The Journal of Negro History, Volume 4, 1919

The Quebec Act is (1774) 14 Geo. III, C. 83. It extends Quebec south to the Ohio and west to the Mississippi; Shortt & Doughty, pp. 401 sqq.

592

The division of the Province of Quebec into two provinces, i. e., Upper Canada and Lower Canada, was effected by the Royal Prerogative, Sec. 31 George III, c. 31, the celebrated Canada of Constitutional Act. The Message sent to Parliament expressing the Royal intention is to be found copied in the Ont. Arch. Reports for 1906, p. 158. After the passing of the Canada Act, an Order in Council was passed August 24, 1791 (Ont. Arch. Rep., 1906, pp. 158 et seq.), dividing the Province of Quebec into two provinces and under the provisions of sec. 48 of the act directing a royal warrant to authorize the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec or the person administering the government there, to fix and declare such day as he shall judge most advisable for the commencement of the effect of the legislation in the new provinces not later than December 31, 1791. Lord Dorchester (Sir Guy Carleton) was appointed, September 12, 1791, Captain General and Governor-in-Chief of both provinces and he received a Royal warrant empowering him to fix a day for the legislation becoming effective in the new provinces (Ont. Arch. Rep., 1906, p. 168). In the absence of Dorchester, General Alured Clarke, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Quebec, issued November 18, 1791, a proclamation fixing Monday, December 26, 1791, as the day for the commencement of the said legislation (Ont. Arch. Rep., 1906, pp. 169-171). Accordingly technically and in law, the new province was formed by Order in Council, August 24, 1791, but there was no change in administration until December 26, 1791.

593

The first session of the First Parliament of Upper Canada was held at Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) September 17 to October 15, 1792; the statute referred to is (1792) 32 Geo. III, c. 1 (U. C.).

594

Everyone will remember the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in the celebrated Dred Scott case. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856 (19 How. 354, pp. 404, 405), Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking of the view taken of the Negro when the Constitution was framed, says: "They were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them" (p. 407). "They had no more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order … and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic" (p. 411). "All of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise."

This repulsive subject now chiefly of historical interest is treated at large in such works as Cobb's Law of Slavery, Philadelphia, 1858; Hurd's Law of Freedom and Bondage, Boston, 1858; Von Holst's Const. Hist. U. S. (1750-1833), Chicago, 1877; the judgments of all the Judges in the Dred Scott case are well worth reading, especially that of Mr. Justice Curtis.

595

This is copied from the Canadian Archives Collection, Q. 282, pt. I, pp. 212 sqq.; taken from the official report sent to Westminster by Simcoe. There is the usual amount of uncertainty in spelling names Grisley or Crisly, Fromand, Frooman, Froomond or Fromond (in reality Vrooman).

Osgoode was an Englishman, the first Chief Justice of Upper Canada. Arriving in this Province in the summer of 1792, he left to become Chief Justice of Lower Canada in the summer of 1794. Resigning in 1801, he returned to England on a pension which he enjoyed until his death in 1824. He left no mark on our jurisprudence and never sat in any but trial courts of criminal jurisdiction. Osgoode Hall, our Ontario Palais de Justice, is called after him.

Russell came to Upper Canada also in 1792 as Receiver-General and Legislative Councillor; he was an Executive Councillor and when Simcoe left Canada in 1796, he acted as Administrator until the coming of the new Lieutenant Governor Peter Hunter in 1799. Russell was not noted for anything but his acquisitiveness but he was a faithful servant of the Crown in his own way.

Col. John Butler, born in Connecticut in 1728, became a noted leader of Indians. He took the Loyalist side, raising the celebrated Butler's Rangers; he settled at Niagara after the Revolutionary war and proved himself a useful citizen; he died in 1796. See Cruikshanks' Butler's Rangers, Lundy's Lane Historical Society's publication; Robertson's Free Masonry in Canada, Vol. I, p. 470; Riddell's edition of La Rochefoucauld's Travels in Canada, 1795, published by the Ontario Archives, 1917, p. 177.

