CCHA, Report, 25 (1958), 39-51
The Failure of a
Mission
Reverend Sister
RITA MARY, S.C.,
St. Patrick’s High School, Halifax, N.S.
The belief of the
mercantilists that colonies existed for the benefit of the countries fortunate
enough to possess them had resulted in the European Powers’ lack of interest in
and understanding of the colonial situation, especially in America. Great
Britain’s colonies, as the eighteenth century reached its second half, were
particularly annoyed by the laws limiting their trade. When, after the
conclusion of the war with France in 1763, Prime Minister George Grenville’s
government, with a big financial problem on its hands, passed the Stamp Act,
the spark for rebellion had been enkindled. Within ten years the mother country
and her American colonies were at war.
The strategic importance of Canada to the
American cause was evident from the outset. The New England colonies could
easily have been isolated by a British force working south from Quebec and
Montreal as their base. To offset this possibility two expeditions to Canada
were planned in 1775 by the Americans who had reached concerted action through
a Congress of delegates from most of the colonies assembled in Philadelphia.
Montgomery, a former British officer, succeeded in capturing Montreal in
November, 1775, but the British held Quebec with its fortress on the Saint
Lawrence against the assault led jointly by Montgomery and Arnold in December.
The remnant of Arnold’s army did keep the
British in Quebec, but the Americans were not equipped for the rigors of a
Canadian winter. Sick, cold, hungry and without credit, they, in desperation,
seized supplies when the Canadians would not accept their paper money. As the
year 1776 opened the American situation in Canada was far from being a
favorable one.
* *
*
On February 14, 1776, the Continental
Congress considered a report of the Committee of Correspondence concerning a
conference the Committee had previously been ordered to hold with a gentleman
recently arrived from Canada. This gentleman, a native of Canada, had been
engaged in the American Service since the appearance of American forces in
Canada. His purpose in coming to the Colonies was to give a true picture of the
situation and to inform the American Congress of the attitude among the
Canadians towards their quarrel with the mother country.1 When Canadians had
first heard of the dispute, they were generally on the American side, but by
the influence of the Clergy and Noblesse, who had been continually preaching
and persuading them against the Americans, the Canadians were now brought to
the point of uncertainty as to which side to follow. The report of the
Committee continues:
“That Papers
printed by the Tories at New York have been read to them (the Canadians) by the
Priests, assuring them that our Design was to deprive them of their Religion as
well as their Possessions. That the Letters we have address’d to them have made
little Impression, the common People being generally unable to read, and the
Priests and Gentry who read them to others, explain them in such a Manner as
best answers their purpose of prejudicing the People against us. That he
therefore thinks it would be a great Service if some Persons from the Congress
were sent to Canada, to explain viva voce to the People there the Nature of our
Dispute with England, which they do not well understand, and to satisfy the
Gentry and Clergy that we have no Intention against their Interests, but mean
to put Canada in full Possession of Liberty, desiring only their Friendship and
Union with us as good Neighbours and Brethren. That the Clergy and Gentry
might, he thinks, by this means be brought over, and would he follow’d by all
Canada. And unless some such Measure is taken, he is of Opinion our Affairs
there will meet with continued Difficulty and Obstruction.”2
The report
concludes with a mention of the jealousy felt in Canada over the issuing of
paper money by the American Colonies.
The consideration of the report was taken
up by the Congress the following day, February 15. As a result it was resolved
that a committee of three, two of whom must be members of the Congress, should
be appointed to proceed to Canada, there to pursue such instructions as the
Congress should direct.3 The members chosen were Doctor Benjamin
Franklin and Mr. Samuel Chase. The third delegate was Mr. Charles Carroll of
Carrollton. The latter, it was resolved, should be requested to prevail on Mr.
