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-

gration.

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

property.,

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.

43

44

XI. Ordinance of 1766

This amends and amplifies No. VI.

♦ Page

48

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 .

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 . .

53

55

55

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.

56

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

conquest.

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,
1770 . . . . . .

An elaborate ordinance by means of which Carleton
vainly hoped that some of the corruptions of the legal
system would be improved.

57

57

58

61

63

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

Page

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
of 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

86

132

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

Provides for the raising of a provincial revenue.

136

XXVII. Address from the General Congress to the Inhabitants

of Quebec, October 26, 1774 .

... 139

The revolting Southern Colonies invite the Canadians

to make common cause with them.

THIRD PERIOD

1774-1791

Introductory Note to the Period.

. 147

XXVIII. The Quebec Revenue Act (15 George III. c. 40), 1775

This Act "amends and explains" No. XXVI.

149

XXIX. Instructions to Governor Carleton, 1775

150

XXX. Ordinance for Establishing Civil Courts, February 25,

1777 . .

158

This document, with the two following, represents

Carleton's scheme for legal administration.

XXXI. Ordinance to Regulate Procedure in Civil Courts, Feb-

ruary 25, 1777.

160

XXXII. Ordinance for Establishing Criminal Courts, March 4,

1777 . .

164

165

XXXIII. Colonial Tax Repeal Act (18 George III. c. 12), 1778

XXXIV. Haldimand to Germain, October 25, 1780 . . . . . 166

Haldimand considers that the sentiments of the major-

ity in the Province should prevail, and that the Quebec

Act saved the Province from becoming one of the

United States.