text:
Farooque vs. Government of Bangladesh, WP 998 of 1994, CA 24 of 1995 (1996.07.25) (Flood Action Plan Case)
Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque
Bangladesh and others
Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1995
17 BLD (AD) 1997, Vol. XVII, Page-1 to 33; 1 BLC (AD) (1996) Page- 189 to 219 (1996)
A.T.M. AFZAL, CJ.-
The liberalized view as expounded by my brother is an update, if I may say so, of the liberalization agenda which was undertaken in the case of Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman, 26 DLR (SC) 44. It is a matter of some pride that quite early in out Constitutional Journey the question of locus standi was given a liberal contour in that decision by this Court at a time when the Blackburn cases were just being decided in England which established the principle of "sufficient interest" for a standing and the doctrine of public interest litigation or class action was yet to take roots in the Indian Jurisdiction. The springboard for the liberalization move was the momentous statement made in that case: "It appears to us that case was found to be a person aggrieved not because he brought any personal grievance before the Court but because, to quote from the judgment itself, "we heard him in view of the constitutional issue of grave importance raised in the instant case involving an international treaty affecting the territory of Bangladesh and his complaint as to an impending threat to his certain fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, namely, to move freely throughout the territory of Bangladesh, to reside and settle in any place therein as well as his right of franchise. Evidently, these rights attached to a citizen are not local. They pervade and extend to every inch of the territory of Bangladesh stretching up to the continental shelf."
Two principles were established in that case, -(1) that when there is a threat to a fundamental right of the citizens any one of them can invoke the jurisdiction under article 102 of the Constitution, that any citizen from any part of the country may become a petitioner and (2) that if a constitutional issue of grave importance is raised (in that case it was an international treaty affecting territory of Bangladesh) a petitioner qualifies himself to be a person aggrieved.
The liberal interpretation given to the expression "any person aggrieved" in the judgments of my learned brothers, in my opinion, approximates the test of or if the same is capsulized, amounts to, what is broadly called, "sufficient interest". Any person other than an officious intervenor or a wayfarer without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any of the 120 million people of the country or a person with an oblique motive, having sufficient interest in the matter in dispute is qualified to be a person aggrieved and can maintain an action for judicial redress of public injury arising from breach of public duty or for violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such Public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. Now what is `sufficient interest` will essentially depend on the co-relation between the matter brought before the Court and the person who is bringing it. It is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula for determining sufficient interest which may be applicable in all cases. Of necessity the question has to be decided in the facts of each case as already pointed out in the case of Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman. This topic has been eloquently summed up by the Indian Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 and I fully subscribe to that statement. It reads:
"What is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public would have to be determined by the Court in each individual case. It is not possible for the court to lay down any hard and fast rule or any strait-jacket formula for the purpose of defining or delimiting `sufficient interest`. It has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Court. The reason is that in a modern complex society which is seeking to bring about transformation of its social and economic structure and trying to reach social justice to the vulnerable section of the people by creating new social, collective `diffuse` rights and interests imposing new public duties on the State and other public authorities infinite number of situations are bound to arise which cannot be imprisoned in a rigid mould or a Procrustean formula. The Judge who has the correct social perspective and who is on the same wavelength as the Constitution will be able to decide, without any difficulty and in consonance with the constitutional objectives, whether a member of the public moving the Court in a particular case has sufficient interest to initiate the action."
A person pleading sufficient interest may be able to cross, what is called, the threshold stage on the averments made in the writ petition but it will always remain open for a prospective respondent to contest the said claim on facts and also to assail the bonafides or even the appropriateness in a particular case of the petitioner for seeking a relief invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution. ... but the consideration would have been different if any organization representing a weaker section of the society has come to complain about a breach of any fundamental right of its members or any public wrong done to the members generally in breach of any provision of the constitution or law. The Court will have to decide in each case, particularly when objection is taken, not only the extent of sufficiency of interest but also the fitness of the person for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 102 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, it is the affected party which is to come to the Court for remedy. The Court in considering the question of standing in a particular case, if the affected party is not before it, will enquire as to why the affected party is not coming before it and if it finds no satisfactory reason for non-appearance of the affected party, if may refuse to entertain the application.
As regards the locus standi of the appellant in the present case, I agree with my learned brothers that the High Court Division wrongly decided the issue upon wrongly relying on the Sangbad Patra Parishad case which has got no application to the facts of the present case. Facts of the appellant`s case have been elaborately noticed in the judgment of Mustafa Kamal, J. and I may state briefly that the appellant is the Secretary General of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and the said organisation is working in the field of environment and ecology. In the writ petition the activities of FAP, FAP-20 and the FPCO have been impugned on the ground, inter alia, that the said activities would adversely affect more than a million human lives and natural resources and the natural habitat of man and other flora and fauna and that they aroused wide attention for being allegedly anti- environment and anti-people project. The appellant stated in the writ petition that as an environmentally concerned and active organisation, BELA conducted investigations at various times in 1992-93 in the FAP-20 areas. The appellant alleged that no proper environmental impact assessment has been undertaken in relation to FAP projects even though the European parliament declared in its resolution of 24 June 1993 that there was urgent need of changing the FAP`s classification within the World the World Bank project scheme from category `B` to category `A` requiring full environmental assessment for projects which appear to have significant adverse effect on the environment.
A group of environmental lawyers possessed of pertinent, bonafide and well-recognized attributes and purposes in the area of environment and having a provable, sincere, dedicated and established status is asking for a judicial review of certain activities under a flood action plan undertaken with foreign assistance on the ground, inter alia, of alleged environmental degradation and ecological imbalance and violation of several laws in certain areas of the district of Tangail. The question is: does it have sufficient interest in the matter for a standing under article 102?
It is very interesting that Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court in his minority opinion went so far as to say in Sierra Club vs. Morton, 401 U.S. 907 (1971) (No.70-34) that contemporary public concern for protecting nature`s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. The learned Judge further said: Ecology reflects the land ethic; and Aldo Leopold wrote in A Sand County Almanac 204 (1949), "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land." That as I see it, is the issue of "standing" in the present case and controversy.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development containing 27 principles include, among other, it may be noted for the present purpose:
Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceeding, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Principle 10 above seems to be the theoretical foundation for all that have been vindicated in the writ petition and also provides a ground for standing. In this context of engaging cocern for the conservation of environment, irrespective of the locality where it is threatened, I am of the view that a national organization like the appellant, which claims to have studied and made research on the disputed project, can and should be attributed a threshold standing as having sufficient interest in the matter, and thereby regarded as a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition subject to the objection or objections as may be raised by the respondents if a Rule is issued ultimately.
MUSTAFA KAMAL, J.: In Bangladesh an unnoticed but quiet revolution took place on the question of locus standi after the introduction of the Constitution of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh in 1972 in the case of Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman vs. Bangladesh, 26 DLR(SC) 44, decided on September 3, 1974 and hereinafter referred to as Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman`s Case. The appellant challenged the Delhi Treaty signed on the 16th May, 1974 by the Prime Ministers of the Government of Bangladesh and the Republic of India providing therein inter alia that India will retain the southern half of south Berubari Union No. 12 and the adjacent enclaves and in exchange Bangladesh will retain the Dahagram and Angarpota enclaves. The ground of challenge was that the agreement involved cession of Bangladesh territory and was entered into without lawful authority by the executive head of government. The High Court Division summarily dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had no locus standi. At the hearing of the certificated appeal before the Appellate Division it was urged by the appellant that since the remedies available under Article 102(2) of our Constitution are discretionary, the words "any person aggrieved" should be construed liberally and given a wide meaning, although in the facts and circumstances of a particular case the Court may regard the personal interest pleased by a petitioner as being slight or too remote. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the case of Main Fazal Din vs. The Lahore Improvement Trust, 21DLR(SC)225 in which Hamoodur Rahman, C.J. had occasion to say that the right considered sufficient for maintaining a proceeding of this nature is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he has a personal interest in the matter which involves loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty of franchise. Upon considering several American and Indian decisions of the time and a lone Australian decision, the Appellate Division held as follows:
"It appears to us that the question of locus standi does not involve the Court`s jurisdiction to hear a person but of the competency of the person to claim a hearing, so that the question is one of discretion which the Court exercises upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case."
Locus standi was granted to the appellant even though he was not a resident of the southern half of South Berubari Union No.12 or adjacent enclaves involved in the Delhi Treaty because he had raised a constitutional issue of grave importance involving an international treaty affecting the territory of Bangladesh and posing an impending threat to his fundamental rights under Article 36 of the Constitution and his right of franchise. These rights, attached to a citizen, are not local. They pervade and extend to every inch of the territory of Bangladesh stretching up to the continental shelf.
This Court, therefore, settled seven general principles in Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman`s case, viz.-
(1) the High Court Division does not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction under Article 102 to hear a person.
(2) The High Court Division will grant locus standi to a person who agitates a question affecting a constitutional issue of grave importance, posing a threat to his fundamental rights which pervade and extend to the entire territory of Bangladesh.
(3) If a fundamental right is involved, the impugned matter need not affect a purely personal right of the applicant touching him alone. It is enough if he shares that right in common with others.
(4) In interpreting the words "any person aggrieved", consideration of "Fundamental Rights" in Part III of the Constitution is a relevant one.
(5) It is the competency of the person to claim a hearing which is at the heart of the interpretation of the words "any person aggrieved".
(6) It is a question of exercise of discretion by the High Court Division as the whether it will treat that person as a person aggrieved or no Court Division will exercise that jurisdiction upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
8 years thereafter we find an echo of some of the above principles in the Indian Supreme Court case of S.P. Gupta and others vs. President of India, AIR1982(SC)149, at paragraph 19A:
"What is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public would have to be determined by the Court in each individual case. It is not possimined[??][??] by the Court to lay down any hard fast rule or any strait-jacket formula for the purpose of defining or delimiting `sufficient interest`. It has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Court. The reason is that in a modern complex society which is seeking to bring about transformation of its social and economic structure and trying to reach social justice to the vulnerable section of the people by creating new social, collective `diffuse` rights and interests imposing new public duties on the State and other public authorities infinite number of situations are bound to arise which cannot be imprisoned in a rigid mould or a Procrustean formula. The Judge who has the correct social perspective and who is on the same wave-length as the Constitution will be able to decide, without any difficulty and in consonance with the constitutional objectives, whether a member of the public moving the Court in a particular case has sufficient interest to initiate the action."
