chapter V
, section 8, ‘No Papist or Popish recusant convict shall practice the common law as a counsellor, clerk, attorney or solicitor, nor shall practice the civic law as advocate or proctor, nor practice physick, nor be an apothecary, nor shall be a judge, minister, clerk or steward of or in any court, nor shall bear any office or charge as captain, master, or governor, or bear any office of charge of, or, in any ship, castle or fortress, but be utterly disabled for the same, and every person herein shall forfeit one hundred pounds, half to the king and half to them that shall sue.’ We therefore believe that the admitting of persons of Romish religion, who own the authority, supremacy and jurisdiction of the church of Rome, as jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and liberties, tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant religion and His Majesty’s power, authority, right and possession of the province to which we belong.” Later these jurors pretended that they had never meant to exclude Catholic jurors, but only as jurors when Protestants were contestants. The above argument shows their original _intrinsigeance_.
Later, in February, 1766, modifications were introduced; when the contestants were British the jury should be British; when Canadians, Canadians; when the contestants were mixed the jury should also be mixed. These conflicts were inevitable in unsettled times when two peoples were of different mental outlooks, politically, racially and religiously. The melting pot of time will solve such difficulties, when the viewpoints of both
## parties would be more sympathetically understood. In the meantime
the historical situation at the time was painful.
Governor Murray’s letter to the Lords of Trade, written a few days after the presentment of the jury is a fair and statesman-like view of the difficult period.
“Quebec, 29th of October, 1764.
“* * * Little, very little, will content the new subjects, but nothing will satisfy the licentious fanaticks trading here, but the expulsion of the Canadians who are perhaps the bravest and best race upon the globe, a race who, could they be indulged with a few privileges which the laws of England deny to Roman Catholics at home, would soon get the better of every national antipathy to their conquerors and become the most faithful and most useful set of men in this American empire.
“I flatter myself there will be some remedy found out even in the laws for the relief of this people. If so, I am positive the popular clamours in England will not prevent the humane heart of the king from following its own dictates. I am confident, too, my royal master will not blame the unanimous opinion of his council here for the ordinance establishing the courts of justice, as nothing less could be done to prevent great numbers from emigrating directly and certain I am, unless the Canadians are admitted on juries and are allowed judges and lawyers who understand their language, His Majesty will lose the greatest part of this valuable people.”
His letter immediately continues with the following allusion which helps us to place the position of Montreal in the above general constitutional crisis then affecting the colony. “I beg leave further,” says Murray, “to represent to your Lordship that a lieutenant governor at Montreal is absolutely necessary. That town is in the heart of the most populous part of the provinces. It is surrounded by the Indian nations and is 180 miles from the capital. It is there that the most opulent priests live and there are settled the greatest part of the French noblesse. Consequently every intrigue to our disadvantage will be hatched there.”
A postscript to this letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, gives Murray’s appreciation of some of the great commercial class: “P.S.--I have been informed that Messrs. William McKenzie, Alexander McKenzie and William Grant have been soliciting their friends in London to prevail upon Your Lordship to get them admitted into his Majesty’s council of this province. I think it my duty to acquaint Your Lordships that the first of these men is a notorious smuggler and a turbulent man, the second a weak man of little character and the third a conceited boy. In short it will be impossible to do business with any of them.”
This postscript indicates the strain and bitter personal relations between Murray and some of the British commercial element in the colony, who finally succeeded in obtaining his recall.
Unfortunately, Murray was not always as discreet or as just in the consideration of his opponents, as his position justified. He was a soldier rather than a peace maker. In addition, others besides the British merchant did not see eye to eye with him in the interpretation of the new Treaty of Paris or in the application of English laws in Canada.
They retorted as did the Quebec traders, that the governor “doth frequently treat them with a rage and rudeness of language and demeanour as dishonourable to the trust he holds of Your Majesty as painful to those who suffer from it.”
In commenting on this period, Prof. F.P. Walton, dean of the faculty of Law at McGill University, has the following criticism (Cf. University Magazine, April, 1908):
He is speaking of the charge against Murray’s interpretation of the new situation of the application of the new civil government.
