Notes of Alexis de Tocqueville in Lower Canada

From Independence of Québec
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes taken in Lower Canada
Lower Canada, August 24 to September 2, 1831

Partially translated from French by G. Lawrence,
with corrections and completion by Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous author of Democracy in America, left posterity some interesting comments on the British province of Lower Canada, today the Canadian province of Québec, which were for the first time compiled from his travel journal and correspondence in Jacques Vallée's Tocqueville au Bas-Canada in 1973 and again in 2003 in Claude Corbo's Alexis de Tocqueville. Regards sur le Bas-Canada.

24th August 1831 - Montreal

Conversation with Mr. Quiblier, Father Superior of the Seminary at Montreal.

Mr. Quiblier struck us as a good-hearted and enlightened cleric. He is a Frenchman who came from France a few years ago.

  • He. - I do not think there is a happier people in the world than the Canadians. They have very gentle manners, neither civil nor religious dissensions, and they pay no taxes.
  • Q. But isn't there here something that remains of the feudal system?
  • A. Yes, but it is rather a name than anything else. The greater part of Canada is still divided into seigneuries. Those who inhabit or buy a land on these seigneuries must pay a rent to the seigneur as well as mutation taxes. But the rent is really nothing. The seigneur has no honorific privilege, no superiority whatsoever on his censitaire. I think he is towards him in a less elevated position than the European owner over his farmer.
  • Q. How are religious needs covered for?
  • A. By the tithe. The clergy in general has no landed property. What we call the tithe is 1/26 part of the harvest. It is paid without repugnance nor suffering.
  • Q. Do you have convents for men?
  • A. No. In Canada we only have convents for girls. And again the religious ladies live quite the active life, raising children or caring for the sick.
  • Q. Did one try to to use it to turn it against religion?
  • A. Never. Religion is too respected for a journalist allowing himself to attack it in any way.
  • Q. Are the upper classes of society religious?
  • A. Yes, very.
  • Q. Is there animosity between the two races?
  • A. Yes. But not lively. It does not extend to life's habitual social contacts. The Canadians claim that the English government only offers places to the English, the English on the contrary complain that it favours the Canadians. I think there is exaggeration on both parts in these complaints. In general there is little religious animosity between the two peoples, legal tolerance being complete.
  • Q. Do you think this colony will soon escape England?
  • A. I do not think so. The Canadians are happy under the current regime. They have a political liberty almost as great as that enjoyed in the United States. If they were to become independent, there is a multitude of public expenses that would fall onto them; if they were to unite with the United States, they would fear that their population would soon be absorbed in a deluge of emigration and that their ports, closed during four months of the year, would be reduced to nothing if they were deprived of access to the English market.
  • Q. Is it true that instruction is spreading?
  • A. Since several years a complete change is occurring in this regard. The impulsion is now given and the Canadian race that is being brought up at the moment will not resemble that which exists now.
  • Q. Do you not fear that these new lights will undermine the religious principle?
  • A. One cannot yet know the effect it will produce. I nevertheless believe that religion has nothing to worry about.
  • Q. Is the Canadian race taking expansion?
  • A. Yes. But slowly and little by little. It does not have this adventurous spirit or this scorn for birth and family ties which characterize the Americans. The Canadian goes as far as the extremity of his church's bell and his parents will settle as close as possible. However the movement is great, as I was saying, and it will centuplicate I think with the increase of knowledge.

Conversation with Messrs Mondelet

Messrs Mondelet2 are lawyers at Montreal. They are intelligent and sensible young men.

  • Q. In what proportion does the French population stand to the English in Canada?
  • A. Nine to ten. But almost all wealth and trade are in the hands of the English. They have their families and connections in England and so have opportunities not open to us.
  • Q. Have you many newspapers in French?
  • A. Two 3
  • Q. How many subscribers do they have compared to the subscribers to English papers?
  • A. 800 to 1,300.
  • Q. Are those papers influential?
  • A. Yes. They have very decided influence, but less than one hears is enjoyed by the papers in France.
  • Q. What is the position of the clergy? Have you noticed among them the political tendencies which they are alleged to have in Europe?
  • A. Perhaps one might detect in them a secret tendency to rule or direct, but it amounts to very little. Generally speaking our clergy are conspicuously nationalist. That is partly a result of the situation in which they find themselves placed. From the time immediately after the conquest up to our own days, the English government has worked in underhand ways to change the religious convictions of the Canadians, so as to make them a body more homogeneous with the English.
So the interests of religion came to be opposed to the government and in harmony with those of the people. Hence whenever we have had to struggle with the English, the clergy have been at our head or in our ranks. They have continued to be loved and respected by all.
So far from being opposed to ideas of liberty, they have preached themselves. All the measures we have taken to promote public education, which have been pretty well forced through against the will of the English government, have been supported by the clergy. In Canada it is the Protestants who support aristocratic notions. The Catholics have been accused of being demagogues. What makes me suppose that the political color of our priests is peculiar to Canada, is that the priests who occasionally arrive here from France show, on the contrary, a compliance and docility towards authority which we cannot understand.
  • Q. Are morals chaste in Canada?
  • A. Very.