John Carroll to accompany the committee to Canada, to assist them in such
matters as they should think useful. Provision was made for defraying any
expense involved in the venture.4
* *
*
On March 11, the Congress began to consider
the instructions for the commissioners going to Canada; debate on these
continued for a few days.5 The orders were for the committee to set out
as soon as possible. They must represent to the Canadians that the arms of the
United Colonies had been carried into Canada for the purpose of frustrating
the designs of the British against the common liberties of Americans and
Canadians. Further the Canadians were to be assured of the uprightness of the
Colonies' intentions towards them, the object being that the people of Canada
might set up a form of government as would be most likely to produce their
happiness. The Colonies were earnestly desirous to adopt the Canadians into
their union as a sister colony, and to secure the same general system of mild
and equal laws for both groups with only such local differences as might be
agreeable to each. It was not expected by the Colonies that France would side
with Great Britain: rather it was anticipated that France would be friendly
towards the Colonies.6 The Commission must urge the Canadians to the
need of doing something, of making a decisive step and, also, they must explain
the nature and principles of government among free men. The instructions
continue: “Endeavour to stimulate them by motives of glory, as well as
interest, to assume a part in a contest, by which they must be deeply affected;
and to aspire to a portion of that power, by which they are ruled; and not to
remain the mere spoils and preys of conquerors and lords.”7
The Canadians were to be promised the free
and undisturbed exercise of their religion; their clergy, the full, peaceful
possession of their estates. Everything concerning religion would be left
entirely in the hands of the good people of Canada, provided that all other
denominations of Christians might equally be entitled to hold offices, enjoy
civil privileges, the free exercise of their religion and be totally exempt
from the payment of any tythes or taxes for the support of any religion.
The Commission was invested with full
powers to effect the foregoing purposes and again instructed to press the
Canadians to have a complete representation of their people assembled in
convention to consider the establishment of a form of government and a union
with the United Colonies. If the Canadians would not agree to these terms of
union, then the Commission must report back to Congress on what terms they
would unite. If they did agree to these terms, they were to be promised that
the United Colonies would defend and protect them against all enemies.
In conclusion, Congress ordered the
Commission to establish a free press, to settle all disputes between the
Canadians and the Continental troops, to force all colonial officers to yield
to the Commission in reforming any abuses, to promote the trade of Canada with
the Indian Nations, to use every wise and prudent measure to introduce and give
credit and circulation to the Continental money in Canada and to assure the
inhabitants of Canada that their commerce with foreign nations would be in all
respects on an equal footing with the trade of the United Colonies.8
After the Congress had completed the
instructions, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll were
officially granted the Commission for and on behalf of the Congress and all the
people of the United Colonies, to promote and form a union between the said
Colonies and the people of Canada.9
* *
*
On what score were these commissioners and
the fourth associate member chosen? What had they to qualify them for such an
undertaking?
Benjamin Franklin,10 born in Boston in
1706, a printer by trade, a Presbyterian by upbringing and an active Freemason,
was first known in the Colonies by his almanac containing maxims of prudence.11 He rose gradually
to prominence as a public servant until he became an elected member of the
Pennsylvania Assembly where he proved himself a first class politician.
Although he spoke seldom, he worked behind the scenes, shaping opinion,
harmonizing differences, and summing up in incomparable and irresistible
statements.12 Having espoused the popular interests he was sent by the Pennsylvania
Assembly to England in 1757 to present the cause of the people.
By the time Franklin was established in
England, the war in America had been brilliantly directed by Pitt, so that the
face of colonial affairs was changed. Louisbourg, then Quebec, and finally, all
Canada by 1760 had fallen to the British. Franklin set himself at once to work
to convince the authorities and the public in Britain that Canada must be
permanently English.13 Already pamphlets had been circulating in
London considering the relative advisability of keeping Canada or Guadeloupe
which had been recently taken from the French. To many Englishmen Canada seemed
a hopeless wilderness, while Guadeloupe was a flourishing sugar-producing
island.
In Franklin’s imperial vision portrayed in
a pamphlet, Canada must be English so that England could be secure; the
colonies were the western frontier of the British Empire. To secure them was to
secure the Empire.
The Stamp Act passed in 1765 by a
Parliament in which they were not represented raised a great hue and cry in the
American Colonies because it was a direct tax. Though they still had a
traditional affection for the home land and the king, this did not extend in
the same degree to Parliament, which they considered a corrupt oligarchy.14
On February 3, 1766, Franklin was ordered
to attend the House of Commons.15 In the course of the ten following days he was
questioned about the repeal of the Act and on the situation of America in
general.16 Within less than a month the Act was repealed and America quieted.