Navy Hall was in the little town which Simcoe named "Newark," which before this had been called Niagara, West Niagara, Nassau, Lenox and Butlersburg, now called Niagara or Niagara-on-the-lake. Navy Hall was the seat of government from 1792 to 1797. Queens Town is the present Queenston; Mississagua Point is at the embouchure of the Niagara River; it is still known by the same name, spelled generally however with a final "a." Nothing seems to be known of the subsequent fate of Chloe Cooley.

The Vroomans and Cryslers (or Chrystlers or Chryslers) the same family as Chrystler of Chrystler's Farm, the scene of an American defeat, November 11, 1813, were well-known residents. I am indebted to General E.A. Cruikshank for the following note:

"The Vrooman Farm is situated on the west bank of the Niagara, in the township of Niagara, about a mile below the village of Queenston, and includes that feature of the river bank generally known as Vrooman's Point; it was still in the possession of the Vrooman family when I last visited the place about twelve years ago. The remains of a small half-moon or redan battery on the point which had been constructed in the War of 1812, and played a considerable part in the battle of Queenston were then quite well marked. One of the Vrooraans of that time was in the militia artillery, and assisted to serve the gun mounted on the battery. The possessor of the farm was then, I think, more than eighty years of age, but he was active and in possession of his memory and other faculties. He stated to me the exact number of shots which he had been informed by his father, or the Vrooman engaged in the action, had been fired from this gun, which of course, may or may not be correct. An Adam Chrysler, who was a lieutenant in the Indian Department in the Revolutionary War, and before that, a resident in the Scoharie district, of the Mohawk country, received lands either in the township of Niagara or the township of Stamford, near the village of Queenston. His grandson, John Chrysler, some twenty years ago, then being quite an old man, who is now dead, loaned me some very interesting documents which had been preserved in the family, and belonged to this Adam Chrysler. One of them, I remember, was the original instructions issued to him, and signed by Lieut.-Colonel John Butler, the deputy superintendent general, strictly enjoining him to restrain the Indians, with whom he was acting, from all acts of cruelty upon prisoners and non-combatants. Some members of his family, ladies, were residing at Niagara Falls, Ontario, ten years ago, and I presume still are there. I have no doubt that it was some member of Adam Crysler's family who took part in the abduction of the Cooley girl. The original spelling of this name was Kreisler, which is a fairly common German name in the Rhine Palatinate, from which this family came."

In the report by Col. John Butler of the Survey of the Settlement at Niagara, August 25, 1782 (Can. Arch., Series B, 169, p. 1), McGregor Van-Every is named as the head of a family. He was married, without children, hired men or slaves, had 3 horses, no cows, sheep or hogs, 8 acres of "clear land" and raised 4 bushels of Indian corn and 40 of potatoes but no wheat or oats. His neighbor, Thomas McMicken, was married, had two young sons, one hired man and one male slave. He had two horses, 1 cow and 20 hogs, and raised ten bushels of Indian corn, 10 of oats and 10 of potatoes (no wheat) on his 8 acres of "clear land."

596

John White called to the Bar in 1785 at the Inner Temple (probably); he practised for a time but unsuccessfully in Jamaica and through the influence of his brother-in-law, Samuel Shepherd and of Chief Justice Osgoode was appointed the first Attorney General of Upper Canada. He arrived in the Province in the summer of 1792 and was elected a member of the first House of Assembly for Leeds and Frontenac. He was an active and useful member. It is probable, but the existing records do not make it certain, that it was he who introduced and had charge in the House of Assembly of the Bill for the abolition of slavery passed in 1793, shortly to be mentioned. In January, 1800, he was killed in a duel at York, later Toronto, by Major John Small, Clerk of the Executive Council. His will, drawn by himself after his fatal wound, is still extant in the Court of Probate records at Toronto. One clause reads: "I desire to be rolled up in a sheet and not buried fantastically, and that I may be buried at the back of my own house." Buried in his garden at his direction, his bones were accidentally uncovered in 1871 and reverently buried in Toronto. His manuscript diary is still extant, a copy being in the possession of the writer.

