Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention Debates _____ Comprising the period from the twenty-fifth of January, 1870 to the tenth of February, 1870 Edited by Norma Jean Hall Ph.D. Reconstituted Debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention, 1870 1 INTRODUCTION Reconstituted Debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention On 15 November 2010, the Premier of Manitoba, Greg Selinger, unveiled a permanent display of historical documents and photographs that pay tribute to the central role of the Métis in the political and social history of the province. This edited transcription of the debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention brings the content of some of those historical documents to light. The documents on which this transcription is based recorded proceedings of the Convention of Forty that owed its occurrence to an earlier gathering in Red River Settlement. From the autumn of 1869 to January 1870, numerous meetings had taken place during which settlers debated how best to ensure that their rights and land holdings would be respected with the anticipated transfer of Rupert‘s Land to Canada. On the eighteenth and nineteenth of January, at a public meeting held outdoors at Upper Fort Garry, a commissioner from Canada, Donald A. Smith, communicated his understanding of Canada‘s intention with respect to the Red River Settlement and to settlers and their existing privileges and rights. At the end of the meeting Louis Riel proposed a motion, seconded by A.G.B. Bannatyne, ―that 20 representatives shall be elected by the English population of Red River to meet 20 other representatives of the French population‖ to decide how to proceed in light of Smith‘s assurances.1 The motion carried. Representatives were elected in the parishes of the settlement to convene in the grande salle at Upper Fort Garry on 25 January. Their debates extended through to 10 February.2 The debates took place prior to the institution of The Debates (a.k.a. Hansard) in Manitoba. They have therefore been reconstituted from two sources. The first source is a collection of papers preserved in the Archives of Manitoba among the Red River Rebellion Records.3 The collection, penned by Thomas Bunn, the elected representative of the parish of St. Clement‘s from November 1869, includes the minutes of the convention from 26 January to 9 February 1870. The second source, covering the final day of the convention, is the New Nation newspaper, which published non-verbatim accounts of legislative proceedings recorded by William Coldwell, reporter for the paper and secretary of the proceedings. Neither source contains a complete record of the convention, nor should the texts be taken as absolutely accurate representations of what was said. Newspaper men such as Coldwell were practiced at reporting the substance of speeches and though their accounts might contain a great deal of verbatim material, much might also have been condensed or, in some instances, ignored. Both Bunn and Coldwell 1 ―Convention at Fort Garry, English and French Delegates in Council. Mr. Smith‘s Commission, Bill of Rights,‖ New Nation (28 January 1870), 2. See also Alexander Begg, The Creation of Manitoba; Or, a History of the Red River Troubles (Toronto: A.H. Hovey, 1871), 238. 2 See Norma Hall, with Clifford P. Hall, and Erin Verrier, A History of the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia/le Consiel du Government Provisiore (Winnipeg: Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, Government of Manitoba, 2010). 3 Archives of Manitoba [AM], E.9/1, Red River Rebellion Records, 5–22. Reconstituted Debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention, 1870 2 recorded what they personally considered to be most interesting or important. It is reasonable to assume that, at best, as little as one third of the actual words spoken may have been preserved.4 Although the existence of a French-language record is probable, to date none has been found. Bunn, who is classed among the English-speaking settlers of Red River, also spoke and wrote French. His minutes of the debates were written in English, however, as was Coldwell‘s account. It is not clear whether Coldwell spoke French. It is possible that there were remarks, jokes, or even extended discussions out of which a French-language reporter might have made more. The same observation might apply to remarks made in Aboriginal languages. Of the two documentary sources, Coldwell‘s reports are the more comprehensive. For the purpose of this transcription, Bunn‘s minutes were used primarily to confirm the order of proceedings and to correct typographical errors attributable to the printing process. (Type was set backwards, letter by letter, punctuation mark and space, in small blocks at a time. The