xty. vide

th of Fedred and anadians as far as

ber, one ree. Upon tish Sub- | English , and not ed people 1 on this

rstood it, nber, one ixty-four e Canada exercised ready in-

00 it 80, 8 Of their thousand on Memolances of )pOSES : — br Claims the Conrts should gs by the nich have

aws.

aud Soli-

ed sense, wer parts rly bene-

clamation, the enjoyment of the benefit of the Laws of England, and they were of opinion that the Criminal Laws, now almost the only Laws that came under that description, and that the Laws of Descent, Alienations, Settlements, Incumbrances and distribution were not comprehended under it. Your Majesty must determine, , “autOn says; cujus est condere ejus est e ‘epretare, We lay public instruments before you to.judge upon.

« The next evtdence of introduction of English Laws is: General Murray’s Commission in one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four, to be Vice-Admiral. By this the.Laws of the. English. Court of Admiralty take place of French Laws and Customs. — This Commission as Governor, and the. Instructions in the same year,

« Not the least intimation.of any saving of any part of the Laws of England.

It seemsas if the Capitulation and Treaty of Peace was deemed to be notice enough of introducing English. Laws with respect to Religion :-especially,as they -continued in the. Country, and took the oaths, when:they had eighteen months to withdraw.

« Those, are the public instruments for evidences of introduction of English Law, but as the’ Proclamation. -and Governor Murray's Commission: have never been published in. French, and:the two Ordinances of February and March, one thousand seven hundred.and sixty-four, which have been, are very eoneise an do not specify the laws introduced, the greater part of the people remain ignorant of.the extent of.the changes, and imagine .ançieut laws in many points still in force. When they come :to know.the change,.-there -wiH -be: great uneasiness.

Hence at present there is a diversity in the practices of the English and Canadian subjects, with respect to letters of administration and the distribution of

intestates effects. Also in the practices of conveying and mortgaging British subjects according to English mode. French by Notaries and Scriveners according to French modes, and s0 the same landsare conveyed by both modes. Leases by Jesuits are made for twenty one years though by French law good only for nine years, and sundry other instances of diversity are assigned. |

«ln criminal matters all proceedings according to the English law.

« The same as to proceedings in the civil business of the King's Bench.

«ln the Common Pleas the pleadings are drawn as the parties please, some in French and some in English.

«Our arresting body for debt on the mesne process, surprizes the French.

« Here follow remarks on the foregoing instruments :

«4. They submit is as a doubt whether the Ordinances of September and November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four, are sufficient to introduce such laws as were not established by the Proclamation of 1763.

«By the King's Commission to the Governor, a certain degree of Legislative authority is communicated to him'to be exercised with advice of Council and Assembly and no Legislativé Authe :ty without the Assembly, and therefore the Ordinances are considered to be void. 1f so they are good only às to the erection of Courts. CJ ‘

«True there ‘is. à ‘private instruction with advice of Council, to make fresh rules, as appear nécessary for peace and order, not exténdiog to life, limb or liberty, duties or taxes. But we doubt whethér suéli power tan-be given except un:

der the Great Seal read and notified, and therefore we thiuk the instruction void as to the conveying a Legislative authoits.

«lF it is mot void, the anthority is t00

small for the introduction of English saws, particularly the Criminal, (which all affect life, limb, or liberty) anë the arrest of the body, commitments for contempts. But these reasons do not touch the higher Instrument for the introduction of English laws, viz. the Articles of Capituiation, the Treaty, and the Proclamation of one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three.

« Inconveniencies from the present state of the Laws and administration of Justice. Their uncertainty ic the greatest :

either Englisti or French should be avowed. À remedy is necessary. There are inconveniencies in the state of Judicature. Proceedings expensive, tedious, and more severe than under the French.

These evinced and explained. A plan help up. A Judicature proposed for each district of Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers. One Judge in each, a Barrister of five years standing, and a French Assistant, the latter to have no deciding power. À Court to be held once a week.

