Riot that Never Was, The : The military shooting of three Montrealers in 1832 and the official cover-up

James Jackson

Description

A fascinating, methodical investigation into a little-known tragedy shows that truth can prevail even 180 years after the fact.In this “whodunit,” James Jackson is a one-man investigative commission. He meticulously demonstrates how British soldiers shot three innocent bystanders in Old Montreal following a by-election victory of Irish-born Daniel Tracey over Loyalist Stanley Bagg in 1832. He also shows how the political, military, and legal authorities of the time exonerated those responsible for the killings by falsely accusing the supporters of Daniel Tracey, a Patriote Party candidate, of rioting. Jackson shows that the “riot” simply never happened, but also that history has unfortunately retained the official story of events that help explain the Patriote revolt of 1837-1838. Although the names of those shot that day, Francois Languedoc, Pierre Billet, and Casimir Chauvin, have been forgotten, their story deserves to be known. Jackson combines the rigour and moral indignation of Émile Zola with the writing talent and historical perspective of Pierre Berton.

Sujets

• Pre-Confederation
• Histoire
• History

Informations

• Publié par: Baraka Books
• Date de parution: 24 octobre 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781926824161
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

James Jackson
the riot that never was
The military shooting of three Montrealers in 1832 and the official cover-up


Montreal
For Denise, this forgotten chapter of Quebec’s history.
Acknowledgments
M y research began when I was still a member of the French department of Trinity College Dublin. I wish to thank the Provost, John Hegarty, for granting me generous sabbatical leave to enable me to complete my research. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful guidance and cooperation I received from the staff of the National Library in Ottawa, the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec in Montréal and the McCord Museum. In the early days of my research I was fortunate to meet two dynamic researchers in the field of nineteenth-century Quebec history, Denise Beaugrand-Champagne and Georges Aubin. Both were extremely helpful whenever I sought guidance. I am grateful to Yvan Lamonde for his advice and encouragement and to Danielle Grenier, André Joli-Cœur and Michel Morin for answering difficult questions about Quebec law. Special thanks go to my editor, Robin Philpot, under whose expert guidance this book was given its final form. Finally, it is a particular pleasure to be able to single out Dr Patrick Vinay, a close friend for over thirty years, who was the first to encourage me to pursue research into nineteenth-century Quebec history.
It goes without saying, however, that without the love and support of my wife, Denise Bombardier, this book would not have been completed.
Introduction
A book entitled The Riot that Never Was requires some explanation about riots. For the inhabitants of Montreal, they were once a fact of life and never more so than during the nineteenth century. While the causes of the violence were invariably linked to the social, political or religious tensions of the time, the authorities were often tempted to interpret the breakdown of law and order as potentially seditious, placing the very security of the province in danger. When occasionally British troops used deadly force against rioters, the reading of the Riot Act beforehand granted them immunity from criminal prosecution.
The term “riot” was imprecise under both common law and statute law, a fact that allowed the authorities considerable discretion when deciding whether a riot was in progress. The Riot Act itself came into force in Great Britain in 1715 at a time of civil unrest. [1] According to the terms of the act an offence was committed where more than twelve people were “unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together.” After a magistrate had read the proclamation, rioters had one hour to disperse or face the consequences of being declared felons and even being killed. [2] English common law offered magistrates almost a free hand : “A riot is where three or more actually do an unlawful act of violence, either with or without a common cause or quarrel : as if they beat a man ; or hunt and kill game in another’s park … or do any other unlawful act with force and violence,” wrote William Blackstone. [3] W.C.Keele’s The Provincial Justice added a further refinement to the definition stating that it was not even “necessary that personal violence should have been actually committed.” [4]
In theory, therefore, the authorities could declare even minor brawls involving a handful of men a riot. In practice, they resorted to such drastic measures as calling out the military and having a magistrate read the Riot Act only when confronted with major disturbances involving large groups of people. A study of some well documented riots shows that the authorities were not consistent in the way they applied the law.
* * *
When war broke out between Britain and the United States in the summer of 1812, military officials in Lower Canada found it increasingly difficult to draft certain inhabitants, mainly farmers and rural labourers, into the militia. The district of Montreal with its long history of resistance to militia service was particularly defiant. Attempts to arrest those who refused to report for duty proved fruitless and instead provoked a combined resistance movement of all the parishes targeted by the military authorities.