blocks were then assembled in a galley. Occasionally, despite proof reading, punctuation might be odd, a line of text might be missed, or a paragraph misplaced). The process of reconstituting the debates out of two document sources, one printed and one handwritten, necessarily meant making editorial decisions to ensure internal cohesion, establish some consistency, and enhance readability. The end product cannot be considered a literal transcript of either source, though editing was minimal. The most obvious change is in the formatting. Conventions that are standard in early (and similarly reconstituted) sessional journals of Manitoba and Canada were followed. Thus, uniform headings were applied and the names of speakers who had the floor were set in bold type. For the most part, idiosyncratic spelling (including variations of surname spellings), punctuation, and capitalization have been preserved (absent accents, for example, are in keeping with the sources – thus Taché appears as Tache). Nevertheless, there are instances where editorial intrusions were made. These were limited to correcting what appear to be unintentional spelling errors; inserting a comma or a full stop at the end of a line or paragraph; and writing out in full abbreviations that occurred only occasionally – such as ampersands, numerical values, given names, or titles. Where an omission is obvious, missing words have been inserted in square brackets. Where words are illegible, possibilities have likewise been suggested in square brackets. Overall, my goal was to preserve the integrity of the sources and leave the original authors‘ choice of wording alone – whether their communication was clear or obscure. Footnotes indicate the location of the originals on which the transcription is based to aid in referencing a primary document if absolute accuracy is required. 4 P.B. Waite, ―Introduction,‖ House of Commons Debates [1870] vol. 3 (Ottawa : Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1979), vii. Reconstituted Debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention, 1870 3 Représentants français La Grande Convention 25 janvier 1870 à 10 février 1870 Baie St. Paul5 .................................................................................... W. Thibert6 Alexandre Pagée Magnus Birston7 St. François-Xavier ........................................................................... Xavier Pagée Pierre Poitras St. Charles ......................................................................................... Baptiste Beauchemin St. Boniface ....................................................................................... W.B. O‘Donoghue Ambroise Lépine Joseph Genton Louis Schmidt St. Vital ............................................................................................. Louis Riel André Beauchemin St. Norbert ........................................................................................ Pierre Parenteau8 Norbert Laronce9 10 B. Touron 5 Also known as St. Paul‘s and easily confused with the English parish that was variously presented as St. Paul, St. Pauls, and St. Paul‘s. Often the only way to determine which of the two parishes is being referred to is to note the name of its representative. 6 AM, E.9/1, 5, Thomas Bunn, Minutes, 26 January 1870, clearly indicates W. Thibert. No initial is supplied in the New Nation newspaper account. W.L. Morton, Alexander Begg’s Red River Journal, 286, assumes this individual to be Pierre Thibert, ―Canadian; a connection of the Reverend F. Belcourt; probably the Pierre Thibert who died at Belcourt, North Dakota, in 1917.‖ One Pierre Thibert, who was born 10 May 1812, and arrived in Red River Settlement in 1832 ―from St. Joachim Province of Quebec,‖ filed a scrip affidavit as ―an original white settler,‖ 15 September 1875. See LAC, Métis and Original White Settlers affidavits, RG15-D-II-8-a, which indicates that as of 1875 he lived in St. François Xavier. The document is signed with an X, ―his mark.‖ It is possible that this Pierre Thibert was known in the settlement by the place name ‗Joachim,‘ and that Thomas Bunn understood the name phonetically – hence the initial ‗W.‘ 7 AM, E.9/1, 5, Thomas Bunn, in this instance wrote ‗Birton.‘ Pierre Levielle/L‘Evielle also attended the Convention apparently to represent Prairie du Cheval Blanc, though perhaps unofficially. See ―Mr. Smith‘s Report,‖ and ―Letter from Pierre Levielle, to the Editor of the New Nation (Translation), White Horse Plains, May 25, 1870,‖ New Nation (27 May 1870), 2, and 3. 8 Alternate spellings include Parrenteau and Paranteau. 9 Also known as Norbert Larance/Laurence/La Rance. Reconstituted Debates of the Convention of Forty/La Grande Convention, 1870 4 Pointe Coupée11 ................................................................................ Louis