25th August 1831 - Travel to Quebec onboard the John Molson steamboat

External appearance: Canada is beyond comparison, of those parts of America which we have visited so far, that which bears the greatest analogy to Europe and, especially, to France. The banks of the Saint Lawrence are perfectly cultivated and covered with houses and villages in every respect like our own. All traces of the wilderness have disappeared; cultivated fields, church towers, and a population as numerous as in our provinces has replaced it.

The towns, Montreal in particular (we have not yet visited Quebec) bear a striking resemblance to our provincial towns. The basis of the population and the immense majority is everywhere France. But it is easy to see that the French are a conquered people. The rich classes mostly belong to the English race.

Although French is the language most universally spoken, the newspapers, the notices and even the shop-signs of French tradesmen are in English. Commercial undertakings are almost all in their hands. They are really the ruling class in Canada. 4

I doubt if this will long be so. The clergy and a great part of the not rich but enlightened classes is French, and they begin to feel their secondary position acutely. The French newspapers that I have read, put up a constant and lively opposition against the English. Up to now the people having few needs and intellectual interests, and leading, in material things, a very comfortable life, has very imperfectly glimpsed its position as a conquered nation and furnished but feeble support to the enlightened classes. But a few years ago the House of Commons, which is almost all Canadian, has taken measures for a wide extension of education.

There is every sign that the new generation will be different from the present generation, and in a few years from now, if the English race is not prodigiously increased by emigration and does not succeed in shutting the French in the area they now occupy, the two peoples will come up against one another. I do not think that they will ever merge, or that an indissoluble union can exist between them. I still hope that the French, in spite of their conquest, will one day form a fine empire on their own in the New World, more enlightened perhaps, more moral and happier than their fathers. At the present moment the division of the races singularly favours domination by England.


Conversation with Mr. ... at Quebec (merchant)

  • Q. Do you have something to fear from the Canadians?
  • A. No. The lawyers and rich people who belong to the French race hate the English. They offer a violent opposition to us in our newspapers and in their House of Commons. But it is just words and that's it. The greater part of the Canadian population does not have political passions and in fact almost all the wealth is in our hands.
  • Q. But do you not fear that this numerous and compact population today without passion might have some tomorrow?
  • A. Our number rises everyday, we will soon have nothing to fear on this aspect. The Canadians have even more hatred against the Americans than against us.

Note: In speaking of the Canadians a very visible feeling of hatred and scorn was being painted on the phlegmatic physiognomy of Mr. ...


27th August 1831 - Quebec

The country between Montreal and Quebec seems to be as populous as our fine European provinces. Moreover the river is magnificent. Quebec is on a very picturesque site, surrounded by a rich and fertile countryside. Never in Europe have I seen a more lively picture than that presented by the surroundings of Quebec.

All working population of Quebec is French. One hears only French spoken in the streets. But all the shop signs are in English; there are only two theaters which are English. The inner part of the town is ugly, but has no analogy with American towns. It strikingly resembles the inner part of our provincial towns.

The villages we saw in the surroundings are extraordinarily like our beautiful villages. Only French is spoken there. The population seems happy and well-off. The race is notably more beautiful than in the United States. The race there is strong, and the women do not have that delicate, febrile look that characterizes most of the women of America.

The Catholic religion there has none of those accessories which are attached to it in those countries of the South of Europe where its sway is strongest. There are no monasteries for men, the convents for women are directed towards useful purposes and give examples of charity warmly admired by the English themselves. One sees no Madonnas on the roads. No strange and ridiculous ornaments, no ex-votos in the churches. Religion is enlightened, and Catholicism here does not arouse the hatred or the sarcasms of the Protestants. I own for my part that it satisfies my spirit more than the Protestantism of the United States. The parish priest here is in very deed the shepherd of his flock: he is not at all an entrepreneur of a religious industry like the greater part of American ministers. One must either deny the usefulness of clergy, or have such as are in Canada.