A crowd of some 400 men, half of whom were armed, gathered at Lachine. The authorities in Montreal reacted immediately and sent a magistrate accompanied by a military detachment and two field artillery pieces. When the magistrate failed to persuade the crowd to disperse, he ordered the troops to fire above the heads of the crowd. The crowd responded with small arms fire. Another volley from the troops above the heads of the crowd was no more successful. The third volley was fired directly into the crowd, killing one man and seriously injuring another. [5]
For the authorities, the collective resistance of the rural farmers was tantamount to a rebellion and there were real fears that the province was on the verge of a civil war. Nevertheless, considerable restraint was shown despite British regulars being faced by a huge crowd prepared to shoot at them. Since it was hoped that Canadiens would eventually join the ranks of the militia in large numbers it is understandable that every attempt was made to keep casualties as low as possible. It was not always to be so.
Over thirty years later, Irish immigrants had become a significant proportion of Montreal’s work force. Large numbers of them found employment working on the Lachine and Beauharnois canals. But long hours, poor pay and inadequate accommodation led to frequent strikes, many of which turned ugly. In 1843 a general strike was called by those working on the Lachine Canal. Contractors brought in the army from Montreal and the strike eventually petered out.
At the Beauharnois Canal, events took a different turn. Over a thousand men joined the strike which gradually got out of hand. Property was damaged and contractors were threatened. One contractor who was also a magistrate called for military backup. On June 12, British troops confronted a large group of unarmed strikers. A magistrate ordered the labourers to disperse and when they refused, he read the Riot Act. The strikers still did not disperse. The magistrate ordered the army to use force. A volley was fired at the crowd and the cavalry charged with drawn swords. Six men were killed outright while others were driven into the river and drowned. The strike ended with victory for the contractors. Later, a coroner’s inquest declared the deaths were justified homicide. [6]
Ten years later, in June 1853, the Irish were once more involved in a bloody confrontation with British troops. The scene was Montreal’s Hay Market where Zion Church was to be the venue of a controversial lecture by the Italian nationalist, Alessandro Gavazzi, a former monk and anti-Catholic campaigner. A large crowd of incensed Irish Catholics attempted to disrupt the lecture. Shots were exchanged between the rioters and some of Gavazzi’s audience. The police lost control of the proceedings and the mayor immediately called out the military. He then read the Riot Act. Who gave the order for the troops to open fire on the crowd was never fully elucidated but fire they did and up to fifty people were either killed or wounded. [7]
Montreal’s most notorious riot occurred in 1849 as a result of the anger felt by the city’s loyalist population at the passing of the Rebellion Losses Bill by the legislature of the Province of Canada. The riot lasted two days, involved thousands of people, caused huge damage to property and completely destroyed the Parliament building. No magistrate read the Riot Act and British troops were nowhere to be seen. [8]
* * *
The Montreal “riot” of May 1832, which resulted in the deaths of three French Canadian men at the hands of British regulars, does not easily compare with the riots described above. The “rioters” were not organised Irish labourers demanding better working conditions nor were they some outraged group of Catholics attempting to defend themselves against religious slander. They were not resisting militia duty nor were they attempting to foment rebellion. Some were mere bystanders. Others were the supporters of an Irish-born by-election candidate who appeared to be on the verge of a famous victory over the English party candidate and favourite for the seat. Why those supporters should have rioted and jeopardised that victory is a question that seems not to have occurred to the many distinguished historians who have written about the “riot” over the past hundred years or more.
Readers have in fact been given a very one-sided view of the final days of the by-election. Among English-language historians, there has been a tendency to defend the military intervention. C.D. Clark interpreted the shooting as part of the spirit of rebellion that led up to the events of November 1838. The troops were called out to maintain order, he wrote, the Riot Act was read by a magistrate, and three persons were killed after a clash between the assembled crowds and the troops. He saw no reason to question the good faith of the authorities. [9]
The American historian Helen Taft Manning was one of the first historians to deal extensively with the shooting in her much quoted study of French Canadian nationalism. [10] She left her readers in no doubt where her sympathies lay and they were not with Daniel Tracey. Claiming that the Irish candidate was known for “the coarse and abusive style of his editorial comments,” she also cast doubt on the legality of his eventual electoral victory. [11] Her account of the events of May 21 was based on the written submissions of the returning officer and of the senior magistrate and so exonerated the soldiers who opened fire. As for “some of the conflicting accounts of eyewitnesses” that she had promised her readers and which might have given some balance to her own account, she failed to include any. [12]
A similarly one-sided version of events was produced by Elinor Kyte Sen