Coming now to our situation, the Sangbadpatra Parishad Case was no authority for the proposition that an environmental lawyers` association is not a person aggrieved when it espouses the causes of a large number of people on an environmental issue. The High Court division`s reliance on this decision was misplaced, to say the least, because the ratio decidendi of the said case was that an association of newspaper owners and news organisations, espousing not the causes of the downtrodden and the poor who have no access to justice, but the cause of its members who are opulent enough to seek redress on their own, cannot in a representative capacity be a person aggrieved, when the association`s own interest are not in issue. That case was not an authority even for the proposition that an association can never be a person aggrieved if it espouses the causes of its members in a representative capacity. The Sangbadpatra Parishad case was decided on the facts of that case and that is how should be read.
We now proceed to say how we interpret Article 102 as a whole. We do not give much importance to the dictionary meaning on punctuation of the words "any person aggrieved". Article 102 of our Constitution is not an isolated island standing above or beyond the sea-level of the other provisions of the Constitution. It is a part of the over- all scheme. Objectives and purposes of the Constitution. And its interpretation is inextricably linked with the (i) emergence of Bangladesh and framing of its Constitution. (ii) the Preamble and Article 7, (iii) Fundamental Principles of State Policy, (iv) Fundamental Rights and (v) the other provisions of the Constitution.
As to (i) above, it is wrong to view our Constitution as just a replica with local adaptations of a Constitution of the Westminister model among the Commonwealth countries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. This Constitution of ours is not the outcome of a negotiated settlement with a former colonial power. It was not drawn upon the consent, concurrence or approval of any external sovereign power. Nor is it the last of an oft-replaced and oft substituted Constitution after several Constitutions were tried and failed, although as many as 13 amendments have so far been made to it. It is the fruit of a historic war of independence, achieved with the lives and sacrifice of a telling number of people for a common cause making it a class part from other Constitutions of comparable description. It is a Constitution in which the people features as the dominant actor. It was the people of Bangladesh who in exercise of their own self-proclaimed e a clean break from the past unshackling the bondage of a past statehood and adopted a Constitution of its own choosing. The Constitution, historically and in real terms, is a manifestation of what is called "the People`s Power". The people of Bangladesh, therefore, are central, as opposed to ornamental, to the framing of the Constitution.
As for (ii) the Preamble and Article 7, the Preamble of our Constitution stands on a different Footing from that of other Constitutions by the very fact of the essence of its birth which is different from others. It is in our Constitution a real and positive declaration of pledges, adopted, enacted and given to themselves by the people not by way of a presentation from skillful draftsmen, but as reflecting the ethos of their historic war of independence. Among other pledges the high ideals of absolute trust and Faith in the Almighty Allah, a pledge to secure for all citizens a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social and the affirmation of the sacred duty to safeguard, protect and defend the Constitution and to maintain its supremacy as the embodiment of the will of the people of Bangladesh are salutary in indicating the course or path that the people wish to tread in the days to come. Article 7 of the Constitution bestows the powers of the Republic with the people and the exercise of the people`s power on behalf of the people shall be effected only under and by the authority of, the Constitution. Article 7 does not contain empty phrases. It means that all the legislative, executive and judicial powers conferred on the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary respectively are constitutionally the powers of the people themselves and the various functionaries and institutions created by the Constitution exercise not their own indigenous and native powers but the powers of the people on terms expressed by the Constitution. The people, again, is the repository of article 7.
As for (iii) in Part II of the Constitution, containing Fundamental Principles of State Policy, Article 8 (2) provides that the principles set out in this Part "shall be a guide to the interpretation of the Constitution and of the other laws of Bangladesh. "It is constitutionally impermissible to leave out of consideration Part II of our Constitution when an interpretation of Article 102 needs a guidance.
As for (iv),Part III of the Constitution bestows Fundamental Rights on the citizens and other residents of Bangladesh. Article 44 (1) guarantees the right to move the High Court Division in accordance with Article 102 (1) for the enforcement of these rights. Article 102 (1) is therefore a mechanism for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights which can be enjoyed by an individual alone in so far as his individual rights are concerned, but which can also be shared by an individual in common with others when the rights pervade and extend to the entire population and territory. Article 102 (1) especially cannot be divorced from Part III of the Constitution.
As for (v), the other provisions of the Constitution which will vary from to case may also come to play a role in interpreting Article 102 of the Constitution. Article 102 therefore is an instrumentality and a mechanism, containing both substantive and procedural provisions, by means of which the people as a collective personality, and not merely as a conglomerate of individuals, have devised for themselves a method and manner to realise the objectives, purposes, policies, rights and duties which they have set out for themselves and which they have strewn over the fabric of the Constitution.
With the power of the people looming large behind the constitution horizon it is difficult to conceive of Article 102 as a vehicle or mechanism for realising exclusively individual rights upon individual complaints. The Supreme Court being a vehicle, a medium or mechanism devised by the Constitution for the exercise of the judicial power on behalf of the people, the people will always remain the focal point of concern of the Supreme court while disposing of justice or propounding any, judicial theory or interpreting any provision of the Constitution. Viewed in this context interpreting the words "any person aggrieved" meaning only and exclusively individuals and excluding the consideration of people as a collective and consolidated personality will be a stand taken against the constitution. There is no question of enlarging locus standi or legislation by Court. The enlargement is writ large on the face of the Constitution. In a capitalist laissez faire concept of private ownership of the instruments and mans of production and distribution, individual rights carry the only weight and the judiciary exists primarily to protect the capitalist rights of the individuals, but in our Constitution Article 13, a Fundamental Principle of State Policy, provides that the people shall own control the instruments and means of production and distribution under three forms, namely, (a) state ownership, that is, ownership, by the State on behalf of the people; (b) co-operative ownership, that is, ownership by co-operatives on behalf of the members and (c) private ownership, that i, ownership by individuals. When there is a State ownership on behalf of the people of the instruments and means of production an distribution the concept of exclusive personal wrong or injury is hardly appropriate. The High Court Division cannot under the circumstances adhere to the traditional concept that to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 102 only a person who has suffered a legal grievance or injury or an adverse decision or a wrongful deprivation or wrongful refusal of his title to something is a person aggrieved.
This is not to say that Article 102 has nationalised each person`s cause as every other person`s cause. The traditional view remains true, valid and effective till today in so far as individual rights and individual infraction thereof are concerned. But when a public injury or public wrong or infraction of a fundamental right affecting an indeterminate number of people is involved it is not necessary, in the scheme of our Constitution, that the multitude of individuals who have been collectively wronged or injured or whose collective fundamental rights have been invaded are to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 102 in a multitude of individual writ petitions, each representing his won portion of concern. In so far as it concerns public wrong or public injury or invasion of fundamental rights of an indeterminate number of people, any member of the public, being a citizen, suffering the common injury or common invasion in common with others or any citizen or an indigenous association, as distinguished from a local component of a foreign organisation, espousing that particular cause is a person aggrieved and has the right to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 102.
It is, therefore, the cause that the citizen-applicant or the indigenous and native association espouses which will determine whether the applicant has the competency to claim a hearing or not. If he espouses a purely individual cause, he is a person aggrieved if his own interests are affected. If he espouses a public cause involving public wrong or public injury, he need not be personally affected. The public wrong or injury is very much a primary concern of the Supreme Court which in the scheme of our Constitution is a constitution vehicle for exercising the judicial power of the people.
The High Court Division will exercise some rules of caution in each case. It will see that the applicant is in fact espousing a public cause, that his interest in the subject matter is real and not in the interest of generating some publicity for himself or to create mere public sensation, that he is acting bona fide, that he is not a busybody or an interloper, that it is in the public interest to grant him standing and that he is not acting for a collateral purpose to achieve a dubious goal, incl foreign interest.
This writ petition is concerned with an environmental issue. In our Constitution there is no specific fundamental right dealing with environment, nor does it find a place in the Fundamental Principle of State Policy. If we take the averments of the appellants in the writ petition on their face value, and do not entertain any contrary assertions thereto at this stage, it is obvious that the association-appellant as an environmental association of lawyers is a person aggrieved, because the cause it espouses, both in respect of fundamental rights and constitutional remedies, is a cause of an indeterminate number of people in respect of a subject matter of public concern and it appears, on the face of the writ petition itself, that it has devoted its time, energy and resources to the alleged ill-effects of FAP-20, it is acting bona fide and that it does not seek to serve an oblique purpose. It has taken great pains to establish that it is not a busybody. Subject to what emerges after the respondents state their case at the hearing of the writ petition the appellant cannot be denied entry at the threshold stage on the averments made in the writ petition.
We have given reasons of our own why the appellant is a person aggrieved, but we have to say specifically that we do not accept Dr. Farooque`s submission that the association represents not only the present generation but also the generation yet unborn. This claim is based on a case of Philippines Supreme Court, Juan Antonio Oposa and others vs. Hon`ble Fulgencio S. Factoran and another in which the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" were agitated by the plaintiff minors represented by their respective parents to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rain forest. The minors asserted that they "represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn". The minors` locus standi was allowed because "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" was a fundmanetal right and several laws declaring the policy of the State to conservation of the country`s forest "not only for the present generation but for the future generation as well" were guaranteed. (The South Asian Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 13, September, 1994, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 113-145). Our Constitution does not contain any analogous provision.