I went today in a lecture cabinet. Almost all the printed newspapers of Canada are in English. They have about the same dimension as of those of London. I did not yet read them. In Quebec City a newspaper called the Gazette, half-English, half-French; and a newspaper absolutely French called the Canadien. This newspapers have more or less the dimension of our French newspapers. I have carefully read some issues: they offer a violent opposition to the government and even to all that is English. The epigraph of the Canadien is: Our Religion, Our Language, Our Laws. It is difficult to be more frank. The contents answers the title. All that can inflame both great and small popular passions against the English are carefully reported upon in this newspaper. I have seen an article in which it was said that Canada would never be happy until it had an administration that would be Canadian by birth, by principle, ideas, prejudice even, and that if Canada escaped England, it would not be to remain English. In this same newspaper one could find pieces of French verses that were quite nice. Was reported upon a distribution of prizes where the students had played Athalie, Zaïre, la Mort de César. In general the style of this newspaper is common, mixed with anglicisms and strange expressions. It resembles a lot the newspapers in the Vaud canton in Switzerland. I have not yet seen in Canada a single man of talent, nor read a production proving it. The one who must awaken the French population, and rise it against the English is not yet born.5

The English and the French merge so little that the latter exclusively keep the name of Canadiens, the others continuing to call themselves English.


Visit of a civil court in Quebec

We came into a large hall divided into tiers crowded with people who seemed altogether French. The British arms were painted in full size on the end of the hall. Beneath them was the judge in robes and bands. The lawyers were ranked in front of him.

When we came into the hall a slander action was in progress. It was a question of fining a man who had called another pendard (gallows-bird) and crasseux (stinker). The lawyer argued in English. Pendard, he said, pronouncing the word with a thoroughly English accent, "meant a man who had been hanged." "No", the judge solemnly intervened, "but who ought to be". At that, counsel for the defense got up indignantly and argued his case in French: his adversary answered in English.

The argument waxed hot on both sides in English, no doubt without their understanding each other perfectly. From time to time the Englishman forced himself to put his argument in French so as to follow his adversary more closely; the other did the same sometimes. The judge, sometimes speaking French, sometimes English, endeavored to keep order. The crier of the court called for "silence" giving the word alternatively its English and its French pronunciation.

Calm re-established, witnesses were heard. Some kissed the silver Christ on the Bible and swore in French to tell the truth, the others swore the same oath in English and, as Protestants, kissed the other side of the Bible which was undecorated. The customs of Normandy were cited, reliance placed on Denisart, and mention was made of the decrees of the Parliament of Paris and statutes of the reign of George III. After that the judge: "Granted that the word crasseux implies that a man is without morality, ill-behaved and dishonorable, I order the defendant to pay a fine of ten louis or ten pounds sterling."

The lawyers I saw there, who are said to be the best in Quebec, gave no proof of talent either in the substance or in the manner of what they said. They were conspicuously lacking in distinction, speaking French with a middle class Norman accent. Their style is vulgar and mixed with odd idioms and English phrases. They say that a man is "charge" of ten louis meaning that he is asked to pay ten louis. "Entrez dan la boite", they shout to a witness, meaning that he should take his place in the witness-box.

There is something odd, incoherent, even burlesque in the whole picture. But at the bottom the impression made was one of sadness. Never have I felt more convinced than when coming out from there, that the greatest and most irremediable ill for a people is to be conquered.


Conversation with John Neilson

John Neilson, member of Parliament in Lower Canada

Mr. Neilson is a Scot. Born in Canada [sic]6 and related by marriage to Canadians, he speaks French as easily as his own language. Mr. Neilson, although a foreigner, may be regarded as one of the leaders of the Canadians in all their struggles with the English government. Although he is a Protestant, for fifteen years continuously the Canadians have elected him as a member of the House of Assembly. He has been an ardent supporter of all measures favouring the Canadians. He with two others was sent in 1825 [sic]7 to England to plead for redress of grievances. Mr. Neilson has a lively and original turn of mind. The antithesis between his birth and his social position leads sometimes to strange contrasts in his ideas and in his conversation.

