The mutual antagonism of French and English speaking Canadians, during the first decade of the nineteenth century has been explained by historians in a variety of ways. Traditional French Canadian historiography attributes much of the trouble to the machinations and religious and racial bigotry of a handful of bureaucrats. The neo-nationalist school of the University of Montreal maintains that the conflict was the inevitable result of the "decapitation" of French Canadian society at the Conquest and the impossibility of two cultural "nations" coexisting harmoniously in the same political entity. A recurrent tendency in English historical writing has been to lay the blame on the irresponsibility of the nationalists who founded Le Canadien. The "Laurentian" school, including both English and French Canadian historians, postulates that the change from a fur trading to a grain and timber exporting colony and the emergence of rival agrarian and commercial interests were the main causes of the ethnic struggle. Without denying the elements of truth in all these interpretations, this study attempts to provide a more comprehensive understanding of English Canadian attitudes towards the French Canadians during the war against Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. It contends that such attitudes can be explained only by taking account of the English Canadian fear of an attack on the colony by French troops and an armed uprising by the French Canadians. The English Canadians found themselves in an ambiguous situation. The evidence at their disposal suggested— at almost any time during the period—that France might be planning an invasion of Lower Canada and they had no certain means of assessing the loyalty of the French Canadians. Because of their physical situation as an outnumbered minority and because they held strong convictions on the ease with which revolution could be brought about, they were disposed to make the most pessimistic interpretation of events which the twentieth century historian can see did not warrant serious alarm. While English Canadian fears were exaggerated, they were a major influence on the political history of the period. Dozens of political developments and issues from the language dispute of 1792-93 to governor Craig's Reign of Terror can be understood only by taking this factor into account. More generally, these fears virtually insured the breakdown of the Constitution of 1791, hardened English Canadian attitudes to French Canadian cultural survival, and contributed indirectly to the emergence of French Canadian nationalism. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

Although the concept of liberty provided the intellectual foundation for the legitimacy of state power and social order in both Canadas from as early as the Atlantic Revolution (1776--1815), it has never been used to study the history of state formation in Canada. This dissertation examines the essential role that the concept of liberty played in the process of state formation in Canada between the American Revolution (1776) and the Act of Union (1841). It proposes a large-scale re-reading of the intellectual and political history of that period through the question of liberty within the framework of the British Empire and of the Atlantic world (Great Britain, The United States and France). Beginning from a theoretical framework inspired by the work of intellectual historians of the Atlantic world, such as J. G. A. Pocock, Bernard Bailyn, Gordon S. Wood and Quentin Skinner, by the philosophical considerations on liberty from Isaiah Berlin and by a reading of the most important philosophical writings of eighteenth-century Britain, France and United States, this dissertation argues that, from 1791 and onwards, Upper and Lower Canada developed according to a concept of liberty that, while being different from the notion of liberty at work during the Atlantic Revolution, still proceeded directly from the Enlightenment. Less preoccupied by equality and community than by individual autonomy, this ideal was based on a respect for certain individual rights which are often reduced to the trio of "liberty, property and security." Politically, this model of liberty recognized the existence of different interests within a society and their right to exist, and economically, the importance it gave to the protection of private property led to an ethic that encouraged the accumulation of wealth. / This conception of liberty (which might be called a modern definition of liberty) provides the intellectual base for the Constitutional Act of 1791 and was generally accepted in Upper and Lower Canadian societies until 1828. At that moment, some reformists, disappointed by the slowness of the British government to bring reform to the colonies, adopted a republican discourse based on the idea of popular sovereignty and the very different trio of "liberty, equality and community". The political struggles of the 1830s in both Canadas can be explained in part by examining the opposition between these two very different concepts of liberty. The tension between these two models ended with the 1837 rebellions and the triumph of the modern concept of liberty at the expense of the republican ideal defended by the patriots and the radicals in both Canadas. It is in this context that Lord Durham's report was published. By his recommendation of rendering the executive power accountable to the Legislative Assembly, Durham gave back to the reformists still adhering to the modern concept of liberty the leadership of the reform movement in the colony and re-focussed the movement's attention towards the issue of responsible government. After 1839, the debate within the colonies would concentrate on the practice of political power, rather than on its legitimacy.

This thesis is part of a more extended study of the life of John Neilson which I hope to complete later for the degree of Ph.D. It is restricted to the period 1818-182 8 and deals with Neilson1s activities in the Assembly of Lower Canada and his representations in England in 1822, on the matter of the Union Bill, and in 1828 before the Canada Committee. Its scope has been further limited to those issues arising out of the constitution, organization and functioning of the government. This involves the question of administration and the struggle between Assembly and Executive for its control, as well as relations with the mother country and with Upper Canada. The closely related fields of law, land settlement and education have not been included. The object has been to bring out Neilson1s views on these questions in the belief that they contribute to an understanding of the period. / fr

No description available.

No description available.