As to the apprehension of floodgate, the people as a whole is no doubt a flood and the Constitution is the sluice-gate through which the people controls its own entry. Our Courts will be prudent enough to recognise the people when the people appear through an applicant as also those who masquerade under the name of the people. Taking up the people`s causes at the expense of his own is a rare phenomenon, not a commonplace occurrence.
We hold therefore that the association-appellant was wrongly held by the High Court Division not to be a "person aggrieved" in the facts and circumstances of the case and we hold further that the appellant is "any person aggrieved" within the meaning of both Article 102 (1) and Article 102 (2) (a) of the Constitution.
The appeal is allowed and Writ petition No. 998 of 1994 is remanded to the High Court Division for hearing on merit. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/Mustafa Kamal.J.
LATIFUR RAHMAN,J.:-
The traditional rule to locus standi is that judicial remedy is available only to a person who is personally aggrieved. This principle is based on the theory that the remedies and rights are correlative and therefore only a person whose own right is violated is entitled to seek remedy. In case of private individual and private law this principle can be applied with some strictness, but in public law this doctrine cannot be applied with the same strictness as that will tantamount to ignoring the good and well being of citizens, more particularly from the view point of public good for whom the state and the Constitution exist.
`Bela` is actively working in the field of environmental problems of the Bangladesh. It is to be kept in mind that `Bela` has got no direct personal interest in the matter. strictly speaking it is not an aggrieved person if, we just give a grammatical construction to the phrase `aggrieved person` which means person personally aggrieved.
In our Constitution nowhere the expression aggrieved person has been defined. An expression appearing in the Constitution must get its light and sustenance from the different provisions of the constitution and from the scheme and objective of the constitution itself. In our Constitution, preamble provides that the people of Bangladesh proclaimed Independence on the 26th day of March, 1971 and through a historic war for national independence established independent, sovereign Bangladesh. The preamble of our Constitution envisages a socialistic society free from all kinds of exploitation. In other words, the Constitution contemplates a society based on securing all possible benefits to its people, namely, democratic, social, political and equality of justice in accordance with law. The Constitution is the supreme embodiment of the will of the people of Bangladesh and as such all actions must be taken for the welfare of the people. For whose benefits all powers of the Republic vest in the people. For whose benefits all powers of the Republic vest in the people and the exercise of such power shall be effected through the supremacy of the Constitution. If justice is not easily and equally accessible to every citizen there then hardly be a Rule of Law. If access to justice is limited to the rich, the more advantaged and more powerful sections of society, then the poor and the deprived will have no stake in the Rule of Law and they will be more readily available to turn against it. Ready and equal access to justice is a sine qua non for the maintenance of the Rule of Law. Where there is a written Constitution and an independent judiciary and the wrongs suffered by any section of the people are capable of being raised and ventilated publicly in a court of law to be greater respect for the Rule of Law. The preamble of our Constitution really contemplates a society where there will be unflinching respect for the Rule of Law and the welfare of the citizens. Article 7(1) of our Constitution reads as follows:-
"7.(1) All powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be effected only under, and by the authority of, this Constitution."
The supremacy of the constitution is a special and unique feature in our Constitution. Neither in the Constitution of India nor in the Constitution of Pakistan there is reassertion of the supremacy of the Constitution. This is a substantive provision which contemplates exercise of all powers in the republic through the authority of the Constitution.
Part II of our Constitution relates to fundamental principles of State Policy. Article 8(2) provides that these principles are not enforceable in any court but nevertheless are fundamental to the governess of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply the principle in making the laws. The principles, primarily being social and economic rights, oblige the state, amongst other themselves, to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, to secure a right to work, to educate, to ensure equitable distribution of resources and to decentralise power to set up local Government institutions composed of people from different categories of people as unit of self governance. A Constitution of a country is a document of social evolution and it is dynamic in nature. It should encompass in itself the growing demands, needs of people and change of time. A Constitution cannot be morbid at all. The language used by the framers of the Constitution must be given a meaningful interpretation with the evolution and growth of our society. An obligation is cast on the Constitutional Court which is the apex court of the country to interpret the Constitution in a manner in which social, economic and political justice for the welfare to the state and it`s citizens. Mr. Mahmudul Islam. author of "Constitution law of Bangladesh" opined in his book as follows:-
"An expression occurring in the Constitution cannot be interpreted out of context or only by reference to the decisions of foreign jurisdictions where the constitutional dispensation is different from ours."
The author dealing with the Constitution of Bangladesh has very apply said that the meaning of the expression `aggrieved person` must be understood keeping in view of the pronounced scheme and objectives of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document and therefore its interpretation should be liberal to meet the needs of the time and demands of the people. By referring to the various provisions of the Constitution of Bangladesh, I find that it ensure liberties and socio-economic justice exhorted for a purposeful application to all categories of the population.
The Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes the welfare of the people in unambiguous terms if, we take a traditional restive rule and remain contended with it then the same will be disastrous for the welfare of a poor, uneducated society like ours in the contest of social and economic unequal. Time has come when this court must act according to the needs of doing social justice to the large segment of population. This relaxation of the strict rules of locus standi can be expanded in two way First, representative standing and citizen standing. The former relates to the standing in a matter pertaining to a legal wrong or injury cause or threatened to be caused to a person or class of person who, by reason of property helplessness or disability or economic inability cannot move the court for relief. The later relates to standing in a matter in which breach of public duty results in violation of collective right of the public duty results in violation of collective right of the public at large. In this case, the as appellant is not moving this application as peoples of the locality economically crippled cannot file the application before the court, but by this action of the respondents a public wrong or public injury is causing damage to environment and human health in Bangladesh in which specific filed `Bela` is actively associated. Thus, I find that this organization has got sufficient interest in the matter and the question of standing must be liberally construed in the context of our Constitutional scheme and objectives as indicated above.
I also honestly feel that there is a positive duty on the judiciary to advance and secure the protection of the Fundamental rights of its people as found in our Constitution. Strictly it may be correct to say that only a person whose rights are infringed has a right to make an application to assert his right be it, fundamental or otherwise. But it is important to note that there is a constitutional duty on the judiciary to secure an advance the fundamental rights of its people in view of our Constitutional mandate. In such an event this court is under a duty to act and inquire into allegations of infringement of rights even though technically a perfect application in terms of Article 102 of the Constitution is not before the court. Independence of judiciary and its separation from the executive ensures proper functioning of the courts. The Court is required to protect and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed to the people, it interprets and protects the Constitution, "enforces the constitutional limitations on the power of the government, decides disputes between the State and it`s citizen and between citizen. Presently, I am concerned with the protection of the rights of the people and will restrict to the same. The people have been guaranteed life, liberty, equality, security, freedom from needs, wants, illiteracy and ignorance, dignity of man and socio-economic and political justice. Any law, action and order made and passed in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the People. We can thus see how judiciary upholds, protects and defends the Constitution and effectively enforces the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution itself. The judiciary defends the constitution and attains the pivotal enviable position as the guardian of the people and also the conscience of the people. In the area of economic regulation, control and planning the judiciary has used law as an instrument for the eradication of poverty, inequality and exploitation and strengthened the hands of the State in widening the gamut of its welfare activities. The terms` welfare State`, mixed economy`, `socialist republic` etc. have been given the judiciary vast scope for social engineering. Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement, the most basic "human rights" of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights. The types of cases which were considered at the early stages of development of the rule of locus standi are those where there is a specific legal in jury either to the applicant or to some other person or persons for whose benefit the action is brought arising from violation of some constitutional or legal right or legally protected interest. Apart from such cases, there is a category of cases where the State or a public authority may act in violation of a constitutional or statutory obligation, or fail to carry out such obligation resulting in injury to public interest or public injury as distinguished from private injury. Who then in such cases can complain of against such act or omission of the State or public authority? Can any member of the public sue for legal redress? Or is such right or standing limited only to a certain class of persons ? Or is there no one who can complain ? Must the public injury go unredressed ?
Thus I hold that a person approaching the court for redress of a public wrong or public injury has sufficient interest (not a personal interest) in the proceedings and is acting benefit and not for his personal gain or private profits, without any political motivation or other oblique consideration has locus standi to move the High Court under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque has cited a large number of decisions from Indian jurisdiction to show how the question of locus standi has been considered in the High Courts of India including the Supreme Court for evolution and development of public interest litigation in India. He has cited various decisions from other countries as well in his written argument to show that public interest litigation is a new jurisprudence which the courts in other jurisdictions are evolving. I will not refer to all those cases as the language of article 102 of our Constitution is not in perimeteria with the language of those Constitutions.
If we look to the cases recently disposed of by the Supreme Court of India then we find that there is a trend of judicial activism to protect environment through public litigation in environmental cases. In Bangladesh such cases are just knocking at the door of the court for environmental policy making and the court is being involved in this case. There is a trend to liberalize the rules of standing through out the world in spite of the traditional view of the locus standi. The Supreme Court of India initially took the view that when any member of a public or social organization so espouse the cause of the poor and the down-trodden, such member should be permitted to move the Court even by merely writing a letter without incurring expenditure of his own. In such a case, the letter was regarded as an appropriate proceeding failing within the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution. This was thus the beginning of the exercise of a new jurisdiction in India, known as epistolary jurisdiction.
The operation of Public Interest Litigation should not be restricted to the violation of the defined fundamental Rights along. In this modern age of technology, scientific advancement, economic progress and industrial growth the socio-economic rights are under phenomenal change. New rights which call for collective protection and therefore we must act to protect all the constitutional, fundamental and statutory rights as contemplated within the fore corners of our Constitution.
In conclusion, I hold that the appellant may not have any direct personal interest but it has sufficient and genuine interest in the matter complained of and it has come before the court as a group of public spirited young lawyers to see that the public wrong or public injury is remedied and not merely as a busy body perhaps with a view to gain cheap popularity and publicity.
Before parting with the case, I want to mention specifically that any application filed by an individual, group of individuals, associations and social activists must be carefully scrutinized by the court itself to see as to whether the petitioner has got sufficient and genuine interest in the proceeding to focus a public wrong or public injury.
