1

Social Work

Student’s Name

Institution
 2

Social Work Article Reflection

Section 1

Corn Laws: Corn laws were abolished in 1846 to protect the economy. The abolition led to the

adoption of free trade policy in Britain. Corn laws encouraged Ontario's preferential treatment in

British markets for timber and wheat. The adoption of the trade policy put Ontario’s economy

back on track towards the economy of the United States. The economy of Ontario slowly

integrated into the economy of the United States. Free trade greatly fueled the growth of

Ontario's economy. The economic boom due to the production of timber and wheat led to a

significant development in the manufacturing of farm equipment ( Johnson. 1973 ).

Empire of St Lawrence: St Lawrence's legacy significantly contributed to Ontario becoming a

dominant province in Canada. The legacy led to industrialization in Ontario. Ontario became the

main base for industrial manufacturing in Canada as a result. The Southwestern part of Ontario

became the controlling agricultural base, then a financial one and later a manufacturing base. The

Northern part of Ontario became the leading resource region in the nation. The legacy also led to

a dominant financial economy in Ontario ( Innis, 2018 ). However, the legacy was corrupt as it

only took care of the commercial elites and Family Compact.

Royal proclamation Act: Britain took over Quebec through the proclamation. The proclamation

was not enough and catered for neither the needs of the British loyalists nor the French

Canadians. The declaration did not address the associations between the Catholic and protestant

denominations. It did not also clearly state the culture of the Canadians and the political nature of

institutions.
 3

Family Compact: The Family Compact consisted of the clergy and wealthy elites. The ideology

of tory informed the Family Compact. The Family compact was not democratic, according to

reformers. The Family Compact blocked all the attempts by reformers in Upper Canada to bring

about liberal capitalism.

 4

Section 2

1837/38 Rebellions

Britain's acquisition of New France for the second time disrupted French leadership. The

Empire did away with the French's sociopolitical system and privileges and took over French

revenues. The British preserved the seigneurial group's rights over the "censitaires". The

Seigneurial groups were democratically allowed to rule over the censitaires and collect dues. The

pre-capitalist social system was maintained by the colonialists in lower Canada. It was

seigneurial. The structure was to ensure loyalty in North America by the French. The British

took over Quebec over the Royal Proclamation. However, the proclamation was not adequate as

it did not cater for the interests’ rights of the British nor the French in Canada. The declaration

did not address several issues accurately. The topics included; the Canadian cultural status, the

formations of different political institutions, the difference in the Catholic and Protestant

religious communities and the association between the French Law and the Common Law.

The revolutions in the Canadas in 1837/1838 were a combination of several rebel groups.

The revolts were a result of British politics and economics during colonialism. The promulgation

of the Quebec Act took place in 1774. It was formulated to cater to the shortcomings of the

Royal Proclamation. The Act warranted Quebec to maintain the Catholic religion and the

legalized French community as foundation. The Act protected the French-Canadian leaders. The

Crown Colony Government was a result of the Quebec Act. The British government refused the

establishment of an elected legislative government in Quebec as it would contradict the

leadership amongst the British minorities and the Canadians. The Quebec Act rendered free the

Catholic religion on tithe collection and let them practice their religion without restrictions. The

English's criminal law and the French's civil law were applicable in Quebec. The Quebec Act
 5

inaugurated the seigneurial tenure in conjunction with the land tenure, which was freehold. The

Act was, however, heavily criticized and rejected by the British. Contrarily, the French

Canadians embraced the Act. The American War led to the British that flocked into Quebec. The

move troubled the arrangements in politics under the Quebec Act.

The loyalists started a project in North America to transform the pre-capitalist society,

which reigned to a capitalist society. The loyalists came up with several strategies for the success

of their project. They turned down the seigneurial tenure, fought for political and civil rights and

demanded an elected assembly. Relatively, the Quebec Act was declared obsolete upon the

failure of the British forces in the American War. In 1971, the Constitutional Act got formulated.

The Act parted Quebec twice. One part was known as the Upper Canada and the other Lower

Canada. The Act limited representation in the Crown Colony Government in the upper and lower

Canada areas. The Act restricted the operations of the elected government, which was demanded

by the British loyalists and the French Canadians. All three building constitutional projects failed

to establish cohesion in the social classes in the upper and lower Canada.

