Page images



Introductory Note to the Period


V. Instructions to Governor Murray, Dec. 7, 1763


VI. Ordinance Establishing Civil Courts, 1764


This Ordinance was issued by Governor Murray to

regulate and establish the administration of justice in

the Province.

VII. Murray to the Lords of Trade, October 29, 1764 . . 40

Murray complains of the British in Canada and praises

the Canadians. He looks for further privileges for

the latter. He hopes the Ordinance (No. VI) will be

approved, as he considers it necessary to prevent emi-


VIII. Petition of the Quebec Traders to the King, 1764 . . 41

The Petitioners outline their settlement and progress,
even under military rule which they endured, hoping
for civil administration. Murray's rule is objected to
as vexatious and partial; complaints are made that he
is negligent in his religious duties. His recall is asked
for, and a new and more sympathetic Governor re-
quested. A House of Assembly is also petitioned for

in which the British alone should sit.

IX. Ordinance of November 6, 1764


This Ordinance aimed at quieting the uneasiness of

the Canadians in connexion with security in their


X. Report of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General

of England regarding the Civil Government of Quebec,

1766 ..


The Report claims that much disorder has been caused

by the failure to provide for the use of the French

language and for the employment of Canadian judges

and advocates; by the fact that the Canadians feared

that a strict interpretation of the Royal Proclamation

(No. IV) was imminent. The provision of Canadian

jurors had, however, removed many misunderstand-

ings. Further changes, however, in the judicature are

advised. Recommendations are given: to follow in civil

cases French custom, and in criminal cases English

criminal law.

• Page
XI. Ordinance of 1766


This amends and amplifies No. VI.

XII. Masères' Considerations on the Expediency of an Act

of Parliament for the Province of Quebec, 1766 . . 49

Parliament and not the King must settle Canadian

questions. The whole legal system needs careful con-

sideration. A House of Assembly is not now expedient

-reasons are given; but if it is to be established,

Parliament and not the King must be responsible.

XIII. Commission to Chief Justice William Hey, 1766


XIV. Remonstrance of the Members of Council to Carleton

October 13, 1766 . ..

. 55

Five members of the Council blame the Governor for

his methods in consulting only a part of the Council

and in connexion with appointments to the Council.

XV. Carleton's reply to No. XIV, October, 1766 .


The Governor curtly dismisses the complaint. He will
take advice when and where he can best get it, and

will act on his own best judgment.

XVI. Carleton to Shelburne, December 24, 1767


Complains of the legal system erected by No. VI. Its

continuance will produce discontent.

XVII. Hillsborough to Carleton, March 6, 1768.


Hillsborough gives his interpretation of The Royal

Proclamation of 1763 (No. IV). With regard to

property, there was no intention of overturning the

laws and customs of Canada. Remedial instructions

are promised.

XVIII. Masères' Report to Hillsborough, 1769


Reports that Governor Carleton recommends the con-

tinuance of English criminal law and the revival of

the whole body of French civil law in use before the


XIX. Masères' Criticism of No. XVIII, 1769


Disapproves of the revival of the whole body of
French civil law. Elaborate reasons are given. He
recommends a code of laws for Quebec in which
French and English civil and criminal laws should be
judiciously included after careful selection. If inex-
pedient, let English criminal law continue, and let the

French law relating to tenures, etc., be revived.

XX. Carleton to Hillsborough, March 28, 1770


Encloses No. XXI. and justifies it.

XXI. Ordinance for Improving the Administration of Justice,



An elaborate ordinance by means of which Carleton
vainly hoped that some of the corruptions of the legal

system would be improved.

XXII. Case of the British Merchants Trading to Quebec, 1774. 72

A detailed elaboration of the principles underlying

No. VIII. Petitioners rely on documents to prove

their case. They fear the revocation of the Royal

Proclamation (No. IV.), etc. They have built up

[ocr errors]


their trade and business on the presumption of English
law being in use and maintained. They dread the
revival of the French code. They defend the morality
oi introducing and maintaining the English system,
especially in relation to trade, contracts, trial by jury,
habeas corpus. Prosperity has followed the methods
already employed. No objections to French law in
relation to landed property. House of Assembly re-
quested Complaints made against the erection of a
Legislative Council as outlined in the proposed Quebec •
Act. Sufficient Protestant landholders now in the
Province to form a House of Assembly. Objections
to the admission of Roman Catholics to the Council,
which, if it must be constituted, must be made inde
pendent of the Governor, its continuance limited to a
certain time, and its numbers fixed. Payment for

Councillors suggested.

XXIII. Lord Mansfield's Judgment in Campbell v. Hall, 1774 . 79

Discusses inter alia (a) the general position of a con-

quered country in relation to law, (b) the Proclama-

tion of 1763 (No. IV.).

XXIV. Debates in the British Parliament on the Quebec Act,

1774 ..

XXV. The Quebec Act, (14 George III, c. 83.), 1774


XXVI. The Quebec Revenue Act, (14 George III, c. 88), 1774 136

Provides for the raising of a provincial revenue.

XXVII. Address from the General Congress to the Inhabitants

oi Quebec, October 26, 1774 ..

. . 139

The revolting Southern Colonies invite the Canadians

to make common cause with them.

[ocr errors]


« EelmineJätka »