597

The statute is (1793) 33 Geo. III, c. 7, (U. C.). The Parliament of Upper Canada had two Houses, the Legislative Council, an Upper House, appointed by the Crown and the Legislative Assembly, a Lower House or House of Commons, as it was sometimes called, elected by the people. The Lieutenant Governor gave the royal assent. The bill was introduced in the Lower House, probably by Attorney General White, as stated in last note, and read the first time, June 19. It went to the committee of the whole June 25, and was the same day reported out. On June 26 it was read the third time, passed and sent up for concurrence. The Legislative Council read it the same day for the first time, went into Committee over it the next day, June 28, and July I, when it was reported out with amendments, passed and sent down to the Commons July 2. That House promptly concurred and sent the bill back the same day. See the official reports; Ont. Arch. Reports for 1910 (Toronto, 1911), pp. 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909 (Toronto, 1911), pp. 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42.

The first Fugitive Slave Law was passed by the United States in 1793. Three years afterwards occurred an episode, little known and less commented upon, showing very clearly the views of George Washington on the subject of fugitive slaves, at least, of those slaves who were his own.

A slave girl of his escaped and made her way to Portsmouth, N. H. Washington, on discovering her place of refuge, wrote concerning her to Joseph Whipple, the Collector at Portsmouth, November 28, 1796. The letter is still extant. It is of three full pages and was sold in London in 1877 for ten guineas (Magazine of American History, Vol. 1, December, 1877, p. 759). Charles Sumner had it in his hands when he made the speech reported in Charles Summer's Works, Vol. III, p. 177. Washington in the letter described the fugitive and particularly expressed the desire of "her mistress," Mrs. Washington, for her return to Alexandria. He feared public opinion in New Hampshire, for he added

"I do not mean however, by this request that such violent measures should be used as would excite a mob or riot which might be the case if she has adherents; or even uneasy sensations in the minds of well-disposed citizens. Rather than either of these should happen, I would forgo her services altogether and the example also which is of infinite more importance."

In other words, "if the slave girl has no friends or 'adherents'" send her back to slavery—if she has and they would actively oppose her return, let her go—and even if it only be that "well-disposed citizens" disapprove of her capture and return, let her remain free.

There may be some difficulty in justifying Washington's course by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologics, 1 ma., 2 dae., Quaest. XCVI, Art. 4), who says that an unjust law is not binding in conscience "nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem." Aquinas is speaking of an unjust law which may be resisted unless scandal or tumult would result from resistance. Washington is speaking of a law which he considers right, but which he would not enforce if it should occasion such evils. The analogy does not hold as the editor of Charles Sumner's Works seems to think (Vol. III, p. 178, note).

Whipple answered from Portsmouth, December 22, 1796:

"I will now, Sir, agreeably to your desire, send her to Alexandria if it be practicable without the consequences which you except—that of exciting a riot or a mob or creating uneasy sensations in the minds of well disposed persons. The first cannot be calculated beforehand; it will be governed by the popular opinion of the moment or the circumstances that may arise in the transaction. The latter may be sought into and judged of by conversing with such persons without discovering the occasion. So far as I have had opportunity, I perceive that different sentiments are entertained on the subject."

Whipple made enquiry. Public opinion in Portsmouth was adverse to the return of the fugitive. She was unmolested and lived out a long life in Portsmouth and Kittery.

Nothing more clearly and impressively shows the veneration felt by his countrymen for George Washington than the praise the fearless, outspoken, uncompromising hater of slavery, Charles Sumner, of the conduct of the President in this transaction. Sumner considered the poor slave girl "a monument of the just forbearance of him whom we aptly call Father of his Country.... While a slaveholder and seeking the return of a fugitive, he has left in permanent record a rule of conduct which if adopted by his country will make slave hunting impossible." With almost any other man, Sumner would have no praise or reverence for a desire to force a fugitive back into slavery unless prevented by fear of mob or riot or adverse public opinion.

In the same letter Washington gives what may be considered a reason or excuse for his demand. "However well disposed I might be to a gradual abolition, or even to an entire emancipation of that description of people, if the latter was itself practicable at this moment, it would neither be expedient nor just to reward unfaithfulness with a premature preference and thereby discontent beforehand the minds of all her fellow servants who by their steady attachment are far more deserving than herself of favour."

