USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41
114 Geo. III. c. 83; Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure. ch. i. on Par- liamentary Institutions in Canada, pp. 9-12.
2 Doutre et Lareau, p. 485.
3 Ibid., p. 563.
4 Ibid., p. 589.
5 Ibid., p. 590.
22
Local Government in Canada. [196
in accordance with the desire of the Imperial Government to continue the old institutions of the country, to which the people were accustomed. The old French system was practically again in force. The proprietors and farmers were required to keep up the roads and bridges that passed by their respective properties. All repairs were performed by statute labor or at the cost of the parish. The Judges of Common Pleas on Circuit were to report on the state of the communications, as provided for in the ordinance.1
In 1791, a very important constitutional change took place in the political condition of Canada. At the close of the American War of Independence, a large number of people known as United Empire Loyalists, on account of their having remained faithful to the British Crown during that great struggle, came and settled in the provinces. Some ten thou- sand persons, at least, made their homes in Upper Canada, while a considerable number found their way to the Eastern Townships which lie to the south of the St. Lawrence, between the Montreal district and the frontier of the United States. The Parliament of Great Britain then thought it advisable to separate the French and English nationalities by forming the two provinces on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, known until 1867 as Lower Canada and Upper Canada. To the people of both sections were granted representative insti- tutions.2 By a proclamation of the Governor-General, dated 7th of May, 1792, Lower Canada was divided, for legislative purposes, into the following twenty-one counties :- Bedford, Buckingham, Cornwallis, Devon, Dorchester, Effingham, Gaspé, Hampshire, Hertford, Huntingdon, Kent, Leinster, Montreal, St. Maurice, Northumberland, Orleans, Quebec, Richelieu, Surrey, Warwick, and York.3 The names of some
1 Ordinances for the Province of Quebec (Brown and Gilmore), p. 86.
2 31 Geo. III. c. 31; Bourinot, p. 14.
3 Bouchette's Topographical Description of Lower Canada, etc., p. 86. It appears that Nova Scotia was the first province in British North America to establish the old Norman division of "County," which is the equivalent of the Saxon "Shire." See infra, p. 44.
23
Local Government in Canada.
197]
of these divisions recall well-known counties or shires in England.
The system of government established in 1791 continued in force until the suspension of the constitution of Lower Canada, as a consequence of the rebellion of 1837-8, under the leadership of Papineau and other men whose names are familiar to all students of Canadian political history. During these years, the country was practically governed by the Governor-General and the Executive and Legislative Coun- cils, both nominated by the former. The popular house, however, had little influence or power as long as the Govern- ment was not responsible to the people's representatives, and was indifferent to their approbation or support. The result was an irrepressible conflict between the Assembly, and the Legislative and Executive Councils supported by the Gov- ernor-General. The fact was, the whole system of govern- ment was based on unsound principles. The representative system, granted to the people, did not go far enough, since it should have given the people full control over the public revenues and the administration of public affairs, in accord- ance with the principles of ministerial responsibility to Parlia- ment as understood in the parent state. More than that, it failed because it had not been established at the outset on a basis of local self-government, as was the case in the United States, where the institutions of New England and other colonies had gradually prepared the people for a free system of government. Turning to the remarkable report on the affairs of Canada which bears the name of Lord Durham,1 who was Governor-General and High Commissioner in 1839, we find the following clear appreciation of the weakness of the system in operation for so many years in the old provinces of
1 This remarkable document, it is now well understood, was written by Mr. Charles Buller, who accompanied Lord Durham in the capacity of secretary. "In fact written by Mr. Charles Buller, and embodying the opinions of Mr. Gibbon Wakefield and Sir William Molesworth on Colonial policy."-Note by Mr. Reeve to Greville's Memoirs (second part), i. 142.
