formidable forces had opened your eyes and recalled you to your duty, she would have excused you on account of your ignorance and simplicity, on account of the impositions, the tricks and falsehoods, the shams, the threats, and the false promises, preposterous and without basis, which your insidious enemies have employed to seduce you, to pervert you, and to engage you in their iniquitous designs, not through love for you and your well-being, but through envy and jealousy of the preferences which were being accorded to you.1

The bishop still further used his episcopal office in support of the British cause, for some of the French Canadian rebels were compelled to do penance for their political offence. It is recorded that on the occasion of the anniversary of the deliverance of Quebec from the American troops, the bishop personally conducted the great thanksgiving service when, "Eight unfortunate Canadians who had sided with the rebels were present, with ropes about their necks, and were forced to do penance before all in the church, and crave pardon of their God, Church and King." "

2

The loyalty of the hierarchy and especially of Bishop Briand in this crisis was appreciated by the British government, and greatly strengthened the control of the Roman Catholic church. Numerous instances of this appreciation might be mentioned. The following letter from Sydney to Hamilton, expressing regret at the resignation of Bishop Briand, is a good illustration.

From the long and faithful services of Mons. Briand, superintendent of the Romish Church in the province of Quebec, and the unblemished character which he possesses, you cannot be surprised the king accepted of his resignation with concern, especially upon observing the reasons which produced

1 Mandements, vol. ii, p. 269 et seq.

2 Revolutionary Letters, pp. 66-67.

it.

His Majesty has in consequence commanded me to signify to you His Royal approbation that the Reverend Louis Philippe D'Esgly, should succeed to office in full confidence he will fol low the virtuous example of Mons. Briand.1

It is true the British Government for a time did not officially recognize the "Superintendent of the Roman Catholic church" as bishop; nevertheless so satisfactory appears to have been the understanding between the government and the bishop that he was permitted to attend to the affairs of the church, even in matters where the formal consent of the government had not been received.2

However grateful the Government may have felt toward the hierarchy, it had no intention of changing a policy of mere toleration, to one of building up the Roman Catholic church. On the contrary the American Revolutionary War had still further confirmed its policy of establishing the Church of England as the national church.

1 C. A., Q. 24, p. 216; cf. Murray to Shelbourne, C. A., Q. I, p. 261. 2"I have had the satisfaction to find that Lord Dorchester, Governor General of the Province, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, enters most graciously into my views. For these reasons, after thanking Heaven for this, I take the liberty to implore your Eminence to intercede with His Holiness that he may crown this good work in permitting by an Apostolic Brief that Messire Charles François Bailly de Messein be consecrated as my coadjutor, under such title 'in partibus infidelium' as it may please His Holiness to bestow upon him. . . It will, perhaps, be a cause of surprise to the Roman Curia to note the absence of a formal document attesting the consent of the English Government in favor of M. Bailly. There will, perhaps, be found in our manner of proceeding in this way a lack of formality, and again perhaps it may appear singular that I should have addressed myself directly to His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda, without regard to the precautions customary in such cases; but my answer is: Ist, that in such matters nothing but verbal statements can be expected on the part of the English Government, the formal approbation of a Catholic Bishop being entirely foreign, and even contrary to the spirit of the British constitution. . . (Bishop Hubert to Cardinal Antonelli, June 19, 1788, C. A., M. 128, pp. 352-353.)

The want of a strong national church in the American colonies was considered to have been responsible in a measure for the rapid growth of democracy and the ultimate break with the motherland. The determination on the part of the British Ministry to avoid any such repetition of events in Quebec readily enlisted their support for the establishment of the Church of England in the colony. After the American Revolution, therefore, the policy of the government aimed more than ever to make Canada thoroughly English. Both the old and new subjects of his Majesty were to be anglicized. They were to be English first, not British; Anglican, not Protestant. Canada was to be made not a New England, but an orthodox England.

