46 JOHN GEORGE BOURINOT ON 
of France. He compelled the estates of Canada, as he called them, to take the new oath 
of allegiance before a great assemblage of persons. The French king did not long leave 
the haughty governor in doubt as to his opinion of this innovation on the policy laid 
down for the government of the colony. “The assembling and division that you have 
made,” wrote Colbert, “of all the inhabitants of the country into three orders or estates 
with the object of administering to them the oath of allegiance might have some effect for 
the moment; but it is well to consider that you should always observe in the administra- 
tion of public affairs those forms which are followed here, and that our kings have deemed 
it inexpedient for a long time past to assemble the states-general of their kingdom, with 
the view perhaps of insensibly destroying the ancient system. Under these circumstances 
you should very rarely, and in fact it would be better if you should never give this form 
to the people of the country. It will be advisable, even after a while, when the colony is 
more vigorous than at present, to suppress by degrees the syndic who presents petitions 
in the name of the inhabitants, as it seems better that everyone should speak for himself, 
and no one for all.” * 
The history of the officer just named, the syndic, of itself gives us some striking 
evidence of the stern determination of the government to stamp out every vestige of 
_popular institutions, however insignificant it might be. The syndics d'habitations are 
said to have been originally constituted by Colbert to act as municipal officers appointed 
by the people of the cities to preserve public rights. The references to these function- 
aries in the history of those times are very vague: they appear to have existed in Quebec, 
Montreal, and Three Rivers in 1647, but they ceased to exist by 1661. The government 
was determined to have no town-meetings or municipal officers in the province of 
Quebec. In 1663, a meeting of the citizens of Quebec was called by the supreme council, 
on the requisition of the attorney-general, to elect a mayor and two aldermen for that 
town. The people accordingly chose Jean-Baptiste Legardeur, Sieur de Repentigny, for 
mayor, and Jean Madry and Claude Charron for aldermen; but these persons soon 
resigned in consequence, it is well understood, of the influence brought to bear upon 
them by the authorities. They declared that, having regard to the smallness of the 
population, it would be better to appoint a syndic. The first election held for this pur- 
pose was annulled, and another, called irregularly by the governor, made a nomination. 
It appears that the bishop, Monseigneur de Laval, a haughty, determined man, who 
proved himself during his memorable career in Canada a true descendant of the great 
house of Montmorency, was opposed to the action taken in this matter, and his friends in 
the council protested against the swearing in and installation of the syndic. The gover- 
nor, M. de Mezy, took upon himself to suspend the obstinate councillors, and consequently 
committed a violation of the royal instructions, for he had no power of appointing these 
functionaries without the consent of the bishop, or of dismissing or suspending them at 
his own discretion.” Without dwelling further on these official squabbles, frequent enough 
in those times, it is only necessary to add that the sequel was that the country heard no 
more of attempts to establish even a semblance of popular representative government in 
the towns of Canada. The policy of the king and his advisers was determinately antago- 

1 Doutre et Lareau, pp. 169,170; Chauveau, Notice sur la publication des Régistres du Conseil Souverain, 
etc., p. 34. 
? Chauveau, pp. 24-30; Garneau, i. 179, 180; Parkman’s Old Régime, p. 281; Doutre et Lareau, p. 129. 
