Check all the Clans that have DNA Projects. If your Clan is not in the list there's a way for it to be listed.
Glenora Single Malt Whisky

Electric Scotland's Classified Directory An amazing collection of unique holiday cottages, castles and apartments, all over Scotland in truly amazing locations.
Scottish Review

Click here to get a Printer Friendly Page

The Scot in British North America
Chapter III - British Rule after the Conquest


It seems convenient, as a connecting link between the ‘régime and subsequent settlements in the west, after the American Revolution, to glance briefly at early British rule in Canada and the Eastern Provinces. Nova Scotia or Acadia, including New Brunswick, was conquered by the force under General Nicholson and Colonel Vetch in 1710; and the whole of it, exclusive of Cape Breton, formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). Samuel Vetch, an Edinburgh Scot, had long entertained the project of conquering all the French possessions [The conquest of New France was a hobby of Vetch’s, for very early in his career, when at Quebec to effect an exchange of prisoners, he took soundings all the way up the St. Lawrence.] to the northward, and he was the active spirit in the movements of the early part of last century. He had been Councillor of the Scottish settlement at Darien, and was a Colonel, when he made the attack under Nicholson at Port Royal. A short time previously, an abortive attack had been made, by way of Albany, on New France. In 1716, however, the British forces, setting out for Massachusetts, attacked M. Subercase, the French Governor at Port Royal. The fort was invested by land and sea, and nothing remained for the starving and half-naked garrison, but surrender. Port Royal was called Annapolis Royal, in honour of the Queen and Nova Scotia, the old name devised by Sir William Alexander, was substituted for Acadia. Vetch’s plan for taking Canada came to a most unhappy termination by the annihilation of Sir Hoveden Walker’s fleet, which was shattered to pieces on Egg Island, off the coast of Northumberland, in 1711. Eight hundred bodies were washed ashore on the island, and the unhappy Admiral, to whom this was only one of several fatal disasters, returned home to be disgraced undeservedly, and to die brokenhearted. On board the fleet were a large number of Scottish settlers for Boston, many of whom perished. Tom Moore, when passing Deadman’s Island in 1804—having learned the story of the phantom ship—wrote a poem, from which Mr. Le Moine aptly quotes the lines:

"There lieth a wreck, on the dismal shore
Of cold and pitiless Labrador,
Where under the moon, upon mounts of frost,
Full many a mariner’s bones are tossed. "

[Poems Relating to America. Deadman’s Island is one of the Magdalene group. It appears that Vetch had given a caution to Walker regarding his French pilot as one who could not be depended upon; "not only an ignorant, pretending, little fellow, but I fear he is come on no good design." See an admirable account of this terrible disaster in Le Moine’s Chronicles of the St. Lawrence, chap. ix.]

Shortly after the capture of Nova Scotia, Colonel Vetch was appointed first Governor of the Province, to be succeeded in 1714 by his comrade in arms, General Nicholson. During these early years, the colony was kept in a constant state of disquietude by the hostility of the French population, and the constant assaults, excited by the Acadians, of the Micmac Indians. Then follows a chapter in the record, around which poetry and partizan history have thrown a deceptive glamour. Longfellow, in Evangeline, has simply adopted the story of the French chroniclers without inquiry; and the result is a beautiful, and touching poem, appealing to human sympathy, however, upon a false basis of historic narrative. That the Acadians should cling to French rule and French institutions was natural; but, by the capitulation of Port Royal, it was distinctly agreed that they should remain in possession of their property and the free exercise of their religion for two years without molestation. At the expiration of that period they were to be required "to take the oath of allegiance to Her Sacred Majesty of Great Britain," or leave the country. As the time approached for making a choice, the Governor of Cape Breton was appealed to for lands on which to settle the recalcitrant Acadians; but the reply of M. Costabelle was that he had none at his disposal. Still, "whilst declining to leave Nova Scotia, the Acadians expressed a firm determination to continue loyal to the King of France, affirming that they would never take the oath of allegiance to the Crown of England, to the prejudice of what they owed to their king, their country and their religion." [Campbell’s Nova Scotia, p. 74.] Such was the Alsace England had upon her hands early in the eighteenth century. Colonel Vetch, who was as tolerant and mild in policy, as he was bold and enterprising in conquest, urged the British Government to delay the administration of the oath. He represented the value of the Acadians (2500 in number) and the cattle, &c., which were scarce in the colony; and expressed a hope that their antipathy to the new régime might disappear with time. On the accession of George I. and the appointment of General Nicholson, the policy of the Government underwent a marked change. The conciliatory plan of Vetch was abandoned, and the oath tendered to all the French population. Cape Breton, now called "Royal Island," was in the hands of France; and Louisbourg soon became a formidable menace to the British power in the North Atlantic. The Acadians were disaffected and they were allied to Indians, who were at any time ready, when the signal was given, to rob, scalp, and tomahawk the British settlers. Nor were the French content with passive resistance merely, or even with covert intrigues with the Indians. In 1720, under Governor Phillips, they openly aided the savages in the work of robbery and slaughter. They had sent assurances of their fidelity to the French Governor of Cape Breton, paid dues for their lands to lords of the manor in Cape Breton, and were ready, with their Indian allies, to assist an expedition from Louisbourg at any moment. The pastoral picture of peace and content in the "forest primeval" is historically false. The Acadians had been indulgently treated for years and had returned evil for good; and if their turbulence brought suffering and hardship upon them, the British Government was not to blame under the perplexing circumstances of the case. The troubles of the colony so far weighed upon Armstrong, who was Lieutenant-Governor from 1728 to 1739, that he committed suicide.

In 1744 war broke out between France and England, and the first step taken was an expedition against Louisbourg. This enterprise had been suggested by Governor Clarke, of New York, and pressed upon the Home Government by the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Boston, Mr. Robert Auchmuty, who is said to have been a man of extraordinary abilities. [See Drake’s Dictionary of American Biography. Sabine, in his Loyalists, states that he was the father of the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty, Rector of Trinity Church, New York, and grandfather of General Sir Samuel Auchmuty. Robert was the son of a Scot, and the progenitor of a number of United Empire Loyalists.] The command of the expedition was given to William Pepperell, and Whitefield, who was preaching in New England, proposed as its motto, "Nil desperandum Christo duce." Mr. Campbell notices "as a striking instance of the religious fervour of the country and period, that one of the chaplains carried a hatchet to hew down the images found in the churches." [Nova Scotia, p. 89.] Louisbourg fell for the first time in 1745, partly from the great superiority of the invading force, and partly because of disaffection in the garrison, caused by the infamous peculations of Intendant Bigot. Then followed the abortive French expedition against Boston, and the taking of Annapolis by the Scoto-French De Ramsay, already referred to. In 1748 the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle terminated the war, and Cape Breton was again restored to France.