The method of proveeding to be this:

«1. À Plaint in French or English. A Summons, if good cause found. If defendant does not appear, a compensation to Plaintiff for his trouble. Another Summons. On default, Judgment. If he appears, Plea in writing. Then the Judge to interrogate parties on disputed facts, and answers to be reduced to writing.

Then he is to state the facts in différence, and ask whether they will have a Jury.

1£ they do, a Jury to be summoned next Court. He that desires a Jury, to pay their expences, 5s. sterling each. They are to be appointed as Special Juries in England, by striking out twelve, each.

No challenges to be allowed. A majority to carry a verdict. The verdict is to be a special one. All examinations viva voce. Execution to run against goods and lands, An inventory of Defendant's Estate may be required upon his oath, if there is not

enough found to satisfy the judgment.

Penalty of Perjury, if twenty pounds, omitted. Costs according to Judge’s discretion.

«A Sheriff to be for each District. A King's Attorney in each. Appeals to Governor and Council, and thence to the King.

«The three Chief Judges and Attornies General to be of the Council, that the Board may not want law knowledge.

« These Appeals should be only in the nature of Writs of Error, except in the instance of a Judge proceeding without a Jury, when the evidence should be be reduced to writing, as in a General Court Martial.

« New Trials at law to be by a double Jury, and be final. These the outlines of the plan.

« It remains to consider the first and greatest inconveniencies arising from the uncertainty of the law.— Four methods occur :

« L A Code of Laws for this Province, that shall contain all the laws by which it is to be governed for the time to come, to the entire exclusion or abolition of every part of the Laws of England and French Laws that shall not be set down in the Code itself.

« IL To revive all the French laws to the exclusion of the English laws, except the Statutes above mentioned, and a few eminently favorable to the liberty nf the subject, and to introduce those by a particular Ordinance or Proclamation published in the Province, as to take away torture, the punishment of the rack, introduce the habeas corpus.

« [TT A third method — Making Law of England the general law with an exception of particular Subjects, to Lermit former Customs at the time of the Conquest, or,

« IV. The Law of England to be the general Law, with an exception in favor

the

judgment.

y pounds, udge’s dis-

District. A eals to Gonce to the

À Attornies 1, that the wledge.

nly in the cept in the ag without should be a General

y a double outlines of

> first and g from the r methods

Province, by which e to come, dolition of gland and > set down

2h laws to WS, except and a few liberty nf those by a clamation s to take t of the Dus.

king Law ith an exto permit e of the

o be the n in favor

of the former Customs, and with respect to these, to enumerate them, and abolish all not enumergted in the Proclamation.

u As to the first, it would be trouble.

some. Canadians would think it rash and dangerous. A Speech is put into their mouths, and the compilers supposed to be incapable to answer it, from the immense difficulty of the undertaking.

Some of the old to be rejected, other parts retained. There will be:omissions, imperfections, and obscurities. An intimute and long experience necessary to make the choice. There is a strong con-

nection between the parts, and dangerous *

to break it, If the whole is left, no Code is wanting. The greatest Lawyer in Paris not equal to the work. An Englishman would not know where to look for it. On the other hand, the advantages will be ,these : The Judges would have a short rule, not be misled by French Lawyers in citing and misapplying &c. The English Subjects would know the law easily. It woulf deface the idea of French law, and the attachment to a French Government.

Imperfections might be removed as experience brought them to light. It would be srfficiently exact at the beginning for all common cases. As to the second method, the inconveniencies would be these :

« 1. Keep up a respect for the French Laws and Government.

«2, Disgust the English, who think they have right to the English Laws.

«1. Imagining the Conquest rendered the French Laws void, though in this the Law is otherwise.

« 2. That they were really introduced by the Proclamation of one thousand seven hundred and sixtythree. Tie Ild method has these inconveniencies :

«?, Maintain a reverence for the laws Of Paris, though less than the other methods.

