The original gauge of the Grand Trunk was five feet six inches, except that portion between Port Huron and Detroit, where the “narrow gauge” of four feet eight and one-half inches was used. Sir Henry’s report recommended the adoption of the wider gauge for the whole of the road, bringing it into conformity with the other lines on the continent.

The year of Sir Henry’s visit was also the year of Confederation, and this change, which had so tremendous an effect upon Canada’s history, had also an important bearing upon the history of the Grand Trunk Railway. The new Dominion Government, being desirous of opening up the country purchased on the 17th of July, 1879, that portion of the Grand Trunk road which lies between Riviere du Loup and Point Levis, with the object of making it a portion of the new Government road, which subsequently became the Intercolonial Railway.

With the proceeds of this sale the Grand Trunk agreed to construct a line between Port Huron, Michigan, and Chicago. The International Bridge Company undertook another great engineering feat in 1857, in the building of the Niagara River Bridge, between Fort Erie and Buffalo. This bridge was completed in 1873, and entirely rebuilt to accommodate the heavier traffic in 1900. The two systems of railways, the Grand Trunk and Great Western, were amalgamated into the present system under agreement dated August 12, 1882.

The directors started out in 1889 to make the Grand Trunk the longest double tracked system on this continent, and the line is now double tracked from St. Rosalie, a point thirty-eight miles east of Montreal and St. Johns, twenty-seven miles south, to Chicago, an unbroken double tracked run of 907 miles. With other double tracked lines connecting principal cities the Grand Trunk is now in possession of 1,037 miles of duplicate tracks.

The Grand Trunk owns and controls ten grain elevators in various parts of the Dominion and the United States, having a total capacity of 20,000,000 bushels of grain. The latest of these, an elevator with a capacity of 5,500,000 bushels, is located at Fort William, and was built in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

The four principal bridges owned by the Company, the Victoria Bridge, the Coteau Landing Bridge, the steel arch bridge across Niagara Gorge, and the International Bridge across the Niagara River, have a total length of 16,653 feet, and the railway owns other bridges in different parts of the continent, which have a total of 18.43 miles.

Recent improvements and developments of the line in the city and district of Montreal include the erection of the magnificent new offices on McGill Street and the promotion, in connection with the Jacques Cartier Union Railway, of a belt line around the city. Also, in 1892, the company secured control of the Canadian Express Company, which now operates over all the Grand Trunk and connecting lines from Montreal.

INITIALS OF SIR GEORGE SIMPSON AND HIS INDIAN GUIDE FOUND NEAR BANFF IN 1913

The date, 1841, indicates that the initials were evidently carved at the time Sir George was making the original survey of the Canadian Pacific Railroad through the mountains.

FIRST TRAIN IN CANADA

Laprairie, P.Q.—St. Johns, P.Q. 1836

GRAND TRUNK LOCOMOTIVE BUILT IN G.T.R. SHOPS IN 1859

Hauled royal train with Prince of Wales (King Edward VII) through Canada in 1860.

LORD STRATHCONA DRIVING THE GOLDEN SPIKE COMPLETING THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD AT CRAIGENACHEE, NOVEMBER 7, 1885.

[611]

In order to better the existing conditions of handling its train service, and to relieve as much as possible the already heavily worked yards and general freight terminals, both at Point St. Charles and on the Mountain Street to Chaboillez Square freight sidings, the company has constructed two extensive systems of freight yard tracks. One of these is located at Southwalk, about two miles east of the passenger station at St. Lambert, and the other is at Turcot, in Notre Dame de Grace Ward of the City of Montreal. At St. Lambert there is an aggregate of about twenty-seven miles of new sidings, and at Turcot, twenty-two miles of new tracks have been laid down.

It is an interesting feature of these yards that no shunting or switching movements is done on the main lines.

So far this chapter has dealt exclusively with the Grand Trunk Railway System proper, and no mention has been made of that momentous period of the railway history of the Dominion in which we now live and which followed the agreement entered into between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Dominion Government. This agreement provided for the construction of a railroad clear across Canada, from Moncton, New Brunswick to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, wholly within Canadian territory. The project was conceived by the late President Chas. M. Hays, of Montreal, who was one of the victims of the Steamship Titanic disaster.

The new line, known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, is now practically complete and is already operating over the major portion of its road, there being a fine passenger and freight service between Ft. William, Ontario, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Its construction marks the most important development of the Grand Trunk, since the amalgamation with the Great Western Railway of Canada, and it is expected to make the Pioneer Railway of Canada one of the greatest forces in the development of the country, the uniting of East with West into one huge harmonious whole.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was incorporated October 24, 1903, following the contract entered into between the G.T.R. and the Dominion Government, on July 29th of the same year, providing for the construction of the line as a joint government and Grand Trunk enterprise.

Roughly the terms under which this huge work is being carried out are as follows: The railway is divided into two sections, Eastern and Western. The Western Division, extending from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, is subdivided into the Prairie and Mountain sections, and the entire line has been constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

The Eastern Division, 1,804 miles in length, is being constructed by the Canadian Government, under supervision of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway. It links Moncton with Winnipeg, and thus gives the company a clear coast to coast line. Upon the completion of the work, the Government leases the Eastern Section to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for a period of fifty years, on the following terms:

For the first seven years of the said term, the Company shall operate the same subject only to payment of “Working Expenditures;” for the next succeeding forty-three years the company shall pay annually to the government, by way of rental, a sum equal to 3 per cent per annum upon the cost of construction of the said division, provided that if, in any one or more of the first three years of the[612] said period of forty-three years the net earnings of the said division, over and above “Working Expenditure” shall not amount to 3 per cent of the cost of construction, the difference between the net earnings and the rental shall not be payable by the company, but shall be capitalized and form part of the cost of construction, upon the whole amount of which cost a rental is required to be paid at the rate aforesaid after the first ten years of the said lease, and during the remainder of the said term.

All the branch lines of the Eastern Division will be constructed by and at the cost of the company.

The company is responsible for the construction of all lines west of Winnipeg, the Government guaranteeing the principal and interest of three-quarters of the cost of the main line from Winnipeg to the Pacific Coast terminus at Prince Rupert, B.C., for fifty years, but with the limitation that such three-quarters of the cost shall not exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile on the Prairie Section—with no limitation, however, in regard to the cost of the Mountain Section. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada has guaranteed the principal and interest for fifty years of the balance required to complete the main line of the Western Division.

The line has created a new seaport on the Pacific, which will give a further impetus to our already immense trade with Japan and the other commercial countries of the Orient, as well as opening a fresh route to Australasia which cannot but help bind in closer union the British Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, already closely related to us by the splendid sentiment of Empire. It opens up splendid new wheat fields in the Prairie Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and taps also immensely valuable coal and agricultural areas in British Columbia. Through its branches it reaches the already created industrial and commercial centres of the great West, while its fleet of steamships links Prince Rupert with the other Pacific Coast ports, both on the Canadian and the United States shores. With the example of the growth of the Western United States since adequate rail facilities were provided for their cities and towns before us, it is difficult indeed to see how the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway can fail to establish itself as a dominant factor in the growth of Western Canada, a growth which at this view it is impossible to estimate and which only time can show.

Before passing from the history of the Grand Trunk Railway, a place must be given to the record of the great engineering feat in transportation effected by them. Previous to the building of the first tubular Victoria bridge erected by this company over the St. Lawrence at Montreal, the only communication with the Grand Trunk lines hitherto, was by ferry to Longueuil, then the terminus. Passengers and freight were carried on barges across the St. Lawrence. In winter sleighs were used across the ice. In a period of one to three weeks in the spring this crossing was either abandoned or very dangerous in the break up of the ice.

THE VICTORIA BRIDGES

As early as 1847 the Hon. John Young had desired to erect a bridge. In 1851 he used the opinion and report of Mr. Thomas C. Keefer, a Canadian, on the[613] practicability of building a bridge over the St. Lawrence in the position eventually chosen and based on the findings of his report.1

GRAND TRUNK STATION | GRAND TRUNK OFFICES
PLACE VIGER STATION

PROPOSED MONTREAL TERMINAL OF CANADIAN NORTHERN

WINDSOR STREET STATION

In 1852 Mr. A.M. Ross, C.E., the engineer of the Victoria Bridge, came to Canada on behalf of English capitalists. He was met at Quebec by Sir John Young who took him to Montreal to inspect the locality for a bridge. Mr. Ross suggested an iron tubular bridge, took soundings and plans of the bridge as designed by him and returned in the fall.

Mr. Robert Stephenson, the consulting engineer, and a son of George Stephenson, the great railway pioneer, came to Montreal in 1853 and at a complimentary dinner, he said:

“I cannot sit down without referring to the all-important subject of a bridge over your magnificent river. Abundance of information was brought over to me in England by my esteemed friend, Ross, during the last visit he paid to that country so that I was able to get a good notion of what the bridge was to be before I came out here.

“I had been here twenty-five years before and the St. Lawrence seemed to be like the sea, and I certainly never thought of bridging it.” On the same occasion he said: “I assure you I appreciate your kindness most amply and one of the proudest days of my life will be that when I am called upon to confer with the engineers of the Grand Trunk Railway on bridging the St. Lawrence.”

The stone for the first pier of the Victoria Bridge was laid on July 22, 1854, by Sir. C.P. Roney, the first secretary of the Grand Trunk, along with Vice President Benjamin Holmes, Mr. James Hodge, the builder, Mr. A.M. Ross, C.E., the engineer, and other gentlemen who were also joined by Lady Roney, Mrs. Hodge and Mrs. Maitland, each taking the trowel and assisting in preparing the mortar board for the first stone in the first pier in the great construction. Of the enormous difficulties in building it and the danger by accidents, a dozen at least having been killed, we say nothing beyond that the contractors had to contend with a rapid stream two miles broad and with enormous shoves of ice.

One of those employed on the construction says: “There were hundreds of men employed—many of them being Indians. The latter manned the rafts that brought the timber down from Nun’s Island, although, of course, it came from the west, at the first go-off. We got our timber from the west and our stone from Pointe Claire.

“The first year’s work was entirely swept away. We had made good progress with the under work and the crib work.

“Hundreds of men had worked all spring, summer and fall. The work was well advanced and the contractors were congratulating themselves that they would be able to fulfill their contract on time; but the ice came down in the winter with a rush and carried everything before it—crib work, material, coffer dams—everything that had been done or set up. The loss was great, but the loss of time was the most important.

[614]

“That necessitated another year in the duration of the contract. The latter called for completion in five years. It was now seen that six would be required. But nobody could be blamed, and the contractors set to work with a will, and did the work over again.”

The first crossing was made on November 24, 1859, when the first to cross were Vice President Holmes, Hon. George Etienne Cartier, James Hodges, A. M. Ross, Walter Shanly, Messrs. Gzowski, Macpherson, Forsyth, Captain Rhodes and others. The last stone was laid and the last rivet driven on August 25, 1860, by the young Prince of Wales, afterward King Edward VII. On the occasion a grand banquet was held near the bridge, at which addresses were given by the Prince, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. A.M. Ross, Mr. Hodges and others. To commemorate the event Mr. Blackwell had a medal prepared by the chief engineer of Her Majesty’s seals, a gold one of which was presented to the Prince and a bronze one to each of the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway.

It bears a fine impression in relief of the Prince as he then was, and the words, “Welcome Albert Edward, Prince of Wales. Visited Canada and inaugurated the Victoria Bridge, 1860.”

The first train with passengers traversed the bridge December 17, 1859.

This structure was 9,184 feet long, of twenty-three spans of 242 feet and one in the center of 330 feet.

Sir George Etienne Cartier, before being knighted, was asked by Queen Victoria at Windsor, “Mr. Cartier, I hear that the Bridge at Montreal is a very fine structure. How many feet is it from shore to shore?”

The reply was pleasing to Her Majesty. “When we Canadians build a bridge and dedicate it to Your Majesty we measure it, not in feet, but in miles!”

The difficulties connected with the building of the bridge were greater than they would be today. The facilities and the machinery necessary were comparatively crude and inadequate. The bridge itself was in the nature of an experiment; nor was it designed in the original plan, for a tubular bridge. The plans were altered several times during the progress of the work. It needed the genius of George Stephenson, which had to be invoked, to make the plan realizable.

But when the bridge was completed, it was almost instantly seen what a boon it was to the whole country. Trade began to pick up. Population increased. The Grand Trunk was extended. Towns began to grow, and this great enterprise, brought to a successful conclusion, encouraged other enterprises to follow.

It may be said that the building of the bridge brought out the first of the British immigrants. Here and there, there might have been a few, but the bridge opened up such possibilities of expansion as encouraged people to come out, and especially skilled men, who began to settle in the neighborhood of Point St. Charles, forming the nucleus of that population which, today, preserves the sturdy characteristics of the men who founded what was then a distinct colony. The building of the bridge meant the extension of the Grand Trunk shops, the giving of increased employment, and the setting up of a big town on the other side of the canal.

Before many years the growth of traffic called for the replacement of this dark tubular bridge by the present openwork steel bridge, with double tracks, carriage ways and foot walks which now stand on the piers which held the old bridge. The Royal Victoria Jubilee Bridge was opened for traffic on December 13, 1908.

The chief engineer of this bridge was Mr. Joseph Hobson, now consulting engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway System. The contractors were the Detroit Bridge and Iron Company for the whole of the superstructure and for the construction[615] of nineteen spans of it, including the center one. The remaining six spans were constructed by the Dominion Bridge Company of Montreal.

VICTORIA JUBILEE BRIDGE, MONTREAL

Opened for traffic December 13th, 1898

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD BRIDGE AT LACHINE

VICTORIA TUBULAR BRIDGE, MONTREAL

Opened for traffic by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, August 25th, 1860

The masonry required for the enlargement of the abutments and piers was built by Mr. William Gibson.

The work was commenced in October, 1897, by the erection of the span on the west end, the structure being built completely around the tube of the old bridge, the latter being cleverly utilized as a roadway. Traffic never ceased except for twenty hours during the whole construction, the longest delay being two hours. The old bridge weighed 9,044 tons, the new 20,000 tons. The width of the old bridge was sixteen feet, the new one sixty-six feet eight inches. The height of the former superstructure was eighteen feet, that of the new superstructure over all is from forty to sixty feet. The new bridge ranks among the foremost constructions of present engineering progress.

On October 16, 1901, the son of Edward VII, the Duke of York, and Cornwall, now George V, visited the bridge with the Duchess, now his Queen.

Though the Grand Trunk Railway is the pioneer railroad of Canada, it was greatly assisted by English capitalists, although Montrealers played a prominent part.

THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

The history and development of the Canadian Pacific Railway shows, however, a still closer connection with Montreal. The great line was born in this city, reared through an infancy of tremendous difficulties here, and has always, and probably will always, have its headquarters in this city. Though four of the original syndicate, J.S. Kennedy, of New York; J.J. Hill, of St. Paul; Morton Rose and Company, of New York, and Kohn Reinach, of Paris, were not citizens, yet the four others were good Montrealers, Lord Strathcona, then plain Donald A. Smith, Lord Mount Stephen, then George Stephen, Duncan McIntyre, and R.B. Angus, who, as faithful guardians, risked their very financial existence that it should become a strong, self-supporting institution, able to stand on its own legs. That their belief in the future of this splendidly virile institution was justified, everyone now realizes, but it is nevertheless a fact that the general opinion of some of the wisest of Canada’s wise men at the time of its commencement was that the C.P.R. would never be finished, or if it should crawl through its first few years of existence, it would never earn sufficient net profits to pay its bills for axle grease.

Born in the midst of political turmoil, pulled through a puling and precarious infancy only by tremendous personal sacrifice on the part of those responsible for its existence, this organization is now one of the leading corporations of the entire world, its ramifications reaching clear around the globe and its annual income counted in figures which stagger the mind of the average man.

The C.P.R. owes its tremendous success to the imagination of its sponsors, and to nothing else. When it was brought into being, the developed portion of Canada was well served by the Grand Trunk Railway and its connecting lines. There was no room for another railway among the established markets of what is now called Eastern Canada. But the men who created the C.P.R. out of their hopes and their belief in the future of the country, looked beyond the East.[616] Between Ontario and the Pacific Coast, according to popular superstition at that time there lay nothing but trackless, ice bound wastes, of no value to man or beast, and cut off from the balmy climate of British Columbia by the impenetrable fastnesses of the Rocky Mountains. The original syndicate and their executive led by William Van Horne, the great constructive railroad genius of the nineteenth century, thought differently. For one thing they had already had experience of the possibilities of the Western United States, because of certain railroad transactions conducted by them in that territory, and they believed that the possibilities of Western Canada were every bit as great. Neither ridicule nor abuse could shake them from their determination, and they literally rammed their convictions down the throat of an only half willing Dominion Government, to what end we all know.

The project of a line connecting the railway system of Canada with the seaboard of British Columbia was one of the chief inducements held out to that province to enter into Confederation. At several periods between Confederation and the year 1880 the Dominion Government had before it very strong schemes for the construction of a transcontinental line, but none of them proved effective until what was known as the Canadian Pacific Syndicate finally entered into a definite contract in 1880 for the construction of the road. The financial arrangements were largely in the hands of the Montrealers already mentioned, George Stephen, Donald A. Smith, R.B. Angus, and Duncan McIntyre.

As the Macdonald Government allied itself with the C.P.R. proposals, the railroad was for some time classed by the public as a Tory organization, but for the last twenty years the C.P.R. has held itself aloof from all party politics. In the early days, however, it was not surprising that opponents were vehement in opposition. They condemned the scheme unsparingly, declaring that it would never pay expenses. Their predictions of ruin and disaster and the pessimistic attitude of influential parties in England, no doubt, led the Canadian Government to grant a larger aid to the enterprise in order to increase the chances of ultimate success. The company was incorporated in 1881. Its endowment consisted of 25,000,000 acres of land in western Canada and $25,000,000 in cash. It was also presented with some 700 miles of railway, which the Government had constructed at a cost of $35,000,000. The railway mileage taken over represented less than one-fourth of the amount necessary to connect Montreal and Vancouver. The cash subsidy of $25,000,000 represented considerably more than a cash subsidy of that amount would represent today, for thirty years ago a dollar in cash had a much larger purchasing power. With reference to the land grant, it can safely be said that, when the company was formed in 1881, few realized its value.

The names of two men must be connected with the successful fortunes of the company, William Van Horne, who was elected general manager, and Thomas Shaughnessy, appointed purchasing agent. Their humble offices were first in the Imperial Building, on St. James Street, opposite Place d’Armes Square. The general offices were next removed to Victoria Square, to the old Albert Building. Things did not progress in the early stages, but fine optimism marked these men.

At one of the early annual meetings there was great consternation. The small stockholders were alarmed and Mr. Donald McMaster spoke out indignantly for them. Then up rose Sir Donald Smith and said:

[617]

“Gentlemen: I would be a richer man today if I had never touched or seen the C P.R.; but I am not going to go back on it now. On the contrary, my faith, which has never wavered, is stronger than ever. I fully and unwaveringly believe in the C.P.R. I believe in its future. I believe that in a very short time, it will be the greatest earner in the Dominion of Canada. Mark my words. Retain your holdings. Do not give way to depression. The moment is unpropitious, owing to the general depression; but the clouds will lift; and you will be thankful, in the course of a year or so, that you held on to your stock.”

The bad times passed, the corporation turned the corner, the earnings increased. Lord Mount Stephen retired, Sir William Van Horne became president, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy became first assistant, then general manager, and finally president. David McNicoll moved up from assistant passenger agent to general passenger agent until he became manager and vice president.