The last French war had tended to destroy any hope that might have been entertained of conciliating the Acadians. Petitions and remonstrances were followed by overt acts of rapine and insurrection. The time had come when forcible measures must be taken against them, if Britain were to retain the colony. They had enjoyed now for forty-two years, perfect civil and religious liberty; they were free from direct taxation on their property; they were not asked to fight. "And what return," says Mr. Campbell, "did the Acadians make for the kindness and consideration shown them? In violation of law, they traded systematically with the enemies of Britain, withheld supplies from the garrison of Annapolis; when distressed for want of provisions, allowed a British ship to be plundered at their very door by a party of eleven savages, without rendering any aid to the owner, not to speak of the charges of furnishing information to the enemy, and of paying rent for their lands to Lords of Manors in Cape Breton; and when the fort of Beau-sejour was taken, three hundred of their number were found with arms in their hands, in open rebellion against the British Crown." [Campbell: Nova Scotia, p.116 (quoting N. A. Archives, p.277). In chap. iv. of Campbell’s work will be found a complete refutation of the Acadian fancy-picture of Longfellow. The poet, in fact, slavishly followed the Abbé Raynal. Witness the following from Raynal, and compare with the poet. "Who will not be affected with the innocent manners and the tranquillity of this fortunate colony;"—the key-note to Evangeline; the sixty-thousand cattle and the immense meadows are Raynal’s; and when he wrote that their habitations were extremely convenient and furnished neatly as a substantial farmer’s house in Europe, he hardly could have anticipated that it would appear in Longfellow thus:—

"Strongly built were the houses, with frames of oak and of chestnut,
Such as the peasants of Normandy built in the days of the Henries.
Thatched were the roofs, with dormer windows; and gables projecting
Over the basement below, protected and shaded the doorway."

In 1745, Messrs. Beauharnois and Hoequart, who were neither poets nor historical romancers, wrote that the houses of the Acadians are "wretched wooden boxes, without convenience and without ornament, and scarcely containing the necessary furniture."]

And not merely were they spitefully hostile to an indulgent Government, but, in the words of poor Governor Armstrong, "not only was there little prospect of their being brought to obedience to the government, but even to any manner of good order and decency among themselves; for they, are a litigious people, and so ill-natured to one another, as daily to encroach on their neighbour’s properties," &c. Whatever blame, therefore, may be attached to the Governor for the manner of their removal, the Acadians themselves are not entitled to the exuberant tears and sympathy which have been so mistakenly lavished upon their story, no less than upon many another fiction. It is much to be wished, at the same time, that the cool Scottish head and thoroughly humane heart of Samuel Vetch had not been wanting, when the crisis arrived.

The final capture of Louisbourg, under Amherst, Wolfe and Boscawen has already been alluded to, as well as the distinguished part taken in the exploit by the Highland regiments. Reverting to the civil government, which was invariably in military hands, with a small council, largely military also, a remarkable feature to be noticed is the frequent change of Governors. Between 1700 and 1808 there were no less than twenty of them, and of these two— Michael Franklin and Lord William Campbell—served two terms. In 1770, Prince Edward Island was separated from Nova Scotia, and, in 1784, New Brunswick became a separate Province. Meanwhile, Nova Scotia, since 1758, had been in the enjoyment of representative government, Governor Lawrence being the first ruler under the new system. In 1788, Major Barclay took part in an attack upon the irresponsible system of the time, in a debate on the impeachment of two Supreme Court judges for maladministration of the law—men whom the Governor, in answer to an address, had personally acquitted without trial. The struggle for responsible government, however, belongs to a later time, and will be more fully detailed in a future chapter. [In 1794, His Royal Highness Edward, Duke of Kent, Her Majesty’s father, visited the country, and was peculiarly beloved by the people both in Nova Scotia and in Canada where, by the Queen’s munificence, a permanent memorial to an exceptionally kind, liberal and intelligent Prince is to be erected – the Kent Gate in the fortifications of Quebec. His Royal Highness particularly endeared himself to the Nova Scotians by his benevolent care of the survivors from the wreck of La Tribune, at which Dunlop and Munroe distinguished themselves, and the Quarter-Master McGregor perished, in a courageous effort to rescue a not less heroic wife. – Campbell, pp. 181-2.] A constitution was granted to Prince Edward Island in 1773, and New Brunswick was favoured with one in 1784, at its separation from Nova Scotia, in which it had previously formed the county of Sunbury. Newfoundland was governed by a succession of naval officers, some of whom were Scots, down into the present century; but the civil history of the island requires no further notice here.

After the taking of Quebec and Montreal, Canada remained under the rule of the Generals in command until the peace of 1763, when General James Murray was appointed Governor, as well as Commander-in-Chief. Garneau, who seems to have taken a particular dislike to Murray, insists upon it that Sir Jeffery (afterwards Lord) Amherst was the first Governor-General. The facts are against him; since Amherst left in the very year of the Treaty of Paris, and General Murray was appointed under the constitution established by proclamation, the former having been only commander of the forces. James Murray was a distinguished officer, and saw a good deal of active service, both in Europe and America. He was a son of the fourth Lord Elibank and a native of Scotland. The history of his services in Canada, up to his appointment as Governor-General, has been already given. Before referring to the record of his civil government, it may be briefly noted that he afterwards served in the unsuccessful defence of Minorca, where "De Crillon, despairing of success, endeavoured to corrupt the gallant Scot, and offered him the sum of one million sterling for the surrender of the fortress." [Morgan’s Celebrated Canadians, p. 67.] Murray’s indignant reply, in which he refused any further communication with the French general, but in arms, and to "admit of no contact for the future but such as is hostile to the most inveterate degree," is as spirited as the Duke’s was astute and politic. The latter ran in these words, "Your letter restores each of us to our places; it confirms in me the high opinion which I have always had of you." Morgan says, "In June, 1794, he ended a long, honourable career in the service of his country, in which he had risen to much distinction; but, perhaps, not more than his services, high talents and abilities deserved. As a soldier he stood foremost in the army, and had won his way by his own merit and by his own good sword, owing nothing to influence. As a genuine Christian officer, he was esteemed by all good men, and ever distinguished for his humanity and readiness to relieve the oppressed." [Ibid.] At his death, according to Haydn, numbers of bullets were extracted from his body prior to embalmment – bullets received in Germany and America.