This is the familiar pretext of the master, private or state. Those who rebel against oppression and wrong are not to be given any relief—that would be unjust to those who tamely submit. That very argument was advanced by the ruler across the sea against the proposition to come to terms with Washington and his party who had ventured to oppose the would-be master.

And it is to be noted that Washington did not free those "who by their steady attachment are far more deserving … of favour" till he had had all the advantage he could from their services—he did indeed free them by his will, but only after the death of his wife.

Sumner cannot be said to minimize his merits when he says "He was at the time a slaveholder—often expressing himself with various degrees of force against slavery, and promising his suffrage for its abolition, he did not see this wrong as he saw it at the close of life." (Sumner's Works, Vol. III, pp. 759 sq.)

598

Vermont excluded slavery by her Bill of Rights (1777), Pennsylvania and Massachusetts passed legislation somewhat similar to that of Upper Canada in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, New Hampshire by her Constitution in 1792, Vermont in the same way in 1793: New York began in 1799 and completed the work in 1827, New Jersey 1829; Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa were organized as a Territory in 1787 and slavery forbidden by the Ordinance, July 13, 1787, but it was in fact known in part of the Territory for a score of years. A few slaves were held in Michigan by tolerance until far into the nineteenth century notwithstanding the prohibition of the fundamental law (Mich. Hist. Coll., VII, p. 524). Maine as such, never had slavery having separated from Massachusetts in 1820 after the Act of 1780, although it would seem that as late as 1833 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts left it open when slavery was abolished in that State (Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pick. 193, 209). (See Cobb's Slavery, pp. clxxi, clxxii, 209; Sir Harry H. Johnston's The Negro in the New World, an exceedingly valuable and interesting work but not wholly reliable in minutiæ, pp. 355 et seq.)

599

Simcoe was almost certainly the prime mover in the legislation of 1793. When giving the royal assent to the bill he said: "The Act for the gradual abolition of Slavery in this Colony, which it has been thought expedient to frame, in no respect meets from me a more cheerful concurrence than in that provision which repeals the power heretofore held by the Executive Branch of the Constitution and precludes it from giving sanction to the importation of slaves, and I cannot but anticipate with singular pleasure that such persons as may be in that unhappy condition which sound policy and humanity unite to condemn, added to their own protection from all undue severity by the law of the land may henceforth look forward with certainty to the emancipation of their offspring." (See Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909, pp. 42-43.) I do not understand the allusion to "protection from undue severity by the Law of the land." There had been no change in the law, and undue severity to slaves was prevented only by public opinion. It is practically certain that no such bill as that of 1798 would have been promoted with Simcoe at the head of the government as his sentiments were too well known.

600

Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909, pp. 64, 69, 70, 71, 74; ibid. for 1910, pp. 67, 68, 69, 70.

The bill was introduced in the Lower House by Christopher Robinson, member for Addington and Ontario, Ontario being then comprised of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario Islands, and having nothing in common with the present County of Ontario. He was a Virginian loyalist, who in 1784 emigrated to New Brunswick, and in 1788 to that part of Canada later Lower Canada and in 1792 to Upper Canada. He lived in Kingston till 1798 and then came to York, later Toronto, but died three weeks afterwards. He was one of the lawyers who took part in the inauguration of the Law Society of Upper Canada at Wilson's Tavern, Newark, in July, 1797, and was an active and successful practitioner. His ability was great, but his fame is swallowed up by that of his more famous son, Sir John Beverley Robinson, the first Canadian Chief Justice of Upper Canada, and of his grandson, the much loved and much admired Christopher Robinson, Q.C., of our own time. Accustomed from infancy to slavery, he saw no great harm in it—no doubt he saw it in its best form.