  • Q. What does Canada cost the English government in the current year?
  • A. Between 200,000 and 250,000 sterling pounds.
  • Q. Does Canada bring in anything for it?
  • A. Nothing. The customs dues are used for the colony. We would fight rather than give up a penny of our money to the English.
  • Q. But what interest has England got in keeping Canada?
  • A. The interest that great lords have in keeping great possessions that figure in their title deeds, but cause them great expenses and often involve them in unpleasant lawsuits. But one could not deny that England has an indirect interest in keeping us. In case of war with the United States, the St. Lawrence provides a passage for goods and armies right into the heart of America.
In case of war with the peoples of Northern Europe, Canada would supply the timber for building which she needs. Besides the cost is not as heavy as one supposes. England is bound to rule the sea, not for the glory of it, but for existence. The expenses which she is obliged to incur to gain that supremacy make the occupation of her colonies much less costly for her than they would be for a country only interested in intercourse with its colonies.
  • Q. Do you think the Canadians will soon throw off the English yoke?
  • A. No, at least unless England forces us to it. Otherwise it is completely against our interest to make ourselves independent. We are still only 600 [000] souls in Lower Canada; if we became independent, we should quickly be enfolded by the United States. Our people would, so to say, be crushed under an irresistible mass of immigrants. We must wait till we are numerous enough to defend our nationality. Then we will become the Canadian people. Left to themselves the people here are increasing as fast as in the United States. At the time of the conquest in 1765[sic]8 we were only 60,000.
  • Q. Do you think the French race will ever manage to get free from the English race? (This question was put cautiously in view of the birth of the man to whom I spoke.)
  • A. No. I think the two races will live and mix in the same and, and that English will remain the language of official business. North America will be English; fortune has decided that. But the French race in Canada will not disappear. The amalgam is not as difficult to make as you think. Here it is above all the clergy who sustain your language. The clergy is the only enlightened and intellectual class which needs to speak French and which speaks it unadulterated.
  • Q. What is the character of the Canadian peasant?
  • A. In my view it is an admirable race. The peasant is simple in his tastes, very tender in his family affections, very chaste in morals, very sociable, and polite in his manners; with all that he is very well suited to resist oppression, independent and warlike, and brought up in the spirit of equality. Public opinion has incredible power here. There is no authority in the villages, but public order is better maintained there than in any other place on Earth. If a man commits an offence, people shun him, and he must leave the village. If a theft is committed, the guilty man is not denounced, but he is dishonoured and obliged to flee. There has not been an execution in Canada for ten years. Natural children are something almost unknown in our country districts.
I remember a talk with XX (I have forgotten his name); for two hundred years there had not been a single one; ten years ago an Englishman who came to live there seduced a girl; the scandal was terrible.
The Canadian is tenderly attached to the land which saw his birth, to his church tower and to his family. It is that which makes it so difficult to induce him to go and seek his fortune elsewhere. Besides, as I was saying, he is eminently sociable; friendly meetings, divine service together, gatherings at the church door, those are his only pleasures. The Canadian is deeply religious; he pays his tithe without reluctance. Any one could avoid that by declaring himself a Protestant, but no such case has yet occurred. The clergy here is just one compact body with the people. It shares their views, takes part in their political interests, and fights with them against the powers-that-be. Sprung from the people, it only exists for the people. Here it is accused of being demagogic. I have never heard that that is a complaint made against Catholic priests in Europe. The fact is that they are liberal, enlightened and nonetheless deeply believing, and their morals are exemplary. I myself am a proof of their tolerance; a Protestant, I have been elected ten times by Catholics to our House of Commons, and I have never heard it suggested that anyone had ever tried to create the slightest prejudice against me on account of my religion. The French priests who come here from Europe, have the same moral standards as ours, but their political approach is absolutely different.
I told you that our Canadian peasants have a strong social sense. That sense leads them to help one another in all moments of crisis. If one man's field suffers a disaster, it is usual for the whole community to set to work to put it right. Recently XX's barn was struck by lightning; five days later it had been rebuilt by the voluntary work of neighbours.
  • Q. There are still some traces of feudalism here?
  • A. Yes, but so slight that they are almost unnoticed: 1) The lord receives an almost nominal rent for the land which he originally granted. It may for instance be 6 to 8 francs for 90 acres [about 135 English acres]. 2) Corn must be ground at his mill, but he may not charge more than the maximum fixed by law, which is less than one pays in the United States where there is freedom and competition. 3) There are dues for lods et ventes, that is to say that when feudally held land is sold, the seller must give one twelfth of the purchase price to the lord. That would be rather a heavy burden, were it not that the strongest determination of the people is to remain invincibly attached to the land. Those are all the traces of feudalism that remain in Canada. Beyond that the lord has no titular rights and no privileges. There is not and cannot be any nobility. Here, as in the United States, one must work to live. There are no tenants. So the lord is normally a farmer himself. However, no matter how equal the footing on which the lords now stand, there is still some fear and some jealousy in the people's attitude towards them. It is only by going over to the popular party that a few of them have succeeded in getting elected to the House of Commons. The peasants remember the state of subjection in which they were held under French rule. One word lingers in their memory as a political scarecrow, that is the taille. They no longer know exactly what the word means, but for them it stands for something not to be tolerated. I am sure they would take up arms if there were an attempt to impose any tax whatever to which that name was given.
  • Q. What conditions of eligibility are there for entry into your House of Commons?
  • A. There are none.
  • Q. Who are qualified as voters in the country districts?
  • A. Anyone with 41 francs income from land is a voter.
  • Q. Have you no fear of such a great mass of voters?
  • A. No. All the people have some property and are religious and order-loving; they make good choices and although they take a great interest in the elections, there are hardly ever disturbances at them. The English tried to introduce their system of corruption, but it ran completely aground against the moral standards and honour of our peasants.
  • Q. What is the position with regard to primary education? 9
  • A. It is a long story. In the time of the French there was no education. The Canadian always had a weapon in his hand. He could not spend his time at school. After the conquest the English were only concerned for their own people. Twenty years ago the government wanted to start education, but it took the matter up clumsily. It shocked religious prejudices. It gave the impression that it wanted to get control of education and to direct it in favour of Protestantism. That at least is what we said, and the scheme ran aground. The English said that the Catholic clergy wanted to keep the people in ignorance. Neither side was telling the truth, but that is the way parties do speak. Four years ago our House of Commons saw clearly that if the Canadian population did not become educated, it would end up by being entirely absorbed by a foreign population that was growing up by its side and in its midst. Speeches were made, encouragement was given; funds were raised and finally school inspectors were appointed. I am one and I have just completed a tour of duty. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the report which I have to make. The impulse has been given. The people are most active in taking advantage of the chance to get educated. The clergy are all out to help us. We have already got in our schools half the children, about 50,000. In two or three years I am confident we will have them all. Then I hope the Canadian people will begin to leave the river banks and advance towards the interior. At present we stretch about 120 leagues along both sides of the St. Lawrence, but our line is seldom as much as to leagues in depth. However beyond that there is excellent land which is almost always given away for nothing (that is literally so) and which could easily be cultivated. Labour cost 3 francs in the villages and less in the country. Food is very cheap. The Canadian peasant makes all necessities for himself; he makes his own shoes, his own clothes and all the woollen stuffs in which he is dressed. (I have seen it.)
  • Q. Do you think French people could come and settle here?
  • A. Yes. A year ago our House of Commons passed a law to repeal the aliens legislation. After seven years' residence the foreigner becomes a Canadian and enjoys citizen's rights.