Franklin, however, was not satisfied because no imperial union had been
established, which he saw as the basis of imperial harmony.17
Still agent for Pennsylvania, Franklin was
voted as agent for Georgia in 1768, for New Jersey in 1769 and for
Massachusetts in 1770. Had the revolution been delayed – or not come – he might have been
agent-general for the Colonies. “He was an ambassador for America before
America had the right to send one.”18 Once he had become
the agent for Massachusetts, he stood strongly on the American side in that
colony. He became more and more a thorn in the side of the British ministry.19
Events in the Colonies were moving along at
a rapid pace. The Boston Tea Party and the subsequent closing of the Port of
Boston had roused the attention of all. In September, 1774, delegates from
every colony except Georgia met at a congress held in Philadelphia. Franklin
delayed his return to America until the results of the congress would be known.20
In December Congress sent Franklin the
petition to be presented by him and the other colonial agents to the king.21 The king received
it graciously and laid it before Parliament when it met on January 19. But
Parliament neglected the petition. Measures were considered for suppressing the
“rebellion.” Franklin offered to make payment for the tea destroyed in Boston
if the punitive acts against Massachusetts would be repealed. The ministry was
averse to repeal. Finally, having heard of his wife’s death some weeks before,
Franklin engaged passage on the next ship for America. He arrived at
Philadelphia on May 5, just after the outbreaks at Lexington and Concord. The
next day he was chosen by the Pennsylvania Assembly to be one of its deputies
to the Second Continental Congress, which was to meet in Philadelphia within
four days.
Thus it was that when Congress assembled on
May 10, Benjamin Franklin, aged 70, was its oldest member. “One of the firmest
and boldest of the delegates, Franklin was one of the most silent.”22 He adjusted
himself to the tone of the Congress. He was willing to take a chance on any
hope of reconciliation as long as there was the least possibility of it.
However, he began to feel that now there seemed no solution but armed measures.
“Of all Americans he had had the largest vision of the Empire that might be
shaped by political wisdom, and perhaps the strongest affection for the idea.
But he had always known that it could not be brought about by the subordination
of the colonies. To keep a part of the Empire weak was not the way to make the
whole of it strong... If the ministry’s plan for the Empire was to compel the
Americans to be less than they had the power to become, then they would be
better off outside it, whatever they might lose by the separation.”23 His old vision of
Empire was gone.
For the second member of the Commission
there is little to be said. A member of the Maryland Assembly in sympathy from
the beginning with the patriot cause, a delegate from Maryland to the
Continental Congress, and a Protestant, Mr. Samuel Chase was well known to the
leaders in colonial politics.
The two Carrolls, Charles and John, natives
of Maryland, were cousins, of Irish Catholic ancestry. Both families were of
some standing in Maryland for they had considerable means. Eighteenth century
Maryland had reverted to rigorous anti-Catholic laws: Catholics could not vote
or hold office, they could not erect churches, nor could they teach.24 Because the
parents were determined to preserve the faith of their children, as most
Catholics in the colony were, both boys, aged 12 and 14, were sent abroad to
Flanders in 1748 to Saint Omer’s, a school conducted by English Jesuits since
1592.25
After four years at this school, rising at
5 and retiring at 9, Charles Carroll was anxious to move to new fields of
learning and a more colourful type of life. For the next twelve years he
applied himself to the study of law – at a French Jesuit college in Rheims, at
Bourges, at the college of Louis le Grand in Paris and in London.
After the completion of his studies in
England, Charles returned to Maryland in 1765 and began to show great interest
in colonial affairs. He became especially vociferous against the Stamp Act.
Between 1773 and 1776 he came into prominence through a newspaper conflict in
the Maryland Gazette. He, signing himself as the “First Citizen,” became
involved in a controversy with Daniel Dulany the Younger whose pseudonym was
Antilon.26
Charles Carroll wrote brilliantly. The Gazette’s
circulation rose to an all time high as this disfranchised Catholic gave
voice to the people’s rights and the patriotic cause against Dulany’s arguments
supporting the Governor and the right to tax. The First Citizen’s letters
determined the outcome of the May election in 1773 of the Maryland Assembly – a
landslide for the patriot cause. When, within a year, delegates had to be
chosen to the first Continental Congress, Marylanders thought of the First
Citizen, Charles Carroll, as their ablest representative. Carroll refused,
however, knowing that although his own colony had accepted him in spite of his
religion, the other colonies retained their prejudices. With the furore over
the Quebec Act, it was not the time as yet for him to serve his province to the
fullest of his capabilities. However, in an unofficial capacity, Charles
Carroll accompanied the Maryland delegation.27 Thus it was that
although not an official member of the Congress until after his return from the
mission to Canada, Carroll was chosen as the third Commissioner to Canada.
