1795]

DISPOSITION OF THE TROOPS.

423

posts took place, to order down the 5th, 24th, and probably the detachment of the 60th, leaving in Upper Canada the Queen's Rangers and as many of the Royal artillery as may be necessary to take care of the ordnance stores, 100 of the Rangers to be stationed in the Detroit river, opposite Bois Blanc island, and 100 on the British side of the river Niagara. This arrangement would leave in Upper Canada, not including Kingston, nearly the same troops as were there in 1786. In Lower Canada matters were different, and must so remain during the war. Orders would be given for carrying this arrangement into execution.*

It might be conceived that a letter so clearly establishing Simcoe's subordination as lieutenant-governor would have had the effect of moderating his pretensions to carry on the government of Upper Canada, independently of every consideration which affected the province as a whole: especially during the war with France, then taking serious proportions. It should have been plain to Simcoe that, even if Dundas had accepted his views as judicious, the minister would not take the responsibility of giving him power to act on his own theories, regardless of the governor-in-chief. But he would in no way be guided by this truth. He replied to Dorchester by a long despatch, in which he referred to their past correspondence. He stated that he had paid implicit obedience to the orders and directions of Mr. Dundas, with regard to the preparatory steps for the site of the capital to be established on the Thames. He was particularly surprised at the distribution of the Rangers. He considered the withdrawal of the troops from Upper Canada most injurious to the prosperity of the province, and that beyond all calculation it would retard its growth.

These representations of Simcoe had no weight on Dorchester's mind. His resignation had been accepted, and he was only awaiting the arrival of Prescott. His one care was to transfer to his successor the government of the province in as satisfactory a condition as he was able.

*[Can. Arch., Q. 282.1, p. 45, 5th of November, 1795.]

In 1795 a painful tragedy took place in the family of Joseph Brant on the Grand river. As the case is represented, Isaac Brant, the son, without provocation and in wanton cruelty, murdered a white resident of the settlement, a saddler by trade, named Lowell, a deserter from Wayne's force. Independently of the brutality of the crime, its folly was manifest, for the murdered man, in his calling, would have been very useful to the Indians. Young Brant was not arrested, for the agents felt the difficulty of so acting without direct authority. Some short time afterwards, when at the west of lake Erie, after drinking heavily, he indulged in unrestrained and infamous abuse of his father. Upon the elder Brant entering the room where the son was, Isaac, maddened by liquor, attacked him with a knife. Brant warded off the blow, and, drawing a dirk, wounded his son on the head. They were at once separated, but the blow inflicted by the father proved fatal, and Isaac died a week after at the Grand river, whither he had been taken.

The father was himself badly wounded in the hand. The fatal consequence of the quarrel caused great unhappiness to Brant; he could, at least feel, whatever consolation the thought could offer, that the misfortune had been forced upon him.*

Simcoe, in a letter to Portland, wrote that but for the painful close to the event, he had determined to demand the murderer; and, in case of refusal on the part of the Indians to give him up, he would have sustained the civil power with his whole military force. He had previously brought the matter to Portland's notice, with the request that he might receive instructions how to act. These, Portland, to use Simcoe's phrase, had not thought proper to give.

During the period of Simcoe's government five parliaments were held. I have described the first assembly held in 1792. The second parliament met on the 31st of May, 1793Simcoe, in view of the war declared by France, called upon * [Can. Arch. Report, 1891, p. xlvi.]

+ [Can. Arch., 282, p. 142, 220-i of December, 1795-]

1793]

THE MARRIAGE ACT.

425

them to remodel the militia act, and, in so doing, dwelt on the duties which devolved upon the British race. He alluded

to the late successes of Cornwallis in the East Indies, and foretold confidently a successful issue of the contest with France.

Parliament was prorogued on the 9th of July. Eleven acts were passed: among them, an act to make valid past and to provide for future marriages; an act to encourage the destruction of wolves and bears; a road act; an act to prevent the further introduction of negro slaves; and an act for payment of the members of the assembly.