One remarkable feature of the history of the C.P.R. is that no one of the men who financed the road in the beginning, has made anything like a big fortune out of it, in spite of the tremendous success which has crowned the undertaking. Lord Mount Stephen sold the three or four thousand shares he held in the company when he retired in 1885, at fifty-three. Lord Strathcona, of course, retained his connection with the line, and drew his dividends on the five thousand shares he held, but he did not make what might be even considered a reasonable return for the staking of his financial existence, and the same thing applies to other men who have directed the affairs of the company from time to time.

At the time of the incorporation of the road in 1881 the capital was $5,000,000. Today it is $200,000,000 and every cent of it needed to provide for the development of the corporation. In 1882 two stock issues totalling $60,000,000 worth of stock were made, to complete the road. Three years later, on November 7, 1885, Lord Strathcona drove the last spike and the road was officially opened, and its splendid history began.

In 1886 the gross earnings of the road were $8,368,493. In 1911 the gross earnings were $104,167,808, crossing the hundred million mark for the first time in the road’s history. This growth has continued in corresponding ratio, though partially effected by the international war of 1914.

In 1886 the mileage controlled by the C.P. R, was 4,315 miles. Its rolling stock in its principal divisions in 1886, was totalled as follows:

Locomotives, 336; freight cars, 7,835; no steamships.

In 1914, the line owned rolling stock as follows:

Locomotives, 2,248; freight cars, 88,000; first and second class passenger cars, baggage cars and colonist sleeping cars, 2,174; sleepers, dining and cafe cars, 502; conductors’ vans, 1,427; work cars, shovels, etc., 5,850.

The total mileage owned and controlled by the line, up to June 30, 1914, was 18,050 miles, and the passenger cars could move simultaneously 165,000 people.

In the course of its development, the C.P.R. has been extremely fortunate in being able to secure for its directorate men of broad vision. Thus it is that this railroad which is more than a railroad, and this corporation which is in operation an Empire Builder of the truest type, has found occasion in the course of its existence to put its energy to work in directions which the average railroad never dreams of. The scope of a great transcontinental railroad is wide enough in ordinary circumstances, but the policy of the C.P.R. has been to extend its activities in every direction where it appeared that the interests of the Dominion,[618] which are indissolubly united with the interests of the road, might be advanced. In pursuance of this plan we get its immigration and land development policy, which is unique on the Continent.

One of the first notable efforts of the road in this direction was its aid to the cattle ranching industry in Alberta. By means of low rates and the special facilities offered by the line to cattle ranchers the great beef industry which founded the prosperity of Alberta was nurtured and developed until it grew to be a feature of Canada in the minds of uninitiated Old Country people, and to the regular impression of snow and Indians which prevailed in the average Englishman’s mind in the ’80s, was added the romantic idea of cowboys. After cattle, came wheat and here again the railroad aided the farmers in all possible directions, realizing that in the prosperity of the inhabitants of the territory which it served, lay its own future greatness.

In a thousand and one ways the great railroad has advanced the various interests of the West. Its splendid immigration organization has seconded the efforts of the Dominion Bureau in London. Each year at harvest time it transports tens of thousands of labourers from Eastern Canada to the West to help harvest its crops, and as an instance of the lengths to which the road is prepared to go in order to advance the interests of the great community from which it draws the greater part of its wealth, there may be taken the case of the Winnipeg water scheme.

Some years ago the City of Winnipeg desired to install an expensive plant to improve its water supply. The undertaking was a huge one, planned to meet the needs of the rapidly growing city for many years to come and the cost was heavy. The C.P.R. donated $200,000 to help defray the expenses, and Winnipeg was duly provided with a water supply which cannot be bettered on the Continent.

The Company’s various interests, outside of its straight railroad work, would make by themselves a huge undertaking for any ordinary commercial organization. It owns coal, copper, lead, and gold mines, big smelting plants in British Columbia and enough timber limits to make any lumber company in the Dominion envious. The hotel section of the Company’s operations, originally planned to provide accommodation for passengers where such accommodation did not exist, have extended until they are a material factor in the Company’s wealth.

The Company’s tremendous land holdings in the West are regarded by many financial experts as its most powerful asset. When these grants were made, or at least such of them as were made to the Company in return for its services in opening up what was then regarded as a barren and trackless waste, it is not likely that anyone, not even excepting the directors themselves, realized the value of the grants. Since the original grants were made other valuable and extensive land areas have been acquired through the purchase of other railways which owned land grants. Altogether the Company now owns over seven million acres of land in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan and nearly four and a half million acres in British Columbia. These lands have steadily increased in value as the railroad itself developed the country. In 1905 the sales were 509,386 acres at an average of $4.80 per acre. In 1909 the sales of these same lands were 306,083 acres at an average of $10.96. In 1910 the inrush of settlers from the United States and Great Britain served to increase the demand for the C.P.R. lands and 829,609 acres of the unimproved lands sold at $12.78 per acre along with 145,421[619] acres of irrigated lands at $26.59 per acre. And in 1911, the sales of unimproved land were 631,777 acres at the average of $14.11; and of irrigated lands 19,097 acres were sold at the very satisfactory average of $33.63 per acre. This progressive rise in value is most impressive. Every year without exception shows an increase, and in some years the increase is considerable. It is to be remembered, too, that when the company sells a parcel of land to a good farmer-settler it is just beginning its profitable relations with him. For he will in all probability be a heavy shipper of grain outward over its lines in future years, and he will occasion the shipment of much merchandise inward as well.

The latest and perhaps the greatest work which the C.P.R. has undertaken in connection with its land holdings, is its irrigation scheme, which has transformed nearly one and a half million acres of barren land into fertile farm country, at an outlay of over $15,000,000. The rounding out of the irrigation scheme involves the bringing of the best class of farmers from the United Kingdom or the United States and planting them in the Canadian West, on farms which are “ready made” for them. Demonstration farms are provided to show the best methods of working the land, and everything possible is done to ensure the success of the newcomers’ enterprise. In this manner and by the sale of similar farms to residents of the United States desirous of settling in Canada, the C.P.R. in its latest undertaking is perhaps doing more than ever before to provide Canada with her most pressing need, sturdy self-reliant citizens, and so furthering the cause of Imperial unity which has been the guiding spirit of this splendid enterprise ever since those four Montrealers dreamed their dream of a new Empire plucked from the barren expanse of the Last Great West.

Of the C.P.R. steamship line we speak in its proper place. For the C.P.R. railroad and its attendant enterprises on land, there appears to be an almost limitless future. A rough estimate of the value of its railroad, shipping and hotel systems would not be far wrong if placed at $885,000,000. What the C.P.R. will be doing this time ten years from now, who shall say? With the inspiration of so glorious a past behind them, who can set a limit on the possibilities which will open up for the new rulers of the road’s destinies? The All Red Line so greatly discussed some years ago as a government project already exists in the C.P.R. It is possible to board a C.P.R. train at Windsor Street and to circle the globe, never leaving the sphere of influence of this tremendous organization. A splendid result surely to be attained by the little quartette of dreamers whose idea of a railroad line of Atlantic to Pacific met with so scornful a reception when it was first mooted a bare forty years ago.

THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY

The Intercolonial Railway, which runs from Montreal to Halifax, and the two Sydneys, claims the distinction of being a successful government-owned railroad.

It was originally the North American and European Railroad, which was taken over by the government over half a century ago. There were at that time only about fifty miles of railway. This has been added to from time to time, until the road is now a very considerable one in size and importance. It travels through some of the finest scenery in Canada, and does a heavy tourist business,[620] the sporting country it touches being famous the world over. It is connected with all the big Atlantic seaports, and has grain elevators at St. John, N.B.

The actual trackage owned by the Intercolonial extends westward only as far as St. Rosalie Junction. From there to Montreal the trains have running rights over the Grand Trunk tracks.

The Intercolonial is of importance to Montreal in supplying the means of communication to Halifax during the season of closed navigation.

THE CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY

The Canadian Northern first reached Montreal under the name of the Great Northern Railway of Canada. Its history of the few years preceding is full of interest. Its success has been due to the financial and business ability of two Canadians, Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann.

What is now the Canadian Northern Railway had its inception in December, 1906, when the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company built one hundred miles of track between Gladstone and Dauphin, Manitoba, and ran trains over it. The line was a success from its inception, and next year Mackenzie and Mann, famous partners, built under the name of the Manitoba and South Eastern Railway, a line out of Winnipeg running in the direction of Lake Superior. The purchase of the Port Arthur, Duluth & Western line completed the entrance into Port Arthur. The lines of the Northern Pacific Railway in Manitoba were taken over by the Manitoba Government and leased to the Canadian Northern for a period of 999 years, which gave them terminal facilities in Winnipeg and connections to the International Boundary. In 1901, the company which started with one hundred miles of track and a payroll of $650 a month found itself owning and operating 1,200 miles of line and carrying 12,000,000 bushels of grain to the head of navigation at Port Arthur. Extensions to Edmonton and through the valley of the Saskatchewan were planned and the whole huge enterprise bloomed forth one fine morning as the Canadian Northern Railway.

The rapid expansion of this comparatively insignificant railway into a force to be reckoned with when discussing the growth of Western Canada in the short space of five years made even the optimistic Westerners sit up and take notice, but the activities of the two Scotch Ontarians did not stop here. By 1905 the new line had reached Edmonton, having built four bridges across the Saskatchewan River to get there, while in the same year Prince Albert was reached by way of the Swan River and Carrot River valleys. On the way across, the C.N.R. made a city out of Edmonton. When the line was first projected the town had something like 3,000 people. Today it has 45,000 and is still growing.

Saskatoon, Regina and Calgary quickly linked into the chain until the Canadian Northern line west of the Great Lakes had a total mileage of 5,000 miles. Construction joining Vancouver with Edmonton is now being pushed rapidly to completion through the Yellowhead Pass, and the Thompson and Fraser River valleys and will be open for traffic in 1915. Construction is also going on in Ontario which will link Montreal and Ottawa together in a direct line with Port Arthur and the West, the line between Toronto and Ottawa having been opened in January, 1914, making a total mileage of 7,800 for the system at the end of 1914.

[621]

The history of the Canadian Northern’s activities in Montreal, still fresh in the minds of our readers, gives a fair index of the spirit in which this line is conducted and managed. The C.N.R. desired an entrance to Montreal for its main line. It was vital that the terminal should be central. Accordingly, the property on Lagauchetiere Street was purchased and a freight terminal at the Haymarket.

So when it was pointed out that Mount Royal stood serene between the C.N. R. line and the C.N.R. terminal, the answer came back: “Run a tunnel through it.” And accordingly, the Montreal Tunnel is now being bored.

Typical also of the whole enterprise is the creation of the new model city of Mount Royal. Obviously a lot of open farm land at the northern entrance to the tunnel promised no profit for the C.N.R. So they bought the land and sold it again in building lots, and just as soon as the first electrical locomotive pulls the first C.N.R. passenger train through the Mount Royal tunnel there will be a new suburb—residences, and shops, and postoffice—all complete ready to feed business into this train and into the thousands which will follow. Of the Canadian Northern steamships mention is made elsewhere.

The other railways mentioned as coming into Montreal, do so on running rights with one or other of the above mentioned railroads.

[622]

FOOTNOTES:

1 Mr. Keefer’s name has not been sufficiently connected with those of Ross and Stephenson.

[623]

### CHAPTER XLI

TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD

I

THE ANCIENT AND MODERN POSTAL SERVICE OF MONTREAL

ANCIENT ROADS—THE “GRAND VOYER”—GOOD ROADS MOVEMENT—THE EVOLUTION OF ROADS—“POST” MASTERS RECOGNIZED IN 1780—THE EARLY POSTAL SYSTEM OF MONTREAL AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—BURLINGTON THE TERMINUS—EARLY LETTER RATES—MAIL ADVERTISEMENTS—THE QUEBEC TO MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE—EARLY POSTOFFICE IN MONTREAL—OCEAN AND RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE—THE PRESENT POSTOFFICE—ITS HISTORICAL TABLETS BY FLAXMAN—THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM—THE POSTMASTERS OF MONTREAL.

The question of the transportation of the mails and the origin of the Montreal postal services makes some prefatory remarks on the road system necessary. The early roads were under the Grand Voyer of the province, a sort of surveyor general who had deputies “sous voyers” and surveyors under him. The roads were divided into three classes: (1) Chemins Royaux—post roads or “front” roads, the soil of which belonged to the crown; these generally traversed the “front” of the seignories. (2) Chemins de Ceinture et de Traverse—or back roads, the soil of which belonged to the seigneurs. These ran in the rear and parallel with the royal roads. (3) Chemins de Sortie et de Communications—called also “routes” and by-roads. These were crown roads connecting those in front and rear, also banal roads which were those leading to the seigneury mill.

The office of Grand Voyer was held as early as 1669 by Sieur de Bécanour. It had almost despotic power. This continued until 1832, when his powers were transferred to the road commissioners. In 1841 the roads came under the municipality. The condition of the early roads to Montreal and in Canada were deplorable, and Carleton was compelled to enforce the “individual responsibility” of proprietors and tenants to keep the post roads in repair. These roads were thirty feet wide and the cross roads maintained by joint labor were twenty feet wide. It was not until Sydenham’s time that much improvement was effected, owing to the passive resistance of the French-Canadian to enforced labour. By 1850 good roads ran over the Province in all directions. Not all of them were well made, but most of them were useable for stage traffic which had greatly increased.

The evolution of the Canadian roads (1) the bridle road, (2) the winter road,[624] (3) the corduroy road, (4) the common or graded roads, (5) the turnpike, macadam, gravel and plank is as follows:

The bridle roads were made solely for the use of horsemen, before carriages had been introduced into the more unsettled parts of the country. By their aid the people found their way to religious ceremonies and transported their grain on pack horses to the neighbouring villages. They were made simply by clearing away the branches and trunks of trees so as to allow a horse to pass through the bush.

The winter roads were very important. The Canadian winter with its snow and frost was a blessing to the farmer, giving him a firm, smooth road over which heavy loads could be drawn with ease. Most of the heavy freight was not moved until the winter unless the water routes were accessible. It was in the cold weather that the lumbermen and builders transported their supplies and the farmer carried his crops to market.

The “corduroy” roads were made by placing tree trunks side by side and consequently could be constructed only where there was an abundance of timber. As these trees decayed with time and moisture the roads required constant repair and a great amount of valuable timber was wasted. It was not an uncommon thing for one of these roads to be destroyed in a single season by frost. In many places they actually delayed progress, as they were used as an excuse for delaying the construction of more durable highways. At their best they were rough, very slow and damaging to vehicles, “any attempt at speed being checked by immediate symptoms of approaching dissolution in the vehicle.” The effect on the driver and his passengers appears to have been equally disastrous, the “poor human frame being jolted to pieces.”

The common or graded roads were marked out by fences in the more settled and open districts, and in the woods by wide clearings. They were properly drained and bridged and an attempt was made to reduce steep hills. Although they did not possess an artificial road-bed, they were very serviceable except for the heaviest traffic. Their construction was expensive, however, as they were laid out in straight and direct lines with the idea of overcoming rather than going around obstacles in their path.

In the more settled parts of Canada the construction of the turnpike with its artificial road-bed began with the opening of the nineteenth century. The materials composing the road-bed varied. Gravel was used where convenient. In many districts plank roads were used after the Union, but unless they rested on a bed of sand were a failure owing to the expense of the frequent necessary renewals. The most satisfactory road-bed was of macadam, although in many places Canadian traffic was not heavy enough thoroughly to consolidate the materials used in its construction. The best roads of this kind were those outside of Montreal and Quebec. In Upper Canada the turnpikes were controlled by joint stock companies in the main and were kept in a miserable condition.

Before the War of 1812 the four principal roads in the provinces followed the routes taken later by the railways. The first, connecting Lower Canada with the Maritime Provinces, began at Point Levis, running thence to Temiscouata, whence it ran to Fredericton which it connected with St. John, terminating at Halifax, after traversing a total distance of 718 miles.

The second road followed the route taken later by the Grand Trunk and Great[625] Western Railways, running from Quebec via Montreal, Coteau-du-lac and Cornwall, to Kingston and thence to York. From York it ran to Michillimackinac by way of Fort Erie and Detroit, a total distance of 1,107 miles.

The purpose of the third road, which ran from Montreal to the international boundary line en route to Boston, was later accomplished by the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway. The other road twenty-eight miles long connected La Prairie wtih Isle-aux-Noix.

On these roads the conveyances were the calèche and the post chaise. The charge was high, varying from six and one-half cents upward per mile. The first stages in Upper Canada, running between Queenstown and Fort Erie, charged four cents per mile. The original rate from Kingston to York by stage was $18.00 more than the present return first class fare from Montreal to Toronto. The fare between York and Niagara was $5.00. On the roads near Montreal and Quebec moderate rates were charged and a considerable traffic maintained. In the Upper Province however the roads were controlled by Companies who not only charged excessive tolls but kept the roads in poor condition.

Maitres de Poste, or postmasters, were first recognized by law in 1780 and some half a dozen ordinances and acts were passed in their favour or to control them between that date and 1819, when their privilege ceased. The distance between Montreal commonly called sixty leagues was divided into twenty-four stages. The “Maitres de Poste” were obliged to keep four calèches and four carioles. They had the exclusive right of passenger traffic by land, charging twenty to twenty-five cents per league—twelve to fifteen dollars the journey between Quebec and Montreal. Benjamin Franklin when deputy postmaster general of North America in 1766 stated before a committee of the house of commons that the only post road then in Canada was between Montreal and Quebec. The origin of the postal system of Montreal dates from 1763 and is due to the enterprise of Benjamin Franklin, who was then holding an important position in the postal department of the American colonies. Franklin, on hearing that the treaty of Paris had definitely made Canada a sister colony, without waiting for official sanction hurried thither although a man of fifty-seven years of age, not fearing the hardships of the wild journey. In his diary he records that in the spring of 1763 he set out on a tour of inspection of the northern districts under his control and did not stop until he visited Quebec and Montreal where he opened postoffices and arranged for a weekly courier between these towns and New York. His prompt action was afterwards appreciated by the postmaster general of England.

It is difficult to locate the position of the “village” postoffice established by Franklin. The postal communication thus commenced between Canada and the American colonies continued except for a break during the war of 1775 till the colonies had obtained their independence. In November, 1783, a few months after the treaty of peace, mails were restored between England and Canada through the medium of the new postal office at Burlington. This latter now became the terminus of the Canadian courier service. In 1792 the first postal convention between Canada and the United States benefited Montreal, although it was stipulated that the transmission of letters should be by United States fast mail packets and land service by Burlington.

Letters were carried by the packets at four cents from Great Britain to New York, then twenty cents added for the journey to Burlington, with the further[626] charge of twenty cents on to Quebec and twenty cents more was demanded for the further journey through Canada. A letter would then have cost Montrealers about forty-four cents and that only if it consisted of a single sheet of paper and weighed less than an ounce. Above that, the price was quadrupled. A letter that today cost two cents 1 from Liverpool then cost about a dollar and sixty-four cents. But if the British postal service had been used a letter under one ounce would have cost ninety-two cents and above the ounce $3.64.