BIMALENDU BIKASH ROY CHOUDHURY. J. A review of the authorities of this court, however, indicates that no exhaustive or definitive meaning could have yet been given to the said expression and the courts sometimes lapsed into the traditional view which originated from the old English decisions. But law does not remain static. It loses its rigidity with the gradual change of the social order to meet the demands of the change.
In order to ensure that the mandates of the Constitution are obeyed the High Court Division of the Supreme Court is vested with the power of judicial review under article 102 which is contained in Part VI of the Constitution. The power is wide enough to reach any person or place where there is injustice.
In this backdrop the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" occurring in the aforesaid clauses (1) and (2) (a) of article 102 is to be understood and not in an isolated manner. It cannot be conceived that its interpretation should be purged of the spirit of the constitution as clearly indicated in the Preamble and other provisions of our Constitution, as disc is unthinkable that the framers of the Constitution had in their mind that the grievances of millions of our people should go unredressed, merely because they are unably to reach the doors of the court owing to abject poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and disadvantaged condition. It could never have been the intention of the framers of the constitution to outclass them. In such harrowing conditions of our people is general if socially conscious and public-spirited persons are not allowed to approach the court on behalf of the public or a section thereof for enforcement of their rights the very scheme of the Constitution will be frustrated. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the expression "person aggrieved" means not only any person who is personally aggrieved but also one whose heart bleeds for his less fortunate fellow beings for a wrong done by the Government or a local authority in not fulfilling its constitutional or statutory obligations. It does not, however, extend to a person who is an interloper and interferes with things which do not concern him. This approach is in keeping with the constitutional principles that are being evolved in the recent times in different countries.
Although we do not have any provision like article 48-A of the Indian Constitution for protection and improvement of environment, articles 31 and 32 of our Constitution protects right to life as a fundamental right. It encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, and sanitation without which life can hardly be enjoyed. Any act or omission contrary thereto will be violative of the said right to life.
In the face of the statements in the writ petition BELA is concerned with the protection of the people of this country from the ill-effects of environmental hazards and ecological imbalance. It has a genuine interest in seeing that the law is enforced and the people likely to be affected by the proposed project are saved. Ths interest is sufficient enough to bring the appellant within the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved". The appellant should be given locus standi to maintain the writ petition on their behalf.


text:
Legal Defense Fund for J10 Seattle Antifascists
Todd Ferguson would like you to see Legal Defense Fund for J10 Seattle Antifascists
Please contribute now
100% of $1.5k goal
By Greater Seattle IWW General Defense Committee Local 24
Seattle, WA, US
Greater Seattle IWW General Defense Committee Local 24 hasn't added a story.
On June 10th, 2017 anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America staged a series of "anti-Sharia law" protests all across the United States. Here in Seattle, the General Defense Committee partnered with a broad spectrum of revolutionary organizations, clergy, and non-profits to mobilize a community response to make it clear that Seattle stands with our Muslim neighbors and their hateful ideology has no place here.
Despite having designated police liaisons who met with Seattle PD's commanding officer prior to the action beginning where the goal of keeping our action peaceful and separated from the anti-Muslim action was made clear, SPD allowed a group of around 15 individuals to repeatedly enter the counter demonstration and attack participants. The counter demonstration, after having successfully drowned out the bigots with a noise brigade, marched away from the location to disperse themselves. At this point, SPD once again allowed the same group of individuals from the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer to stalk the counter demonstration from City Hall to Pioneer Square where they once more violently attacked people.
It was at this point that 3 counter demonstrators were brutalized and arrested by Seattle PD. Less than an hour later, a 4th person was arrested while defending themselves from an attacker who had been in attendance at the ACT for America rally. Organizations and individuals who were part of the mass mobilization against ACT for America on the 10th later released an open letter calling for accountability for SPD's actions on that day but it was to no avail.
The Anti-Repression Committee of the Greater Seattle General Defense Committee Local 24 is raising funds to support the 4 people who were arrested. All funds raised will go directly to those arrested that day to help cover legal expenses and other economic burdens they are facing as a result of the legal issues, with any additional funds raised going to Puget Sound Prisoner Support which is a local autonomous organization which does fantastic work to support and free people facing legal repression.
Greater Seattle IWW General Defense Committee Local 24 hasn't posted any updates yet.
Greater Seattle IWW General Defense Committee Local 24 is managing the funds for this campaign.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Conor Benn returns to the ring on Amir Khan's British comeback undercard in Liverpool.
'The Destroyer' will be making his first appearance of 2018 at the Echo Arena, on April 21, almost five months since his last outing.
Benn (11-0-KO8), was put down twice by Cedrick Peynaud but climbed off the canvas to secure a sensational York Hall win, that saw him win all five of his fights in 2017.
"The fans enjoyed my last fight but that's not the way I should've been fighting," said Benn.
"I got the win and showed heart to come back from the first round. The support in York Hall was amazing and it really drove me on.
Benn appeared in London three times last year, Manchester once and made his American debut with a clinical knockout of Brandon Sanudo, at the iconic Nassau Coliseum, New York.
The son of Nigel will be making his debut on Merseyside when Khan takes on trash-talking Phil Lo Greco, and is raring to go after spending time away from the ring.
"This is a tough, tough sport and I was scared that I was going to lose but it says a lot about me that I came back and won," Benn said.
Previous articleWhat do these pictures have in common?


Have you noticed how executives tend to set company direction and then try to mold existing employees to fit the required roles? Have you also noticed how often those companies need to reorganize? The reason is simple: they're getting it backwards!
1) If the people on the bus came along because they like the stated destination, what happens when you need to change your plans? Will they resist the change and become unproductive? Invite people on the bus who simply want to work with the other great people aboard. That will contribute to a more pleasant and successful trip!
2) If the right people are on the bus, there's no need for elaborate motivational schemes. The right people are self-motivated and expect to produce exceptional results.
3) If the wrong people are on the bus, nothing else you do matters. You might head in the right direction, but the success you seek will elude you. The right vision with the wrong people produces mediocre results, at best.
Want more information? I highly recommend Jim Collins' informative video series. To find out how iSeek can help you organize for success, contact us today! If you like this blog post, please share and subscribe!


text:
Variety lists 3 contenders to direct Bond 25
Variety, in a story about the search for a Bond 25 director, lists three contenders.
The entertainment news outlet says that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Eon Productions " are showing interest" in Bart Layton, director of American Animals, and S.J. Clarkson, " who was recently tapped to direct the next 'Star Trek' installment."
Also back in contention is Yann Demange, director of White Boy Rick. Demange last year was reported last year to be a contender for Bond 25. But MGM and Eon got interested in Danny Boyle, who got the job.
"Sit-down meetings are still being worked out for Layton and Clarkson, and the timetable for the meetings is currently unclear," wrote Variety's Justin Kroll.
"The producers' first meeting with Demange went well enough to land him high on the list of contenders, but at the time," according to Kroll. "'White Boy Rick' was unfinished and they were unable to see the movie. A screening will now be set for MGM and Eon officials to see Demange's final product."
Variety said Eon wants to keep the currently announced fall 2019 release date for Bond 25. At the same time, the entertainment news outlet said meetings with other directors could still be set up.
Daniel Craig, the 007 film star, is scheduled to begin filming a mystery movie, Knives Out, in November. Bond 25 had been set to begin filming Dec. 3.
(UPDATE, 8:20 p.m. New York Time): Variety's Kroll put out a tweet saying "there is still a chance Eon and MGM take a Hail Mary shot for a big name like Edgar Wright or (Christoper) McQuarrie."
Important note on my BOND story, there is still a chance Eon and MGM take a Hail Mary shot for a big name like Edgar Wright or McQuarrie. Similar thing happened last go around lined up names that werent necessarily A list and then took their shot at Boyle https://t.co/q87SWPNpwo
— Justin Kroll (@krolljvar) September 6, 2018
Filed under: James Bond Films | Tagged: Bart Layton, Bond 25, Daniel Craig, Danny Boyle, Eon Productions, Knives Out, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, S.J. Clarkson, Variety, Yann Demange |
« Lalo Schifrin to receive an honorary Oscar Burt Reynolds dies at 82 »
James, on September 7, 2018 at 12:07 am said:
Steven Spielberg has asked twice to direct a Bond film and has been rejected. Wouldn't you like to see a Bond film directed by Spielberg?


When you're on the run with coffee in tow, it's easy to fear reaching your destination only to find your bag—or the front of your favorite shirt— soaked with coffee. You have the best of intentions: trying to keep some extra cash while simultaneously saving the earth from another styrofoam cup.
Fear not, dear reader! We've compiled the best travel coffee mugs to save you from soggy shirts and water-logged laptops. And if the thought of cold coffee makes you weepy, we've picked a few insulated mugs guaranteed to keep your favorite beverage steaming for hours.
Travel mugs are generally made out of plastic, ceramic or glass and stainless steel. Mugs made of ceramic or plastic aren't as durable and won't retain heat for long. Plastics can also hold an aftertaste.
If you're super sensitive to the taste of coffee kept in stainless steel, rest assured that most travel coffee mugs lined with stainless steel are coated to prevent any off-tastes.
In our opinion, this is better than opting for a mug with a ceramic liner, which can easily break. Keeping all of this in mind, we recommend going with something stainless steel. Double-walled and vacuum insulated are other qualities of the top travel mugs and will help keep your beverage hot for longer.
Most mugs do best when washed by hand. This helps preserve the vacuum seal, which can be broken down over time in the dishwasher. Arm yourself with a decent bottle brush and if funky flavors develop, simply soak the mug in in baking soda.
We steered clear of travel coffee mugs that had flip latches or other complicated means of getting to your beverage. We firmly believe that something made for on-the-go use should be able to be operated one-handed.
