British Empire: Canada Revision Notes
Clarification of Content
Key Questions
To what extent did the political nature and government systems of Upper and Lower Canada minimise the
perceived threat from the USA?
What was the significance of the revolts against British rule in the Canadas in the years 1837-38?
How significant to the development of Britain’s relationship with its colonies was the Earl of Durham’s report on
Canada published in 1839?
Key Question One
Overview: Upper and Lower Canada
Lower Canada conquered by Britain 1759. Though the Quebec Act established the Roman Catholic Church and
confirmed Quebeckers’ property rights and existing civil law, Britain’s government rapidly hardened its Quebec
policy. It encouraged large-scale immigration from the British Isles and in 1791 created a colonial government in
which virtually all powers rested with an appointed governor and council. Its lower house of assembly was
effectively only an advisory body, as the governor could veto its acts; governors also controlled patronage and
used it to strengthen and enrich loyal English speakers. (JSTOR article: The Meaning of Patriot)
In Upper Canada the imperial government had two key concerns that worked against each other – populating
the province and maintaining its loyalty. The US was the most fruitful and logical source of migrants and by 1828
four fifths of Upper Canadians had been born in territories that came under the US flag by that year. A large
proportion were United Empire Loyalists who had fled the American Revolution, while the rest migrated
afterward. (JSTOR article: The Meaning of Patriot)
The Loyalist refugees that arrived in Canada after the American Revolution included thousands of discharged
soldiers, American civilians, Indian allies of the British, free black people, escaped slaves, religious dissenters and
various ethnic groups. After initial settlement in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, many of them agitated for a
new province, hence Britain undertook to develop an inland colony (Upper Canada), separate to Quebec (Lower
Canada). (JSTOR article: the Canadian Rebellions of 1837-38, Dunning)
About 350,000 people lived in Lower Canada, at least 80% of them descendants of the 55,000 French
settlers absorbed into the BE in 1763.
The interior province of Upper Canada was growing rapidly and probably numbered about 90,000
inhabitants.
Gladstone later described Canada as a ‘long and comparatively thin strip of occupied territory…
between the States on one side, and the sterility of pinching winter on the other.”
Much land in eastern Upper Canada was poor, thanks to an outlying finger of the Shield. Difficulty
learning to farm the land was a reason why Canadian populations did not grow rapidly on the prairies
until the twentieth century.
Upper Canada renamed Ontario in 1867. Lower Canada renamed Quebec.
Canada’s indigenous people constituted a fifth of the population in 1815, but numbered 100,000 (1% of
total population) by 1911. A few groups, such as the Six Nations, remained important in Upper Canada
until 1837, but most were brushed aside. The Mississauga, who had sold most of their land in 1805,
were still waiting for payment in 1905. Policy determined by the white man’s government.
, French Canadians rallied around the Catholic Church. The church was a force for social control and
Imperial accommodation, but it is possible to overestimate its conservative role, as the rebellions of
1837-38 demonstrated.
SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
POLITICAL Governed by a lieutenant governor appointed by More British settlers in Upper Canada than Lower
SYSTEM London. Canada.
Locally elected Legislative Assembly of at least French population was larger in Lower Canada
16 members who were responsible for raising and their views dominated the legislative assembly
taxes. there.
Legislative Council of 7 whose members were Role of the Family Compact in Upper Canada.
appointed for life. They maintained control of the Executive Council,
An Executive Council whose members were exercising power largely for their own benefit.
chosen and could be removed by the lieutenant Didn’t want changes to the constitution because
governor and could remain on the council for life. these might weaken their grip on power.
Power was exercised by the lieutenant governor In Lower Canada the Executive Council tended to
and executive council in tandem, but they were be drawn from the loyalists and British members
responsible to London, not to the locally elected of the colony, who were generally successful
legislative assembly. businessmen. Dominated by the Chateau Clique.
Laws passed by the legislative assembly had to be Proposed uniting Lower and Upper Canada.
approved by the members of the legislative
council.
Role of the Family Compact in Upper Canada and
the Chateau Clique in Lower Canada – both
loyalists who promoted their own and British
interests. Dominated the Executive Councils in
UC and LC and exercised power for their own
benefit.
LAND In Upper Canada land tenure was based on the
OWNERSHIP British freehold tenure. Most land was held by the
Crown and therefore free to grant to settlers.
Role of the Canada Company in Upper Canada.