The revolutions in the Canadas in 1837 and 1838 reflected the three failed projects in the

19th century. The revolt in Lower Canada was due to two reasons. The first one was that the

colonial state continuously watched as the seigneurial and clergy economically exploited and

oppressed other habitants. Consequently, the colonial state was in collaboration with the

exploitation. The habitants suffered stiff competition in the labour market from British

immigrants. 40% of the labourers were considered Anglophone by 1831 as more habitants lost

their jobs and left the labour market ( Creighton, 1937 ). The Chateau Clique gained political

dominance and shut down all reform avenues and social changes. The colonial state therefore

blocked the petty bourgeoisie of the French as a result. The petty bourgeoisie came up with their
 6

party and took over the leadership of peasants and farmers. They communicated their injustices

through the Irish, English and Bureaucrats immigrants. The bourgeoisie wanted to lead

economically and politically without getting rid of the existent French government ( Creighton,

1937 ). However, their efforts were frustrated by the stable colonial state in power.

The petty bourgeoisie sought reforms of the constitution in three particular areas. They

wanted reforms in the ministerial responsibility principles, the elected assembly's supremacy and

the assembly's controllability of funds. The bourgeoisie was not interested in the seigneurial

system. They, therefore, did not push against any social reforms. The peasants and habitants

considerably averted against the seigneurial class and the clergy. The seigneurial system abused

the peasants. They offered corvee labour, paid seigneurial rents and tithes. The mistreatments by

the Chateau Clique caused grievances among the habitants and the peasants. The British did not

change the petty bourgeoisie demands for social and economic justice despite their party

leadership. The radicalization of the revolution was not successful for various reasons, including

the conservation of the clergy and nationalism of the national and local leaders. Louis-Joseph

Papineau leadership specifically led to the failure to radicalize the rebellion. English merchants

had sympathy towards the radical reform call.

The Patriotes trials on the accomplishment of their demands in 1837 was met with

constant rejections from the British government. The Patriotes submitted 92 solutions to the

British. The Patriotes rebelled as a result of the refusal from the British government. The

peasants, artisans and labourers rebelled under the leadership of the petty bourgeoisie and

Papineau. They were against the British colony. Unfortunately, the revolutions were a failure.

The militia and British troops brought to an end the rebels.

 7

At the same time, there were revolts in upper Canada. William Lyon Mackenzie led the

reformers in Upper Canada. The reformers challenged the British colony's economic, political,

and social powers. They were also against the Family Compact in enacting political reforms

representations. The rebels wanted equity in land allocation policies, opportunities in education

and improvement of the community and an elected legislature with equal powers to the British

colony. The rebels in Upper Canada wanted the grievances of the frontier and agrarian farmers

heard. Creighton, a historian argued that the revolution was due to the differences between the

agrarian farmers and commercial capitalism. Creighton believed that the differences were

worsened by the worldwide financial and economic collapse in the year 1837 ( Creighton,

1937 ). The Canadas were shaped by a corrupt commercial empire. The Empire was referred to

as St Lawrence. The Empire catered to commercial elites and Family Compact. The interest of

the commercial elites was in the neo-mercantilist project. The project was a development project.

The construction of canals in the Canadas fell under the neo-mercantilist project.

The Family Compact was against the reforms leading to the uprisings. The Family

Compact included landowners, the clergy, wealthy elites and bureaucrats. John Strachan was

one amongst the many spokesmen in the Family Compact; he was from the Church of England.

According to the rebels, the ideology behind the Family Compact was not democratic but

reactionary. The reformers passed a bill that allowed ministers of Methodist to formalize

marriages. The insurgents also converted reserves of the clergy and used the proceeds to fund the

education of the public. Ryerson was a member of the reforms that took place in Upper Canada.

He fought for equal rights for every protestant denomination and opposed the privileges the

Church of England had in higher education. The Family Compact turned down all trials by the

reformers to transform liberal capitalism in Upper Canada. The reformers were against the
 8

powers vested to banks, the privileges accorded to the Church of England, the land companies in

Canada, and the clergy's reserves. The colonial state dismissed the demands of the reformers.

The failure by the British colony to meet the needs of the reformers led to the rebellion in Upper

Canada. The uprisings pitched the peasants, patriots, and reformers in the Lower and Upper

Canada against the ruling colony and its interests.

Leo Johnson, in contrast to Creighton, believed that the rebellion in Upper Canada in 1837 was

to endorse radicalization of agrarian capitalism of Republican democrats based on the yeoman

Agrarian farmer class ( Johnson, 1973 ). The revolutions were a cause to long-term projects of

national capitalism across British North America.

References
 9

Creighton, D. G. (1937). The economic background of the rebellions of eighteen thirty-

seven. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques

et science politique, 3(3), 322-334.

Innis, H. (2018). An introduction to the economic history of Ontario from outpost to Empire (pp.

108-122). University of Toronto Press.

Johnson, L. A. (1973). History of the County of Ontario, 1615-1875. Corporation of the County

of Ontario.