So in Ireland’s case, the feeling might have been, “Ireland’s interests are already represented by elected legislators” vs. Canada, where that wasn’t the case.
Didn’t the seigneurial land system…I don’t know, it’s been a while since I studied this, but didn’t the seigneurial system make colonial settlement harder and limit the rights of tenants on the land and the ability to make infrastructure improvements, so that while the Quebec Act made the landowners happy, their tenants had less rights than they would have if Quebec had kept English land law.
Maybe, but then you’ve got:
Why didn’t the British Parliament just absorb Canadian representatives into its system?
(Granted there’s a logistic issue between crossing the Atlantic versus Irish Sea)
I just find it ironic (or bizarre) that Canada which never seemed to have a significant independence movement and contained so many people who considered themselves fundamentally British gained independence whereas Ireland where people had agitated both violently and non-violently for independence for many years was not allowed go without a fight. I don’t carry a chip on my shoulder about this really, I’m genuinely curious as to the difference. I know there was vociferous Unionist opposition to an independent Ireland even a Home Rule Ireland (which would have meant a national parliament but not full independence) but they were still a minority within Ireland as a whole. I suppose if the Great War hadn’t intervened Home Rule might have been achieved peacefully but who knows…
I haven’t studied the seigneurial system particularly closely – I’ve learned about it in my history classes, but I don’t remember discussing the pros and the cons – but from what I’ve been able to gather from a quick search, the seigneurial system made the colonization of the territory easier and more systematic. It described in detail what the rights and duties of the landlord and tenants were, and allowed villages to develop according to a plan. Here’s a synopsis of the system. Note that under the seigneurial system, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that the infrastructure remain in good condition.
Before 1830, the population of Lower Canada was in favour of the system. But starting at that time, due to abuses by some landlords, public opinion shifted toward reform and outright abolition of the system, until 1854 when the legislature finally passed a law abolishing the system and requiring the tenants to buy their land, something they were allowed to do over a few years (cite). Now I can’t say what would have happened if the Quebec Act hadn’t reestablished the system, but having a clear division between the tasks of the landlord and the tenant probably wasn’t such a bad idea.
This said, as well as reestablishing the seigneurial system, the Quebec Act also reestablished the other French civil laws and Catholicism. Without this, the Canadians simply couldn’t have taken part in the administration of the Province of Quebec. That’s really the important part.
You may have found the answer. 
The American colonies were never allowed to send MPs to Westminster either, which is one of the reasons why they eventually rebelled. Ireland was actually annexed into the United Kingdom; that’s why they sent representatives to Parliament. The colonies were simply that, colonies, and they either successfully rebelled against Britain, or were eventually given Home Rule.
Well that’s not quite accurate. Notice what RickJay and I said: Canada was given responsible government following the rebellions of 1837 (and following years), since Britain was afraid that if they didn’t respond to this, it would happen again. Canada had a large number of people who considered themselves fundamentally British, but at least an equally large number of people who didn’t. (Before 1840 Canada had more francophones than anglophones. Francophones had no reason to consider themselves British, and as I said there was even a number of anglophones agitating for home rule or independence.) Now why did this result in Britain giving more independence to Canada, but not to Ireland? I can’t say for sure, but my guess would be that it has something to do with the influence of the United States. Or maybe it’s the fact that Unionists in Ireland were afraid that if the country was given home rule, they would find themselves ruled by Catholics, while in Canada, Upper Canada/Ontario was established as a mainly British and Protestant province.
The part of the Quebec act amending the Test Act was neccesary to allow the Canadiens to take part in the administration. Otherwise Quebec would have ended up like Ireland, with a lot of disenfranchised Catholics goverened by a Protestant minority. I don’t know that the readoption of French civil law and tithe to the Catholic church was neccesary (except insofar as it kept the clergy and siegneurs happy) and it had the side effect of maintaining a seperate Quebec culture from the rest of Canada. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view, of course, but I don’t know that it’s what Parliament hoped for when they did it.
As for the segnieurial system, I’m pretty sure I’ve read arguments arguing that it was less conducive to industrialization and economic growth than the freehold system in English law, but I can’t find them now.