The task laid upon General Murray when he became commandant at Quebec, and subsequently Governor-General, was an exceedingly delicate and arduous one. Placed in the midst of a high-spirited and patriotic people, recently conquered and brought to subjection by force of arms, he had at command but a handful of British subjects, soldiers and traders, who assumed all the airs, and expected an ample share of the rewards, of conquerors. The French rulers had left the country in a fearful state of confusion and poverty, and it fell to Murray’s lot to evolve something like order out of the chaos in which it had been plunged. When the nature of the French regime which prevailed during the preceding century and a half is considered, it is marvellous that historians can be found to complain of the provisional system of military rule which followed the conquest. Under the Bourbon kings Canada was a military colony, governed on the most approved Parisian system of despotic centralization. In Louis the Fourteenth’s reign, and especially whilst the genius of Colbert directed the destinies of France, Quebec suffered under the most unyielding tyranny, the absurdest of trade restrictions, and generally—though that was not the fault of the Minister at home—under the most corrupt, wasteful and rapacious set of adventurers that ever cursed a new country with their malign presence. In the reign of Louis XV. the abuses of that system culminated in the disgraceful career of Intendant Bigot [See, respecting Bigot, Le Moine: Maple Leaves 1st Ser., The Chateau-Bigot, p. 8, The Golden Dog, (Le Chien D’Or), p. 29. For a general account of feudalism in New France and French colonial government of Canada, see Parkman’s "Old Regime" and "Frontenac," as well as Miles’s Canada Under French Regime. Garneau, who writes indignantly at what he called the "military despotism" under Murray, speaks thus of the system which preceded it when at its purest and best. "In the exercise and apportionment of the power of the colonial government, the people counted for nothing. It was considered a high favour done the inhabitants of Quebec, when they were permitted to elect a deacon to represent and support their interests in the sovereign council, but the office, as a popular institution was null; and as the election of that functionary was but a mere act of routine, the custom of attending on such occasions was gradually wearing out. . .It will be understood that all real power resided collectively in the Governor, the Intendant, and the members of the sovereign council being directly or indirectly of royal nomination. The colonial government was simplicity itself, as all absolutisms are wont to be; no jarring of its uncomplex parts ever deranged its movements, whether pursuing the way of public well-being, or moved in a direction to subserve selfish interests, or for the gratification of personal ambition." Bell’s Garneau, vol. i., p. 195.] and the satellites moving around him and basking in his sinister light. That there were patriotic and energetic Governors, as well as honest Intendants, such as Talon, need not be denied or concealed; but the system which obtained was essentially rotten and mischievous, and those who set to work, with pure and elevated purpose, to reform abuses, were constantly hampered by the trade speculators, the farmers of taxes and all the other harpies who preyed upon the vitals of New France. The country was looked upon as a field for hurried fortune making, by trade, by extortion, peculation or downright robbery. It was to the penniless adventurer, noble or plebeian, of France what India, in the old time, used to be for the "nabob" who had gained favour in Leadenhall Street—an Eldorado where an unscrupulous and rapacious man might rapidly grow rich. As for the government, established thousands of miles from France, too far distant for close or minute inspection, it became what might have been expected. The French Ministers were very copious and particular in their instructions, and everything was ostensibly directed from Paris; yet, notwithstanding all that, the Governor and the Intendant were occasionally made spies upon each other’s conduct; they were virtually under no control whenever they chose to unite for self or mutual aggrandizement. So long as they succeeded in blinding the eyes of rulers at home, they were at full liberty to do as they pleased. The French Government had two main objects in view, the extension of Gallic power and territory in the New World, and also a steady revenue from the furs and fisheries of their American possessions. Their ablest Canadian rulers were constantly crippled by the niggardliness, begotten of home extravagance and national bankruptcy. Men and supplies were constantly asked for imploringly by the Governors—but asked in vain; and if even the brave Frontenac engaged in trading speculations, it ought to be a sufficient apology that he had no adequate means of livelihood otherwise. But not all the efforts of the clergy, nor the interposition of an angel from heaven, could have effected any reformation in a colonial system which was born of military absolutism, fattened on fraud and extortion, to perish at last as much by its own inherent rottenness as by the sword of Wolfe or the claymore of the Scottish Highlander.

It was Murray’s duty to organize an effective government, suited to a people hitherto treated as serfs—strong enough to curb the rapacious element hitherto predominant, yet sufficiently mild and tolerant to win, in time, the loyal affections of a happy and contented population, and to fix them securely on the side of British law and order. The Governor has left behind him a despatch in which he exposes the weak points of the small English-speaking population. "All have their fortunes to make," he wrote, "and I fear few are solicitous about the means, when the end can be obtained. I report them to be in general the most immoral collection of men I ever knew; of course little calculated to make the new subjects enamoured with our laws, religion, and customs; and far less adapted to enforce those laws which are to govern." How unlikely it would be that a man of Murray’s opinions should prove a harsh ruler of the Franco-Canadians, may be judged by a sentence or two more from the same despatch: "On the other hand the Canadians, accustomed to 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, had greatly got the better of the natural antipathy they had to their conquerors." [Written in 1766, by Gen. Murray, and largely quoted by LeMoine: Quebec, Past and Present, p. 188.] It will be found that all the reasonable complaints made against the administration of General Murray may be traced to the incompetent, and sometimes worthless, instruments at his disposal. He complains bitterly of "the improper choice and numbers of the civil officers sent out from England," as increasing "the inquietude of the colony." Instead, of men of genius and untainted morals, the very reverse were appointed to the most important offices."

