Based in London; Formerly of New York, Buenos Aires, Fife, and the Western Cape. Saoránach d'Éirinn.
A writer, blogger, historian, and web designer born in New York, educated in Argentina, Scotland, and South Africa, and now based in London. read more

The Men Who Saved Quebec

James Murray, Lord Mansfield, Lord Shelburne, Lord Dorchester

The British Crown’s toleration of Catholicism in Quebec was cited by the rebel colonists of the 1770’s as, ironically, an ‘intolerable act’. That the Church of Rome, that bastion of backwards conservatism and slavish hierarchy, could be tolerated in the lands under the power of the British parliament riled the Whigs—the enlightened liberal progressives of the day. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin was even so foolish as to go to Quebec as an emissary of the ‘Continental Congress’ to persuade the natives to rebel against the Crown; Congress’s proposals to ban Catholicism and prohibit the use of the French language ensured he was not successful.

The modern orthodox opinion of historians on the Quebec Act of 1774—the act that granted toleration to the Church—is that it was merely a persuasive exercise to keep les Canadiens from rebelling. A 1989 book challenged this perspective, arguing instead that a handful of British aristocrats were determined to ensure that Quebec did not become another Ireland: where Protestant ascendancy was thrust upon an unwilling nation of Catholic nobles, merchants, and peasants.

The following review by Gary Caldwell was published in a Canadian journal in 2001.

Philip Lawson.
The Imperial Challenge: Quebec and Britain in the Age of the American Revolution.
Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 192 pages. US$27.95.

WHY REVIEW A BOOK published twelve years ago? I will explain. But first, let me tell you what it’s about.

When Britain took possession of Canada at the Treaty of Versailles in 1763, it faced an “imperial challenge:” how to integrate into the empire a society fundamentally different from England – in language, religion, and legal and political institutions. At the time, England was vigorously intolerant of Roman Catholicism or “popery,” the religion of its major enemies, France and Spain. British Protestantism was closely tied to the dominant Whig political ideology born of the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. This doctrinal legacy prescribed that all British subjects were possessed of very definite and equal liberties, liberties endowed upon and limited to those who conformed to the Whig-Protestant definition of being British.

Hence the problem of 1763. English law and constitutional practice allowed only for protestant public officials and elected representatives. This meant excluding the entire French-speaking population, some 70,000 to 80,000 (the “new subjects”) as compared to some 300 Protestants established in the colony (the “old subjects”).

There were two schools of thought as to what should be done. The Whig position, favoured by much of the English political leadership and commercial class on both sides of the Atlantic, was not to accommodate the new subjects. It amounted to an attempted destruction of the local culture and to exclusion of the French-speaking population from all juridical, political and social positions, the hoped-for consequence being assimilation in one, perhaps two, generations. In short, what had been imposed in Ireland with the “protestant ascendancy.”

The opposing school of thought, still marginal in 1763, believed such a policy both impracticable and undesirable. James Murray, Lord Shelburne, Lord Dorchester (Gary Carleton), H. T. Cramahe, Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Mansfield and William Knox not only held that a Protestant ascendancy in Quebec would ruin the colony, they also believed that Quebec society was deserving of being preserved. Murray and Dorchester, who knew Quebec and its people, were adamant: the Canadians were a good “race”—in Murray’s words, “perhaps the best and bravest race on the globe” (p. 48)—and if protected they and their society would flourish and be loyal to the Crown. As it happened, all of these administrators and Crown legal officers, with the exception of Cramahe, were Anglo-Irish or Scottish; not one of them was of English origin.

But how were the Canadians and their culture to be accommodated? There were, as Lawson demonstrates, three distinct dimensions to this accommodation. The first was to respect the prevailing legal code and custom in civil and property matters; the second, to refrain from putting into place an English representative assembly because it would be the instrument of the 300 or so English and American voters in the colony. By far the most important was the third dimension, tolerance in Quebec of Roman Catholicism, which meant the nomination of a Bishop, the tithe and the right of Catholics to hold public office. Dorchester and the others successfully won these concessions in London by 1770, and they were contained in the Quebec Act in 1774, to the horror of much of English public sentiment, and especially the Americans who were more resolutely against “popery” and more Whig than the English themselves.