By the marriage act the former marriages irregularly contracted were made legally valid, the husband and wife each declaring by a distinct oath that such were their relations. In cases of future marriages, when the contracting parties were eighteen miles distant from a clergyman, the ceremony could be performed by a justice of the peace, the forms of the church of England being followed. The act to be non-effective when five clergymen of that church were residents in the district where the parties lived.

Simcoe wrote to London that there was such unanimity with regard to the act legitimatising these early marriages, that he felt himself unable to withhold his consent on the ground of referring it home for approval.* He had been led to believe that there was a tendency to make matrimony a less guarded contract than good policy would justify. Simcoe mentioned with astonishment that a proposition to give power to ministers of all denominations to perform the ceremony could be entertained, but the intention had been abandoned.

Simcoe strongly supported the slave bill. There is ground for the probability that the impulse for its introduction came from him, and by his support it was carried. The preceding year he had written to a friend that the principles of the British constitution did not admit of slavery, which was also condemned by christianity. He added that "from the

* [Can. Arch., Q. 279.2, p. 335. Simcoe to Dundas, 16th of September, 1793.]

moment that I assume the government of Upper Canada, under no modification will I assent to a law that discriminates by dishonest policy between the natives of Africa, America or Europe."*

The bill met great opposition. The extreme cost of labour in the cultivation of land was urged as an argument against it. There was doubt whether the law authorized negro slavery or not. During the war many slaves had been purchased from the Indians at small cost, and the holders of them desired to reject the act entirely. The general feeling was that all action should be postponed for two years, so that those without slaves could procure them.

The act was somewhat euphemistically described as designed to prevent the further introduction of slaves and to limit the contract for servitude. The act of George III., ch. 27, admitting slaves into a colony was repealed, and it was enacted that no negro slave could hereafter be brought into the province. No slave could be bound by a contract to extend longer than nine years, and the ownership of such slaves had to be placed on record. The children of the slaves then in the province were to remain with the mother until twenty-five years of age, when they were to be declared free. Should any slave be liberated, security was to be given that he would not become chargeable to the district.

A duty on wine and spirits was proposed by the lower house, towards meeting the expenses of the legislature. As an import duty of this character was collected at Quebec, the proportion due to Upper Canada being paid to that province, the bill did not pass the upper house; the ground assigned was that it repeated the duty already paid in the lower province.

The third parliament lasted from the 2nd of June to the 7th of July, 1794. Twelve acts were passed: among them, a militia act; an amended road act; an act establishing courts of King's bench and of appeal; and an act laying a duty

Simcoe papers,

I., p. 497. Simcoe to Bond, Quebec, 7th of May, 1792.

1796]

PETITION OF PRESBYTERIANS.

427

upon stills. The expenses of the civil government at this date were $24,400.*

The fourth parliament opened on the 6th of July, 1795, and was prorogued on the 19th of August. Five acts were passed as to the elegibility of persons for members of parliament; to confirm the agreement with Lower Canada on the matter of import duties; for the registration of deeds; to regulate the practice of physic; and to amend the act of last session with regard to the superior courts.

Simcoe's fifth and last parliament opened on the 16th of May, to close on the 20th of June, 1796. In his speech he spoke of the ratification of Jay's treaty and the preparations necessary to carry it into execution, involving the surrender of the posts. He pointed out that wheat was finding its way to the sea-board by the Saint Lawrence, showing that it was the natural channel of water communication to the ocean, for the country bordering on the lakes. Seven acts were passed: among them, one repealing the act for the destruction of wolves and bears, the further enforcement of its provisions being unnecessary, from the increase of the population; an act relative to the times and places for holding quarter sessions; for the appointment of commissioners to act with those of Lower Canada; a license law; an act limiting and establishing the current value of foreign silver coin; an act amending the judicature act; an act "providing for the wages of the members of the house of assembly."

In March, a petition was presented against the marriage act by the presbyterians of the county of Grenville, on the ground that their ministers were not empowered to perform. a legal marriage. The petition was drawn up with much care and ability. It represented that they were " astonished and hurt" at this disqualification. They claimed liberty of religious conscience, and they could not conceive by what principle of justice numbers of the population should be deprived of this privilege. No one had deserved better of the house of Hanover than the presbyterians, for they had [Can Arch., Q. 280.2, p. 519.]