Whilst it was the desire, as well as the duty, of the Governor to be conciliatory to the subject inhabitants of Canada, he had obviously a duty to perform to his king and country. In the years immediately succeeding the cession, anything in the form of representative government was out of the question; since it must either have been illusory or else have thrown the effective power of the State into the hands of an ignorant people, whose wounded feelings were not yet won over to the Crown and whose acquiescence in the new regime was sullen and dubious. One would suppose, to read Garneau, that one of the privileges of a British subject consists in being governed by civil, and not by British, law. It certainly was annoying to the Canadians to have their entire system of jurisprudence altered at once on a change of masters. But, that was not Murray’s fault; and when the Canadians had settled down into the steadfast loyalty since characteristic of them, the Imperial Parliament, by the Quebec Act of 1774, re-established the civil law "in all matters of controversy, relative to property and civil rights." [See Cavendish’s Report of the Debates on this Act. Singularly enough Chatham in the Lords, and Fox and Burke in the Commons opposed the Bill, as well on other grounds as on account of the concessions made in matters of law and religion.] Another alleged grievance was the destruction of the old French Church establishment. Etienne Charrest, at the Paris negotiations, had vehemently demanded the maintenance of the old hierarchy, and the clergy went so far as to insist upon the nomination of bishops in Canada and a general supervision over the interests of the Church by the French king. The Act of 1774 conceded the right to collect tithes and the free exercise of the religion; but no more. Up to that time, the only guarantee the Catholics of Canada possessed was that securing liberty of worship, "so far as the laws of England permit"—and those laws did not err on the side of freedom and toleration at that time, not to speak of the statute of Elizabeth recited even in the Quebec Act. Neither the Articles of Capitulation of 1760, nor the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, contains one word which can be construed as assuring any thing further than bare toleration and freedom of worship. [See Miles: Canada Under French Regime. Appendix. Also Knox: Historical Journal. For the Quebec Articles signed by De Ramsay (vol. ii. p. 87), and for the Montreal capitulation, as proposed by Vaudreuil and altered by Murray, vol. ii. p. 423.] Murray’s course throughout was liberal and humane in the extreme. He even tried to constitute a representative assembly; but that must necessarily have failed, as Garneau says (vol. ii. 92), because the French Catholics were not willing to take the test imposed, not by Murray, but by Imperial statute. If he did not succeed in conciliating the Canadians, it was not for want either of cordial desire or earnest effort; indeed he went so far in that direction that the British residents petitioned for his recall on the ground that he was pandering to the prejudices of the French population and sacrificing English interests. He was honourably acquitted of the imputation in England; and, having done his utmost to establish a settled government, acceptable to subjects of both nationalities, retired from the Province. He had accomplished the hardest part of the work, established order and even-handed justice where all was confusion, fraud and tyranny before, and surrendered the reins of power to Sir Guy Carleton, to whom fell the easier task of completing the work already begun. Murray left behind him an honourable record, and his reputation, both as a soldier and ruler, is one which his fellow Scotsmen have every reason to cherish with pride and satisfaction.

The only other Lower Canada ruler it concerns us to notice, in the period preceding the war of 1812, is Sir James Craig, Lieutenant-Governor from 1807 to 1814. His life was a most eventful one, both as a soldier and an administrator, and as he was a Scot in all but his place of birth, a brief sketch of it may be given. His father was civil and military judge at Gibraltar, when Craig was born, in 1750. Early in life he entered the army; was aide-de-camp to Sir Robert Boyd, Governor of Gibraltar; went to America with the 47th Regiment, and was wounded at Bunker Hill. In 1776, he was in Canada, fighting at Three Rivers; in 1777, at Ticonderoga and at Hubertown, where he was badly wounded. At Freeman’s Farm he received a third wound, and served through the Saratoga campaign. In 1778, he was in Nova Scotia; in 1779, at Penobscot; in 1781, in North Carolina—in active service during the whole time. In 1795, he was sent to the Cape, being now a Major-General, where, aided by Admiral Elphinstone and Major-General Clarke, he conquered the colony. In 1797 he went to India, and took command of the Manila expedition; and after five years’ service in the East, had a brief respite of three years. In 1805, he was on duty at Lisbon, Gibraltar, Malta and Naples, and in 1807, when the relations between England and the United States were beginning to threaten a rupture, Sir James was despatched as Lieutenant-Governor of Lower Canada, and commander-in-chief of the forces at Quebec. He died not long after his return to England early in 1812.

In attempting to form a judgment of Sir James Craig’s career as a representative of the Crown, it is necessary to take into account both the man and the people with whom he had to deal. He was a bluff soldier, brusque in manner, courageous in spirit, and determined in will and action Garneau, [Garneau: History (Bell’s Trans.), vol ii., 245.] who, of course, has no love for the brave soldier, says that "he was somewhat whimsical, fond of military pomp, and accustomed to address deputations, parliamentary or other, as if they had been so many recruits, liable to the quickening impulsion of the cat-o’-nine-tails." That he was blunt in speech, may be readily admitted; and that he lost patience when crossed—as he often was—is very certain. But what sort of men were they with whom he had to do? Representative institutions had been conceded to the Canadians; and, so far from any assimilation resulting, it was evident, not only that the people did not understand their purpose, but that those whom they elected knew not how to use their liberties. The Constitutional Act had provided for the appointment of an Executive Council; but, unfortunately, it failed to make Ministers responsible to Parliament, or even to the Crown. It was boldly asserted by some of the Ministers that although the Governor could be recalled, they themselves could neither be forced to resign nor dismissed from their offices. In the very first Assembly, the temper of the majority had been shown by the election of M. Panet, a gentleman who could not speak a word of English, and it was soon evident enough that the vanquished would be satisfied with nothing less than the complete subjection of the conquerors. As might have been expected, the experiment of Pitt, notwithstanding his sanguine anticipations, turned out to be premature. At times it was impossible to get a sufficient number of members together to conduct the public business; and, when they crowded the chamber, it was to fight over religion and nationality. Sir James Craig, in an angry speech, characterized their proceedings thus: "You have wasted in fruitless debates, excited by private personal animosity, or by frivolous contests upon trivial matters of form, that time and those talents to which, within your walls, the public have an exclusive title. This abuse of your functions you have preferred to the high and important duties which you owe to your sovereign and your constituents. . . . So much of intemperate heat has been manifested in all your proceedings, and you have shown such a prolonged and disrespectful attention to matters submitted to your consideration, by the other branches of the Legislature, that whatever might be the moderation and forbearance exercised on their parts, a general good understanding is scarcely to be looked for without a new assembly." [Of the substantial justice of this picture there can be no doubt. The speech is quoted in Garneau (vol. ii. p. 253), but that historian has no word of censure for the legislature, whom he throughout represents as reasonable, enlightened and patriotic champions of popular rights.] That House was dissolved, and a second one, much the same in complexion, elected. The offer to undertake the burden of the civil list was, of course in fact, an effort to gain control of the expenditure, and, through it, over the whole machinery of Government. Those who pronounce judgment upon the affairs of that unquiet time, by the canons of modern responsible government, will no doubt applaud the Assembly; but a calm consideration of the state of the Province must lead most men, however liberal, to a different conclusion.