We went with Mr. Neilson to see the village of Lorette three leagues from Quebec, founded by Jesuits. Mr. Neilson showed us the old church built by the Jesuits and told us: "The memory of the Jesuits is adored here." The houses of the Indians were quite clean. They themselves spoke French and have an almost European appearance despite their costume being different. All all were half-breeds. I was surprised not to see them farm the land. Bah! told me Mr. Neilson, these Hurons are gentlemen, they would think it a dishonour to work. Scratching the earth like bulls, they say, that is meant for French or English. They live from hunting and small crafts done by their women.

  • Q. Is it true the Indians have a predilection for the French?
  • A. Yes, it is undeniable. The French who are perhaps the people who best preserves their original trace, and yet who more easily bears for a while bear the mores, ideas, and prejudices of those among whom they live. That is by becoming Indians that you obtained from the Indians an affection that still endures.
  • Q. What has happened to the Hurons who showed such a constant affection for the French and played such a great role in the history of the colony?

A. They assimilated little by little. They were however the greatest Indian nation on this continent. They could arm up to 60,000 men. You see what remains. We think that almost all the Indians of North America have the same origin. There are only the Esquimaux from the Hudson Bay who evidently belong to another race. There, all is different: language, canoes... I was telling you a little earlier of your aptitude to become Indians. In Canada we had mostly such a race of men now almost entirely extinguished who were excellent in this matter. They were the agents of the fur trade known as the Voyageurs. They were recruited among the whole population. I do not believe that intrepidity and spirit of adventure was even pushed further. They were surprising and subjugating the Indians themselves in their forests.