Texting while sipping is an all-too-real scenario. A two-handed task is too much to ask of the weary commuter. All of our picks and simple and easy to use.
Available in an array of colors, the Contigo Autoseal Westloop uses Thermalock insulation and Autoseal Technology to ensure that nothing leaves your mug…ever. We've tipped the Westloop over in bags, watched it chuck off the back of our car and witnessed it rolling under the car seat, yet nary a drop of joe has exited the canister.
For the money, this is a great commuter coffee mug. A top switch keeps it locked. Just flip the switch and press a button for instant coffee gratification. It easily fits into standard cup holders, backpack bottle holders and bike bottle cages.
Just be sure to buy this newer model, as Contigo has redesigned the lid for easier cleaning.
For those who demand firewater all day, this is the travel coffee mug for you. For those who like to sip quickly for the caffeine hit, you may end up with a burned tongue. We like the utilitarian design and minimalist colors too.
The Zojirushi is also a snap to operate: just flip the top and sip. It also has a secondary locking mechanism. Plus it's the sturdiest design we've found (though the Klean Kanteen Wide Mouth Insulated Bottle is right up there).
One possible deal breaker is that, compared to other mugs, this one is tall and thin, causing it to slip out of some cup holders. The Contigo really is more of an ideal size and comes with more color choices. But for a consistently hot beverage that comes in a durable bottle, nothing beats the Zojirushi.
For freshly pressed coffee or tea on the go, the Espro Coffee Travel Press nicely fits the bill. A successful Kickstarter project, the Espro rises above other travel French Presses for a few reasons: It keeps liquids hot, has a double filter to greatly reduce sediment and has a second locking lid, making it leak- and spill-proof.
The only gripe we have is that this press doesn't come in a larger size and, while you can sip away one-handed, you'll need two hands to remove the lock-tight lid that keeps it from spilling.
Klean Kanteen's Wide Mouth Insulated Bottle doubles as a water bottle. Two lids makes it easy to switch between the Cafe Cap, for spill-proof sipping or a traditional cap with a hook for easy toting as a water bottle.
If you're camping or have a rugged commute, the Kaneen is a real workhorse, is spill- and leak-proof and stands up to falls, even on concrete. As one of the pricier travel coffee mugs, we recommend it if you're seeking extra durability or want one canister that fits the bill as a water bottle and coffee mug.


A Combo – meet new people and learn how to dance! Everyone starts from square one! We play together, we learn together. You absolutely don't need a partner.
Begin to learn Waltz, Foxtrot, Swing, Tango, Rumba, ChaCha, and Salsa – dancing to today's hits and timeless classics. Experience the fun and exhilaration of gliding across the floor in Foxtrot or kicking up your heels in Swing.
Wouldn't it be great to walk up to someone and ask them to dance – and no matter what type of music was playing, you actually knew what to do! Come join us in a fun and relaxed atmosphere. Let's create our own Dancing w/ the Stars!
Classes continue throughout the year. Please email or call to Register.
Today's hottest dance is a combination of Freestyle, HipHop, Tango, Rumba, Jazz, Swing and Salsa merged together.
We dance to any genre of music from the timeless classics to today's hits. Begin to experience the fun and exhilerationof FUSION!
In today's clubs and music videos, all the hottest dance moves originally evolved from dances throughout the generations. Feel the energy, confidence, power and freedom spiraling through the dance. The purpose of the class is to strengthen and tone your body while having fun exploring the energy and personality of different forms of dance all rolled into one.
Kathy takes a holistic approach to dance bringing together structure and flow, a balance of body, mind and spirit. Discover a powerful human being within you. A great way of socializing and freeing the creative spirit. Come join us in a fun and high-energy atmosphere!
Movement through music generates a fun and enlightened environment. Join us!


Tonight we were walking with a friend in the city centre, and as we were crossing Astoria we saw a man putting two packages of pizza on the small trash bins in the underground crossing. In each package you could find 7 huge pieces of vegetarian pizza. We took one package and went to Blaha square to give the pizza to the homeless. We found exact number of homeless that corresponded to the number of pizza pieces left – 6 (OK, I was hungry and ate 1 piece on the way to Blaha).


Electricity Comparison: New London vs. U.S.
Natural Gas Comparison: New London vs. U.S.
Average monthly solar radition in New London is 30% lower than an example high average monthly solar radiation in NV.
Average monthly solar radition in New London is 24% higher than an example low average monthly solar radiation in WA.
To learn more about utility rates & usage in New London, CT, or for other information related to utilities in New London, visit the U.S. Energy Information Administration.


text:
Biography – MONTGOMERY, RICHARD – Volume IV (1771-1800) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography
Source: Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
MONTGOMERY, RICHARD, army officer; b. 2 Dec. 1736 near Swords (Republic of Ireland), third son of Thomas Montgomery, member of the Irish parliament for Lifford, and Mary Franklyn (Franklin); m. 24 July 1773 Janet Livingston; d. 31 Dec. 1775 at Quebec.
Richard Montgomery was born into a respectable family of Irish gentry and after his initial schooling was sent to Trinity College, Dublin, in 1754. He did not take a degree, however, but instead on 21 Sept. 1756 entered the army as an ensign in the 17th Foot. His regiment saw much active service overseas during the Seven Years' War. In 1759 it was with Amherst on Lake Champlain and in 1760 with William Haviland in the operations leading to the conquest of Canada, and in 1762 it participated in the attacks on Martinique and Havana, Cuba. Montgomery rose steadily in rank in these years. In July 1758 he became a lieutenant, in May 1760 the regimental adjutant, and in May 1762 a captain. But soldiering during the period of peace after 1763 proved frustrating because of his inability to advance, and in April 1772 he sold his commission and emigrated to America. There he purchased a farm near New York City where he indulged his newly acquired "violent passion" for farming. His marriage the following year to a member of the powerful and strongly pro-colonial Livingston family, was, in view of his background, unusual, but he was a friend of liberal politicians in England and had formed a sympathy for the American cause. The couple settled on the wife's estate near Rhinebeck (N.Y.).
The armed clashes between British troops and colonists at Lexington and Concord (Mass.) in April 1775 touched off hostilities elsewhere, and in May the frontier forts of Crown Point and Ticonderoga (N.Y.) were seized by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold*. Allen and Arnold followed up their successes by raiding into Canada as far as Saint-Jean (Quo.), and their relatively good luck convinced them that an invasion of the province would be successful. The Continental Congress had been concerned for some months about the potential danger to the northern colonies posed by British troops, Canadians, and Indians operating from Canada, but apart from several addresses to the Canadian population urging solidarity with the other colonies it had hitherto given Canada little attention, and on 1 June had in fact forbidden any invasion of Canada. Now, however, with Allen's and Arnold's reports of weak British defences and their belief that the Canadians were inclined to remain neutral if the Americans invaded, and with much the same information coming from American sympathizers and emissaries in Canada, Congress reversed its policy. On 27 June it ordered Major-General Philip John Schuyler, commanding in New York, to assemble an army and capture Île aux Noix on the Rivière Richelieu, Saint-Jean, and Montreal and defeat the British forces in Canada "if practicable and . . . not . . . disagreeable to the Canadians." The Canadians and Indians in Canada were to be urged to remain neutral and even to join the colonial union, and emissaries were dispatched to attain these ends. During July and August some 2,000 men began to gather in upper New York. The second in command of the expedition was Montgomery. His support of the American cause had led to his election to the New York provincial congress earlier in 1775, and on 22 June he was appointed a brigadier-general in the newly formed Continental Army, doubtless because of his previous military experience. Montgomery was, however, at first reluctant to accept the rank. He was unwilling to leave his wife and the comforts of civilian life or to take arms against his countrymen, but he at length consented, in part because he believed that "the will of an oppressed people . . . must be respected."
Governor Guy Carleton* of Quebec was meanwhile experiencing considerable difficulty in raising a defensive force. When he had called up the militia in June as a response to the American raids, he was faced with considerable resistance to militia service and a widespread feeling for neutrality among the population. Although the militia had finally been embodied in August, Carleton was convinced that it would be "unadvisable to attempt assembling any Number of them, except it becomes absolutely necessary . . . ." With only about 800 British regulars available to garrison the entire province, the government position was weak.
There were several reasons for the population's reaction. Since late 1774 letters, addresses, pamphlets, and reports had been entering Canada from the southern colonies urging neutrality in any conflict, and they had had a considerable effect, especially since the terms of the Quebec Act of 1774 had been misrepresented in the province. Such propaganda had been spread mainly by British and American merchants such as Thomas Walker, who had been angered by the British government's refusal to give them English laws and a house of assembly in the Quebec Act and had subsequently become sympathetic to the American cause. These merchants were allowed to disseminate their views throughout the summer of 1775, and even after the beginning of hostilities. Moreover, while the seigneurs, clergy, and bourgeoisie were almost uniformly loyal to the British thanks to the religious and legal guarantees contained in the Quebec Act, the bulk of the population was still alienated enough by language, religion, and the memory of the conquest to be receptive to American requests for neutrality. During the raising of the militia, Carleton had erred in placing too much responsibility for its embodiment with the seigneurs. Not only had they lost influence after the conquest owing to economic factors and a rise of independence among their tenants, but they had displayed favouritism in selecting militia officers as well as a generally haughty attitude and had thus succeeded in alienating otherwise moderate habitants. Nor did the church's threat of ecclesiastical punishment for recalcitrant militiamen have much effect. One final factor was the weak British garrison; the population could reason that since the British seemed unable to defend them, they had little reason to antagonize the Americans. Carleton had small prospect of reinforcements from Gage in Boston, moreover; as the governor himself expressed it, "every Individual seemed to feel our present impotent situation." There were, it is true, undercurrents of support among the Canadians which might result in some help for the government, but that aid would be determined very much by developing circumstances.