An advertisement was put in the Montreal papers in 1797 on the 18th of June. “A mail for the upper countries, comprehending Niagara and Detroit will be closed at the office on May 30th at 4 o’clock in the evening to be forwarded from Montreal by the annual winter express on Thursday, 3d February next.” In 1809 an advertisement of this year states, “A passenger may go from Boston to Montreal, a distance of 312 miles, in four days and a half. This line is furnished with the new and convenient stages, good horses and careful drivers.” But the irregularity and slowness of the service in Canada itself called forth loud protests from many merchants who were forced to employ private runners to carry their mail. In 1811 Mr. George Heriot, then Post-Master General, investigated these complaints and his report is descriptive of local conditions:—“The mail is carried from New Brunswick and vice versa by two couriers, one setting out from Quebec and the other from Fredericton once a month in winter and once a fortnight in summer. The distance is 361 miles; the cost of conveying the mails £240. There is one courier once a week between Fredericton and St. John, N.B., eighty-two miles at a cost of £91.5s. There are two packets weekly across the Bay of Fundy between St. John and Digby, 36½ miles at £350. There is one courier twice a week between Digby and Annapolis, twenty miles, and one courier between Annapolis and Halifax once a week, 133½ miles. From the commencement of the present year a communication by post has been opened from Montreal to Kingston. The courier goes once a fortnight and has a salary of £100. A post to York is proposed for six months or during the close of navigation. The post between Quebec and Montreal is despatched twice a week from each of those towns. Eight pence is charged for postage on a single letter from Quebec to Montreal. There are on the road between Quebec and Montreal about twenty-seven persons whose houses are seven or eight miles distant from each other and who keep four or five horses each, not of the best description, and small vehicles with two wheels of a homely and rude construction hung upon bands of leather or thongs of unmanufactured bull’s hide by way of springs. They will with much difficulty contain two persons in front of which a man or boy is placed to guide the horse. The rate at which they go when the roads are favourable is not much more than six miles an hour. The roads are generally in a very bad state as no proper measures are taken for their repair.”

The mail system of that time was a part of the English postal service and the province had no voice in the matter. About 1815-1816 according to Borthwick, “The Montreal postoffice was a room about twelve feet square in St. Sulpice Street near St. Paul. There were no letter boxes; it was all ‘general delivery’ in its crudest form. The few letters laid scattered on a table and had all to be looked at at each application at the door. Very few letters came or went. The mail to Upper[627] Canada was weekly and the seven days’ collection could be contained in one small mailbag. That to Quebec was oftener and larger. The English mail carried in sailing vessels arrived during the summer at periods of from a month and a half to three months apart. In winter it came by New York and was longer on the way. Postage was very dear, about 9d. to Quebec and 5d. to St. Johns, 1s. 6d. to western parts of Canada and 1s. 6d. to lower provinces.

“In 1820 there appeared in the various newspapers an official advertisement signed by a member of the English postal service giving a list of reduced rates between Canada and many foreign countries. The postage on a letter to the various countries of western Europe varying from 3s. 10d. to 4s. 4d. There were no money letters for indeed there was no money in the form convenient for sending thus. A recipient of a letter paid all the postage except in cases when it crossed the United States boundary, when the sender paid as far as the line. There was much private mail carrying, both for pay and free. Anyone traveling to the United States or Upper Canada was expected to fill half his baggage with letters and various articles to persons there.” About 1840 the postoffice at Montreal was at the southwest corner of St. James street and St. Lambert’s Hill.

Montreal and Quebec geographically being some hundreds of miles nearer European ports than New York and Boston, Canadians began on the success of the steam navigation to desire to handle their own mails directly, and on the foundation of the Allan Line in 1856 this was put to practice by fortnightly trips until 1859. In 1859 the Allan Line contracted for a weekly mail to and from Montreal and Quebec in the summer and Portland, Maine, in the winter. Thus began the ocean mail service to us, now so largely developed. The opening of the railway era also assisted the postal facilities. The next location of the postoffice at Montreal was the building constructed in Place d’Armes on the site of the present Banque Provinciale. It was followed by a new location on the southwest corner of St. Francois Xavier and St. James streets, to be followed in 1876 by the present imposing edifice on the corner of St. Francois Xavier and St. James streets, with the equally large annex erected later and situated on Craig and St. Francois Xavier streets. The Montreal postoffice is of proportionate size and efficiency to that of any of the great cities of the world.

The site of the present postoffice is historic and the following tablet has been recently placed to explain the four artistic bas reliefs on the exterior which commemorate it.

JOHN FLAXMAN

Author of these bas reliefs and Greatest of British Sculptors was born at York, England, July 6th, 1755. Designed the classical groups on wedgewood-ware. Made a great reputation in Italy. Was the first professor of sculpture at the Royal Academy. Executed the monuments of Burns, Kemble, Mansfield and Paoli in Westminster Abbey, Sir Joshua Reynolds in St. Paul’s, and illustrations of ancient Greek poets. He was elected a Royal Academician in 1800, and died December the 7th, 1826.

These bas reliefs were part of the facade of the building erected on this site for the Bank of Montreal in 1821; later on occupied by[628] La Banque du Peuple from 1846 until 1873 and also of that now occupied by the General Post Office since 1876.

The subjects of the bas reliefs are:—

Agriculture, | Manufacturers,
Arts, | Commerce.

The Montreal postoffice has had under its control for many years subsidiary district postoffices as the growth of population demanded them. In 1900 there were only twenty sub-offices. Today there are ninety-four stations. Its growth can be seen from a few facts.

City Mail: In 1900 there were only 180 letter boxes and ten for newspapers. In 1910 they amounted to 350 and 142 respectively. In 1914 there are 562 letter boxes and 235 news boxes.

English and foreign mail: In 1900 the English mailbags received via New York were from thirty-three to forty-three. In 1910 the number was increased from seventy-five to one hundred. The Canadian steamers bring in at present from 200 to 235 bags. The Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique, which brought in ten to fifteen bags now brings forty to sixty. The German line adds seventy to eighty, and there are in addition thirty from other sources.

The directors or postmasters of Montreal have been:

1. | 1763-1810 | Edward William Gray. He combined the offices of sheriff and postmaster.
2. | 1810-1816 | F.W. Ermatinger, merchant of Montreal.
3. | 1816-1827 | James Williams.
4. | 1827-1840 | Andrew Porteous, dismissed by Lord Sydenham for delaying his Excellency’s courier.
5. | 1841-1855 | James Porteous.
6. | 1855-1861 | Jean Baptiste Meilleur.
7. | 1861-1874 | G.S. Freer.
8. | 1874-1891 | G. Lamothe.
9. | 1891-1899 | Arthur Dansereau.
10. | 1899-1904 | Cleophas Beausoleil.
11. | 1904-1911 | Henry S. Harwood, ex-M.P. for Vaudreuil.
12. | 1911- | Hon. L.O. Taillon, Ex-Premier Province of Quebec, and for a time postmaster general of Canada. (L.J. Gaboury in charge of the Eastern division.)

[629]

II

STREET TRANSPORTATION

MODERNIZING MONTREAL

MONTREAL IN 1861—THE STREET RAILWAY MOVEMENT—THE “MONTREAL CITY PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY” CHARTERED—THE HISTORY OF THE COMPANY—ITS FIRST PROMOTERS—EIGHT PASSENGER CARS, SIX MILES, HORSE SERVICE IN 1861—THE OPENING UP OF THE STREETS—WINTER SERVICE OF SLEIGHS—1892 THE BEGINNING OF ELECTRIC ERA—THE CONVERSION OF THE SYSTEM INTO ELECTRIC TRACTION—THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE COMPANY.

Half a century ago no one in his wildest imaginings could have prophesied the amazing growth of the Canadian Metropolis. In 1861, Montreal had a population of but 91,000 and with its suburbs 101,439. It was practically the ancient Montreal, which had scarcely outgrown the days when it was a fortified city crowded within walls to resist the incursions of hostile Iroquois. The city was bounded on the north by the old creek at Craig Street, and did not extend west of Victoria Square.

Today Montreal with its suburbs has a population of approximately 600,000, while the streets which marked its limits fifty years ago are the centre of the downtown business district. Thus within a scant half century the population of Montreal has much more than multiplied five times over, its street mileage has increased in even greater proportion, while practically the whole city has been remodeled and modernized.

They were men of courage and far-sighted ideas who in 1861 decided that the time had come when Montreal needed a street railway. The population was small, business was a mere fraction of that transacted today, and as forbidding as could be found in any city in the world.

But these difficulties did not discourage the founders of the Montreal Street Railway, who had ample belief in the future development of the city, and its consequent opportunities for street railway work. They builded more wisely than they knew however, and could William Molson, John Ostell, William Dow, Johnston Thompson and William Macdonald, the original directors of the company, return to Montreal, attend a meeting of directors at the board room in the Company’s handsome building on Craig Street, and then make a tour of the city in one of their magnificent modern electric cars, they would probably be lost in wonder and admiration. The company they founded used horses. Stables were its power stations, and in winter the service was kept up by sleighs, and in the late fall and early spring by omnibuses. They started with six miles of track, eight cars, a few horses and one stable. To-day they would return to an electric system with hundreds of miles of track extending all over the city and suburbs, huge power stations, an army of uniformed, well paid and cared for employes, and many hundreds of cars which are not merely modern, but so far in advance of the times that the greatest cities of the United States and the world are paying tribute by the adoption of the same style of cars for their service.2

[630]

The Montreal Street Railway was born with little ceremony, or anything else to mark the beginning of a new epoch for Montreal when, on May 18th, 1861, the Provincial Legislature adopted a law incorporating the Montreal City Passenger Railway Company “for the purpose of constructing and operating street railways in the City and Parish of Montreal.” The provisional directors named in the act of incorporation were William Molson, John Ostell, William Dow, Johnston Thompson, William Macdonald, John Carter, Hon. Thos. Ryan and William E. Phillips. All these have long since passed away, although they lived to see the riper fruition of the works they planned.

On August 9th of the same year a meeting of the subscribers was held at the “Mechanics’ Hall,” at which the following were present:—

William Molson, Thomas Molson, Hon. Judge Gale, Hon. L.H. Molson, William Macdonald, E.M. Hopkins, William McLaren, Charles Garth, J.H. Springle, G. Weaver, William Dow and John Ostell. At this meeting J.H. Springle was appointed the first secretary of the Company.

On August 17th, another meeting was held, at which Alex. Easton was awarded the contract for building the first section of road, comprising six miles of single track, and an equipment of eight passenger cars, a stable and car shed. This may be called the first attempt at modernizing Montreal.

Work was started in September, ground being broken on the 18th, for the line from St. Mary Street, near the Quebec toll gate, and considerable progress made. The arrangement was that Mr. Easton should build the line and operate it for a time under lease. By November 27th, 1861, part of the line was sufficiently advanced to be opened. The road met with immediate success, and was well patronized, although the service, naturally, was slow and the cars infrequent.

Matters having progressed thus far a meeting of the directors was held on November 5th, 1861, when the Company’s stock books were ordered closed, 2,500 shares having been subscribed for at $50 a share, representing a capital of $125,000. Another meeting was held on the next day, when the following were appointed directors: Thomas Morland, E.M. Hopkins, G.W. Weaver, E.S. Freer and John Ostell. Thomas Morland was elected president.

In the following year construction work was continued, and by June 10th, 1862, a line had been completed from Place D’Armes on Notre Dame Street westward, connecting with St. Joseph Street. This was equipped with three horse cars.

On this same day the Company declared its first dividend, at the encouraging rate of 12% per annum for the first year.

On July 4th, 1862, the Company terminated the lease with the contractor, and took over the actual operation of the road, with considerable profit, the earnings far exceeding the lease price.

At this time the head office of the Company was in a small building at the corner of Craig and Place d’Armes, owned by Rev. Mr. Toupin, but in 1863 the Company moved to Hochelaga. But shortly afterwards the head office of the Company was again at Place d’Armes Hill and Craig Street and remained there until 1894 when the present Street Railway Chambers were erected. Thus it may be said that the head office of the Company has been situated at the corner of Place d’Armes Hill and Craig Street since the incorporation of the Company. The terminus of the line was then Hochelaga and the Company spent $300 on an omnibus to connect the cars with the convent. The service in the city was, of[631] course, only a day one, and the cars were pretty far apart. But even then the demands of the service on Craig and St. Antoine streets was such that improvements to the tracks were needed so as to permit of a more frequent service on these streets.

The advantage of the car line was so much appreciated by the public that in this year, 1863, the Company applied to the city for power to build lines on the following streets:—

Commencing at Papineau Avenue, along St. Catherine to Mountain Street with a line in St. Lawrence Street to the Toll Gate to connect with that now constructed on Craig Street, also commencing at St. Joseph Street along McGill Street to Wellington, to the Bridge and possibly to Point St. Charles.

During 1863 the Company carried 1,066,845 passengers, scarcely 1 per cent of the number carried to-day. It was regarded, however, as an excellent showing, and the Company started to build six miles more track, along Wellington, St. Catherine and St. Lawrence streets. The contract for this work was let to Messrs. Plunkett and Brady.

By May 1864 the St. Catherine line was finished, and opened, while eleven additional cars had to be placed on the Notre Dame Street route. Even the track difficulties were felt, and the line on McGill Street had to be renewed.

By the end of 1864 St. Catherine, St. Lawrence and Wellington street lines, comprising 5¾ miles, had been opened, and all proved revenue producers except the last. During that year 1,485,725 passengers had been carried, an increase of about a half a million for the year. In view of the progress made it was decided to issue more stock at par to the old shareholders. At this time the capital stock of the Company was $200,000.

The winter service was being kept up by sleighs, the tracks and appliances preventing the cars from running. The Company had eight sleighs at this time, with five more being built. There were no heating appliances, and in order to keep the passengers warm each sleigh was provided with about a foot of pea straw, in which the people buried their cold feet.

During the early days the cars were run in a rather happy-go-lucky fashion. Time was of little object. The cars would stop anywhere to take up passengers, and if one wanted to get off and talk to a friend or do a little shopping, the obliging conductors would wait and give their horses a rest. But the demands of business were getting too much for this, and in June, 1865, the board decided that in future the cars should not be stopped to allow passengers to go into stores and make purchases and return again, because this kept other passengers waiting.

It was found that the wages paid were too high, and in August, 1865, conductors were reduced from $30 to $25 a month. The conductors petitioned for a return to their old pay of $1 a day, but this was refused, and the Directors reduced the pay of drivers from $25 to $20 a month. At this time Mr. J.H.R. Molson found he had not time to attend to his duties as vice-president, and resigned.

In 1870 the Company celebrated its tenth birthday by issuing $10,000 of new stock pro rata to the old shareholders, and in 1873 $200,000 more was allotted at par.

For many years matters went along smoothly and quietly until the twenty-sixth annual meeting, in 1886, when an event occurred which subsequently meant a[632] good deal for the Company, although little noticed at the time. This was the election of the present president, Hon. L.J. Forget, as a director. The board of directors was as follows:—

Jesse Joseph, president; Alex. Murray, vice-president, Dr. W.H. Hingston, Hugh McLennan, and L.J. Forget.

During all this time the mileage of the Company had not increased very greatly, only amounting to 12½ miles by 1892, although St. Denis Street had been double tracked in 1891. At this time the Company was operating eighty-two regular sleighs during the winter season.

The year, 1892, however, marked the most important period in the Company’s history, the beginning of the electric era, which has produced such wonderful results in the past two decades.3 It was not without violent opposition that the subject was discussed. Several directors supported by many of the shareholders declared that the thing was impossible and would ruin the Company, and some of the directors even went to the length of resigning rather than countenance such a project. So if the first directors of the Company, in 1861, were men of courage and enterprise, how much more so were those who backed up the change to electricity in face of the great cost and doubtful outcome.

At the adjourned special meeting of Tuesday, May 17th, 1892, there being present Mr. H. McLennan, vice-president; Dr. W.H. Hingston and L.J. Forget, a tender for electric car service was submitted and considered clause by clause and finally approved of and adopted and ordered to be transmitted to the city clerk, together with the sum of $25,000.00 deposit.

The city accepted the Company’s terms, and the work of electrifying the service was started without delay.

The president and directors at this period were—

Jesse Joseph, president; Hugh McLennan, vice-president; L.J. Forget, H.A. Everett, Dr. W.H. Hingston, and associated with them in the enterprise was William Mackenzie, of Toronto.

The conversion of the system into one operated by electricity was commenced in 1892, and the work was especially interesting in this city, owing to the climatic difficulties to be overcome. Meteorological records had shown that the average snowfall for each of the sixteen winters from 1875 to 1891 was 118 inches; the greatest fall of 173 inches, or over 14 feet, taking place in the winter of 1886-7.

Another exceptional difficulty was that of grades. For instance Amherst Street rises 50 feet in a distance of 800 feet; St. Denis Street rises 47 feet in a distance of 700 feet; St. Lawrence Street rises 68 feet in a distance of 1,500 feet; Beaver Hall Hill, 60 feet in a distance of 900 feet; and Windsor Street, 70 feet in a distance of 1,500 feet; while on Guy Street and Cote des Neiges Hill there is a rise of 350 feet in a distance of 5,150 feet, with a maximum grade of 11 per cent for about 100 feet.

Before the introduction of electricity, the negotiation of some of these grades was almost a cruelty to animals, while upon other routes now readily, safely and quickly traversed, the old horse car service would have been an impossibility.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE STREET CAR

“Round-the-Mountain” sight-seeing car

Sleigh used in winter—Horse car period

“Pay as You Enter” car now in use

Ordinary horse car in use prior to 1892

[633]

The progress under the electric regime was immediate and wonderful, and the business of the Company grew in such manner as to enforce frequent increases in its capital, while dividends at the rate of 8% per annum were paid.

By 1895 the capital stock of the Company had increased to $4,000,000, with bonds of $973,333.33. In 1897 it was increased to $5,000,000, and in that year Mr. G.C. Cunningham resigned as director, manager and chief engineer. Later Mr. R.B. Angus replaced him as a director and Mr. F.L. Wanklyn as manager and chief engineer.

In 1901 the Company purchased all the bonds and a majority of the stock of the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company. In the same year the Company secured franchises from the towns of St. Louis and St. Paul, both now part of Montreal.

In the following year the Company issued $1,500,000 4½% bonds to pay for the Park and Island Railway. The capital at this time was $6,000,000, and no less than fourteen miles of new track were built and put into operation.

In 1903 another $1,000,000 of stock was issued.

Mr. James Ross resigned as vice-president and managing director, during this year, and was replaced by Mr. F.L. Wanklyn, later in that year Mr. Wanklyn resigned and Mr. K.W. Blackwell was elected vice-president, and Mr. W.G. Ross managing director. Mr. Duncan McDonald was appointed manager and Mr. Patrick Dubee secretary. The Company, pursuing its policy of rapid extension, secured a franchise in Delorimier (now part of Montreal), and an extension of their Westmount franchise. Also through another subsidiary company, the Suburban Tramway and Power Company, now The Public Service Corporation, they secured a franchise to Longue Pointe and the Village of Beaurivage.

In the following year, the Company secured an extension of the Maisonneuve franchise, and bought considerable property on St. Denis Street for building purposes.

In 1906, the Company entered into an agreement for the purchase of the stock and bonds of the Montreal Terminal Company, and also secured a franchise in Outremont, for the further extension of its system into the suburbs. By this time the capital stock had grown to $7,000,000. The purchase of the Montreal Terminal Company was concluded in the following year, while considerable additions and extensions were made, and to meet the increased demands the capital stock was increased to $9,000,000.