24
Local Government in Canada. [198
Canada : "If the wise example of those countries in which a free and representative government has alone worked well had been in all respects followed in Lower Canada, care would have been taken that at the same time that a parliamentary system, based on a very extended suffrage, was introduced into the country, the people should have been entrusted with a complete control over their own local affairs, and been trained for taking their part in the concerns of the province by their experience in the management of that local business which was most interesting and most easily intelligible to them. But the inhabitants of Lower Canada were unhappily initiated into self-government at the wrong end, and those who were not trusted with the management of a parish were enabled by their votes to influence the destinies of a State." 1
The following divisions existed in Lower Canada, between 1792 and 1840, none of which, however, were constituted with a view to purposes of local government :-
1. Districts.
2. Counties.
3. Parishes.
4. Townships.
The four districts were Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal, and St. Francis, which were established for purely judicial purposes. The courts therein had unlimited and supreme original jurisdiction. In addition to these superior districts there was the inferior division of Gaspé with a limited juris- diction.
The counties were, as I have already intimated, established for parliamentary objects ; for Lord Durham observed that he knew " of no purpose for which they were constituted, except for the election of members for the House of Assembly." 2 The parishes, into which the seigniories were divided, were
1 Lord Durham's Report, p. 35.
º Report, p. 35.
25
Local Government in Canada.
199]
the old divisions established in the days of the French régime. The limits of the parishes, as set forth in the ordi- nance of 1721, were not strictly adhered to as the population spread, and settlements became more numerous. It was con- sequently found necessary from time to time to build many new churches, that the means and accommodation for religious worship might keep pace with the numerical increase of the congregations. For the support of these churches, portions of ancient parishes were, as the occasion arose, constituted into new ones.1 The townships were established a few years after the conquest, principally for surveying purposes, in order to meet the requirements of the considerable English population that in the course of time flowed into Upper and Lower Canada.2
The people that dwelt in the local divisions had no power to assess themselves for local improvements, but whenever a road or bridge was wanted it was necessary to apply to the Legislature. In consequence of this, the time of that body was constantly occupied with the consideration of measures, which should have been the work of such local councils as existed in different parts of the United States. The little schemes and intrigues into which the representatives of different localities entered in order to promote and carry some local work and make themselves popular with their consti- tuents gave rise to a great deal of what is known, in Ameri- can parlance, as "log-rolling." "When we want a bridge, we take a judge to build it" was the forcible way, according to Lord Durham's Report,3 in which a member of the pro- vincial Legislature described the tendency in those days to retrench on the most important departments of the public ser- vice in order to satisfy the pressing demands for local works.
It would be supposed that the British-speaking people of the townships, whose early lives had been passed in the midst
1 Bouchette, p. 86.
Bouchette, p. 87; Lord Durham's Report, p. 36.
3 Report, p. 29.
26
Local Government in Canada.
[200
of the liberal local institutions of the old British Colonies, would have been desirous of introducing into their respective districts at least a semblance of municipal government. We look in vain, however, for such an effort on their part. They appear to have quietly acquiesced in a state of things calcu- lated to repress a spirit of local enterprise and diminish the influence of the people in the administration of public affairs. Indeed, we have some evidence that the government itself was prepared for many years to discourage every attempt to intro- duce into Canada anything like the local system that had so long existed in New England. British statesmen probably remembered the strong influence that the town-meetings of Boston had in encouraging a spirit of rebellion, and thought it advisable to stifle at the outset any aspirations that the Canadian colonists might have in the direction of such doubt- ful institutions. "I understand," wrote Mr. Richards in a report to the Secretary of State for the colonies, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed as late as March, 1832, " that the Vermonters had crossed the line and had partially occupied several townships, bringing with them their muni- cipal institutions ; and that when the impropriety of electing their own officers was pointed out to them, they had quietly given them up, and promised to conform to those of Canada."1
While the Legislature was, to all intents and purposes, a large municipal council for the initiation and supervision of all local improvements, the affairs of the different parishes and townships were administered as far as consonant with the old French system. The Grand Voyer and Militia Captain continued to be important functionaries in the administration of local affairs. All the highways and bridges had to be repaired and maintained under the direction of the Grand Voyer or his deputy. Whenever it was necessary to open a new road or to change an old one, it was the duty of these officials, on receiving a petition from the locality, to call a
1 Lord Durham's Report, p. 36.
27
Local Government in Canada.