How utterly ignorant of the constitution, and unfit to be clothed with political supremacy, the Assembly was, may be gathered from what they did during this session. Under the Constitutional Act, judges were eligible to seats at the council-board, and also in either branch of the Legislature. The Assembly, in 1810, passed a Bill disqualifying the judges—a step they had no doubt a right to take. But the Legislative Council chose to make amendments with which the Assembly refused to concur. Then followed a series of squabbles between the Houses; and the Assembly, chagrined at its defeat, actually expelled Judge De Bonne, the mouth-piece of the Executive, contrary to law and constitution. Moreover, by simple resolution, they declared Jews ineligible to seats in the House, and turned out in consequence Mr. Ezekiel Hart, who was doubly obnoxious as a Jew and an Englishman. This House was also dissolved, after listening to a reproachful speech from the Governor. [Speaking of the acts above alluded to, Sir James said: "It is impossible for me to consider what has been done in any other light than as a direct violation of an Act of the Imperial Parliament – of that Parliament which conferred on you the Constitution to which you profess to owe your present prosperity; nor can I do otherwise than consider the House of Assembly as having unconstitutionally disfranchised a large portion of His Majesty’s subjects, and rendered ineligible, by an authority which they do not possess, another not inconsiderable class of the community. Such an assumption I should, at any rate, feel myself bound, by every tie of duty, to oppose." &c.] During the elections Sir James Craig or his Council took it upon them to suppress Le Canadien newspaper, and to arrest six prominent members of the late Assembly. These arbitrary acts only served to fan the flame of popular discontent; and, although the desperate state of affairs may, to some extent, serve to palliate them, it certainly falls far short of being a complete justification. Garneau exonerates Sir James Craig from any great measure of culpability in the matter; but censures severely Chief Justice Sewell, who was at the head of the Council. Sir James Craig retired from the government in 1811, worn out with disease, care and disappointment. Entering upon his allotted task with an earnest desire and resolution to promote the best interests of the Province, he had been thwarted by those he desired to conciliate, and hampered by the clique of English counsellors, who ruled, rather than advised. If he had a fault which seriously impaired his usefulness, it was the fruit of long and effective service in the army of his country. He had been accustomed to order and discipline, and had to deal with a people politically insane, and essentially insubordinate. They had escaped from Bourbon tyranny, and yet were not fit for British freedom; and if the Governor erred in his dealings with them, if he was irascible, and even peevish, it must be remembered that he received great provocation, and that he filled the high station to which he was called at a time, when no man who was unwilling to surrender the rights of his Crown and country could have done better than he did. The character [As Morgan remarks, the honesty and purity of his intentions are evinced in nearly every proclamation or speech he ever made. One extract from the honest and earnest appeal he made against seditious writings like those of Le Canadien does him infinite credit. After assuring them that it was not in order to serve the king that he could meditate tyrannical measures; he continued in these almost eloquent words: "Is it for myself, then that I should oppress you? For what should I oppress you? Is it from ambition; what can you give me: Is it for power: Alas! my good friends, with a life ebbing out slowly to its period under the pressure of disease acquired in the service of my country, I look only to pass what it may please God to suffer to remain of it, in the comfort of retirement among my friends. I remain among you only in obedience to the commands of my king. What power can I wish for? Is it then for wealth that I could oppress you? Enquire of those who know me whether I regard wealth; I never did when I could enjoy it; it is now to no use to me; to the value of your country laid at my feet, I would prefer the consciousness of having in a single instance, contributed to your happiness and prosperity." Quoted in Morgan: Celebrated Canadians, p. 160.] of Sir James Craig is well drawn in Christie’s History: ‘"Positive in opinion; prompt in action; manly and dignified, yet sociable and affable; hasty in temper yet easily reconciled to those with whom he differed; hospitable and charitable, and lastly, though not the least of his virtues, a friend to the poor and destitute, none of whom applying at his threshold ever went away unrelieved." When Sir George Prevost assumed the duties of the vice-royalty, the people of Canada had something better to think of than the miserable bickerings which had worried Sir James Craig into the grave; the enemy was at the gate, and, as will be seen hereafter, what sternness or conciliation had hitherto failed to effect, was accomplished by necessary union in the presence of danger from without. Before leaving the Province of Quebec, a singular character, who should have been noticed in the proper place, ought not to be passed over. Major Robert Stobo was not a very fastidious man, or over scrupulous on points of honour. His connection with Canada commences at a period anterior to the Conquest. His history is chiefly interesting for its adventurous character, and might well form the subject of an entertaining romance. Born at Glasgow in 1727, the son of a prominent merchant, he was early trained to arms. He served in the war between the English and French colonies, and, after a visit to England went back to take part in the sieges of Louisbourg and Quebec. In 1754 he, and Captain Jacob Van Braun, a Dutchman, were surrendered as hostages for the fulfilment of the articles of surrender at Fort Necessity. Being allowed to wander about the country on parole, he amused himself by taking plans of the French fortresses. One of Fort Du Quesne he sent to Colonel George Washington. Being a handsome man he became a great favourite with the Quebec ladies, who undertook to instruct him in French. Unfortunately some of his plans and papers were discovered, and the dashing officer soon found himself in a dungeon. Orders came from France to Vaudreuil to try Stobo for his life; but he escaped in 1756, and a reward of six thousand livres was offered for his recapture. Having been caught, he was tried by court-martial and sentenced to death. The sentence, however, must be sent to France for confirmation, and Stobo again escaped but was rearrested at Montmorenci (1757). His lady friends interceded for him with the Governor; but, to make matters sure, he planned an escape with Lieutenant Stevenson, of the Rangers, and Clark, a ship-carpenter. For the third time, and now finally, he regained his liberty and at length reached Louisbourg in time to offer his services to Wolfe. But his misfortunes were not yet over. Being sent with despatches to General Amherst, he was made prisoner by a French frigate, and threw his papers overboard. The vessel being short of provisions, put into Halifax and Stobo was once more at liberty. He then served in the Champlain expedition and afterwards at Williamsburgh, at that time the capital of Virginia. In 1760 he went to England, but ill-luck still attended him, for the vessel was overhauled by a French privateer. However, having burned all his letters, save one to Pitt which he concealed under his arm-pit, he paid a ransom and reached home. Pitt remunerated him for his losses and sent him back with a letter to Amherst, in his favour, and there we lose sight of him. It is said that Smollett, who, we learn from a letter of Hume’s, knew Stobo, celebrated him in Humphrey Clinker as Captain Lismahago, the favoured suitor of Miss Tabitha Bramble. [LeMoine: Maple Leaves. New Series, p. 55.]