With slight modifications, the policy outlined in the instructions to General Murray for bringing this about through the establishment of the Church of England and the erecting of a system of public schools directly under the control of the Bishop of London and the governor, was to be carried out.1

1 The instructions to General Murray stated explicitly that, in order that the Church of England might be established "both in principles and practice," and the new subjects be induced to embrace by degrees the Protestant religion and their children brought up in its principles, Protestant schools were to be erected. The cost of maintaining these, as well as providing for the support of the clergy, would be met by allotting for that purpose 'proper quantities of land." Suggestions were to be made by Murray as to any further means by which he might consider the Protestant religion would "be promoted, established and encouraged" in the Province. (C. A., Q. 26b, p. 26, art. xxxiii.) It was to be his special care to see that the worship of the Church of England was conducted with dignity and fitting solemnity. No Protestant minister was to be preferred to any living without a certificate from the Bishop of London of his being conformable to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England." (Ibid., p. 27, art. xxxv.) Murray had the further right of "full power and authority to Collate any person or persons to any Churches, Chappels, or other Ecclesiastical Benefices within our said Province, as often as any of them shall happen to be void." (Commission of Captain-General and Governorin-Chief of the Province of Quebec, Const. Docs., vol. i, p. 126.)

66

3

66

Many difficulties, however, stood in the way of a “proper establishment of the Church of England." The French Canadians were not easily to be induced to accept the Protestant religion. The English population was a mere handful; more than a decade after the conquest, Sir Guy Carleton testified in the House of Commons that the estimated Protestant population in Quebec was "about 360 men, with women and children." Even as late as 1789, in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Inglis wrote, “At Quebec there are but few English." 2 "The Canadians were to the English as five to one." He further mentions having visited Three Rivers, "where there are about twenty-four Protestant families, and a Protestant settlement of fifteen families at River Du Loup." ing able leadership and proper organization. The attempt to unite the English and Huguenots under a foreign clergy who had little knowledge of the liturgy of the Church of England, and less of the English language, coupled with the humiliation of holding service in a Roman Catholic church, all worked together to create an atmosphere unfavorable to the growth, and unfitting the dignity, of a national church.

In addition there was lack

For these reasons among others, the early progress of the Church of England was slow. In the absence of regular clergy certain foreign Protestant clergy had been appointed under commission from the governor to act in the capacity of curates, in Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers. The

1 Cavendish, op. cit., p. 103.

2 Canadian Archives Report, 1912, Correspondence and Journals of Bishop Inglis, p. 232.

3 C. A., M. 914, p. 154.

▲ Canadian Archives Report, 1912, op. cit., p. 232.

5 C. A., Q. 5, pt. ii, p. 759.

6 Ibid., Q. 26, pt. i, p. 22.

Bishop of London, in a letter of September 29, 1768, seems to suggest some doubt as to the wisdom of this step when he says, "I suppose there can be no objection to the commissions which the governor has given to the ministers, to officiate as curates in such churches or places as the governor may appoint . . . it is all we can hope for until a more perfect establishment is made in the province." 1

Although the need in a new country, no doubt, justified the governor in appointing certain ministers in the colony. as curates, and justified the bishop in sanctioning their appointment, the church made little progress under their ministry. Some of the ministers at least, appear to have been of mean station and mediocre ability. In a letter on the state of the Church of England and the Clergy, the author writes,

What opinions must the Canadians form of our religion when they daily see the minister of it degrading the very name by keeping a little dirty dram-shop and himself so scandalously indecent, as to measure out and sell rum to the soldiers of the garrison, and all this too in the capital of the province, the seat of the government, and the residence of the French Bishop and other dignified clergy of that church? 2

Other letters of the period, although less severe in their arraignment of the Protestant clergy, make it clear that many of them were quite unsuitable. Haldimand, in re

2

1 Ibid., Q. 5, pt. ii, p. 759.

3

C. A., Q. 26, pt. i, p. 59. “Upon the whole, from an attentive but painful observation of our religious concerns in this province for ten years past, it may with safety be pronounced that unless our church is put upon a very different footing from what it is at present and proper clergy placed at Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers, even the name of the Church of England-all that exists of it at present-will in a few years be extirpated from Canada. . . .” Ibid.

"At Quebec the only clergyman of the Church of England is a very