Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1769]

in use.

[blocks in formation]

There were some few tanneries using hemlock bark, producing an inferior description of leather. Much leather was imported from the southern colonies, British leather being considered too dear. The Saint Maurice forges produced 40,000 weight of bar iron. Edged tools, axes, and tomahawks for use in the colony and for the Indians were manufactured, and preferred to imported goods. The pearl and potash business had been commenced within the last two years, but had not been very successful. It promised, however, to be of great importance. A distillery of rum had been lately established. No allusion is made to the lumber trade.*

Nothing could be worse than the administration of the law; it had become to men of broken fortunes the means of subsistence, and the abuses which were practised caused the ruin of many a family. They became so notorious that in July, 1769, a letter was addressed by the governor and council to the bench of Montreal. Its application was not general, but special "to those magistrates only who had given occasion for the complaints." It recapitulated the mischiefs arising from the practices followed. It had grown to be a custom for blank forms to be placed in the hands of bailiffs, even with individuals not officers of the court, bearing the signature of a justice, to be filled up as occasion might suggest. The existence of this disreputable and mischievous practice is established by manifold proof, and it cannot with truth be challenged. Men were summoned for the payment of small debts to appear at a long distance from their dwelling, the fees of the bailiff frequently exceeding the amount of the debt; the time given being often so short that the judgment went by default. Moreover, the summons was compulsory, the party receiving it was not allowed to settle the debt by payAfter exclaiming against the monstrous system, the letter of the governor recommended that a personal application in all cases be made for the summons, and that the party making it should serve it, or cause it to be served by the bailiff of the parish; that no man should be condemned with* Can. Arch., Q., 6., p. 168, 13th of November, 1769.

ment.

out being heard; that a summons setting forth impossible conditions of appearance should be held to be no summons at all; and that payment should be accepted if offered.

Carleton made a special report upon these abuses. * The protestant population he described as composed of traders, disbanded soldiers, and some few officers, with one or two exceptions beneath the rank of captain. Many being prosperous men of business were unable to give the time to sit as justices. Those who had failed in their enterprises strove to repair their broken fortunes at the expense of the community. There were in the parishes many French disbanded soldiers, and deserters who had been appointed bailiffs. They were constantly present among the rural population, and when there was a quarrel or difference, excited the disputants to litigation. They were furnished with signed blank forms for immediate service, and many paltry misunderstandings, which might easily have been accommodated, were taken into the courts and formidable costs exacted. Not unfrequently the

same person received summonses for different courts, separated widely apart, for a hearing on the same day. The defendant in the desperation of his situation did not appear. Judgment followed and an execution was at once issued; the debtor was without redress. The land thus seized was offered for sale. There was great scarcity of money and there were few purchasers; it followed that for some petty debt, farms were sold greatly below their value.

In many cases the produce of the sale did not even benefit the creditor, for the money was swallowed up by the exorbitant fees. This deplorable persecution is established by Carleton's own experience. He heard so many complaints, and received so many communications on the subject that he made a tour through the province, and himself examined into the abuses which were disgracing the British name, and in reporting them, he protested with all the force of his character against their existence. †

* Can. Arch., Q., 7, p. 17. 28th March, 1770.

+ Carleton to Hillsborough, 28th March, 1770; "This, My Lord, is but a

1770]

THE NEW ORDINANCE.

213

In order to remedy these acts of injustice and wrong the ordinance of the 1st of February was enacted, which struck at the root of the mischief. Its one object was to administer justice honestly and cheaply, and, as was usual, every proceeding in that direction brought forth a noisy protest from those interested in the maintenance of the abuses. After declaring that the courts established by the ordinance of the 17th of September, 1764, had become an intolerable burden, the new ordinance enacted that the clauses which had permitted the bad system should be annulled. The power of the magistrates in cases affecting property was taken away. Sums not exceeding £12 were to be heard in the common pleas, and an independent court was constituted at Montreal for that district, independently of that of Quebec. The jurisdiction was common to both districts in the cases of levying an execution. The courts to be held on Friday in the week all the year, holidays excepted, for causes not exceeding £12, and on some other day when a greater amount was involved. No process to be fyled until the plaintiff had made his declaration. All forms of process were carefully laid down, and the defendant was so far protected, that, when the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim, he was mulcted in costs. seigneuries, beasts of the plough, implements of agriculture and trade, with one bed and bedding, were excepted from seizure. Time was given for the issue of execution, and consideration for the unfortunate debtor was enforced. Commissioners were to be named to determine matters to the value of £3. Rules were laid down for the sale of property under execution, and none was to be issued against houses and lands when the cause of action did not exceed £12.