«2. The Canadians will make the following objections :

«1. That the whole of the French law should have been maïintained to preserve the chain of connexion and avoid dangers.

«2. The English laws ought to be particularly enumerated, and published in Fre::h at full length.

But a few Canadians will make these objections.

« As to the IVth method, it would wear out the very rémembrances of the French Laws, Edicts, Government, &c.

and have many advantages beyond the other method. But it would be troublesome to the Ministers, to form the code.

« It would be liable to many imperfections, from the inaccurate manner of setting forth the French Laws and Customs, and to the two last objections made to the third method, viz. a part of their French law would give but an imperfect satisfaction, and they would complain ofthe not setting forth the English law introduced at large.

« Conclusion.—That they cannot draw a balance in favor of any one of these methods in preference of the other, nor find a new one preferable to them all, being unequal to the task. We have no other merit than that of giving some information of facts. Your Majesty is best able to decide. »

Le Juge-en-Chef Hey ne crut pas devoir approuver ce rapport ‘ans son entier, il en fit un, par lequel il admettait bien les lois anglaises exclusivement dans les affaires criminelles, mais il ne vou.

lait pas l'introduction entière et exclusive des lois françaises dans les matières civiles. En dehcr: üe la tenure, de l’aliénation, du douaire et des successions testamentaires quant aux immeubles et ab intestut quant aux membles, les lois an-

glaises devaient régler les autres matières civiles: On verra plus tard que Guy Carleton ne perdit pas de vue son projet et sa hante idée de justice envers les Canadiens lui montrait la cruauté d'enlever à un peuple conquis son droit privé. Quelque soit, néanmoins, la position prise par Masères, il n’est pas sans intérêt d’analyser son long rapport et d’en faire ressortir les points saillants.

Deux questions étaient soumises par le Conseil Privé, la première se rapportait aux défectuosités du système judiciaire, la seconde embrassait les griefs des Canadiens sur ce. même système et demandait les moyens d'y remédier. Masères posait, comme première proposition, que le corps entier des lois anglaises avait été introduit dans la colonie ; il appuyait cette proposition de la Commission du Juge-en-Chef, de l’Ordonnance de Murray du 17 Septembre 1764, de celle du 4 Novembre de la même année et subsidiairement, comme conséquence de la première proposition, des actes du parlement anglais. I] remontait alors au règne d’Elizabeth et passait en revue la législation anglaise depuis cette époque reculée, Sentant lui-même le peu de poids qu’un semblable argument pouvait avoir, il le laisse subitement de côté, pour entreprendre la revue des lois postérieures à la conquête.

Malheureusement, pour lui, aucune des lois émanant du Parlement anglais'se rapportant à cette colonie, citées par lui, n’affectent en aucune manière le droit privé des Canadiens, lune règle l'importation des bois nécessaires aux navires, l'autre, non plus importante, s'occupe de l'exportation du sel! L'impuissauce qu'il éprouve à soutenir cette argumentation étrange chez un homme de cette importance, loblige de remonter à uu ordre d'idées plus élevé. I prend le premier acte publie qui ri gle nos destinées avec l'An gleterre : l'acte de capitulation : et il dis. cute la réponse du Général Anherst an

42e article, lorsque le général français demandait que les vaincus fussent gouvernés par la Coutume, de Paris et les ois et usages établis dans la colonie : ils était répondu : les Canadiens deviennent sujets du Roi. I] conelut de cette réponse que devenant sujets du Roi anglais, ils sont assujettis tant au droit public qu’au droit privé de ce Roi, sans tenir compte du caractère essentiellement militaire de l'acte de capitulation! Être sujets du -Roi anglais ne comprend pas en même temps la soumission entière à toutes les lois du royaume, Le Général Amherst disait ingénument que les Ganadiens devenaient sujets du Roi, et s’évitait, par là, de ré pondre directement à la question. Masères s'empare de tout ce qui peut de près ou de loin se rapporter aux lois anglaises :