When Benjamin Franklin arrived in Montreal in 1775 with the invading army of the Continental Congress, he carried secret orders to ban the popish religion and the French language. Fortunately, the Americans were stopped in Quebec by no other than Dorchester, back from getting the Quebec Act through Parliament. At the head of an army of old and new subjects he broke the 1775-76 siege of Quebec.

Lawson’s interpretation is insightful in putting the events into the context of the Irish question. The major players in promoting the accommodation that became the Quebec Act had in mind “the Irish Imbroglio,” and were determined not to repeat the error of the “protestant ascendancy” in Ireland. The Quebec Act emerges clearly as the culmination of thoughtful and courageous policy formulation, a model of generous statesmanship. Hence, as Lawson goes on to argue, the “toleration” of Roman Catholicism in the Quebec Act paved the way for the British Acts of Toleration of 1778.

Lawson also helps understand why Murray, Dorchester and the others came to the conclusions they did about the Canathan problem. These men were essentially empirical conservatives who found the answer “in the past”—Quebec society as they had known it in the 1760s—and the “elastic nature of the British Constitution.” And here Lawson runs smack into the prevailing wisdom in Canadian historiography.

Lawson is insistent on the coincidental nature of any link between the Quebec Act and the American Revolution, affirming that there is no evidence that the inspiration for the Quebec Act was to placate the Canadians so as to keep them apart from the Americans. As this alleged link is one of the most tenacious myths in the Canadian historical consciousness, it is worth citing Lawson:

What can be done to dispose of this myth once and for all? Fifty years ago both Coupland and Burt said that they could find no evidence to justify such an assertion with Lanctot repeating the message in the 1960s, and nothing has yet come to light to contradict them (pp. 123-124).

When I first read this book in the early 1990s and realized how revolutionary his thesis was, I contacted Lawson to talk about his work. In passing, I mentioned that I supposed that The Imperial Challenge must have created quite a controversy in Canadian academic circles. His reply was “No, it has attracted very little attention in Canada.” (I never saw him again. I had arranged to see him a few years later, but just before I arrived in Edmonton he was admitted to hospital for terminal cancer and died shortly afterwards.) In subsequent years, I have been to McGill-Queens Press in Montreal to buy copies of his book to give to friends. Inquiring as to sales, I was told that only a few hundred copies had been sold. And, so far, I have encountered only one reference to Lawson’s book (in Yves Lamonde’s Histoire sociale des politiques au Quebec).

I was curious enough to go back recently to the reviews written when the book came out. There were 16 in Canada in French and English, in the United States and in the United Kingdom; all reviewers were quite positive except one (who wrote two of the reviews). They all commented positively on the extent and depth of the documentation, as well as the fresh reading from parliamentary debates, the personal archives of the principal players, and the press of the day. As for his interpretation of how the Quebec Act came to be, there is no suggestion that he was wrong in any respect. The negative reviewer suggests only that it is pretentious of Lawson to think he has added much to existing work on the Quebec Act. Of the 15 reviewers, a full half explicitly accredit Lawson with drawing out the intention of avoiding the error of Ireland.

Why, then, did a book, critically acclaimed by the author’s peers, which sheds considerable light on a pivotal period in the history of Quebec and Canada, drop out of sight in Quebec, and I suspect in the rest of Canada? Lawson calls into question the conventional wisdom on a very important subject in Canadian history, and no one takes notice. For instance, two prominent Canadians, Gerard Bouchard and John Raulston Saul, social thinkers who are presently reinterpreting Canadian history, make no mention, to my knowledge, of this book. A book that should have caused waves has generated scarcely a ripple.