There is not much to record regarding the Upper Province between 1791 and 1812, in special connection with the object of this volume. Colonel Simcoe, the son of a Northamptonshire naval captain, an officer of the Queen’s Rangers, was its first Governor. The first Legislature met at Newark, now Niagara, on the 17th September, 1792. The Legislative Council consisted of seven members, and the Assembly of sixteen, so that there was no danger of a tumultuous or turbulent meeting in either House, there were so few of them. In 1796 the seat of government was removed to York, now Toronto, and the scantily-peopled Province went on in a humdrum way for some years. General Simcoe left the Province almost immediately after, and the Government was left in the hands of the Hon. Peter, commonly called President, Russell, who administered, until the arrival, in 1799, of the [See the Rev. Dr. Scadding’s Toronto of Old, where a number of curious facts touching Russell are detailed.] General, Peter Hunter. Russell’s nationality was English, but Hunter was a Scot, being the brother of the celebrated physicians, John and William Hunter. He was born in 1746, and died at a comparative early age, in 1805, at Quebec. He had been a man of eminence in the military profession, and, in his new sphere of action—which in the Upper Canada of those days was a limited one—he managed all the affairs of the nascent colony, municipal as well as provincial, in a paternal sort of way. In 1799, according to the Niagara Constellation, he arrived at York, and was received, in orthodox Vice-regal style, by a party of the Queen’s Rangers. On the 5th of September, he was starring it at Niagara, amid the smoke of a salute of twenty-one guns. On these occasions His Excellency crossed the lake in the Speedy,[This vessel was lost in 1801, on the passage between York and Kingston, with Judge Grey and all on board; she was an armed vessel of ten guns.] one of the clippers, doubtless, of those days. In 1800, a paper with the grandiloquent titles of the Upper Canada Gazette or American Oracle, was issued at York, and from it something is learned of the fittings to and fro between Quebec or Niagara and York, of Peter Hunter, languishing, perhaps, of ennui. In 1803, in a lengthy proclamation, Governor Hunter set apart the market square of York, from Market Place to Church Street. In less than two years afterwards he died at Quebec, and a month later no less, the Oracle opened its mouth with the following tribute to his memory: - "As an officer his character was high and unsullied; and at the present moment his death may be considered a great public loss. As Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada his loss will be severely felt; for by his unremitting attention and exertions he has, in the course of a few years, brought that infant colony to an unparalleled state of prosperity." [These particulars are extracted from Toronto of Old, whence much additional information of a curious character may be gleaned. The following is extracted from a writ of election directed to the Hon. William Allan: - The Returning Officer was "to cause one Knight, girt with sword, the most fit and discreet, to be freely and indifferently chosen to represent the aforesaid County (Durham) Riding (East York) and County (Simcoe), in Assembly, by those who shall be present on the day of election." (Scadding, p. 249).] He appears to have been a man of ability, probity and amiable temper, a worthy member of a distinguished Scots family, and one well suited to guide and organize the young settlement in the early stages of its existence. The remains of the Governor were interred in the Cathedral, at Quebec, and his virtues and abilities are recorded on a monument "erected by John Hunter, M.D., of London." In 1806, Francis Gore arrived from England, and retained the Governorship until 1811, when General Brock administered the government, and took the command at the outbreak of war with the United States.

Of the Scots connected with Canada during the period from the conquest to the war of 1812, there are some who seem to require special notice. One of these was Sir William Grant, the third Attorney-General of Quebec, born in 1754, at Elchies on the Spray, in the north of Scotland. His distinguished judicial career has no connection with Canada, and he was only temporarily a resident in this country, during a brief period from 1776. When he returned home Lord Thurlow once said of him, "Be not surprised if that young man should one day occupy this seat,"—and it is stated that he might have occupied the woolsack but refused it. He filled high judicial offices in England, being successively Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Master of the Rolls. Francis Butler wrote in his "Reminiscences"— "The most perfect model of judicial eloquence which has come under the observation of the reminiscent is that of Sir William Grant," and, it may be added, that he was an effective parliamentary debater. The Hon. James McGill is a name to be had in perpetua1 remembrance as that of the founder of the University at Montreal, which bears his name. Born at Glasgow in 1744, he came to Canada at an early age and became a successful merchant. He was a member of Parliament and subsequently of the Legislative Council and, at one period, an Executive Councillor. During the war of 1812, he became a Brigadier-General. He was a thoroughly good man, charitable without ostentation, kindly to men of every creed and both nationalities and, in the interests of superior education, he laid the foundation of one of the noblest academic institutions in America. Connected with his fellow-subjects of French origin by marriage, he was popular amongst all classes of the people, and died in 1813, on the verge of three score and ten, sincerely respected and regretted by the entire community. The name of Irving is, as Dr. Scadding observes, "historical in Canada, the earliest being Colonel Paulus Aemilius Irving, who was born so far back as 1714, at Bonshaw, Dumfries, of which his father, William, was laird. At the siege of Quebec, he served under Wolfe as a Major of the 15th Foot, and received a wound in the battle of the Plains. At the departure of General Murray, he was commander of the forces, and Administrator of the Government for a time. He died in 1796, leaving a son of the same name, who became a general in the British army, The Hon. Jacob Aemilius Irving, M. L. C., was a grand nephew of Paulus Aemilius, born at Charleston, S. C., in 1797. He served in the 13th Light Dragoons and was wounded at Waterloo. So notable were his services during that campaign that, on his return, he was presented with the freedom of Liverpool, where his father was a merchant. He did not take up his residence in Canada till 1836, and in 1837 aided in the suppression of the Rebellion. He was first warden of the district of Simcoe, and in 1843 became a Legislative Councillor, and remained one until his death in 1856. His house on Yonge street was called Bonshaw after the ancestral domain in Scotland. It may be added that, in politics he was a Liberal, and a strong opponent of Lord Metcalfe. His son, Aemilius Irving, Q. C., was M. P. for Hamilton during the last Parliament. [See Morgan: Celebrated Canadians, &c. pp. 80 & 275; and Scadding: Toronto of Old, p. 490.] Both these last fall within a period posterior to 1812, and are noted here merely in family connection, and for convenience sake.