The Park and Island Company also secured a franchise in Notre Dame de Grâce, and started an extension of the Sault-au-Recollet line to opposite St. Vincent de Paul. The Cartierville line was also double tracked to the bridge.

In 1908 $292,000 debenture bonds were redeemed, and £460,000 ($2,238,666.67) debenture bonds, and another $1,000,000 of stock, were issued, bringing its capital up to $10,000,000 stock and $4,420,000 bonds where it stands today.

In 1910 the Company was capitalized at $10,000,000 stock and $4,420,000 bonds, operated over 144 miles of track, and controlled and operated subsidiary companies with some eighty-six miles of track, a total of 230 miles. On March 24, 1911, an act to incorporate the Montreal Tramways Company saw a new development, the incorporators of the charter being, E.A. Robert (president), J.W. McConnell (vice president), F. Howard Wilson (vice president), Hon. J.[634] M. Wilson, Wm. C. Finley, J.M. McIntyre, Geo. G. Foster, K.C., D.L. McGibbon and N. Curry.

As an indication of the growth of the passenger service the account for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, gave the gross earnings as $7,147,804.19, the operating expenses, $4,206,114.57 and the net earnings as $2,936,689.62 while the total number of passengers carried, including “transfers” was 58,120,066. Such a story of rapid progress in the face of natural and other obstacles is one of which both the Company and the city may reasonably feel proud.

FOOTNOTES:

1 The two-cent rate of the United States was introduced into Canada in 1899.

2 The “pay as you enter” cars originated in Montreal on the invention of Mr. Duncan McDonald, of the Montreal Street Railway Company.

3 The rapid growth of the city in population dates from 1891. 1861, City and suburbs, 101,439; 1872, 155,865; 1881, 178,237; 1891, 261,302; 1901, 376,402; 1910, 600,000.

[635]

### CHAPTER XLII

1760-1841

CITY IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CESSION

UNDER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

EARLY STREET REGULATIONS—A PICTURE OF MONTREAL HOUSES IN 1795—FURTHER STREETS OPENED—A “CITY PLAN” MOVEMENT IN 1799—HOUSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY—MAP OF 1801—CITY WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED—CITADEL HILL REMOVED—FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS—ROAD COMMISSIONERS—PICTURE OF 1819—IMPROVEMENTS DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF THE JUSTICES AND THE MUNICIPALITY—PICTURE OF 1839 BY BOSWORTH.

In view of chronicling the efforts of the past, since the Cession, to make the city comfortable for the dweller and attractive to the visitor, the reader is now offered the following notes:

In 1676 an ordinance provided that each tenant should pave up to the middle of the road, every street passing by his home, but this was scarcely attended to and at the time of the British régime these regulations were in desuetude.

The earliest ordinances governing city improvement have already been mentioned in the ordinances of Governors Gage and Burton. Those following on the great fire of 1765 have also been treated elsewhere.

In the letter of an English traveller, dated March 22, 1795, occurs the following reference to Montreal: “Montreal is not equal in size to Quebec, but has considerably the advantage in point of cleanliness. On the whole Montreal has more the appearance of a middle sized country town in England than any place I saw in America. The principal streets are flagged. The houses are built of stone, on the French plan, with this exception that they are in general, much lower and present a greater appearance of neatness than French houses usually do. * * * The amusements of Montreal are exactly similar to those of Quebec. In winter, all is dance and festivity. * * * I have seen few places where a veteran officer of moderate income might entrench himself for life better than at Montreal.” (Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal, Vol. IX.)

In order to provide for a uniformity in the planning of the streets to meet the growth of the city and the suburbs the legislature by an act of 1799 (36 George IV, Cap. 5) authorized the appointment of a surveyor “who should draw plans of the city and land adjacent and that commodious streets should be opened and ground reserved for public squares.” At the same time an act was passed for the[636] repairing and the changing of the roads and bridges of the country. Montreal was affected by this and was taxed accordingly.

“The houses at the beginning of this century,” says Mr. P.S. Murphy, writing in 1879, “were generally of ‘rubble masonry,’ or of wood, one or two stories high—the former with iron shutters. Some houses on St. Paul Street were two or three stories high, of Ashlar masonry. The buildings in the old city proper were generally of stone.”

At this period Simon McTavish’s castle was standing. He had died in 1805 and left it unfinished. There it stood deserted on the site now covered partially by the Allan property till the latter part of December, 1860—the abode of ghosts according to the credulous.

In 1800 Beaver Hall, the mansion of Joseph Frobisher, one of the founders of the North West Company, was built. It was then far in the country. Being of wood it was burned down in 1845.

A badly preserved map of the city of this period (1801), made by Louis Charland, inspector of roads, reveals that certain streets’ names were applied to localities since renamed. St. Marie was that given to the present Sherbrooke Street; St. James to St. Catherine; Dorchester to St. Jean Baptiste. The present names begin to appear in the map of 1825 by John Adams.

In 1800 an engineer was named by the legislature with a salary of £200 a year to direct the opening of new streets, and with jurisdiction beyond the city limits. The new engineer set to work to pave St. Paul and Notre Dame streets and then to open up others under the direction of the magistrates. In 1815 the road across the property of Etienne Guy was opened. In 1817 the opening was legalized of King, Queen, Prince, George, Nazareth and St. Gabriel streets. St. Paul Street was extended to McGill Street and St. Maurice Street was opened. In 1818 St. Helen, Lemoine and Dubord were opened. At the same time the construction of the fashionable esplanade of the period, the Champ de Mars, was begun and the demolition of the citadel erected under the French régime allowed Notre Dame Street later to be extended to St. Mary Street.

In 1802 His Majesty assented to the last reserved acts regarding the removal of the walls around the city of Montreal. In 1801 a bill for the removal of walls was passed by the legislature, with some amendments, but reserved by Sir Robert Milnes in case any further consideration from a military point of view might be thought necessary. On the 10th of June, 1803, a proclamation was issued giving effect to the reserved bills. Thus at last the fortifications were to be demolished! They had been threatened many years previously. Mr. Brymner (Archives Report for 1892) tells the story.[637] “So far back as 1791 General Mann, then a captain of the Royal Engineers, reported that, while in the infant state of the colony the works around Montreal were useful as a protection against the Indians, they were no longer required for that purpose and that their ruinous condition made them rather a nuisance than a benefit. Part of the materials of the walls, he recommended, should be preserved, the rest to be used by filling up the ditch or for any other purpose in the reforming of the town. Citadel Hill, he considered, should be levelled and barracks built on part of it, or by levelling the hill to any easy slope Notre Dame Street might be opened to the Quebec suburbs, forming a good entrance and a great improvement to the town. The cross streets should lead to the mountain and a road be preserved along the front of the river, which in time would form a fine quay or promenade. * * * In July, 1793, Mr. Dundas approved of the removal of the walls, but directed Lord Dorchester to ascertain whether the owners of the adjoining property had or had not the right, as they maintained, to have their property extended on the removal. In 1797 Prescott, lieutenant governor, informed the legislature that the petition for the extension of the property consequent on the removal of the walls desired the assembly to take measures to prevent litigation between owners, past and present, and stated that the officer commanding the Royal Engineers would be directed to make a plan of the town and fortifications, which should show the reserves proposed to be made for the use of the crown.” In November, 1797, the colonial secretary wrote that the bill had been received and would be returned with such directions as might be necessary, which were sent in August, 1798. The rest of the history has been told above.

NOTRE DAME STREET IN 1803

The portal of the First Parish Church is seen blocking the street. It was necessary to go around the church to continue along Notre Dame to the Quebec Gate. The gable of the Seminary is seen on St. Francis Xavier Street. Between it and the portal is the cemetery gate.

“From authentic sources,” says Sandham in his History of Montreal, Past and Present, “we learn that between the years of 1805 and 1816 there were sixty-four stone houses erected within the old gates. At the latter date there were forty-five wooden houses, of which four were erected by government during the American war. In 1814 seven stone and four wooden houses were built; in 1815 twenty-three of stone and twenty-one of wood; and in 1816 sixty stone and wooden houses were in the course of erection.”

In the meantime the city was developing its approaches 1 and special commissions were appointed. An old almanack printed at Quebec in 1815 mentions: “Trustees for improving, ordering and keeping in repair the road from the city of Montreal to Lachine through the wood.” (Honourable James McGill, Honourable John Richardson, Joseph Papineau, Isaac W. Clark, Louis Gugy and Jean Marie Mondelet.) The commissioners for the removal of the old walls of Montreal were J. McGill, J. Richardson, Jean Mondelet and L. Chaboillez. (Lachennais Bridge, Canadian Numismatic and Antiquarian Journal, Series N, Vol. I, pg. 881.)

A traveler visiting the city in 1819 describes the houses and streets thus:[638] “The first impression of the city is very pleasing. In its turrets and steeples glittering with tin; in its thickly built streets stretching about one-and-a-half miles along the river and rising gently from it; in its environs ornamented with country houses and green fields; in the noble expanse of the St. Lawrence sprinkled with islands; in its foaming and noisy rapid and in the bold ridge of the mountain, which forms a back-ground to the city; we recognize all the features necessary to a rich and magnificent landscape and perceive among these indications decisive proofs of a growing inland emporium. The streets of the city are narrow except some of the new ones. The principal ones are St. Paul, which is the bustling business street, near the river, and Notre Dame, on higher ground, more quiet, more genteel and better built. The latter street is twenty-five feet wide and three-quarters of a mile long. Many of the houses are constructed of rough stone coarsely pointed or daubed with mortar and have certainly an unsightly appearance. Many of the stores and dwellings have iron plate doors and window shutters, fortified by iron frames, as a precaution against fire as well as robbery. An act of ’59, (George IV Cap. 8), obliges householders of Montreal whose houses have wooden roofs to whitewash or to paint them every two years.”

Previous to 1827 St. Paul, St. Francois Xavier, St. Sacrement, Notre Dame and others of our present business streets contained the private residences of many of our first citizens where stores and warehouses are now only to be seen. Not half a dozen of our merchants and prominent men lived out of the old city proper, viz. from McGill Street to Dalhousie Street and back to Craig Street, which was its northern boundary. At that time and even later St. James Street and its seven galleries, a terrace of one-story buildings, were the fashionable rendezvous of the military. The windows of the stores were little larger than those of the ordinary houses, but in 1839 more modern display windows were beginning to appear. The iron shutters for protection which are still to be seen on some of the old houses even in 1914, were then giving place to more elegant ones of wood. Puddles were allowed to remain in the street. The roads were very dusty in the dry weather and very muddy in the wet. To remedy the former sprinkling carts were recommended and for the latter wood paving. The streets were still badly lighted for although the old oil lamps were being superseded by gas, the city was not generally lighted.

During all this period under the justices of the peace, it may be remarked, that they had the power to make certain assessment for defraying the necessary expenses of the city and to enact and enforce such by-laws for its regulation as were not inconsistent with the statutes of the realm.

MONTREAL IN 1839

Writing in 1839 in “Hochelaga Depicta,” Mr. Newton Bosworth gives many interesting side lights of the civic improvement of the time preceding the municipality.

“An act passed the Provincial Legislature in 1832, forming Montreal into a Corporation and transferring the authority for the Magistrates to the corporate body; but in 1836, the Act of Incorporation having expired, the Government again passed into the hands of the Justices of the Peace.

“The city is represented in the Provincial Parliament by four Members, the East and West Wards into which it is divided, returning two each. The period of service in the House of Assembly is four years.

“Under the Corporation the city and suburbs were distributed into eight wards, for the more convenient arrangement and dispatch of business. These are East and West Wards, the Wards of St. Ann, St. Joseph, St. Antoine, St. Lawrence, St. Louis, and St. Mary. Another division of the city may be called the Military, according to which the battalions of militia, which are six in number, are collected from the portion of the city or suburbs in which they reside.”

Speaking of the appearance of the town in 1839, Bosworth remarks:

“Montreal, the second city in political dignity, but the first in magnitude and commercial importance, in British America, is situated in Latitude 45° 31' North, and Longitude 73° 34' West. Including the suburbs it covers about 1,020 acres, although within the fortifications the area did not much exceed 100 acres. Its local advantages for the purposes of trade, giving it a decided superiority over every[639] other place in the Province, and its climate, though severe, is more genial than that of Quebec. On approaching it either on the river from below, or in descending from La Prairie, the tall and elegant steeple of the English Church, the massive grandeur of the French Cathedral, the spires of other churches and chapels, the spreading mass of habitations in the suburbs, and the well built and lofty stores in Commissioner Street, the stranger will be impressed with a very favourable idea of the city he is about to enter. If the entrance be by the Lachine road, a fine view of the city is presented just before descending the hill near the Tanneries, or the village of St. Henry; and another on coming along the road from Mile-end, north west of the city. * * * In the commencement of towns and villages, when no specific plan has been previously arranged, houses and other buildings will be erected where land can be obtained or convenience may dictate, without much regard to regularity or order; and hence in towns of any considerable standing, we generally find that the earliest streets are crooked and irregular. This may be seen in St. Paul Street in this city, which by its contiguity to the river, presents great facilities for trade, and, with the space between it and the wharf, would be occupied in preference by men of business.

“It contains many excellent houses, which would be seen to more advantage, had the street been wider. It reminds one of some of the central streets in London, but without their fog and smoke. From St. Paul Street, downwards to the river, was formerly called the lower town, and the rest of the city the upper; but though in some of the cross streets there is an evident rising in the ground, in others it is scarcely perceptible. The principal streets are airy, and the new ones particularly of a commodious width; some of them running the whole length of the town, nearly parallel to the river, are intersected by others generally at right angles.

“An Englishman when he enters the city, and in his perambulations through nearly the extent of it, is struck with the French names by which nearly the whole formerly, and the greater part now, of the streets are distinguished; the names of Catholic Saints, or eminent Frenchmen, will meet his eye in abundance.

“The Rue Notre Dame, extending from the Quebec to the Recollet Suburbs, is 1,344 yards in length and thirty feet broad. It is in general a handsome street, and contains many of the public buildings. St. James Street, Craig Street and McGill Street, are of still greater width, and when the yet empty spaces in each are filled up with elegant houses, they will be ornaments to the town. * * * The spirit of local improvement has long been in active and efficient operation and betrays no symptoms of langour or decline. Beside a multitude of new and elegant houses in almost every part of the city and suburbs, large spaces and several streets have been considerably improved.

“The covering of the creek, or rather ditch, an offensive and dangerous nuisance, in Craig Street; the levelling of McGill Street; the improvements in Dalhousie Place, in the French Square, and Notre Dame Street, and of that part of St. Ann Suburbs called Griffin Town, by which a large portion of swampy land has been raised and made available for building, may be adduced as specimens. The recent houses are almost universally built of the grayish limestone which the vicinity of the mountain affords in abundance; the fronts of the same material, hewn and squared; even the new stores and warehouses are finished in the same manner.

[640]

“Many of the houses are large, handsome, and in modern style, and some of them display great taste in design.

“The best houses and most of the churches are covered with plates of tin, a far better material for this purpose than the wooden shingles which are frequently used. In comparing the climate with that of Quebec, it may be observed that in general the winter is shorter in Montreal and the cold not so intense.

“In the latter city also the snow is seldom so deep, or remains so long, as in Quebec.

“The favourable situation of Montreal enables her to command the trade of a considerable portion of the lower Province, and the greater part of the upper. Her position, indeed, is such as always to ensure a profitable connection with every part of the continent where business is to be done.

“By some persons it has been thought, however favourable the situation of Montreal is at present, it would have been better had the city been founded a little lower down the river, so that the difficulty of ascending the current of St. Mary might have been avoided. The aid of steam navigation, however, by which ships of all burdens may easily be towed up to the city, renders this a consideration of much less importance than it was formerly.

“The civil government of Montreal is administered by Justices of the Peace, who are appointed by the Governor of the Province. They are at present forty-six in number, and have the power to make certain assessments for defraying the necessary expenses of the city and to enact and enforce such by-laws for its regulation and advantage as are not inconsistent with the statutes of the realm. For a short period the municipal affairs of the city were managed by a Mayor and Common Council.”

VIEW OF THE CHAMP DE MARS, MONTREAL, 1830

From a sketch taken by John Murray and engraved by Bourne

ABOUT 1845

Notre Dame Street, looking east from St. John Street. Christ Church Cathedral, on the left beyond Notre Dame

BONSECOURS MARKET

FOOTNOTES:

1 The first bridge connecting the island at Bordà Plouffe, now Cartierville, with the north was Pont La Chapelle, built in 1834-5 as a private venture on his own grounds by M. Persillier-Lachapelle.

[641]

### CHAPTER XLIII

1841-1867

CITY IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE UNION

UNDER THE MUNICIPALITY

GREAT STRIDES AT THE UNION—THE EARLY MARKET PLACES—THE BONSECOURS MARKET—OTHER MARKETS—PUBLIC PLACES—THE EARLY SQUARES—PRESENT PARKS—THE EARLY CEMETERIES—THE FIRST JEWISH CEMETERY—THE DORCHESTER STREET PROTESTANT CEMETERY—DOMINION SQUARE—MOUNT ROYAL—COTE DES NEIGES—OTHER CEMETERIES—GENERAL CITY IMPROVEMENT—AREAS OF PUBLIC PLACES.

The advent of the Municipality saw great strides in city improvements, especially in laying out of public places, such as markets and parks.

MARKET PLACES

The first market place was held in the first public square or Place Royale, opposite the little river, the landing place of Champlain and Maisonneuve, and on the site occupied by the custom house and the present inland revenue office. The date of this first market goes back as far as 1680. Under the English régime with the growth of the city the provision of further markets was further foreseen. The second market, between Notre Dame Street and St. Paul Street, was placed on the site originally occupied by the Château de Vaudreuil, which became the Collège de St. Raphaël, burnt in the great fire of 1803. An ordinance of 1807 1 (47 George III, Chap. VII) gave authority to borrow to the amount of £2,500 for construction of the market, which, however, was delayed for a time. In 1821 a new wing was added. The building was in wood and was demolished to be replaced by the Bonsecours Market in 1843, and its site, the Jacques Cartier Square of today, served for a public place.

The “new” market, Bonsecours, was established under the regulation of the city council of 1841 (May 22d). It was designed also to be the seat of the Council. It is in the Grecian Doric style of architecture. Its site is partially that of the intendant’s palace and that of the house of Sir John Johnson, commander of the Indians in the American Revolution, and son of Sir William Johnson, the Indian[642] warrior. In 1845 the market at St. Lawrence and St. Dominique streets was also built. Other markets have followed in the following order:

1830—The first St. Ann’s Market owed its origin to the initiative of some private citizens who furnished the capital to the amount of nearly fifteen thousand pounds. It was afterwards leased to the government and became the house of parliament.

1830—About 1830 the market of Près de Ville on the north of Coté Street, near Chenneville and Vitré streets, was erected, but abolished in 1839.

1840—Viger, in St. James ward, bounded by Campeau, Craig, Dubord and St. Hubert; constructed in 1861; demolished in 1893.

1845—Papineau Market, on Papineau Road, between Craig and Lagauchetière; reconstructed in 1855; demolished in 1890.

1851—St. Ann’s Market, built on the site of the old parliament house, burnt down in 1849, in the rebel losses riots. It was demolished in 1900. Its site is now preserved by the gardens of Youville Square.

1860—St. Gabriel, bounded by Centre Street, Richmond, Richardson and Montmorency streets; abolished in 1900.

1865—St. Antoine, bounded by St. James, Mountain, Aqueduct and Adeline streets.

1865—The Haymarket, bounded by St. Paul, Inspector, William streets and Nolan Park.