Perhaps my assessment, as a non-professional historian, is faulty and I would welcome a demonstration of where I have erred. What are the factors that explain the untimely eclipse of Lawson’s work? Could it be simply that Canadian intellectual discourse is shallow, that a seminal work can be dropped into the water and hit bottom generating nothing more than a superficial ripple of perfunctory reviews and listings in compendiums? This is one possible explanation; a more certain explanation lies in ideology.

The ideological axe, starkly put, goes as follows. Quebec’s nationalist, republican-leaning contemporary intellectuals are loath to entertain the idea that a coterie of British Conservatives (half of them aristocrats) literally saved Quebec society by helping to keep it strong enough to withstand the renewed neo-liberal assault led by Lord Durham three quarters of a century later and, then, begin to rehabilitate the Quebec polity (under British institutions) in 1867. Such an idea being beyond the pale (again, the ghost of Ireland), they maintain the myth that the Quebec Act was political opportunism inspired by the American threat. What will it take for Quebec nationalist thinkers to recognize and appropriate the historical reality that Dorchester twice—in the Quebec Act and the siege of Quebec—saved Quebec? It is no exaggeration to assert that, had it not been for this one Anglo-Irish aristocrat, Quebec would likely have become anglicized and, subsequently, integrated into the American empire.

As for English-speaking Canada, the current crop of orthodox historians has long consigned our British imperialist past to the Marxist dust-heap of history: nothing good could possibly have come of it, all imperialisms being, by definition, bad. They are not about to disturb their orthodoxy that in contrast to Imperial Britain, which was incapable of any genuine sympathy for Quebec—only Canadian nationalist intellectuals are enlightened and respectful of Quebec society. So, they too maintain the “political opportunism” interpretation of the Quebec Act, despite its having been refuted by Lawson and his predecessors. Essentially, what we are seeing is a refusal to acknowledge a debt owed to dead white male Protestants (from Ireland and Scotland). But gratitude is not, as the contemporary French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has pointed out, a hallmark of modern progressive thinkers.

I write this review knowing full well that it is too late for Lawson’s work to be rehabilitated. The Imperial Challenge is among the titles in this year’s McGill-Queen’s clear-the-warehouse sale.

Gary Caldwell is the author of La culture publique commune: les regles de jeu de la vie publique au Quebec et les fondements de ces regles.

Previously: Hitchcock in Quebec

This post was published on Saturday, March 3rd, 2007 9:09 pm. It has been categorised under Books Canada History Monarchy Quebec and been tagged under , , .
Matt S.
4 Mar 2007 5:08 am

This was a genuinely fascinating article. Many thanks for posting it. Perhaps this is the graduate student in me writing, but seeing an academic orthodoxy about a movement, event, period, etc. challenged in this fashion always is exciting. On the other hand, this study’s minimal impact is disheartening, and I often wonder what we have missed out on due to the exigencies of the modern academy.

Meg Q
4 Mar 2007 6:14 pm

Just checked , and they do still seem to offer this book (in paper), FYI. C$29.95, US 27.95, £12.95 (finally, a break for Canadians!!!).

Meg Q
4 Mar 2007 6:20 pm

BTW – don’t lose heart! Historical theories that go against an accepted “orthodoxy” (especially the “Whig” theory of history) take a while to take root. But if they are any good, root they will. Look at Eamon Duffy and other Tudor “revisionists”. As my husband says, “there are times when ‘revisionism’ is a good thing.”

Andrew Cusack
4 Mar 2007 8:50 pm

So far as I have been able to tell, the term ‘revisionist’ merely means a historical discovery with which one disagrees.

Old Dominion Tory
5 Mar 2007 1:42 pm

As I recall, during the drive for Confederation, many French Quebecois marched under a banner (literally) that rallied their support to the Catholic Church and the British Constitution.

5 Mar 2007 11:02 pm

Thank you so much, Mr Cusack, for presenting Professor Lawson.

He and his work deserve to be remembered.