In the Maritime Provinces, the number of loyalists who founded families, at once or afterwards, prominent in civil affairs was considerable. A large proportion of these were Scots, if one may judge by their names—Burns, Campbell, Gordon, Galbraith, Graham, Henderson, Hume, Johnstone, Macaulay, Macdonald, Macdougall, McGregor, McIntosh, Mackenzie, Maclean, Macleod, Macpherson, Munro, Stuart, &c. The Scottish origin of the patronymic, however, is not always evidence of Scottish birth or parentage, although it is of descent and national origin. Many of those bearing purely Scottish names were born in Ulster, and are, therefore, nominally Irish—Scoto-Irish as they are occasionally called. So far as this is the case, mistakes may, and no doubt will occur, in claiming individuals, although there is no mistake at all in tracing well-settled national characteristics to the Scottish colony across the Irish Sea— a community which has always been, and still remains substantially the same as its progenitors had been in the auld land. The loyalists were either born in the mother country or the sons of immigrants—the Americans born of the third generation, and so on back, having lost their hereditary attachment to British soil, and their loyalty to British connection. Somewhere about twenty thousand of the loyalist refugees, many of whom had lost ample fortunes in the cause, settled in British North America. Receiving grants of land from the Crown, and being almost all of them men of probity and intelligence, they naturally became leaders of the people in the new colonies they had made their home. As advisers of the Crown, as Judges or as Legislators, their names are frequently recorded in Sabine and elsewhere; and not a few of the prominent men of a later time have been proud to trace their descent from those steadfast, long-suffering and enterprising loyalists of the Revolution.

Amongst the more notable men of mark may be mentioned the Cunninghams, of whom one, Archibald, of Boston, was banished in 1778, and afterwards held a responsible office at Shelburne, N. S. The Grants were chiefly represented by Daniel, a native of Gillespie in Sutherlandshire, who settled in what was a purely Scottish colony at St. Andrews; N.B., where he died, in 1834, at the age of eighty-two. Joseph Gray, a United Empire Loyalist, settled at Halifax, established the mercantile firm of Proctor & Gray, and died in 1803, aged seventy-four. He seems to have established a colony on his own account, for he had thirteen children. His brother John went to India; and there were other Grays in the loyal ranks, one of whom, William, from the Province of New York, became a magistrate in King’s County, N. B., and lived to be ninety-six, dying in 1824. The Macdonalds and the Macdonells appear in great force in the annals of the United Empire Loyalists, over twenty-four being mentioned in Sabine, a number of whom settled in the Lower Provinces, and one, named Donald, who had served under Sir William Johnson, died at Wolfe Island, Ontario, in 1839; at the age of ninety-six. Two of the McKays are specially noted—Hugh, who belonged to the Queen’s Rangers during the entire Revolution, and settled in New Brunswick at the peace. Sabine says that he was the "only full Colonel" in the Province, member of the Assembly for thirty years, and long the father of that body; and also Senior Justice of Common Pleas for the County of Charlotte. He died at St. George, in 1848, aged ninety seven, "distinguished for his urbanity and gentlemanly bearing." John McKay had been a Captain in the Queen’s Rangers under Simcoe, and settled, in 1783, in York County, N. B. He held public stations of honour and trust, and died in 1822. His wife was a sister of Chief Justice Saunders, of New Brunswick. Mr. Duncan McKenna was another United Empire Loyalist, who, having originally emigrated from Scotland to New York, settled at Shelburne, N. S., and became the father of the Hon. Gilbert McKenna, member of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, so far back as 1840, and called to the Legislative Council in 1868. Another old legislator was Mr. Morrison, grandfather of the Hon. Thomas Morrison, M.L.C. of Nova Scotia. He was not a United Empire Loyalist, but the son of a Scot who, had settled in New Hampshire. He left that Province for Nova Scotia in 1760, and was for many years a Member of Parliament. John McKinnon (of the Isles) emigrated from Inverness-shire early in the century and settled in the County of Sydney. Of his two sons, one was made a Legislative Councillor in 1867, and served as Agricultural Commissioner, and the other, the Rev. Dr. C. F. McKinnon, became Bishop of Arichat. Colin Campbell, of Argyleshire, emigrated to America in 1770, and occupied many positions under the Nova Scotian Government. In 1798, he was elected Member of the Provincial Parliament for Shelburne, and sat for it over twenty years, dying in 1822. His grandson was, or is, Member of the Provincial Parliament for Digby. Amongst the Pictou Scottish settlers was Mr. Mackay, who came from Sutherlandshire—father of Mr. Alexander Mackay, M.P.P. for Pictou. William Robertson was a United Empire Loyalist, living in New York, who settled at Shelburne, N. S., as a merchant, and, afterwards, at Barrington. According to Sabine, he was remarkable for possessing "a wonderful memory, and was consulted by all the country round." His son, the Hon. Robert Robertson, has been a member of the Assembly for many years, and also Commissioner of Public Works.