Congress optimistically hoped that the Canadians would take Mr. Carroll of
Carrollton “for a typical American.” As an official envoy of the American
Congress, the Roman Catholic should do much to eradicate the memory of the
offense given in 1774.28
John Carroll,29 the associate
member of the Canadian delegation, had with his cousin Charles attended Saint
Omer’s in Flanders. When Charles left to prepare himself for more worldly
pursuits, John, attracted by the clerical, academic atmosphere of Saint Omer’s,
stayed on. Not far from the school was Watten, where in 1753 he entered the
Jesuit novitiate. After his ordination around the year 1769, Father Carroll
remained in Europe. For two years he toured the continent as the companion of
the eighteen year old son of Lord Stourton, an English Catholic nobleman.30) This trip
broadened the young Jesuit’s horizons as he viewed evidences of decay in the
Old Regime. Soon after the completion of the tour, a disaster which had been
imminent for some years became a reality. The official words were spoken which
dissolved the Society of Jesus in 1773. Father Carroll, greatly affected by the
dissolution and the subsequent “snatching away of the way of life to which he
had been so forcibly attracted,”31 came to England with the great majority of his
Jesuit brethren, hoping that the Society might be re-established in the
Catholic states of the continent and their dependencies.32 However, the
following spring (1774) he sailed for America which he had left more than
twenty-five years before. In Rock Creek, Maryland, Father Carroll settled down
in his mother’s home. He had returned “an aimable, cultured and polished man,
endowed with all the acquirements of the learning of the day,”33 very much aware,
in spite of his long absence, of the situation in the Colonies and most
favourably disposed to the patriotic cause.
Father Carroll’s sentiments upon being
requested to accompany the delegates are known to us in the draught of a
letter, the original of which is now in the Archiepiscopal Archives in
Baltimore.
“The Congress has
done me the distinguished and unexpected honour of desiring me to accompany the
Committtee ordered to Canada, and of assisting them in such matters as they
shall judge useful. I should betray the confidence put in me by the Honourable
Congress, and perhaps disappoint their expectations were I not to open my mind
to them with the utmost sincerity and plainly tell them how little service they
can hope to derive from my assistance. In the first place, the nature and
functions of that profession in which I have engaged from a very early period
in life render me, as I humbly conceive, a very unfit person to be employed in
a negotiation of so new a kind to me, of which I have neither experience nor
systematical knowledge. I hope I may be allowed to add, that though I have very
little regard to my personal safety amidst the present distress of my country,
yet I cannot help feeling for my character, and I have observed that when the
ministers of religion, leave the duties of their profession to take a busy part
in political matters, they generally fall into contempt, and sometimes even
bring discredit to the cause in whose service they are engaged. Secondly – From
all the information I have been able to collect concerning the State of Canada
it appears to me that the inhabitants of that Country are no wise disposed to
molest the United Colonies, or prevent their forces from taking and holding
possession of the strong places in that province, or to assist in any manner
the British Arms. Now if it is proposed that the Canadians should concur with the
other colonies any further than by such neutrality, I apprehend that it will
not be in my power to advise them to it. They have not the same motives for
taking up arms against England which renders the resistance of the colonies so
justifiable. If an oppressive mode of government has been given them it was
what some of them chose, and the rest have acquiesced in. Or if they find
themselves oppressed they have not yet tried the success of petitions and
remonstrances, all which ought, as I apprehend, to be ineffectual before it can
be lawful to have recourse to arms and change of government.
Thirdly – Though I
were able to bring myself to think (which as objects now appear to me I cannot)
that the Canadians might lawfully take up arms and concur with.”34
Here abruptly the
draught of the letters stops. It is evident that the idea of going to Canada
did not appeal to Father Carroll, but his devotion to the patriot cause
overcame his repugnance to the mission.
The Commissioners set out on April 2, 1776,
for the long tiresome journey of over four hundred miles from New York. Charles
Carroll kept for his father a journal of the trip to Canada,35 but the account is
filled with descriptions of weather conditions, geological formations, beauties
of nature, difficulties of transportation, with little reference to the purpose
of the journey.