le libre exercise de la religion catholique, en autant que les lois de la Grande-Bre:

tagne le permettent, sont autant de mots qui indiquent pour lui l'introduction des lois anglaises. La Proclamation royale du 7 Octobre 1763, malgré l'ambiguité de ses expressions, semble le convaincre encore plus profondément de cette. introduction. Les mots en autant que possible suivant les lois anglaises. ont pour lui un sens d'injonction, plutôt que de recommandation. C'est ainsi que l'avait compris Murray dans son Ordonnance du 17 Septembre 1764, en abolissant le droit privé des Canadiens pour lui substituer le droit anglaï: Le procureur-général et le solliciteur:sénéral de la Grande Bretagne en 1366 entretenaient même des doutes sur cette manière d'interprèter les paroles de la Proclamation : ils peusaient que les lois criminelles étaient introduites, mais ils ue voulaient pas reconnaitre que les lois civiles pouvaient l'être. Maseres cite celte opinion des oMcicrs en loi de la Couronne, sans commeutaives el continue son argumentation toute d'iuduectious en reproduisant les commissions, dont nous avons dejà donne

] français ssent gouaris et les lonie : ils deviennent te réponse inglais, ils blic qu’au ir compte tilitaire de jets du :Roi me temps les lois du t disait inlevenaient là, de ré stion. Maeut de près anglaises :

athohque, srande-Bre:

it de mots luction des ion royale ’ambiguité onvaincre ette: introque possible bur lui un -de recomait compris ce du 17 t le droit substituer général et rande Bremême. des rprèter les $ peusaient ieut introuk pas repouvaient inion des , Suns COU!unentation uisant les dejà donne

le texte. La partie la plus sérieuse et la mieux travaillée, est, sans contredit, celle qui se rapporte à la manière dont les Canadiens et les anglais ont usé de leurs droits civils : par suile d’une tolérance, qui indique le caractère conciliant de Murray, les Canadiens ont administré leurs biens suivant les lois françaises lorsqu'ils ont trouvé ces lois profitables pour eux-mêmes; les anglais ont agi de même à l'égard de leurs lois et il s’est trouvé parfois que les anciens comme les nouveaux sujets se prévalaient soit des lois anglaises soit des lois françaises.

Aucun procès n'est veuu heureusement soulever la question de suprématie de l’une ou de l’autre de ces lois. Masères constate qu’en matières criminelles tout le monde était d'accord sur l'excellence du système anglais, qui donnait lieu au Procès par Jury. Procédant ensuite à constater la législation locale qui a suivi l'établissement du Conseil législatif, il démontre la différence qui existe entre la Commission du gouverneur Murray et les instructions privées qui l’'accompagnaient. Masères se demande si des instructions secrètes peuvent modifier ou restreindre les termes d'une Commission émise sous le grand Sceau et il répond énergiquement que non; il dit que le Conseil législatif avait droit de faire des lois, pourvu qu'elles ne fussent pas contraires aux lois anglaises, tel qu'ordonné dans la Commission, sans aucune des res trictions contenues dans les instructions savoir, que ces lois ne devaient affecter ni ia vie ni la liberté individuelle, ni imposer des amendes et pénalités. Il admet cependant que si les instructions secrètes sont conformes au droit anglais, et si elles doivent servir de correctif à la Commission elles sont insuffisantes pour introduire dans cette Colonie le système de législation de la Grande-Bretagne. Il reconnaît que cette introduction ex abrupto d'un amas de lois diverses, re-

montant aux premiers temps de l’Angleterre a quelque chose d’anormal et de contraire aux principes du droit des gens.