201]
public meeting with reference to the matter, by a notice pub- lished at the parish church door after the morning service. The Grand Voyer or his deputy had the power of dividing every parish, seigniory, or township, into such sections as he should think proper, and allot to each an overseer of highways and bridges, to be chosen at a meeting of householders, called and presided over by the eldest captain or senior officer of militia. These meetings were held in the public room of the parsonage of the parish, or at such other place as the captain of the militia might direct. The Grand Voyer had alone the power of appointing a surveyor of roads and of considering and deciding on reports made by such officers to him on the subject of highways. It was the duty of the Justices of the Peace, assembled in quarter sessions, to hear and adjudicate on all questions that might arise under this law. The same regulations, however, did not apply to the cities and parishes of Quebec and Montreal. Here the Justices of the Peace in sessions had practically the regulation of highways, streets, and local improvements, and appointed all the officers necessary to carry out the same. They also fixed and determined the sums of money that had to be paid for such purposes.1
As a matter of fact, the Grands Voyers, who lived in Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers, had no very onerous functions to discharge. The people of the parishes and townships learned to depend on the Legislature and only performed the work imposed on them by the law regulating statute labor. The absence of effective municipal institutions was particularly conspicuous in the cities of Quebec and Montreal, where it would be expected that more public spirit would be shown. " These cities," I again quote from Lord Durham's Report,2 " were incorporated a few years ago by a temporary provincial Act of which the renewal was rejected in 1836. Since that time these cities have been without any municipal government
1 See Lower Canada Statutes, 1796.
2 Report, p. 36.
28
Local Government in Canada.
[202
and the disgraceful state of the streets and the utter absence of lighting are consequences which arrest the attention of all and seriously affect the comfort and security of the inhabitants."
In every matter affecting the administration of civil and judicial affairs there appears to have been a remarkable absence of anything approaching a workable system by which the people might manage their affairs. More than that, there was actually an insufficiency of public officers for the administra- tion of justice. Outside the cities, the machinery of civil government was singularly defective. A Sheriff was appointed only for each of the four judicial districts. Neither Sheriffs nor Constables nor parochial officers could be found in the majority of the counties of the province. It is true there were a number of Justices of the Peace who assembled in Quarter- Sessions in accordance with the system so long in vogue in England and her colonies, but these men were appointed without much regard to their qualifications for the position, and even the permanent salaried Chairmen, appointed by the Crown, were in the course of time abolished by the Legisla- ture, and these inferior Courts consequently deprived of the services of men generally of superior attainments.1 Practi- cally, the affairs of each parish were regulated by the Cure, the Seignior and the Captain of militia, as in the days of French government. Thanks to the influence of these men, peace and order prevailed. Indeed as we review the history of French Canada in all times, we cannot pay too high a tribute to the usefulness of the French Canadian clergy in the absence of the settled institutions of local government. In fact, it was only in ecclesiastical affairs that the people ever had an opportunity of exercising a certain influence. The old institution of the fabrique-which still exists2 in all its vigor
1 Lord Durham's Report, p. 39.
? The law still makes special provision for the erection and division of parisles, the construction and repair of churches, parsonages, cemeteries, and for the meeting of fabriques. Every decree for the canonical erection of a new parish, or for the subdivision, dismemberment or union of any parishes,
29
Local Government in Canada.
203]
-enabled them to meet together whenever it was necessary to repair a church or presbytery. When the religious services were over, the people assembled at the church door and dis- cussed their affairs.