On April 29, after four weeks of travel,
the party was received by General Arnold in Montreal in a very polite manner
and conducted to headquarters, where a genteel company of ladies and gentlemen
had assembled to welcome the travellers.36 The cannon of the
citadel fired in compliment to the dignity of the Commissioners from Congress
while they were going from the landing place to the general’s house. The group
was then conducted to the house of Mr. Thomas Walker, the best house in town.37
The Commissioners had not been in Montreal
a day before it was evident to them that they had come on a useless errand.
Extensive powers had been granted to them by Congress, – full jurisdiction over
military affairs, authority to settle disputes and administer discipline within
the army, authority to negotiate with the Indians and to sit and vote in the
councils of war, – but, Congress had failed to supply them with any more money
than what was necessary for their own expenses. It became immediately evident
that the whole situation rested on money. The first letter of the Commissioners
to Congress stressed the need of money:
“It is impossible
to give you a just idea of the lowness of the Continental credit here, from the
want of hard money.... Therefore, till the arrival of money, it
seems improper to propose the Federal union of this Province with the others,
as the few friends we have here will scarce venture to exert themselves in
promoting it, till they see our credit recovered, and a sufficient army arrived
to secure the possession of the country.”38
Money was needed to
impress the Canadians, to pay debts already contracted, to buy supplies for the
poorly equipped American troops. Without money the Commissioners were
discredited in the eyes of the Canadian people who had expected them to bring
money with them. When they were found to have none, the Canadians concluded
that they had none because the Congress had none to give.39
Barren, too, was the hope of the Congress
that Charles Carroll, America’s leading Catholic layman, would be received by
the leaders of the American party in Canada as persona grata, speaking
their language, belonging to their religion and holding similar political
views. Vain, too, was the expectation that Father Carroll, former Jesuit, would
be received by Bishop Briand and the Canadian clergy as one of their own and
that he could impress the Canadian clergy with the tolerant attitude of the
Congress.40
The clergy in Montreal received Father
Carroll with great coolness. Bishop Briand had ordered that no courtesy was to
be shown the American priest. Father Carroll had brought a letter of
introduction from Father Farmer of Philadelphia to Father Floquet, a Jesuit,
the last superior of the Canadian mission. Father Carroll was permitted to say
Mass in Floquet’s house, though the latter was in disgrace with Bishop Briand
because of his favourable attitude toward the American cause. After John
Carroll’s departure, Father Floquet was suspended from his priestly functions
by the Bishop on account of his “Bostonnais heart.” When he had been summoned
to Quebec, Father Floquet declared that he “was complaisant to the American out
of human respect” for had he been “as violent against them as many others were,
the whole brunt of the storm would have fallen on his head, as he was the only
Jesuit in Montreal. He felt that he would have served as an example to others
and perhaps occasioned a persecution of his confrères in Pennsylvania and
Maryland.”41 In his own defense he protested that the vicargeneral,
]Monsignor Montgolfier, had given Carroll the permission and that the latter
had not lived with him and had dined with him only once. But Father Floquet had
disobeyed Bishop Briand’s orders and suffered for his insubordination.42
No native son of Britain could have been a
stauncher supporter of British rule in Canada than Bishop Jean Briand who had
been born in France in 1715. Within two years of his ordination twenty-four
years later, Abbé Briand had set sail for Canada with Monseigneur Pontbriand,
Bishop of Quebec. The Bishop named Briand canon of his cathedral, kept him near
him and honoured him with his confidence.43 When Pontbriand
died in 1760, the possibility of having a successor named by the King of
France being out of the question, the canons of Quebec named administrators for
the various districts of the Canadian mission. Canada having been definitively
ceded to England, the Chapter elected Monsieur Etienne Montgolfier, the
vicar-general, unanimously. He betook himself to England to get his nomination
accepted, but General Murray had written against him and the government was
unwilling to recognize him. Montgolfier resigned and named Briand; – “I know no
one in this colony,” he wrote, “more suitable to fill this position than
Monsieur Briand who joins in his favour the vote of the clergy and people and
the most marked protection of the government.”44
Monsieur Briand, elected by the Chapter in
September, 1764, set out the following November for London, fortified by a
letter of recommendation from General Murray. After some delay and
difficulties he succeeded in having himself put forth as the Bishop of Quebec,
at the same time safeguarding the rights of the Holy See. The bulls were
despatched from Rome in January, 1766. On March 16, the anniversary of his
ordination, Jean Olivier Briand was consecrated by the Bishop of Blois in the
Church of Sainte Marie de Merri in Paris. He arrived in Quebec on June 26 where
the episcopal chair had been vacant for six years.