Mr. Richard, Catholic priest, is sent to the Congress by a protestant population. Mr. Neilson is protestant, and sent to the Commons of Canada by a Catholic population. Do these facts prove that religion is better understood or that its strength is weakening? They prove, I think, one and the other.


28th August 1831 - Village of Lorette, near Quebec

Habitants playing cards by Cornelius Krieghoff, 1848

Mr. Neilson came to look for us today to take us to see the country. (As for Mr. Neilson, his character and position, see the conversation.) This walk could not have given us a more favourable impression of the Canadian population.

We found well-cultivated fields and houses redolent of well-being. We went into several. The main room is furnished with excellent beds; the walls are painted white. The furniture is very clean. A little mirror, a cross or a few engravings of scriptural subjects complete the whole. The peasant is strong, well-built, well-clothed. His welcome has the frank cordiality which the American lacks; he is polite without servility, and receives you on a footing of equality but obligingly. Among those we visited there was even something of distinction in their manners which struck us. (It is true that we were taken to see the first families in the village).

All in all this race of men seemed to us inferior to the Americans in knowledge, but superior in qualities of the heart. One had no sense here of that mercantile spirit which obtrudes in all the actions and sayings of an American. The Canadian's power of reasoning is little cultivated, but it is simple and straightforward; they undoubtedly have fewer ideas than their neighbours, but their sensibility seems more developed; theirs is a life of the heart, the others' of the head.


29th August 1831 - Village of Beaufort, near Quebec

Today we went on horseback to visit the countryside without a guide.

In the commune of Beaufort, two leagues from Quebec, we saw the people coming out of church. Their dress indicated the greatest well-being. Those who came from a distant hamlet were returning there by carriage. We broke away into the paths and gossipped with all the inhabitants whom we met, trying to turn the talk to serious matters. This is what seemed to come out of these talks:

1st. Up to now great well-being prevails among them. The land in the neighbourhood of Quebec is sold extremely dearly, as dearly as in France, but it also brings great returns.

2nd. The ideas of this population still seem little developed. But they already feel very clearly that the English race is spreading round them in alarming fashion; that they are making a mistake in shutting themselves up in an area instead of spreading over the still free land. Their jealousy is vividly excited by the daily arrival of newcomers from Europe. They feel they will end up being absorbed. We can see that all that is being said on this subject animate their passions, but they do not clearly see the remedy. The Canadians fear leaving the sight of their church, they are not astute. - "Oh! you are very right, but what can you do?" These are their answers. They clearly feel their position as a conquered people, not counting on the goodwill, I would not say of the government, but of the English. All their hopes are fixed on their representatives. They seem to have that exaggerated attachment to them, and especially to Mr. Neilson -"But he is English", they said to us, as if in astonishment or regret- which oppressed people generally have for their protector. Several of them seemed perfectly to understand the need for education, and to take lively pleasure in what had just been done to help it on. All in all we felt that this population could be led, although still incapable of leading itself. We are coming to the moment of crisis. If the Canadians do not wake out of their apathy, in twenty years from now it will be too late to do so. Everything indicates that the awakening of this people is at hand. But if in this effort the middling and upper classes of the Canadian population abandon the lower classes, and let themselves be carried in the swing with the English, the French race is lost in America. And that would truly be a pity, for there are here all the elements of a great people. The French of America are to the French of France as the Americans are to the English. They have preserved the greater part of the original traits of the national character, and have added more morality and more simplicity. They, like them, have broken free from a crowd of prejudices and false points of departure which cause and will cause all the miseries of Europe. In a word, they have in them all that is needed to create a great memory of France in the New World. But will they ever succeed in completely regaining their nationality? That is what is probable without unfortunately being certain. A man of genius who would understand, feel and be capable to develop the national passions of the people would have an admirable role to play here. He would soon be the most powerful man in the colony. But I do not yet see him anywhere.