“It is probable,” he says, “that at no period in the history of Canada were legal questions so much discussed among the mass of the population as in the first ten years of the English _régime_. This is not surprising when we consider that the question whether the English or the French law was in force in the Province was one of no little difficulty. It was contended with much plausibility that Murray’s Ordinances were of no legal validity because, under the King’s proclamation, legislative authority in the Province was to be exercised only by the governor with the consent of a council and assembly, and that no assembly had ever been summoned. This is not the place for a discussion of this subject. I prefer the view of those who maintain that the English law was introduced by the proclamation of 1763. The case of Campbell and Hall is sufficient authority for the proposition, that the King had the power without parliament to alter the law of Quebec. It seems to me that the natural construction of the proclamation itself is, that the King intended to introduce the English law there and then. Murray, as Masères says in his very convincing argument, ‘meant only to erect and constitute courts of judicature to administer a system of laws already in being, to wit, the laws of England.’ The whole affair was to a great extent a misunderstanding. The English government had no intention to force the English laws on an unwilling people. They understood that they were giving ‘Home Rule’ to the Province of Quebec, and expected that the Canadians would abrogate such parts of the English law as they did not consider suitable, and would re-enact the portions of the old French law which they desired to retain. They did not foresee that, owing to the impracticability of calling an assembly, the Province would be left without any authority competent to legislate.”
It was, indeed, a time of great misunderstanding.
NOTE
GOVERNORS UNDER BRITISH RULE
As it may be convenient henceforth to omit mention of the advent of successive governors, this list is appended for the purpose of reference.
* (Gen. Jeffrey Amherst) 1760 * Gen. James Murray 1763 P. Aemilius Irving (President) 1766 * Gen. Sir Guy Carleton (Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor General) 1766 H.G. Cramahé 1770 * Gen. Sir Guy Carleton 1774 * Gen. Frederick Haldimand 1778 Henry Hamilton (Lieutenant Governor) 1784 Henry Hope (Lieutenant Governor) 1785 * Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) 1786
ON THE DIVISION OF THE TWO CANADAS
Alured Clarke 1791 * Lord Dorchester 1793 * Maj.-Gen. Robert Prescott 1796 Sir. R.S. Milnes 1799 Hon. Thomas Dunn 1805 * Sir James H. Craig 1807 Hon. Thomas Dunn 1811 * Sir George Prevost 1811 Sir Gordon Drummond 1815 Gen. John Wilson 1816 * Sir John Sherbrooke 1816 * Duke of Richmond 1818 Sir James Monk 1819 Sir Peregrine Maitland 1820 * Earl of Dalhousie 1820 Sir. F.N. Burton 1824 * Earl of Dalhousie 1825 Sir James Kempt 1828 * Lord Alymer 1830 * Earl of Gosford 1835 * Sir John Colborne 1838 * Earl of Durham 1838 * C. Poulett Thomson (Lord Sydenham) 1839
UNDER THE UNION
* Baron Sydenham (Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson) 1841 R.D. Jackson (Administrator) 1841 * Sir Charles Bagot 1842 * Sir Charles Metcalfe 1843 * Earl Cathcart 1845 * Earl of Elgin 1847 W. Rowan (Administrator) 1853 * Sir Edmund Head 1854 * Lord Viscount Monck 1861
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
* The Rt. Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G. 1867 * The Rt. Hon. Lord Lisgar, G.C.M.G. (Sir John Young) 1868 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dufferin, K.P., K.C.B., G.C.M.G. 1872 * The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lome, K.T., G.C.M.G., P.C. 1878 * The Rt. Hon. The Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G. 1883 * The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley of Preston, G.C.B. 1888 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Minto, G.C.M.G. 1898 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T., G.C.M.G. 1893 * The Rt. Hon. The Earl Grey, G.C.M.G. 1904 * Field Marshal, H.R.H., The Duke of Connaught, K.C., G.C.M.G. 1911
----
Those not marked * acted only as administrators. When a governor had acted as administrator immediately before becoming governor, the earlier date is given. The names of all the ad interim administrators are not given.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS OF QUEBEC
(After Confederation)
The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau The Rt. Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau (re-appointed) Hon. Rene Edouard Caron Hon. Luc Letellier de St. Just Hon. Theodore Robitaille Hon. Louis François Rodique Masson Hon. Auguste Real Angers Hon. Sir J.A. Chapleau Hon. L.A. Jetté Hon. L.A. Jetté (re-appointed) Hon. Sir Charles A.P. Pelletier Hon. Sir François Langelier
##