It may be said that when the Americans
invaded in 1775, it was Bishop Briand who by his loyalty and authority
preserved the colony for England; his exhortations and example were followed by
the clergy and then by the people. He proved to the British authorities that if
he knew how to defend the rights of God and of the Pope, he also knew how to
defend those of his king. The governors knew how to appreciate the wisdom and
devotion of the Bishop and gave him all the services compatible with their
position.45
In spite of the opposition against him,
Father Carroll directed his exertions to visiting the clergy and conferring
with them individually. He explained the nature of the differences between
England and the United Colonies, that the colonies were resisting violations of
well known and long recognized principles of the British constitution. The
Canadian clergy replied that since the British had taken over Canada, its
inhabitants had no aggressions to complain of, but that the government had
faithfully kept the provisions of the treaty, sanctioned and protected ancient
laws and customs. For all this the French were grateful.46
Father Carroll went on to represent that
Congress had said expressly that if the Canadians would unite with the
Americans in the assertion of their constitutional rights, their religion and
religious orders would be protected and guaranteed. It would be not just a
toleration of Catholics, but Catholics would have equal rights with all other
religions.
The French clergy countered that the
British government had left them in possession of all church property held at
the time of the cession of Canada; they were confident in the protection of
their religion and its institutions. Officers of the British government had
paid military honours at public religious exercises, the government had
furnished a military escort to accompany the grand procession on the feast of
Corpus Christi. On the principle that allegiance is due to protection, the
clergy could not teach that neutrality was consistent with the allegiance due
to such ample protection shown to the Catholics of Canada by Great Britain. The
judicious, liberal policy of the British government had succeeded in inspiring
Catholics with feelings of loyalty, while the conduct of the people and of
public bodies in some of the United Colonies had only served to strengthen and
confirm this loyalty. In the colonies who were now professing such a liberal
policy the Catholic religion had not been tolerated hitherto. Priests had been
excluded from most of them under severe penalties, and Catholic missionaries
among the Indians had been badly treated.
Father Carroll argued that these harsh
measures were largely the result of the laws of the royal government. The
Canadians noted, however, that the Americans had been prompt enough to defend
political rights, but had never shown a corresponding spirit in supporting the
rights of the consciences of Catholics. Also, the Canadians still remembered
the inconsistency between the address of the Continental Congress to the people
of Great Britain and that to the people of Canada in 1774. After the Quebec Act
had provided that Catholics in Quebec might have the free exercise of their
religion, that the Clergy might enjoy their customary dues and that Catholics
would be excused from taking the oath required by Elizabeth I, the Continental
Congress on October 21, 1774, in an address to the people of Great Britain had
said: “ .. Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament
should ever consent to establish in that country (Canada) a religion that has
deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution,
murder, and rebellion through every part of the world.” And “that we think the
legislature of Great Britain is not authorised by the constitution to establish
a religion fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets ...”47
After hearing the expression of such
sentiments rendering Catholics so great an injustice, the Canadian Clergy were
not disposed to receive too well the deliberations of the same Congress
addressing the inhabitants of Quebec.
None of the Commissioners was enjoying the
stay in Montreal. They reported to Congress that they were in a critical and
annoying situation, pestered with all kinds of demands which they could not
answer, in a place where their cause had a majority of enemies. Added to these
problems was the fact that the garrison was weak. The Commissioners had hoped
for military success48 and for money from Congress. Both these hopes
proved to be futile. After two weeks of fruitless conversations, the
Commissioners learned that General John Thomas commanding the inadequate
garrison at Quebec had been surprised by British warships coming up the river.
The Americans had been overwhelmed, their cannon and small arms captured. Added
to this was the report from Congress that it was unable to send any money.
This, the Commissioners felt was the fatal blow to the American cause in
Canada.49 They informed Congress that they could render no service to their
country by remaining any longer in Canada.
On May 11, Franklin left Montreal, the
first of the group. The cold weather, an attack of gout and the weight of his
seventy years had combined to make the trip a most wretched one for him. Father
Carroll joined Franklin along the homeward route. Chase and Charles Carroll
remained to attend to a few matters concerning the American military set-up.
Everywhere Charles Carroll found the situation of the American cause
distressing.