The chief opponent of the bill was Robert Isaac Dey Gray, the young solicitor general. John White was not in this the second house. The son of Major James Gray, a half-pay British Officer, he studied law in Canada. He was elected member of the House of Assembly for Stormont in the election of 1796 and again in 1804. He was appointed the first Solicitor General in 1797 and was drowned in 1804 in the Speedy disaster. An Indian, Ogetonicut, accused of a murder in the Newcastle District, was captured on the York Peninsula, now Toronto or Hiawatha Island, in the Home District, and had to be sent to Newcastle, now Presqu' Isle Point near Brighton, in the Newcastle District, for trial. The Government Schooner Speedy sailed for Newcastle with the Assize Judge Gray; Macdonell, who was to defend the Indian; the Indian prisoner, Indian interpreters, witnesses, the High Constable of York and certain inhabitants of York. It was lost, captain, crew and passengers—spurlos versenkt.

The motion for the three months' hoist in the Upper House was made by the Honorable Richard Cartwright seconded by the Honorable Robert Hamilton. These men, who had been partners, generally agreed on public measures and both incurred the enmity of Simcoe. He called Hamilton a Republican, then a term of reproach distinctly worse than Pro-German would be now, and Cartwright was, if anything, worse. But both were men of considerable public spirit and personal integrity. For Cartwright see The Life and Letters of Hon Richard Cartright, Toronto, 1876. For Hamilton see Riddell's edition of La Rochefoucault's Travels in Canada in 1795, Toronto, 1817, in Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1916; Miss Carnochan's Queenstown in Early Years, Niagara Hist. Soc. Pub., No. 25; Buffalo Hist. Soc. Pub., Vol. 6, pp. 73-95.

There was apparently no division in the Upper House although there were five other Councillors in addition to Cartwright and Hamilton in attendance that session viz.: McGill, Shaw, Duncan, Baby and Grant; and the bill passed committee of the whole.

601

Slaves were valuable even in those days. A sale is recorded in Detroit of a "certain Negro man Pompey by name" for £45 New York Currency ($112.50) in October, 1794; and the purchaser sold him again January, 1795, for £50 New York Currency ($125.00). (Mich. Hist. Coll., XIV, p. 417.) But it would seem that from 1770 to 1780 the price ranged to $300 for a man and $250 for a woman (Mich. Hist. Coll., XIV, p. 659). The number of slaves in Detroit is said to have been 85 in 1773 and 179 in 1782 (Mich. Hist. Coll., VII, p. 524).

The best people in the province continued to hold slaves. On February 19, 1806, the Honourable Peter Russell, who had been administrator of the government, and therefore head of the State for three years, advertised for sale at York "A Black woman named Peggy, aged 40 years, and a Black Boy, her son, named Jupiter, aged about 15 years," both "his property," "each being servants for life"—the woman for $150 and the boy for $200, 25 per cent off for cash. William Jarvis, the secretary, two years later, March 1, 1811, had two of his slaves brought into court for stealing gold and silver out of his desk. The boy "Henry commonly called prince" was committed for trial and the girl ordered back to her master. Other instances will be found in Dr. Scadding's very interesting work, Toronto of Old, Toronto, 1873, at pp. 292 sqq.

602

A number of interesting wills are in the Court of Probate files at Osgoode Hall, Toronto. One of them only I shall mention, viz.: that of Robert I.D. Gray, the first solicitor general of the province, whose tragic death is related above. In this will, dated August 27, 1803, a little more than a year before his death, he releases and manumits "Dorinda my black woman servant … and all her children from the State of Slavery," in consequence of her long and faithful services to his family. He directs a fund to be formed of £1,200 or $4,800 the interest to be paid to "the said Dorinda her heirs and Assigns for ever." To John Davis, Dorinda's son, he gave 200 acres of land, Lot 17 in the Second Concession of the Township of Whitby and also £50 or $200. John, after the death of his master whose body servant and valet he was, entered the employ of Mr., afterwards Chief, Justice Powell; but he had the evil habit of drinking too much and when he was drunk he would enlist in the Army. Powell got tired of begging him off and after a final warning left him with the regiment in which he had once more enlisted. Davis is said to have been in the battle of Waterloo. He certainly crossed the ocean and returned later on to Canada. He survived till 1871, living at Cornwall, Ontario, a well-known character. With him died the last of all those who had been slaves in the old Province of Quebec or the Province of Upper Canada.

603