With the conclusion of peace came a great rush to
the north. The resources of government were strained
to the utmost to provide for the necessities of the
thousands who flocked over the border-line. At
Chambly, St Johns, Montreal, Sorel, Machiche, Quebec,
officers of government were stationed to dole out
supplies. At Quebec alone in March 1784 one thousand
three hundred and thirty-eight ‘friends of government’
were being fed at the public expense. At Sorel
a settlement was established similar to that at Machiche.
The seigneury of Sorel had been purchased by the government
in 1780 for military purposes, and when the war was
over it was turned into a Loyalist reserve, on which
huts were erected and provisions dispensed. In
all, there must have been nearly seven thousand Loyalists
in the province of Quebec in the winter of 1783-84.
Complete details are lacking with regard to the temporary
encampments in which the Loyalists were hived; but
there are evidences that they were not entirely satisfied
with the manner in which they were looked after.
One of the earliest of Canadian county histories,
[Footnote: Dundas, or a Sketch of Canadian
History, by James Croil, Montreal, 1861.] a book
partly based on traditionary sources, has some vague
tales about the cruelty and malversation practised
by a Frenchman under whom the Loyalists were placed
at ‘Mishish.’ ‘Mishish’
is obviously a phonetic spelling of Machiche, and
‘the Frenchman’ is probably Conrad Gugy.
Some letters in the Dominion Archives point in the
same direction. Under date of April 29, the governor’s
secretary writes to Stephen De Lancey, the inspector
of the Loyalists, referring to ’the uniform
discontent of the Loyalists at Machiche.’
The discontent, he explains, is excited by a few ill-disposed
persons. ’The sickness they complain of
has been common throughout the province, and should
have lessened rather than increased the consumption
of provisions.’ A Loyalist who writes to
the governor, putting his complaints on paper, is
assured that ’His Excellency is anxious to do
everything in his power for the Loyalists, but if
what he can do does not come up to the expectation
of him and those he represents, His Excellency gives
the fullest permission to them to seek redress in
such manner as they shall think best.’
What degree of justice there was in the complaints
of the refugees it is now difficult to determine.
No doubt some of them were confirmed grumblers, and
many of them had what Colonel Christie called ’unreasonable
expectations.’ Nothing is more certain than
that Sir Frederick Haldimand spared no effort to accommodate
the Loyalists. On the other hand, it would be
rash to assert that in the confusion which then reigned
there were no grievances of which they could justly
complain.