Early in September Schuyler's troops established themselves on Canadian soil at Île aux Noix. Schuyler proclaimed that he would "receive in the most favourable manner every inhabitant of Canada and every friend to liberty," would protect their possessions, and would ensure religious freedom. From the beginning, numbers of Canadians came forward to offer their services. The Richelieu parishes were particularly forward, having been especially receptive to American propaganda, and James Livingston, a former Sorel grain merchant and a relation of Montgomery, was appointed to command the volunteers. Many more took no active part but furnished provisions and transportation to the American troops. Payment for these services had to be in cash, however; Canadians had bitter memories of paper money from the French régime.
The first objective of the invaders was Fort Saint-Jean, where large amounts of military stores were kept. It was also the garrison for about 500 British regulars under Major Charles Preston, who were aided by a group of Canadian volunteers under François-Marie Picoté de Belestre. Because Schuyler had "not enjoyed a moment's health" for some time, he handed over command to Montgomery on 16 September and went home. The latter was hampered in the siege by bad weather, weak artillery, and insufficient supplies, and by the poor discipline of his disease-ridden men; he nearly resigned in frustration. Until the end of September only a blockade and an intermittent bombardment were possible, "which never annoyed the Enemy in the least." In Montreal, Carleton had still not been able to raise an effective militia force, but late in September the situation suddenly changed. On the 25th Ethan Allen and a mixed force of Canadians and Americans, attempting to capture Montreal by surprise, were defeated by a hastily assembled group of regulars, militia, and Indians under Major John Campbell. The effect of the victory was so great that, according to the lawyer Simon Sanguinet, some 1,200 militiamen came into Montreal within a week to offer their services, including 300 from rebel-threatened Varennes, who arrived "with the best will in the world." Carleton was now able to muster a force of 2,000 men, mostly militia, and it was hoped that he would soon counter-attack.
But for three weeks the governor made no move, in part because he distrusted the militia for their earlier reluctance and their leaders for their loss of influence, and in part because he wished to avoid more fighting with the Americans in hopes of a reconciliation. Discouraged and bored, militiamen began to leave by permission or to desert to harvest their crops and protect their homes and families from possible reprisals. Then on 18 October, Fort Chambly surrendered to an American force largely made up of Canadians. Quantities of ammunition and stores were thus available for the besiegers of Saint-Jean. Elsewhere in the province Canadians remained unwilling to serve a cause they now saw in jeopardy. Adam Mabane was confronted by 250 men armed with sticks when he tried to raise the militia on the Île d'Orléans, and it was reported that only 15 men came to support the government from the parishes below Quebec. Farther west, Louis-Joseph Godefroy de Tonnancour and Jean-Baptiste-Marie Blaise Des Bergères de Rigauville were forcibly prevented by other Canadians at Berthier-en-Haut (Berthierville) and Verchères from joining government forces with the militia they had collected. Upon receipt of this last news, 30 to 40 militiamen began to desert each night in Montreal. It was now obvious that Carleton had to mount a counter-offensive or watch his force disappear, but he did so only on 30 October. Some 1,000 militia, Indians, and regulars were to land at Longueuil and march to relieve Saint-Jean, but the Americans prevented their landing. The fort's defenders were growing short of provisions, Montgomery had new batteries which were destroying the buildings, and ammunition was low. After hearing of the relief force's failure, the garrison surrendered on 3 November. Some 2,000 Americans and several hundred Canadians were now opposed around Montreal to about 150 British regulars and a rapidly disappearing Canadian militia. Carleton had little choice but to evacuate Montreal on the 11th with his regulars and sail for Quebec. The fleet was halted at Sorel by the threat of American batteries, and though Carleton and his aide-decamp Charles-Louis Tarieu* de Lanaudière managed to escape with the aid of Jean-Baptiste Bouchette*, the rest of the force had to surrender on 19 November, thus limiting effective government resistance to the city of Quebec.
Montgomery had landed troops on Île des Sœurs near Montreal on 11 November, and the next day he received a committee of Montreal citizens including James McGill*, Jean-Louis Besnard, dit Carignant, and Pierre-Méru Panet*. Although rejecting their request for acceptance of a formal capitulation, the American general promised not to force loyalists to oppose the government actively, to guarantee the "peaceable enjoyment of property," and to allow the "free exercise . . . of religion." Montreal was occupied on the 13th, and Valentin Jautard presented an address of welcome from some pro-American inhabitants. Shortly thereafter Montgomery received a delegation from Trois-Rivières which included Jean-Baptiste Badeaux and he promised good treatment for their town. But although British resistance in almost all the province had collapsed and the Canadians were generally observing a benevolent neutrality towards the Americans, Montgomery wished to secure their active support. Believing that he would not obtain it unless Quebec was taken, he started out on this objective with 300 men on 28 November, posting a garrison of 500 under Brigadier-General David Wooster in Montreal, Saint-Jean, and Chambly.
At Quebec meanwhile, Lieutenant Governor Hector Theophilus Cramahé was trying to defend the city, but he too was hampered by pro-American sympathies among the population. Early in November matters had worsened when it was learned that a second American army was close to Quebec. This force, commanded by Benedict Arnold, had left Cambridge (Mass.) in September with orders from George Washington himself to attempt to surprise Quebec or at least join Montgomery. The march, up the Kennebec River (Maine) and thence over the height of land to the Rivière Chaudière, had been a gruelling one through a trackless wilderness, and only some 600 of the original 1,100 reached Pointe-Lévy (Lauzon, Lévis) on 9 November. The Americans crossed to the Plains of Abraham on the night of the 13th, but six days later retreated upriver to Pointe-aux-Trembles (Neuville) to wait for Montgomery. Although local inhabitants had received the starving rebels with provisions and transportation, the Americans were nevertheless "almost naked," low in ammunition, and apprehensive of a British sortie. Montgomery arrived on 3 December and took command; two days later the siege of Quebec began. With reinforcements of local Canadians [see Maurice Desdevens de Glandon] and those from Livingston's unit (which had been made an American regiment), there were about 1,000 Americans and 200 Canadians, scattered in groups across the Plains down to the Rivière Saint-Charles. The local population supplied them with wood and provisions (although again for cash) and morale was high, although stores were low. Within Quebec, morale had improved with the arrival of Lieutenant-Colonel Allan Maclean and 100 of his newly raised Royal Highland Emigrants on 11 November and of Carleton himself on the 19th. The governor immediately expelled all those refusing to serve in the militia, and he made preparations for a vigorous defence; guns were mounted on the walls and barricades and blockhouses constructed. The garrison of 1,800 men, composed of British and Canadian militia, regulars, seamen, and some artificers, had provisions for themselves and the 3,200 inhabitants for eight months, and abundant military stores.
Montgomery soon discovered the British artillery was considerably superior to his own, but he had never intended to bombard Quebec into surrender. The urgings of his superiors in Boston and Philadelphia, who badly needed the military stores in Quebec, smallpox among his men, the imminent expiry of many enlistments, and the small likelihood of immediate reinforcement all combined to convince him he should attack rather than blockade the city until spring. It was finally decided to mount a concentfic attack on Lower Town, relying on confusion and collaborators to force Carleton to abandon the strongly fortified Upper Town and give battle. The attack was ordered for the first dark night.
That condition was fulfilled on the night of 30–31 December. At about five o'clock in the morning, in a raging snowstorm, Montgomery and 200 men travelled along the river bank from Cap Diamant towards the district of Près-de-Ville. Simultaneously, Arnold's 600 men were advancing from the suburb of Saint-Roch towards Rue Sault-au-Matelot and an eventual junction with Montgomery in Lower Town. The defenders had been warned by deserters and, alerted by Captain Malcolm Fraser*, they turned out rapidly. At Près-de-Ville were British seamen under Captain Adam Barnsfare and Canadian militia under François Chabot and Louis-Alexandre Picard, accompanied by John Coffin*. Themselves unseen in the blizzard, they watched until Montgomery and some others moved in front of the main body, then delivered a volley which cut them down. The other Americans retreated hastily. On the other front, Arnold was wounded and evacuated, but his men pressed on to overrun a barricade at Sault-au-Matelot and take some prisoners. They were then halted by stiff resistance from regulars and militia under Henry Caldwell*, in which John Nairne* and François Dambourgès were prominent. Informed of Montgomery's repulse, Carleton transferred troops and surrounded Arnold's men, who capitulated at about eight o'clock. The boast of a British officer that the garrison had won "as compleat a little victory as ever was gained" was justified. Between 60 and 100 rebels had been killed or wounded and another 400 or so captured for the loss of not quite 20 British and Canadians.
Although the remaining Americans, now commanded by Arnold, were apprehensive of a British counter-attack, Carleton was dubious of the morale of his garrison and cautiously remained in Quebec for the remainder of the winter. Rebel strength remained low despite reinforcements, thanks to continuing smallpox epidemics and expiring periods of enlistment. They could therefore only maintain a blockade with an intermittent artillery bombardment, which in four months only "killed a boy, a cow, wounded a sailor and a turkey, and frightened an old woman into fits." On 1 April 1776 a discouraged Arnold was replaced by Wooster and went to command at Montreal; one month later Wooster was himself superseded by Major-General John Thomas. The latter could muster 1,900 men, but only 1,000 were fit for duty, and of those 300 were clamouring for discharge since their periods of enlistment had ended.