De plus, cette introduction subite de lois jusqu'alors inconnues aux peuples de cette Colonie rendait les opérations dangereuses au point de bouleverser tout le système judiciaire. Malheureusement Masères, si vrai dans l'exposé de ces griefs, dont la gravité ne lui échappe pas, n'exprime pas en ceci son opinion personnelle, il semble ne pas vouloir être autre chose que l’interprête des Canadiens. Continuant cet exposé, il fait un parallèle entre l’ancien système judiciaire sous la domination française et celui apporté par Murray, il démontre que sous le premier, les frais judiciaires étaient presqu'inconnus, tandisque sous le second ils sont considérables. Un autre grief consistait dans l'emprisonnement pour dettes, emprisonnement d'un genre tout nouveau pour les coloris et tout à fait désastreux en autant qu'il enlève à la fa.

mille du prisonnier, son soutien et place cette famille dans unesituation misérable.

Aprèsavoir exposé tous ces griefs, Masères suggère un nouveau système de nature à concilier toutes ces difficultés. C'est toute une administration nouvelle de la justice : trois Juges royaux choisis parmi les Avocats Anglais de plus de cinq années de pratique, l’un à Québec, l’autre à Montréal, le troisième à Trois-Rivières, ayant chacun un assesseur choisi parmi les Avocats Canadiens, lesquels assesseurs devant être consultés, mais ne jugeant pas; les Juges siégeraient une fois par semaine et si les partis ou l’une d'elles voulaient un Jury, chaque juré devrait être payé sur le taux de cinq chelins sterling par jour, par la partie qui le demanderait ; la majorité du Jury déciderait et rendrait un verdict spécial et non général ; les témoins seraient entendus viva voce ; l'exécution aurait lieu contre les biens du débiteur, qui pourrait se libérer

en faisant cession de tout ce qui lui appartiendrait, les Juges auraient la discrétion des dépens ; un shérif, au lieu et place du Provôt-Marshal, serait nommé pour chacun des trois districts de Québec, Montréal et Trois-Rivières ; il en serait de même d’un Procureur du Roi ; l'appel des Coursaurait lieu devant legouverneur et son Conseil et de là devant le Roi et son Conseil; la partie qui aurait perdu devant un Jury pourrait demander un second Jury composé du double du premier. Masères termine en suggérant quatie modes de régler les lois de la Colonie 1° de faire un Code approprié au Canada, sans tenir compte des lois françaises et anglaises; 20 de conserver les lois françaises, tout en y introduisant ce qui dans les lois anglaises est profitable au pays; 3° d'introduire les lois anglaises exclusivement; 4° de faire de ces lois anglaises la loi générale du pays, et d'introduire certaines lois locales nécessitées par les circonstances. Masères discute chacun de ces modes en en développant les avantages et les désavantages.

Ce Rapport si laborieusement préparé était accompagné d'un mémoire entrant dans plus de détail sur le maintien ou l'abolition des lois françaises.

Le 10 Juillet 1769 (1), les Lords Commissaires du commerce s'exprime ainsi dans leur rapport : « The form of French government, thought not entirely abolished by those royal declarations, was thus in many parts materially altered, and made to correspond with that form of government which has been established in your Majesty’s other American dominions. The restrictions in the Commission arising from the test act of the 25th Charles IL, prevented the measure of an assembly being executed in a Colony where all the principal old inhabitants,

(1) Marriott. Code of Laws 20.

were of the Romish religion. Many constitutional services were unprovided for in the commission. and instructions ; and what is worse of all, it has since been found necessary that several ordinances, inmatters of local regulations, andinternal economy, made by the governor and council, should be dissallowed by Your Majesty ; upon this consideration that they were made without a due authority to enact them. »

La conduite des Juges de paix devint si repréhensible, que le 12 Juillet 1769 (1), le Conseil envoya aux Juges des Sessions du Quartier la lettre suivante (2) :

« GENTLEMEN — In obedience to an Order in Council bearing date the tenth

instant, I transmit to you the sentiments

of Governement, upon some points relative to the execution of your authority as Justices of the Peace, in which it appears to them, from facts too notorious to be

disputed, that his Majesty’s subjects in

general, but more particularly his Canadian subjects, are daily injured and abused to a degree they are no longer able to support, nor public justice endure.