No doubt the influences of the old French Régime pre- vailed in Lower Canada for a long while after the conquest. A people whose ancestors had never learned the advantages of local self-government, would be naturally slow to awake to the necessity of adopting institutions under which the Ameri- can colonists had flourished. It may be true, as Mr. Parkman says, that the French colonists, when first brought to America, could not have suddenly adopted the political institutions to which the English-speaking colonists at once had recourse as the natural heritage of an English race. It is certainly true, as the eminent American historian adds, that the mistake of the rulers of New France " was not that they exercised au- thority, but that they exercised too much of it, and instead of weaning the child to go alone kept him in perpetual leading strings, making him, if possible, more and more dependent, and less and less fit for freedom." When the French Cana- dian became subject to the British Crown, he was, literally, a child who had never been taught to think for himself in public affairs. He was perfectly unskilled in matters appertaining to self-government, and had no comprehension whatever of that spirit of self-reliance and free action which characterizes the peoples brought up under Teutonic and English institutions. In the course of time, however, the best minds among them began to appreciate fully the advantages of free government, and to their struggles for the extension of representative gov-
0
or with regard to the boundaries of parishes, must be publicly read from the pulpit or chapel of the parish, and other formal steps taken to notify the inhabitants of the proposed measure, before Commissioners appointed by the State can give civil recognition to the decree. On the procès verbal of these officers, the Lieutenant-Governor may issue a proclamation under the great seal of the province, erecting such parish for civil purposes. See Consol. Stat. Low. Can., c. 18, and amending Statutes.
30
Local Government in Canada.
[204
ernment the people of British North America owe a debt of gratitude. It took a long while, however, to educate the people of French Canada up to the necessity of establishing a liberal system of municipal institutions. As we shall see, be- fore the close of this paper, it was not until after the Union of 1840, that the French Canadians could be brought to acknowl- edge the benefits of local taxation imposed by their own local representatives. In this respect, they made less progress than the people of Upper Canada, to whose history we shall now proceed to refer.
IV .- UPPER CANADA, 1792-1840.
As I have already stated, Upper Canada was settled by United Empire Loyalists, who came into the country after the War of Independence. The majority of these people settled on the shores of Lake Ontario, in the vicinity of Kingston and the Bay of Quinte, in the Niagara district, and in other favored localities by Lakes Ontario and Erie.1 On the 24th of July, 1788, the Governor-General issued a proclamation2 constituting the following districts in Western or Upper Canada, viz., Luneburg, Mecklenburg, Nassau, Hesse.
Luneburg comprised the towns or tracts known by the names of Lancaster, Charlottenburg, Cornwall, Osnabruck, Williamsburg, Matilda, Edwardsburg, Augusta, and Eliza- bethtown. Mecklenburg comprised Pittsburg, Kingston, Ernestown, Fredericksburg, Adolphustown, Marysburg, So- phiasburg, Ameliasburg, Sydney, Thurlow, Richmond, and Camden. Nassau comprised the extensive district which extends from Trent to Long Point on Lake Erie, and Hesse,
1 Ryerson's Loyalists in America, ii. 189.
2 See Proclamation in Collection of Acts and Or linances relating to Upper Canada, York, 1818. Luneburg is correctly spelt in the Proclamation, but in course of time it became, for some unexplained reason, "Lunenburg." The name still survives in the changed form in Nova Scotia.
0
31
Local Government in Canada.
205]
the rest of the western part of Canada to Lake St. Clair.1 To each of these districts were appointed a Judge and a Sheriff, and justice was administered in Courts of Common Pleas. The Justices were taken from the best men the country offered in the absence of persons of legal attainments.2 The Judges in those primitive times seem to have possessed almost absolute power.
The first local divisions of Upper Canada appear to have been the townships. The British Government was extremely liberal in its grants of land to the Loyalists and the officers and soldiers who settled in Upper Canada and the other provinces. The grants were made free of expense on the following scale : to a field officer, 5,000 acres ; to a captain, 3,000; to a subal- tern, 2,000; to a private, 200. Surveys were first made of the lands extending from Lake St. Francis, on the St. Law- rence, to beyond the Bay of Quinté. Townships were laid out and divided into concessions and lots of 200 acres. Each township generally extended nine miles in front and twelve in the rear, and varied from 80,000 to 40,000 acres. The town- ships were not named for many years, but were numbered in two divisions.3 One division embraced the townships below Kingston on the St. Lawrence, and the other townships west- ward to the head of the Bay of Quinté. One of the first set-
1 Canniff's History of the Settlement of Upper Canada, p. 62; also fore- going Proclamation.
" Judge Duncan of Luneburg was a storekeeper and a Captain in the militia; he dealt out law, dry goods, and groceries alternately. Ibid., p. 50g.