In the mean time, Canadian attitudes had been changing. An undercurrent of loyalism had persisted in many areas, and in March a group of Canadians had even attempted to attack the American camp at Pointe-Lévy [see Charles-François Bailly de Messein; Michel Blais]. If the majority did not choose such overt action, they nevertheless were becoming more anti-American, if not pro-British. The clergy, strongly loyal, had a noticeable influence, as did the upper classes. Moreover, the continued low strength of the American forces was leading the inhabitants to the same conclusions as they had previously drawn with the British. Nor were Canadians any more eager to fight for the rebels: Moses Hazen* complained that recruiting for the regiment he was raising for Congress went poorly and that the men were unsuitable, deserting at the first opportunity. The greatest single factor for change was the Americans' growing use of paper money and promissory notes in payment for goods and services, which seemed to indicate to the population the financial bankruptcy of the American cause. And considering that the Americans commandeered supplies frequently as well, the increasing alienation of the population is understandable. Montreal in particular had cause to regret the invasion. Wooster had embarked on a series of arbitrary and ill-judged actions over the winter of 1775–76 which broke most of Montgomery's promises. He closed the "Mass Houses" on Christmas eve, attempted to arrest loyalists such as Simon Sanguinet and Georges-Hippolyte Le Comte Dupré, and announced that all who opposed congressional wishes would be arrested as traitors. Not content with these actions, he took Edward William Gray* and René-Ovide Hertel de Rouville hostage to ensure the disarming of three suburbs thought hostile to the Americans, and he arrested Le Comte Dupré and Thomas-Ignace Trottier Dufy Desauniers when they refused to exchange their British militia commissions for American ones. By the spring of 1776 American fortunes had sunk to such a low ebb that Benjamin Franklin, Charles Carroll, and Samuel Chase, who arrived in Montreal in April as commissioners appointed by Congress to undertake the political conversion of the Canadians, soon became discouraged and even counselled abandonment of the country.
But any Canadian support for the British was still mainly covert, and only large British reinforcements could really make the Canadians active in opposition. On 6 May 1776 a small squadron under Charles Douglas arrived off Quebec and landed troops. Carleton sortied the same day. The Americans, caught off guard as they prepared to raise the siege, retreated "in the utmost hurry and confusion," not stopping until they reached Sorel. Carleton declined to pursue and instead waited for the massive reinforcements of British and German regulars under John Burgoyne approaching from Britain. In mid May 400 Americans were captured at Les Cèdres, west of Montreal, by an ad hoc force of regulars, Indians, and Canadians drawn from the Upper Lakes posts. American troops now controlled only the Montreal-Richelieu valley region, but substantial reinforcements released by the end of the siege of Boston enabled Brigadier-General John Sullivan, now commanding in Canada (Thomas was mortally ill with smallpox and Wooster had been recalled to explain his conduct at Montreal), to concentrate 5,000 men at Sorel by late May. As the first stage in a planned counter-offensive, Sullivan sent Brigadier-General William Thompson and 2,200 men against Trois-Rivières, which was believed to be lightly held. But Thompson's advance slowed down [see François Guillot, dit Larose], and when the Americans arrived before the town on 8 June they found it held by 7,000 British regulars from Burgoyne's force. The rebels were soundly defeated with the loss of 200 prisoners, one of whom was Thompson. Thereafter their position in Canada rapidly crumbled. Some 10,000 British and German regulars were pressing hard down the St Lawrence in pursuit, almost 3,000 Americans were ill, and Canadians were now beginning to turn openly against the invaders. By 18 June the forces of Arnold (who narrowly escaped from Montreal) and Sullivan had fallen back to Saint-Jean and two weeks later, closely pursued by the British, they had retreated over the frontier. No further attempt was made during the war to invade Canada, although rumours kept Haldimand worried.
As the Americans retreated, normal life returned to Quebec. Carleton was generally lenient with the inhabitants who had supported the rebels, perhaps because of his prediction before the invasion that Canadians would not aid the government in large numbers. All the same, some punishments were meted out. A commission consisting of Gabriel-Elzéar Taschereau*, François Baby*, and Jenkin Williams* was appointed by the governor to investigate the extent and nature of collaboration in the Quebec region, and between 22 May and 16 July it toured the parishes. The commission found that many parishes had actively supported or encouraged the invaders, that others had been neutral, and that a small number had been sympathetic to the government. Nevertheless, the only reprisals generally taken were the replacement of many militia officers, who had been particularly pro-American, and the billeting of troops on especially stubborn parishes. Although the punishments were mild, complaints arose that they had not been equitably distributed, and after the invasion was over Carleton was much harsher with American sympathizers and imprisoned several. In his efforts to restore order he had the support of the church, which pursued a strict policy towards rebel supporters and backsliders. Bishop Briand decreed that the sacraments would be refused to those American sympathizers who did not atone for their transgression by public penance, but some time elapsed before this order was generally obeyed, and many remained unrepentant.
The invasion of Canada was a minor campaign in what soon became a much wider and more complicated conflict, and it was by and large unnecessary. The Americans had no clear idea of their objectives in invading the country, and when it became obvious that Canada had to be completely occupied and pacified, 'their rudimentary organization was incapable of sustaining such a full-scale effort. In any case, it was practically inevitable that the British would sooner or later mount a counter-offensive – the loss of Canada would have been a serious blow to their hopes of quickly crushing the rebellion – and that, given their unchallenged naval supremacy, they could concentrate enough troops to reconquer the province. But the invasion would not have succeeded or, if it had, the reconquest would have been more bloody and drawn out than it actually was, had the Canadians inclined strongly to one side or the other. That they chose to maintain a changeable neutrality is indicative of their lack of sympathy with either side and of their realization that a flexible policy of neutrality was the course which could best serve their interests in the fluid and uncertain circumstances of the invasion and spare them the misery which had accompanied the conquest 15 years previously.
On the morning after the American defeat before Quebec in December 1775 the frozen bodies of Montgomery and several companions were discovered beneath a snow-drift. Thomas Ainslie* recorded that those in Quebec who had known the dead American officer (he had been made major-general on 9 December but had never received the news) expressed sincere regrets at his death, and even Carleton apparently grieved for his "deluded friend." Cramahé had Montgomery's body "decently interred" at his personal expense; in 1818 it was returned to the United States. Montgomery was also mourned by his compatriots, who considered him a promising and popular officer. Captain Simeon Thayer of Arnold's force left this description: "a genteel appearing man, tall and slender of make, . . . of an agreeable temper, and a virtuous General."
Stuart R. J. Sutherland
[Since Montgomery had such a short career in the revolution, there has been comparatively little written about him. There is a biography by A. L. Todd, entitled Richard Montgomery: rebel of 1775 (New York, 1966), but its superficial research and naive style of writing make it of little value. There are entries in the DAB and DNB. Sources used for biographical material include G.B., WO, Army list, 1756–72; F. B. Heitman, Historical register of officers of the Continental Army during the war of the revolution . . . (Washington, 1893); and T. H. Montgomery, "Ancestry of Gen. Richard Montgomery," New-York Geneal. and Biographical Record (New York), II (1871), 123–30. s.r.j.s.]
[Thomas Ainslie], "Journal of the most remarkable occurences in the province of Quebec from the appearance of the rebels in September 1775 until their retreat on the sixth of May 1776," ed. F. C. Würtele, Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 7th ser. (1905), [9]–89. American archives (Clarke and Force), 4th ser., III-VI. [Henry Caldwell], "The invasion of Canada in 1775: letter attributed to Colonel Henry Caldwell," Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 2nd ser. (1868), 1–19. Can., Dept. of Militia and Defence, General Staff, A history of the organization, development and services of the military and naval forces of Canada, from the peace of Paris in 1763, to the present time . . . (3v., [Ottawa, 1919–20]), I. [Jacob Danford], "Quebec under siege, 1775–1776: the 'Memorandums' of Jacob Danford," ed. J. F. Roche, CHR, L (1969), 68–85. Docs. relating to constitutional history, 1759–91 (Shortt and Doughty; 1907), 450–59. Invasion du Canada (Verreau). "Journal of the most remarkable occurences in Quebec since Arnold appear'd before the town on the 14th November 1775," Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 7th ser. (1905), 93–154. "Journal of the siege and blockade of Quebec by the American rebels, in autumn 1775 and winter 1776," Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 4th ser. (1875), [3]–25. "Journal par Messrs Frans Baby, Gab. Taschereau et Jenkin Williams . . . ," Ægidius Fauteux, édit., ANQ Rapport, 1927–28, 431–99. March to Quebec: journals of the members of Arnold's expedition, ed. K. L. Roberts (New York, 1938). "Orderly book begun by Captain Anthony Vialar of the British militia . . . ," ed. F. C. Würtele, Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 7th ser. (1905), 155–265. PAC Report, 1914–15, app.B, 5–25. [Rudolphus Ritzema], "Journal of Col. Rudolphus Ritzema, of the First New York Regiment, August 8, 1775, to March 30, 1776," Magazine of American History (New York), I (1877), 98–107. "Rôle général de la milice canadienne du Québec . . . ," Literary and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, Hist. Docs., 8th ser. (1906), 269–307. "State papers," PAC Report, 1890. Boatner, Encyclopedia of American revolution. The toll of independence: engagements and battle casualties of the American revolution, ed. H. H. Peckham (Chicago, 1974). Allen French, The first year of the American revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1934). Lanctot, Canada and American revolution. J. H. Smith, Our struggle for the fourteenth colony: Canada and the American revolution (2v., New York, 1907). G. F. G. Stanley, Canada invaded, 1775–1776 (Toronto, 1973).