In

As was expected, the ordinance created a shout of indigvery faint Sketch of the Distresses of the Canadians and the cause of much Reproach to our National justice and the king's government." Carleton also enclosed a letter from Joseph Dérosié, a captain of militia of Ymaska, 3rd July, 1769: "On ne voit tous les jours que procès sur procès pour des choses de néant; pour vingt ou trente sols, on forme un procès qui se monte le plus souvent à 40, 50 et 60 livres par la multitude de frais que sont faits à ces pauvres gens." Can. Arch., Q., 7, p. 7.

nation among the knot of men who had taken up the cry of British laws, as if they were to countenance the triumph of the pettifoggers, and the leeches living by legal abuse.* A deputation of six persons waited upon the governor, with a memorial setting forth twenty objections asking for its repeal or modification; Carleton saw no reason for either course. By the operations of the former law, three or four hundred families had been turned out of their houses, their land sold for not one-eighth of its value, the debtors ruined in many cases, the debts undischarged; for everything had been consumed in fees. Shortly before this date Carleton had ordered the release of sixteen debtors; the debts for the whole number, including the jail fees, did not amount to £40; and he had resolved that so abominable a procedure should terminate. The ordinance was adhered to. †

* Carleton has described the character of this population. [Can. Arch., Q., 7, p. 92-95, April 1770.] "There was not a protestant butcher or publican that became a bankrupt who did not apply to be made a justice. They cantonned themselves upon the country, and many of them rid the people with despotic sway, imposed fines which they turned to their own profit, and in a manner looked upon themselves as the Legislators of the Province."

The memorial was presented on the part of " Merchants and others of the city of Montreal." Twenty objections were specified, which may be thus summarized. "1. The uncommon indulgence to debtors would lead them to commit villainies and fraud. 2. The tendency of the ordinance to invest the officers of the Crown with power to become arbiters of the property in the province. 3. Ordinance intricate and complex. 4. Keeping the court of Common Pleas open hurtful to public credit. 5. Clause does not state allowance per mile to bailiff for cost of conveying orders. 6. Process cumbersome, few bailiffs able to read or write. 7. Delay in executions liable to cause fraud. 8. Bailiffs too ignorant to take charge of goods. 9. Delay in sale of goods injurious. 10. The exemption of tools, etc., unprecedented. 11. The variety of form to be observed, objectionable. 12. The penalty for removal of corn not explicit. 13. No security given for payment by bailiffs. 14. The discretion given to judges an infringement on the liberty of the subject. [Where at this period was this sentence not found on the American Continent?] 15. The mode of recovery of debts by instalment will not answer. 16. The delay of the sale of lands too long. 17. The exemption of seizure of land for debts under £12, contrary to act of Parliament. 18. It will produce bad consequences. 19. Asking the jurisdiction of justices to be enlarged from £3 to £6. 20. Asked circuits to be enlarged to Chaleurs Bay and Gaspé. Finally asking for repeal or alteration." The memorial was subscribed by 50 signatures.

1770]

THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

215

With all the efforts of those concerned only fifty signatures could be obtained. We learn from Carleton that hand bills were distribted to excite public feeling, by which all were called upon to consult about grievances. The French Canadians would take no part in the movement, and many were insulted for this expression of their opinion. The opposition proved as futile as it was weak.

The petition for Murray's recall had included the demand for the establishment of a house of representatives, "as in the other provinces, there being a number more than sufficient of loyal and well-affected protestants . . to form the house

and that the new subjects should be allowed to elect. protestants without burthening them with such oaths as in their present mode of thinking they cannot conscientiously take." The desire at that date was* that no Roman catholic could be elected. It is necessary to recur to this fact, for it will be seen that this requirement subsequently became modified, and that the request was preferred in another form. But at the date in question the spirit of intolerance was in full force, and the exhibition of this desire to ignore the political existence of the French Canadians, made the attempt in the formation of a code of law more difficult, and delayed its settlement. Even when the appeal was made to gain the co-operation of the French Canadians, it was characterized by a singular want of judgment, and a failure to recognize how moderation alone could attain harmony in any joint effort.

Carleton's arrival by no means silenced the advocacy of the project; it continued to be earnestly discussed, but was persevered in without any organized agitation. The subject which more particularly occupied attention during the time, when the events I have endeavoured to describe were taking place, was the proposed codification of the system of law, by which the province should be governed.

Carleton did not long hesitate in forming the opinion, that the great disparity in the population made the creation of any house of assembly inadvisable. His views were not simply * Can. Arch. Report, 1888, p. 16.

« AnteriorContinuar »