This fall I’ll have the great privilege of working with one of Lawson’s students from the University of Alberta, Dr Connors, on my own Master’s research at Ottawa.

My look at the effects of the Quebec Act on Catholic Relief in Great Britain itself will draw, heavily I’m sure, on Professor Lawson’s own notes, left incomplete by his untimely death.

I won’t shake conventional historiographical orthodoxy, but I do hope to do my small bit in rehabilitating and sharing Lawson’s ideas: an effort you’ve aided greatly here.

Charles Coulombe
6 Mar 2007 11:10 am

Dear Andrew:

As a beneficiary of the Quebec Act (it gave my ancestors their “freedom, religion, and laws,” in the memorable words of “The Old Orange Flute”) I am VERY happy to see this article on your site. I can add a little to it, in fact. One is that Jefferson denounced the Act in Orwellian terms in his declaration of independence, when he attacls the King for “suspending the free system of English laws in a neighbouring province.” These were, of course, the Penal Laws.

Moreover, Franklin was accompanied on his ill-fated mission to Quebec by Fr. John Carroll. It was Fr. Carroll’s refusal to attempt to convert Franklin on the road that led BF to recommend him to Pius VI as the best candidate for the first Bishop of the new country after the Revolution. In any case, Bishop Briand of Quebec, who had published the letter of the Continental Congress to the people of England attacking the French in Canada, declared that none of his priests were to receive the visitors from the south. The one who did was suspended. Bishop Briand is up for beatification, incidentally.

All of this history is the reason why — until the Revolution Tranquille deprived the French Canadians of their Faith, their mores and traditions, and their loyalty, (as als their birth-rate), they were mostly Monarchist. The foolish “nationalists” whom the author cites were precisely the folk who pushed for abortion and birth control. They got it — and French Canada is doomed, demographically speaking. Our author rightly says “It is no exaggeration to assert that, had it not been for this one Anglo-Irish aristocrat, Quebec would likely have become anglicized and, subsequently, integrated into the American empire.” Luckily, the so-called nationalists have assured that is what indeed must happen one day, unless the Quebecois regain their religion and their ability to breed.

8 Mar 2007 1:50 pm

Mr. Cusack, you may find this story interesting.

Jim McM
9 Mar 2007 7:21 pm

I am quite leery of the thesis of this Benjamin Franklin trek in 1776. The opening pages of Richard Ketchum’s
“Saratoga” begins with this tale. Old Franklin was accompanied by two cousins, Charles Carroll of Carrolton and John Carroll, S. J. Both Carrols were educated in France at St. Omer, albeit an English-speaking school established after the English “reformation.” These two Marylanders accompanied Franklin because they were Catholic and spoke French.

John Carroll returned with Franklin to help out the old man, while Charles Carroll stayed for many months and took charge of some things on the US side of the St. Lawrence River.

They were trying to get the Canadians to join with the U.S. and figured those French Canadians were “natural allies.”

P.S. Thomas Jefferson was asked to encourage the French hierarchy to get an American bishop ordained and John Carroll was evnetually the first, though I doubt I need remind your readers of that last factoid.

Andrew Cusack
9 Mar 2007 11:45 pm

P.S. Thomas Jefferson was asked to encourage the French hierarchy to get an American bishop ordained and John Carroll was evnetually the first, though I doubt I need remind your readers of that last factoid.

Indeed, and we are all the poorer for the Pope allowing Carroll to be ordained. Very dodgy figure.

Charles Coulombe
11 Mar 2007 5:52 am

One also should remember that, prior to becoming a Bishop, Fr. Carroll stood foursquare for a vernacular liturgy, elected bishops, and reducing the role of the Pope to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and removing American Catholicism from curial supervision). Not one of my favourite characters — perhaps because, save for elected bishops, I have lived through his vision.

Home | About | Contact | Categories | Paginated Index | Twitter | Facebook | RSS/Atom Feed | © Andrew Cusack 2004-present (Unless otherwise stated)