Armed Forces – American – Army: officers
Armed Forces – British – Army: officers
AINSLIE, THOMAS (Vol. 5)ARNOLD, BENEDICT (Vol. 5)BABY, FRANÇOIS (1733-1820) (Vol. 5)CALDWELL, HENRY (Vol. 5)CARLETON, GUY, 1st Baron DORCHESTER (Vol. 5)COFFIN, JOHN (1729-1808) (Vol. 5)CRAMAHÉ, HECTOR THEOPHILUS (Vol. 4)DESDEVENS DE GLANDONS, MAURICE (Vol. 4)More
FRASER, MALCOLM (Vol. 5)GODEFROY DE TONNANCOUR, LOUIS-JOSEPH (Vol. 4)GRAY, EDWARD WILLIAM (Vol. 5)HAZEN, MOSES (Vol. 5)HERTEL DE ROUVILLE, RENÉ-OVIDE (Vol. 4)MACLEAN, ALLAN (Vol. 4)McGILL, JAMES (Vol. 5)NAIRNE, JOHN (Vol. 5)PANET, PIERRE (Vol. 5)TARIEU DE LANAUDIÈRE, CHARLES-LOUIS (Vol. 5)TASCHEREAU, GABRIEL-ELZÉAR (Vol. 5)WALKER, THOMAS (d. 1788) (Vol. 4)WILLIAMS, JENKIN (Vol. 5)AMHERST, JEFFERY, 1st Baron AMHERST (Vol. 4)BADEAUX, JEAN-BAPTISTE (Vol. 4)BAILLY DE MESSEIN, CHARLES-FRANÇOIS (Vol. 4)BESNARD, dit Carignant, JEAN-LOUIS (Vol. 4)BLAIS, MICHEL (Vol. 4)BOUCHETTE, JEAN-BAPTISTE (Vol. 5)BRIAND, JEAN-OLIVIER (Vol. 4)BURGOYNE, JOHN (Vol. 4)CAMPBELL, JOHN (1721-95) (Vol. 4)DOUGLAS, Sir CHARLES (Vol. 4)GAGE, THOMAS (Vol. 4)GUILLOT, Larose, FRANÇOIS (Vol. 4)HALDIMAND, Sir FREDERICK (Vol. 5)HAVILAND, WILLIAM (Vol. 4)JAUTARD, VALENTIN (Vol. 4)LE COMTE DUPRÉ, GEORGES-HIPPOLYTE (Vol. 4)MABANE, ADAM (Vol. 4)PICARD, LOUIS-ALEXANDRE (Vol. 4)PICOTÉ DE BELESTRE, FRANÇOIS-MARIE (Vol. 4)SANGUINET, SIMON (Vol. 4)TROTTIER DUFY DESAUNIERS, THOMAS-IGNACE (Vol. 4)ANDERSON, WILLIAM JAMES (Vol. 10)ATIATOHARONGWEN (Vol. 5)AUBERT DE GASPÉ, PIERRE-IGNACE (Vol. 6)BADELARD, PHILIPPE-LOUIS-FRANÇOIS (Vol. 5)BARNES, JOHN (Vol. 5)BELL, JAMES (Vol. 5)BELLET, FRANÇOIS (Vol. 6)BERTHELOT DARTIGNY, MICHEL-AMABLE (Vol. 5)BLACKWOOD, JOHN (Vol. 5)BOISSEAU, NICOLAS-GASPARD (1726-1804) (Vol. 5)BOISSEAU, NICOLAS-GASPARD (1765-1842) (Vol. 7)BOUCHER DE BOUCHERVILLE, RENÉ-AMABLE (Vol. 5)BOUCHER DE NIVERVILLE, JOSEPH (Vol. 5)BROWN, WILLIAM (Vol. 4)CARTIER, JACQUES (1750-1814) (Vol. 5)CAZEAU, FRANÇOIS (Vol. 5)CHANDLER, KENELM (Vol. 5)DE BONNE, PIERRE-AMABLE (Vol. 5)DESERONTYON, JOHN (Vol. 5)DESPARD, JOHN (Vol. 6)DRAPEAU, JOSEPH (Vol. 5)DU CALVET, PIERRE (Vol. 4)DUCHARME, JEAN-MARIE (Vol. 5)DUNIÈRE, LOUIS (Vol. 5)EDDY, JONATHAN (Vol. 5)ENGLAND, RICHARD G (Vol. 5)ERMATINGER, LAWRENCE (Vol. 4)FINLAY, HUGH (Vol. 5)FLOQUET, PIERRE-RENÉ (Vol. 4)FORTIER, MICHEL (Vol. 4)FRASER, ALEXANDER (d. 1799) (Vol. 4)FROST, JAMES (Vol. 5)GOSSELIN, CLÉMENT (Vol. 5)GRANT, Sir WILLIAM (Vol. 6)GRANT, WILLIAM (1744-1805) (Vol. 5)GUEROUT, PIERRE (Vol. 6)GUY, PIERRE (1738-1812) (Vol. 5)HAY, CHARLES (Vol. 4)HERTEL DE ROUVILLE, JEAN-BAPTISTE-MELCHIOR (Vol. 5)HERTEL DE SAINT-FRANÇOIS, JOSEPH-HIPPOLYTE (Vol. 4)HUET DE LA VALINIÈRE, PIERRE (Vol. 5)IRUMBERRY DE SALABERRY, IGNACE-MICHEL-LOUIS-ANTOINE D' (Vol. 6)JUCHEREAU DUCHESNAY, ANTOINE (Vol. 5)LA CORNE, LUC DE, known as Chaptes (Chap, Chapt) de La Corne or as La Corne Saint-Luc (Vol. 4)LACROIX, HUBERT-JOSEPH (Vol. 6)LAMOTHE, JOSEPH-MAURICE (Vol. 6)LE COMTE DUPRÉ, JEAN-BAPTISTE (1731-1820) (Vol. 5)LE MAISTRE, FRANCIS (Vol. 5)LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, JOSEPH-DOMINIQUE-EMMANUEL (Vol. 5)LEBRUN DE DUPLESSIS, JEAN-BAPTISTE (Vol. 5)LEES, JOHN (Vol. 5)LESTER, ROBERT (Vol. 5)LINDSAY, WILLIAM (Vol. 6)LIVIUS, PETER (Vol. 4)LIÉNARD DE BEAUJEU DE VILLEMONDE, LOUIS (Vol. 5)LYND, DAVID (Vol. 5)MALHIOT, FRANÇOIS (Vol. 5)MARCOUX, PIERRE (Vol. 5)MARGANE DE LAVALTRIE, PIERRE-PAUL (Vol. 5)
AMHERST, JEFFERY, 1st Baron AMHERST
ARNOLD, BENEDICT
CARLETON, GUY, 1st Baron DORCHESTER
GAGE, THOMAS
GODEFROY DE TONNANCOUR, LOUIS-JOSEPH
TARIEU DE LANAUDIÈRE, CHARLES-LOUIS
McGILL, JAMES
NAIRNE, JOHN
DOUGLAS, Sir CHARLES
BURGOYNE, JOHN
HALDIMAND, Sir FREDERICK
TASCHEREAU, GABRIEL-ELZÉAR
BABY, FRANÇOIS (1733-1820)
BRIAND, JEAN-OLIVIER
HERTEL DE ROUVILLE, RENÉ-OVIDE
MABANE, ADAM
DU CALVET, PIERRE
LA CORNE, LUC DE, known as Chaptes (Chap, Chapt) de La Corne or as La Corne Saint-Luc
LIVIUS, PETER
MESPLET, FLEURY
MONTGOLFIER, ÉTIENNE
BADELARD, PHILIPPE-LOUIS-FRANÇOIS
BOUCHER DE BOUCHERVILLE, RENÉ-AMABLE
DE BONNE, PIERRE-AMABLE
DRAPEAU, JOSEPH
EDDY, JONATHAN
HERTEL DE ROUVILLE, JEAN-BAPTISTE-MELCHIOR
JUCHEREAU DUCHESNAY, ANTOINE
LE MOYNE DE LONGUEUIL, JOSEPH-DOMINIQUE-EMMANUEL
PANET, JEAN-ANTOINE
PREVOST, Sir GEORGE
RANVOYZÉ (Ranvoizé), FRANÇOIS
ROBERTSON, DANIEL
WATSON, Sir BROOK
AUBERT DE GASPÉ, PIERRE-IGNACE
GRANT, Sir WILLIAM
IRUMBERRY DE SALABERRY, IGNACE-MICHEL-LOUIS-ANTOINE D'
SCHANK (Schanck, Shank), JOHN
ANDERSON, WILLIAM JAMES
TRENHOLME, CLEMENTINA
STRANGE, THOMAS BLAND
MICKLE, SARA
Stuart R. J. Sutherland, "MONTGOMERY, RICHARD," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 4, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed January 28, 2023, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/montgomery_richard_4E.html.
Permalink: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/montgomery_richard_4E.html
Author of Article: Stuart R. J. Sutherland
Title of Article: MONTGOMERY, RICHARD


The Washington Nationals selected the contract of right-handed pitcher Jimmy Cordero and designated right-handed pitcher Shawn Kelley for assignment on Wednesday. Nationals President of Baseball Operations and General Manager Mike Rizzo made the announcement.
Cordero, 26, joins the Nationals for his first career Major League assignment. The hard-throwing right-hander is 4-1 with six saves and a 1.67 ERA (8 ER/43.0 IP) in 38 games for Triple-A Syracuse in 2018. He has struck out 47 batters and has not allowed a home run in 2018. Cordero joins the Nationals having not allowed an earned run in his last 15 games (16.0 IPO) dating to June 17.
A native of San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, Cordero is in his second season in Washington's organization after being acquired by Washington in exchange for a player to be named from Philadelphia following the 2016 season. He has appeared in 264 Minor League games across seven professional seasons (2012-18), going 16-19 with a 4.05 ERA and 253 strikeouts along the way.


In Bitterne, Amanda and Lewis have a budget of £3,000 to create their dream garden. The couple have finished furnishing and decorating their first home together, and now they want a garden to match their stylish taste and eye for a sophisticated finish. Having travelled a lot in Asia, the couple would love to have influences that reflect the gardens of Asia in their south east English home.
As ever, the design trio come to Bitterne to find out a bit more about the couple and their tastes for the exotic. Charlie Dimmock then goes head to head with the Rich brothers to create a garden design that satisfies all the needs of the young, trendy couple, and all within their budget. Once presented with the two gardens, the couple have to pick the one they like the most. It's a difficult decision, but who will Amanda and Lewis finally settle on? And will it fulfil their desires for a touch of Asian inspiration?
After a long, hard, fun-filled build, they discover if Charlie, Harry and David Rich and the Garden Rescue landscape team's hard work created the garden that ticks all their boxes.