1870—St. Jean Baptiste, bounded by St. Lawrence, Rachel, St. Dominique and Market streets.

1871—St. James, bounded by Ontario, Amherst, Wolfe and Houle.

1885—Cattle Market (East), at the head of Frontenac Street.

1885—Cattle Market (West), originally situated at St. Henri and removed in 1902 to St. Etienne Street (Point St. Charles).

1890—Weighing Station (Papineau), corner of Craig and Notre Dame streets.

1890—Weighing Station (St. Denis), corner of Carrière and Berri streets.

1890—Weighing Station (Hochelaga), on Desery Street between St. Catherine and Notre Dame Street. (In 1896 this became a fire station and later a repairing shop for fire appliances.)

In 1810 the regulations enforced by the magistrates concerning trade were reunited and sanctioned by the court of king’s bench. It is there decreed, among other things, that leathers, shoes, fish, meat, sugar, tobacco, cloths brought in by the “cultivateurs” should only be sold at certain places in the town under penalty of 5 shillings. The sale of fruit and vegetables was permitted on the streets. Other merchandise was forbidden to be sold on the street in order to prevent the obstruction of passage and the sale of them by auction which was reserved for market days. The slaughtering of animals was forbidden and there are other regulations pertaining to the cleanliness of the streets. That part of the water front from the northeast limit of the Montreal bridge to about opposite St. Victor Street, near the church of Bonsecours was declared the port for building and fire wood, with the exception of 100 feet reserved at the entrance of the new market for the bateaux, chaloupes, barges, and canoes bringing provisions to the markets.

GROUP FROM THE KING EDWARD MONUMENT

L.P. Hébert EDWARD THE PEACEMAKER

Erected 1914

[643]

PUBLIC PLACES

The movement for public squares was encouraged by His Excellency, Governor Lord Dalhousie, in 1821, when he gave the piece of ground on which Citadel Hill had so long stood, with its powder magazine. It was called Dalhousie Square. It is now covered by the Viger station tracks. The earth from the citadel was carted to the Champ de Mars to increase its size and to build it up.

The municipality, after the reestablishment of the corporation in 1840, turned its attention to the acquisition of more public places to meet the growth in population. The following is the history of the present parks or squares under the régime of the corporation of Montreal:

Custom House Square, now called Place Royale, the original Place d’Armes, Market Place and meeting ground of Montreal, was bought from Mr. William Dow on the 4th of April, 1845, at the price of $2,400.

Jacques Cartier Square, between Notre Dame and St. Paul streets, originally given to the city by virtue of an act of 1808 for the establishment of a market which was built and afterwards was taken down when Bonsecours Market was completed, was first used for its present purpose about 1845. The Nelson Monument was erected on this square in 1809.

Place d’Armes Square, opposite the Notre Dame Cathedral, had always been used as a public place from the early days of the French régime. In 1836 it was purchased by the city from the Gentlemen of the Seminary. In 1845 the city inclosed it and leveled the ground and paved the street around it. It has undergone several changes. The Maisonneuve Monument by Philippe Hébert was placed in the centre on June 24, 1895, and the railings have been removed and the whole square cemented during the last three or four years. This monument was erected to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the city by Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve. On the question of a statue being raised, a delegation from the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society, consisting of de Léry Macdonald, W.D. Lighthall, D.J. Beaudry and the Vicomte H. de la Barthe, presented to Mayor James McShane on April 23, 1891, a detailed scheme of placques and bas-reliefs for a great monument. This was ratified by the council. The Maisonneuve Committee, presided over by Judge Pagnuelo, eventually adopted with slight modifications, the scheme of designs suggested by the above Archaeological Society.

Champ de Mars belongs to the Imperial government for military parades. It was originally but a small piece of ground situated in one of the bastions of the old town walls; when these were pulled down it was enlarged. In 1839 it formed a space of 227 by 114 yards and was one of the fashionable promenades. The parapet stone railing overlooking Craig Street was erected in 1913.

Victoria Square was bought in 1841 to increase the Haymarket then held there. It was then called Commissioner’s Square. It received its present name in 1860 on the occasion of the visit of Prince Albert Edward (Edward VII). The southern portion situated between Craig and St. James streets belonged to the city since 1825, except the strip on the west side, which was expropriated in 1888.

Phillips Square and Beaver Hall Square were ceded to the town in 1842 by Mr. Alfred Phillips. In September of 1914, the Statue of King Edward the[644] Peacemaker, designed by Philippe Hébert, was unveiled by his brother, the Governor General of Canada, H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught.

Viger Garden, or Viger Square, was ceded to the city gratuitously in 1844 by Jacques Viger and P. LaCroix. It has been added to since. The site of this garden was originally a swamp or marsh and on an old map of 1758 it is marked as such. A portion of the square was used as a cattle market for many years. For years after its establishment as a public garden it was the principal square of the city where people congregated to hear the military bands two or three evenings every week.

Richmond Square has belonged to the city since 1844.

Parthenais Square was established in 1845 on a portion of ground belonging to the city. It was added to in 1858 by a piece purchased by Mr. McGill.

Papineau Square, established before 1845, was at first called Queen’s Square. Its new name was given by the council in 1890.

Lafontaine Park was bought by the Federal government on October 29, 1845, from Mr. James Logan, a merchant who had it from his father. This land was made part of the property commonly called Papineau or Monarch Farm. This property, owned by the federal government with the exception of a little strip, bounded by Rachel and Lafontaine Park, and a piece situated in the east of the Jacques Cartier Normal School has been left to the city for ninety-nine years on certain conditions for $1.00 a year. One of these is that the government can end the loan at any time, and another is the right to reserve for military purposes that part of the park situated to the north of Sherbrooke Street and to the east of Panet Street. The city conservatories originally erected on Viger Garden in 1865 were reconstructed on Lafontaine Park in 1889.

Wellington Square was bought from the Gentlemen of the Seminary in 1856.

St. Gabriel Square was bought in 1862, but its history as a public garden does not begin till 1893.

Western Square was bought as a public park from the gentlemen of the Seminary on December 31, 1870.

Cherrier Square, known under the name of St. Jean Baptiste Square, was acquired in 1870 and became a public park in 1875.

Dufferin Square, which had been a Protestant cemetery since 1799, was expropriated as a public park in 1871.

Mount Royal Park, the property of several owners, was originally expropriated at a cost of $1,000,000 in 1872. In 1875 Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted, a landscape architect from the United States, was entrusted with the preparation of a general plan for Mount Royal.

Fletcher’s Field, attached to this site, also dates its history to this period.

Dominion Square, hitherto the Catholic cemetery, was similarly expropriated in 1873.

St. Helen’s Island, in the St. Lawrence, and so named after his wife, Helène Bouillé, by Samuel Champlain, was established as a public park in 1874. Its extent is 128 acres.

Bellerive Square, established in 1880, became the property of the city definitely in 1893.

St. James Square, up to 1886 part of the St. James Market, became a public place in this year.

LAFONTAINE PARK

ST. LOUIS SQUARE

DOMINION SQUARE

VIGER SQUARE

PLACE D’ARMES

[645]

Nolan Square (Haymarket Square) was established as a park in 1896 on a part of the second Haymarket. This land was originally bought from the seminary in 1865.

Gallery Square was established as a public place in 1898.

Youville Square, so called from Madame d’Youville, who founded the Grey Nun’s Hospital originally adjacent, was transformed into a public space on the site of the old parliament building and afterwards St. Ann’s Market.

In 1913 parks were ceded to the city at Rosemount, Longue Pointe, and in 1914 in the St. Marys, Hochelaga, St. Denis, Notre Dame de Grâces, and Bordeaux Wards.

CEMETERIES

In the first volume the origin of the earliest cemeteries of Montreal has been traced. To resume; the first cemetery was established in 1643 at the southeast corner of the fort inclosure, known later as “Pointe a Callières,” today commemorated by a tablet on the present custom house building. The second was established in 1654 in the vicinity of the grounds of the Hôtel Dieu on St. Joseph Street (afterwards St. Sulpice Street), and was called the “Hospital Cemetery.” It occupied part of the ground occupied by the Place d’Armes and the present Notre Dame Cathedral. There was a mortuary chapel to receive the bodies which stood on the present site of the Bank of Montreal, and although the hospital cemetery had ceased to be in use in 1799 the chapel was not destroyed till 1816, when it was given over by the Fabrique of Notre Dame to the commissioners of fortifications of the city for the enlargement of St. James Street. Meanwhile a subsidiary cemetery, the third, was acquired about 1749 “on a site belonging to Mr. Robert near the powder magazine, containing about a quarter of an arpent in superfices.” It was granted at the request of the curé and the church warden of Notre Dame by the Marquis de la Galissonière, governor, and François Bigot, the intendant, as follows:

“Vue la requête, nous autorisons le curé et les marguilliers de la paroisse de cette ville (Montréal) à faire l’acquisition des terrains ci-dessous désignés pour servir à inhumer les pauvres de la dite paroisse.

“(Signé) La Galissoniere

Bigot.”

By 1751 it was resolved to inclose it with a stone wall and to build a mortuary to house the bodies during the winter. In 1799 the hospital cemeteries and the powder magazine were discontinued. At this period the grand juries, recognizing that these cemeteries so near to the dwellings were unhealthy and a menace to the public health, addressed a report to the Procurator General Sewell asking for their removal. The latter approached the Fabrique and it was resolved to seek for other lands. An old plan of the powder magazine cemetery shows that it ran from St. Peter Street, taking in a portion of St. James Street, and the block of buildings occupied by the Canada Life Building and the Canadian Bank of Commerce and terminating in Fortification Lane at the city wall.2 This cemetery was[646] that used by Protestants and Catholics alike. Historically it may be called the first cemetery for Protestants.

At this same period there was already a Jewish cemetery in a lot on St. Janvier Street, near the present Dominion Square. The deed of sale was signed by the congregation of “Shearith Israel” in 1775, and the first interment was that of Lazarus David on October 22, 1776.3 This was the first Jewish cemetery on the American continent.

The more remote site chosen for the next cemetery was that belonging to Pierre Guy in Coteau St. Louis and the St. Antoine suburbs, and covered four arpents. St. Anthony cemetery, as it was called, occupied a part of Dominion Square of today. An increase of ground was subsequently added on the part now occupied by the Archbishop’s Cathedral. This cemetery was used till 1854, when again its nearness to dwellings caused its removal to the slopes of Mount Royal.

For long the Protestant community had been desirous of its own exclusive burial ground. In 1799 a meeting was held in the courthouse on the 21st of June, when for the purpose of purchasing a piece of ground on Dorchester Street for a Protestant burying ground, Messrs. Edward W. Gray, Isaac W. Clarke, Arthur Davidson, John Russell, and William Hunter were chosen trustees. On the 15th of June, 1811, an order was issued for all bodies to be removed from the old cemetery before the 7th of July. In 1824 a considerable addition to the cemetery was made. The site is preserved today as Dufferin Square. It continued to serve its purpose as the “old” Protestant cemetery till about 1847. Many prominent Englishmen were buried here, such as the Hon. James McGill, whose body was afterward transferred to McGill College grounds. In 1871 it was expropriated as a public place.

The transition of the Protestant cemetery from Dorchester Street to Mount Royal may be now briefly told. Somewhere about 1845 or 1846 it was felt that the Dorchester Street burying ground was becoming overcrowded and a body known as the Montreal Cemetery Company incorporated with a charter granted in 1847 obtained some land at the top of Coté des Neiges Hill on property belonging to a Mr. Furness. A few burials only took place here as circumstances rendered it unsuitable. The project was then abandoned, and public meetings were held to obtain a more appropriate site. The Montreal Cemetery Company was succeeded by another incorporated by 16 Victoria, Cap. 56 (1852) under the name of the Mount Royal Cemetery Company. This company of stockholders has developed a beautiful mountain cemetery so that it may be considered one of the parks of Montreal and its garden of sleep.

The first interment in the Mount Royal Cemetery was that of the Reverend Mr. Squires, who died of cholera in 1852. Since 1910 an additional cemetery has been added in connection with the Mount Royal Cemetery Company, situated at Hawthornedale on the road to Bout de l’Ile.

The purchase of Mount Royal cemetery for the various Protestant denominations of Montreal was followed, by that of Notre Dame des Neiges adjoining, by[647] the Catholic community. A committee of five appointed on July 17, 1853, to find a suitable location for a cemetery reported to the Fabrique of Notre Dame Cathedral on July 31st the desirability of acquiring 115 arpents of land on Coté des Neiges Road belonging to Dr. Pierre Beaubien at the price of £3,000. This land was bought, but the project of finally settling it as a cemetery was not executed till the next year, since in the meantime a counter proposition had been gratuitously offered by the Sulpicians at Coté St. Luc. The original recommendation, however, being ratified, work was begun and the cemetery was opened to the public in 1855. The cemetery was enlarged in 1865, 1872, 1907 and 1909, and now covers over four hundred arpents of land.4 It is being constantly beautified, adding a beautiful garden to the adjoining mountain park. The name of Notre Dame des Neiges was chosen in remembrance of the little chapel built on the Mountain Mission under that title to be a souvenir of the placing of the great cross which Maisonneuve planted in 1643 on the day of the Epiphany, but which the Iroqouis afterward destroyed. There is no doubt that this name for the chapel was chosen by Marguerite Bourgeoys, who had a special veneration for the shrine of that name in France. Three of her Iroquois maidens were called by her Marie des Neiges. The neighbourhood has borne the name of Coté des Neiges for the same sentimental reasons, it being said that several of the first farmers settling there came from the district of the same French shrine.

ENTRANCE TO MOUNT ROYAL CEMETERY (PROTESTANT)

ENTRANCE TO COTE-DES-NEIGES CEMETERY (CATHOLIC)

THE “CALVARY” IN COTE-DES-NEIGES CEMETERY

The oldest Protestant cemetery in the city still existing is that on Papineau Road, where in 1816 land was purchased at a cost of £500 and was known as the “new” burial grounds. A portion of the latter, known as the military burial grounds, still exists as such and, owing to the efforts of the “Last Post” Association, the federal government has lately renovated it with needful repairs. Here there are several interesting monuments, among them being that of Sir Benjamin D’Urban, the first governor of Natal, who was sent out here to take command of the troops when the friction caused by the Oregon question threatened to bring on a war between Great Britain and our neighbours to the south.

There is also a military burial ground at St. Helen’s Island. It was discontinued in 1825. It is said to have been used for a hundred years and to contain between one thousand five hundred to two thousand remains. A further burial ground is preserved in memory by the great boulder of Point Charles at the north end of the Victoria Jubilee bridge, where the fever-stricken Irish emigrants were hurriedly buried in 1847.

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

Beyond the establishment of the public places and cemeteries during this period other civic improvements have to be accredited to this period before Confederation.

In 1852 the laws against wooden buildings were enforced. At this time St. Lawrence Main Street was the fashionable boulevard for the French citizens.

A review of the year 1856 says:[648] “There has been an intense energy manifested during the year and is still visible. The business streets are being paved in the most substantial manner; the avenues to the city and the roads in the outskirts are graded and macadamized; handsome fountains have been erected, trees are being planted out, rows of dwelling houses of elegant and substantial descriptions are going up in various quarters; a number of stores and warehouses of the largest, most substantial and at the same time most elegant kind are approaching completion. The great wharf for ocean steamships is finished as are the railway buildings at Point St. Charles. Labourers, mechanics, manufacturers and merchants—in a word all classes are at work with all their might and the results make their appearance with almost magical celerity. Nor in all this material advancement are the pulpit, the press, the college, or the school neglected.”

The year 1864 marked great building operations. No less than seven church edifices were commenced, viz., Trinity church on Viger Square; the Church of the Gesu, Bleury Street; three Wesleyan churches; the American Presbyterian church; Knox church on Dorchester Street, and Erskine church on St. Catherine Street. The Protestant House of Industry and Refuge, Dorchester Street, and the Molson Bank, St. James Street, complete the list of public buildings, while in addition to these 1,019 dwelling houses were erected.

The extension of Notre Dame from Dalhousie Square to McGill Street was made from 1864 to 1868. Ontario Street was opened in 1864 and at the same time St. Catherine Street was extended between St. George and St. Lawrence streets.

PUBLIC PLACES, SQUARES AND PARKS

Wards. | Names. | Areas.
Notre Dame de Grace | Vaillant | 2 | -9/10 | acres
| MacDonald | 8 | -3/10 | acres
| Trenholme | 13 | -3/5 | acres
| Notre Dame de Grace | 10 | -9/10 | acres
| Windsor | 20,900 square feet
Emard |  | 1 | -3/10 | acres
Saint Denis | Crémazie | 26 | -1/2 | acres
| Lamoricière |  | 1/10 | acre
| Molson | 4 | -2/5 | acres
Laurier | Lahaie | 1 | -1/10 | acres
St. Mary and De Lorimier | Baldwin | 28 | -3/10 | acres
Saint Mary | Parthenais | 1 |  | acre
| Bellerive | 1 | -4/5 | acres
Lafontaine, Papineau and Duvernay | Lafontaine Park | 95 |  | acres
Lafontaine | Saint Jacques |  | 3/5 | acre
St. Joseph and St. Andrew | Richmond |  | 2/3 | acre
St. Joseph | Victoria | 1 | -3/10 | acres
Papineau | Papineau | 2 | .84 | acres
St. Louis | Viger Square (a part) |  | 1/4 | acre
| St. Louis | 2 | -9/10 | acres
| Place St. Jacques |  | 2/5 | acre
St. Louis and St. Jacques | Viger Square | 6 | -3/5 | acres
Hochelaga | St. Joseph |  | 1/4 | acre
| A Square | 6 | -7/10 | acres
| Déséry |  | 3/4 | acre
| A Square | 3 |  | acres[649]
Hochelaga | St. Joseph |  | 1/4 | acre
| A Square | 6 | -7/10 | acres
| Déséry |  | 3/4 | acre
| A Square | 3 |  | acres
Mount Royal | Mount Royal | 18 | -2/5 | acres
| Troie | 1 | -9/10 | acres
Saint Henry | Sir Geo. Etienne Cartier | 6 |  | acres
| Playgrounds {1 | 4 | -1/2 | acres
| Playgrounds {2 | 1 | -1/5 | acres
| Playgrounds {3 | 16,380 | feet
| St. Henri | 1 | -1/3 | acres
| Jacques Cartier | 1 | -2/5 | acres
West | Youville |  | 3/4 | acre
Centre | Place Royale |  | 1/11 | acre
| Place d’Armes |  | 1/3 | acre
East | Champ de Mars | 3 | -2/3 | acres
| Jacques Cartier | 1 | -1/5 | acres
Saint Gabriel | Monaghan | 12 | -9/10 | acres
| Saint Gabriel | 3 | -9/10 | acres
De Lorimier | Fairmount | 1 | -3/5 | acres
Saint Cunegonde | Iberville |  | 1/3 | acre
Saint Laurent | Dufferin | 2 |  | acres
| Mance |  | 1/5 | acre
Saint George | Dominion | 6 | -1/4 | acres
| Phillips |  | 1/2 | acre
| Beaver Hall |  | 1/9 | acre
| Victoria | 1 | -1/3 | acres
St. Jean Baptiste | Vallières |  | 1/3 | acre
St. Ann | Haymarket | 3 | -1/5 | acres
| Gallery | 1 | -1/4 | acres
| St. Patrick | 2 | -1/2 | acres
| Tausey (Alma) | 10,000 | feet
Saint Andrew | Western | 1 | -2/5 | acres
| Mount Royal Park | 708 | -1/2 | acres
Saint Paul | King Edward | 1 | -7/10 | acres
Rosemount | Drummond | 29 |  | acres
Longue Pointe | Thibaudeau |  | 1/2 | acre
| St. Helen’s Island | 135 |  | acres
| Ile Ronde | 34 |  | acres
| Ile Verte | 16 |  | acres

A total of seventy-five parks and public places.