Something I have wondered about the loyalist immigration into Canada, is whether at the same time it brought both a sense of stability (we’re not going to revolt – hell, we’re here because we didn’t want to revolt), but also also brought a sense of the need for representational government (OK, we’re here, and we want the same sort of political self-determination that our previous nation now has).
Right. That’s what I meant when I talked about “reestablishing Catholicism”, not reestablishing Catholicism as the official religion. Sorry for being unclear.
I guess that allowing the Church to claim its dues was mostly intended to keep the religious authorities in line, but it’s worth remembering that the Catholic Church had at that time a large number of responsibilities (education, for example) that actually lasted until the 20[sup]th[/sup] century. They needed money to shoulder these responsibilities. Now, of course, it’s questionable whether the Church should have been in this business in the first place. We can certainly try to imagine an alternate Quebec where education and social services would have been under the responsibility of the government from the beginning, and I’ll concede that I wouldn’t be surprised if this Quebec had modernized earlier.
Now as for the French civil laws, I don’t have a vast knowledge of law so I can’t say for sure what it changed to have them readopted. But as far as I know Canada already had a number of lawyers and notaries who were familiar with them. Laywers and notaries, as well as physicians, were the political elites of Quebec/Lower Canada at the end of the 18[sup]th[/sup] and beginning of the 19[sup]th[/sup] centuries. Would they have adapted to a definitive change in legal system, or would they have been replaced with British lawyers? I really have no idea, and actually I wonder what they did between 1763 and 1774. If we have someone with knowledge of this part of history, or with a knowledge of law, and who can make a more educated guess of what the impact of keeping an entirely British legal system would have been on Quebec, I’d really like to hear it.
I think it’s doubtful that this is a major reason why Quebec has a different culture from the rest of Canada.
It’s possible. With its feudal trappings, the seigneurial system does look like something out of the Middle Ages, and it did eventually die out in the 1850s as industrialization was increasing. But maybe it was still the right system for Quebec in 1774. If you find these papers, I’d like to read them.
By the way, I’m curious to know where you learned about the 18[sup]th[/sup] and 19[sup]th[/sup] century history of Quebec. I learned about it in school, of course, but it doesn’t strike me as a subject of great interest to most Americans.
I don’t know if this helps, but perhaps this extract (and/or other parts of the whole item) from the entry on Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester at the Dictionary of Canadian Biography might answer at least some of your question. Carleton was made Lieutenant-Governor and Administrator of Quebec in 1766:
It would seem to me to be reasonable to assume that under the circumstances stated, “to rule the colony in a manner acceptable to the overwhelming majority” might mean “staying with French civil law and allowing the Roman Catholic Church to play a role.”
Note that in the extract I posted, I did edit out long lists of names and examples, but you may find them useful for directing you further. Perhaps something in the item will help, anyway.
If I come across anything more regarding the seigneurial system and it’s effects, I’ll let you know. As to where I learned about the history of Quebec, I’m self taught. How I got interested in it, I don’t really know, although I grew up not too far from the border, for one thing, and also a family member of an ancestor of mine was a U.E. Loyalist who actually has a town in the Eastern Townships named after him, so there’s sort of a family connection, there.
To An Gadai : You have to remember countries aren’t given independence because of how badly they want it, but rather how much letting them go free will cost the mother country. Canada’s relatively painless trek to independence was because the British knew that Canada wouldn’t abandon its financial and political links after independence. Ireland, on the other hand, left the Commonwealth 15 years after independence. The British also knew the political and economic domination of the Anglo-Irish would end soon after Ireland became independent. India was in the same boat, and like Ireland, also was far more strategically valuable than Canada. The African colonies, although their independence movements were far less organized than Ireland or India, got their freedom far easier since by the 1950’s they were a net economic and strategic loss for Britain.
Interesting article, Spoons. I’ve also read the one about James Murray, the first British governor of Canada. Yes, it’s quite certain that the reason why French laws were reintroduced, even before the Quebec Act – apparently Murray had established several levels of courts, some of which could base their decisions on Canadian laws for proceedings between Canadians – was to ensure the support of the population. This doesn’t say what would have happened if they hadn’t been reintroduced, but I guess that Canada’s history could have been very different.
Thanks. If you don’t mind saying, what town was named after your relative?