There already exist at Quebec a class of men who form the transition between the French and the English: they are the English allied to the Canadians, the English unhappy with the administration, and Frenchmen holding offices. This class is represented in the periodical press by the Gazette de Québec, mix of English and French, in the political assemblies by Mr. Neilson and probably several others that we do not known. It is this class I fear the most for the future of the Canadian population. It does not excite its jealousy, nor its passion. On the contrary it is more Canadian than English by interest because it is opposed to the government. Deep down, however, it is English by mores, ideas and language. If it were ever to take the place of the upper classes and the enlightened classes among the Canadians, their nationality would be lost forever. They would vegetate like the Bas-Bretons in France. Hopefully religion puts an obstacle to marriages between the two races, and creates inside the clergy an enlightened class whose interest is to speak French and feed on French literature and ideas.

We were able to notice in our talks with the people of this country, a basis of hatred and jealousy of the lords. But the lords have, so to say, no rights; they are, as much as one can be, of the people, and are almost all reduced to cultivating the soil. But the spirit of equality and democracy is alive there as in the United States, although it is not so rationalistic. I found again at the bottom of the hearts of those peasants the political passions which brought about the Revolution and which are still the cause of all our ills. Here they are inoffensive, or almost so, since nothing stands against them. We thought, too, that we noticed that the peasant did not see the clergy's right to levy the tithe without repugnance, and that he was not without envy contemplating the wealth which this tax put into the hands of some ecclesiastics. If religion ever loses its sway in Canada, it will have been by that breach that the enemy has come in.

As the French, the Canadian peasant has a gay and lively spirit, there is almost always something sharp in his repartee. One day I asked a farmer why the Canadians were letting themselves be restrained in narrow fields, while they could find twenty leagues away from their homes fertile and uncultivated lands. - "Why", he said to me, "do you love your wife better, even though the neighbour's has prettier eyes?" I found there was a real and profound feeling in this reply.

The French gazettes of Canada contain everyday prose or verse literature, something one never finds in the vast columns of the English papers.


31st August 1831 - Leave Quebec aboard the steamboat Richelieu for Montreal

We went today with Mr. Neilson and with a Canadian called M. Niger (?) along the left bank of the Saint Lawrence as far as the village of Saint Thomas 10 leagues from Quebec. That is where the Saint Lawrence widens out to 7 leagues, a width it keeps for 50 leagues. All the countryside we went through was wonderfully fertile; with the Saint Lawrence and the mountains to the North it formed the most complete and magnificent picture.

The houses are universally well built. They are redolent of comfort and cleanliness. The churches are rich, but rich in very good taste. Their interior decoration would not seem out of place in our towns. Note that it is the commune itself that imposes its own taxes to keep up the church. In this part of Canada one hears no English. All the population is French, and yet when one comes to an inn or a shop, the sign is in English.


Mr. Neilson said to us today in speaking about the Indians: These peoples will disappear completely, but they will fall victims to the pride of their spirit. The least among them thinks himself at least equal to the Governor of Quebec. They never will adapt themselves to civilization, not because they are incapable of behaving like us, but because they scorn our way of living and consider themselves our superiors.


1st September 1831

General remarks.

We have remarked through the conversations we have gad with several Canadians that their hatred was directed even more towards the government than towards the English race in general. The instincts of the people are against the English, but many Canadians belonging to the enlightened classes did not appear to be to be animated, to the degree we had believed, of the desire to preserve intact their original trace, and to become a completely separate people. Several have appeared to us not far from assimilating to the English, if these were to adopt the interests of the country. It is thus to be feared that over time and especially with the Irish Catholic emigration, that the fusion be realized. It can only be operated detrimentally to the French race, language and mores.

But it is certain that:

1. Lower Canada (luckily for the French race) forms a State apart. Now the French population in Lower Canada is in the proportion of ten to one to the English. It is compact. It has its government and its own Parliament. It really forms the body of a distinct nation. In a Parliament of eighty-four members, there are sixty-four French and twenty English.

2. Up to now the English have always kept to themselves. They support the government against the mass of the people. All the French newspapers voice opposition, all the English ones support the ministry, with only one exception, The Vindicator, at Montréal, and that too was started by Canadians [sic] 10.

3. In the towns the English and the Canadians form two societies. The English make a parade of great luxury; none of the Canadians have more than very limited wealth; thence jealousy and small-town bickering.

4. The English have all the export trade and the main controls of internal trade in their hands. Yet another cause of jealousy.

5. The English are daily getting possession of lands that the Canadians regard as reserved for their race.

6. Finally the English in Canada show all the traits of their character, and the Canadians have kept all the traits of French character.

So the odds are strongly in favour of Lower Canada finishing up with an entirely French population. But they will never be a numerous people. Everything around them will become English. It will be a drop in the ocean. I am very much afraid that, as Mr. Neilson said in his frank, brisk way, fate has in fact pronounced and North America will be English.