[650]

GROUPS FROM THE KING EDWARD MONUMENT

FOOTNOTES:

1 In 1815 (55 George II, Chap. 5), the justices of the peace regulated the price of bread and enforced the stamping of it.

2 Mr. G. Durnford, who gives me this memory sketch of the plan, adds that evidence of this cemetery has been found from time to time when excavating for foundations, when skeletons and parts of skeletons have been dug up.

3 The remains of Lazurus David were subsequently removed to the present cemetery when the first was closed. Cemeteries were afterwards purchased at the “Back River,” but of late years a portion adjoining the Protestant cemetery of Mount Royal has been used for Hebrew burials.

4 A table of Catholic burials in Montreal from 1642 to 1910 prepared by Simeon Mondou, ex-secretary-treasurer of the Fabrique of Notre Dame, reaches the total of 362,315.

[651]

### CHAPTER XLIV

1867-1914

CITY IMPROVEMENT SINCE CONFEDERATION

THE RISE OF METROPOLITAN MONTREAL

THE METROPOLITAN ASPECT OF MONTREAL IN 1868—EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS—THE CITY STREET RAILWAY AIDS SUBURBAN EXTENSION—FORECAST OF ANNEXATIONS—THE CITY HOMOLOGATED PLAN—THE ANNEXATION OF SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES IN 1883—TABLE OF ANNEXATION SINCE 1883—PREFONTAINE’S REVIEW OF THE YEARS 1884-1898—IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE BOARD OF CONTROL—A REVIEW OF THE LAST TWO DECADES OF METROPOLITAN GROWTH—THE CHANGES DOWNTOWN—THE GROWTH UPTOWN.

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENTS: 1. STATEMENT OF BUILDINGS. 2. REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS. 3. RECENT BUILDINGS ERECTED OR COMPLETED. 4. THE METROPOLITAN POPULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE POPULATION OF MONTREAL WITH THE CITIES OF THE CONTINENT. 5. OF THE WORLD. 6. OPTIMISTIC SPECULATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. 7. VITAL CITY STATISTICS IN 1912. 8. A PLAN FOR “GREATER MONTREAL”—THE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT MOVEMENT.

A traveler who visited the city in the year 1868 gives a criticism which reminds us that Montreal was now assuming metropolitan proportions: “I was much struck by the continued rapid growth of this now great northern city. But as it is almost wholly of stone in the business portions and along the extensive and massive quays which line the banks of the river, Montreal makes a dignified, indeed, an imposing effect. The beholder for the first time, unless marvelously well up in his geography, is surprised to find so large and so complete a city. To stand at a street corner for a moment is to see pass by the Indian woman, wrapped in her heavy blanket; the French habitant; Scotch, Irish and English residents; and emigrants of all social conditions, the “American” from the United States; officers of the British army in their different uniforms; Catholic priests in their robes; Sisters of Charity; crowds of neat-looking soldiers; and the burly policemen clad in a dark blue military uniform. The buildings everywhere in course of erection would dignify any city. There are none in the United States which present finer specimens of street architecture than are found, not isolated here and there, but in long blocks and throughout the entire city.”

Speaking of the buildings of this period, Sandham in his Ville Marie Past and Present, remarks: “A striking feature in the progress of the city was the number[652] of buildings erected for educational and charitable purposes. Indeed, each year seemed to have a peculiarity in the character of its new buildings. In 1868 the tendency was in favour of dwelling houses; the year before it was stores; and before that again the erection of churches and religious edifices appeared mostly to employ the energies and surplus capital of the citizens.

“The year 1869 was marked by efforts in an educational direction. The Gentlemen of the Seminary nearly doubled the previously large accommodation at the college above Sherbrooke Street. The Roman Catholic bishop put up a large schoolhouse in Lagauchetière Street and the Catholic school commissioners erected a schoolhouse on Ontario Street and another in Fullum Street. They also erected a very spacious school on Alexander Street opposite St. Patrick’s church. A very large stone structure was erected on Visitation Street by the St. Vincent de Paul Society for educational and charitable uses. The extensive asylum or infant school in St. Catherine Street, near Bleury, had its size doubled, a neat chapel being added. The St. George’s (Episcopal) church was also commenced.”

The extension of the city toward the suburbs was being facilitated by the city railway commenced in the fall of 1861. “It is difficult,” says Sandham, writing in 1869, “to mark the distinction between the city and the villages of the outlying municipalities. It is apparent that these villages must eventually form part of the city and it would be advantageous if some preparatory arrangement were to be made for assimilating the building and sanitary laws of the municipalities to those of the city.” A remark equally pertinent today when having annexed many of these “villages” we are looking forward to do the same to many more till the city embraces the island of Montreal.

In 1867 paving and wood was adopted for Jacques Cartier Square, but stone was adopted for the rest. The year of 1875 saw great progress in paving, the expense of the outlay being not less than $431,090. The side paths in blue stone on St. Denis, Sherbrooke, Union, St. Catherine and Dorchester are of this date. This period of city improvement culminated in the homologated plan of the city still in use. The sanitary state of the city at this time was deplorable and Dr. William Hingston, afterwards knighted, was elected mayor for its amelioration. The construction of the chief collecting sewer on Craig Street, begun at this time, was finished in 1878. The year 1887 saw also a regular system established for the removal of rubbish. All these ameliorations reduced the mortality rate very much.

In 1883 there began a series of modern suburban annexation which has given the name of the “Greater Montreal” to our enlarging city.

In 1883 the superficies of Montreal proper was 3,958 acres. Its population was, according to the census of 1881, 155,238 souls. Since the annexations began in 1883 there have been added up to 1910 21,767 acres. On the 4th of June, 1910, the total superficies of the city was 25,747.75 acres, about 40.23 square miles, and the population was 455,000 souls. At this time the following municipalities were still outside the city:

Maisonneuve | 22,500 Population
Westmount | 14,000 Population
Verdun | 10,500 Population[653]
Outremont | 3,000 Population
Lachine | 11,000 Population
Summerlea | 500 Population
Ville St Pierre | 2,000 Population
Montreal West | 900 Population
St. Anne de Bellevue | 2,000 Population

It is expected that Greater Montreal will include these.

THE LOOKOUT AND SOME OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN MOUNT ROYAL PARK

The subjoined table of annexations since 1883 deserves to be recorded:

| Date of annexation. | Area (acres). | Population when annexed.
Hochelaga | Oct. 3, 1883 | 1,230 |  | 6,000
St. Jean Baptiste | March 8, 1886 | 308 |  | 7,000
St. Gabriel | May 25, 1887 | 330 |  | 6,000
Cote St. Louis | Feb. 1, 1894 | 850 |  | 3,500
St. Henry | Oct. 30, 1905 | 450 |  | 21,192
St. Cunegonde | Dec. 4, 1905 | 124 |  | 10,912
Villeray | Sept 11, 1905 | 60 |  | 600
Rosemount (part) | Jan. 15, 1906 | 185 |  | —
Sault au Recollet | Nov. 5, 1906 | 863 | .6 | 1,200
St. Laurent | March 14, 1907 | 960 |  | —
Cote des Neiges | April 25, 1908 | 1,148 | .3 | 550
Rosemount (part) | April 25, 1908 | 249 |  | 800
Sault au Recollet (part) | April 25, 1908 | 313 | .6 | —
De Lorimier | May 29, 1909 | 391 |  | 7,000
St. Louis | Jan. 1, 1910 | 720 |  | 35,000
Bordeaux | June 4, 1910 | 868 | .28 | 900
St. Laurent (part) | June 4, 1910 | 877 | .3 | 700
Ahuntsic | June 4, 1910 | 726 | .5 | 4,000
Ville St. Paul | June 4, 1910 | 263 |  | 3,257
Beaurivage | June 4, 1910 | 46 |  | 1,400
Tetreauville | June 4, 1910 | 311 |  | 1,500
Longue Pointe | June 4, 1910 | 4,164 | .2 | 1,693
Rosemount (part) | June 4, 1910 | 1,431 | .5 | 1,200
Cote des Neiges (part) | June 4, 1910 | 1,402 | .17 | 600
Ville Emard | June 4, 1910 | 951 |  | 5,000
Notre Dame de Grace | June 4, 1910 | 2,536 |  | 4,100
Cote St. Luc | 1912 | 373 |  | —
|  | ———— |  | ———
|  | 22,162 | .45 | 124,104
City in 1883 |  | 3,494 |  |
Mount Royal park |  | 464 |  |
|  | ———— |  |
Total area |  | 26,090 | .45 |

Annexation seems to have been successful. To illustrate the next period of fifty years of Greater Montreal the following official account of the year 1898 is useful as a brief summary of city improvements:

[654]

His Worship Mayor Préfontaine, wishing to give in his inaugural address, in 1898, an idea of the progress made by Montreal, during the past fifteen years, submitted the following figures:

“The taxable property, in 1884, was $73,584,644; in 1897, the same had reached $141,790,205; increase, $68,205,561.

“The value of the property exempted from taxation in 1884 was $15,324,084; in 1897, it had reached $36,023,295; increase, $20,697,211.

“In 1884, we had 133 miles of streets opened; in 1897, we had 178 miles. Increase, 45 miles.

“In 1884, we had less than one-half mile of paved streets; we now have 26½ miles.

“The territory of Montreal in 1884 was 3,788 square acres; in 1897, it was 6,547 square acres; increase, 2,761 square acres.

“In 1884 we had about 75 miles of brick sewers; we now have 104 miles; increase, 29 miles.

“The population increased during the same period of time, from 172,000 to 250,000, taking the lowest estimate of the present population; increase, about 78,000.”

From 1898 to 1910 the same corresponding increase of growth was marked.

Another epoch started with the later date on the advent of the Board of Control.

CIVIC IMPROVEMENT UNDER THE “BOARD OF CONTROL”

Among some of the outstanding civic works undertaken under the control régime may be chronicled the following, as recorded in the official reports:

THE MEURLING REFUGE

In 1911, Mr. Gustave Meurling died at Menton, France, bequeating all his property to the City of Montreal.

Following the correspondence between the late Mr. Meurling’s attorneys and Doctor J.J. Guerin, Mayor at the time, the Consulting City Attorney was instructed to take the necessary means to put the City in possession of the bequest.

To carry out the wishes of this generous benefactor, the Commissioners decided to build a refuge for the poor and homeless, giving it his name.

On the 29th of July, 1912, a report was made to Council to purchase a property on Champ de Mars Street and to erect thereon a refuge to be known as “The Meurling Municipal Refuge.” This report was adopted by the Council on the 1st of August, 1912. An architect was engaged to prepare the plans and specifications and the refuge was in full operation in March, 1914. It is thoroughly equipped with the most modern appliances.

MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES

The Commissioners decided to create a new department to be known as the Municipal Archives Department.

This action was deemed necessary, preventing the loss of documents, and the worry and loss of time spent in searching for them. All documents will be in[655] charge of one official who will be the head of this Department. This Department came into existence and the head official appointed in 1913.

MAP BY WARDS OF MONTREAL

CHAMP DE MARS

In 1911, the Board of Commissioners had plans and specifications prepared and the necessary funds were voted by Council for improvements to the Champ de Mars.

The tenders received for this work exceeded the estimates prepared by the Public Works Department to such an extent that the Commissioners decided that it would not be in the City’s interest to award the contract.

The Chief Engineer was thereupon instructed to have new plans and specifications prepared; these being prepared by Mr. F.J. Todd, Architect. Tenders were called for and on the 10th of June, 1912, Council awarded the contract.

The Champ de Mars improvements, including the change of grade and paving of St. Gabriel Street, were completed during the course of the year 1913.

CITY HALL ANNEX

In 1910, the attention of the Commissioners was called to the congestion existing in the offices of the Police Department, Municipal Assistance Department, etc., and finally, in 1911, they decided that the efficient administration of those departments required that they should occupy more spacious quarters.

Consequently, they reported to Council for funds to purchase a property on Gosford Street, between Champ de Mars and St. Louis streets, for the site of a new building for this purpose. The report was adopted by the Council and the sum of $10,000 was voted for the preparation of the necessary plans and specifications for the erection of this building, as well as for repairs to the City Hall. Messrs. Marchand & Haskell, architects, were engaged for this work. Tenders were called for the construction of this building and on the 4th of June, 1912, on report of the Commissioners, Council awarded the contract to Messrs. Peter Lyall & Sons. The building was ready for occupation early in 1914.

EXPROPRIATIONS

During the last three years, 1910-13, many streets have been opened, widened or continued. A new system of expropriation has been adopted since 1910 by the City. When a street is to be widened or a new street opened up, the City is empowered to purchase the whole of a property to be expropriated, if it thinks fit, and then resell the residue. In most cases the City is reimbursed the whole of the expropriation, and in others a fair profit is made, as for instance, in the case of opening up St. Lawrence Boulevard to the River front.

For the opening of St. Lawrence Boulevard, the City purchased, from the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame,1 the whole of their property for the sum of $617,350.00, at the rate of $7.34 per foot; from the McArthur Estate, the[656] whole of their property for the sum of $51,050.00, at the rate of $5.03 per foot; from the Masson Estate, a part of their property for the sum of $22,170.00 at the rate of $6.00 per foot; the sale expenses, etc., amounted to the sum of $7,933.08, making a total expenditure of $698,503.08.

The City then resold a part of the Sisters’ property for $694,184.74; a part of the McArthur Estate property for $27,005.40; the sale of the building materials brought $1,936.00; the whole proceeds of the resale amounted to $723,126.07; the City thus realizing a net profit of $24,622.00 on the whole transaction.

Taking the prices paid by the City, as a basis, to arrive at the whole cost of this transaction, we have part of the Sister’s property (36,740.2 square feet) used for the Boulevard at $7.34 per foot, making a total amount of $269,677.06; part of the property of the Masson Estate (3,695 square feet) at $6.00 per foot, making a total amount of $22,170.00; part of the property of the McArthur Estate (8,475 square feet) at $5.03 per foot, amounting to $42,659.53; the cost of the St. Lawrence Boulevard thus amounting to the sum of $334,502.59. By adding to this sum the above mentioned amount of $24,622.99, we see that the opening of St. Lawrence Boulevard, which was a matter of public convenience, not only cost the City nothing, but by this transaction, reaped a benefit of the value of $359,125.58.

These facts go to prove that while in some cases the City is obliged to purchase, in a limited time, a certain designated property and to pay a seemingly high price, yet in other cases with the new system of expropriations, the City is enabled not only to have improvements made that cost nothing, but also to make a good profit on its investment. This method was considered by the Cities of the United States a progressive movement.

TUNNELS

In 1913 the St. Lawrence Street tunnel, which was begun by Ville St. Louis, was completed and open to traffic.

The Commissioners have also under consideration the building of tunnels on St. Hubert and on Wellington Streets, and the widening of the Ontario Street tunnel, and to the widening of the St. Denis Street tunnel.

The expropriation of the land necessary for the construction of Park Avenue tunnel is now going on and as soon as the proceedings are finished, means will be taken so that this tunnel be constructed without delay.

FILTRATION WORKS

At present in accordance with the endorsation of a scheme presented for the improved state of the city’s future water supply there is being constructed a large filtration plant which promises Montreal the finest water supply on the continent.

The site of filtration plant will be mostly in the town of Verdun adjoining the low level pumping station, and will occupy an area of about eighty-five acres. After being conveyed to the filtration pumping station the water will be lifted to the prefilters, then flow by gravity to the final filters to the filtered water reservoir, and will finally reach a new hydro-electric pumping station, and from there it will be pumped up to the reservoirs on Mount Royal and distributed through the city.

KEY MAP. SHOWING LOCATION OF FILTRATION WORKS

At present in accordance with the indorsement of a scheme presented for the improved state of the city’s future water supply there is being constructed a large filtration plan which promises Montreal the finest water supply on the continent.

[657]

THE BOULEVARDS ALONG THE AQUEDUCT

Incidentally the aqueduct is being broadened and a series of boulevards are being constructed on its banks. As this enterprise was an outcome of the city planning movement, which has favorably marked the last few years of civic improvement, it may be recorded.

On the 26th May, 1913, the City Council adopted the following report of the Board of Commissioners:—

1. That the principle of establishing boulevards along the canal of the Aqueduct, according to the plans prepared by the City Engineers, be adopted by Council, a duplicate of these plans to be deposited with the City Clerk.

2. That the offers of ceding the land gratuitously for these boulevards be accepted on the following conditions:—

(a) The work of planing and levelling the boulevards will be carried on as the work on the canal progresses, the City shall not be bound to open the proposed boulevards to traffic until the work on the canal is completed.

(b) The City shall, if possible, compel the contractors throwing up earth along the banks of the canal, to give the streets connecting with the boulevards a grade of not more than 6% from the line dividing the boulevards from the adjoining properties. Proprietors adjoining the boulevards shall have the exclusive privilege of having the material from the excavations deposited on their land in the way they may determine, provided, however, such material is not needed by the City.

That all properties which will not have been ceded on the above mentioned conditions within a delay of three months from the 1st of June, 1913, be expropriated according to the terms of the law 3 Geo. V., Chap. 54, Section 20, and that the cost of said expropriation be borne exclusively by the proprietors of land bordering the proposed boulevards, according to a roll made and prepared according to the prescriptions of Art. 450 of the Charter of the City of Montreal.

That in case of there being any doubt of the power of the City to give effect to the above mentioned recommendation, the Legislation Committee and the City Attorneys be requested to obtain from the Legislature any legislation necessary for the accomplishment of this undertaking.

That the City obtain from the Legislature:

1. Exemption from all taxes whether municipal, school, general or special which might be imposed upon the land forming part of the boulevards or of the Aqueduct and situated in other municipalities, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the Town of Verdun, in virtue of the Statute 1 Geo. V., 2nd Session, Chap. 60, Section 2, concerning the commutation of taxes on immovables owned by the City of Montreal in the Town of Verdun.

2. Authorization to apply to all proprietors of lots fronting on the proposed boulevards, the decrees of its Charter and of its By-laws relating to building, sewers, sidewalks and pavements, as well as by-laws relating to police and the maintenance of streets.

The opening of these boulevards is one of the greatest improvements that Montreal has made for years, and once they are completed, our City will be in a position to compare favourably with the most beautiful cities of America, in so far as its parks and boulevards are concerned.

[658]

CONCLUSION

THE LAST PHASE OF CITY DEVELOPMENT

In order to preserve the continuity of the historical pictures of the physical growth of this city from 1898 to 1914, the following picture summing up the confusing changes going on during the greater part of the last two decades of commercial activity, may serve as a review.

The city is now undergoing a reconstruction and remodeling that is confusing even to its middle aged citizens, who were born in the old humdrum city. Landmarks are disappearing; the buildings in the older part of the city and even parts of the new are being replaced with wondrous celerity, baffling the mind of one not a statistician. It is the age of the house-wrecker and steam-rivetter. Montreal is being modernized—becoming a second New York—but in spite of all, manages to preserve its unique, psychological and historical characteristics. Commenting on the changes, now undergoing in 1914, a writer in one of our daily journals (the Montreal Star of April 11, 1914, from which the following is adopted) describes the present period as the era of the house-wrecker and steam-welder.