Finally, on May 30, Charles was able to
record in his journal: “The council of war was held this day, and determined to
maintain possession of the country between the Saint Lawrence and the Sorel, if
possible, – in the meantime to dispose matters so as to make an orderly retreat
out of Canada.” He and Chase arrived back in Philadelphia on June 10. The
following day they gave their report of the trip and of the state of the army
in Canada to the Congress.50
The Commission had failed in its purpose.
During the six weeks that the Commissioners were absent the Congress had been
moving towards a definite break with Britain. When, on July 4, the draft of the
Declaration of Independence was ready, the gloom over the failure of the
Canadian Commission was dispelled in the light of the greater issue.
It is evident that there were many factors which contributed to the failure of the mission: The Americans lacked hard money; the Continental troops were ill-equipped; the intolerance voiced by the Continental Congress in 1774 subsequent to the passage of the Quebec Act was still remembered by the Canadians; – but the most powerful positive force was the firm position maintained by Bishop Briand commanding the loyalty of all Canadians to Great Britain.
1Worthington
Chauncey Ford, editor, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
from the original records in the Library of Congress (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1904), IV, p. 148.
2Ibid., p. 149. The
report is in the writing of Benjamin Franklin (Papers of the Continental
Congress, No. 22, folio 211). The gentleman from Canada seems to have been Prudent
la Jeunesse accompanied by a John Dantermond (from copies of passports in the
same volume, folio 213 and 215).
3Ibid., p. 151.
4Ibid., p. 152.
5Ibid., p. 215.
6Ibid., p. 216.
7Ibid., p. 217.
8Ibid., pp. 217-218.
9Ibid., p. 219.
10Carl Van Doren, Benjamin
Franklin (New York: The Viking Press, 1938), p. 12. This is a good
comprehensive biography of Franklin which gives a clear picture of the times in
which he lived.
11Ibid., pp. 107-115.
12Ibid., p. 205.
13Ibid., p. 288.
14Ibid., p. 328.329.
15Ibid., p. 335.
16Ibid., pp. 336-352.
17Ibid., p. 354.
18Ibid., p. 360.
19Ibid., p. 441
20Ibid., p. 485.
21Ibid., p. 502.
22Ibid., p. 529.
23Ibid., pp. 531-532.
24Annabelle M.
Melville, John Carroll of Baltimore: Founder of the American Catholic
Hierarchy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), p. 6.
25Ibid., pp. 9-10.
26Ellen Hart Smith, Charles
Carroll of Carrollton (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942),
pp. 103-104.
27Ibid., p.p 120-121.
28Ibid., p. 133.
29The most recent and
complete biography of John Carroll is Annabelle Melville’s noted above.
30Melville, op.
cit., p. 25.
31Ibid., p. 36.
32John Carroll Brent,
editor, Biographical Sketch of the Most Rev. John Carroll – First Bishop of
Baltimore with Select Portions of His Writings (Baltimore: John Murphy,
1843), pp. 34-35.
33Peter Guilday, The
Life and Times of John Carroll (Westminister, Maryland:
The Newman Press, 1954), p. 56. (Reprint of first edition, 1922).
34Text is quoted from
William T. Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary (Baltimore: J. H.
Furst Co., 1907), pp. 497-498.
35Brantz Mayer,
editor, Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton during His Visit to Canada
in 1776, As One of the Commissioners from Congress with a memoir and notes,
published by the Maryland Historical Society; (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845).
36Ibid., p. 74.
37Ibid., p. 75.
38Peter Force,
editor, American Archives (Washington: 1840), V, p. 1166.
39Smith, Chas.
Carroll, pp. 146-148.
40Guilday, John
Carroll, p. 98.
41Martin I. J.
Griffin, editor, The American Catholic Historical Researches
(Philadelphia: 1907), XXIV (July, 1907), p. 235.
42Guilday, op.
cit., pp. 102-103.
43 Mgr
H. Têtu et l’abbé C: O. Gagnon, editors, Mandements, Lettres Pastorales et
Circulaires des Evêques de Québec (Québec: Imprimerie Générale A. Coté et
Cie, 1888), Biographical Sketch, p. 186.
44Ibid., p. 185.
45Ibid., p. 187.
46Mayer, Memoir
accompanying Journal, p. 22.
47Ford, Journals
of Continental Congress, I, pp. 82-90.
48Smith, Chas.
Carroll, pp. 148-149.
49Ibid., p. 149
50Force, American
Archives, V, pp. 431; 448-454.