3 Canniff; Ryerson, ii. 224-5. Dr. Scadding, Toronto of Old, p. 362, gives an amusing account of the frivolous way in which many of the old townships of Upper Canada were named in the course of years. Flos, Tay and Tiny, which are names of three now populous townships in the Penetanguishene district, are a commemoration of three of Lady Sarah Maitland's lapdogs. Some one wrote Jus et Norma, as a joke, across a plan of a newly surveyed region, and three townships were consequently known as "Jus," "Et," and " Norma" for years until they were changed to Barrie, Palmerston and Clarendon respectively. "Aye," "Yea," and "No" were also designations of local divisions.
32
Local Government in Canada.
[206
tlers of Upper Canada has given us the following description of the mode in which the townships were granted by the government :-
"At length the time came in July, for the townships to be given out. The Governor came and having assembled the companies before him, called for Mr. Grass, and said : 'Now you were the first person to mention this fine country, and have been here formerly as a prisoner of war. You must have the first choice. The townships are numbered, first, second, third, fourth and fifth ; which do you choose ?' 'The first township' (Kingston). Then the Governor says to Sir John Johnson, 'Which do you choose ?' He replies, 'The second township' (Ernestown). To Colonel Rogers, ' Which do you choose?' He says, 'The third' (Fredericksburg). To Major Vanalstine, ' Which do you choose,' 'The Fourth' (Adolphustown). Then Colonel McDonell got the fifth town- ship (Marysburg). So, after this manner, the first settlement of Loyalists in Upper Canada was made."1
The districts which were constituted in 1788 were intended mainly for judicial purposes, and were named after great houses in Germany, allied to the royal family of England. The same was the case with the first townships that were laid out. The first township was called Kingstown, after His Majesty George III; Ernestown after Ernest Augustus, eighth child of the King; Adolphustown, after another son.2 Pro- vision was made for future towns during the first surveys. A plot was generally reserved in some locality which seemed especially adapted for a town. This was the case in Adolphus- town, where a lot was granted to each of the settlers. But
1 Ryerson, ii. 209.
? " King George III, who died in 1820, aged 82, having reigned 60 years, had a family of 15 children, whose names were George, Frederick, William Henry, Charlotte Augusta, Matilda, Edward, Sophia Augusta, Elizabeth, Ernest Augustus, Augustus Frederick, Adolphus Frederick, Mary Sophia, Octavius, Alfred, and Amelia. These royal names were appropriated to the „ townships, towns, and districts." Canniff, p. 439.
33
Local Government in Canada. .
207]
towns were of very slow growth, until some years after the establishment of a separate government in Upper Canada, when settlers began to flow steadily into a country whose fertility and productiveness commenced at last to be under- stood. Not a few of the towns owe their establishment to private enterprise and prescience in the first instance.1
In 1791 Upper Canada was separated from French Canada, and became a province with a Legislature composed of a Lieutenant-Governor, a Legislative Council appointed by the Crown, and a Legislative Assembly elected by the people.2 When Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe undertook the administra- tion of the affairs of the new province, he issued a proclama- tion dividing it into nineteen counties, as follows: Glengary, Stormont, Dundas, Grenville, Leeds, Frontenac, Ontario, Addington, Lenox, Prince Edward, Hastings, Northumber- land, Durham, York, Lincoln, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Kent.3 Some of the well-settled counties were divided into ridings,4 each of which sent a representative to the Legislature. In other cases one representative was elected for two or more counties. One of the first Acts of the Legislature was to change the names of the four divisions established in 1788 to the Eastern, Midland, Home, and Western Districts.5 In the
? " Windsor (now Whitby) was so named about 1819 by its projector, Mr. John Scadding, the original grantee of a thousand acres in this locality. On a natural harbor of Lake Ontario, popularly know as Big Bay, Mr. Scad- ding laid out the town, built the first house, and named the streets, three of them after his three sons-John, Charles, and Henry." Ryerson, ii. 260. One of these sons, here mentioned, is the well-known antiquarian of Toronto, Rev. Dr. Scadding.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.