This is a substantial description of the optimistic state of the city shortly before the war of 1914.

THE BOOM BEFORE THE WAR OF 1914

The dust of the house-wrecker, followed by the chatter of the steam-rivetter marks more than the mere replacement of building by building, it marks the gradual alteration of the very face of the city—and the house-wrecker and the steam-rivetter are abroad in the land six days in the week and fifty-two weeks in the year.

The truth of the matter is that plan and excavate and build as we can, we cannot keep abreast of our requirements. What seems enormous to-day, fit to withstand the demands of the next half century, is almost to-morrow found inadequate. In New York they are tearing down buildings erected but a few years ago, of modern construction, and climbing up nineteen or twenty stories into the air, because they do not pay, replacing them with the aid of night and day shifts by buildings which shoot upwards for forty stories. In a lesser degree that is what is happening here.

Let us take a few concrete instances of what has happened within the memory of hundreds, if not of thousands, of Montrealers, using St. James Street as an illustration.

The site of the new Bank of Commerce offices on St. James Street gives a good instance of the steady advance in the principal down-town street of Montreal. Where the great stone pillars rear their bulk to-day, a church once stood, the St. James Methodist Church. A congregation, receding before the steady advance of commerce, drove the church uptown, where the Allan private residence on St. Catherine and St. Alexander streets, was purchased, and the down-town church went the way of all old buildings. On its site rose the Temple Building, considered at the time to be adequate to meet all needs for many years. This was in the late ’80s, and the Temple Building lasted only till 1909, when it, although it still served a useful purpose, made way for the huge building now on the site.[659] Where the London, Lancashire and Globe Building now stands, there stood a huddle of small shops and cottages built in the ’70s. These gave way to the Barron Block, which was a four-story brick affair, considered at the time to be the last word in office architecture. The Barron Block went up in flames eventually, but it was doomed anyway, and for the same cause that spelled the end of the Temple Building across and down the street; the space was needed. Freeman’s restaurant, a name associated with Montreal for many years, also located at this spot, suffered demolition about the same time, but sprung up again a few doors away.

The “Star” needed a permanent and adequate office on St. James Street, and to make way for it a famous old commercial house stepped aside, J. and W. Hilton, furniture makers. A little later and almost next door an even greater transformation was going on when the Dominion Express Building sprung into the air, shouldering the historic old St. Lawrence Hall back on to Craig Street. St. Lawrence Hall had for many years allowed the C.P.R. a corner of its space on the ground floor, together with a drug store of immemorial antiquity. Now, the ten-story Dominion Express stands as a monument to what commerce and industry demand. Across the street its bigger neighbour, the Transportation Building marks the spot where a three-story building once sheltered Picken, the broker; the R. & O. and several other tenants. The new Bank of British North America, one of the finest bank buildings in Montreal, is another illustration of what is continually happening, the steady inroad of the big building upon the small. Next to the present Transportation Building to the west stood at one time the Montreal Post Office, before the present one was erected; it too has undergone many interior changes and exterior enlargements.

The Royal Trust Building has replaced the Imperial Insurance Building. The Credit Foncier Building stands where a ramshackle collection of little buildings once stood on Little St. James Street and St. Lambert’s Hill. The courthouse annex has succeeded St. Gabriel Presbyterian church. During the last twenty years Craig Street has suffered less changes, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Building, one of the biggest in its class in Canada, and the new Herald Building, being the only two outstanding structures which have gone up.

In Victoria Square, the changes have been numerous, the Eastern Townships Bank Building replacing the original Morgan store, as perhaps the most notable. McGill Street has changed since those disturbed days of flood when skiffs could be rowed across Youville Square. The McGill Building, the Shaughnessy Building, the Dominion Express Building, and the huge head offices of the Grand Trunk have all grown up within the memory of young men, and the completion of the new Customs House below Youville Square bids fair to transform the lower end of McGill Street completely.

It is, of course, impossible even to enumerate the buildings which have gone up north of Craig Street within the last two decades. St. Alexander Street is a good illustration of what is happening from day to day. No less than three huge office buildings have gone up on this short street in as many years, and apparently the end is not yet.

Rip Van Winkle is reported to have found many changes after his twenty year siesta. The Montrealer who has come to the years of discretion can share in Rip’s sensations of astonishment if he only stops to think what is going on, methaphorically speaking, under his nose. All he has to do is to imitate Rip, wake up,[660] and realize that his city has changed during every one of the years when he has been too busy to note. And, incidentally, he will realize that these changes will become more instead of less frequent, in the years to come.

Another account summarizing the changes occurring in 1913-1914 is as follows:

On St. James Street and Notre Dame there have cropped up in the business section of La Sauvegarde, opposite the Court House, the Lewis Building on St. Francis Xavier; the Versailles, on St. James Street, near Place d’Armes; the Bank of British North America Building; and the Reford Building on Hospital Street, the latter a small four-story structure of unusually fine finish. Other big downtown buildings are the Shaughnessy, on McGill Street, and the McGill, at the corner of Notre Dame and McGill streets—all but the one in the ten storey class, and all completed within the last year.

The present shows the great advance in growth of uptown structures.

That big buildings soon will be common uptown has been shown by the coming into being of three that have been erected almost simultaneously,—the Drummond, at the corner of Peel and St. Catherine streets; the Guarantee Building on the Beaver Hall Hill; and the Dandurand, the first ten storey building east of the Main Street and North of Craig, at the corner of St. Catherine Street and St. Denis Boulevard. Accommodation has been booked heavily in all three, and already there are projects for more to be erected in the course of the next year. The Scroggie Building, erected by the Peter Lyall Company, who have built most of the “big stuff” in Montreal, including the Transportation and Express on St. James Street, constitutes something of a record—ground was broken in December, 1912, and the place was occupied by November 1, 1913. The area covered by the structure is 127 feet by 345.

Another large structure, that has gone up quietly with little interference with traffic and public convenience, is the ten-storey addition to the Power Building on Craig Street—work was begun in June and already the lower storeys are occupied by some of the office staff. One of the more remarkable of the newer buildings is the Southam Press Building, the novel front of which attracts the eye of many a traveller in Bleury Street. Four stately female figures support the front, which is frescoed with small colored lizards and snakes.

The ground floor has an area of 4,525 square feet.

The new Montreal High School in University Street, which covers about five acres of ground, and which has been in construction for more than a year, will be vacated by the builders in about two months. The new Sun Life Building on Dominion Square, which, the Company claims will have cost when finished upward of one and a quarter million dollars, has already been fitted with its skeleton of steelwork, and will be nearly completed by the end of the summer. Another large building on which a great deal of work remains to be done is the new custom house building on McGill Street, which will not be finished for two years, the object being to allow of the proper “seasoning” of the main structure, and the settling of the foundations. Considering the extent of building operation in the city, there are comparatively few accidents, the death list being proportionately smaller than that of New York, where every skyscraper exacts its toll of several deaths before completion.

The growth of the city of recent years has been so rapid and great that it can be best gauged about 1913 by the testimony of a Montrealer, Mr. Donald McMaster, who had been absent for a few years:

[661]

“As I came up the river last night on the boat, I was astounded by what I saw in the way of industrial development in the East End of the city.

“Belching chimneys, great mills and factories, the glow of furnaces, the signs of an eager and aggressive industrialism. And then today when I went westward and saw what was being done there in the way of expansion in the building up of the environs of the city, in the multiplicity of machine and car shops, along the Lachine canal, I said to myself that such growth surpassed that of London or Paris proportionately to population.

“Why, you will have a million, not in a decade, but in a lustrum. You don’t see all this growth as a stranger sees it. I am not a stranger, of course; but I have been absent. I tell you I am amazed at what I see, and proud of old Montreal.”

TYPES OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE IN MONTREAL

Canadian Life Assurance Building

Canadian Express Building

Linton Apartments

Ritz-Carlton Hotel

DURING THE GREAT REAL ESTATE BOOM

Montreal has been so steadily growing into metropolitan proportions that we must now let students use their imagination by a glance at the following figures and studies.

They are put on record here as reflecting the grounds on which optimistic calculators were looking to the future in 1913 before the outbreak of the Great International War.

I

REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS

The growth may be estimated by the following increase in real estate assessment values:

1880 | $ 78,387,759.00
1890 | 122,859,859.00
1900 | 185,744,531.00
1901 | 190,952,235.00
1902 | 194,045,075.00
1903 | 200,622,335.00
1904 | 207,338,585.00
1905 | 219,047,960.00
1906 | 255,013,389.00
1907 | 272,761,032.00
1908 | 299,157,416.00
1909 | 329,933,089.00
1910 | 428,585,356.00
1911 | 501,291,812.00
1912 | 638,021,625.00
1913 | 791,820,595.00

To present a picture of the present activities the following list shows the buildings valued over $70,000 which are under construction in Montreal at the present time, or have been finished since April, 1912.

[662]

II

STATEMENT OF BUILDINGS OCCUPIED BY PROPRIETORS OR TENANTS, ALSO VACANT, AND IN ERECTION (1912)

| Number of dwelling houses by tenants
|  | Number of dwelling houses occupied by proprietors
|  |  | Number of vacant dwelling houses
|  |  |  | Number of dwelling houses in erection
|  |  |  |  | Number of store and office buildings
|  |  |  |  |  | Number of store and office buildings in erection
Ward |  |  |  |  |  |  | Miscellaneous buildings
East | 60 | 4 | 2 | — | 165 | 2 | 21
Centre | 2 | — | — | — | 207 | 2 | 8
West | 1 | — | — | — | 306 | — | 6
St. Ann | 970 | 170 | 13 | 1 | 532 | 4 | 63
St. Joseph | 859 | 159 | 36 | 2 | 282 | 1 | 24
St. Andrew | 873 | 601 | 28 | 19 | 139 | — | 58
St. George | 786 | 439 | 34 | 9 | 379 | 6 | 106
St. Lawrence | 1,306 | 241 | 41 | 6 | 418 | 10 | 69
St. Louis | 1,650 | 370 | 27 | 9 | 340 | 2 | 77
St. James | 669 | 184 | 19 | 3 | 134 | 2 | 34
Lafontaine | 939 | 562 | 20 | 4 | 121 | 1 | 20
Papineau | 1,080 | 462 | 17 | 14 | 292 | 2 | 28
St. Mary | 688 | 438 | 6 | 29 | 239 | — | 18
Hochelaga | 1,001 | 642 | 51 | 49 | 106 | 6 | 48
St. Jean Baptiste | 1,137 | 461 | 11 | 17 | 186 | 2 | 23
Duvernay | 586 | 396 | 6 | 6 | 89 | 5 | 5
St. Denis | 2,479 | 2071 | 71 | 4 | 444 | 13 | 52
St. Henry | 954 | 610 | 13 | 32 | 70 | — | 57
St. Cunegonde | 332 | 113 | 1 | — | 59 | 1 | 10
Mount Royal | 127 | 158 | 6 | 9 | 16 | — | 11
De Lorimier | 799 | 340 | 31 | 46 | 99 | 9 | 14
Laurier | 2,149 | 1,265 | 49 | 95 | 241 | 3 | 63
Notre Dame de Graces | 374 | 378 | 51 | 116 | 22 | — | 30
Emard | 697 | 212 | 29 | 17 | 30 | — | 12
Longue Pointe | 550 | 330 | 18 | 5 | 52 | — | 26
St. Paul | 234 | 172 | 3 | 7 | 36 | — | 11
Bordeaux | 205 | 158 | 21 | 11 | 15 | — | 7
Rosemount | 139 | 122 | 12 | 40 | 9 | — | 5
Cote des Neiges | 52 | 48 | 2 | 4 | 4 | — | 6
St. Gabriel | 877 | 423 | 10 | 2 | 56 | — | 34
Ahuntsic | 64 | 118 | 8 | 14 | 16 | — | 7
| ——— | ——— | —- | —- | ——- | —- | —
| 22,639 | 11,647 | 636 | 570 | 5,100 | 71 | 953

[663]

III

RECENT BUILDINGS

The buildings here listed represent a total value of $13,623,330 and aside from the Grain Elevator and Dominion Government warehouses are for the most part office buildings, apartment houses and factories. They give a good idea of the present prosperity of Montreal, and its growth of population and business:

Owner, Location and Description— | Value.
Harbor Commission, foot of Berri Street, grain elevator | $2,500,000
Canadian Steel Foundry, Maisonneuve, factory | 1,000,000
Dominion Government, McGill and Youville, storehouse | 900,000
City of Montreal, Gosford Street, City Hall Annex | 712,000
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Sherbrooke and Drummond, hotel | 663,330
Royal Trust Company, 107 St. James, office building | 500,000
Bank of B.N.A., 140 St. James, bank and office building | 500,000
Alexander Building Company, St. Alexander Street, warehouse | 480,000
A. Sommer, Berthelet Street, office building and factory | 400,000
United Shoe Machinery Company, Boyce Street, Maisonneuve, factory | 400,000
Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, McGill and St. Paul, office building | 350,000
Lewis Building, St. John and Hospital, office building | 350,000
McGill Property Syndicate, McGill Street, office building | 300,000
Y.M.C.A., Drummond Street, club | 300,000
The Herald Building, Craig Street, office building | 275,000
Unity Building Company, Limited, Lagauchetiere Street, office building | 225,000
Frontenac Breweries, Casgrain Street, brewery | 220,000
La Sauvegarde Company, Notre Dame and St. Vincent, office building | 200,000
Séminaire St. Sulpice, St. Denis Street, seminary | 200,000
Sisters of Cong. of N.D., Sherbrooke and Atwater, school | 150,000
A.M. Vineberg, Duluth and St. Lawrence, office building | 150,000
Sir Rodolphe Forget, Ontario Avenue, residence | 142,000
Fabrique St. Stanislaus, Boulevard St. Joseph, church | 142,000
Quebec Amusement Company, Bleury Street, theater | 140,000
J.O. Gravel, Notre Dame and St. Sulpice, office building | 136,000
John W. Peck, St. Dominique Street, factory | 135,000
Séminaire St. Sulpice, Cote St. Antoine Road, apartments | 125,000
Protestant School Board, Esplanade Avenue, school | 120,000
Fabrique St. Irène, Atwater Avenue, church | 110,000
Regent Construction Company, Amesbury Avenue, apartments | 100,000
National Bridge Company, Longue Pointe, factory | 100,000
J.C. Wilson Company, Ltd., Lagauchetière and Alexander, warehouse | 100,000
J.A.E. Gauvin, St. Catherine and Maisonneuve, office building | 100,000
O.L. Henault, Bishop Street, apartments | 100,000
Johnston Bros., St. Catherine W., offices and store | 100,000
Imperial Tobacco Company, Bourget and Rose de Lima, factory | 100,000
Belgo-Canadian Realty, Bleury Street, offices | 95,000
Grand Trunk Railway Company, Wellington and St. Etienne, warehouse | 90,000
Imperial Tobacco Company, Bourget and Rose de Lima, factory | 100,000
Belgo-Canadian Realty, Bleury Street, offices | 95,000
Grand Trunk Railway Company, Wellington and St. Etienne, warehouse | 90,000[664]
W.H. Creed, Cote des Neiges Road, apartments | 90,000
Northern Electric Company, Notre Dame and Guy, factory | 88,000
Harbor Commission, Notre Dame and Davidson, warehouse | 80,000
O. Lamoureux, Esplanade and St. Urbain, apartments | 80,000
P.A. and H.A. Adams, Prince Arthur and Oxenden, apartments | 79,000
Engineers’ Club, 9 Beaver Hall Square, club building | 76,000
D.C. Macarrow, Peel Street, residence | 70,000
University Club, Mansfield Street, club building | 70,000
St. Lawrence Flour Mills Company, Notre Dame West, factory | 70,000
Jas. H. Mayer, Cote des Neiges Road, apartments | 70,000
Canadian General Electric, St. Antoine Street, warehouse | 70,000
Winter Club, Drummond Street, club building | 70,000

IV

METROPOLITAN POPULATION

In 1891 the census returns showed for Montreal proper a population of 220,181; in 1901 a population of 266,826; in 1911, 466,197. Including the unnamed municipalities the total population of Montreal we may place in 1911 at 586,756. This allows us to make a comparative study of the growth of Montreal from the beginning of British rule.

CITY POPULATION

1760 | 3,000
1765 | 7,000
1800 | 9,000
1809 | 12,000
1825 | 22,000
1831 | 27,000
1839 | 35,000
1844 | 44,000
1870 | 100,000
1890 | 220,181
1901 | 266,826
1911, city proper | 466,197
1911, Greater Montreal | 587,756

COMPARATIVE GROWTH

In the years from 1900 to 1910 Montreal has shown a greater percentage of growth than has any of the great cities of the United States.

The growth in Montreal’s population since 1900 has represented an increase of 188,270 people, or 70.3 per cent.

New York has shown the greatest growth of any city in the United States. The percentage of increase in the same ten years was 38.7.

[665]

The following are the comparative figures:

| Per cent. | Area
| ——Population—— | of increase | in sq.
| 1910. | 1900. | 1900-1910. | miles.
1 | New York | 4,766,883 | 3,437,202 | 38 | .7 | 326 | ¾
2 | Chicago | 2,185,283 | 1,698,575 | 28 | .7 | 190 | ½
3 | Philadelphia | 1,549,008 | 1,293,697 | 19 | .7 | 129 | ½
4 | St. Louis | 687,029 | 575,238 | 19 | .4 | 61 | ⅓
5 | Boston | 670,585 | 560,892 | 19 | .6 | 42 | ⅔
6 | Cleveland | 560,663 | 381,768 | 46 | .9 | 45 |
7 | Baltimore | 558,485 | 508,957 | 9 | .7 | 31 | ½
8 | Pittsburg | 533,905 | 451,512 | 18 | .2 | 41 |
9 | Detroit | 465,766 | 285,704 | 63 |  | 40 |
10 | Montreal (proper) | 456,000 | 267,730 | 70 | .3 | 18 | .7
11 | San Francisco | — | 342,782 | — | 43
12 | Buffalo | 423,715 | 352,387 | 20 | .2 | 42 |
13 | Milwaukee | 373,357 | 285,315 | 31 |  | 22 | ¾
14 | Cincinnati | 364,463 | 325,902 | 11 | .8 | 43 | ½
15 | Newark | 347,469 | 246,070 | 41 | .2 | 23 |
16 | New Orleans | 339,075 | 287,104 | 18 | .1 | 192 |
17 | Washington | 331,069 | 278,718 | 18 | .8 | 69 | ¼

A contemporary study of the population of Montreal for 1912 may also be put on record.

There are in regard to population, two Montreals: the people within the civic boundaries and the community of which Montreal city is the heart.

The whole is necessarily greater than the part, and in considering the size of Montreal, in the matter of population, it is the whole which should be discussed. To take the naked figures of the census would be utterly misleading, for they do not include even the whole of the area within the city’s limits. That is to say, between the taking of the census and the publication of the results, Montreal had annexed a number of large towns contiguous to it. But this is not the only respect in which the relation of Montreal to the census is unique. It contains, within the city’s limits, or bounded by the city on more than one side, but under distinct municipal government, three other cities—Westmount, Maisonneuve and Outremont It also possesses suburbs, such as Lachine, which are merely manufacturing outposts of the city proper, and others, such as Longueuil, St. Lambert and Montreal West, which are in effect the city’s dormitories.