Of the New Brunswick pioneers, Archibald McLean was Captain in the New York Volunteers and fought bravely at Eutaw Springs. In 1783 he went to St. Johns, N. B., and was one of the original grantees there. In 1812 he was again in active service. He resided in York County and was a member of the Assembly and magistrate for that county for many years. He died at Nashwaak, N. B. in 1830, at the age of seventy-six. John Fraser, of Inverness-shire, Scotland, settled in Nova Scotia first in 1803, and in 1812 at Miramichi, N. B. His son is the Hon. John James Fraser, Q. C., M. P. P., as well as Provincial Secretary and Receiver-General of the Province. Mr. LeMoine mentions a number of Gallicized Scots in the Province of Quebec; the family of Urbain Johnston, M. P. P. for Kent, is an illustrative case in New Brunswick. About a century ago, the family came from Scotland and settled with the Acadians on the Chaleurs Bay and were, so to speak, naturalized, and became French amongst them. Alexander Wedderburn, who may not improbably have been related to Lord Loughborough, was an Aberdonian, and for many years emigration officer for New Brunswick, and the author also of several works on the Province. His son is the Hon. William Wedderburn, Q.C.,M.P.P., who has been Speaker of the Assembly. In Prince Edward Island, there is a large sprinkling of Scots, "Macs" and others, many of these however, such as the Lairds, McGills, McIsaacs, Munroes, Walkers, Wightmans, Campbells, Macdonalds, &c., may be more properly referred to at a later period. Hon. Arthur McEwen, formerly M.L.C., had as his great-grandfather one of the earliest settlers on the Island, for he came from Perthshire to settle at St. Peters somewhere about 1760. Charles McLean left the Highlands at the commencement of the century, began life in the New World at Charlottetown and finally made his home at East Point, where his grandson, the Hon. James R. McLean, M.P.P. for Kings (1st District), was born. The clan Maclean or McLean has made such a conspicuous figure in the world, that it seems well to mention something further about them here. David Maclean, of Dochgarroch, belonged to the 73rd or McLeod Highlanders and settled in Pictou, N. S. James Maclean, of Ardgour, was a lieutenant in Montgomery’s Highlanders, who served in Nova Scotia and in the expedition to Dominique. Archibald Maclean of the same ilk also went to America, and his third son, Neil, was commissary at Niagara. Lachlan, of another branch served in the West Indies, rose to the position of Major General, and died Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia. Another fighting Maclean was Francis of the Blaich stock, captain of the 42nd; he served at Bergen-op-Zoom, was prisoner of war in France, and afterwards served under Wolfe. After fighting in Portugal, we read of General Francis Maclean at the defence of Penobscot in 1779, with a force of 700 against 2,000 Americans. He died at Halifax in 1781. [See Irving: Life of Washington, Vol. iii., p. 511.] Hector Maclean, of Torren, again was a settler also in the colonies, and, we believe, the progenitor of Mr Allan McLean Howard, who lives in Toronto. General Allan Maclean, of the Macleans of Torloisk, was a notable figure in Canadian struggles. He had served in Holland, and began his career in America as a lieutenant in the 60th or Royal American Regiment, and afterwards in the Royal Highland Emigrant Regiment. Not only did he serve under Wolfe, but also took part in resisting the invasion of Montgomery and Arnold in 1775. He retired, went home, and died in 1791. There are also Counts Maclean in Sweden; indeed wherever fighting or hard, honest work was to be done, there was always a Maclean to perform the task. [See Historical and Genealogical Account of Clan Maclean. By a Seneachie. London, 1838.] John McNeill came to the Island from Argyleshire in 1773. His son, William, sat in the Assembly for twenty-five years, much of the time as Speaker. A grandson, William Simpson McNeill, was M. P. P. for Queen’s (2nd District). Daniel Montgomery also left Argyleshire about the same time, and possibly in company with John McNeill. He sat for Prince County for over thirty-five years, and is now represented by a grandson in the Senate of the Dominion, the Hon. Donald Montgomery, who has passed the term of three score and ten.

In only a few cases, does a single span of human life bridge over the interval between last century and the present, now waning through its last quarter. The Hon. John Holmes, until recently a member of the Senate, was born in 1789, in Ross-shire, Scotland, went to Nova Scotia in 1803; sat in the Assembly of the Province during the periods from 1836 to 1847, and from 1851 to 1858; was then a Legislative Councillor up to the Confederation year, and from 1867 a Senator of the Dominion. Dr. Forbes, ex-M. P. for Queen’s, N. S., represents an old family connected with the barons of that name. William settled at St. Kitts, in the West Indies, and the Doctor’s father was born there and served in his early years in the 64th. The honourable member himself was born at Gibraltar, and finally found a home at Yarmouth, N. S., where his father was Collector of Customs. If in Mr. Holmes’ case, we have the extraordinary persistency of the Scot as a sturdy long-lived toiler for himself and others; in the case of the Forbeses there is an equally characteristic love of roaming and adventure. The grandfather of Colonel Kirk, ex-M.P. for Guysborough, was an old settler—William Kirk, of Dunfermline, who served through the Revolutionary War in the regular army. An old Highland family is represented by Mr. William McDonald, M. P. for Cape Breton. He claims descent from the Clan Ranalds, and his grandfather left the Island of Uist to settle in Inverness county; N. S. The member for Kings, P. E. I., also comes of an old settled family, his grandfather having left Inverness-shire in 1785, and settled in Prince Edward Island; on the mother’s side he is descended from an officer who fought under Wolfe. His uncle is the Right Rev. Dr. McIntyre, R. C. Bishop of Charlottetown. Hon. Henry Starnes, so well known as a financier and an energetic and enterprising worker in Montreal, is of U. E. Loyalist stock, of Scottish origin. Lieut.-Colonel Ogilvie, ex-M. P. P., Quebec, came of a sturdy old Scottish stock in Banffshire. His parents emigrated at the beginning of the century, and his father served in 1812 and 1837, on behalf of the Crown. The Hon. Joseph G. Robertson, of Sherbrooke, M. P. P., and a Minister of the Crown, it may be remarked, in passing, is also a Scot, the son of the Rev. Joseph Robertson, from Aberdeenshire, where the honourable gentleman was himself born.

Having thus selected, though by no means exhaustively, the names of some of the early settlers in the Eastern Provinces to whose energy and intelligence so much is due, not only for the settlement, but also for the orderly social life and good government of the country, it seems unnecessary to pursue the subject farther in this direction. It will not be denied that in the whole of the Maritime Provinces and to a large extent, in the Province of Quebec, whether they appeared as loyal refugees from the revolted colonies, as retired officers and soldiers, or as immigrants simply, the Scot supplied a fresh, vigorous, honest, and sterling element to the population which would have been sorely missed in those early days. The energy which overcomes all difficulties the frugality which spares and accumulates, and the power of self-denial, are in themselves half the battle of life; the rugged earnestness, the unswerving probity, the thoughtful and educated intelligence have always been the hereditary possessions of the Scot, when, as mostly happened, he had no other estate to boast of. He possesses qualities which, as the first part of this volume was designed to show, came to him through the disciplinary sufferings, hardships and struggles undergone by his forbears through long and painful periods of national education. It will be necessary now, before entering more into detail upon the modern period, to trace as briefly as may be, the operation of the same indomitable national character in Ontario and in the vast domain to the North-west of it, where the courage, the industry, the endurance of the Scot have brought forth peculiarly rich and abundant fruit. In Eastern Ontario, a settlement will be found purely of Celtic origin, and to a large extent still clinging to the old Gaelic tongue and the ancient faith. Small colonies of these brave old Highlanders will be met with elsewhere in the Province; but on the whole, the great work effected for Ontario, as an agricultural, industrial and mercantile community, has been achieved by the Saxon Lowlander. It will be seen also that the Scot has made the vast territory to the north-west from the Arctic circle to the boundary-line, and from Fort William to Victoria peculiarly his own, whether as an explorer, a hunter or a settler.


Previous Page | Return to Index Page | Next Page

 


This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus

Quantcast