2nd September 1831 - Leave Montreal by steamboat Voyageur for La Prairie

Alexis de Tocqueville painted by Théodore Chassériau in 1850.

We have seen a great number of ecclesiastics since our arrival in Canada. It appeared to us that they constituted the first class among the Canadians. All those we have seen were educated, polite, well raised. They speak French with purity. In general they are more distinguished than most of the curates of France. One can see in their conversation that they are all Canadians. They are united by heart and interests to the population and talk about their needs very well. They however appeared to have a feeling of loyalty towards the King of England, and in general sustained the principle of legitimacy. Yet one of them told me: "We now have every reason to hope, the ministry is democratic." Today to do opposition, tomorrow they might very well do rebellion if the government were to become tyrannical. All in all, this people prodigiously resembles the French people. Or rather they are still French, trait for trait, and consequently perfectly different from the English populations surrounding them. Gay, lively, mocking, loving glory and noise, intelligent, eminently sociable, their mores are sweet and their character is obliging. The people in general is more moral, more hospitable, more religious than in France. There is only in Canada that one can find what we call a bon enfant (good child) in France. The English and the American is either coarse or cold.

A peasant was telling me: "While we never come an argument with them, the English are not honest."

Five or six years ago [sic]11 the English government wanted to unite the whole of Canada in one assembly. That was the measure best designed to completely dissolve the Canadian nation, so the whole people rose at once and it is from that time that it knows its strength.

Several parish priests told me that in their parish there was not a single individual talking English. They themselves did not understand English at all, and used us as interpreters.

The appointment of militia officers is a function of government, but the House of Commons having decided that to be a militia officer it is necessary to reside in the place in question, the result has been to put the command of the armed force almost exclusively in the hands of Canadians.

A Canadian told me today that the debates in the House of Commons were lively and hot-headed, and that often hasty resolutions were taken of which one repented when heads had cooled. Might he not have been speaking about a French House?


1. And it was quite the struggle to obtain it. In late August 1831, at the time of Tocqueville's visit, it was believed that the days of press censorship and the imprisoning of newspaper owners were over. They however came back in 1837-38.

2. Dominique Mondelet and Charles-Elzéar Mondelet most likely.

3. They possibly meant two French-language newspapers in the town of Montreal, or else maybe two daily French-language newspapers in the whole province (La Minerve in Montreal, Le Canadien in Quebec City).

4. And they remained the ruling class in Quebec until the Quiet Revolution.

5. Actually he was. Unfortunately for history, Louis-Joseph Papineau was sojourning at his country residence the whole time of Tocqueville's visit.

6. John Neilson was born in Scotland in 1776, and emigrated to Canada at the age of 14. He was then joining his older brother Samuel to work at their uncle William Brown's printing shop in Quebec City. In 1793, he inherited his uncle's bilingual newspaper La Gazette de Québec/The Quebec Gazette, founded in 1764, the first newspaper in the history of Quebec.

7. John Neilson and Louis-Joseph Papineau were both sent to London to deliver petitions against the Union bill of 1822. In 1828, John Neilson, Denis-Benjamin Viger and Augustin Cuvillier were delegated to London to present petitions against the administration of governor Dalhousie. Tocqueville was most likely referring to the second event.

8. The Conquest occurred in 1760 and, after a three-year long military rule of the country, was confirmed in international law with the 1763 Treaty of Paris in which the King of France ceded "[...] Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence [...]" to the King of Great Britain.

9. John Neilson here refers to mass education, specifically, mass literacy which was non-existent under the French regime and most other regimes of the same period. There of course was an education system in the time of New France and it compared favourably to that of many other colonies.

10. The Vindicator, originally the Irish Vindicator and Canada General Advertiser was founded in 1828 by Daniel Tracey from Ireland. It was the voice of the Society of the Friends of Ireland in the province. However, when Tocqueville visited, the newspaper was (since 1829) co-owned by Ludger Duvernay, Denis-Benjamin Viger, Édouard-Raymond Fabre, Jacob de Witt and a few members of the Perrault family. The newspaper supported the reformist movements and patriotic causes of Ireland, Lower Canada and Upper Canada.

11. This would be in 1822 when the project of re-uniting the Canadas was introduced in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom without informing any of the representatives of the people in the provinces who were directly concerned with the proposed constitutional change.