In figures given below, therefore, are included the population of these and other suburbs which are to all intents and purposes part of Montreal. They are part of the communal life, and the only respect in which their people differ from those of Montreal is that they have distinct municipal administrations.

If we were to take the figures of the 1911 census, Montreal’s population would stand at 466,197, whereas the population of the metropolitan community, as given by the census, is 590,919. Here are the figures in substantiation of this claim:

Montreal | 466,197
St. Cunégonde | 11,172[666]
St. Henry | 30,337
Westmount | 14,327
Lachine | 10,778
Longueuil | 4,016
St. Lambert | 3,350
Montreal South | 790
Montreal West | 703
St. Laurent | 3,502
Outremont | 4,745
Cote des Neiges | 2,447
Notre Dame de Grâce | 5,217
Verdun | 11,627
Longue Pointe | 3,037
Maisonneuve | 18,674
| ————
| 590,919

No one who knows the relation of these towns to Montreal will deny the justice of grouping them as integral parts of this community.

It must be remembered that these figures, first published a year ago, are the result of a census taken in June, 1911. During the decennial period 1900-1910, the city proper increased in population an average of 19,000 yearly. The increase during the latter years of the period was much greater than at its beginning, and it is a matter of common knowledge that it is the suburbs which of late years have shown the fastest growth. From these facts as a basis, it can be argued with every probability of accuracy that this community has grown since the census was taken, by at least 35,000 people, making the total population at this time not less than 625,000.

Of the seventeen cities mentioned in the foregoing table Montreal stood sixteenth in 1900, Newark only being below her. Now, assuming that the population of Greater Montreal is 625,000, she jumps to sixth place, taking rank above all except New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Boston. In justice to the cities she has passed in the race, it must be acknowledged that they have doubtless also added to their population since the census was taken, but it will hardly be claimed that the leader among them, Cleveland, has jumped from 560,663, its census standing, to the 625,000 of Montreal. If it be urged that perhaps some of the cities which Montreal has passed should also be credited with the population of their suburbs, the answer is that neither Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburg, nor Detroit, possesses as many or as large suburbs as does Montreal. Boston is a striking exception to this rule, and if the community of which it is the nucleus was included in computation, the result would probably raise Boston to fourth place among the cities.

MONTREAL OF TO-DAY

Royal Victoria Hospital | Windsor Hotel
Transportation Building, 1912
Modern Montreal from the Mountain | McGill University Grounds

The City Hall and Jacques Cartier Square | Chateau de Ramsay, 1912; built in 1705

[667]

V

MONTREAL AND WORLD CITIES

But there is still another interesting comparison to be made—how does Montreal stand among the cities of the world? Here is the answer:

1. | London | 7,429,740
2. | New York | 4,766,883
3. | Paris | 2,763,393
4. | Tokio, Japan | 2,186,079
5. | Chicago | 2,185,283
6. | Berlin | 2,101,933
7. | Vienna | 2,085,888
8. | St. Petersburg | 1,678,000
9. | Canton | 1,600,000
10. | Pekin, estimated | 1,600,000
11. | Philadelphia | 1,549,000
12. | Moscow | 1,359,254
13. | Constantinople | 1,125,000
14. | Osaka, Japan | 1,117,151
15. | Calcutta | 1,026,987
16. | Buenos Ayres | 1,000,250
17. | Rio de Janeiro | 811,265
18. | Hamburg | 802,793
19. | Bombay | 776,006
20. | Warsaw | 756,426
21. | Glasgow | 735,906
22. | Buda Pesth | 732,322
23. | Liverpool | 702,247
24. | St. Louis | 687,029
25. | Boston | 670,585
26. | MONTREAL, 1911 | 625,000
27. | Brussels | 612,401
28. | Manchester | 606,751
29. | Bangkok | 600,000
30. | Cairo | 570,062
31. | Naples | 563,541
32. | Cleveland | 560,663
33. | Baltimore | 558,485
34. | Amsterdam | 557,614
35. | Madrid | 539,885
36. | Munich | 538,983
37. | Pittsburg | 533,905
38. | Barcelona | 533,090
39. | Birmingham, Eng. | 522,182
40. | Dresden | 516,996
41. | Madras | 509,346[668]
42. | Leipzig | 503,672
43. | Melbourne | 496,079
44. | Milan | 491,460
45. | Marseilles | 491,161
46. | Sydney | 481,830
47. | Copenhagen | 476,806
48. | Breslau | 470,904
49. | Detroit | 465,766
50. | Rome | 462,783
51. | Lyons | 459,099
52. | Odessa | 449,673
53. | Hyderabad | 448,466
54. | Leeds | 428,953
55. | Cologne | 428,722
56. | Buffalo | 423,715
57. | San Francisco | 416,912
58. | Sheffield | 409,070
59. | Toronto, and suburbs | 381,000
60. | Kioto, Japan | 380,568
61. | Shanghai, est. | 380,000
62. | Milwaukee | 373,357
63. | Rotterdam | 370,389
64. | Cincinnati | 364,463
65. | Lisbon | 356,009
66. | Lodz | 351,570
67. | Belfast | 349,180
68. | Newark, N.J. | 347,469
69. | Kobe, Japan | 345,952
70. | Mexico City | 344,721
71. | New Orleans | 339,075
72. | Bristol | 339,042
73. | Turin | 335,656
74. | Frankfort | 334,538
75. | Santiago | 334,538
76. | Washington | 331,069
77. | Yokohama | 326,035
78. | Alexandria | 319,766
79. | Kiev | 319,000
80. | Stockholm | 317,964
81. | Edinburgh | 316,479
82. | Palermo | 309,694
83. | Minneapolis | 301,408
84. | Montevideo | 298,127
85. | Nuremburg | 294,426
86. | Antwerp | 291,949
87. | Dublin | 290,638
88. | Nagoya | 288,039
89. | Hong Kong | 283,905[669]
90. | Teheran | 280,000
91. | Bradford, Eng. | 279,809
92. | Bucharest | 276,178
93. | Havana | 275,000
94. | Jersey City | 267,779
95. | MONTREAL, 1901 | 267,730

VI

OPTIMISTIC SPECULATIONS AND PROPHECIES

By this table Montreal jumps to twenty-sixth place in the list of great cities. In 1901 she stood ninety-fifth in the same list. This position, however, is not as conclusively Montreal’s due as is her rank in the table of North American cities, for the reason that it is not possible to speak with exactitude regarding the actual size of the cities below Montreal when their suburbs are included. Manchester, so considered, is no doubt much larger. However, the position accorded the city cannot be far wrong, and there is no gainsaying the fact that Montreal has grown in ten years from the ninety-fifth place among the cities of the world to a place in the first thirty or forty.

There is good reason for believing that Montreal is now the largest city in the self-governing Dominions of the Empire. Only London, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, in the British Isles, can claim to exceed her in population. If we exclude from the calculation the densely populated cities of the East, and Occidental cities, she will rank among the first twenty. And is there a city, among those which now surpass her in population, which is showing as large a percentage of growth? As the metropolitan city of a virgin half-continent, towards which the tide of immigration is yearly rushing with greater force, Montreal is growing with Canada’s growth, and every man who is convinced of the tremendous development Canada will witness within the next decade must realize that this development will mean that Montreal must move, in that time, close to the million mark.

In 1901 Montreal had a population of 267,000. Her suburbs then were small, but supposing we put them at 33,000, and call the greater city 300,000. If today this greater city is 625,000 the growth in eleven years has been 325,000, or about 30,000 per year. Is it unreasonable to assume that in nine years’ time we will have a million souls on this island?

The following computation also will be interesting in later years as a specimen of current speculations and prophecies in 1914 of Montreal’s growth:

“At this rate,” says a contemporary writer,[670] “the city’s population will be considerably over the million mark in 1919. By 1931, two years would be quite sufficient to add to the population of the spreading city, more people than are at present living in both the city and suburbs. If the present rate of increase should remain constant, twenty-six years from today would see a city containing a greater population than the whole of the Dominion of Canada can boast of today, and with seven and three-quarter millions of people, exclusive of suburbs, considerably larger than the London of the present time. A trip further in the future is too dizzy for the brain of any but the trained mathematician, but the array of figures are sufficient to show that within the life-time of the present citizens the city on the shores of the St. Lawrence is likely to stand in the fore-front of the leading centers of the world. Of course, it is only natural to expect that the increase will not be maintained at the present rate, but the addition of growing suburbs will likely prevent any considerable decrease in the rate of advance.”

Before concluding these statistical pictures we may sum up the vital figures of the metropolis:

VII

THE GREATER MONTREAL OF 1912

Population of Greater Montreal, estimated, 625,000.

Assessed valuation of city nearly equals $1,000 per head of entire population of greater city.

City’s revenue from all sources, $8,200,000.

Montreal’s customs receipts are $20,000,000 a year.

The city of Montreal is divided into 125,141 lots.

The city of Montreal is owned by 29,123 people.

If the land upon which the city is built was divided up among the population the per capita share would be about one and one-sixth lots.

Montreal’s assessed valuation this year is $601,000,000.

Exemptions from real estate assessment in the city amount to practically one-quarter of the whole.

Montreal has 1,200 streets and more are being opened up every week.

Montreal’s police force numbers close upon seven hundred officers and constables.

The city’s militia units have an enrolled strength of approximately four thousand two hundred officers, non-commissioned officers and men.

Montreal has over five hundred firemen, divided up among nearly thirty stations.

There are 150 churches in Montreal.

The longest street is Notre Dame Street, with a total length of nearly fifteen miles.

Montreal’s port is visited during the season by nearly eight hundred ocean steamers and thirteen thousand lake and river steamers, the whole fleet having a tonnage of approximately seven million tons.

Montreal has three grain elevators, with a total capacity of 4,750,000 bushels, which is to be added to by another 2,000,000 bushels.

Montreal’s annual snow removal bill amounts to over one hundred thousand dollars, a considerable portion of which is paid by the Montreal Tramways Company.

Montreal has sixty moving picture theaters, with half a dozen others building in different parts of the city.

St. Helen’s Island is visited annually by close upon two hundred and fifty thousand people, mostly children.

Montreal has nearly three thousand privately owned automobiles, representing capital worth approximately six million five hundred thousand dollars.

Greater Montreal comprises two cities, three towns, and half a score of small municipalities.

[671]

Montreal’s annual civic light bill is $200,000.

Investigations show that on an average 3,022 school children in Montreal spend $188.70 a week on picture shows.

Montreal has 805 acres of park area.

Montreal’s banks, head offices and branches, number 112.

Montreal’s bank clearings average between fifty-five million and sixty million dollars weekly.

Montreal has one general postoffice, nine branches and eighty sub offices.

One hundred and fifty passenger trains enter and leave Montreal railway depots every twenty-four hours.

The death rate of Greater Montreal is about 40.5 per 1,000.

The city building inspection department has so far this year issued 3,150 permits.

Montreal has 260 miles of streets, of which sixty-five miles are paved.

Montreal’s 240 miles of brick sewers, if placed end to end, would reach from here to Ottawa and back, with sufficient over to reach Coteau.

Montreal’s tramways system owns and operates 125 miles of line all over the island.

Montreal’s streets are illuminated by over three thousand separate lights.

Montreal street cars this year have carried over one hundred and twenty million passengers.

There are sixty-three parishes and 800 priests in the diocese of Montreal.

Montreal has 731 schools, public, high and convents.

There are seventy-two hospitals, public and private, and asylums in Montreal.

The city has two seminaries and two universities.

Other educational establishments in Montreal include eight classical colleges.

Property under the jurisdiction of the Montreal Harbor Commission on the Montreal side of the river is worth over twenty million dollars.

Montreal’s moving picture show theaters have a seating capacity of 35,000.

Realty transfers in Montreal this year are in the neighborhood of one hundred and twelve million dollars.

There are 172,000 names in the Montreal directory for 1912.

Montreal’s area is 27,747 acres.

Greater Montreal’s daily water supply exceeds sixty-eight million gallons.

The daily per capita consumption of water in Greater Montreal is 112 gallons.

The City of Montreal waterworks supply the needs of 351,000 people.

The Montreal Water and Power Company daily pumps 25,100,000 gallons for 251,000 people.

VIII

A CITY PLAN FOR GREATER MONTREAL

Seeing the future growth of the city, a movement was started in 1909 by the City Improvement League, an association of good citizens, desirous of the best for their city. The report of its secretary for 1912, states the progress of the city plan movement as follows:

The City Improvement League has, from its commencement, consistently promoted the movement for a preconceived city plan to be adopted for the future[672] expansion of Montreal. Its City Planning Committee, backed by the cooperation of the great commercial and philanthropic bodies of the city, has been recognized as the exponent of the wishes of our best citizens, having already two years ago secured the appointment of a Metropolitan Parks Commission, whose duty it was to study the needs of the city for such a plan.

This Commission, after a careful study, reported to the Government on January 5, 1911, on the very urgent necessity of the city immediately undertaking some action in city planning, and it recommended the establishment of a permanent Metropolitan Parks Commission, to carry on the work already initiated by the present temporary use. The Commission presented a report drawn up for them by Mr. F.M. Olmstead, on subjects dealing with the selection of lands for parks and playgrounds, and with the location of boulevards and other main lines of urban and suburban transportation, as necessary preliminaries in the formation of a city plan for Montreal. In addition, the Commission presented a draft bill for an act to establish a permanent Metropolitan Parks Commission.

A bill based on the above draft was presented in March at the following session of the Provincial Parliament, but was not passed, being held over for the next year. In the meantime, the temporary Commission having presented its report, for which it was appointed, automatically expired. The efforts of the League, to overcome the difficulties in the way of the bill, have since occupied a great part of the last year’s work.

Apart from meetings, and consultations of experts of a technical nature, every occasion was used to keep up public interest in the demand for a permanent commission.

In October the Fourth General Assembly of the Royal Architectural Society of Canada was held in Montreal, and on October 2d, at a special meeting of the delegates of this convention, and a large and representative gathering of citizens called together by the City Improvement League, to discuss the town planning situation, the following resolutions were carried:

“That this assembly of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada earnestly desires to urge upon the several Provincial Governments, the necessity of providing without delay, parks and playgrounds and housing commissions for each large city under their jurisdiction, especially with the object of preventing excessive mortality, and making better provisions for the health, comfort and recreation of the masses.

“That the Government of the Province of Quebec is especially urged to appoint a permanent Metropolitan Parks Commission with executive powers.”

In December the Public Health Association of Canada called its first convention, it being held in Montreal. A very valuable session on city planning, which was well attended by members of the League, provided much stimulating thought to Canadian public health officers and city planners.

A resolution to the following effect was proposed by Mr. H. Bragg, and seconded by Dr. Adami, president of the City Improvement League, viz., that this convention should recommend that Provincial legislatures should create Park Commissions, to regulate the growth of towns and cities, and to control their housing conditions, with powers of city planning and housing to extend even to suburban areas.

[673]

The matter was debated and finally left over to the Executive Committee of the Canadian Public Health Association, which next day passed the following modified resolution:

Moved by Doctor Bryce (Ottawa), and seconded by Doctor Sheriff (Ottawa), “that this association deems it worthy of urgent necessity that Provincial legislatures pass Acts making provision whereby urban municipalities can make house planning and land purchase schemes, whose operation may include suburban areas.”

During the year public bodies interested in the bill renewed their resolutions in its favour. Thus, for instance, at the annual meeting of the Board of Trade, it was resolved on the motion of Mr. R.W. Reford, seconded by Mr. Armand Chaput, “That the Montreal Board of Trade, which since February, 1910, has advocated the creation of a Metropolitan Parks Commission for the Island of Montreal, now notes with gratification that the Quebec Legislature is considering the appointment of such a commission and the board, in annual general meeting assembled, hereby prays that Legislature to adopt, during the present Session, legislation to that end.”

The above resolutions are quoted as indicative of the general trend of expert thought, which has helped to form public opinion in the city, in favour of a Metropolitan Parks Commission.

During the last two years every draft bill that has been drawn up for the above movement has always had conjoined with it clauses of a “housing” aspect, since city planning and the comfort of the working classes should never be separated. Consequently, the League has constantly promoted the study of city housing and advocated schemes for garden cities and for model workingmen’s dwellings, side by side with those for more parks, playgrounds and open spaces, as desired by all town planners.

The following associations lent valuable cooperation: The Board of Trade and La Chambre de Commerce, The Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, The Architects’ Association of the Province of Quebec, The Trades and Labor Council, The Parks and Playgrounds Association, The Citizens’ Association, The Canadian Club, The Local Council of Women, The Montreal Women’s Club, The Fédération Nationale, The Association St. Jean Baptiste, The Children’s Aid Society.

To Mr. W.D. Lighthall, K.C., Convenor of the City Planning Committee, and to its members, was due a large measure of the success of the bill. Among these may be mentioned J. George Adami, M.D.; Sir William Van Horne, E.P. Lachapelle, M.D.; J.L. Perron, K.C.; Hon. J.J. Guerin, M.D.; Controller Ainey, Sir Alexander Lacoste, L.A. Lavallee, K.C.; J.I. Finnie, M.D., M.L.A.; W.S. Maxwell, J.R. Gardiner, F.G. Todd, W. Rutherford, Prof. J.A. Dale, J.V. Desaulniers, Farquhar Robertson, Olivar Asselin, Leslie H. Boyd, K.C.; William Lyall, the late Professor Gregor, W. Johnson, H. Bragg, Dr. W.H. Atherton, secretary, and others.

Later an association entitled the Greater Montreal Housing and Planning Association was formed to assist in carrying on the above movement.

The plan movement has made uncertain progress, but still it is appreciable, especially as having overcome initial difficulties and in promoting preparatory measures and amelioration, leading toward the desired goal.

FOOTNOTES:

1 This expropriation caused the demolition of the old historic Chapel of Notre Dame de Pitié. There were many who were grieved at this act of vandalism.

## Transcriber’s Note:

Due to the differences between printed books and ebooks, the following changes were made, causing some pages to appear missing, and other pages to appear impossibly long. Page numbers in this ebook do match the orignal, excepting the changes below.

- Footnotes cited in tables were moved to the end of the table, even if the table spans multiple pages and the original footnote was therefore in the middle of the table.
- All other footnotes were moved to the end of their respective chapters.
- Illustrations in the original were presented on special plate pages, followed by a blank facing page. The illustration pages were numbered while the blank facing pages were not. These pages usually split a paragraph and sometimes even a word. Where they split a paragraph, they have been moved to follow the paragraph.
- Tables too wide to display well on a screen have been divided into multiple tables with repeated row labels. Lists displayed in multiple columns simply to better use space now appear as single vertical column.

This work contains a very large number of deviations from accepted spellings, common diacritical markings, capitalization and punctuation rules, even for the period of the book. It is impossible, in the majority of the cases, to determine which of these deviations were desired by the author, which deviations reflect referenced or cited material, and which were printing errors. They have therefore not been changed, with the exception of obvious punctuation printing errors, and the items below:

- 35,00 changed to 35,000 on page 666.
- 1911 changed to 1811 on page 127.
- 926,34.46 changed to 92,634.46 on page 193.
- 1910 changed to 1913 in the table heading on page 606.
- Repeated sentence removed from page 493. (As Montreal is a port of importance the sociological value of this movement is apparent.)

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONTREAL 1535-1914, VOLUME II (OF 2)***

******* This file should be named 48244-h.htm or 48244-h.zip *******

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/8/2/4/48244

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

## START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

### Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

### Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

### Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org

### Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

### Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.