Given a royal charter to aid the colonisation and
development of the province. Land sold rather than
freely granted to generate revenue.
Lower Canada had a different system of land
tenure because it had been colonised by pre-
revolutionary France. Essentially a feudal system
based on the relationship between the Signeur and
their tenants.
The system of land ownership in Lower Canada
can be contrasted unfavourably with the freehold
tenancy system of Upper Canada, whereby land
ownership encouraged investment and
improvement in the land by its owners.
TENSIONS/ Role of a British appointed lieutenant-governor. Lower Canada principally French speaking, but
PROBLEMS Problem of raising revenue using the Legislative the official language of the legislative assembly
Assembly. was English.
Anger over the roles of the Family Compact and Racial tension between French Canadians and
the Chateau Clique in the Executive Councils. loyalists in Lower Canada.
There were reformers who wanted constitutional Rural stagnation and hardship in Lower Canada.
change. Role of the Patriotes in Lower Canada - wanted
reform of the political system to protect their
French identities.
The Threat from the USA
1791 Constitution followed the precedent set by the 1774 Quebec Act:
The British had guaranteed the free practice of Catholicism
Accepted the use of French civil law for matters of private law.
, The British were hoping to prevent possible revolts over religious and cultural matters and the continuation of
this policy until after the 1837 rebellion can partly be attributed to the perceived threat to Canadian loyalty from
the influence of the USA.
Major external boundaries remained in dispute with the Americans until 1846. Fear in Britain about the threat of
Canadas absorption into the US, but only two periods when this seemed a real risk. For two decades after 1815,
south-western Upper Canada was a natural extension of Upper New York. Hunger for Canadian land fuelled
border raids in 1837-38. Thereafter the main thrust of US expansion bypassed Canada until the early twentieth
century.
The Americans made few attempts to absorb their neighbours. Unlike the earlier Articles of Confederation, the
Constitution of 1787 contained no provision for the admission of Canada. Possible many American politicians did
not think the prize of Canada was worth British antagonism.
Some French Canadians also saw US democracy as threatening and, in the 1840s, many proclaimed loyalty to
Britain (though this was shallow and their commitment to British imperial ventures was lacking).
The political structure established in the Canadas was informed by the lessons the British had drawn from the
American War of Independence. By establishing a legislative assembly with financial autonomy, they hoped to
prevent revolts over taxation.
The 1791 Constitution represented a considerable advance for the Canadas in terms of the colonial relationship
which had previously existed in Britain’s colonies.
The issue of executive power resting with a British-appointed lieutenant governor was bound to cause problems
at some point.
British response to growing tensions in the late 1820s and early 1830s
1828 the British received a delegation from Lower Canada and reports of petitions and agitation for political
reform in Upper Canada = aware of growing tensions.
The Lower Canadian petition was signed by 87,000 people and the delegation was actually in London, so the
British felt tensions to be higher in Lower Canada. However, they were keen for a solution in both, resulting in
the appointment of the Canada Committee.
The Canada Committee was a parliamentary select committee, appointed to report to the British government on
the underlying grievances in the Canadas and suggest remedies.
The Committee’s report was published in July 1829 but it advised against amendment of the 1791 Constitution,
arguing that proper management by the lieutenant governor and governor would solve the problems in the
Canadas. The majority of the report was devoted to the issues in Lower Canada, and on all points except
constitutional change it upheld the complaints but offered no solutions.
The Duke of Wellington’s Tory ministry was replaced by the Whigs in November 1830 and it was more focused
on reforming the unrepresentative British parliamentary system than dealing with the constitutional problems of
Canada.
The Howick Act was passed in 1831, transferring to the assemblies the revenues from duties and in return the
British expected the assemblies to agree to their Civil List. The Howick Act is evidence of the British willingness to
move a considerable distance on the matter of finance and reflects the commonly held belief that the American
Revolution had stemmed solely from issues to do with taxation. However, by this point both assemblies were
frustrated by the lack of constitutional reform and the Civil List was not agreed at any point by Lower Canada in
the 1830s.
The hopes of the patriotes and the Reformers were frustrated and the British failure to act on the Committee’s
recommendations meant it lost any goodwill generated by the Canadian Committee report. Dissatisfied with
their increasing financial powers and British efforts to include them in the councils, in both Canadas, the patriotes
and the Reformers began to look towards America as a model for government.