«They hope and believe, that the practice upon which the complaints made to them are grounded, is not common to that part of the Commission which is exercised within your District, but as the conduct of every individual does in some degree affect the honor of the commission itself, and as general reformations can only take place under general resolutions, they have thought it proper, that their sentiments upon this head, should be communicated to the body at large, rather than to those Magistrates only, whose conduct has given occasion to those complaints, not intending at this time to do more than mark their high disapprobation

(1) Registre B. du Conseil.

(2) Smith I, 47.

of t met ther end:

obje festl whi

«' atte lebte Cou will mar the pres per sion of tl

{ ; obse com in

. onl:

left a S:

Exe it is all t ceiv may a pr mis!

disr it C Cou the excl port

pape and disc

{ ] iTre, part mar plac

Dy Consvided for ons ; and ce been inances, internal or and by Your ion that uthority

ix devint llet 1769 uges des vante (2) :

to an Orhe tenth ntiments nts relahority as t appears us to be bjects in 1is Canaand abuger able lure.

the pracmade to nmon to which is ut as the s in some nmission ions can solutions, hat their iould be ze, rather y, whose 1080 COmMme to do probation

of the practice itself, and recommend a method of proceeding, which appears to them as well calculated to answer the ends of Justice, and less liable to those objections to which the other is so manifestly exposed, and the consequences of which have been so severely felt.

«They expect, however, an immediate attention to the subject matter of this letter, and that (if possible) before the Court of Quarter Sessions breaks up, you will make and publish, in the most open manner, such regulations as may meet the grievances complained of, which at present prevail to the obstruction, if not perversion of public justice, the oppression of the poor Suitor, and the dishonor of the Commission itself.

«The first thing 1 have in charge to observe to you upon the subject of those complaints, is the practice of dispersing in the several Parishes, papers signed

.only with the name of the Justice, and

left to be filled up either in the form of a Summons, à Capias, a Judgment or an Execution, as the person to whose hands it is entrusted, and who has not been by all the information that has been yet received, even a ministerial officer of Justice, may think proper to make use of them ; a practice so illegal in itself, so horribly mischievous in its consequences, and so disrespectable to the Magistrate who gives it countenance, that the Governor and Council would not believe its existence if the proofs of it were not of a nature that excluded all possibility of doubt or misreport.

«They expect, therefore, that all such papers shall be immediately called in, and the practice for the future wholly discontinued.

« But besides this most enormous and irregular present method of summoning parties to appear before a Magistrate, many times at a great distance from the place of their residence upon trifling

occasions, and for small debts; and it appears to the Governor and Council that the present form of the summons, even those which issue in the most regular and least exceptionable manner, together with the method of conveying them, is inconvenient, if not oppressive in these three instances :

« 1. As they are very expensive by going through the hands ofthe Provost Marshal, whose Bailiffs charge their travelling expences at a rate which frequently exceeds in a great proportion the value of thing in litigation.

«2. As the time for the party’s appearance under them is so short as many times to subject him to a Judgment by default, without giving him an opportunity to make his defence.

«3. As they are compulsory for his appearance, without leaving it in his option, by paying the debt, to avoid the trouble and expense of an attendance before the Magistrate; to the first of these they apprehend an effectual, and perhaps the only remedy will be found in making the person who applies for the summons the bearer of it, (if he chooses to take the charge of it, if not, that it be served by the Bailiff of the Parish, to whom it shall be transmitted at the expense of the party applying, for which the Bailiff shall receive oneshilling, only, and no travelling charges allowed, ) and by admitting his evidence upon oath, or that of a neighbour whom he may take with him as proof of the service.

« And they conceive that no inconveni ence will follow from this, if it isconfined to a summons for a small debt, and not extended to process of a criminal nature, or such whereon bail may be demanded, much less to a Judgment oran Execution ; those onght without doubt to be executed by the Provost Marshal, or by persons employed by him, for whose conduct he is answerable, but in cases where the

LR